Academic Preparation Kit of the 9th NSC of EYP-Ukraine by EYP Ukraine

ACADEMIC PREPARATION KIT

9TH NSC OF EYP-UKRAINE United for Peace

Contents EU Guide 4 Content History

History 5 How How Does theWork? EU Work? Does the EU tddhe EU Pass Laws? 6 Does Does the EU Pass Laws? Important Areas of Activity - What Does the Do? 7 EUImportant Areas of Activity - What Does the EU Do? Mixed Responsibilities: What Is the EU 7 Allowed MixedtoResponsibilities: What Is the EU Allowed to Do? Do? Development? 8 Future Future Development? People and Places 11 Important People Terms and Places and Abbreviations for Further Research 11 Links Important Terms and Abbreviations

Committee Topic Overviews Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) 13 Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) 20 Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) 27 Committee on Human Rights (DROI) 32 Committee on International Trade (INTA) 37 Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) 42 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) 48 Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) 55

EU GUIDE 3

4 2

•

• •

•

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• • •

COMMITTEE TOPIC OVERVIEWS

Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) Peacebuilding in conflict regions of Eastern Europe and South Caucasus: In light of frozen conflicts in Transnistria, how can the EU best support Eastern Neighbourhood countries to promote sustainable peace, stability and democratic development, and ensure fulfilment of international agreements and international law? Sherbaz Ahmed & Olya Budinskaya

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic From March 2nd until July 21st 1992, the newly independent Moldova, a former Soviet republic between Romania and Ukraine, was engulfed in fighting between opposite banks of the Dniester. The conflict originated because citizens on the eastern bank (the largely Russian speaking area), feared that the Romanian speaking right bank would form a federal union with Romania. With support from Moscow, Transnistria declared itself independent and fought to establish sovereignty. A violent conflict ensued. In light of these events, similarities can be drawn between the 2004 Georgian-Abkhazian Conflict, the 2008 Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict, as well as the 2014 Conflict in Eastern Ukraine, where the Russian Speaking area of each respective nations, perceived themselves threatened through the political changes occurring within the countries. In June 2014 both Ukraine and Moldova signed an Association with the European Union (EU) in order to enhance the relationships between the Member States and the target countries. Both Association Agreements were on the table for many years, and arguably the Revolution in Ukraine helped to spur the movement towards the successful signing of the Agreements. All of the above conflicts mentioned, represent key problems that exist in the international field to date. These involve on the local scale, the issue of Civilian death tolls, kidnapping, extortion and torture in Civil Wars, how War is being more frequently used as a legitimate cause of action when dealing with a situation (which is inherently against the UN Charter (Chapter 1, Article 1:1)1, and how Civilian Uprisings can significantly undermine the legitimacy of a Government in place. On the International Scale it shows the lack of mechanisms in place to deal with conflicts arising in Non-EU/NATO countries, as well as the elasticity of the UN Charter in respecting the Sovereignty of Nation States (UN A/RES/50/172)2,3. Additional Links: EU-Georgia Association Agreement EU-Moldova Association Agreement EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

2. Key Terms • Interstate Conflict - a conflict between two or more governments. One Government must state that it is incompatible with the other. • Intrastate Conflict - a conflict between a government and a non-governmental party, with no interference from other countries. • Intrastate Conflict with foreign Involvement - an armed conflict between a government and a non-governmental party where either both sides or one sides received troops from other governments active in the conflict. • High Intensity Conflict - defined by more than 60 persons killed per month in a conflict region. • Operational Peace Building - is limited in time and aims to change the behaviour of sides from violent to nonviolent e.g. sanctions, humanitarian assistance, dialogue and negotiations. • Structural Peace Building - is long-term strategy that aims to build peace during the absence of war e.g. democratic institution-building, anti-discrimination policies and tolerance education. • Frozen Conflict - when an active armed conflict is ended, however no peace treaty or framework satisfies both parties and thus no resolution can be reached. • 5+2 Talks - the talks within the 5+2 format (Russia, Moldova, Transnistria, Ukraine, the OSCE and observers from the EU and the US). Additional Links: What Defines a Frozen Conflict (Youtube video) 3. Key questions

• What is more important, Territorial Integrity or the right of Self Determination of the people? • Should the EU pursue a more unified foreign policy approach instead of many leaders of the Member States being active in the peace negotiations? What would this entail in practice? • As both Georgia and Ukraine are looking to adopt NATO membership, how does the relationship between Russia and the US impact of the prospects of the applicant countries in securing their Peace and Stability goals? • How should the EU revise its security strategy to allow for more coherent and effective European responses in crisis situations? • How can Frozen Conflicts situations in the target countries benefit external parties in Political Associations and Agreements? • What role should the EU play in crisis situations, with a view to offering support and assistance to countries while respecting their individual sovereignty, which is an inherent right according the UN Charter?

4. Key facts and figures • According to the survey of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) because of the ceasefire more than 275,000 people had been displaced in Ukraine. Some 172,000 people had applied for asylum in neighbouring countries in Europe, including more than 168,000 people in the Russian Federation. A further 149,000 applied for other forms of legal stay in the Russian Federation.4 • Moldova ranked 103rd out of the 175 countries in the Transparency International Index of Perception of Corruption 2014 with a composite of 35%, Russia - 136th place with 27%, Ukraine - 142nd place with 26%, Armenia - 94th place with 37% and Georgia - 50th place with 52%.5 • In the 2014 Global Militarisation Index Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan are among the ten countries with the highest levels of militarisation.6 • In 1992 during the active conflict in Transnistria 364-913 people killed and 624 - wounded.7 • During the war in Abkhazia in 2008 up to 250,000 ethnic Georgians were in the explosion and more than 15,000 were killed.8 • In South Ossetia during all of the conflicts since 1992 there were 782-1069 victims.9 5. Key conflicts The key global powers that currently are dominant on the Global Sphere can be seen as the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China as well as the European Union. All of these entities are involved in Civilian, Military or Economic struggles in order to increase and enhance their power hold on the respective fields. The current conflicts that are related to our Topic Area involve the position of the USA, Russia and the European Union in their relationships with each other with regards to: The Importance of Russia to the European Union and vice Versa: The EU is the biggest trading partner for Russia, which also involved a EU-Russia agreement, which was under negotiation in order to improve the framework of bilateral trade and investment. Supplies of Oil and Gas made up a significant proportion of the Russian export to Europe, however since the Ukrainian Crisis, this has come under pressure in understanding how far the European Union can cooperate with external aggressors. The Russian Federation as a Permanent UN Veto Holder on the Security Council: The Position of the Russian Federation as a UN Veto Holder along with the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, causes a significant issue in that no UN action would be mandated as long as it involved Russia. This calls into question the position of Russia within the Security Council however no reform would be accepted or adopted due to the necessity of a YES vote from the Permanent Veto Holders.

Self Determination vs. Territorial Integrity: Chapter 1: Article 1 of the UN Charter, stating the Equal rights and self-determination of the peoples states that to respect and uphold the ‘principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments’, is in direct conflict with the principle of territorial integrity, as according to Chapter 2, Article 4, the UN prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States. A conflict thus exist between the existence of territorial integrity and the right of self-determination of the people. The EU as a Civilian Power vs Military Power: Political Commentators would address the situation of the EU in being either a Military or a Civilian Power. This is involved with its pattern of diplomacy and civilian missions in conflict situations, avoiding the use of its military capabilities through the existing Battle groups developed under the existing Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). The EU has systematically limited its resolve in Conflict situations to a civilian nature, which has shown the reluctance of the European Union to flex its military muscle. However, the effective make up of the European Union makes it impossible for a consensus to be reached on the deployment of any military force and thus its civilian nature is its most useful weapon. Additional Links: EU relations with Russia Security Council Veto List Article of International Journal of Baltic Law “Does the principle of self-determination prevail over the principle of territorial integrity?” An analysis of civilian, military and normative power in EU foreign policy 6. Stakeholders Republic of Moldova: Although the tensions between the two parties occasionally have intensified in subsequent years there has been no armed conflict or violence between them since 1992. In 2012, talks were once again initiated between the two parties. This was the first time official talks were held in almost six years and aimed at preparing the conditions for future official negotiations. Moldova’s prime minister and the new leader of the rebel region agreed to increase contacts between their populations. Moldovan concern lies at the heart of a necessity to resolve the situation in order to achieve key points within the Association Agreement and the future aspirations for the country.

Georgia: The presence of permanent military bases from Russia in South Ossetia, and the problematic existence of Abkhazia, shows how Georgia is in a need to address its territorial issues. Much like Moldova, Georgia is also in negotiation agreements with the EU and a need to address the situation is on the cards in order to achieve EU Integration.

The European External Action Service (EEAS): is a department which belongs to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. It is a service for external representation and diplomatic mission of the EU and ensures the effectiveness of the EU’s foreign actions. European Union and OSCE: The EU is in charge of keeping peace in Europe and also to control the legitimacy of actions between countries. The EU also has a strategic interest in safe borders to stimulate investments in the countries of Eastern Neighbourhood, their development and potential joining of the EU. Working closely with the OSCE in order to be given an on the ground update of reforms, the OSCE plays a part in helping the EU to understand the steps taken by Association countries. The Russian Federation: Russian investment in the target areas have been increasingly focused on security of the post-soviet states. With the development of the Eurasian Customs Union, and Ukraine as well as other former Soviet Countries being prospective members for Russia, further movement towards the European Union threatens Russian economic interest. Russia is also a direct stakeholder in its overt assistance to Georgia and Transnistria, as well as its direct and indirect involvement in the Ukrainian Crisis. European Union Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine: Launched in November 2005 with its Headquarters in Odessa, the EUBAM is committed to the development of border-management procedures that meet European Standards and serve the needs of Moldovan and Ukrainian citizens, in order to enhance regional security and support economic development. Ukraine: The move for Ukraine in pushing for closer involvement with the EU and NATO is key in resolving the conflict on its borders, as well as the fact that Ukraine is also dealing with a conflict in the Eastern Regions of the country. On 16 September 2014, a union between the armed forces of Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) was announced as part of the larger Novorossiya project. While previous «unions» were announced, this was the first concrete integration project between the two sides. The new group, the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya, had a new stated incompatibility, a larger region than Donetsk and Lugansk Oblast combined, referred to as Novorossiya. Romania: Being a border country of Moldova, Romania as a European Union Member State has a huge concern in the protection of its borders. The Romanian government is primarily concerned with the proximity issue and being a NATO member state. USA: The USA is primarily concerned with the trade investment potential of the target areas. Additional Links: Overview of the Transnistria-Moldova conflict

