Academic Preparation Kit Munich 72nd International Session of the EYP by International Office of the European Youth Parliament

72nd IS Munich 2013

Academic Preparation Kit

Table of Contens Overview 3 Process 4 At a Glance

AFCO 7 AFET I

AFET II

BUDG 19 CULT 23 ECON 27 ENVI 30 ITRE I

ITRE II

ITRE III

JURI 48 LIBE I

LIBE II

SEDE 62 TRAN 65

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Overview Committee Topics There is a list of all the committee work topics at the very beginning of the Preparation Kit. We encourage you to pay attention to all the topics. In General Assembly you will discuss all the 15 topics, and during the ResourceVillage you will get in touch with them as well. You can only benefit from preparing more than just for your committee work topic. The chairs wrote brilliant topic overviews for you, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s worth reading them all.

Committee Work Preparation Overviews The overviews are written by the Committee chairpersons to serve as background material. They aim to identify the key issues while synthesizing the topic area. The objective is naturally to keep these overviews as balanced as possible, yet they may not receive unanimous agreement. It should be noted that the EYP strongly encourages independent thinking so feel free to disagree. Keywords The non-exhaustive list of keywords intends to facilitate searching for information, may it be through documents, news items or articles in different types of search engines, news websites and encyclopedias. Useful Links and further reading As regards the suggestions for research links, the list is by no means exhaustive. Rather than citing individual links, we have preferred indicating links to websites where several relevant documents and articles can be found. Please note that the EYP is not responsible for the contents on various websites; the texts reflect the opinions of their authors only. In case you have any questions, feel free to contact us at preparation@ munich2013.eu! We wish you successful preparation and interesting reading! The Organising Team

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Process At the 72nd International Session of the EYP in Munich, your committee will be dealing with a relevant and current political topic. For the discussions to be as interesting and constructive as possible, it is important that you sufficiently research your committee topic before arriving at the session. As you have surely already noted, all of the topics are complex insofar as they include different aspects and perspectives that should be considered. In order to summarise your initial research on the topic and present your first ideas, you are expected to hand in a fact sheet and to write a position paper. Please follow these steps to compile your fact sheet an to write your position paper:

Step 1 The first step is gaining an overview of your topic by reading the topic overview prepared by your chairperson. You will find a list of useful links at the end of the overviews, all of which you should read through. However, your research should go beyond the links provided in the overview. The following homepages might be a good starting point for your individual research: The gateway to the European Union: http://europa.eu/  Summaries of EU legislation: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ index_en.htm  A collection of current news on the EU: http://euobserver.com/  An independent media network concerning EU issues: http://www.euractiv.com/  Departments and services of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm

Step 2 After your initial research, you should now have a more concrete idea what your committee topic includes. You can jot down the conflicts you find most important and begin to think about what your own opinion on the topic is, especially bearing in mind your preparation.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Step 3 We ask you to compile a fact sheet, which is a list of at least 10 facts and their respective sources that are relevant for your committee topic. We hope this will help you to increase your understanding of the topic. You can take the topic overview written by your chair as a starting point. Attached you will find a file named ‘FACTSHEET_COMM_FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME.xls’. We would like to ask you to enter your facts and sources in this template. When you are done, please change the title and fill in your committee abbreviation as well as your first and last name. Remember that we ask you to find 10 facts, but feel free to enter as many as you would like! When complete, please send your .xls file to preparation@munich2013. eu . We ask you to do this before Monday March 18th 23:59 CET, as this will give us ample time to process all of them! Please remember to enter in your first and last name, as well as your committee abbreviation and the words ‘fact sheet’ in the email topic! An anonymised version of all fact sheets on your topic will be sent to your committee after completion.

Step 4 Once you have gained a good understanding of what the main points within your topics are and formed your own opinion on the topic, you can start writing your position paper. It should be about half a page to one page long and answer the following questions: Question 1: What is the main conflict within the topic and which questions does the current public discussion revolve around?  Question 2: What is your own opinion on the topic? Which measures should or should in no case be taken by the EU; what are your ideas for a solution to the problem? Please send your complete position paper to preparation@munich2013.eu no later than Monday March 25th 23:59 CET! Your position paper will only be sent to your chairperson NOT to your committee!

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

At a Glance When?

What?

Tuesday 12th of March

Academic preparation kit published

12 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 18th of March

Work on your fact sheet

Monday 18th of March

Deadline for handing in fact sheets to preparation@munich2013.eu

18th â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25th of March

Work on your position paper

Monday 25th of March

Deadline for position papers to preparation@ munich2013.eu

supported by:

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

AFCO Committee on Constitutional Affairs - AFCO United States of Europe vs. Europe à la carte: how could the European integration process accommodate the national needs and preferences of Member States while ensuring the benefits of economic and political integration? The EU is a system of differentiated integration1, meaning that it varies significantly across policy areas, institutional development and individual countries. The Union is considered to be one of the most complex political structures in the world. With its 27, soon to be 28 Member States, the Union’s vertical and horizontal integration2 is developing faster than ever. Policies involving all Member States must be specific enough to regulate, but general enough to be suitable to apply to all the Member States at the same time. In short, for the future development of the EU there are two possible scenarios. On one hand we have the “United States of Europe”, in which the EU would be creating more supranational institutions with further authority over the national governments. On the opposite lies „Europe à la carte“ where Member States are given the right to opt-out from certain treaties and policy areas independently. The EU acts as a ‘superstate’ (decision-making only at the EU level) in areas like customs union, commercial policy or monetary policy for the euro zone3. In other areas, like internal market, energy or culture, the EU decides only on certain aspects or merely aims to coordinate the efforts between Member States, leaving them vast freedom to decide on their own. In social policy, for example, only the minimum workers’ rights are agreed on the EU level, while the big decisions concerning employment policy or social security are left to Member States. The idea of the „United States of Europe“ calls for moving more or all competences strictly to the EU level, with a common executive (the 1 EurActive.com. (2010. January 29). Differentiated integration in an enlarged Union. 2 Vertical integration refers to common policy areas, e.g. the Common Market, while horizontal integration means enlargement, i.e. increasing the number of Member States. 3 The list of exclusive EU competences, policy areas shared between Member States and the EU and the policy areas where the EU only has a supporting competence without the right to legislate can be found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, Articles 3 – 6.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Commission), a single European currency, comprehensive Single Market without national markets, EU law applicable in all areas, an EU Minister of Foreign Affairs and so on. The rationale between a more integrated EU lies in the economic and political benefits of closer integration: on the one hand the benefits of Single Market: economies of scale, lower costs, more opportunities to live, work and study abroad4 , and on the other the stronger position of the EU speaking with one voice in international economic, trade, climate and peace negotiations as well as the efficiencies of quicker and less dispersed internal decision making. At the same time the full integration implies that countries lose sovereignty in more or all policy areas, a sacrifice they are not willing or ready to make given different needs and political preferences. Currently, Member States move on multi-speed: with some policy areas merely coordinated between Members States and other fully harmonised. In the areas where only some countries wish to collaborate and unite on similar objectives, the ‘enhanced cooperation’ method is in use. The method of Europe à la carte, meaning that Member States can choose not to participate in some regulations or at least negotiate on the matter is somehow already in place. For example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (UK) declared on the 23rd of January that the UK will hold a referendum whether the country will stay in the EU or leave once and for all after long public discussion on the possibility of renegotiating the extent to which UK participates in policy areas harmonised or coordinated at the EU level5. Another example is the Czech Republic refusing to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, unless the country was given an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or Denmark with an approved opt-out from the euro zone. Some states are opting out and some are in favour of further integration. In 2014, Croatia will become an official Member State and the Eurozone will gain a new member, Latvia. These few examples clarify the differentiated integration on economic and political level the European Union is facing today. However, the question stands: should the EU move towards further centralisation or keep to the principle of pick and choose? Should power be delegated to higher institutions? How can a complex union be 4 European Commission. How the EU Single Market benefits you. 5 The Economist. (2013. January 23). David Cameron’s EU speech: The big question.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

led without interfering in Member States‘ sovereignty? How will any form of integration affect current policies and future economic development? Kati Pärn (EE)

Keywords Europe à la carte, multi-speed Europe, enhanced cooperation, acquis communautaire, differentiated integration, horizontal and vertical integration

