Academic Preparation Kit | 34th NSC of EYP Greece by National Selection Conference Thessaloniki

TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcoming Words Academic Preparation EU Overview Committee on Constitutional Affairs Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee on Employment and Social Affairs I Committee on Employment and Social Affairs II Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety I Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety II Committee on Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rights and Gender Equality Committee on International Trade Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee on Security and Defence

3 4 6 13 19 25 30 36 42 48 53 59 56

Dear participants of the 34th National Selection Conference, in the aftermath of the global economic crisis of the late 2000s, the trade-off between economic growth and fostering social welfare has been intensified. A shift in the fiscal policies of many states towards austerity has led to budget cuts at a time when many citizens needed the support of a generous social welfare system the most. The consequent scrutinising of social welfare systems in many states revealed an inability of allotted funds to bring about the desired results, as income inequality deepens in many European states. In recent years, the need for a restructuring of state and private economies has brought the idea of sustainability in the limelight. Social welfare and fiscal policy are fields in which the EU Member States traditionally have primary competence, while the EU’s efforts towards social inclusion and protection support and complement those of its Member States. As the model of the welfare state is being called into question, how should Member States adapt to the shifts in their fiscal spending trends? How can the EU assist them and promote the designing of sustainable and inclusive social welfare systems? In the end, can growth be reflected purely in numbers or should it be reflected in social progress and inclusion too? In Thessaloniki ’16, you will have the chance to discuss a broad range of topics that form the current agenda of the EU and its Member States. The majority of committee topics have been designed around the session theme of finding the perfect balance between economic and social welfare and the idea of sustainability, while all topics form part of the EU’s most prominent worries at this time. All topics are designed to challenge your perceptions of current European and national issues and introduce you to conflicts that cannot be dealt with a unilateral approach; their understanding requires a thorough analysis of all opposing and conflicting sides. Together with your committee, you will have to take a stance on your topic and propose measures in consistence with the direction you choose to take. In some cases, you will have to approach your topic on a Member State level and explore whether and how the EU can act as a guiding and unifying power, while in others you will see the EU as the primary actor and will have to decide on the direction of its further steps. The concept of the ‘golden ratio’ will be a recurring theme; as a participant of Thessaloniki ’16, you will have to find your perfect balance between having fun with your team and embracing the demanding tasks you will have to complete, building on your background knowledge and opening up to the possibility of seeing it called into question, convincing others of your opinion and letting yourselves be convinced by others. For most of you, this will be your first contact with the European Youth Parliament (EYP). I am sure that your teachers will have already shed some light on the mystery of this session and organisation. You stand to experience an intense 4 days and a natural initial confusion; rest assured that it will all make sense, once we get to the end, and the experience of this National Selection Conference will be nothing sort of extraordinary. In mathematics, the equation of the golden ratio gives us a number close to 1,618, while in art, the golden ratio has been illustrated by Leonardo da Vinci in the famous “Vitruvian Man”. In Thessaloniki ’16, you will have the chance to come up with your own number and illustration, both for your committee topic and for the world of EYP. Looking forward to meeting you all,

ACADEMIC PREPARATION This Preparation Kit provides you with a solid set of knowledge in order to prepare for Committee Work. The overviews for each topic have been written by your chairpersons; they present all relevant information in the most compact manner possible and should serve as a starting point for your preparation for the session. Please take your preparation for this event very seriously; this will give you an advantage in the selection process but, more importantly, I can promise that you will enjoy the discussions much more if you are sufficiently prepared. All topics are complex and challenging and you can help your team in the process of writing the resolution only if you have a solid background of knowledge on the topic.

HOW TO PREPARE? The topic overviews included in this kit should be the starting point of your research for the topic. The present the most important aspects of the topic in a condensed manner and provide you with further reading and videos on your topic. You should also use the keywords included in the overviews to conduct independent research on your topic. Alongside reading your topic overview, you should conduct some general research on the EU, starting from the EU guide included in this kit.

FACT SHEETS We kindly ask you to prepare fact sheets on your committee topic. A fact sheet puts together a list of facts about your topic, analysing the current situation and adding statistics and figures to the analysis. Remember that all the facts that you collect will be very useful for the committee work at the session. Please use the template you have received together with the preparation kit and send your fact sheet straight to your chairpersons by the 6th of December. You will find the contact details of your chairpersons below.

POSITION PAPERS After carrying out substantial research, you will hopefully have gained a sufficient overview of the topic. Committee work is about analysing the facts and then discussing opinions and possible solutions. We kindly therefore ask you to prepare a position paper in order to conclude your research. Your position paper should be about half a page to one page long and answer to the following questions: 1st question: What is the main conflict within the topic and which questions does the current public discussion revolve around?

2nd question: What is your opinion on the topic? Which measures should the EU and its Member States take or should not take; what are your ideas about a possible solution to the problem? Please use the template you have received together with the preparation kit and send your position paper straight to your chairpersons by the 13th of December.

CHAIRPERSONSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; CONTACT DETAILS AFCO ECON EMPL I EMPL II ENVI I ENVI II FEMM INTA LIBE SEDE

Panagiotis Papanagiotou papanagiotou.pan@gmail.com Despina Dimitrakopoulou despina.dimitrakopoulou@eypgreece. org Ilias Mavromatis ilias.mavromatis.96@gmail.com Eirini Daliani eirini.daliani@gmail.com Stefanos Mantzarlis masterstef1997@gmail.com Konstantina Kasiora kwnstantinak_96@hotmail.com Vayalena Drampa vayalena.drampa@hotmail.com Ilias Pagkozidis iliaspagozidisb@gmail.com Triantafyllos Kouloufakos triantafyllos.kouloufakos@gmail.com Sofia Xeni Kathariou sofia.kathariou@gmail.com

Valentina Moles molesv7@gmail.com Andreas Janssen andreas.janssen@leerling.ig.nl Elena Odysseos elenaodysseos.eyp@gmail.com Riccardo Pagnan riccardo.pagnan@gmail.com Ekin Su Yilmaz ekinsuyilmaz@gmail.com Orestis Collins orestiscollins@gmail.com Christopher NĂślte christopher.noelte@eyp.de Margarita Samouridou margaritasamouridou.eyp@gmail.com Robin Bucher robin.bucher@eypfinland.org Geny Sukhov genysukhov@gmail.com

European Union Overview How does the EU work? The institutional structure of the EU cannot be compared to any other international organization (e.g. NATO or the UN). It is neither a centralised unity like a nation state, nor does it imitate a relatively loose structure, such as the Commonwealth of Nations or a confederation like the United States of America: it is an organisation sui generis. The structure is unique and continuously developed. The Treaty of Lisbon marks the last big step in this process.

Main institutions of the EU European Council (since 1974) Regular meetings (aka summits, at least four times per year) of the Heads of State/Government + Commission President + President of the European Council + High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union. Provides political guidelines, sets general goals and incentives to the further development of the EU and common strategies concerning the CFSP. European Commission (EC) „Executive“ power of the EU (one Commissioner per Member State, with one being the President of the Commission). Commissioners are appointed by their nation state, approved by the European Parliament and responsible for one issue area (e.g. Federica Mogherini as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). Each Commissioner is appointed for a term of 5 years and all 28 Member States have a national official direct a Directorate-General (DG). The DGs are the equivalent of Watch here: The EU Institutions Explained by their national government departments; they Presidents oversee the development and A view from the inside: the Presidents of the main implementation of policies and laws in EU institutions share their views on how the EU specific domains. The DGs are staffed with actually works. Who does hat? What’s specific to a mix of full-time European bureaucrats each institution? What is the role of President? known as fonctionnaires, and of national How do they see Europe’s future? Since this experts. explanatory video was made, the presidents of the European Commission and the European Council have changed.

The Commission monitors the adherence to the EU aquis communautaire, represents the Union in foreign relations and has the exclusive Right to Initiative. European Parliament (EP) The first part of the EU´s legislative branch consists of 751 Members of Parliament elected for five years by all EU-citizens (over 18 years old, in Austria over 16). The first direct election of the EP was held in 1979, the latest in 2009. The parliament is divided into seven big fractions plus several independent Members of Parliament (the biggest three fractions are firstly the 6

European People‘s Party pooling Christian Democrats, secondly the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for the left and the social democratic political spectrum, and thirdly the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats). It is working either in a big plenary or in its 20 different committees, each responsible for specific issue areas. The Parliament shares its legislative competences with the “Council”. Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) Also known as “the Council”, structured in issue-specific councils with the respective ministers of the Member States (e.g. Council Justice and Home Affairs with all ministers of the interior). The presidency of the council changes every six months. The “president” in office supplies the different councils with a chairperson except the council on Foreign Affairs, which is presided by the High Representative (Federica Mogherini since 2014). The issue division in the councils is mirrored in the parliamentary committees (e.g. environment, education, economy, budget). The council shares its legislative competences with the EP and holds executive powers, too. Latvia holds the current presidency until June 2015 when Luxembourg will take over.

The „Council of Europe“ is a completely different institution than the European Council and the Council of the European Union. Founded in 1949 it is both a predecessor and a project that runs parallel to the EU as an independent organization mainly focussing on the adherence to Human Rights agreements. There are currently 47 members, among them EU Member States, as well as e.g. as well Ukraine and Russia.

Law-making in the European Union Does the EU pass laws? Not exactly! The sources of EU law can be divided into two groups: the primary source of Union law and secondary source of Union law, with the primary law ranking above the secondary. Therefore secondary law can only be effective as long as it is consistent with the primary law. The differentiation between primary and secondary law is especially important in the process of lawmaking: While secondary law is enacted by the EU institutions, the enactment or amendment of primary law is solely within competence of the Member States. Primary sources of EU law include all founding treaties of the European Union, all later EU treaties (i.e. Treaty of Maastricht and the latest Treaty of Lisbon), as well as all accession treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Watch here: How it works: Trilogue Why do MEPs increasingly often negotiate with the states behind closed doors before even voting in plenary? A look at the how(s) and why(s) of trilogues.

