Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) Institutional power play – with the constant struggle of competences within EU institutions and between Member States for the brokering of international agreements, in what way should the Union’s external competences be defined to achieve a single, common and coherent voice in its external affairs? External affairs can be regarded as one of the EU’s most complex and convoluted aspects. With a wide array of different procedures depending on the existence and nature of EU competence, involving different actors and different legislative requirements, decision makers often struggle to present clear and coherent policies and strategies in the realm of international politics. With the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the framework for the EU’s external affairs was altered. Through the creation of the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU intended to provide itself a coherent external voice that could project a unified image of the Member States regarding foreign policy. However, it has been widely argued that the position itself only carried a vague mandate to mitigate the differing positions of the Member States at a ministerial level in the Council, rather than producing a strong unified voice. Additionally, at a prime-ministerial level, the EU is represented by the President of the European Council, whilst the President of the European Commission plays a role in areas that fall under the Commission’s competence. Next to this three-headed foreign representation hydra, the Member States retain a high degree of national competence in foreign policy decision making. As proven in the past through the situation in Iraq, Libya and Syria, the EU could do well with a strong and coherent voice in its international affairs. Therefore, having three heads leading the debates causes only confusion and further diminishes the EU’s role in the global playing field, when other heads of state wish to negotiate the brokering of an international agreement. Hans Maes (BE) & Waltter Suominen (FI)
Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET I) Emerging enemies - with the Islamic State continuing its Islamisation; instances of mass executions, severe armed conflicts and ethnic cleansing persist. What should the role of the EU be in containing such entities fueled by violence, religious fundamentalism and territorial ambition? The escalation of conflicts in the Middle East have led to the emergence of regional and transnational entities that are fuelled by religious fundamentalism and pursue religious and political authority in a region that has been defined by continuous social, political and religious turbulence. The Islamic State, a self-proclaimed caliphate comprised of Muslim fundamentalists in both Iraq and Syria, positions itself as the sole Islamic authority for every Muslim in the world and pursues the aim of being the religious and political guide of the neighbouring Muslim-populated countries. The Islamic State is nonetheless the result of an unceasing growth and radicalisation of a religious and terroristic group, whose roots dates back to 1999. This Sunni jihadist institution is also notorious for its refined use of propaganda, which combines copious ruthless visuals and a recall to the Golden Age of Islam -whose original script is said to be corrupted by modern developments. Moreover, the sophisticated warfare tactics and the financial prosperity provided the Islamic State with an unprecedented level of power and influence over other active jihadist groups. The Islamic State’s violent tactics and its radical propaganda has been internationalised and is cause for great concern for Western counties as the self-proclaimed caliphate is seeking to penetrate the West. With the United States expressing its will to eradicate the Islamic State and stop the instances of unprecedented violence, the West is taking a stance against Islamisation. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East, the instances of mass executions and brutalities have caused great concern; the beheading of a British national by the Islamic State attracted the immediate attention of the British executive, and by extent, that of the EU. Several Member States are now ready for taking concrete action to stop these brutalities, focusing on the termination of financial support, the extensive propaganda and foreign aid. The EU, a vanguard of human rights and a close ally of the United States will be invited to participate in the containment of violence and religious radicalisation; what should the role of the EU be in the efforts of the international community to contain and demilitarise the Islamic State whilst catering for the de-escalation of conflict in the region? Francesco Colin (IT)
Committee on Foreign Affairs II (AFET II) Beyond Crimea - with large Russian minorities in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania and growing tensions between Russia and the EU following diplomatic antagonism and armed conflicts in Ukraine, how can the EU act preemptively to protect the territorial integrity of the Baltic region? With the status of Crimea still in question, stability for the Eastern bloc lies in its resolution. The complexity of the Crimean conflict lies in the makeup of the Crimean people and those of other Baltic States. As a result of their formation at the breakup of the Soviet bloc, their populations constitute significant ethnic Russian minorities. While the Crimean referendum was widely discredited, with a 59% Russian population it is not unreasonable that Russian separatists in Crimea would seek to secede to Russia. There are echoes of the not so distant conflict in the breakup of Yugoslavia, which still continues to an extent in the form of Kosovo. With diverse cultural minorities an answer other than violence needs to be presented in order to preserve peace in the Baltic region. With Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania’s populations comprising of large Russian