Useful Links Sinn, H-W. (2012, October 23). United States of Europe: can it ever be achieved? The Guardian. Thatcher, T. (2011, November 1). Europe À La Carte. Hewitt, G. (2013, February 5). France’s Hollande rejects ‘a la carte’ attitude to EU. BBC News. Leuffen, D., & Rittberger, B., & Schimmelfenning, F. (2012). An overview of the book: a story of integration and differentiation. Differentiated integration. Charlemagne. (2012, November 17). Europe’s British problem. F Zuleeg. (2012, August 6). As the Eurozone moves towards closer integration those countries that are outside face the prospect of having to accept its rules without being able to shape them. Chrysoloras, N. (2013. January 8). Towards a plausible EU response to breakaway regions. EUobserver. (2013, February 27) EU integration Sophie in ‘t Veld, Roger Helmer, Glenis Willmott and David Davis. BBC News. (2012, October 22). EU summit wrap-up. EurActive.com. Europa.eu. Glossary.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

EurActive.com. (2010. January 29). Differentiated integration in an enlarged Union. The Economist. (2013. January 23). David Cameronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EU speech: The big question. Spiegel International. (2013. January 18). Mixed messages: Poll shows growing support for Europe in UK. Pickard J. (2013. February 17). Only one in three wants UK to stay in EU. The Financial Times.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

AFET I Committee on Foreign Affairs I – AFET I The EU torn between human rights promotion and economic interests: how should the EU position itself vis-à-vis China in the increasingly intense competition for control of resources in Africa? China’s emergence as a super power and one of the fastest growing economies in the world brought about a change in global dynamics. China is today the EU‘s biggest source of imports as well as the EU‘s fastest growing export market. Keeping good terms with China is thus vital not only for the survival of the EU economy but also for wider environmental and security reasons. However, China’s dominance in Africa – taking control of resources, infrastructure projects and market demand – is not only threatening the EU’s economic interests but also severely undermines efforts to support sustainable development in the continent on the basis of good governance, democracy and the protection of human rights. China’s interests China sees Africa’s development directly linked to its own development and, unlike the West, is following a ‘no strings attached’ strategy for its investments in Africa. It imposes no political, economic or social conditions upon the African governments in order to invest and develop infrastructure in their countries. China’s strategy has therefore been criticised for legitimising and encouraging Africa’s repressive regimes. Furthermore, Chinese funded projects use labour force deployed from China thus not helping to address problems of high unemployment and poverty (it is estimated that 90% of the labour force employed in Chinese construction projects in Angola is Chinese1). China is also flooding the African markets with its own low cost products and by doing so severely harms the development of any local manufacturing in Africa which is key to its long term economic development. Africa’s response to Chinese presence Despite the above mentioned issues, Africa largely welcomes China’s presence as there is a growing realisation that traditional relations with the West have not helped Africa overcome its structural obstacles and 1 Africa Practice (2007). The impact of the Chinese presence in Africa

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

eradicate poverty. China provides know-how and technological equipment to exploit Africaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources, a labour force and most importantly finance to materialise infrastructure projects. EU position On the other hand, the EU is committed to the promotion of human rights as a vital issue for the long-term social and political stability of any country. However, in spite of the ongoing dialogues with China, the EU lacks sufficient leverage, i.e. hard power or real power, to persuade China to embrace European norms and values in its involvement in the economic development of Africa. Moreover, Member States pursue separate agendas when it comes to China, thus further undermining the efforts of the Council of the EU to define and implement a clear position and a strong EU voice. To consider The international community is now attributing more diplomatic power to China and considers Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s importance in climate change negotiations as well as its pivotal position in the international efforts to convince North Korea to denuclearise. How can the EU stand by its principles for human rights promotion while creating a favourable investment environment for its own businesses to grow in Africa and ensuring access to important raw materials and energy sources? What diplomatic, economic and humanitarian tools can be used to shift this power balance? Valentina Mina(CY)

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Common Foreign and Security Policy; EU relations with Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries; European Development Fund (EDF); EU Continental approach; Cotonou agreement; EU High Representative, European External Action Service (EEAS); African union; normative power; good governance; humanitarian aid; security; trade.

Useful Links Introductory Material Lirong, L. (2011). The EU and China’s engagement in Africa: the dilemma of socialisation Asche, H. & Schüller, M. (2008). China’s Engagement in Africa – Opportunities and Risks for Development (particularly pages 10-14 and 74-84) Is China a better partner for Africa? [Video file] China’s scramble for Europe

Official Sources Common Foreign and Security Policy EU–China Strategic Partnership

EU-China a Maturing Partnership EU-China Political Dialogue Relations with China on Africa – China Report 2013 EU-China Trade EU relations in Africa EU-Africa Strategic Partnership

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

European Development Fund EU Development policy: Agenda for change The Multiannual Financial Framework: The Proposals on External Action Instruments Cooperation and dialogue between EU, Africa and China

Articles and Other Resources Mobius, M. (24 May 2011) Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing presence in Africa Blenford, A. (26 November 2007) China in Africa: Developing ties EU-China: The Balance Sheet [Video file]

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

AFET II Committee on Foreign Affairs II – AFET II Responsible production and conscious sourcing: which measures should European countries adopt to ensure that any of the materials from foreign countries used in the production processes are extracted in a sustainable and conflict free manner? The European Union (EU) has declared its commitment to sustainable development in its Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption and Production1. Sustainability is one of the core values of the EU, therefore, a holistic solution for ensuring it should be found. However, while adopting this attitude within the Union is still in progress, many of the resources imported to the EU are extracted in an unsustainable manner. The committee will need to look at the largest issues of materials‘ import, how they fit within the bigger picture of the European economy and foreign policy of the EU and which realistic ways there are to solve these problems. The Council of the EU defines sustainable development as when “the needs of the present generation [are] met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”2. Primarily, sustainability is achieved if environmental, economic and social factors are in balance. The topic formulation asks to specifically look at ensuring that materials are conflict free or “free from malpractices like war funding, child labour or force labour”3. The EU currently does not have a comprehensive strategy for ensuring sustainable and conflict free imports. The EU has addressed problems in specific areas (for example, by being involved in the Kimberly Process for solving the “Blood diamond” problem in Democratic Republic of Congo). Nevertheless, the Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe prepared by the European Commission only mentions imports in the light of reducing dependence from them4. So a clear stance on how to ensure sustainable and conflict free imports is lacking. 1 The European Commission (2008). Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan 2 Council of the European Union (2008). Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy 3 Buzzle (2011). Conflict-free Diamonds 4 The European Commission (2011). Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

It is also important to note that the EU is unlikely to win the fight against unsustainable and conflicted based extraction of resources on its own. As import is an issue of the whole continent, the EU has to seek ways to involve countries outside its borders, including Russia among others, to take part in finding a solution to the problem. Therefore, the Council of Europe will have an important role in this matter. Further important global stakeholders are the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation. One has to keep in mind that there are always reasons why resources are extracted non-sustainably. More often than not, there is a strong economic gain from ignoring the norms of sustainability. For example, Brazilian timber industry, notorious for its damaging contribution to deforestation in Amazon rainforests, is estimated to comprise 3.5% of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s GDP5. Similarly, European companies would lose competitive edge in the global arena if their choice of resource suppliers was to be limited. The EU policy on imports cannot be in conflict with its priorities in foreign affairs. Therefore a broader look is needed to propose implementable solutions. To answer the question asked in the topic, several other have to be addressed. To what extent is the EU ready to influence the competitiveness of its companies so as to ensure that the process of extracting the imported materials is sustainable and conflict free? How large is the impact the EU can make? And how much are we ready to compromise to achieve it? Ugis Balmaks (LV)

5 International Tropical Timber Organisation (2009). Tropical Timber Market Report

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Sustainable imports, Conflict free imports, Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe, Blood Diamonds, Deforestation, Marrakech Process

Useful Links Official Sources EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current Roadmap for Resource Efficient Europe

Articles and Other Resources The Marrakech Process overview The Kimberly Process explained

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

BUDG Committee on Budgets – BUDG Rethinking the multi-annual financial perspective 2014 - 2020: starting from a tabula rasa, what priorities should the future EU budget fund and how should the budgetary resources be distributed between these priorities? “It was no easy task: this was our single longest meeting so far in my mandate, but it was worth working for this result”1 said Herman Van Rompuy on February 8th, after the consensus about the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) had been reached within the European Council. Yet that is still only the beginning of the whole process. The long-term EU budget ceilings and main objectives may still be completely changed2, therefore the chance for a complete reconsideration remains.