The EU has the following secondary legal options to legislate: Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations and Opinions: A Regulation is a law that is applicable and binding in all Member States directly. It does not need to be passed into national law by the Member States although national laws may need to be changed to avoid

conflicting with the regulation. Regulations have to be strictly adhered to in all Member States and leave no room for adjustments during the implementation process. A Directive is a law that binds the Member States, or a group of Member States, to achieve a particular objective. Usually, directives must be transposed into national law to become effective. Significantly, a directive specifies the result to be achieved: it is up to the Member States individually to decide how this is done. Directives provide a framework and give a certain policy direction, leaving the states with more flexibility and room for adjustments. A Decision can be addressed to Member States, groups of people, or even individuals. It is binding in its entirety. Decisions are used, for example, to rule on proposed mergers between companies. Decisions always address certain recipients and are only valid for them. Recommendations and Opinions have no binding force. The European legislative procedure lasts a bit longer than on a national level. The EC has the exclusive Right to Initiative, the Council and the EP decide if the proposal becomes a legal act after having discussed relevant details. General policy guidelines and statements, especially from the EP, are formulated in Resolutions. They can entail instructions for future procedures as well as regulations, which are formally valid in the Member States. Legal acts passed by the EP and the Council only enter into force after the respective national governments have introduced and implemented it within their national laws.

Institutional design of the European Union

What does the EU do? The EU is engaged in many policy areas and tries to implement its goals together with its Member States. Many options are possible: Either the Union provides money and/or expertise for projects or certain measures or it passes regulations that harmonise laws and norms in Europe and/or gives them a new direction. Furthermore the EU deals with many issue areas, in which it has no competence to regulate, but can Click HERE: EU Budget nevertheless express visions, requests and warnings in order to provoke the Member States Where does the EU get its money from, how to act. The Union is more and more visible as a does it decide about its budget and who benefits the most? We examine the EU’s single actor and is also able, in case of a budget procedure and focus in on the consensus, to speak on behalf of Europe within European Parliament’s changed role in it. the scope of the CFSP. Important areas in which the states cooperate:   



Single Market (4 Fundamental Freedoms: Free movement of goods, services, capital and people) Economic and Monetary Union (see part “Mixed responsibilities” and „The Single Currency and the Eurozone“) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP, almost complete agricultural communitarisation with no scope for action for national governments; subsidies make up a big part of the EU-Budget) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP, in general still unilateral decision making processes, however, efforts to speak with one voice in international relations; especially in peace-keeping missions and increasingly at financial and economic summits the Member States try to jointly formulate an EUopinion) Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (Free movement in all EU Member States; cross border police cooperation against transnational crime, drug traffic and to control migration) Energy and Climate Action (Security of supply, environmental sustainability, profitability, support of innovation and research)

BREXIT & the EU Watch here: How it works leaving the EU? The Lisbon Treaty now provides for it officially: a Member State leaving the EU. In fact it can just stop implementing EU laws overnight or, more sensibly, negotiate its exit. In any case it will be over in max 2 years.

Mixed competences by policy area

Exclusive

Customs union Eurozone monetary policy Conservation of marine resources Common commercial policy

Shared Exclusive if EU has Non-exclusive policy Internal market Research and Development Certain social Outer space policies policy Cohesion policy Development cooperation Agriculture and Humanitarian aid fisheries Environment Consumer protection Transport Energy

Old third pillar: Area of freedom and justice Certain public health policies

Support, coordinate and supplement Most Human health policies Industry Culture Tourism Education and training Civil protection and disaster prevention Administrative cooperation Coordination of economic, employment and social policies

TOPIC OVERVIEWS

AFCO COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS “Brexit followed by Italexit, Nexit,Frexit and Auxit; how should the EU respond calls for EU Memberships referenda in its Member States whilst respecting national sovereignty“ Panagiotis Papanagiotou (GR), Valentina Moles (IT)

Definitions and Keywords EU membership referenda put to public vote the question of whether a country should remain in the European Union or withdraw from it. National Sovereignty is the power of an independent state to govern itself. Brexit refers to how the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is commonly known, and derives from the words British and exit.

Keywords: EU membership referendum, national sovereignty, Euroscepticism, democratic deficit.

Relevance of the Topic “THANK YOU UK, now it’s our turn”

(Mateo Salvini, leader of the Northern League political party in Italy) In the morning of 24th June 2016, the European Union woke up with one less Member State; following an EU membership referendum, 52% of British citizens voted in favour of the UK leaving the EU. The Brexit vote was swiftly followed by calls in various Member States, such as the Netherlands, France or Italy, to hold referenda of their own and thus let citizens decide on their country’s EU membership. The reasons behind such calls, as well as the likelihood of them becoming a reality, may vary significantly1, however they do show that the European Union seems to have reached its hiatus. The majority of public figures calling for EU membership referenda in Member States are politicians belonging to far-right, conservative or nationalist parties, however in many cases they do seem to have the

“Frexit, Nexit or Oexit? Who will be next to leave the EU”, The Guardian (June 27th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/frexit-nexit-or-oexit-who-will-be-next-to-leavethe-eu 13

public opinion on their side; for example, a poll conducted right after the UK referendum revealed that a slight majority of Dutch citizens (50 to 47%) were in favour of an EU membership referendum in their country too. Despite standing for core values such as the respect of human and civil rights, peaceful resolution of disagreements between nations and free movement of people, the EU is a fragile political formation based on multinational democracies. Global developments such as the financial crisis and the handling of the influx of refugees from Syria and North Africa have shook people’s trust in the EU; recent polls showed that opposition to the EU now runs at 60% in France and 71% in Greece, percentages that are significantly higher than the majority of British citizens who voted in favour of Brexit2. At the same time, the victory of 3 the ‘no’ vote in the Greek referendum of 2015 was also seen as an opposition to the EU and its increasing control over the Greek fiscal policy. Quite interestingly, in 2004, 69% of French voters had backed the EU, while not a single EU country reported a negative rating. Voices for leaving the EU are heard in almost every Member State including Italy, Austria, Germany and Greece. Europeans are divided along ideological lines in their views of the EU, but this division is not a simple matter of left versus right in each society; in some nations, Eurosceptiscism is a right-wing issue, in others it is a left-wing cause. Following the Brexit vote and while the British government has not yet triggered the formal procedure of withdrawal, many argue that Brexit will be an opportunity for the EU to pursue further integration that the UK always hindered; however, calls for EU Membership referenda put national sovereignty and the powers of the EU to decide on matters of national importance back into question. Whilst striving to determine what the UK’s withdrawal will signify, the European Union should now address the growing public disbelief in the institution and prepare for the possibility of more EU membership referenda and Member States’ withdrawals.

“Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit”, Pew Research Center (June 7th, 2016): http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/ 3 “Greek referendum: No campaign storms to victory with 61.31% of the vote”, The Guardian (July 6 th, 2015): https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/jul/05/greeces-eurozone-future-in-thebalance-as-referendum-gets-under-way--eu-euro-bailout-live 14

Key Actors The only one with an authority to decide whether or not a state will leave the Union, is no other than the Member State itself. This choice belongs to the State and its people, under national sovereignty and the right to govern itself. Following their own constitutional procedures, Member States can choose to trigger the formal withdrawal procedure; in most cases, this would mean seeking public approval through an EU membership referendum. At the same time, national parliaments may also have a decisive role in this issue, alongside national governments, which can influence public opinion and trigger the procedure through which each Member State can decide whether or not to leave the European Union. A Member State that wishes to leave the EU must notify the European Council. The European Council then agrees on guidelines for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal deal must also be approved by the European Parliament. At this stage, the leaving State is not allowed to vote. The European Commission is also a major “player” in the issue; as the executive institution of the EU, the Commission is the “face” of the Union for most citizens. The Commission can therefore, upon identifying the reasons the people’s dissatisfaction with the EU, provide strategic guidance and work towards restoring people’s trust. Whether or not the EU should push its own “Remain” agenda remains to be examined. In order to fully understand the topic and how the EU should act against this rise of withdrawal tendencies of its Member States, one must consider the fact that there are political parties in many Member States, whose main political agenda is exiting the Union. These parties influence public opinion towards the disadvantages of their country’s EU membership. At the same time, governing parties in Member States have openly supported the European Union and warned against their country’s withdrawal. Last, but definitely not least, the key actor on a Member State’s withdrawal from the EU are EU citizens; they are the ones with voting rights, which they can use in order to elect pro- or anti-EU parties to national parliaments, as well as vote in a potential EU membership referendum. The public distrust towards the EU and its powers is mainly rooted to the alienation of people from the EU institutions and the fact that they feel far from the centre of decision-making processes, unable to influence their outcome.

Legal Framework The withdrawal from the European Union is the legal and political process whereby a Member State exercises its right under the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to cease to be a member of the Union. The procedure is governed by Article 50 TEU4, which provides that: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". The Lisbon Treaty introduced an exit clause for Member States who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to exit the Union and a withdrawal agreement 4

Article 50 TEU: Withdrawal of a Member State from the EU, European Parliament briefing:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf 15

would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties of the European Union would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the Council, in agreement with the State, unanimously decides to extend this period. The two-year period in which the terms of the withdrawal agreement are negotiated is known as the sunset period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and must set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union, negotiated in accordance with Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union5. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. Should a former Member State seek to rejoin the European Union, it would be subject to the same conditions as any other new applicant country. This system provides for a negotiated withdrawal, due to the complexities of a Member State leaving the EU. The remaining members of the EU would also need to undertake negotiations on how to make the necessary changes to the EU's budgets, voting allocations and policies, in order to continue the EU’s course without the withdrawing State. At the same time, national Constitutions may contain different frameworks on each country’s sovereignty and the way it should decide on remaining in the EU. A withdrawal from the EU would also have constitutional complications for that Member State.