Ukraine-EU relations Transnistria and Ukraine: Why it’s important 2015 UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) subregional operations profile Eastern Ukraine 7. Measures in place The EU has emerged as an actor in conflict resolution beyond its borders at the turn of the twentieth century, concomitantly with the development of its fledgling foreign policy. In view of its nature and self-perception as a peace project, from the outset the EU’s foreign policy objectives have prioritized conflict resolution. In the 1993 Maastricht Treaty10, when the EU specified for the first time its foreign policy aims, conflict resolution stood out amongst them, alongside promoting international security, regional cooperation, democracy, the rule of law and human rights (Article J.1). Since then, the EU has remained firm on its objectives. The EU Security Strategy11, first outlined in 2003, explicitly called upon the Union to engage in a full range of conflict resolution activities, spanning from conflict prevention, to crisis management and post-violence rehabilitation (Council of the EU 2003:12). Likewise, the 2009 Lisbon Treaty12 states that the Union’s external action would aim at “preserving peace, preventing conflicts and strengthening international security‟ (Art III-193(2c)). More specifically, the Treaty identifies a clear link between the EU‟s internal nature and its external projection. In fulfilling its foreign policy aims in fact, the Treaty argues that the EU would be „guided by, and designed to advance in the wider world, the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement‟ (Article III-193(1)). In other words, having secured peace internally, the Union‟s foreign policy vocation would be to promote peace externally, drawing on and promoting the principles upon which it is founded. These principles include democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law (Article I-2 and I-3), alongside inter-state cooperation and integration. Since the late 1990s, EU conflict resolution activities have spanned beyond Eastern Europe, including neighbouring regions such as the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East, as well as areas further afield in Africa and Central Asia. These activities have encompassed both short and medium-term actions aimed and civilian and military crisis management, conflict settlement and rehabilitation, as well as longer-term endeavours tailored to statebuilding, democratization and societal reconciliation. Within the realm of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)13 and the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP)14, the EU generally engages in short to medium-term actions in conflict zones. These include diplomatic mediation efforts carried out by the CFSP High Representative and the EU’s Special Representatives in conflict regions around the globe – specifically in Afghanistan, the African Great Lakes Region, Bosnia, Central Asia, Kosovo, Macedonia, the Middle East, Moldova, the South Caucasus and Sudan. Furthermore, within the context of the ESDP, the EU, at the time of writing in 2010, was engaged in military and civilian operations aimed at peacekeeping, security sector reform, judicial reform and border monitoring in regions

such as the Balkans (EUFOR-Althea, EUPM, EULEX Kosovo), the South Caucasus (EUMM Georgia, EUJUST Lex), the Middle East (EUPOL COPPS, EUBAM Rafah), Central Asia (EUPOL Afghanistan) and Africa (EU NAVFOR Somalia, EU SSR Guinea-Bissau EUFOR TCHAD/RCA, EUPOL RD CONGO, EUSEC RD Congo). These ESDP missions have an average duration of one to two years. Development is the first policy area in which EU assistance and contractual arrangements have aimed at inducing the structural transformation of third countries. The European Development Fund (EDF)15 has increasingly focused on democracy, good governance, human rights and reconciliation beyond the more traditional socio-economic development projects. In the former Soviet space, the EU articulated its bilateral relations through the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements (PCAs)16. In the context of these agreements, the EU provided cooperation in the spheres of trade, culture and technology, while institutionalizing political dialogue and inserting a human rights “essential elements” (Article 2) and “nonexecution” article (Article 93). Association Agreements have been signed and reached with the Eastern Neighbourhood Countries involved, in order to lay the foundations of democratic development. The agreements focus on support to core reforms, on economic recovery and growth, governance and sector cooperation in areas such as,for example, energy cooperation, transport, environment, public health, consumer protection, education, training and youth as well as cultural cooperation. The European External Action Service17 has been successfully operating civilian missions. The EU has also recognised the direct and indirect involvement of Russia and has implemented a series of measures to prevent further exacerbation of the conflicts at hand.18 There have been several negotiations instigated by the EU in Peacekeeping formats such as 5+2 talks, Vilnius and the Minsk Agreements, in order to resolve the conflict situations at hand. Multiple EU and UN organisations such as EU Delegations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the UNHCR, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights are doing special monitoring missions within European Neighbourhood Countries, in order to provide up to date reports on the situation for the International audience.19 Financial and Humanitarian assistance is being provided to the Neighbourhood Countries.20 Additional Links: Questions and answers about the laws of war Adopted on 13.05.2015 motion for EP resolution on EU-Russia relationships EU conflict management in the South Caucasus: A Preliminary Analysis (22-23.11.2007)

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) It is predicted that by 2050 there will be nine billion people living on planet Earth. With increasing economic well-being driving demand for agricultural commodities, how should Europe ensure domestic and international food security while at the same time protecting the environment and farmers’ livelihoods? LudvigDietmann & Julia Pustovoitova “Imagine all the food mankind has produced over the past 8,000 years. Now consider that we need to produce that same amount again — but in just the next 40 years if we are to feed our growing and hungry world” – Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, and Daniel Servitje, CEO of Grupo Bimbo 1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic The world population has increased drastically in the last century and is expected to rise above 9 billion people by 2050. The rate of population growth has fallen in the developed world; however, in many developing countries, with low Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and HDI, the population is still growing rapidly. Feeding these people constitutes a unique challenge for the global community. Especially as these countries become richer, their citizens desire more resource intensive food.Today, almost 1 billion people21 are hungry, and although this number is already decreasing; significant challenges remain in order to make sure our biological resources will be properly used. Nutritional status impacts an individual’s ability to grow, to learn, to work, and to fight disease. However, even nowadays, the nutritional and food security question and its possible development are quite uncertain. Agriculture is a complex interdisciplinary study, touching topics such as ecology, health, biosafety, economics and politics. Advances in agriculture will be necessary in order to supply the world population with food, especially taking climate change into consideration. We cannot afford to allow the population growth to be coupled with unsustainable production methods. This would endanger soil quality, increase carbon dioxide emissions, worsen pollution and increase consumption of non-renewable resources. Even though the population is increasing, the number of farmers is decreasing. Within the EU, more than 6 million22 farms disappeared between 2003 and 2010. Bulgaria, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia lost more than 40 percent of their farms during these years. Poland also saw a significant loss in number of farmers: almost 1 million farmers lost to other occupations between 2005 and 2010. As the number of farms and farmers decreases, the EU becomes more dependent on imported food.

2. Key Terms • Food security means that all people at all times have physical & economic access to adequate amounts of nutritious, safe, and culturally appropriate foods, which are produced in an environmentally sustainable and socially just manner, and that people are able to make informed decisions about their food choices23. • Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination24. • Pesticides prevent, destroy, or control harmful organisms (‘pests’) or diseases, or protect plants or plant products during production, storage and transport. The term includes, amongst others: herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, nematicides, molluscicides, rodenticides, growth regulators, repellents, rodenticides and biocides25. • Malnutrition - a term used to refer to any condition in which the body does not receive enough nutrients for proper function. Malnutrition may range from mild to severe and life threatening. It can be a result of starvation, in which a person has an inadequate intake of calories, or it may be related to a deficiency of one particular nutrient (for example, vitamin C deficiency). Malnutrition can also occur because a person cannot properly digest or absorb nutrients from the food they consume, as may occur with certain medical conditions26. 3. Key questions • What measures should be taken in order to boost food productivity without endangering biodiversity? • How can the EU contribute in reducing chronic undernourishment in developing countries? • How consistently do sectoral policies manage to reach food security objectives? In what way can environmental and social concerns be integrated into food security policies, to ensure a sustainable food supply? • What are the growth factors for food production? How does demand, especially urban demand, encourage or discourage production? • What are the possibilities of equal food distribution around the world and how can the EU contribute to it? • How can the food waste be balanced taking into account over waste in developed countries and level of hunger in poor states of the world? 4. Key facts and figures • Agriculture is the largest source of jobs and income for poor rural households, providing livelihoods for 40 percent27 of the global population. In developing countries this percentage is higher, exceeding 60 percent28 in sub-Saharan Africa, while most EU countries have below 5 percent of their working population employed in the agricultural sector.

• Since the early 1900s, about 75 percent of crop diversity has been lost from farmers’ fields. • 1.3 billion people in the world have no access to electricity - most of them in rural parts of the developing world. Reducing this number is an important part of ending hunger and ensuring that the world will be able to produce enough food to future generations. • Between 2013 and 2030 there is a predicted increase of the demand for: poultry & egg by 63%, milk by 55% and ruminant meat by 44%29. All of them exceeding the population growth. Additional links: UN Webpage, Food Section Global Agricultural Productivity Report 2014 5. Key conflicts

Climate change adversely affects agricultural conditions in certain regions and causes unpredictable yields. Deforestation, driven by agriculture, leads to a loss of biodiversity and a reduction of the planet’s ability to absorb the emissions of industrial activity (deforestation causes as much as 30% of annual greenhouse gas emissions30). According to Eurostat, agriculture is responsible for 9%31 of greenhouse gas emissions. This proportion is likely to increase as Africa and South-East Asia become wealthier and their demand for protein rich

food increases. The growing world population puts pressure on valuable farming land. As previously mentioned, our natural resources and biodiversity are being degraded. During the past 100 years, about 75 percent of crop diversity has been lost from the farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; field for instance. In addition, climate change (which as mentioned is largely caused by our global food system) is increasing risks of droughts and floods, threatening our resources further and forcing people to migrate from rural areas to cities. By 2050, the share of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population living in cities is expected to have risen from 54 to 66 percent. According to calculations of the United Nations Environment Programme, the calories that are lost by feeding cereals to animals, instead of using them directly as human food, could theoretically feed an extra 3.5 billion people32. Feed conversion rates from plant-based calories into animal-based calories vary; in the ideal case it takes two kilograms of grain to produce one kilo of chicken, four kilos for one kilogram of pork and seven kilos for one kilogram of beef. In 2014, more grain was harvested than ever: 2.5 billion tonnes worldwide. However, only 45 percent was used to feed people. The remaining 55 percent was used to feed livestock, processed to become fuel, used in industry processes or just wasted. With the growing population, the amount of agricultural output will need to continue to increase and probably double until 2050 in order to meet the growing demand for food33. There is a dubious correlation between corporate profitability and promotion of food security. Three central challenges: 1. Malnutrition decreases life expectancy and causes permanent health damage, leading to susceptibility to illnesses and viruses, especially in developing countries. 2. Genetically Modified (GM) food. On the one hand, such technologies can create crops that are resistant to pesticides, do not need herbicides, have very strong tolerance towards different temperature levels, do not demand special environmental conditions and may contain more minerals and vitamins than normal food. On the other hand, GM technologies can cause allergic reactions, have unpredictable influences on the human body, lead to extinction of species and create potential imbalances for the entire ecosystem. 3. Poor farming practices in developing countries. Furthermore, using pesticides, fertilisers, antibiotics and growth stimulants can impact human health. Acute health problems may occur, such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, skin and eye problems in the short term and leukemia, lymphoma, brain cancer as well as long term illnesses. Finally, global competition can conflict with national interests, if the loss of less competitive production results in a decrease in national revenue and employment. From an economic perspective only 5%34 of the European Union (EU) labour force is employed in the agricultural sector and it generates only 2.3%35 of the EU Gross Domestic Product. However, 42%36 of the EU budget is spent on agriculture.