European Commission. Budget 2013 in figures. Financial Programming and Budget. 1 Van Rompuy, H. (2013, February 8). Remarks by President Herman Van Rompuy following the European Council. 2 The European Parliament now needs to give its approval – which might not happen.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

The MFF is an inter-institutional3 agreement that sets a binding maximum amount of EU spending in different budget areas for several years ahead (at least 5)4. Therefore, it defines the redistribution of EU funds into different policy areas, with respective ceilings. The MFF reflects the overall policy priorities of the EU – spending in one area or another is a clear signal implying long-term EU objectives and interests. Naturally, the discussions about the new MFF lead to the core question – what should the EU do? Or in other words – how should the EU allocate its money? The answer must be in accordance with the core values of the EU5, which are quite general; therefore, the chance for specific policy shaping remains broad. The annual EU budget6 must comply with the MFF in all its pre-defined areas. At the beginning of the budget legislative procedure, the Commission submits the proposal containing the draft budget to the Council and the European Parliament.7 In the past years, the areas of highest EU spending were: ‘Sustainable Growth’ - especially the ‘Cohesion activities’ = regional development via structural funds Preservation and management of natural resources - especially the ’Common Agricultural Policy’ = the system for establishing common prices for most agricultural products within the EU, a single fund for price supports, and levies on imports The budgetary decisions are highly influenced by previously agreed agendas. These past agreements create path dependency. That means it is difficult to change something the EU has adopted a long time ago. Nevertheless, it is necessary to keep developing new ideas and reconsider the priorities - not to limit ourselves to obsolete policies. 3 4 5 6 7

Between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission Read a little more about the specific rules for adopting the MFF in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) – Article 312 Respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men. – Treaty on the European Union, Article 2 Read more about the specific rules for adopting the annual EU budget in TFEU, Ar ticle 313 In case you are interested, read more about the Budgetary procedure here. - European Parliament. Budgetary procedure. About Parliament – Powers and functions.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

The previous MFF (2007-2013) was adjusted through regular annual technical adjustments, though the procedure was quite rigid. Any other revisions were allowed only in certain cases that were precisely enumerated. Also, in case a ceiling in one area was increased, another one must have necessarily been reduced.8 These procedures represented a complicated technical burden that hampered the flexibility of the EU spending, necessary especially in difficult times of crisis and recession. When it comes to the current planning, the initial discussions in November 2012 did not lead to a consensus. The economic interests and approaches vary significantly in different EU Member States. The newly agreed proposal (February 8th) is revolutionary in terms of its reduction of total EU spending in comparison with the previous term – that has happened for the first time. That illustrates the wide space for changes that can be done. Each MFF sets a whole new 7 year plan; it could contain completely new visions and goals, a revolutionary approach that the politicians did not have the courage to adopt in any of the previous MFF negotiations, only changing the distribution between existing priorities slightly. Nevertheless, the discussions have only commenced. The consensus of the European Council is only the first step on a long path. Nothing is set in stone yet. The time has come to have the courage and propose and innovative MFF that could solve all the aforementioned problems. How should the long-term EU budget planning respond to current economic issues and varied interests of the Member States? Maybe the How should the EU spending be distributed in different areas? How should the new MFF ensure both long-term stability and reasonable flexibility? Veronika Drzková (CZ)

8 MFF 2007-2013 – Part I, section c), subsection 23): „The institutions will examine the scope for offsetting any raising of the ceiling for one heading by the lowering of the ceiling for another.“

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Multiannual Financial Framework, (long-term) EU budget, financial perspectives, EU expenditure

Useful Links Introductory Material Brief explanation of the Multiannual financial framework

Official Sources Multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 Multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 Budget 2013 in figures EU MFF negotiations

Articles and Other Resources EurActiv: EU leaders agree budget cuts, MEPs brace for strife BBC: EU leaders agree budget cut deal in Brussels BBC: Q&A: EU budget battle EU budget: Parliament warns European Council agreement is only start of the process EU budget: Less for cows, more for young people

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

CULT CULT – Committee on Culture and Education Linguistic diversity as a resource for the EU: what measures should the EU adopt to protect its multilingual heritage while balancing it with the efficiencies of a lingua franca at the institutional level? “Language skills are unevenly spread across countries and social groups in Europe. Only if multilingualism is an aim and – to a certain degree – becomes a reality for every citizen, will it become what it has to be: a bridge to mutual understanding”. 1 - Leonard Orban Every language is the product of a unique historical experience, each is the carrier of a memory, a literary heritage, a specific skill, and is the legitimate basis of cultural identity. The EU is a truly multilingual institution that fosters the ideal of a single Community with a diversity of cultures and languages. Its mission historically is to preserve, harmonise, strike a balance and get the best out of this diversity. The EU believes that using the different languages spoken by its citizens is a major factor in ensuring greater transparency and legitimacy, as well as an important element of European competitiveness and life-long learning. The EU has 23 official working languages, ranging from the old diplomatic tongue in French, to the current lingua franca2 English. The EU is also the home to more than 60 indigenous regional or minority languages, spoken by around 40 million people.3 Reality, however, looks different: at the European Commission level, all documents are translated into French, English and German. The Council of European Union states that English and French as the “most widely understood languages” are used for communication. At the European Parliament level translations are made at the request of parliamentarians. English has established its position as a lingua franca beyond any doubt. Nowadays, it is by far the most widely spoken foreign language in the EU: 13% of the EU‘s population are English native speakers, while 1 2 3

Leonard Orban is a former EC Commissioner for Multilingualism.To read the full text of his speech, see European Commision (2009), “Multilingualism – A Bridge to mutual understanding”, European Communities Lingua franca is defined as “a language that is adopted as a common language bet ween speakers whose native languages are different” To learn more, see the Overview of EU policies in the field of languages

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

38% speak it as a foreign language.4 Many countries perceive English to be a threat to their own languages. France, for example, is afraid of French losing its hegemonic status to English, whereas some other Member States are concerned that their languages will become â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;impoverishedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, as their terminology will not be properly developed and that the language will be limited to certain contexts. At the same time, English has been welcomed as an instrument to facilitate effective communication at the institutional level. Running meetings of the European Parliament committees or Council working groups in one common language ensures quicker and more efficient decision making. Negotiations with many stakeholders in the room are easier to follow and more transparent when the languages are not constantly switched. Additionally, translations of texts of legal nature (interpretation) risk losing a part of the meaning of formulations, often with serious legal or formal consequences. Running a multilingual EU comes at a price too. The translations are costly and time-consuming. The annual cost of translation and interpretation is approximately 300 million euro5 , which is about 1 % of the EU budget. Is it worth spending such a huge amount of money for translations, bearing in mind that EU documents are nowadays drafted and then published in English? Do we need to consider that this legislation may never be read or used, for example, in Maltese or in Irish? Is it possible to balance EU multilingual heritage with the efficiencies of a lingua franca? Ultimately, what measures should be adopted to protect multilingualism in the EU? These are all matters of feasibility that the Committee will have to address in order to define actions that can be directly applied. Oksana Korchak (UA)

4 To learn more, see Special Eurobarometer 386 (June 2012) Europeans and their langu ages 5 To learn more, see the Directorate-General for Translation (2012) Translating for Europe

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Multilingualism, EU language policy, Leonard Orban, English as lingua franca, the Directorate General for Translations, balance, cultural diversity, Regional and Minority languages, European strategy for multilingualism

Expected reading European Commission | EU Languages and Language policy European Union | Overview of EU policies in the field of languages European Commission | Directorate-General for Communication (2008) “Speaking for Europe Languages in the European Union”, Luxembourg Commision of the European Communities (2008) “Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment”, Brussels European Commission | Directorate-General for Translation (2011) “Lingua Franca: Chimera or Reality” European Commission (2011) “An Inventory of Community actions in the field of multilingualism”, Brussels European Commission (2009) “Multilingualism: A bridge to mutual understanding” Euractiv (2010) “Language use in the EU” Katharina Crepaz (2009, November) “The EU Language Policies: Between Multilingualism, Minority Language Protection and English as the New Lingua Franca”, Innsbruck

Recommended sources European Commission (2012, June) “Europeans and their Languages” European Commission (2007, November) “Report on the implementation of the action plan ‘Promoting language learning and linguistic diver-

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

sity”, Brussels European Commission (2011, July) “Language learning at pre-primary school level: making it efficient and sustainable”, Brussels The Directorate-General for Translation (2012) “Translation in figures”