Key Conflicts The result of the UK referendum was followed by a growing uncertainty; the EU, its Member States and citizens are now called upon to navigate through this unprecedented situation of a result that left both the British and the European society torn. In order to deal with the demands for further EU membership referenda effectively, the EU must try to understand what led to Brexit; demographics revealed6 that the Brexit vote was split along lines of age, education and class; young people didn't turn out to vote in great numbers, but those who did wanted to remain, while older people primarily voted for the UK to leave the EU. Geographically, urban and metropolitan areas showed to be the most strongly committed in the Union, while on the other hand, rural and more underdeveloped areas had the highest number of leave voters. The EU must recognise these social divisions and examine their roots seriously.

So, why would EU citizens wish to leave the Union? Much of the disaffection with the EU among Europeans can be attributed to Brussels’ handling of any issue. The link between the choices and votes of the people and their effect on an EU level, seems thinner than ever, underlining an EU democratic deficit and a need for more transparency. The people see strict austerity measures altering their everyday lives, as a cause of an EU economic crisis,

Article 218 TFEU: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E218 “EU referendum results and maps”, The Telegraph (July 1st, 2016): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-livemaps/ 6

and find disappointment in the way it is handled by the EU. The refugee crisis and the EU response to it also seem to be a cause of disappointment between EU citizens. All in all, it is the trend of creating a highly centralised superstate, where the individual voices of citizens remain unheard, that frightens EU citizens7. That is why for many, the Brexit vote seems to have gone a step further in restoring and ensurning the UK’s sovereignty and may for the same reason trigger a domino effect within the European Union. Public distrust and distaste for the European Union, however, is not something that appeared overnight and the EU should thus look for the deeper causes of the issue on a structural level.

The EU institutions have expressed their regret for the imminent Brexit, but retain an optmistic view; European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said that Britain’s exit has not triggered the EU’s demise, noting that the bloc has “decades of experience in overcoming crises”8. However, French right-wing party leader Marine Le Pen criticised the EU’s inertia and, following President Juncker’s State of the Union speech, spoke of the “funeral for the European Union” and accused him of ignorance; “You haven’t been paying attention to the ambition of people in the European Union to re-establish and retake their sovereignty and their independence"9. The European Union as an intergovernmental institution is by definition a political system that belongs only in a globalised world, which now seems to be threatened by an “exit trend”

With a rise in the popularity of national parties with Eurosceptic or even nationalist views, how should the EU respond to calls for membership referenda in its Member States?

Regardless of the likelihood of EU membership referenda being held in its Member States, the EU should prepare for the worst; to what extent should Member States and people be left alone to decide and to what extent could the EU intervene in such procedures to defend itself and ‘make its case’? How can the EU regain people’s trust in its values and prevent multiple Member State withdrawals, whilst respecting the right of sovereign states and people to decide on their country’s membership?

Should the EU push for a “remain” agenda and how? What are the roots of public disaffection with the EU and how can the Union deal with them?

“Euroscepticism Across Europe: Drivers and Challenges”, European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies (2014): http://www.ejist.ro/files/pdf/386.pdf 8

“Juncker: This is not the beginning of the end of the EU”, New Europe (June 25 th, 2016): https://www.neweurope.eu/article/juncker-european-union-decades-experience-overcoming-crises/ 9

“Marine Le Pen compares Jean Claude Juncker’s State of the Union speech to a ‘funeral for the EU”, The Independent (September 14th, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/marine-le-pen-jean-claude-juncker-eu-state-ofunion-speech-funeral-comments-a7307121.html 17

Research Material Frexit, Nexit or Oexit? Who will be next to leave the EU (article): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/frexit-nexit-or-oexit-who-will-be-nextto-leave-the-eu How Brexit is reshaping domestic politics in EU member states (article): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/brexit-reshaping-domestic-politicseu-member-states-merkel Italexit: Is the Eurozoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Third Largest Member on the Way Out? (article): http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/08/22/Italexit-Eurozone-s-Third-Largest-MemberWay-Out Brexit: the 7 most important arguments for Britain to leave the EU (article): http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11992106/brexit-arguments Will Dutch follow Brexit with Nexit or stick to EU? (article): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36722915 Frexit? Dexit? Auxit? No way. Britain is special. (article): http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/opinion/frexit-dexit-auxit-no-way-britain-isspecial.html Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit: Significant opposition in key European countries to an ever closer EU (article & poll data): http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/ League of nationalists (article): http://www.economist.com/news/international/21710276-all-around-world-nationalistsare-gaining-ground-why-league-nationalists

ECON COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND MONETARY AFFAIRS “A new Europe; with the uncertainty of the financial impact of an imminent Brexit both for the United Kingdom and the EU, how can the EU restructure its financial sector in order to anticipate the potential negative effects whilst taking into consideration new opportunities for EU-based businesses as a result of Brexit? “ Andreas Janssen (NL), Despina Dimitrakopoulou (GR, Vice-President)

Definitions and Keywords The fiscal policy of a state includes the decisions each government makes regarding the collection of revenue through taxation, and its spending. In contrast, the financial sector includes banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate, and is a category of stocks that provide financial services to customers. Brexit: (<Britain and exit) is the term used to describe the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, following the referendum held in the UK on the 23rd of June 2016. The UK-EU agreement for the former to leave the EU will opt for either a “hard” or a “soft” Brexit. In a “hard” Brexit scenario, the UK will refuse to compromise on issues such as the free movement of people, and will leave the EU single market, whereas a “soft” Brexit would mean a special UK “membership” to the EU single market, in exchange for a degree of free movement. Passporting rights are exercised mostly by multinational firms and banks in order to operate in states belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) -EU member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway-, without needing further authorisation from each individual country. Often, a company based outside the EEA, will get authorisation from one EEA state, and use its passporting rights to access the single market. Equivalence rights can be granted by the European Commission to any non-EU country, provided the latter’s financial regulations are equivalent to those of the EU. Through the equivalence deal, the EU can bestow passport-like rights for certain financial services. Equivalence is a far more limited tool than granting passporting rights, as it covers only a number of key financial areas. Keywords: Brexit negotiations, Brexit impact, Brexit opportunities, Capital Markets Union, single market, free movement.

Relevance of the Topic On June 23rd 2016, 52% of British citizens voted in a referendum in favour of the UK to leave the European Union. Consequently the new UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, has already announced that Art. 50 of the Treaty on the European Union10, which is the only provision for a Member State’s withdrawal from the EU, will be invoked before the end of March 2017; meaning the UK may be out of the EU as early as 201911. The EU and the UK now have to negotiate an agreement regulating their future relationship, the nature of which is yet unclear, as both parties are facing an unprecedented situation.

Many advocators for Brexit call for a complete repeal of EU regulation in the UK and full control on immigration12. However, in order to achieve this, the UK would have to opt for a ‘hard Brexit’, leaving both the EU single market and the customs union. This would mean that UK-based banks would lose their passporting rights, by which they can currently provide financial services to companies and individuals within the EU. This situation in its turn could have disastrous consequences; financial services and banking are the UK’s single biggest export, with the UK accounting for 20% of the EU banking business. The potential new laws on immigration would also threaten the employment of EU nationals in the UK financial sector13. As a consequence, many London-based financial institutions are considering to relocate to another major European city. The EU has to take a clear stance on Brexit, while anticipating its consequences in the financial sector. However, many argue that Brexit could be an opportunity as well as a challenge; the British government always resisted the idea of an ‘ever closer union’. With the UK now leaving, the EU can pursue a path of greater integration of its financial sector, suiting the needs of its remaining Member States.

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:2bf140bf-a3f8-4ab2-b506fd71826e6da6.0023.02/DOC_1&format=PDF 11 “Brexit: Theresa May to trigger article 50 by end of March”, BBC (October 2nd, 2016): http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37532364 12

“May on collision with backbenchers seeking soft Brexit”, The Guardian (October 3rd, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/may-on-collision-course-with-backbenchersseeking-soft-brexit 13

‘London to lose tens of thousands of jobs after Brexit,’ Fortune (June 24 th, 2016): http://fortune.com/2016/06/24/london-brexit-jobs/ 20

Key Actors The post-Brexit scene will affect the EU’s financial “ecosystem” and will be set by the direction the UK-EU negotiations will take. On one side, the newly elected UK cabinet, led by Prime Minister Theresa May, opts for the UK being out of the single market than “giving up control on immigration” 14. However, the UK’s leadership still aims at favourable trade agreements with EU member states. The UK government now has to seek parliamentary approval to trigger Art. 50; however, many MPs still remain pro-EU. On the other side lie the UK financial institutions; international and national banks, alongside multinational companies based in the UK, put pressure in favour of a soft Brexit15 underlining the severe consequences they will have to face if the advantageous routes of the single market are cut, including EU clientele, while the sterling plummets16. The European Council, alongside the rest of EU institutions, forms the other end of the line. It will have to chart this unknown territory of the relations between the EU and a state that has left it. Through bilateral negotiations with the UK, it will have to draw out the most profitable agreement, while taking into consideration the pros and cons of a looser bond with a quite independent UK. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)17 is an independent EU authority, aimed at protecting investment and promoting stable financial markets. In the case of Brexit, it is the ESMA that assesses requests for equivalence rights, before passing them on to the Commission. The European Central Bank (ECB)18, and its willingness to tackle the threats that the exit of the UK poses, by providing the necessary stimulus and functioning under the clouds of low inflation, plays a very important role in the viability of the Eurozone and the resilience of the EU against negative Brexit impacts.