Additional links: UN population report Global Agriculture Website (By Foundation on Future Farming) 6. Stakeholders Firstly, the numerous farmers within and outside the EU constitute perhaps the most important stakeholders within this issue. In many EU countries, the number of farmers is rapidly declining. For instance, the UK National Farmers Union forecast a sharp rise in the amount of imported food as British farms convert into renewable energysites or tourist attractions to stay afloat37. According to research, British food production is showing a rapid decline and is getting to close to covering only 50 percent of the domestic demand. The deputy president of the National Farmers Union said that one of the reason to why the UK is becoming less self-sufficient is that politicians don’t see the problem in the production decline and prefer to promote the “globalised economy”. The same pattern can be seen in other Western European countries as well. Belgium, France, Norway, Germany and Finland have lost around 70 percent of their farms since 197038. The EU Commission’s Directorate General (DG) for Agriculture and Rural Development aims to promote rural sector development in accordance with the goals set by Europe 2020. It promotes the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to achieve viable food production, the management of natural resources and climate action as well as the balanced territorial development. The European Commission mainly focuses on the stability of the agricultural income and the necessity for the reduction of rural poverty and the growth of rural employment. During the next seven years, the DG will also tackle gas emissions and try to protect the biodiversity of the EU’s soil. The ‘greening of the CAP’ becomes, therefore, one of the most important goals to reach by 2020, also due to its connection with other EU frameworks and projects aimed at a more sustainable economic and industrial growth such as the EU Emission Trading Scheme. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is composed of 33 countries sharing the principles of market economy, pluralist democracy and respect for human rights. OECD analyses and policy recommendations aim to promote knowledge and provide guidelines for governments to make progress in a globalised economy. EU experts are particularly active in the work on agricultural market outlook, evaluation of agricultural policies and sustainable agriculture.

In the agriculture domain, organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are particularly relevant. Strengthened cooperation in recent years between OECD and FAO has improved the agricultural market outlook and work undertaken by then OECD and other international organisations resulted in the recent report to G20 on food price volatility39 and agricultural productivity40.

Additional links: European Commission - Agriculture and Rural Development Introduction to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook OECD: Agricultural policies and support Agriculture and the WTO Main features of EU agricultural trade FAO infographics 7. Measures in place The EU supports the farming sector through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP has several objectives: increasing productivity, ensuring that farmers earn a living wage, stabilising markets and providing consumers with food at reasonable prices. CAP - 2 pillars: the Single Farm Payment, also known as the Single Payment Scheme, and the Rural Development Fund. The Single Farm Payment scheme subsidises farms. The amount of compensation is dependent on the size of the farm; in order to qualify, the farm must comply with European regulations. The Rural Development Fund supports peripheral regions of Europe by improving education through diversification of the countryside economy and improving infrastructure. The Single Farm Payment scheme amounted to approximately 31% of the EU’s annual budget in 2013 while the Rural Development Fund took 11%. In 2014, Horizon 2020, the biggest EU research and innovation programme ever, was launched. From 2014-2020 the EU will invest almost 80 billion euros (3 percent of GDP) in different research projects, the biggest category (29.7 billion euros) being ‘Societal challenges’. The reasons to why such a substantial part of the programme is dedicated to issues such as stable energy supplies, global warming, public health, security of water and food resources, are the forecasted worldwide population growth and demographic changes. The official doctrine of the initiative is that investing in research and technology is the only way to support resource efficiency and diversity, protect the environment and combat poverty and social exclusion. In 2012, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon,launched the ‘Zero Hunger Challenge’, sharing his personal vision of a world without hunger and calling for global action. The initiative has five objectives: • Zero stunted children less than 2 years old - ending malnutrition during pregnancy and early childhood, • 100 % access to adequate food all year around - enabling all people to access food at all times, boosting food supply from local producers and preventing excessive food price volatility, • All food systems sustainable - ensuring establishment of sustainable food systems and encouraging climate-resilient agriculture practices,

• 100 % increase in smallholder productivity and income - reducing rural poverty, particularly empowering women, as well as supporting agricultural research and innovation, • Zero loss or food waste - minimising losses during storage and transport, as well as losses by retailers and consumers. After the launch, the challenge was endorsed by, among others, the charity organisation Oxfam41, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Unicef, Bioversity International, the World Bank, as well as the former UK deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, who said that Britain would be allocating £150m42 from the international climate change fund to support around 6 million smallholder farmers, particularly in Niger and Ethiopia. The money was used to help them adapt to the impact of climate change. The president of Niger, MahamadouIssoufou, welcomed the support stating that the problem his country faces is lack of resources to support agriculture. He also said: “We would like to help our farmers produce more [...], but we should not give them a fish, but teach them how to fish”. Additional Links: The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) Horizon 2020 Work Programme UN Zero Hunger Challenge Overview Additional general Links: The Agriland: O Cuiv calls on EU to introduce fair price protection for farmers Global agriculture towards 2050 European Convention on the Social Protection of Farmers Speech of Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Phil Hogan at National Farmers Union Conference

Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) Education comes first: With the Pisa Report 2012 revealing a worrying disparity between educational performances across Europe, how can the EU support its Member States to alter this inequality and to provide for a more equal and comparable educational foundation for young people in Europe? Zurab Giorgobiani & Franziska HĂźlĂ&#x;

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic The Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) survey launched by The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) implies to compare education levels around the world in certain areas. In 2012 it tested around 510 000 students from 65 countries between the ages of 15 and 16 years in reading, mathematics and science with a focus on mathematics.43 In general, the European Union (EU) policy follows supporting national action and helping to address common challenges.Europe 2020 targets focus on reducing school drop-out rates below 10% and at least 40% of 30-34 year-olds to complete third level education. As part of its strategy, the EU has launched a new strategic framework in â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Education & Training 2020 (ET2020). This strategic framework for education and training sets several goals for the Member States, such as reducing the number of 15-year-olds under-skilled in reading, mathematics and science below 15%, increasing number of children participating in early childhood education. They underlined the focus on improvement of primary and secondary school education as experiences show that it is often too late to compensate missed opportunities beyond that.44 PISA is used as orientation and reference by the EU and revealed some notable problems in school education standards, such as high disparities among Member States and within Member States on regional levels as well as the dependence on socio-economic and migration background. These outcomes show that there is still an amount of things that need to be improved where the EU plays an important role. Member States have an enormous potential to benefit from each other and figure out best practices, as the common ground for cooperation is set. Additional Links: Results of the Pisa Report 2012

2. Key Terms • Pisa Report 2012: The Pisa Report is a tool to compare country performances when it comes to education. The 3-year-ongoing test helps the EU to set its own goals and enables it to strategically plan its activities concerning ET 2020 as it is a reliable overall overview of educational differences around the world. They provide knowledge for the European Commission and the Member States and give them a clear image of education performances in Europe. • Disparity: lack of similarity or equality. The Pisa Report 2012 revealed disparity between educational performances in Europe meaning that there is a big difference in skills and knowledge of the students from different European countries. • Equity in education: fair and equal education opportunities despite gender, socioeconomic advantages/disadvantages or migrant background. 3. Key questions • Why does the EU focus on equalising and adjusting education systems within the continent? • How can the EU balance both focusing on Member States and the overall continent? What does it have to consider here? • How are the fields of education, social situation and life opportunities connected? • How can the EU, considering Member States’ competencies support them to follow their own goal figured out within 2020ET? • Thinking of your own experiences in school - what factors influence disparities? 4. Key facts and figures • About 20% of 15 year-olds are failing to reach Level 2 (lower secondary education) in reading (19.6%), mathematics (22.2%) and science (17.7%). • 93.9% of children (from 4 to compulsory school age) are participating in early education.45 • According to the PISA 2012 report only Estonia, Finland and the Netherlands combine high-level of performance with the equity in education opportunities. • High performing education systems are allocating their resources equitably between socio-economically disadvantaged and advantaged schools.46 • Gender gap is rather narrow in the areas of mathematics and science while girls have a strong advantage in reading.47 5. Key conflicts

Through the Pisa Report a continuous and noticeable discrepancybetween Member States has been spotted. While four Member States are among the top performing countries (Poland, Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands) since a few years already, several countries are very much behind the average (Cyprus and Romania almost double the OECD average).