Audiovisual media Languages Matter: Message of Mr. Leonard Orban

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ECON Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs – ECON Towards the European Banking Union: following a political agreement to create a Single Supervisory Mechanism for the EU banking system, what steps, if any, should the EU take to stabilise the European banking system and its alignment with the real economy? “We affirm that it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns.” 1 With these words, the European Union (EU) expressed its wish for a Banking Union. The recent recession has caused unpaid debt, withdrawals of deposits and loss of capital, leading to bail-outs of banks using public funds. Such action significantly increased public debt, even causing sovereign debt crises, e.g. in Ireland. Combined with worse capital market conditions, countries face higher borrowing costs. This describes the first part of the vicious circle. Then the Eurozone debt crisis again leads to a loss of confidence, withdrawals of deposits and back to banking crises. The private sector forgave a significant portion of its loans to Greece, reducing assets and approaching bankruptcy. To prevent bank failures, recapitalisation took place, again rising sovereign debt. Links between the real economy and the banking sector remain crucial and fragile. A banking union comprises (1) single supervision for all countries, (2) common bank resolution mechanism of a bankrupt bank from any Member State, (3) a common deposit guarantee scheme. On December 13th, 2012, the Council of the EU took the first step: a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) for EU banks, implemented within the European Central Bank (ECB).2 Should we take the next steps towards the Banking Union? Harmonisation of bank resolution would align rules on bailouts and debt burden of recapitalisation and also mean that the decision of declaring a bank bankrupt is taken centrally – a politically difficult decision reducing national regulatory power. Concerning the deposit guarantee scheme, all Member States already provide it up to 100 000€.3 However, if a systemic banking crisis occurred (numerous failures within a short period); some Member States 1 Euro area summit (2012). Euro area summit statement. 2 Consilium, (2012). Council agrees position on single supervisory mechanism. 3 European Commision, (2012). Common Deposit Guarantee.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

might have problems to repay all the depositors who lost their money. Therefore, some call for a common EU fund. However, this might be problematic for some countries, because the money would be more likely used in the peripheral countries hit worst by the crisis. Should the Member States guarantee each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bank deposits, create a common deposit guarantee fund, or should deposit guarantee remain national? Giving the ECB the task of supervision of the system might compromise its independence and main goal of price stability.4 The ECB would acquire more influence under a Banking Union, including access to detailed private bank information. Moreover, to carry out new supervisory tasks, it will need to more than double its manpower.5 Should we then put more responsibility on the ECB? How to reconcile the expertise and responsibility of the national supervisory authorities and ECB within the task of supervision of EU banks? Membership in the Eurozone and different national interests also require consideration. Currently, the 10 Member States outside the Eurozone can participate in the SSM, but without any voting power. Another question is to which extent to strip NCBs of their regulatory powers. Several countries oppose more centralism. The example of the European Stabilisation Mechanism is relevant. The regulators strive for extensive regulations, while banks and e.g. the City of oppose. All in all, several aspects to consider exist. Starting from basic normative questions on the depth of EU integration, whether with respect to the Eurozone or the banking sector. Should we move towards a banking union? To what extent should the EU implement regulatory measures, balancing stability and competitiveness? Richard JanouĹĄek (CZ)

4 ECB, (2013). The European Central Bank. 5 Economy Watch (2013). ECB Must Double Its Manpower To Properly Supervise Banks: Study.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Banking Union – Single Supervisory Mechanism, bank resolution, deposit guarantee scheme; European System of Central Banks, Eurozone, independence of central banks, risk management, Basel III

Useful Links Introductory Material The EU Single Market – Banking

Official Sources European Central Bank Euro area summit statement Common Deposit Guarantee

Articles and Other Resources The eurozone banking union: A game of two halves Council agrees position on single supervisory mechanism Bank regulation carries lessons for EU’s budget battle ECB Must Double Its Manpower To Properly Supervise Banks: Study

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ENVI Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – ENVI “Some water for all and forever”: given the revision of the EU Water Framework Directive in 2015, which steps should be taken over the next years so that the new EU water policy will ensure access to enough clean water at all times, for everybody and everywhere across the EU? Water is the source of all life. Because of its great importance to mankind, there are efforts to recognize and effectively guarantee it as a human right.1 On a European level, the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) was established in 2000 with the ultimate objective is to achieve “good ecological and chemical status” for all Community waters by 2015. The WFD follows a coordinated approach to controlling all types of water assets - Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), balancing ecological, social and economic needs also through the involvement of stakeholder in the development and implementation processes. After monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the WFD, the European Commission (EC) came to the conclusion that the current steps are not sufficient to achieve good status by 2015 for 40% of all waters. River Basin Management The first of the tools of the EFD are River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). Because of the complexity of ecosystems, it is more efficient to examine all water bodies (groundwater, surface water2, other wetlands) at the same time. The WFD thus divides Europe into river basins, which compromise all water bodies in a certain region. Member States have to work together to create a RBMP for each river basin, monitoring the chemical composition, biological elements and physical shape . Unfortunately, not all Member States have fulfilled this duty, yet.

1 2

United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2003, Jan 20). The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) – para. 3 e.g. rivers, lakes, canals and coastal water

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Pricing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Availability vs. Affordability Another instrument of the WFD is the implementation of pricing policies to the water supply system. Member States have to ensure that the costs related to water treatment, distribution and infrastructure maintenance correspond to the final price. That means that large subsidies for water which are still provided by a lot of governments and municipalities are now prohibited by the WFD. Some experts even suggest to increase water prices for over-extensive use as an incentive for consumers to use water more efficiently, which might result in higher costs for citizens, industry and agriculture. Since water tariffs differ vastly from region to region and depend highly on the infrastructure, it is difficult to create an EU-wide pricing policy.3 Agriculture One of the largest contributors to eutrophication4, pollution and over-abstraction of water is agriculture, which is why water-protecting measures were proposed by NGOs for the upcoming reform of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU (CAP).5 Farmers could lose part of their subsidies, if they do not comply with environmental-friendly and sustainable farming practices (cross compliance standards). At the same time, such agriculture production will be more costly for the farmers decreasing the incentives in a generally low income sector, i.e. agriculture. Privatisation Another reform proposal created concerns about privatisation and a consequent detriment of the water supply. Privatisation, critics argue, may lead to a decrease of quality, accessibility and affordability of water in Europe when the private interest and profit seeking fall before

3 Tolbaru, A.M. (2012, May 25). Policymakers weigh options for EU water pricing. EurActiv.com. 4 A state in which a river or a lake contains a disproportionately high amount of nutri ents that disrupts the ecosystem. Agriculture can cause it by erosion of land and excessive use of fertilizers. 5 Shared Opinion by several NGOs. (Dec 12). EU Common Agricultural Policy 2014â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2020: CAP-Reform Must Deliver to Safeguard Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Waters!

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

the public interest of accessible and affordable water.678 At the same time, is a local government able to manage a water facility as well as a private actor with private interests? Meanwhile, a European Citizens‘ Initiative (ECI) calls upon EU institutions to effectively guarantee the human right to water and to refrain from liberalising the water market.910 Conclusion Are the recommended steps of the EC Blueprint the right ones? How should they be implemented in order to achieve the goals of the WFD by 2015 and beyond? Are additional measures outside the scope of the existing EU water policy needed? And how should conflicting environmental, social and economic needs be balanced? Christian Drews (DE)

6 Spence, T. (2012, Oct. 11). Bailout terms force water utility sale in Greece, Portugal. EurActiv.com 7 Spence, T. (2012, Mar. 9). Rival forums set different course for water access. EurActiv.com 8 Right2Water 9 Right2Water 10 European Commission – European Citizens’ Initiative page

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords EU Water Framework Directive, Good Status, Water Quantity, Integrated Water Resources Management, River Basin Management, Water Pricing, CAP Reform, Cross Compliance, Privatisation of Water Supply

Useful Links Introductory Material European Commission – Introduction to the Water Framework directive

Official Sources European Commission - Portal about all its water-related activities European Environmental Agency – Water Page

Articles and Other Resources General: •

European Environmental Bureau (umbrella Organisation of environmental NGOs) – Water Page

Cap Reform: •

Shared Opinion by several NGOs. (Dec 12). EU Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020: CAP-Reform Must Deliver to Safeguard Europe’s Waters!

Pricing policy: •

Tolbaru, A.M. (2012, May 25). Policymakers weigh options for EU water pricing. EurActiv.com.