“Theresa May indicates hard brexit and dismisses free movement deal to keep single market access”, The Independent (October 2nd, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-mayhard-brexit-soft-article-free-movement-deal-single-market-access-a7341886.html 15

“Banks will pull out of Britain unless Theresa May sorts out post-Brexit plan”, The Independent (November 13th, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-rbswarning-banks-pull-out-theresa-may-a7414701.html 16

“Global banks fight back on Brexit, warning $51 billion at stake”, Bloomberg (October 4th, 2016): http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/global-banks-fight-back-on-brexit-warning51-billion-at-stake 17

The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA): https://www.esma.europa.eu/ European Central Bank – Strategy on monetary policy: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/strategy/html/index.en.html 18

Legal Framework Art. 50 of the Treaty of the European Union (Art. 50 TEU) is the legal mechanism for a Member State to leave the EU. Were the UK to invoke Art. 50, this would trigger negotiations between the UK and the EU regarding the terms of the former’s exit, which may last for a maximum of two years. There is no framework or precedent as to what the Brexit deal can include or not. The agreement will have to be approved by the European Council, also having the European Parliament’s consent; the UK does not have a vote at this stage. In light of Brexit, it is also interesting to examine current agreements with non-EU countries. Norway, for instance, is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), an area of free trade and free movement of people. It is also a member of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA), along with Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland. The EFTA is not a customs union, though it does participate in the EU single market. The Capital Markets Union (CMU)19 is a plan by the European Commission to better facilitate the movement of capital across the EU. As investment is currently heavily reliant on banks, many SMEs have limited access to funding. The CMU Action Plan aims to deepen integration of the EU investment sector, so that private investors can fund businesses in other Member States easier.

Key Conflicts The outcome of the Brexit negotiations is far from certain, and opinions over its consequences are split. If the UK government chooses to pursue a hard Brexit, UK banks will almost certainly lose their passporting rights. As a result, a hard Brexit could bereave the UK from a significant portion of financial activity, and trigger the relocation of UKbased financial institutions to the European mainland. However, a number of economists argue20 that the UK will instead opt for a soft Brexit, retaining passporting rights for its businesses. In that case, the UK has to accept the freedom of movement within its territory. On the other hand, London-based financial institutions will most probably have to choose between staying in the UK and facing the passporting struggle or relocating to the EU, where financial services are far more regulated. The kind of Brexit deal that will be concluded, is not only dependent on the UK’s wishes, but also on the EU’s stance. Opinions among EU officials are divided; while some have spoken out for maintaining trade agreements with the UK, others view a hard Brexit road as an opportunity to strengthen the EU, by committing to the Eurozone and the ideals of freedom of movement of people, capital and goods. The EU’s stance on the deal will be crucial, and will not only define its relation with the UK and voices that call for an exit, but will define how the EU sees itself and its future.

Commission plan for a Capital Markets Union: http://ec.europa.eu/finance/capital-marketsunion/index_en.htm 20 ‘Why Brexit could be great for Europe’, Fortune (June 24 th, 2016): http://fortune.com/2016/06/24/brexit-uk-europe-eu-london-future/

There is a third alternative, where the UK leaves the single market but its businesses can provide financial services to the EU through the equivalence framework. However, this agreement might be difficult to achieve, as it depends on the EU’s stance. Additionally, the equivalence deal only covers a narrow range of services, can be withdrawn easily and will mean that the UK has to keep its rules aligned with the EU, without having a say in their making. For the EU, Brexit is an opportunity to push for reforms in its financial sector. One is the relaunch of the Commission’s Capital Markets Union Action Plan. Prior to Brexit, this plan seemed to mostly benefit the UK; indeed, Britain had been the main advocate for a free flow of investment. However, the UK had also been the most determined opponent of shifting market supervision powers to an EU level. In the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, several EU officials have now urged to continue the project for a European Capital Markets Union21; not only could this draw investment from the city of London, it would also significantly contribute to the integration of the European financial sector. Another proposal is to create a so-called ‘two-tier European model’22. The first tier would press ahead with much closer integration and restructuring of the financial sector. The second tier would restrict themselves to participation in the single market and cooperation on foreign policy. Member States would be free to choose for themselves the tier to which they wish to belong. The UK could be part of the second tier, as could non-EU countries that are part of the EEA, such as Norway.

What stance should the EU take in the oncoming Brexit negotiations?

Should plans for a Capital Markets Union be realised on the short term?

Could a two-tier European model provide a long-term solution for financial stability?

How should the EU anticipate the possible relocation of UK-based financial institutions to the European mainland?

Research Material Brexit: What are the options? (article): www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37507129 The EU’s stance on Brexit (articles): http://www.wsj.com/articles/paris-brussels-taketough-stance-on-brexit-1475838242 & https://www.cer.org.uk/insights/why-27-are-takinghard-line-brexit

“City to be sidelined by capital markets union plan”, Financial Times (June 29 th, 2016): https://www.ft.com/content/d8e0de94-3e11-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0 22 “A two-tier model to revive Europe”, Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/2b113d6c-76a211e6-bf48-b372cdb1043a 23

The economic impact of Brexit (report): https://woodfordfunds.com/economic-impactbrexit-report/

Equivalence and passporting (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4WsBr-vr3k

‘Signifcant’ risk to UK firms if passporting rights lost after Brexit (article): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/20/passporting-rights-brexit-uk-firmsfca-eu Capital Markets Union: unlocking funding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvvGsM3tN7A

for

Europe’s

growth

(video):

Brexit and the Capital Markets Union Plan (articles): https://www.ft.com/content/d8e0de94-3e11-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0 & http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/fs/brexit-and-the-future-of-the-capital-markets-union/

EMPL I COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL AFFAIRS I “With the OECD 2016 indicators revealing that EU countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain champion in social and pension spending but still remain on the higher end of income inequality, how can Member States design a sustainable social welfare system that directs social benefits to those who need them the most” Ilias Mavromatis (GR), Elena Odysseos (CY)

Definitions and Keywords The social welfare system provides assistance to those in need, either individuals or families, through schemes such as unemployment benefits, housing and childcare assistance. The types and amount of welfare available varies depending on the country. Social benefits refer to in-kind or monetary transfers made to individuals or households with the aim of offering financial support, e.g. pensions, family and child allowances, and allowances for people with disabilities. Social investment refers to policies designed to strengthen people’s skills and capacities and support them in terms of participating in employment and social life. Gini index (or Gini coefficient) is a measurement of the income distribution of a country’s residents. This number ranges between 0 and 1 and is based on the residents’ ‘pure’ (or net) income; 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. The number is also often expressed as a percentage, called the Gini coefficient. Keywords: social welfare system, sustainability, income inequality, income redistribution, social benefits, social model, OECD.

Relevance of the Topic In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and the poor is at its highest level in decades, making increasing income inequality one of the main challenges faced by the European society today23. The economic situation and limited growth in recent years has had negative effect on a number of Member States, resulting in lower incomes, higher 23

Income Inequality in the European Union, OECD Working Paper (April 16 th, 2012): http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k9bdt47q5zt.pdf?expires=1479574168&id=id&accname=guest&ch ecksum=64269C14F561BCDB8F8D56A67F029781 25

unemployment rates, rising inequalities and poverty. However, European countries are actually facing uneven trends in income inequality with countries such as Denmark, Slovenia and Finland having a Gini coefficient of around 0.25 while others, such as Greece, Spain and Estonia, having a coefficient of about 0.3524. The sustainability of current social welfare systems is now called into question; in the era of fiscal austerity, social spending is likely to be heavily influenced by budget cuts and thus the gap between the rich and the poor will deepen, while demographic changes bring out new demands for public expenditure related to social welfare. Modern social welfare systems have evidently proven to be insufficient in dealing with income inequality; countries such as Spain and Greece champion in social welfare spending but are still faced with high levels of inequality. The current social welfare systems are thus either ineffective or inefficient. This could either mean that European countries have not been spending enough or that spending has not been channeled to the right areas. The situation is complicated by the fact that different countries focus their spending on different areas, such as unemployment benefits in countries with high unemployment rates or pensions in countries with a high proportion of an ageing population. European countries should thus now examine ways in which their social welfare systems can be revised or redesigned in order to assure that social welfare spending is directed to those who need it the most. A more effective social welfare system could either mean higher spending or a better distribution of funds.

Key Actors Given that the area of employment and social policy is a shared competence between the EU and the Member States, both can adopt legally binding acts. The European Commission can thus be considered as one of the most important key actors, by bringing forward legislation relevant to the problem at hand. Member States are responsible for designing and financing their own social welfare systems; this results in a diversity of social welfare systems across the EU. At the same time, Member States are responsible for implementing EU legislation, enacting national legislation and working towards the of their national welfare systems, according to the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidelines. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)25 is an organisation comprised of 35 Member Countries from around the globe (North and South America, Europe and Asia-Pacific). The OECD monitors the events across its members, analyses data and makes recommendations for improvement to governments. The wealth of information held by this organisation can be of significant importance when evaluating the performance of social welfare systems and working towards their sustainability. At the same time, recommendations issued by the OECD are a powerful tool for countries which

24 25

Income Inequality, OECD (data from 2013): https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): http://www.oecd.org/ 26

are currently faced with high income inequality. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the OECD, as a member with a status different than that of a country. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)26 is a consultative body that provides representatives of Europe's socio-occupational interest groups with a formal platform to express their points of view on EU issues and helps EU institutions align their policy and legislation with current economic, social and civic circumstances.

Legal Framework On a theoretical basis, researchers suggest the existence of 4 social models across the EU, namely the Nordic, the Continental, the Anglo-Saxon and the Mediterranean27. The factors that differentiate these models mainly include the level of spending in the economy, the level of poverty, as well as how the funds are redistributed within the economy. The model which appears to be the most successful, the Nordic, is the one that allocates more spending on family and unemployment benefits, compared to the Mediterranean model, where most of the spending accounts for pensions.28 Responsibility for employment and social policy thus lies primarily with national governments and the EU has adopted a supportive role by funding and complementing their efforts, which marks the extent to which the EU can influence policy in Member States. The EU Member States have coordinated social policy when it comes to social benefits for individuals living and moving across the EU. The existing legal framework, however, focuses on identifying which Member State is responsible for covering such unemployment and social benefits29;rather than establishing a common policy and system. The measures and procedures for regulating the coordination of Member Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; social security systems have been laid out by Regulation (EC) No 833/200430. One of the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy is to lift at least 20 million people out of poverty and social exclusion31 by 2020. Through policies such as the Social Investment Package32, the Commission provides guidance on the modernisation of the welfare systems of each Member State. The Commission has also issued country-specific 26

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC):

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.about-the-committee 27

Typologies of Social Models In Europe, Karl Aiginger & Thomas Leoni (2009) (see page 3-5): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.8256&rep=rep1&type=pdf 28

Government expenditure on Social Protection, Eurostat (2016): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Government_expenditure_on_social_protection 29

EU Social Security Coordination: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=849&langId=en

Regulation (EC) No 833/2004: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Ac10521 31

Social Protection & Social Inclusion: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=750

Social Investment: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1044&langId=en 27

recommendations33 for each Member States. These documents have been produced based on the economic situation of each country and provide tailored policy advice on measures that should be adopted on a national level.