minorities, ethnic conflicts may cause further instability in a region that is defined by tension because of its close proximity to Russia. Fears of territorial conflicts in the Baltic region have been reinforced not only with the Crimean caper but also with the Russo-Georgian conflict of 2008. Conversely, as the EU and the US increase trade sanctions on Russia, the likelihood of tensions easing is low. The Baltic States are keenly aware of the risk of violent protest should tensions with Russia persist. As members of the EU and NATO, which has increased its military presence in the Baltic region, these institutions will need to act to protect the Baltic States from potential conflicts. The likelihood of Russian territorial ambition in the Baltic region may be low but the large Russian minorities in the region and Russia’s aggressive foreign policy constitute concerns; these concerns are to be preemptively addressed by the EU in an effort to secure the Baltic region and prepare itself for such a contingency. The EU is thus faced with two responsibilities. It must stand its ground on annexation of Crimea in order to prevent a reoccurrence in the long- term. Simultaneously another such violent revolt seems all the more likely in the short term while tensions remain high in the Baltic region. How best can the EU learn its lessons from the Crimean conflict and address such potential in the Baltic region? Ronan O’Connor (IE)
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) Growth in unequal terms - with the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 and agriculture already having a vast impact on our planet, how should EU governments work together with farmers, the food industry and the international community to overcome the joint challenges of reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment while increasing efficiency in food production and distribution? Throughout history, no human activity has impacted our planet more than agriculture. Agricultural activities use up to 40% of the world’s land surface, account for 70% of water usage and, when taking all effects into account, are responsible for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, the drivers of climate change. Besides, agriculture is a large polluter affecting eco-systems across the globe and a major driver for the loss of biodiversity. Despite all of this, agriculture is not something humanity needs to do away with. In fact there is nothing mankind is more dependent on for its success; we need to eat. However, if no action is undertaken to reduce the impact of agriculture on the environment, irreparable damage will be done, endangering food security across the globe. The severity of the agricultural puzzle is significantly enhanced by the expected increase in global population up to 9 billion by 2050 and the foreseen increase of overall wealth leading to a consumption shift towards large impact food such as meat, eggs and dairy. The combined effect of these two trends will result in demand for agricultural output roughly doubling by 2050. Eventually, agricultural output will have increased while negative externalities on the environment should be neutralised. From a theoretical perspective this issue is solvable given the large amounts of food waste and available technologies to process it; the problem becomes really complex when taking into account that many different stakeholders have to invest and make efforts for a common cause. The complexity of this issue and the plethora of stakeholders with a vested interest in agricultural innovation may lead to a potential moral hazard. What role can stakeholders from both the demand and supply sides assume, and how can the EU best assist these stakeholders? Which role should the EU play in engaging the wider international community? Which actions can the EU already take regardless of the commitments of other stakeholders in solving this demand-supply predicament in view of unequal growth of population and agricultural supply? Bram Van Meldert (BE)
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) Meta austerity – while market confidence has improved and GDP growth in EU and the Euro area has been forecasted to reach 2.0% and 1.8% respectively in 2015, the ECB has had to introduce negative interest rates and lower lending rates to quell fears of possible price deflation. How should the EU sustain the economic recovery whist preventing negative monetary externalities? Lending and borrowing are essential to ensuring money circulates in any given market. If consumers do not have money to spend, businesses, whether big or small, suffer. This consequently affects jobs as companies cut numbers of staff or simply liquidate completely. Unemployment reduces spending further as newly unemployed do not have money to use for consumption of goods and services in a market. Banks are pivotal in providing loans to help consumers continue spending and thus maintain high levels money circulation within a market. However, with the aftermath of the global recession causing high levels of doubt over the stability of new investments, banks look to ensure that their money slowly accumulates rather than potentially depletes due to a high risk of investment. That risk adversity of lending institutions has led to ‘money parking’ at the European Central Bank. This can be helpful for consumers as it means they can increase their savings over time. More importantly it means that less money is being used to consume goods and services in the market. This puts businesses at risk as there is lower demand; lower consumer demand leads to lowering of prices of both goods and services so as for demand to be incereased. Deflation increases the value of the currency but it also increases the likelihood of slow economic growth as new investment opportunities decrease, businesses struggle and unemployment grows. The ECB looks to ensure that banks, and other lending institutions, resume their lending by implementing negative interest rates. Such negative interest rates for lending translate into increasing costs for reserve storing at the ECB. In an effort to support money circulation, the ECB has taken bold monetary moves and is now a strong proponent of vibrant market activity; within that market, lending institutions and banks are prompted to spend more, lend more and assist the economies in bouncing back from the hardship of austerity, unemployment and stagnation. How can the EU sustain its economic recovery and prevent monetary externalities? Christian Browne (UK)