Privatisation / Liberalisation: •

Right2Water – European Citizens’ Initiative

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

•

Unknown author. (2013, Feb 11). Water rights e-petition first to get 1 million signatures. EurActiv.com.

•

Hachfeld, D. (Aug 08). The Remunicipalisation of Water – Some Reflections on the Cases of Potsdam and Grenoble. (presented at the European Summer University of Attac in Saarbrücken 2008)

•

Spence, T. (2012, Oct. 11). Bailout terms force water utility sale in Greece, Portugal. EurActiv.com

•

Spence, T. (2012, Mar. 9). Rival forums set different course for water access. EurActiv.com

•

Correspondence between MEPs and the EC

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ITRE I Committee on Industry, Research and Energy I – ITRE I Switching to a new era of energy management: how can Europe best respond to an ever increasing energy demand both by securing sustainable supply and smart energy usage? ‘Germany must turn away from its go-it-alone energy shift and work more with the European Union to build a cost-efficient, secure and sustainable sector’, Guenther Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy. As resources become scarce, technologies advance, environmental constraints are enforced and countries are getting more and more interdependent politically and economically, the energy shift concerns the whole of Europe. Nevertheless, investments, political decisions and concrete suggestions about the the future of European energy shift are needed. Natural gas still plays a key role in Europe’s energy provision with many countries being dependent on imports from, among others, Russia and Norway. This has not always been the best solution, as 2009 found Europe‘s gas supply disrupted in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine. As a result of this event, with the aim of diversifying suppliers and transport routes, the Nabucco pipeline and South Stream are planned, with the North Stream being finished in 2011. Proposed alternatives may be Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or shale gas. Shale gas resources found in Germany would allow to cover its gas demand for the next 10 years.1 However, the use of shale gas as an energy source is still debated in Europe, due to environmental impacts of the chemicals used for the extraction via hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), e.g. contaminating the ground water. Due to its major role as energy source for transport, European countries will in the near future also need to guarantee a secure supply of oil or alternatives. Renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, hydro-electric, tidal power, geothermal energy and biomass, present the advantage of enabling countries to cut greenhouse emissions and make them less dependent on imported and non-renewable energy sources. However, environmental concerns have been raised for these forms of energy 1 Backovic, L., Kröger M., Meiritz A. (2013, February 14). Un-Natural Gas: Fracking Set to Shake Up German Campaign. Spiegel Online

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

also and Europe is lacking the infrastructure which will enable renewable sources to compete with non-renewable ones. In the field of energy there is already European cooperation, for example the ‘Energy Community’ which extends the EU internal energy market to third countries, the ‘Energy Charter Treaty’ and the ‘Baku Initiative’ for cooperation between the EU and States of the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and their neighbours. However Russia, an important exporting country, is not part of the above mentioned cooperation programmes. Within the EU, energy policies are outlined in several documents, e.g. the ‘Energy 2020’, ‚Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond‘ and ‘2050 energy roadmap’. If these policies are adhered to, especially the one about carbon emission reductions, the energy mix of Europe will be shifted, using less fossil fuel and more low carbon energy sources such as renewable ones and nuclear. Tools to make this shift happen include technological breakthroughs and investments in new infrastructure. Smart energy usage refers to ‘smart meters’ which allow end-term users to monitor and manage their own energy consumption and ‘smart grids’ which make electricity flow when and where it is needed at the cheapest cost. Smart grids should reduce the annual household energy consumption by 10% and therefore reduce costs.2 Despite concerns over data protection, smart grids are essential for promoting variable renewable energy sources and electrification of transport. However, common standards for the interoperability and implementation are to be set. Keeping in mind secure sustainable supply, resource conservation, climate protection, cost savings and access for the end-term users to the energy they need, what should the energy management of the future look like? Christiane Kraus (AT)

2 European Comission. (2011, April 12). Next steps for smart grids: Europe‘s future electricity system will save money and energy.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gas pipelines (2010, October 14). The Economist

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords European energy policy, integrated energy market for gas and electricity, EU-Russian gas relations, Nabucco pipeline, smart grids

Useful Links Introductory Material European Commission. A video on energy security in Europe Summary on EU legislation - Energy European Commission. (2010) Energy 2020 A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy European Commission. (2011, April 12) Q&A on the deployment of smart electricity grids and smart meters.

Official Sources European Commission. (2010). Energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a blueprint for an integrated European energy network. European Commission. (2012, November 15).Making the internal energy market work Road Map 2050 European Commission. Energy Community. European Commission. Baku Initiative.

Articles and Other Resources EurActiv.com, (2012, November 5). Who runs EU energy policies? Eurostat. File: Main origin of primary energy imports, EU-27, 2002-2010 European Energy Charter.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Further Reading European Commission. (2009, July 16). The January 2009 gas supply disruption to the EU: an assessment Backovic, L., KrĂśger, M., Meiritz, A. (2013, February 14). Un-Natural Gas: Fracking Set to Shake Up German Campaign. Spiegel online. European Commission. (2011, April 12). Next steps for smart grids: Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future electricity system will save money and energy

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ITRE II Committee on Industry, Research and Energy II - ITRE II A new industrial revolution: which measures should the EU adopt in the long-run to increase its industrial competitiveness and maximise the output potential of its production factors, in particular by exploitation of technology and knowledge? Industrial activity is the leading component of EU exports, amounting to approximately 80% of total exports.1 Engineering, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, automotive production and aeronautics are some of the strategic sectors that contribute to the EU industrial competitive advantage in an integrated, competitive and highly volatile international market. The European industry is challenged by the turbulent international market, which has led to investors’ risk averseness, and by the thriving industrial activities of emerging economies. Nevertheless, the EU has managed to withstand growing market pressures from its international trading partners. The EU has managed to retain 20% of global exports of goods and services by taking advantage of new opportunities arising from global value chain systems.2 What does the future hold for the European industry? In October 2012, the European Commission issued a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on “A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery”.3 The European Commission emphasized the aim to reverse the declining role of industrial contribution to GDP from 16% to approximately 20% by 2020. The integration of policies such as trade, environment, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) policies is a priority for the European Commission. In order for the European industry to reinstate itself as the global leader of service and product innovation, it needs to be aligned to the objectives of the “Europe 2020 Goals for Smart, Sustainable and Inclus1 Introduction. p.4. “MS Competitiveness Report – Industrial Performance Scorecard”. (2012). European Commission. DG – Enterprise and Industry. > 2 Value chains are all operations of a business, from raw material processing to the eventual end-user. The goal is to deliver maximum value for the least possible total cost. Suggested further reading: Value Chain Analysis for Assessing Competitive Advantage, Institute of Management Accounting, pp. 1-5, 3 EC Communication, “A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Reco very”,

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ve Growth”, thus reaping the benefits of production maximization and cross-functional synergies. Control of public finances and structural reforms are priorities that are addressed by the EU and Member States’ governments. According to the “2012 - Industrial Performance Scorecard”, an annual industrial report published by the European Commission’s Directorate General on Enterprise and Industry, the value drivers4 for industrial development in the EU are (1) productivity and skills, (2) export performance, (3) innovation and sustainability, (4) business environment and infrastructure and (5) targeted investment. These value drivers, alongside the alignment to Europe 2020 goals for sustainable manufacturing and resource efficient industrial activity, are aimed at revamping industrial development. The swift transition of the global market economy from industry-intensive sectors to knowledge-intensive ones provides the EU with an opportunity for further development. In the past, capital investment in industrial research has been made available through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and project bonds as well as participation of the European Investment Bank (EIB). How can the EU and the respective Member States achieve the integration of the surrounding environment into a solid framework so as to allow for targeted development? What should the role of private partners be in ensuing capital access for innovators, and, how effective can the industrial community be in pioneering? Knowing little of what lies ahead, will the EU be able to define the future of industry rather than adapt to it, and if so, how can industrial development adhere to the principles of sustainability and resource efficiency? Dimitris Zacharias (GR)

Value drivers are a set of activities or organizational focus that enhance the value of a product or service in the perception of the consumer and which therefore create value for the producer. Advanced technology, reliability, or reputation for customer relations can all be value drivers. Suggested further reading: QFinance, The Ultimate Financial Resource, Online Financial Dictionary,

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords: industrial development, smart/sustainable/inclusive growth, industry-intensive, knowledge-intensive, competitiveness, Public Private Partnerships (PPPs), access to capital, industrial/targeted investment, human capital/skills development

Useful links Official Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on “A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery”. (2012, October). European Commission. Europe 2020: A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. (2010, March). European Commission. pp. 5-22. Member States’ Competitiveness: Performance and Policies – Industrial Performance Scorecard. (2012). European Commission. pp. 1-20. pp. 2747. Europe 2020: Flagship Initiatives. European Commission. Fostering Growth in Europe Now, (2012, June). The International Monetary Fund (IMF), pp. 6-7, pp. 20-25. European Commission. Research & Innovation, Industrial Technologies, Public Private Partnerships in research. European Competitiveness Report 2012: Reaping the Benefits of Globalization. (2012, October). Directorate General on Enterprise and Industry, European Commission. pp.18-35 & pp. 67-69. European Commission. Enterprise and Industry. (2010, May 19) Enterprise & Industry Online Magazine Articles. Industrial policy. How can industry improve its competitiveness?.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Media SchĂ¤fer, D., (2011, January 31). Industry warns Europe on competitiveness. Financial Times. . (2012, October 10). EU plans to boost industry to 20% of Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Economy. British Broadcasting Company (BBC).