A well-known reason is that country performances depend on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and on how much money is spent on education in the respective Member State. Although a progress in convergence can be noted, the 2020 benchmark is still far to reach. Education disparities to a large extent mirror the socio-economic situation of countries48. Here we can see a well-known conflict - the sovereignty principle: How much responsibility does a country transfer to the European level? There are many actions taken to adjust school systems, but also a lot of scepticism towards egalitarianism. How can states be supported individually, but without favouring someone? In addition to that, the socio-economic background together with the migration background are determinants which are the most influential factors for the acquisition of basic skills and influence school performances and educational opportunities and are highly related. The PISA Report also figured out that the disadvantage for migrants decrease the more the socio-economic background improves. Although progress can be seen in that area as well, the growing impact in some countries is increasingly worrying as performance gaps between first generation migrant students and non-migrant students are increasing in some Member States. Gender differences are shrinking during the last years, but are still an existing phenomenon - due to the Pisa Report of 2012 almost all underperformance in reading is found amongst boys. Additional Links: Analysis of the EU performance in PISA 2012 The Guardian on PISA Report 2012 The Guardian: A critical view on PISA 6. Stakeholders European Commission (EC) – One of the main decision-makers and executive body of the EU. The European Commission is responsible for drafting Europe 2020 agenda and setting objectives for the Member States. Member States – Since education is EU’s sharing competence, member states play a crucial role in achieving the goals set by Europe 2020 and ET2020 strategies. Action by the EU does not prevent the Member States from acting and the Treaties explicitly prohibit harmonisation of laws. The Directorate General for Education and Culture - The executive branch of the EU responsible for policy on education, culture, youth, languages, and sport. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency - EU’s body responsible for managing EU’s funding programmes in the fields of education, culture, sport, audiovisual, citizenship and volunteering and implementation of programmes and activities on behalf of

the European Commission. The Research Executive Agency – European Commission’s funding body responsible for managing research proposals and funded projects. ET 2020 Working Groups - A way of cooperation between European Commission and Member States. They are designed to help Member States address the key challenges of their education and training systems, as well as common priorities agreed at the European Level.49 7. Measures in place In almost all Member States there is a growing interest in specifically European policy making due to development of global processes and the EU enlargement progress that increased networking and cooperation among the Member States. Europe 2020, launched in 2010, is the EU’s growth strategy for the current decade, proposed by the European Commission. It sets targets for every Member State in different fields, including education. Referring to the education field, it targets to reduce school dropout rates below 10% and at least 40% of 30-34 year-olds to complete third level education. ET2020 is part of the growth strategy that sets several goals for member states for 2020 in these specific areas. As part of this strategic framework it is the goal that fewer than 15% of the 15 year-olds should be under-skilled in mathematics, science and reading; at least 95% of the children should participate in early childhood education. Within that programme, in 2014 the Commission and Member States came together to draw a conclusion on what had been done and tackled since 2012 so far: Every country contributes with a ET 2020 National Report to record the country’s situations. In addition to that evaluations take place with the EU also providing recommendations and an annual Education, Training and Youth Forum took place in 2014. Moreover, flagship initiatives, such as Youth on the Move to improve education and training skills and the European Platform against Poverty and Social inclusion have been launched.50 In terms of international orientation the cooperation with surveys such as PISA goes on for quite a while. The European Commission also works with Member States to develop their school education systems. Therefore the close cooperation with national policy makers takes place, the Erasmus+ programme aims to boost skills and employability, as well as modernising Education, Training, and Youth work51 and is limited to the years 2014-2020 and a series of European initiatives in recent years have provided strong stimulus, comparison and policy guidance to help Member States strengthen equity in their education systems in a way that would ensure both quality and fairness52. There are a lot of other initiatives in different fields on the EU-level that have been developed.

Additional Links: Results of the Pisa Report 2012 Analysis of the EU performance in PISA 2012 The Guardian on PISA Report 2012 The Guardian: A critical view on PISA The Role of Education within the EU: Education within the EU The European Union Explained - Europe 2020: Europe’s Growth Strategy Education and Training - European Commission Education and Training Monitor 2014 Others: The Structure of European School Systems Key Data on Education in Europe 2012 Working Paper on “How equal are educational opportunities?”

Committee on Human Rights (DROI) A graveyard at sea: Taking into consideration the tightened refugee and migration situation due to political and humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as internal EU differences regarding migration management, how should the EU reconsider its migration policy in order to adequately respond to new demands and challenges of both legal and illegal immigration into Member States? Aleksandra Sawa& José Eduardo Feio

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic Until mid-April this year more than 1.700 people died trying to cross the Mediterranean heading to the European Union (EU)53. In a world full of conflicts and poverty, the stability and standards of living in the EU attract thousands of migrants who hope to escape from the most varied situations. In recent years, there has been an increase in migrant routes54 especially from the Middle East and North Africa due to the increasing conflicts in the region55. With the increasing number of asylum seekers heading to Europe, a complex network of human traffickers has been established by people who aim to take advantage of the horrific situation and promote the crossing of the Mediterranean56. However, asylum seekers’ problems do not end when they reach EU soil. In Member States like Greece and Italy - two of the main entrance points for migrants coming from North Africa - these individuals are held in very precarious conditions in part caused by the lack of preparation of the local authorities to deal with the unprecedented increases in the migration flows57. Asylum processes are very often too slow - taking an average of 8 months in Member States like Germany58 - and the acceptance rate still varies too much from between different Member States59. The current Dublin regulation still defines that asylum seekers can only apply for asylum in their first country of entry which creates huge issues since many of these migrants try to get to countries such as France or the UK and apply from there. Besides this, even if the claim of an asylum seeker is considered valid they still face discrimination, xenophobia, difficulty in finding jobs and in truly being and feeling as members of the societies they are inserted in60. Overall, the refugee situation in Europe is much more complex than what it seems as first and whether we look at the number of migrants dying at sea, the conditions they are provided with once they arrive or what happens if their claim is accepted, the call for immediate action is clear. Additional Links:

Time’s article on “These 5 facts that explain Europe’s Deadly Migrants Crisis”

Eurostat’s website on “Migration and migration population statistics” Euroactive’s article on “Commission on collision course with member states on migration” BBC’s article on “Why is EU struggling with migrants and asylum?” 2. Key Terms • Asylum seekers - it is someone that claims to be a refugee but whose claim as yet not been evaluated. • Refugee - it is an asylum seeker whose claim of being a refugee has been accepted by the responsible authorities for this process. • Relocation - distribution among Member States of persons in clear need of international protection. • Resettlement - the settlement of a person in a new country or place. 3. Key questions • Is the EU doing everything it can to avoid the death of migrants in the Mediterranean? • To what extent should the EU intervene in the situations that cause this flow of migrants? • Should the Member States share the burden caused by the current increase in migrant flows and how could that be achieved? • How can coordination between the different stakeholders be catalysed in order to promote more effective actions? 4. Key facts and figures • 3,072 migrants died or disappeared in 2014 in the Mediterranean according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). • The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has endorsed a target of 20,000 resettlement places for the EU per year by the year 2020. • 39.2% of return decisions issued in 2013 were effectively enforced. • The rate of recognition of Sudanese asylum seekers is 2% in Spain and 68% in Italy. • 76% of asylum applications in the EU were concentrated in six Member States. • More than 1 out of 3 persons granted protection status in the EU was Syrian. • 45% of asylum decisions at the first instance made in the EU resulted in protection status. Additional Links: Eurostat’s website on “Asylum Statistics” European Parliament briefing on the EU legal framework on asylum and irregular immigration “on arrival” Eurostat news release on asylum decisions in the EU

5. Key conflicts While the budget of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) has been increased, some groups in society, namely certain political groups, still say that simply strengthening the current action in place will not be enough. They call for a different more comprehensive approach to the issue of refugees dying in the Mediterranean Sea without which they state that this issue will never be properly tackled61. Some have referred that the legal impossibility of migrants applying for asylum in their home country as well as the few legal ways for them to reach EU soil are also factors to blame. In accordance to the Dublin Regulation62 the Member State in which asylum seekers arrive first must be responsible for their requests, which has led to numerous complaints from countries such as Italy, Greece and Malta which are some of the main points of entry for migrants. Besides this, the conditions in which asylum seekers are welcomed by these countries are considered by many as inhumane due to their broken, unfunded, and badly organised immigration and asylum seeker systems63. Current recognition rates are also varying wildly. This was supposed to be addressed by Dublin III, which would have introduced a quota system to all EU countries, but as Dublin III was initially blocked by the Council of Ministers it was later implemented in a weakened form that contains no quota system. Right now, 90% of refugees to Europe are handled by 9 countries, of which Germany and Sweden take the largest portions. The current Dublin regulation in place also states that the Member State responsible for the evaluation of the claim of an asylum seeker is the one in through which he enters EU soil. This means that an asylum seeker who moves to another Member State is automatically - or should be transferred to the country of arrival. The current system has lead to peripheral Member States such as Greece and Italy having to take much of the responsibility in what concerns to the first processes through which an asylum seeker goes through once he/she reaches EU soil leading to huge overflows in their emigration systems. Confidence in the system is also threatened since the Member States are struggling to deal with migrants who find their claims rejected which also makes it harder for those who stay of right to integrate themselves. Additional Links: Communication from the Commission on “A European Agenda on MIgration Statewatch’s article on “Frontex budget: €17 million increase puts agency on «cruising speed”

6. Stakeholders The European Commission has been pushing forward the Common European Asylum System for years, creating the Stockholm action plan to bring greater cohesion to different EU legislation regarding asylum seekers and refugees. The European Commission is in favour of a quota system to distribute refugees and asylum seekers evenly amongst Member States. The Home Affairs Directorate-General of the Commission is their executive arm for this kind of legislation and in charge of the implementation of Frontex and European Asylum Support Office, among others. The Council of Europe and Member States are bodies of the EU that has co-legislative powers and has rejected the initial Dublin III legislation. Their argument was based on the reluctance to overwrite national sovereignty of who they accept as refugees to the EU. This argument addresses the idea of the proposed quota system within the original Dublin III treaty, which would have automatically allocated asylum seekers and refugees to different Member States. The Directorate General in Migration and Home Affairs possesses numerous tools that aims at promoting cooperation between Member States making sure asylum seekers are properly welcomed and follow the correct procedure to determine whether they should or not be guaranteed the status of refugees. The European Asylum Support Office was created in 2010 to act as a center of expertise on asylum, contributing to the development of the Common European Asylum System by promoting cooperation between Member States in this issue also providing practical, technical and operational support to them. Many international organisations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration work in cooperation with the EU to tackle this issue. NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s such as Amnesty International help at both recognizing and dealing with both individual situations where asylum seekers and refugees are in a fragile and delicate status as well as wider situations that may lead to deep humanitarian crisis. Additional Links: Independentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s article on the conditions faced by Syrian refugees in Balkan camps 7. Measures in place

Frontex role on the migrants’ situation goes beyond just saving them from drowning in the sea. The Commission has proposed an amendment to Frontex’ legal basis to strengthen its role on the return of illegal third nationals to their home countries aiming at better implementing the Return Directive. In what relates to The High Representative has already presented options for possible Common Security and Defence Policy operations to systematically identify, capture and destroy vessels used by smugglers. The Common European Asylum System is an attempt to create a Europe wide approach to guarantee high standards of protection for refugees. It is composed by various regulations and directives that aim to promote effectiveness and fairness in the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees. It also promotes financial solidarity between Member States by means of the European Refugee Fund. The Dublin Regulation defines that the Member State where the asylum seeker first entered is the one responsible for analysing his asylum request but also establishes procedures for the protection of asylum seekers. The Temporary Protection Directive is an exceptional measure to provide displaced persons from non-EU countries and unable to return to their country of origin, with immediate and temporary protection. It applies in particular when there is a risk that the standard asylum system is struggling to cope with demand stemming from a mass influx that risk having a negative impact on the processing of claims. So far, this policy has never been used. Currently the EU possesses three large IT systems related to refugees. Eurodac to deal with administration of asylum, the Visa information system to deal with visa applications and the Schengen Information System to promote the chairing of important information between the competent authorities. To avoid having third country nationals being exploited the Employers Sanctions Directive (Directive 2009/52/EC) was put into force. Due to the fact that most Member States still don’t have a resettlement programs at all for refugees once they are classified as so, in March 2012 a Joint Resettlement Program was adopted. This EU-wide resettlement scheme was proposed by the Commission in 2009 and aims at helping Member States in a voluntary basis to find sustainable solutions for refugees. Additional Links:

Dublin III regulation Laws for Legal Immigration in the 27 EU Member States European Refugee Fund Directive 2009/50/EC (EU Blue Card) Directive 2009/52/EC (Employers Sanctions Directive) Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive)

Committee on International Trade (INTA) Given that the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs) were provisionally applied in Moldova and Georgia since September 1st, 2014 and will fully step into force in Ukraine on January 1st, 2016, what measures should be taken by the EU and governments of Eastern Partnership countries to guarantee full implementation of EU standards and reduce the negative short-term impact of the DCFTA on small and medium enterprises (SMEs)? Anniken Katrine Knutsen & Iryna Lukianenko

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic The Association Agreement (AA) signed by Georgia, Moldova and now Ukraine serve as a basis for the creation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTA). This agreement is expected to facilitate the creation of new trade opportunities, boost foreign direct investments, economic modernisation and create new jobs in these three countries. The Ukraine EU DCFTA aims at reducing and eliminating the tariffs applied to each other’s products. In April 2014 the European Union (EU) unilaterally opened its market for Ukrainian goods after signing the Association Agreement (AA). The EU has introduced the so-called “autonomous trade preferences” – reducing their custom protection against Ukrainian goods while Ukraine has kept its tariffs. However, trade preferences from the EU are meant to be a temporary one-time measure to help the Ukrainian economy revive and develop. The DCFTA aims to boost a bilateral trade in goods and services between Ukraine and the EU. Through the DCFTA Ukraine has also committed itself to harmonise a large number of norms, rules and standards in a number of EU related trade areas. These areas are competition, public procurement, trade facilitation, protection of intellectual property rights and trade-related energy aspects, including on investment, transit and transport. Business related rules and regulations will align with those of the EU with a view to ensure that products can be traded freely between the two countries and Ukrainian companies, products, services and institutions treated equally with those of the EU. This will result in an increase in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Ukraine of 0.5% per annum and overall welfare gain to its citizens of 1.2% per annum, according to German Advisory Group Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting (2011): Quantitative Assessment of Ukraine’s Regional Integration Options. In terms of economic indicators, exports to the EU would rise by an estimated 6.3%, imports of EU goods would increase by 5.8% and average wages in Ukraine would rise by 5.5%.

There is expected to be an economical growth following the signing of DCFTA - will this have a solely positive effect on the SMEs? Or are the changes imposed on them going to threaten the market’s sustainability? The result of the DCFTA will be highly present on a short term basis, and the effect is expressed through changes to the current import duty rates; the EU is cancelling its import duties towards Ukrainian goods and Ukraine is expected to gradually decrease its import duties towards the EU products over the following five years. DCFTA is expected to fundamentally change business rules and regulations in Ukraine. The changes will not only affect export to the EU, but all companies as the domestic business environment has to be aligned with the EU standards. Deepening economic integration with the EU can also function as an important external basis for political establishment. However, there are different opinions regarding DCFTAs potential impact on Ukrainian economy. Is the signing DCFTA going to cause a collapse of the Ukrainian economy? Or is the signing of this agreement going to enforce a positive EU-integration? 2. Key Terms • Eastern Partnership (EaP): is a joint initiative of the EU and its Eastern European partners: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. It was launched in 2009 at the EU Prague Summit and aims at bringing our Eastern European partners closer to the EU. The Eastern Partnership supports and encourages reforms in the EaP countries for the benefit of their citizens. • Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA): is a part of the wider Association Agreement between the EU and the EaP countries that intends to create a stable and prosperous European collaboration through closer economic ties. • Association Agreements (AA): are international agreements that the EU has concluded with third countries. It focuses on core reforms, economy recovery and growth, and governance and sector cooperation in areas such as energy, transport and environment protection, industrial cooperation, social development and protection, equal rights, consumer protection, education, youth, and cultural cooperation; at the moment the Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgian AAs are under ratification. • Small and medium enterprises (SME): small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that represent 90% of all businesses in the EU;64 • European Investment Bank (EIB): the European Union’s bank. They are the only bank owned by and representing the interests of the European Union Member States. They work closely with other EU institutions to implement EU policy;65 • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD): has put in place the DCFTA Facility for SMEs. The Facility aims to support structural reforms in each EaP country, help small businesses grow and prepare for market opportunities of the DCFTA, and help national authorities to implement the agreements.66

3. Key questions • What measures should be taken by the EU in order to ensure that Ukraine harmonizes its standards and regulations, and improves its business climate? • Which key steps should be taken by the Ukrainian government in order to guarantee both implementation of the EU standards and secure the business environment? • How would further trilateral talks on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine DCFTA between the EU, Ukraine and the Russian Federation possibly be achieved? • What measures should be taken by the Ukrainian government in order to protect local producers? • Given the current change in the former successful exporting industries (i.e. coal and steel) caused by the conflict in the Eastern Ukraine, is it possible for the Ukrainian export structure to be adapted? And if it is, which industries have a potential to be developed? 4. Key facts and figures • SME Flagship Initiative – a wide-ranging EU action supporting SMEs in the whole Eastern Partnership (EaP) was adopted in 2009; • The DCFTA Facility for SMEs will receive approximately €200 million of grants from the EU budget. This contribution is expected to unlock at least €2 billion of new investments by SMEs in the three countries, to be financed largely by new loans supported by the Facility; • Georgian exports to the EU rose by 12% in the first six months of the free trade agreement;67 • The DCFTA envisages major liberalisation of import duties. About 95% of tariff lines will be set at zero in bilateral trade;68 • In 2014, covering the start of DCFTA application, EU exports to Moldova amounted in 2014 to EUR 2.35 billion, an increase of 3% since 2013.69 5. Key conflicts Despite evident positive changes there is still differing opinions regarding the potential impact DCFTA will have on the Ukrainian economy, a claim that often has a strong political undertone. The supporters of the Russian-led customs Union continue to claim that the Ukrainian economy will collapse after signing the DCFTA, since the local market will be flooded with cheap imports from the EU. Due to the incompatible standards set by EU, they think that Ukraine will not get access to the European market.70 The Free Trade Area will be implemented progressively, with Ukrainian business rules’ changing gradually over a period of time, for some measures, Ukraine has 15 years to adjust. However, it is important to mention the positive effect of EU-integration might have to counterbalance by challenging domestic conditions (continued corruption, political volatility, and war in Eastern Ukraine). It has been said that Ukraine will have to change or cancel all its existing trade agreements

to comply with the DCFTA with the EU and this would adversely affect Ukraine’s relations with its traditional trading partners.Until now, that is not the case. Having signed the DCFTA with the EU, Ukraine still continues its trade relations with Russia, even though total trade flows have slowed down. The change in the foreign trade vector will take much time and resources, because Ukrainian economy lacks flexibility in terms of exports. Regulations made by the DCFTA might be challenging for the SMEs who might need extra skills and more financial resources to adapt to this new system. In order to provide support to the SMEs in the Eastern Partnership countries, the European Commission created a partnership with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have put in place the DCFTA Facility for SMEs. The Facility aims to support structural reforms in each EaP country, help small businesses grow and prepare for market opportunities of the DCFTA, and help national authorities to implement the agreements. Additional links: Impact of DCFTA with EU on the Ukrainian economy Selling to the EU under the DCFTA Distributional effects of the EU-Ukraine DCFTA: a CGE household microsimulation 6. Stakeholders • European Union and Eastern Partnership countries: The EU is committed to having a strong and mutually beneficial cooperation with all six partners. Many of the challenges partner countries face are shared ones. That is why cooperation and the exchange of best practice is of great importance. • Russian Federation: Fearing that Russia could retaliate against Ukraine following the entry into force of the DCFTA. • The SMEs: The SMEs are the ones this agreement might affect the most. The DCFTA is opening the international market and give them the possibility to trade in the EU-market. • The Ukrainian government: The government have a responsibility to make sure all the guidelines and regulations are being complied by the SMEs. • The Ukrainian citizens: One of the biggest impacts for business of the DCFTA will be the immediate elimination of import duties on over 97% over all products exported from Ukraine to the EU, including agricultural products.FTA will affect all businesses and consumers as Ukraine aligns many EU laws and procedures and then applies these nationally throughout Ukraine. Additional links: Russia’s economic interests and the EU’s DCFTA with Ukraine

7. Measures in place The DCFTA sets up a free-trade area between the EU and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. It removes import duties for most goods and aims to gradually integrate countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; economies with the European economy. Adoption of EU approaches will improve governance, strengthen the rule of law and provide more economic opportunities by opening further the EU market to the Moldovan, Georgian and Ukrainian goods and services. It will also attract foreign investment to these countries. Georgia and the EU are creating domestic advisory groups composed of civil society and business representatives. They will advise the Georgian Government and the European Commission on draft laws and monitor the DCFTA reform process.71 A special facility for SMEs has been launched. It will provide help for local banks and make it easier for SMEs to get funding from local banks to modernise their business. The facility is a joint initiative of the European Commission, the the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Georgia is making progress in complying with EU sanitary requirements. This means more Georgian food products will in the future be authorised to be sold in the EU. In 2014 EU exports to Moldova increased by 3% since 2013. Key exports are machinery and appliances, mineral products, transport equipment, and chemical products. In the same period, the EU imports from Moldova grew very dynamically. Total imports increased by 20%, to EUR 1.16 billion. Imports of agricultural goods grew particularly strong, noting a 30% increase. Among imported goods are mainly textiles and textile articles, machinery and appliances, vegetable products and other foodstuffs and beverages.72 Additional Links: EU-Georgia DCFTA EU-Moldova Additional general links: EU Relations with Eastern Partnership Eastern Partnership No possibility for renegotiating EU-Ukraine bilateral DCFTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; EU Perspective: Ukraine & EU DCFTA talks with Russia could peter out EU-Ukraine DCFTA DCFTA