Key Conflicts Income inequality refers to differences in the distribution of income and wealth within an economy. When looking at figures across the EU, one can identify that the levels of income inequality vary across Member States. The causes of such inequalities lie in the different economic and social welfare systems operated across Member States. It could also be argued that recent economic and social developments have also influenced the economic situation of various Member States, such as the uneven effects of the economic crisis as well as the large influx of refugees. There are a number of ways of addressing problems and challenges related to social welfare systems within the EU. These could either involve legislation enacted centrally by the EU or Member States working together on the basis of sharing good practices. The uneven distribution of income inequality across the EU indicates that some Member States are doing better than others in dealing with the issue at hand. However, what should be considered as a desirable level of income inequality? Could other Member States simply adopt the social welfare systems of the countries that perform better? Recently, the European Commission has addressed social policy issues with country specific recommendations; while at the same time there have been efforts to coordinate social policy across Member States. Some might argue that country specific systems adapt and respond better to the characteristics - economic, political, historical, cultural- and structure of each country, especially given the gap that exists in income inequality faced by the countries that operate on different social welfare models. However, could there be a sustainable social welfare system that applies across Member States? A social welfare system should be reflective of the particular needs of the society. The efforts made should not only concentrate on increasing spending on the social welfare system, but should rather aim at bringing about positive social development. The social welfare system of countries of the Mediterranean model, such as Spain, Greece and Italy, operates on the main assumption that families are responsible for supporting their dependent members rather than the state providing support through social spending. That partly originates from the fact that these countries are faced with problems that require a more immediate response such as high unemployment rates and low economic growth. At the same time, in countries of the Nordic model, the primary source of financing originates from higher taxation and through the social welfare system these funds are channelled to areas such as family.

European Semester 2016 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Country-specific recommendations: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/ 28

Finally, all reforms to social welfare systems in Europe should be made with sustainability in mind; an effective social welfare system does not only provide support now, but it is rather self-standing and can continue to provide this support in the future. One could also argue in favour of indirect solutions, such as taking appropriate measures so that the need for social and welfare spending be reduced; for example, methods to reduce unemployment in order to minimise the need for unemployment benefits. However, all efforts must bear in mind the limitations associated with developing the current social welfare system, such as the limited availability of funds and their uneven distribution across Member States.

o o o

Should social welfare systems in the EU be revised and to what extent and direction? Would a radical reform of modern social welfare systems be the way forward? What effect should a revised welfare system have on the European society and in what timeframe?

Research Material OECD Social Expenditure Update 2016 (report): https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016Social-Expenditure-Update.pdf The European Social Model (article & infographic): https://www.etuc.org/european-socialmodel & http://www.debatingeurope.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/EU_Social_Model02.png Why the European Social Model is still relevant (article): http://www.ilo.org/global/aboutthe-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_238253/lang--en/index.htm Increasing inequality plunging million more Europeans into poverty (article): https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-09-09/increasing-inequalityplunging-millions-more-europeans-poverty Social welfare systems across http://www.easpd.eu/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/SensAge/d4social_welfare_systems_across_europe.pdf

Europe:

To thrive, Euro countries must cut welfare state (article): https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-04-18/to-thrive-euro-countries-must-cutwelfare-state The myth of the Exploding Welfare State (article): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theeuropean-magazine/european-financial-crisis_b_2015125.html How economic inequality harms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

societies

(video):

EMPL II Committee on Employment & Social Affairs II “Removing barriers; how can Member States achieve the effective implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020' and ensure the inclusion and active participation of people with disabilities in society? “ Eirini Daliani (GR), Riccardo Pagnan (IT, Vice-President)

Definitions and Keywords People with disabilities face long or short-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. Social inclusion is defined as the provision of certain rights to all individuals and groups in society, such as but not limited to employment, adequate housing, healthcare, education and training. Furthermore, economic inclusion refers to the equality of opportunities for all members of a society to participate in its economic life. Active participation is the right to have access to the physical, social, economic and cultural environment, to health and education, information and communication with the aim to be fully integrated in society.

Relevance of the Topic “There is no greater disability in society, than the inability to see a person as more” (Robert M. Hensel, advocator for people with disabilities). There are 80 million people with disabilities living in Europe today, where approximately one in four European families has a family member with a disability. Additionally, it has been estimated that 75% of people with severe disabilities do not have equal and full access to the European labour market and education, resulting in high unemployment rates34, income inequalities and widespread poverty35.

Disability statistics - labour market access, Eurostat (2011): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Disability_statistics_-_labour_market_access 35 Data provided by the European Disability Forum: http://www.edffeph.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=12534 30

Due to environmental and attitudinal barriers, such as inaccessible public transportation, pavements and buildings36 as well as public perception of disability, people with disabilities struggle to carry out many day to day activities. At the same time, they face barriers in their free movement within the European Union due to the lack of a mutual framework for recognising disabilities in Member States, which may result in losing benefits such as free or reduced-cost public transport when moving to another EU country. In 2010, the EU adopted the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;European Disability Strategy 2010-2020â&#x20AC;&#x2122; which marked a renewed commitment to removing all existing barriers. Despite recent initiatives such as the EU Disability Card37 and the Access City Award38, much still has to be done to remove the barriers that currently hinder the full and effective participation of people with disabilities, a reality which undermines the core EU values of dignity, autonomy, equality and inclusion and the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

Key Actors The United Nations (UN) adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which details the rights of people with disabilities and sets out a code of implementation. The UN works closely with its Member States to develop and carry out policies, laws and administrative measures for securing the rights recognised by the Convention. The World Health Organization (WHO), is assisting Member States in supporting the awareness and implementation of the CRDP. The WHO also safeguards the rights of people with disabilities and promotes the inclusion of disability and rehabilitation as a component in national policies and programmes39. In the field of social policy and protecting people with disabilities, the EU has a shared competence with its Member States, meaning that both can adopt legally binding acts. The European Commission thus brings forward proposals for new EU legislation and policy and oversees their implementation. The Commission is in charge of fulfilling the EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commitment to the CRPD and leads the efforts to achieve full integration of people with disabilities in society; guided by the European Disability Strategy, which it developed and adopted. The Academic Network of European Disability Experts (ANED)40 provides the Commission with analysis of national situations, policies and data. The ANED also manages

Disability statistics - barriers to social integration, Eurostat (2012): http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Disability_statistics__barriers_to_social_integration 36

The EU Disability Card: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1139&amp;langId=en The Access City Award: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1141&amp;langId=en 39 The work of the WHO on disability and rehabilitation: http://www.who.int/disabilities/policies/en/ 40 The Academic Network of European Disability Experts: http://www.disability-europe.net/ 37 38

the Commission’s Disability Online Tool of the Commission (DOTCOM)41, which produces an overview of the necessary instruments to achieve the implementation of the CRPD. The work of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is crucial in advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, raising awareness and promoting equal opportunites. The European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education complies with the European Disability Strategy’s aims for an accessible education system and lifelong learning programmes by serving as a platform for collaboration for the ministries of education in its member countries. Its purpose is to achieve an inclusive lifelong learning at all levels and the learners’ active participation in society42. In addition, the European Disability Forum represents the interests of 80 million Europeans with disabilities. Its aim is to make sure that decisions concerning disabled people are taken with and by disabled people43. Lastly, the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) promotes the views of over 12.000 social services and their umbrella associations. Its main objective is to promote equal chances for disabled people through effective and highquality service systems44.

Legal Framework The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD)45 is the first binding international human rights instrument to specifically address disabilities. Its aim is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity. The CRPD, ratified by the EU in 2010, obliges its parties to produce an Implementation Strategy; the EU thus adopted the European Disability Strategy 2010202046 to complement national efforts with a European-wide framework and set out a programme of actions intended to ensure that the rights of disabled people are respected. The European Disability Strategy focuses on eliminating barriers, and identifies eight broad areas of joint action for the EU and its Member States: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health and external action47. The EU and its Member States have a strong mandate to improve the social and economic situation of people with disabilities and both national legislation and the EU

The Disability Online Tool of the Commission: http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education: https://www.europeanagency.org/about-us 43 European Disability Forum: http://www.edffeph.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=10904&id=1&namePage=about&langue=EN 44 European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities: http://www.easpd.eu/en/content/about-us 45 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml 46 The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0636 47 The objectives of the European Disability Strategy explained: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1137&langId=en 42

Structural Funds48 can be used to further complement the EDS in ensuring social protection and the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities on an international level. Furthermore, the EU created the EU Framework for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities49, to complement national monitoring frameworks, on the application of the CRPD in EU Member States. Lastly, the European Accessibility Act50, proposed by the European Commission, aims to improve the functioning of the internal market for accessible products and services by removing barriers created by divergent legislation, setting common accessibility requirements for certain products.