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) Internity vs. integrity – with internships and traineeships regulated at the EU level and temporary, unregulated and often unpaid internships becoming the route to professional work in domestic job markets, how can the EU ensure higher quality of learning and training, facilitate cross-border exchange and uphold interns’ employment rights? The rise of unemployment among young people has taken a dramatic turn in recent years; there are over 5.5 million people in the EU-28 under the age of 25 who cannot find a job. Therefore, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 headline target to reach a 75% employment rate among women and men aged 20-64 by 2020 it is vital to improve young people's education and facilitate their transition to employment. In this context, traineeships and internships can have a key role in increasing the access of young people to the labour market. Traineeships can bridge the gap between the theoretical knowledge gained in education and the skills and competences needed at a workplace and in this way increase the chances of young people finding employment. And indeed, at the European level, regulations for traineeships and internships have been made, with the European Parliament adopting an own-initiative report in 'Promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status', the European Commission's Communication 'Towards a job-rich recovery' and the Council's recommendation on a 'Quality Framework for Traineeships'. Nevertheless concerns have been raised over the quality of traineeships and internships. Employers seem to be using traineeships and internships more frequently, as a source of cheap or even free labour, to replace regular employment, thereby exploiting the obstacles to entering the labour market faced by young people. In other words, low wages, low employment protection, poor terms and conditions, lack of high quality learning content, the use of trainees to carry out mundane work, and the substitution of trainees for regular employees. Despite the higher amount of protection trainees and interns have at the EU level, employment regulation at the domestic level varies significantly. Employment policy is a competence that the EU and Member States share, thus providing the latter more leeway to cater policy to domestic needs. How can the EU address the issue of limited rights for trainees and interns and contain bad practices at the early stage of employment? Rosa Douw (NL) & Chris Papadogeorgopoulos (GR)
Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety I (ENVI I) Eco-innovation partnerships – with the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) expected to allow new technologies to reach the market more effectively, how can the EU further facilitate the introduction of green technologies to the market through Innovation Partnerships between public and private stakeholders? Europe is a world leader in green technologies, accounting for about one third of the global market. However, there are substantial hurdles for eco-efficient technologies to break into the market and allow for a wide adoption, thus unleashing their full potential to a wide user audience. Indeed, investors need to know more precisely the performance and environmental benefits of different technologies so they can confidently finance products that are often new to the market. The advent of new technologies may introduce many benefits that pertain not only to environmental targets but also to price competition in the market; the market is thus a significant channel of introducing innovation and testing its benefits. This issue was partly tackled with the introduction, in April 2013, of the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV). The ETV consists of an independent third party verification of the performance of new environmental technologies entering the market. It targets the following three technological areas: water treatment and monitoring; materials, waste and resources; energy production technologies. However, this system is still partly unknown amongst European entrepreneurs and has to be promoted. Consequently, Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), representing more than 90% of the European green-technology market, would be further assisted so as for their innovations to attract investors’ attention and reach the market. Commonly, SMEs and eco-friendly enterprises, lack funding; this lack emphases the need of the private sector to co-operate with its public counterpart especially in large-scale projects that require technological infrastructure. Innovative environmental technologies are positioned at the core of the Europe 2020 Strategy. They could play a significant role in addressing the environmental challenges Europe is facing nowadays and further contribute positively to the EU’s competitiveness and prospective growth. How best can the EU, working with the Member States, engage the private sector and utilise its strengths in order to introduce innovative green technologies to a wider audience? Laure Steinville (FR)
Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety II (ENVI II) Europe’s trash or Sweden’s treasure – waste-to-fuel programmes have proven so successful that 50% of Sweden’s household waste is utilised in energy production, a total of 99% is recycled in one way or the other and additional waste is imported from its European neighbours. How should the EU incentivise a wider adoption of such programmes in other Member States and regulate the emerging waste trade market? Every year, the European Member States combined produce some 2 billion tons of waste, with the rate rising steadily. In order to contain waste accumulation, the European Parliament and Council of the EU have introduced a hierarchy on waste treatment in their 2008 Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC), aiming to achieve an ecologically sustainable European waste treatment scheme. This hierarchy is comprised of (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery, e.g. energy recovery; and (e) disposal. Sweden has become somewhat of a European role model in adapting the hierarchy. Especially in recycling and recovery, Sweden has developed techniques so efficient that have resulted in buying 700 tons of additional waste from Norway, Ireland and Great Britain. A staggering 99% of Sweden’s household waste is recycled in one way or another, with 50% of it utilised in energy production. In 1904 the first Swedish incineration plant was set up in Stockholm and now, 110 years later, the 32 plants have become so efficient, that 3 tons of waste produce as much energy as 1 ton of oil. Sweden is able to heat 810.000 households and supply 250.000 households with electricity just by incineration plants. Although the amount of incinerated and recycled waste in Europe has increased while the amount of landfilled waste has decreased, there is still room for a lot of progress; the landfilling rate in Europe is still up at 34% and again, Sweden is one of the European pioneers with only 4% of the waste being landfilled. Although the general European framework for waste management includes directives and regulations on waste management statistics, landfill and incineration for all Member States, these seem to be far from the same pitch. Therefore it might be time to revise the outdated legislation and work towards a waste treatment that is more environmentally sustainable. Taking into account Sweden’s successful implementation of such programmes, how can the EU incentivise and assist more Member States to take up such schemes and benefit the environment? Moreover, how best can the EU regulate the emerging market of waste trading and ensure that environmental targets are upheld? Timm Brunjes (DE)
Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) The battle against Silicon villains - with Germany's latest reaction to UBER's penetration of commercial transport in Frankfurt and the application's wide reach in several Member States' markets, how can the EU ensure that emerging commercial transportation service providers uphold legal guidelines whilst protecting EU consumers and maintaining market stability? The rise of E-commerce is removing geographic and time constraints and empowering consumers through greater innovation and choice. The ‘Sharing Economy’ has become increasingly popular in recent years. From swapping systems, network transportation to private kitchens, sharing information with strangers is on the rise. In the EU context the promotion of innovation is seen as the key to entrepreneurship and enhancing the competitiveness of European firms. This is particularly the case considering the EU2020 strategy which proposes that "the consumption of goods and services should take place in accordance with smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and should also have an impact on job creation, productivity and economic, social and territorial cohesion". Although Uber, Airbnb, and other online platforms have democratised access to a number of services and facilities, multiple concerns have been raised as to the public safety and limited liability of these practices. In addition, these innovative activities have been contested by professionals offering similar services claiming that a sharing economy opens the door to unfair competition. These new practices challenge EU regulations on a daily basis. Traditional legal boundaries are easily blurred, resulting in legal grey areas and regulatory uncertainty, evidenced by the tension between the need to encourage innovation and the need to protect customers. Member States are at crossroads; on the one hand, innovation in a sharing economy should not be stifled by excessive and outdated regulation and on the other hand, there is a real need to protect the users of these services from fraud, liability and unskilled service providers. This dilemma is far more complex than it seems and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is confronted here with an array of challenging questions. Niall Murphy (IE) & Iman Idriss (FR)
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) From linear to circular – with the European Commission tabling an enabling policy framework for a circular economy in the EU, how can both the EU and its Member States better manage existing resources and realign the production process through the use of existing infrastructure and enabling technologies to ensure industrial sustainability? In recent years it has become apparent that the depletion of finite resources is spiralling out of control. This is intrinsically linked to the destabilisation of the European economy. Increased energy and resource prices have created a more volatile market in a time of recession and uncertainty. Europe’s dependence on other countries to supply natural resources poses social, economic and political threats to the future of Member States. This is demonstrated very clearly in China’s monopoly of Rare Earth Elements (REE) and Russia’s dominance in the gas markets. In the context of growing consumer demand and environmental sustainability, this depletion and dependence clearly highlights a change is long overdue. Traditionally, a linear economy has been the basis for industrial production. A linear economy refers to the extraction, production and use of resources in a way that is nonrenewable. At all levels of production, materials are wasted and carelessly disposed once they are no longer needed. This “take, make and dispose” mentality