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) The gas crisis of 2009 and Russia’s energy dominance: With the recent events in Ukraine highlighting the dangers of overdependence on imported energy, what steps can the EU take to limit its reliance on external energy sources and protect consumers from price shocks? What steps can the EU take to ensure energy security doesn’t deteriorate already heated relations? Giorgos Hadjipavlis & Natalia Senatorova

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic The gas crisis of 2009 was a good chance to assess the sustainability of the energy supply system in Europe, as it affected many vulnerable European countries, such as Slovakia and Bulgaria, which suffered most under a cut-off of supplies that lasted from the 7th until 20th of January, 2009.73 The overall crisis response of the EU to the January events was highly criticized by the European Commission in its report “The January 2009 Gas Supply Disruption to the EU: An Assessment”74, where several problems regarding the effectiveness of the response system were defined. The first problem encountered was the fact that the access to important technical information with respect to the gas flows was limited because of the different response systems established by Member States. The response systems ranged from using stored gas, alternative suppliers or fuel-switching to cutting-off supplies to industrial centres. Thus, no common gas emergency policy could be implemented. The second problem was the lack of sustainable infrastructure in the EU in general, as about 80% of gas flows from Russia to the EU were transported through Ukrainian pipelines75. During 2014, a renewed conflict threatened winter gas deliveries to Europe and brought EU gas security again to the forefront, as the existing pipelines from Russia to Europe that omit Ukrainian territory were not enough to redirect the gas flows and ensure the secure supply of the gas to European territory.76 As the events of 2009 have shown, the energy sector remains of high importance for the independence of the entire union as energy as a resource is vital for every Member State, and the dependence on third parties in energy import can have a strong influence on the decision-making process in the EU and on policies of certain Member States in particular. As an example, dependence on energy imports can prevent the EU from providing due response on regional turmoil in North Africa, Middle East and Ukraine.

Currently the EU imports 53,2% of energy it consumes77. Gas imports remain the most insecure ones, as contrary to oil supplies, in the case of gas, transport routes are determined by the pipeline network, as only a small fraction is shipped by sea. Moreover, energy imports depend on only a few important partners, with the dependency being especially high on

Russia, whose disputes with transit countries have threatened to disrupt supplies in recent years (Russia’s share of total imports: 34% crude oil, 32% natural gas, 26% solid fuels)78. Because of this one of the plausible approaches is to diversify its import flows by looking for new suppliers. On the one hand, this would increase trade with new partners. On the other hand, searching for new external partners may lead to problems between the EU and regional partners (for example, Northern America, Qatar, Australia, Nigeria) considering the stability and safety of the supplies, competition from the side of other importers, environmental issues, impact on trade and diplomatic relations. Moving beyond the political concerns, the given issue has a significant impact on the lives of EU citizens and consumers. Price shocks are created, leading to economic adversities due to these fluctuations. The average consumer is not the only ones affected by the problem as local business find these effects to cut down on profits and investments due to uncertainty, as economic theory suggests that price fluctuations lead to a decrease in profit and investment Furthermore, Member States find it difficult to create a net trade balance, as there the economic instruments used by Central Banks to regulate the economy are, again per economic theory, deemed less efficient when import quantities and in turn total value are affected by the continuously changing prices. - again related to uncertainty. It is therefore fair to suggest that the integrity of the European Union is at stake in the long term shall a solution to these problem not be found, as this is a severe issue of political and economic effects and judges the degree of dependability of the EU as a whole to third parties and hence its international and regional influence and independence. Additional Links: Energy production and consumption in 2013: Energy trends Europe’s energy security - caught between short-term needs and long-term goals Member State’s Energy Dependence: An Indicator-Based Assessment 2. Key Terms • Energy independence: The ability to produce energy for internal consumption to an extent that the energy imports do not have any significant influence on the economy or decision-making. • European Energy policy: The notion of agreeing to a mandatory policy in which the EU has an exclusive competence was only informally agreed at the Hampton Court meeting in 200579,80, which has a precedent despite that being weak. The European Energy policy includes several policies such as the SET Plan & EERA and the European Commission included earlier this year a Fundamental Framework for an Energy Union, which it has defined as a top 10 priority.81

• Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan82 & the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA)83: Examples of policies designed to construct a low-carbon EU research and development and production program. 3. Key questions • To which extent can the development in the scope of efficient use of energy within the EU affect the current situation with the dependency of the EU in the energy sector? • How has the EU crisis response system in the energy sector been developed since the events of 2009? • How should the regional internal EU energy market be developed? Should the regulatory power of the European Commission be increased? • Can energy independence be ensured with limited government intervention in order to ensure economic efficiency, as per free market theory, and can this be achieved adequately through Research and Development (R&D)? R&D reffers to investigative activities that a business chooses to conduct with the intention of making a discovery that can either lead to the development of new products or procedures, or to improvement of existing products? • How far can the EU support Ukraine and any similar countries given the situation? How inclusive can the energy plan be? • How strictly and in what way should they regulate an attempt towards an EU energy independence? • What benefits give the creation of the European Internal Energy Market? • Can the main energy exporters within the EU be and should they be convinced to redirect their resources towards an energy policy or solution? 4. Key facts and figures • The EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes, including almost 90% of its crude oil, 66% of its natural gas and 42% of its solid fuels such as coal. • Europe is also heavily dependent on one single supplier, namely Russia, responsible for a third of oil imports, 39% of gas and 26% of solid fuels. • Six EU countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia) depend on Russia as the supplier for their entire gas imports. • For electricity, three Member States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are dependent on one external operator for the operation and balancing of their electricity network.84 5. Key conflicts

Finding the path to energy independence leads to certain external and internal dilemmas that require economical and political decisions. Firstly, maintaining strong trade links to energy exporters might lead to influence being exerted on EU decision-making but it also works the other way around. Practically, for example, the EU could not implement any effective

measures such as the trade sanctions on the Russian Federation if it did not have strong trade relations that largely derive from the energy imports. By adopting a policy of energy independence the EU must find a way to compensate for the lost influence and the deterioration in regional relations from the fall in trade. Additionally, the problem extends beyond the EU borders. Countries such as Ukraine and the candidates for accession face the same vulnerabilities on this matter. How far can the EU assist by expanding its energy policy and how can it guarantee that these states become in line with the policies prior to the accession as not to interrupt the implementation of the policy? Moreover, there is a question of practicality presented. Moving towards energy independence is arguably a valid target, though achieving such a goal is easier said than done. The reason why the EU imports such a huge percentage of its energy requirements is because it’s costeffective, as estabished by the free market. The European Commission even went a step further by removing tariffs for imports of solar panels from China, under the 2013 EU-China agreement85. Price shocks are an adverse effect of the substantial energy imports, though should they be replaced by stable, yet high prices or low, yet subsidised prices with a huge burden on the government budget? Is there a way to ensure energy independence with limited active government intervention in order to ensure economic efficiency? Is (R&D) the key? Having that in mind, there is the issue of finding the correct path to energy independence. Should emphasis be put on R&D and investment on the EU’s own production of green energy or shall the EU support the extraction of existing fossil fuel resources, such as those in Cyprus86 and the Aegean Sea87? Different choices will have different effects on the EU Member States. Alternatively, should they EU aim to cut down on consumption in order to further cut-down on energy reliance, or will that harm the industrial and commercial activity and the living standards, especially in certain vulnerable Member States? In addition, it is impossible for the EU to cover 100% of its energy needs on a short-to-medium term basis - though it is achievable on the long-term88. Thus shall it look for new more stable partners to complement its needs? Lastly, what is the role of the institutions? How should they act in harmony without failing to realise their aims, as in the case of the EEA? How shall the new Energy Union be defined and regulated? 6. Stakeholders • The European Commission: Often dubbed as the “European government”. They are the ones to take the decisive action and propose legislation on energy related matters and situations like the one in Russia. • The European Council: The gathering of the Heads of State of the Member States with the aim of setting a guideline for the general EU policy. They decided to proceed with the formation of an Energy Union on 15 March 201589, but should an enhanced approach be

•

• •

•

perhaps more necessary? Energy partners outside the EU (e.g. Russian Federation, Norway, OPEC): They aim to maintain the dependability of the EU on their energy resources. Different states adopt different means; in the case of Russia for example they were willing to use their energy export as leverage on the Ukraine situation. Main energy exporters within the EU: Usually the states with the highest abundance of fossil fuels. European Environment Agency (EEA)90: Responsible for regulating energy production and consumption. Usually favouring a more green energy approach as per the guidelines of the European Commission. Ukraine: Ukraine sets a good example of a non-EU country which is highly dependable on energy imports from other non-EU countries which are often hostile.

7. Measures in place Shortly explain what has already been done with regards to the matter. Differentiate between the measures in place on the EU level and the Member State level, as well as including initiatives from non-political actors where relevant. Point out the rate of success of those measures; feel free to include actions that have been initiated or tried out, but have yielded little success so far. Do not use bullet points in this paragraph, but bold text to highlight important aspects. In 2014 the EU launched its European Energy Security Strategy91, which includes immediate actions in order to improve the Union’s immediate preparedness in respect of possible disruptions (enhancing storage capacity, developing reverse flows, exploiting more the potential of the Liquefied Natural Gas92), development of solidarity mechanisms among Member States, moderating energy demand, building a well-functioning integrated internal market, increasing energy production in the EU and diversification of external supplies. The action plan listed in the strategy embodied steps aimed at coordination of the Member States actions in abovementioned fields within the EU. In addition to that, a number of innovation initiatives, such as SET Plan93, EERA 94, Renewable energy initiatives (ALTENER) aimed at cutting back on energy imports and consumption are being implemented. Moreover, the Gas Coordination Group95, which had been established in 2006, was reinforced in 2011. This EU-wide platform, which consists of Member States representatives as well as stakeholders, is together with the Commission in the lead when it comes to coordinating security of gas supply measures.