Key Conflicts Despite the improvement of the living conditions of people with disabilities over the past decades, the economic downturn has lead to their further socioeconomic exclusion and isolation. People with disabilities face notable barriers that reduce the levels of life satisfaction, such as limits to the choice of employment, inadequate public awareness, restricted contribution to political procedures and unequal treatment due to the stigma attached to their condition. Consequently, the employment rate for people with disabilites is only around 50%, which is 20% below that of people without disabilities. While from the perspective of businesses, hiring a person with disability may seem like a burden, the benefits of such a decision may actually outweigh the drawbacks, especially in terms of tax benefits and aid for additional costs; which in turn may benefit the economic sustainability of businesses that include disabled people in their personnel. In addition, businesses that have employed workers with disabilities tend to report lower turnover, better safety records, innovation and higher productivity. Furthermore, employing people with disabilities benefits society as a whole by enhancing their autonomy and independence in all aspects of their life. In addition, there is a strong correlation between educational attainment and employment since the promotion of inclusive education and lifelong learning is one of the priority areas under the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. According to the World Report on Disability51, children with disabilities are more likely not to receive education, to drop out of school or leave school without a certificate due to discrimination, school infrastructural difficulties and inadequate services, equipment, technological aid, teacher training and support. Special emphasis is put on the insufficient provision of funds and transition between education and work, impacting especially young people with disabilities. 48

EU Structural and Investment Funds: http://eurlex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/structural_cohesion_fund.html 49 The EU Framework for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: http://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/people-disabilities/eu-crpd-framework 50 The European Accessibility Act: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1202&langId=en 51 WHO, The World Report on Disability: http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/en/ 33

People with disabilities are a broad category that includes people with a wide range of impairments and thus different needs. o

o o

How can the EU ensure the social and economic inclusion of people with disabilities and achieve the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020? Should the EU work towards a â&#x20AC;&#x153;one-size-fits-allâ&#x20AC;? approach or should different measures according to the needs and situation in each Member State be adopted? How can Member States achieve a harmonised approach with regards to identifying people with disabilities and addressing their needs? How can such measures address the diverse situations of people with disabilities in the EU? What further steps are needed to assist the implementation of the goals of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020? How should the EU try to balance immediate action with the need for a long-term strategy, similar to the previous EDS 2010-2020?

Research Material Inclusion of people with disabilities (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjluLV1F-UI The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (COM/2010/636): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0636 Better health for people with disabilities (infographic): http://www.who.int/disabilities/infographic/en/ How to achieve quality inclusive education (infographics): http://committoinclusion.org/advocacy-efforts-for-children-with-disabilities/ Political Participation of people with disabilities (infographics): http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2013/political-participation-personsdisabilities/infographics Issues facing young people with disabilities after compulsory education, Rehabilitation International Global Report: http://www.riglobal.org/report-issues-facing-young-people-with-disabilities-aftercompulsory-education/ Why hire people with disabilities? 4 powerful (and inclusive) companies answer (article):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-blahovec/why-hire-disabledworkers_b_9292912.html Inclusion Europe: It is time for the European Disability Strategy to become a real instrument for change (article): http://www.socialplatform.org/news/inclusion-europe-it-is-time-for-the-europeandisability-strategy-to-become-a-real-instrument-for-change/

ENVI I COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY I “Crossing a border for healthcare; how can Member States safeguard patients' rights and work towards removing all barriers in cross-border healthcare across the EU “ Stefanos Mantzarlis (GR), Ekin Su Yilmaz (TR)

Definitions and Keywords Cross-border healthcare: Healthcare received in a third country, different than the one where the patient is medically insured. Within the EU, receiving cross-border healthcare is recognised as a right, stemming from the fundamental right of the free movement of people within the Union. Keywords: cross-border healthcare, planned/unplanned medical treatment, cross-border healthcare limitations, patients’ rights, free movement of patients.

Relevance of the Topic The freedom of movement and residence of persons within the EU constitutes a cornerstone of the EU citizenship. As the number of people crossing European borders has increased exponentially over the past two decades, patient mobility has been high on the agenda at national and EU level52. Nonetheless, the absolute volumes of patient mobility within the EU have remained relatively small and the majority of healthcare is obtained from providers located in the same country as the patient. However, many support that the provision of cross-border healthcare can introduce more competitive markets into healthcare. At the same time, taking into account the needs of patients themselves, it is highly likely that in many cases, the most accessible or appropriate care for certain groups, such as temporary visitors and people living in border regions, may be another EU Member State. Lastly, cross-border healthcare raises issues related to the quality of care provided to EU citizens; a higher mobility of healthcare professionals could aid countries that are reliant on migration for obtaining healthcare

Cross-border health care in Europe, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (2014) (p. 1): http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/263538/Cross-border-health-care-inEurope-Eng.pdf?ua=1 36

personnel, as well as increase the quality of services provided due to the variations in education and professional standards between EU countries. The free movement of patients and health professionals has given rise to calls for better coordination of health systems and policies across the EU. Developments at EU level in cross-border health policy have been complex and time-consuming, including more than a decade of rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union due to the lack of an EU legislative framework on the matter, and years of negotiations between Member States, the Commission and the European Parliament, indicating the extent of the conflict and uncertainty facing policy-making in this area; these negotiations resulted in the adoption of the Directive 2011/24/EU on the application of patientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights in cross-border healthcare. Over the last decade, European health systems have faced growing common challenges, such as an increasing cost of healthcare, population ageing associated with a rise of chronic diseases and multi-morbidity leading to growing demand for healthcare, shortages and uneven distribution of health professionals and health inequalities and inequities in access to healthcare53. At the same time, their increasing interdependence calls for a close cooperation between Member States. Today, the EU framework for cross-border healthcare provides both for planned and unplanned/emergency treatment. However, patients are still facing barriers when accessing another Member State for healthcare, related to structural and procedural differences, the mutual recognition of treatment, a need for prior authorisation, the imbalanced costs and the level of reimbursement they are entitled to.

Key Actors The EU has a supportive competence in the area of protection and improvement of human health, it can therefore only support, coordinate or complement the actions of its Member States and cannot seek the harmonisation of national rules through legally binding acts. The Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety54 is responsible for programmes and specific actions in the field of public health, such as the adoption of EU legislation together with the Council, namely the Directive 2011/24/EU; at the same time, the European Commission55 is helping Member States address the challenges faced by their national health systems by strengthening the cooperation and coordination across the EU at a time of intense pressure on public finances, and is complementing national health policies in line with current EU legislation. More importantly, the European Commission evaluates the performance of national health systems as well as the application of the Directive 2011/24/EU in Member States56, so as to help shape or improve national and EU policies.The EU also possesses tools aimed at supporting the cooperation between national 53

Communication on effective, accessible and resilient health systems (COM/2014/215): http://ec.europa.eu/health/systems_performance_assessment/docs/com2014_215_final_en.pdf 54 Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/envi/home.html 55 Public Health, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/health/index_en.htm 56 Commission report on the operation of Directive 2011/24/EU: http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/docs/2015_operation_report_dir201124eu_en.pdf 37

authorities; for example, the eHealth Network deals with the improvement of healthcare through information and communication technologies and has put forward issues such as ePrescriptions, data protection regulations, and eHealth investments, while the Health Technology Assessment Network works towards the improvement of the relative efficacy and short or long-term effectiveness of health technologies. The EU also works closely with strategic partners, such as the World Health Organisation to improve healthcare worldwide through research, development aid, greater access to medicines etc. While the WHO is the authority responsible for public health within the United Nations’ system, the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe)57 is one of the WHO’s six regional offices around the world, responsible for WHO actions and policy in Europe. Member States are responsible for designing and funding their national healthcare systems, which in many cases were originally set up in the early 20th century; health systems across the EU vary significantly due to different societal choices and thus present structural, organisational and financial differences. Through their National Contact Points (NCPs), Member States can offer patients information on their rights as well as information on other healthcare systems across the EU, while NCPs provide support and guidance on seeking reimbursement for medical treatment received in another Member State. The patients themselves are a key actor, as they can claim their right to receive treatment in another Member State and initiate actions when it is denied or violated. The level of information patients throughout the EU receive is crucial for their choice to receive treatment in another Member State and this choice is dependent upon certain factors such as the quality of care in their own country or elsewhere, the associated costs, the complexity and length of the procedure etc. The European Patients’ Forum (EPF)58 is an umbrella organisation that works with patients’ groups in public health and health advocacy across Europe. Its members represent specific chronic disease groups at EU level or are national coalitions of patients.

Legal Framework The organisation, management, financing and delivery of healthcare as well as of national social security systems is the primary responsibility of EU Member States; however, national policies have to comply with EU laws that address healthcare issues on a national, regional or EU level.

Since 1998, the European Court of Justice had paved the way for the recognition of free movement of patients across Member States and the right to receive reimbursed medical treatment and purchase medical products abroad. Consequently, the Directive 2011/24/EU

WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe): http://www.euro.who.int/en/home Cross-border healthcare, European Patients’ Forum: http://www.eupatient.eu/whatwedo/Policy/Patients-Mobility/ 58

on the application of patientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights in cross-border healthcare59 was adopted in 2011 and was due to be transposed by Member States into national law by October 2013. The Directive addresses the provision of planned cross-border treatment; under its provisions, patients who are entitled to a particular health service provided under the healthcare system in their home country (country of affiliation), are entitled to equivalent reimbursement for the same service if they decide to receive it in another Member State, from a public or contracted healthcare provider. However, the Directive permits Member States to limit the application of the rules concerning reimbursement for reasons of general interest; for example, Member States can require patients to seek prior authorisation for certain treatments, which cannot be refused if the patient cannot be treated in the home country within a time limit which is medically justifiable. In addition, a patient is entitled to obtain a prescribed medicine, provided that the medicine in question is authorised for sale and available in the country where he or she wishes to have the product dispensed.

The provision of cross-border unplanned medical treatment is dealt with by the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)60; when an EU citizen is abroad and an emergency occurs, having obtained an EHIC entitles the patient to access state-provided healthcare in any of the 28 EU countries, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, under the same conditions and at the same cost (free in some countries) as people insured in that country.