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

ITRE III Committee on Industry, Research and Energy III – ITRE III Towards a new growth paradigm of resource efficiency: which steps should European countries take to ensure economic development through a more efficient use of resources despite their increasing scarcity and rising prices? In the period between 2000 and 2008, global food consumption was higher than the overall production for seven years out of eight, while a 50% demand for food is estimated by 2030.1 With the world population soon reaching 7 billion and growing up to 32% by 2050 (Evans, 2010), it is becoming more and more difficult to cater the most basic resources to the population, not only food. Despite these alarming values, scarcity is not a new issue and all contemporary economics is built upon the concept of trying to satisfy indefinite human needs within a finite amount of resources. However, it is only recently that the global effects of the natural resource depletion have become so large as to be an influential factor for the policies of countries and regions. With the population growing fast, we will soon face a sharp demand for more food, land, water, energy and clean air, while the appropriate supply remains in question. Given that these factors are global and affect countries with no regard to their borders or legal regimes, how can we ensure that our region is able to sustain the economic development and provide for the high quality of life that we enjoy today? What is the way to use fewer natural resources and at the same time satisfy the demand for goods? Can we go further and turn this challenge into a business opportunity? Is it a time for a new growth paradigm? Many economic processes today are linear – the producer extracts natural resources to make the product, the consumer uses it and later disposes of it in such a way that results into less resources and more waste. What some experts propose is to shift our production to a different paradigm – a “circular” economy, whereby reuse is embedded in the design of any product. Being less dependent on input provides stability for the business and longer life cycle of the product to the consumer (The Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013). With this in mind, the European Commission has brought forth the 1 For more detailed statistics, check with the World Development Reports of the recent years and other data available from the UN, World Bank and IMF.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

‚Manifesto For A Resource-Efficient Europe‘ that states that “In a world with growing pressures on resources and the environment, the EU has no choice but to go for the transition to a resource-efficient and ultimately regenerative circular economy.” This document endorses the European Resource Efficiency Platform and offers a number of actions on the way to a new economic model. On a wider scale, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) examined the obstacles to transition to the less resource-abusing economy and published a paper that outlines a variety of options on a public (state) and private (business) level to stimulate economic growth. Any “green growth” strategy, the paper argues, needs to face the following challenges: many environmental factors are not priced (e.g. CO2 emission, water used); it is difficult for new technologies to face competition with a well-established solutions (e.g. petroleum as a fuel); barriers to trade and investment impede the innovation. Some of many ways to address these issues are public-private partnerships, subsidies, investment into Research and Development (R&D), city planning, reducing regulatory burdens and others (OECD, 2011). As stated earlier, the global actions are needed and the organisations as the OECD and the European Commission work together with other large players, such as United Nations Environment Programme and the International Energy Agency to seek for cooperative approaches. Which policies should we introduce to find the best solutions for Europe? Oleg Shimanskyy (UA)

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords OECD, UNEP, European Environment Agency, Green Economy Initiative, Rio+20, World Bank, natural resource scarcity effects, resource depletion, green growth, fossil fuels, sustainable development

Useful Links Introductory Material Scarcity Economic development Circular Economy

Core documents Towards Green Growth: A Summary for Policy Makers Resource Scarcity, Climate Change And The Risk Of Violent Conflict Manifesto For A Resource-Efficient Europe Towards The Circular Economy Europe 2020: Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth strategy EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU SDS)

Organisations OECD European Resource Efficiency Platform Rio+20 United Nations Environment Programme Global Green Growth Institute

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Articles and Other Resources Blood and Soil? Resource Scarcity and Internal Armed Conflict Revisited

References Evans, A. Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict. 9 September 2010; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010, (accessed on 25 February 2013). Towards Green Growth: A summary for policy makers. (2011). Towards Green Growth: A summary for policy makers. OECD. Towards The Circular Economy. (2013). Towards The Circular Economy. The Ellen Macarthur Foundation.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

JURI Committee on Legal Affairs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; JURI Citizens â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the resource for legitimacy: how can the EU further involve its citizens in the legislative process and in a way that increases the democratic legitimacy of its institutions? The Lisbon Treaty states that the European Union (EU) shall be based on representative democracy1, but at the same time it ensures to every citizen the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union2. However, it is important to realise that citizens have a direct impact in shaping only one of the European Institutions, the European Parliament (EP). Other ways of direct involvement are limited to the complex European Citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Initiative (ECI), submitting petitions to the EP and lobbying in Brussels. In the 2009 elections of the EP only 43% of voters participated3. There are two ways of understanding democratic legitimacy: input-oriented and output-oriented. Input-oriented legitimacy is associated with citizens electing members of the legislative body. Output-oriented legitimacy states that any government acts for the well-being of its citizens. This division of democratic legitimacy is the main argument against a democratic deficit within the EU, with output legitimacy assuming that every EU body has a democratic basis. Putting aside for a moment the theoretical division presented above, the only fully democratically elected EU institution is the EP. Each country has a representation calculated by digressive proportionality leading to an over-representation of smaller Member States4. Most of the Member States elect their Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) with a single constituency and party-list proportional representation.5 Furthermore, indirectly it may be assumed that the Council of the European Union (CoEU) has a democratic legitimacy, as its members are elected at national level according to the electoral system of 1 2 3 4 5

A form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for the benefit of the whole nation. Article 10 of the Lisbon Treaty Eurostat statistics Germany (82,5 million inhabitants) has 96 seats, i.e. one seat for 859 000 inhabitants. Malta (0,4 million inhabitants) has 6 seats, i.e. one seat for 67 000 inhabitants. In Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, the national territory is divided into smaller constituencies.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

each Member State. Unfortunately, Members of the main executive and legislative body of the EU, the European Commission (EC) are chosen individually by the national governments without the involvement or say of the citizens. The only legitimacy of the EC is drawn by the approval vote of the EP. Bearing in mind the different electoral systems across Europe, the Commission‘s democratic legitimacy is highly doubtful. As the unelected EC directly decides on the shape and course of European legislation, one could claim this increases the democratic deficit in the EU and marginalises the role of citizens in the legislative process. In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty proposed a mechanism that would allow European citizens to have a direct impact on the legislation – the European Citizens’ Initiative.6 In order for the EC to consider a case7, the ECI must be signed by one million EU citizens, representing at least 7 Member States. The citizens are allowed to propose an initiative in any field where the EC has authority to act, but the Commission is not obliged to propose legislation on the subject. Another way of increasing direct involvement of EU citizens is through lobbying8. The main issue is transparency of such an activity – even though registration is obligatory for EP lobbyists, it is still voluntary for the EC ones.9 Any citizen, resident of the EU or a member of an association, company or organisation with headquarters within the EU borders may submit a petition to the EU. The EP has formed a Committee on Petitions which deals with their processing. Summing up, although the EU has started taking actions allowing for greater participation of its citizens in the legislative process, it is important to realise that this does not increase the democratic legitimacy of its institutions. Does the EU need a fresh approach in order to decrease its bureaucratic roots? If so, what direction should these changes follow? Is amending the system really needed or does low 6 Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty 7 It is voluntary for the European Commission. 8 Lobbying is the act of an attempt to influence business and government leaders to create a legislation or conduct an activity that will help a particular organisation. Lobbyists can be divided into three major interest branches: industry associations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs)/interest groups, and regional representations. 9 Transparency Register

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

electorate participation indicate that this would not have an effect on active involvement? If it does not have any impact on the active involvement, how should the electoral system be re-configured in order to fully engage the European citizens in the EU legislative process? Magdalena Pietras (PL)

Keywords democratic deficit, democratic legitimacy, European Citizens’ Initiative, European elections, input and output democracy, lobbying in the EU, European petition

Useful Links Introductory Material Communication department of the European Commission (n.d.). Get involved in European summary making. European Commission (n.d.). The European Citizens’ Initiative. Official Register. Schmitt, H. (ed.). (last updated: September 2008). European Election Studies. Moussis, N. (2003). Access to the European Union law, economics, policies (9.5 The so-called democratic deficit of the EU).