In recent years the EU works closely with its partners to diversify its energy sources. The EU works towards establishing new connections with Norway (regarding hydroelectric power supplies, natural gas and crude oil imports, coordination of energy policies) through the

annual EU-Norway Energy Dialogue. To date, the EU has signed Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, participating in the development of their energy sectors.96 The EU also cooperates with 11 partner countries from Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus in the INOGATE program97. The program aims to help all partners reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and energy imports, improve security of supply and fight climate change. In terms of development of the old partnership and establishment of the new connections, the main aim of the EU energy policy lies in the diversification of oil and gas supply routes, decreasing the dependence on a single supplier. To this end, the EU: • Supports building of the Southern Gas Corridor, that can bring gas to the EU from the Caspian Basin, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Eastern Mediterranean Basin and negotiating with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on a Trans-Caspian pipeline to transport gas across the Caspian Sea; • participates in the dialogue with Northern African and Eastern Mediterranean countries on creation of the Mediterranean gas hub; • identifies the development of the new Liquefied natural gas regasification units as Projects of Common Interest, in order to increase the supplies of LNG from North America, Australia, Qatar, and East Africa to the EU.98 One of the main priorities of the European Commission remains the creation of the European energy union, intended to ensure secure, sustainable, competitive and affordable energy.99 Additional links: Questions and answers on security of energy supply in the EU European Council conclusions on Energy Union, 19 March 2015 The European Energy Security Strategy (Youtube video) Speech by Commissioner Arias Cañete at the Gas Infrastructure Europe 13th Annual conference. Press Release Consultation on an EU strategy for liquefied natural gas and gas storage Energy Efficiency Directive

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) Considering the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-131/12 on the control of search engines over personal data and opinions issued on the same topic by the Article 29 Working Party, How should the EU balance the protection of personal data and the freedom of search engines to provide services that are part of most citizens’ everyday life? Maryna Titarenko & Inna Shcherbyna “Personal data is the new oil of the Internet and the new currency of the digital world” – Meglena Kuneva, European Consumer Commissioner (2009)

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic It is not a secret that data legislation from nearly 20 years ago is out of touch with the realities and demands of modern life, both from an individual and business perspective. Technological developments are responsible for the generation of vast amount of data, bringing with it questions around privacy and data protection as well as the necessity of leaving the Digital Stone Age behind. With the emergence of the Internet, all advanced industrial societies faced essentially the same dilemma of how to regulate the amounts and cross-border flows of personal information which is regulated quite differently in most of the countries. Any government regulation in the area of data protection needs to balance the interests of organisations (companies and governments) that use personal data against the potential harm such use could cause individuals. Within the EU, the regulation of data protection is based on the precautionary principle, which is deeply embedded in EU law. The protection of individuals prevailed and the rights of individuals in respect of processing of their personal data have become a fundamental human right and freedom. A long running reform of European data protection legislation which kicked off in 2012 has passed a big milestone today; ministers in the European Council have ostensibly agreed on a general approach — allowing for the debate to move to the next stage and the potential for reform negotiations to be wrapped up by the end of the year. Therefore, 2015 is determined as a year of tackling the issue of data protection and privacy. And at its centre is the European Commission’s effort to update and consolidate the EU’s disparate data protection rules into a general data protection regulation acting on the whole EU territory. Another question was companies based outside of Europe would have to apply the same rules. But the question

arises: how can the EU ensure that the rules for transferring data outside its territory will be effective enough to deal with the most commonly used US service engines? Additional links: Security policy and EU data protection regulation Big Data Protection. How to make the Draft EU Regulation on Data Protection Future Proof ECJ Decision Judgment in Case C-131/12 Judgement of the Court 2. Key Terms • Personal data - any information concerning a person’s private, professional or public life. This includes data such as their name, photo, email address, bank details, posts on social networks or computer’s IP address. • Processing of personal data - any operation or set of operations which is performed by any person upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, and includes the collection, recording, organization, preservation, storage, alteration, extraction, use, transmission, dissemination or any other form of disposal, connection or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction100. • Search engines are programs that search documents for specified keywords and returns a list of the documents where the keywords were found. Typically, Web search engines work by sending out a spider to fetch as many documents as possible. Another program, called an indexer, then reads these documents and creates an index based on the words contained in each document. Each search engine uses a proprietaryalgorithm to create its indices such that, ideally, only meaningful results are returned for each query101. • Data subject - the natural person to whom the data relate and whose identity is known or may be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural, political or social identity102. • Data controller – A person who, either alone or jointly or in common with other persons, determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are processed. • Right to be forgotten – The right to erase your information online by the data controller. E.g. this would demand Facebook to remove photos that people post about themselves and later regret, even if the photos have been widely distributed already. 3. Key questions • Can search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Bing and others be called “data controllers”, since they often have no knowledge of this data and do not exercise control over this data?

• Is the right to be forgotten in the Google Spain case - a clear victory for data protection or an obstacle for the Internet? • Will the ruling of the CJEU in Case C-131/12 have significant repercussions to Internet companies such as search engines? • How the EU should balance the protection of personal data and the freedom of search engines? • Which criteria must be considered when assessing rights and conflicting interests for achieving the «right to be forgotten»? 4. Key facts and figures • Case C-131/12 was brought up to the court on 5th of March 2010, by the resident of Spain, Mario Costeja Gonzales with the complaint against La VanguardiaEdiciones SL, a daily Catalunian newspaper publisher and against Google Spain and Google Inc. The case is that when a regular Internet user would enter Mr. Gonzalez’s name in a Google search, two links on La Vanguardia newspaper (the issue from 19 January and 9 March 1998 respectively) will appeared among the results. Mr Costeja González’s name was connected with attachment proceedings for social security debt103. • On 31 May 2014, the first day of the service of removing links from search results, Google received over 12,000 requests from people asking the company to remove certain links about them from its search results104. • Amazon.com makes 35% of its revenues from suggestions made to customers based on analytics of purchase preferences of other buyers105. • The World Economic Forum (WEF) even considers data as a new production factor on par with labour and capital106. • “By having a single set of rules on data protection that are valid across the EU, businesses will reduce costs from lower legal fees and save around €2.3 billion a year”, Vivian Reding 107

5. Key conflicts The first argument against the new regulation is the fact that all the “data controllers” such as Google, Yahoo, Bing and others often do not have knowledge of this data and have no control over it. This argument was mentioned in the trailed against Google Spain and Google Inc. In fact, these searching engines do not collect the private information themselves, therefore they are not responsible for the case. Moreover, there was no processing of Mr. Costejas personal information within the search function. The new EU Regulation on Data Protection has been heavily lobbied. About 3999 amendments were proposed. One more point was made concerning the fact that data subject (Mr. Costeja) in any case did not have the right to erase the lawfully published material.

The right to be forgotten was established by the European Commission allowing people to

“right to be forgotten” opposes the freedom of speech. Viviane Reding, the EU Justice Commissioner, welcomed the new regulation calling it a “clear victory of personal data for Europeans”. But does everyone, who does not like an old story posted about themselves online just wipe it down? The UK’s UK’s Ministry of Justice has already states that the las “raises unrealistic and unfair expectations” that the law «raises unrealistic and unfair expectations”. Furthermore, the question arises whether search engines should be responsible for what users post at different website. The users while registering at any website give their agreement for personal data processing. Should we call it users’ irresponsibility when signing such agreements? Additional links: Data protection in the European Union European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 6. Stakeholders The European Commission is currently in the process of reviewing the general EU legal framework on the protection of personal data. The main policy objectives for the Commission are to: • Modernise the EU legal system for the protection of personal data, in particular to meet the challenges resulting from globalisation and the use of new technologies; • Strengthen individuals’ rights, and at the same time reduce administrative formalities to ensure a free flow of personal data within the EU and beyond; • Improve the clarity and coherence of the EU rules for personal data protection and achieve a consistent and effective implementation and application of the fundamental right to the protection of personal data in all areas of the Union’s activities. The European Court of Justice (ECJ)108 has ruled that an «an internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties.” The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)109 initially welcomed the right to be forgotten as a concept connected to the data probability, describing both of them as “new notions” when the first one is described as guaranteeing the automatic deletion of personal data stored after certain amount of time while the second one as giving more control to individuals on their information by ensuring that they are able to easily change service providers .

A Data Protection Officer (DPO) in every EU institution and body works closely with the EDPS to ensure the internal application of the Regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by EU institutions. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that search engines, social networks and certain cloud computing services should be brought within the scope of the forthcoming European data protection reforms as «the majority» of their revenue comes from targeted advertising as a result of the data they hold on visitors to their sites. Moreover, the «excessive» number of exceptions and restrictions to the general right to protection of personal data contained in the Commission’s proposals creates a risk of an imbalance between the aims of the fundamental right to data protection and those of the single market, to the detriment of the former110. National data protection authorities: ● EU28 countries ● European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries ● Candidate countries ● Countries outside the EU (Third countries) The ruling has huge implications, and creates both technical challenges and potential extra costs for companies like Google, the world’s leading search engine, Facebook, Twitter and the many other sites which hold users’ data. Additional links: Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the data protection reform package Essential Guide: EU Data Protection Regulation The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) 7. Measures in place On October 24th, 1995 the Data Protection Directive (officially Directive 95/46/EC) was adopted and became an important element of the EU privacy and human rights law. According to the Directive, the data subject has the right to be informed about his personal data being used. Moreover, the data can be processed under strict conditions only. The data subject should give his consent when the processing is necessary for the performance of or the entering into a contract, needed for compliance with a legal obligation, for the performance of a task carried out in the public or to protect the vital interests of the data subject. The directive applies if the data controller, processor or subject is based in the EU. Furthermore, the Regulations also applies to the data controllers outside the EU if only they process personal data of the EU residents. According to the Directive, a single set of rules applies to all the EU member states.

Directive on privacy and electronic communications (Directive 2002/58/EC): Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and in particular the Internet and electronic messaging services, call for specific rules to ensure that users have a right to privacy. This Directive contains provisions ensuring that users can trust the services and technologies they use for communicating electronically. In particular, it aims to ensure the protection of privacy and confidentiality in the electronic communications sector, including security for processing personal data, the notification of infringements, the confidentiality of communications and the ban on unsolicited communications, subject to the users’ prior consent. Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. This Regulation contains provisions aiming to protect personal data processed by European Union (EU) institutions and bodies. These provisions aim to ensure a high level of protection for personal data managed by Community institutions and bodies. In particular, such data have to be: • Processed fairly and lawfully; • Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes; • Adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed; • Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date (all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete in relation to the purposes for which they are collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified); • Kept in a form that permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data are collected or for which they are further processed. Privacy by Design and by Default (Article 23) requires that data protection apply to the development of business processes for products and services. According to the document, a child’s parent or legal guardian must give consent for children under 13. The Right to Be Forgotten was put into practice in the European Union since 2006 giving the European citizens to have personal information that is registered on Google to be changed or removed. The Article 29 Working Party on the Protection includes representatives from the data protection authorities of the EU Member States. The main tasks are to: • Provide expert advice from the national level to the European Commission on data protection matters. • Promote the uniform application of Directive 95/46 in all Member States of the EU, as well as in Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland; • Advise the Commission on any European Community law (so called first pillar), that affects the right to protection of personal data.