Directive 2011/24/EU: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065:en:PDF 60 European Health Insurance Card (EHIC): http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=559 39

Key Conflicts The main barriers to cross-border healthcare within the EU relate to the structural differences of national healthcare systems and the reimbursement schemes across Member States, as well as funding issues and, most prominently, a lack of effective and complete incorporation of the Directive 2011/24/EU to national legislation. A higher mobility of patients within the EU could lead to an important increase on the number of patients treated in some Member States, at a time when most have significantly reduced their budget for public health, along the lines of reducing public expenses. Many Member States have extensively implemented a system of prior authorisation, a practice that sets an obstacle on the free movement of patients; at the same time, seeking cross-border healthcare entails a high level of bureaucracy in most Member States61. How can the EU help Member States invest further into cross-border healthcare and the opportunities it provides, at a time when budget cuts affect the funds allocated to health systems? Cross-border cooperation in the field of healthcare includes the shared use of high cost medical equipment, a process that is very little implemented62. Another major issue is the differentiation of benefits offered in each Member State, as receiving reimbursement for a healthcare benefit under the Directive is only possible if the benefit is also provided in the country of affiliation. In contrast, the provision of healthcare in another Member State is regulated by the legislation of the country where the patient is receiving treatment, which might make way for the provision of benefits that are not included in the “basket of benefits” of all Member States. Moreover, upfront payment of the treatment cost by the patient, who is reimbursed in future time, creates a financial equity barrier for many EU citizens. Although the European Health Insurance Card creates an adequate framework for emergency cross-border healthcare, planned healthcare applications are significantly less; this is mainly attributed to a lack of awareness and the difficulty in acquiring information in some Member States, as well as the limitations posed by national policies. In 2013, there were 1.6 million claims for reimbursement for unplanned cross-border healthcare but only 30.172 applications for planned healthcare. o

How can the EU make sure to inform citizens about their right to receive crossborder healthcare and assist them to receive planned healthcare abroad?

How can the EU ensure the better provision of cross-border healthcare and the patients’ rights related to cross border healthcare?

How can the EU assist Member States in incorporating the Directive 2011/24/EU more effectively and efficiently into their national healthcare systems and what further steps are needed in order to eliminate all existing barriers in cross-border

“For EU citizens, doctors with borders”, Politico (July 20th, 2015): http://www.politico.eu/article/patient-journey-health-abroad-crossborder-eu-healthcare/ 62 Study on better cross-border cooperation for high-cost capital investments in health, European Commission (November 2016): http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/docs/hci_exe_en.pdf 40

healthcare? How can the limitations posed by structural differences between Member Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; healthcare systems be dealt with? o

How can Member States take advantage of the opportunities and benefits of crossborder healthcare for EU nationals?

Research Material Do you know you can choose to get your healthcare in another country? (video): http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/videos/index_en.htm

Cross-border healthcare (factsheet): http://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/library/factsheets/epf_factsheet_cbhc_final.pdf

European Commission policy on cross-border healthcare: http://ec.europa.eu/health/cross_border_care/policy/index_en.htm

How European nations run national health services (article): https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcareservices-belgium-france-germany-sweden

Together at the whiteboard: (Re-)imagining health care in Europe (article): http://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/together-at-the-white-board-re-imagininghealth-care-in-europe/

European Patientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Rights In Cross-Border Healthcare (article): https://epthinktank.eu/2014/04/15/european-patients-rights-in-cross-border-healthcare/

The Future of Healthcare in Europe (study): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/europeaninstitute/analysis-publications/publications/FHE_FINAL_online.pdf

ENVI II COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY II “Towards a circular economy; with around 88 million tonnes of food wasted annually in the EU and the associated costs estimated at 143 billion euros, what further actions can the EU take in order to prevent food waste and strengthen the sustainability of the food system?“ Konstantina Kasiora (GR), Orestis Collins (CY)

Definitions and Keywords Food waste happens when any food that is fit for human consumption is not consumed because it is left to spoil or is discarded by retailers or consumers. A Circular Economy is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. Date marking either refers to the “best before” label, corresponding to the date by which the product is of highest quality, or the “use by” label which refers to the latest date possible which a food can be consumed by. Composting is the activity or practice of converting garden and kitchen waste to compost, a mixture that consists largely of decayed organic matter and can be used for fertilising and conditioning land. Second Generation Biofuels are biofuels produced through the use of waste material (plant waste, food waste, animal waste etc.). Greenhouse Gases (GHG) – Gases which absorb solar radiation and thus contribute to the greenhouse effect, resulting in atmospheric temperature rise. They include carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and the fluorocarbons. Keywords: food waste/loss, food production, food sustainability, food disposal, green food businesses, food banks, food recycling.

Relevance of the Topic Food waste is a matter of great concern, as it affects societies not only on a European, but on a global level too. It is estimated that between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world food production is never consumed, with approximately 88 million tonnes of food wasted annually in the EU alone63. The greatest contributor to food waste has actually been shown to be the average European household64. Consequently, many important problems arise, with food waste having an economic, environmental, social and moral impact on food security and European cohesion. It is estimated that the costs of the annual European food waste extend to 143 billion euros. Food waste in households and restaurants costs $1,060 per year for the average household with children in the United Kingdom. On the contrary, research65 showed that a 21% reduction on the amount of avoidable household food and drink waste helped UK consumers save up to 13 billion pounds. Next to the profound financial impact on the EU’s economy come the environmental effects of food waste; quite shockingly, if food loss and waste were its own country, it would be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter66. Additionally, the amount of waste related to food production and loss contributes to the further development of landfill spaces and, consequently, to the pollution of land and nearby water systems. On the social and moral aspect of food waste, while almost 800 million people – one in nine, globally – remain malnourished, nearly one billion tonnes of food never make it to the table in the EU alone. Research suggests that 30 billion dollars are enough to end world hunger67, which is almost a fifth of how much food waste costs in the EU. With a growing global population, the need for sufficient amounts of food is often regarded as the need for greater food production, but similarly, more efficient food management and food waste disposal mechanisms will aid in not only the sustainability of the food system, but in meeting this increasing food demand.

Key Actors The European Commision is responsible for the Circular Economy Package which aids European businesses and consumers in making the transition to a stronger and more circular economy where resources are used in a more sustainable way. The EU has shared

Food Waste, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en Estimates of European food waste levels, EC project FUSIONS (p. 4): http://www.eufusions.org/phocadownload/Publications/Estimates%20of%20European%20food%20waste%20levels. pdf 65 Household food and drink waste in the UK 2012, Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2012 66 3 Steps for tackling Food loss and Waste, World Resources Institute (April 8 th, 2016): http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/guest-commentary-3-steps-tackling-food-loss-and-waste 67 10 ways to stop world hunger, The Borgen Project (October 2013): http://borgenproject.org/10ways-stop-world-hunger/ 64

competence with Member States, in this area, meaning they can both enact legally binding acts. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations68 aims to eradicate malnutrition and hunger as well as promote sustainability in the primary food production industry. According to the FAO, a third of food is lost across the world. Retailers/Supermarkets are the main suppliers of food to the market. They provide consumers with necessary food for household cooking, while also supplying restaurants, canteens and catering services with the ingredients for large-scale cooking, which are the main outlets of prepared food provided to consumers. They produce the least amount of food waste compared to the rest, which is approximately 4.6 billion tonnes. The food processing industry involves companies which process food to be later sold to consumers either through retail stores/supermarkets or the food service sector. In contrast, the primary producers involve the agriculture, fisheries and forestries industry which produce and supply the market with food produce and at the same time contribute 9.6 million tonnes of waste. Consumers refer to the average individual who buys food for individual use and not for the sale of meals through a service medium. It is estimated that approximately 47 million tonnes of food are wasted within households, which is roughly half of the total food wasted.

Legal Framework With food waste becoming a prominent issue, the EU has proposed the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy69, with the main goal of achieving efficient food waste management. This also establishes an ambitious programme of action and sets a timeline. Additionally, the European Commission has adopted a Circular Economy Package70, which includes revised legislative proposals on waste, and aids European businesses and consumers in the transition to a stronger and more circular economy. Furthermore, this action plan supports the achievements of the United Nationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)71, which cover a variety of economic, environmental and social concerns and advise many targets relative to all these aspects. Such targets include; bisecting per capita food waste at the retail and consumer level and reducing food losses along the food production and supply chains.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/food-loss-andfood-waste/en/ 69 EU Action Plan on Food Waste: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions_en 70 Towards a circular economy, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growthand-investment/towards-circular-economy_en 71 Sustainable consumption and production patterns, UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ 44

Collectively, the EU, its Member States, as well as other major stakeholders are all committed to achieving the goals set by the SDG, also through an EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste72, with the purpose of supporting all actors in defining measures needed to prevent food waste, sharing best practices and evaluating progress made over time. This Platform, however, builds on the efforts of the already existing Expert Groups established by the European Commission so as to provide advice on EU-wide actions to prevent and reduce food waste and facilitate sharing of best practice. On a national level, very few Member States have adopted national legislation regarding to food waste, such as Italy73, with a law that obliges supermarkets to donate the unsold food to those in need, France74, with a similar law that prohibits supermarkets and other large shops from wasting food, and the UK75, with the promotion of the government’s “War on waste” programme, aiming at reducing Britain’s food waste. However, many Member States have yet to take decisive steps towards tackling the problem of food loss on a national level.