Official Sources Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EU) no 211/2011of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the Citizens’ Initiative. Committee on Petitions. (2010). Citizens petitions: a right yet to be fully recognised. European Parliament. (n.d.). Petitions.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Smallwood A. (ed.). (2008). Lobbying in the EU: overview.

Articles and Other Resources Moravcsik A. (2012, July 13). Does the EU have a democratic deficit? Retrieved from http://debtaingeurope.eu. Duff A. (2012, March 14). Why do MEPs fear electoral reform. Retrieved from http://euobserver.com. Schmidt V. (2010). Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited Input, Output and Throughput. No. 21. Menon A. & Peet J. (2010). Beyond the European Parliament: Rethinking the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s democratic legitimacy.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

LIBE I Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs I - LIBE I Personal vs. marketable data: how can European countries guarantee the protection of citizens‘ privacy and the individual ownership of European internet users‘ personal data while allowing for the development of business projects in a new era of social media and communication? The internet is flourishing and expanding in ways that we could have never imagined, firmly establishing itself as an integral part of the personal and professional elements of our lives. Social networking sites, location-based services, cloud computing; we leave digital footprints behind with every move we make. Given the unimaginable amount of data in existence, its vital that EU citizens‘ rights are protected regardless of the location or economic sector of the service provider. On the other hand, the internet, and the information that it is constantly entrusted with, holds massive value to the economy. With this in mind, it’s vital that data protection reforms also facilitate business development. How can the EU protect citizens‘ rights and privacy while simultaneously encouraging business growth? The EU Data Protection Directive1 was set in place in 1995, to ensure a functional internal market and protection of the individuals‘ right to data protection. While it marked an important milestone for the rights of citizens regarding data protection, the explosive growth of the internet was entirely unprecedented. The rules set down by the Data Protection Directive are now out-dated and in need of modernisation. Member States are free to implement the law as they see fit. This creates uneven levels of protection, depending on where the individual lives or where the goods or services are bought. The proposed changes to the Data Protection Directive would enable EU citizens with a „right to be forgotten“, easier access to their data and the right of data portability.2 Most significantly, a single set of rules regarding data protection would be implemented across the EU. These rules would have to be adhered to even if the company was not established in the EU but simply does business within it. Strengthening the data protection framework may result in economic growth, innovation 1 Data Protection Commissioner (1995). Data Protection Directive 2 Europa (2012). Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of data protection rules to increase users‘ control of their data and to cut costs for businesses.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

and job creation, as well as solving the issue of trust for consumers. Technology can be a way to restart the economy by delivering sustainable economic and social benefits from a Digital Single Market, as recognised in the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE).3 However for this to happen, it is vital that individuals trust businesses. Only 26% of social network users, and 18% of online shoppers4 report that they feel in control of their online information. Next to mistrust of consumers, the current fragmentation of rules between Member States makes it difficult to develop especially for small and medium-sized businesses, with administrative costs up to €130 million per year 5 Proposed reforms have been met with controversy and debate from affected businesses. Social-networking giant, Facebook has proclaimed the reforms as “unreasonable and unrealistic”.6 They are thought to entirely change the business models of Gmail, Facebook, Whatsapp and other other companies, that rely on sharing of personal data of users. The consequences may be detrimental for EU consumers, potentially resulting in being charged for services or being denied the use of services. These negative effects could potentially lead to job loss, as businesses find it is no longer profitable to have headquarters, or branches, in the EU. Considering these risks, how can the EU ensure that the needs of businesses are adequately represented in the new Directive? While the proposals aim to give us the “right to be forgotten”, what about freedom of expression? Furthermore, are these reforms capable of encouraging business development? Despite lobbyists, the European Commission stands firmly in favour of these changes, confirming that the reforms should be in place by the end of 2013.7 Until then, what are the key points to be taken into consideration in the reform process? How can the EU provide a level playing field for all actors in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry? How do we ensure that these reforms are truly in the best interest of EU citizens, given the potential for fallout from large 3 4 5 6 7

European Commission (2013). Digital Agenda for Europe Dictorate-General Communication (2011). Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union European Commission (2012). How will the EU‘s data protection reform benefit European businesses? Lomas, N. (2012). Facebook Lobbying Europe Reding, V & Shatter, A. (2013) What EU data protection can do for growth?

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

companies? How can the EU find a balance between encouraging economic growth and protecting citizens’ rights? Marie Dromey (IE)

Keywords Data Protection Directive, Digital Agenda for Europe, online privacy, digital economy, ICT industry, consumer protection, economic growth.

Research Links Introductory material: Liska, K. (2013). The debate so far Clark, I. (2013). ICO Commissioner slams EU Data Protection Directive Davenport, C. (2013). Google in court of Spain’s data protection laws European Commission (2012). Why do we need an EU data protection reform? Cellan-Jones, R. (2012) “Facebook and Google are not the best to take privacy advice from”

Official sources European Commission (2012). Digital Agenda Europe European Commission (2012). Everyone has the right to data protection Reding, V. & Shatter, A. (2013). What EU Data Protection can do for growth Falque-Pierrotin, I. (2012). What kind of European Protection for Personal Data? European Commission (2012). Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of the data protection rules

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Other Lomas, N. (2013). The right to be forgotten Lomas, N. (2013). Facebook Lobbying Europe on Law Reform Arkwright, P. (2011). The Data Protection Debate is Heating Up

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

LIBE II Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs II – LIBE II 2013 the EU Year of Citizens: what programmes and measures should the EU undertake to foster the social and economic inclusion of asylum seekers and new immigrants as well as second generation immigrants? It has been 6 years since the Year of Equal Opportunities for All, and this year is again centred on the inclusion of all EU citizens. Considering that 31.4 million citizens were born outside of the EU, and that discrimination based on ethnic origin accounts for 56% of discrimination within the EU1, how much has really been achieved in the area of equality and inclusion? The levels of exclusion differ from country to country. The problems faced by asylum seekers, new immigrants, and second generation immigrants are diverse and often particular to that group. Active inclusion, in the European Commission’s policy context, means the fight against poverty and against the exclusion of vulnerable groups. Regarding migrant inclusion, the focus is on policies that promote an able workforce and ensure access to labour markets and social services. It also includes providing adequate social and housing assistance. All of these are methods to facilitate the integration of migrants. A key concern is identifying the barriers that the migrant population has to confront to achieve successful social and economic integration. The diagram at the end shows the clear linking of these two issues, and the some of the problems that migrant populations face. Through reforming the Dublin II regulations2 the EU aims to strengthen the rights of asylum seekers Additionally, there are other ways in which the EU works for this. The European Refugee Fund3 and the Common European Asylum System both look to ensure access to asylum procedures as well as legal and social assistance for asylum seekers, and help refugees acquire skills for work. For current migrant populations the EU has structural funds, like the 1 Special Eurobarometer 393 “Discrimination in the EU 2012” Report 2 Dublin II Regulations 3 European Refugee Fund (2008-2013)

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

European Social Fund. the PROGRESS4 programme works on employment, social protection and discrimination. Another body of the EU is the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) which works with international organisations to implement policies like the “International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families” (ICMRW). Yet, despite all the current bodies and funds in place, views toward immigrants within the EU remains negative and levels of discrimination and inequality are still high. Over a third of Europeans have witnessed or heard of someone suffering discrimination or harassment based on ethnic origin in 2012.5 All this considered, does the EU need to change the way in which it targets discrimination against migrants? Bearing in mind the major differences in the character of discrimination between Member States, can the inclusion of immigrants be solved on an EU level, or should national governments take the lead? Monika Ghosh (UK)

4 European Commission – PROGRESS Programme 5 Special Eurobarometer 393 “Discrimination in the EU 2012” Report

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Study on the Active Inclusion of Migrants, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) and the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), 2011