has to change. Recently, as citizens have become more environmentally aware and forced to reconsider how resources are utilised, the circular economy model has been developed. This views all materials, whether biological or technical, as reusable, renewable or biodegradable. Rather than a focus on recycling products after the final consumer stages, this calls for the reconstruction of the entire production system. From the very beginning, corporations must consider how to design products for disassemble and reuse. The European Commission views this as a win-win situation for all. It is more environmentally friendly, creates new markets, provides an intelligent way of using resources and ultimately, increases economic stability. According to the European Commission, this resource efficiency could boost EU GDP by 1% whilst creating 2 million jobs. The problem therefore lies in a lack of investment, a lack of information, changing consumer habits, redesigning existing infrastructure and the perceived risk associated with change. How can the EU incentivise and work alongside consumers, businesses and governments to implement such a strategic transformation? Ciara Robinson (UK)
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Digital polyphony - freedom of the press and media pluralism is often cited as a key component for the protection of civil liberties, but in recent years there has been an increase in journalists using the legal defenses to which they are entitled to perform illegal and intrusive surveillance on private citizens. How can the EU continue to protect press freedom without encroaching upon the rights of its citizens? The preservation of media independence and diversity is vital for a democratic Europe. The freedom and pluralism of the media goes hand in hand with two non-negotiable freedoms, which lie at the heart of any democratic society. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are essential pillars of democratic systems. The main responsibility for maintaining media freedom and pluralism lies with the Member States. However, the EU also plays an important role, mostly in upholding the fundamental rights of EU citizens in cross-border issues arising in the Single Market. The role media plays in a democratic society requires strong protection, but also carries equal responsibilities. As there is no clear consensus between media practitioners as to what is in the public’s interest to broadcast, this has sometimes led to illegal and intrusive practices which have also targeted private citizens. On one hand, journalists must be able to work in an environment which allows for free expression and provides them with the assurance that they can work free from pressure, interdictions, harassment, threats or any other kind of harm. On the other hand, journalists have the professional obligation to provide accurate information and must always be responsible and accountable for their output. They have to comply with the law in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of media. This requires clear legal regulation about the rights of citizens being wrongfully mentioned, or illegally monitored by journalists. Another thing that should be taken into account nowadays is the rise of new technologies, along with the accelerating changes of journalism as a profession, requiring on-going adaptations to the regulatory framework. How can the EU, working closely with the Member States, protect citizens’ rights without limiting the freedom of the press? Anna Borrell Mauri (ES)
Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) Port and policy – with 74% of inter-EU and 37% of intra-EU trade executed through the EU’s ports, how can the EU establish legal certainty and a level playing field in its efforts not only to modernise port services but also to attract investment whilst improving the environmental profiles of ports? For many centuries Europe has depended highly on its ports as a major income through trade and transport. The scale of the usage of ports and their importance may have varied at certain points in history, but there is no denying that they are still of major importance to Europe at present. Nowadays, they are not only relevant because they are merely responsible for shipping goods from point A to B. Ports also contribute directly to employment across the EU with roughly 3 million jobs, inward investment and GDP growth. Considering the economic hardships that the EU has been facing for the past years, ports can be vital in securing economic recovery across the continent. However, Europe’s ports are facing challenges in the modern age. Some of these challenges pertain to the integration of ports in trans-European corridors, the amount of red tape that has to be dealt with in the maritime economy, and the health and safety conditions of port workers. Another prominent issue relates to the poor environmental profiles of ports. The maritime sector has faced a lot of criticism concerning the amount of fuel which is used by freight ships and the subsequent emissions rate. Nevertheless, environmental requirements have been set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which is the specialised shipping agency of the UN, in recent years. These regulations have also been incorporated into EU law. The EU has even gone far beyond requirements that have been set by the IMO in order to incorporate the maritime industry in its environmental benchmarks that comprise its long-term strategy on environmental sustainability. The committee on Transport and Tourism will be dealing with a topic which has many facets and will touch upon a wide array of entwined subjects. How can the EU implement changes in the maritime sector so as to modernise ports and harness the full potential of the maritime economy whilst upgrading the environmental profiles? With increasing inward investment in EU ports, how can the EU ensure that environmental targets are met and benefits of increased trade and transport are exploited? Karim Ben Hamda (NL)