Five plenary meetings are organised in Brussels every year. However, the Working Party also progresses on issues through work in subgroup meetings. An example of this is the Internet Task Force (ITF), which addresses the challenges of the Internet and similar technological issues. A closed website for authorities to share relevant information is another tool for regular work. As a member of the Working Party, the EDPS participates in its policy making role by actively contributing to common positions and joint opinions. However, the EDPS also exercises his advisory role on new EU legislation through his own opinions. So far, there have been a few cases of partly overlapping advice. One such example was on the highly controversial data retention directive, where the EDPS issued his own opinion and participated in the development of the Working Party Opinion. Additional link: Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 Privacy by Design Privacy by Default Legal Concepts Google’s privacy policy: European data protection authorities are coordinating their enforcement actions The Article 29 Working Party Additional general links: Collecting & processing personal data: what is legal? Preparing for the EU General Data Protection Regulation Guidelines on the implementation of the «right to be forgotten» EU Data Protection Reform: Where are we - and what can you do to prepare? Follow-up of the Work Programme for better implementation of the Data Protection Directive Data protection Eurobarometer What will the EU Data Protection Reform bring for startup companies and Big Data? EU data protection reform: A pandora’s box or a new dawn for personal data? Commission proposal on new data protection rules to boost EU Digital Single Market supported by Justice Ministers The EU Data Protection Reform and Big Data

Committee on Security and Defence (SEDE) Degraded security environment: Arms control and non-proliferation agreements are an important part of Europe’s post-Cold War security order, now looking increasingly fragile due to the Ukraine crisis. Twelve years after its adoption: how should the European Security Strategy (ESS) be changed and adopted to face current security challenges in the world? Amin Oueslati & Yuliia Tsytsyliuk

1. Explanation of the Problem/Relevance of the topic In 2003 the European Council adopted the European Security Strategy (ESS), which determines common objectives in security and defence.111 The document aims to serve as basis for decision-making in the EU’s external affairs by providing a general direction, which helps to shape concrete measures. Especially when being confronted with unpredictable events, the ESS enables stakeholders to react both quickly and in the interest of all Member States. «Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free», opens the 2003 ESS. This premise hardly reflects today’s security environment: the effects of the financial crisis still haunt European economies, United States of America (USA) has been shifting its geopolitical focus towards the Asia-Pacific region and the Ukraine conflict following Russia’s annexation of Crimea have vividly brought back the spectre of warfare and land grabs. Besides being out-dated, the 2003 ESS is also criticised for being too vague, lacking priorities and providing limited input on how to achieve the set objectives.112 Therefore, Frederica Mogherini, the current High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, initiated a revision of the ESS, with the results being presented in 2016.113 Being considered one of the EU’s key partners back in 2003, the recent aggressive geopolitical approach will make the rebalancing of the relationship with Russia a major plank in the new ESS. Additional Links: ESS 2003 Nature of strategy Changes and challenges in the global security environment Three Crises Threatening the European Security Architecture

2. Key Terms • Geopolitical conflicts: Conflicts between stakeholders over a territory; mostly solved on the basis of military power. • Soft power: An actor’s ability to make a global entity want the same outcomes. co-opt, rather than coerce; Rooted in the power of attraction, an international organisation which binds members to certain conditions is an example for a soft power approach; e.g. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) guarantees the protection of its members but demands them to spend a certain amount of their budget on defence. • Hard power: An actor’s ability to influence the decisions of another global entity through inducements or threats. Hard power is used most frequently in the form of military power and economic sanctions. • Multilateralism: Actors pursue their interest in groups, out of mutual trust, geographic or cultural proximity, and/or common threats. Opposite: unilateralism • Arms control: Measures to limit military capacities and/or promote military transparency. 3. Key questions • What role do military budgets play in regional and global security architecture? • In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, how should Member States balance their military expenditures? • Which opportunities as well as risks accompany the concept of a common defence budget? • What role can/should the USA and NATO play in European security and defence politics? • How can Member States’ scepticism towards the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) be tackled? • How should the EU balance soft and hard power in its approach towards security and defence policy, especially towards Russia? 4. Key facts and figures

• With a total amount of 200.3 billion EUR spent by all 28 Member States in 2014, military expenditure fell by 14% since 2007 in real terms. In comparison, Russia increased its military spending by 51%. 2014 defence expenditures in all Member States correspond to 1.4% of total GDP, while for example the USA and Russia spent about 5% of their GDP.114 • NATO has set a target for its member states to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence.115 22 Member States are NATO members. • The EU has conducted 30 CSDP civilian and military operations. As of September 2014, military CSDP missions were taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Horn of Africa, Mali, and Somalia.116 • Russia is the EU’s third largest trading partner after the USA and China with a total value of 326,000 million EUR in 2013.

5. Key conflicts Cuts in military expenditure The effectiveness of European security and defence policy ultimately depends on the resources and capabilities that back it. Nevertheless, the 2008 economic crisis has led to deep cuts in European defence spending. This sharply contrasts with significant increases in the rest of the world, especially in Russia. The drop in military budgets is also reflected in Member States’ ability and willingness to take a share of international crisis management - only a handful of new CSDP operations of limited ambitions were launched after 2008.117 Advocates of an EU army claim that pooling and sharing resources could solve the dilemma of defence budgets.118 Critics of this idea argue that an EU army is not complementary with the NATO. Instead they demand an end of security free-riding, which most European members of the alliance are accused of.119 USA focus shift – security vacuum. The nature of the relationship with the USA has also deeply evolved since 2003. After demanding military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA is engaged in a partial withdrawal from security affairs, and appears increasingly reluctant to engage in new military operations or to take the lead in the management of all security crises and conflicts. This new doctrine has direct consequences for Europe. Firstly, Washington expects its European allies to take a larger share of the burden of international security. Secondly, the USA has been moving away from Europe and is rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region. With crises and conflicts in the immediate European neighbourhood, the EU appears to be increasingly on the frontline and cannot expect the USA to automatically take the lead there.120 The EU was not able to fill this security vacuum during the Ukraine conflict. The crisis management was dominated by scepticism for its own military capacities, namely the CSDP. Instead of pushing for EU’s action, Member States took shelter beneath the NATO umbrella.121 Hard and/or soft power. The EU has been favouring soft power over hard power in its approach towards security and defence policy. This soft power was characterised by the principle of enlargement, which is based on the premise that a circle of well-governed countries to the South and East will result in stability and a secure environment.122 As an unforeseen consequence, this expansive strategy contributed to the alienation of Russia, which pursues its own objectives for expansion.123 Another example for a soft power approach, which can contribute to a stable security environment, are arms control mechanisms. Although moribund, the CFE Treaty is by far the most substantive regime in terms of arms limitation and robust inspections. Besides

reducing military capacities, arms control treaties foster trust between nations by creating military transparency.124 When these tensions lead into the Ukraine crisis, the EU suddenly saw itself confronted with real hard power politics in its immediate neighbourhood. Looking back on just a total of 30 CSDP missions since 2003125, the EU never presented itself as a great military stakeholder. In accordance with the past, the EU decided against military intervention and imposed sanctions on Russia instead.126 Critics demand a tougher military stance from the EU and argue that without a real hard power the EU will not be able to exercise the international influence it strives for.127 Additional Links: Recommendations for changes in the EU’s foreign and defence policy A comprehensive approach without a security strategy is a hallucination European Parliament’s (EP) recommendations for the new ESS. Common European Defence Policy Especially chapter 2, 4 and 6 (Youtube video) EU’s hard and soft power Shift of focus in US geopolitics 6. Stakeholders NATO: The organisation constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. Although NATO had declined to arm Ukraine and shelved its membership128, it had positioned troops in the Baltics and conducted military exercises as a deterrence measure against Russia.129 The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE): Consisting out of 57 countries, OSCE offers an intergovernmental platform for political dialogue.130 OSCE deployed an Ukranian monitoring mission in March 2014, following a request to by Ukraine. Its main tasks are to observe and report in an impartial and objective way on the situation in Ukraine; and to facilitate dialogue among all parties to the crisis.131 Russia: In recent years, severe problems have arisen between the EU and Russia. Military activity in Georgia over the status of South Ossetia, and most recently the annexation of Crimea in March 2014 has led the EU to impose a set of targeted sanctions on Russia and to suspend talks on the new EU-Russia agreement and most EU-Russia cooperation programmes. Russia views the West as a rival and competitor, while seeking for an alternative network of allies in order to cement its regional hegemony.132

The European External Action Service (EEAS): TheEEAS operates as the EU’s diplomatic corps under the authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. It

assists the HR in conducting the CFSP with the support of a broad network of EU Delegations located globally. The European Defence Agency(EDA): The EDA, established in 2004, is the EU agency that facilitates defence cooperation among its member states (the EU-28 bar Denmark) based on the principle of pooling and sharing.133 7. Measures in place The 2003 ESS provides the conceptual framework for EU foreign policy, including the CSDP. Reviewed in 2008, the document analyses the security environment in fairly general terms, covers global challenges and five specific transversal threats (terrorism; weapons of mass destruction proliferation; regional conflicts; state failure and organised crime), and identifies three strategic objectives for the EU (addressing the threats; neighbourhood securitybuilding and promotion of effective multilateralism). It also lists partners: the USA, Russia, and emerging powers in Asia, Africa and Latin America134. CSDP evolved incrementally between 1999 and 2003, and was deepened significantly by the Treaty of Lisbon. It is the essential EU instrument to cope first and foremost with the new, non-conventional security threats and it enables the EU to conduct military and civilian mission as well as military operations.135 The Petersberg tasks form an integral part of the CSDP, defining the spectrum of military actions/functions that the EU can undertake in its crisis management operations. This spectrum includes “joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making (=peace enforcement) and post-conflict stabilisation”.136 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CEF). Originally negotiated in the 1980s between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the end of the Cold War made the CEF’s bloc-tobloc quota increasingly irrelevant. After an adaption of the treaty in 1999, NATO members conditioned ratification on Russian compliance with a newly devised set of demands. Tensions over NATO’s “open doors” enlargement policy and Russia’s territorial expansions resulted in Moscow’s informal withdrawal in 2007.137 The aim of CEF was to eliminate “the capability for launching surprise attack and for initiating large-scale offensive action in Europe” through a reduction of conventional armaments (battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters), in addition to military data exchanges and inspections. Additional Links: Arms control/CEF CSDP basics