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Asylum seeker, Second Generation, Dublin II Regulations, Deportation, Detention, Dispersal, Family Unity, Third Country National, Open Method of Coordination (OMC), Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Naturalisation

Useful Links Introductory Material Comparison of integration success rates, ranking Sweden the most successful

Official Sources Current Schemes for the Integration of migrants by the European Social fund (2007-2013) Summary of the Dublin II Regulations Summary of the Lisbon Strategy Explanation of the OMC Explains the 3 pillars of the CEAS Useful statistics on immigrant populations in Europe

Articles and Other Resources A video showing problems for young immigrants to find work in Europe See page three for a comprehensive list of bodies, research agencies and fund involved in policy making for this topic Communication about current policies and evaluation of their success

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

SEDE Committee on Security and Defence â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SEDE From a continent to a world of peace: in the light of the recently awarded Nobel Peace Prize, how can the EU best contribute to fostering peace outside its borders and to what extent should this be achieved through the use of military means? While Member States of the EU have experienced peace for the past six decades, the world outside the European borders has not been so fortunate. There are now over 60.000 confirmed casualties in the Syrian civil war1, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone on for longer than the EU exists, Iran keeps ignoring international pressure to halt its nuclear programme and North Korea continues to organise nuclear tests while its population is starving. These situations are vastly different but they all have one thing in common: a solution is far away. The EU could help bringing a solution closer, but the question at hand is whether or not the EU should concern itself with such a matter or if there are better organisations to do so. Many of the Member States are also members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), all Member States are part of the United Nations and two Member States are permanent members of the UN Security Council. If the EU were to raise its voice within these organisations, it could increase its influence in the global arena and help advance solutions to conflicts through existing mechanisms. At the same time the EU is large and powerful enough to pursue foreign policy through its own channels, which means it would not be subject to the interest of other nations. Whether or not the EU should act on its own accord or mostly through other organisations, it would benefit from a more unified voice on the global stage. Amongst others, a unified voice would be stronger than 27 individual ones granting more weight to the EU ideas. In the past steps have already been taken within the EU in that direction. The Treaty of Lisbon created the office of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service (EEAS). With the High Representative acting as the EU ambassador in mediation processes and the EEAS as the EU diplomatic section over the world, they contribute to peace through non-military means. For interventions of any kind in foreign nations 1 UN News Centre (2013), UN New Centre on Syria death toll

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

however, the EU still requires the unanimous consent of its Member States, although the Lisbon Treaty does allow for a smaller group of Member States to cooperate on foreign interventions through the mechanisms of Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence (PSCD). By appearing more unified to the outside world the EU can add weight to its statements and have more of an influence on peace in the world, be this through other institutions or by itself. A more fundamental challenge lies in the nature of the conflicts that need to be solved. From civil wars to interstate wars, from border disputes to religious conflicts and from nuclear proliferation to the repression of a population, no situation is equal. The EU strategy for an increased role of the EU in peace-making globally needs to take into account the variety of the conflicts it tries to solve in order to present a strategy that can have a meaningful impact all over the world. With 60 years of peacetime experience under its belt, the EU has a unique opportunity to contribute to a more peaceful world. Questions do remain though: What measures can the EU implement to foster peace globally? How can the EU increase the impact of its voice on the global theatre? To what extent do we want the EU to intervene globally to promote peace? Boaz Manger (NL)

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords European External Action Service (EEAS), Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Lisbon Treaty, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

Useful Links Introductory Material A map detailing the European Union’s current missions abroad The Official website detailing the objectives of the EU’s foreign policy The European Foreign Policy Scorecard, provides an interesting perspective of the EU’s role in the vast variety of foreign policy domains

Official Sources Overview of the sanctions or restrictive measures the EU can introduce and their legal basis A speech by the High Representative Catherine Ashton on the cooperation between the EU and the UN on international security and peace Information regarding the EU-NATO partnership The structures put in place after the Common Security and Defence Policy

Articles and Other Resources The press release of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee An article that is critical of EU sanctions

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

TRAN Committee on Transport and Tourism â&#x20AC;&#x201C; TRAN From Compact City Concepts to transit-oriented development: with 60% of EU citizens living in urban areas, how can the EU enhance the development of urban mobility while safeguarding public health and sustainability, as well as accessibility and transport efficiency? Urban areas are populated by 60% of all EU citizens and contribute to almost 85% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).1 At the same time, cities have numerous issues, both economic and social, including traffic congestion and pollution, with 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of other pollutants from transport stemming from urban mobility. Tackling the aftermath of these issues costs the EU 1% of its GDP . Due to increased air and noise pollution the living standards of urban areas are diminishing, causing suburban sprawl, increasing traffic to, from and inside city centres, thus having a further impact on urban living standards. To put it simply â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the negative effects of traffic causes urban areas to become less appealing, making people move to suburbs and exacerbating the root problem. The Commission has set an Action Plan on Urban Mobility in 2009, stating that developing urban mobility is essential to reach several goals, including the 20-20-202 goal of the EU. The Action Plan stresses the important role of the EU in reaching these goals, by means such as the existing Cohesion and Structural Funds3, but also the development of more innovative solutions for private transportation, like the development of lower and zero emission vehicles. The main themes of the Action Plan are: promoting integrated policies, focusing on citizens, greening urban transport, strengthening funding, sharing experience and knowledge, and optimising urban mobility. This Action Plan is currently under review in form of public consultation by the Civitas Initiative which is one of the main pools of knowledge and expertise on this subject. The Civitas Initiative, co-funded by the EU, is aiming for 1 2 3

European Commission, Clean transport, Urban transport The 20-20-20 goals are part of the legally binding aims which are to achieve the fol lowing objectives by the year of 2020: reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the EU by 20%, raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable energy resources by 20% and improving the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy efficiency by 20%. Structural and Cohesion Funds are funding packages aiming to narrow economic disparities among regions and Member States. Urban mobility and infrastructure is a part of these funding packages.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

introducing ambitious, innovative, solutions for green urban transport. The Compact City Concept is a trial concept aiming at achieving the above mentioned goals. The concept itself is quite simple â&#x20AC;&#x201C; improving public transportation prevents suburban sprawl, increasing social mixing and cohesion whilst decreasing the negative effects on the ecological diversity of the countryside. The Compact City Concept has been adapted in different smaller cities all around the EU with different levels of success. In some areas the urbanisation helped protect the peri-urban area, but had a negative effect upon social issues in the city. Some areas gave further building rights outside urban areas to farmers only â&#x20AC;&#x201C; this resulted in a strong social conflict between farmers and other residents. Studies show that it is impossible to have a fixed template for a compact city at the EU level; the concept must be adjusted according to the city and the region. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is an American concept of mixing housing, retail and commercial development with the aim of having services easily accessible and public transportation stops within half a mile from each other. TOD prioritises pedestrians, minimizing the need of public and private transportation in cities. The EU has not adopted this in any official policy yet, even though early examples of TOD have been introduced in some cities. An example would be Paris, where there is always a metro station within 500 meters and other transportation services are also easily accessible â&#x20AC;&#x201C; yet the amount of traffic in the city centre is very high. Keeping in mind the problems related to suburban sprawl, how can the structure of urban areas be developed towards a more appealing and sustainable direction? On what level should the cooperation between the EU, national, regional and local authorities be? Is there a way of revising urban structures without harming the strong cultural inheritance of European cities, or does the future lay in innovative green technologies? Lars Melakoski (FI)

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit

Keywords Urban mobility, The Civitas Initiative, Compact City Concept, Trans-oriented development, suburban sprawl, Intelligent Urban Transport, sustainability, congestion

Useful Links Introductory Material Website about Transit-Oriented Development Structural and Cohesion Funds briefly explained, summary of EU legislation Website of the Civitas Initiative, link to ‘about us’

Official Sources European Commission page on clean- and urban transport, last updated 3/12/2012 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Action Plan on Urban Mobility {SEC(2009) 1211} {SEC(2009) 1212}

Articles and Other Resources European Commission. Brussels 17/09/2012. Environment: European Mobility Week 2012 “Moving in the right direction”. IP/12/966. Winning projects of the European Commissions Sustainable Urban Mobility Campaign Evaluation on the compact city concept – J, Haase, D, Bauer, A, et al. (2012) Dealing with Sustainability Trade-Offs of the Compact City in PeriUrban Planning Across European City Regions. European Planning Studies.

72nd IS Munich 2013 - Academic Preparation Kit