Key Conflicts One of the primary issues regarding food waste is that it can be traced throughout the economic cycle, all the way from primary production to consumption and finally disposal. At every stage, substantial food loss and waste occurs, which stems mainly from the lack of concern from both the consumers and generally the industry. One of the major causes of the large consumer-produced food waste is the misinterpretation of the food date marking. The two types of labelling are often confused, with the misconception that the ‘best before’ date is the date by which, if the product is not consumed, should be disposed. Should date marking be made even simpler, or should efforts be aimed at improving consumer knowledge? Additionally consumers often fail to plan their food schedule appropriately, resulting in excess purchases, without considering when the products will be consumed. Due to consumer autonomy, how can more efficient food management practices be employed? Another major producer of food waste are restaurants, canteens and/or catering services providing food on a large scale to consumers. Due to the disproportionately sized food portions provided to their customers, excess food waste occurs. At the same time though, it is often difficult for restaurants to estimate just how many customers they will have; thus they are often forced to buy more supplies than required and when business is down, they discard pre-prepared food, as well as short life perishable goods. As a result, it seems to be

EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste/eu_actions/eu-platform_en 73 “Italy to change law to make all supermarkets give unsold food to needy”, The Independent (March 15th, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/italy-food-waste-law-supermarketsa6931681.html 74 “French law forbids food waste by supermarkets”, The Guardian (February 4th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets 75 “Kitchen bin war: tackling the food waste mountain”, The Independent (June 7 th, 2009): http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/kitchen-bin-war-tackling-the-food-wastemountain-1698753.html 45

of grave importance to find ways to help restaurants reduce food waste, which will also eventually lead to greater cost savings. On the contrary, a lot of businesses have begun to adopt initiatives to reduce their food waste imprint, such as the Starbucks’ FoodShare Program76. Similarly, new businesses have prospered through the idea of making the most out of the food that would otherwise be thrown away, such as Rubies in the Rubble77. Due to the increasing awareness on the problem of food waste, many food banks that collect leftover foods from hotels and restaurants and redistribute it to those in need, have been initiated. Also, composting has started to become a common method of recycling food as fertilizer or soil amendment, something which could fundamentally change agriculture. More often than not, food is lost during poor transport and storage methods between production and processing. Furthermore, during the food processing phase, some of the byproducts may not have an economic value to the company, resulting in their disposal, such as in the case of tinned tuna, where the bones and guts are thrown away rather than reused. How can these excess by-products be further utilised and given market value? Also, just how far can food be reused without hindering hygiene standards? Moreover, as part of the Circular Economy package, the EU is aiming to maximise the usage of every food product, leading to substantial reuse and recycling. Yet attempts to place a food waste reduction goal of 30% by 2025 were thwarted amidst pressure by industrialists78. How can influence by the food industry be limited, given that it is the largest manufacturing sector in terms of turnover, value added and employment, contributing 1.6% of the Gross Value Added of the EU for 201379? Finally, food waste is the 3rd largest producer of greenhouse gases, with 3.3 billion tonnes of GHG produced annually. A large proportion of this is methane, which traps 100 times more heat than CO280. How can methane be further utilised in order to reduce the atmospheric pollution?

The Starbucks FoodShare Program: https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-food-donationprogram 77

Rubies in the Rubble: https://rubiesintherubble.com/ “EU drops food waste and marine litter reduction targets, leak reveals”, The Guardian (November 20th, 2015): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/20/eu-drops-food-waste-marinelitter-reduction-targets-leak-reveals 79 European Food and Drink Industry 2014-2015 – Data & Trends (page 4): http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/uploads/publications_documents/Data_and_Trends_201420151.pdf 80 Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown, One Green Planet (September 30 th, 2014): http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-agreenhouse-gas-showdown/ 78

Research Material Food wastage footprint (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCVrkcaH6Q EU on Food Waste (background and Action Plan): http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en Food Waste, GRACE Communications Foundation: http://www.sustainabletable.org/5664/food-waste Is food waste the next frontier for the circular economy? (article): http://www.triplepundit.com/special/sustainability-whirlpool/food-waste-next-frontiercircular-economy/ Produced but never eaten: a visual guide to food waste (article): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/aug/12/produced-butnever-eaten-a-visual-guide-to-food-waste Food waste a new opportunity for entrepreneurs (article): http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/business/food-waste-business/ Date Marking (infographic): https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/fw_eu_actions_date_marking_info graphic_en.pdf Food Waste: from farm to fork and landfill (infographic): http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/world/food-waste-infographic/index.html

FEMM COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY “My uterus, my opinion' ; with recent attempts to pass an 'abortion ban' law in Poland failing due to public upheaval and in light of the wide divergences in abortion laws throughout the EU, what common principles can Member States agree on regarding the protection of sexual and reproductive rights of women? “ Vayalena Drampa (GR), Christopher Nölte (DE)

Definitions and Keywords Sexual and Reproductive health rights (SRHR): The freedom of exercising control over one’s own sexuality and reproduction by deciding if, when and how often to reproduce. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, before the foetus can survive outside the uterus. Conscientious objection: The right to refuse to perform an abortion due to ethical reasons. Sexuality Education refers to the instruction on issues relating to human sexuality and emotional relationships, such as sexual anatomy and activity, reproduction, sexual consent, reproductive health and rights, contraception and safe sex, as well as emotional relationships and responsibilities. Prenatal screening is used to detect possible foetal diseases. Key words: sexual and reproductive rights, reproductive health, health care, abortion, contraception, sexual health.

Relevance of the Topic Following last year’s protests against the imposition of a tampon tax in the UK81, another event drew public attention on the sexual and reproductive rights of women; this October, thousands of women marched in the streets of Poland to protest against a proposal to adopt a law that would place a total ban on adoption in the country, even in cases of pregnancy as a result of rape or incest82. 81

“’Free-bleeding’ women protest tampon tax in front of UK Parliament”, NY Times (September 11 th, 2015): http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/11/09/free-bleeding-women-protesttampon-tax-in-front-of-u-k-parliament/ 82 “Poland’s abortion ban proposal near collapse after mass protests”, The Guardian (October 5 th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/polish-government-performs-u-turn-ontotal-abortion-ban 48

Despite not being always on the agenda, sexual and reproductive rights are a very broad and relevant topic that includes abortion, clinical services, family planning, access to information, access to contraceptives, sexual education curricula and an equal treatment regardless social or economic background. Member States demonstrate disparities in their standards of sexual and reproductive health, as well as with regards to reproductive rights enjoyed by women; for instance, maternal mortality ratios differ 40 times across countries in the EU83. Moreover, unintended and unwanted pregnancies are still a reality for many women in the EU due to a lack of education and access to contraceptives, the provision of which is not covered by public health insurance in almost one third of Member States, thus representing an economic barrier for many women84 that can lead to them having to deal with an abortion. In most Member States, the interruption of a pregnancy is allowed without restriction up to the first 10 to 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can also be carried out beyond this point on specific grounds. However, despite its legality in most EU countries, the estimated number of unsafe abortions varies between 500,000 to 800,000 annually 85 due to shortage of family planning commodities or medications, crowded facilities, lack of proper abortion training and inadequate standards of care. At the same time, despite being mandatory in almost all EU Member States, sexuality education standards differ significantly from country to country due to cultural and religious traditions as well as financial issues86.

Key Actors The European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competence varies as the issue of sexual and reproductive health and rights concerns multiple areas; more concretely, the EU has a supporting competence in the areas of the protection and improvement of public health and education, which includes sexuality education. The European Parliament has recognised87 that every individual shall make their own informed and responsible choices on their sexual and reproductive health, and that all the corresponding methods and possibilities should be available to them.

Regional Strategy on sexual and reproductive health, World Health Organisation (WHO): http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/maternal-and-newborn-health/data-andstatistics 84 Access to Contraceptives in the European Union, Center for Reproductive Rights: https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/crr_eu_contraception _factsheet_v2.pdf 85 Abortion in Europe, WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/69763/en59.pdf 86 Policies for sexuality education in the European Union, European Commission (p. 8-9): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/462515/IPOLFEMM_NT(2013)462515_EN.pdf 87 Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, European Parliament Committee on Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rights and Gender Equality [2013/2040(INI)] (clause E): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-20130426&language=EN 49

The EU Member States (MS) are the main source of education, health care provision and the availability of contraception. At the same time, they are primarily responsible for designing and adopting national legislation on sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as abortion or sexuality education. The issue of sexual and reproductive rights entails social, moral and religious complications. For this reason, public movements in favour or against the promotion of sexual and reproductive rights have a major influence in public opinion as well as the empowerment of individuals to claim these rights. The case of Poland clearly demonstrates the power of the public to influence trends related to sexual and reproductive rights, as the public protests in that country lead to the withdrawal of the proposal of the ‘abortion ban’ law. On the one hand, several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are advocating for the rights of individuals, namely the freedom of choice in relation to contraception and abortion. Namely, Center for Reproductive Rights88 is a non-profit, legal advocacy organisation that promotes and defends the reproductive rights of women worldwide. The Center for Reproductive Rights is mostly active within the United Nations and in courts around the world, where they seek to influence legislation and policymaking. On the other hand, antiabortion movements, often referred to as pro-life movements, are advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality. At the same time, religious institutions such as the Catholic Church tend to have a major influence on the public understanding of the issue and moral beliefs in some countries. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is developing and setting out guidelines on sexual and reproductive health; in 2001, WHO developed a regional strategy89 used by many countries in the EU to develop their national policy documents on the matter. The persisting inequalities in many countries lead to the adoption of a new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development90, through which Member States confirmed their commitment to promoting sexual and reproductive health and human rights.

Legal Framework In 2013, the European Parliament suggested that all Member States improve the situation regarding the promotion of sexual health and reproductive rights through Resolution 2013/2040(INI)91; although this instrument is not legally binding, Poland and Malta have protested strongly against it, fearing pressures on their national abortion laws.

Center for Reproductive Rights: https://www.reproductiverights.org/our-work WHO Regional Strategy on Sexual and Reproductive Health http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/69529/e74558.pdf 90 Action plan for sexual and reproductive health, WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/314532/66wd13e_SRHActionPlan_160524.pd f 91 DRAFT REPORT on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (2013/2040(INI)) Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Rapporteur: Edite Estrela http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-513.082%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN 89

Despite being legal in nearly every European country, the conditions under which abortions can be carried out vary significantly between Member States92; abortion is generally available on demand during the first trimester, however few countries have laws allowing for late-term abortions. At the same time, some countries allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions due to religious and moral beliefs, through the concept of conscientious objection. In addition, performing an abortion in a country where it is prohibited by law can lead to criminal charges and punishment brought against both the medical practitioner and the woman-patient. Only one country prohibits abortion today in the EU, Malta. In addition, Poland and Ireland have two of the more restrictive legislations on abortion, which is only allowed for strictly defined reasons. Sexuality education is mandatory in most EU Member States, except from Bulgaria, Cyprus, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the United Kingdom. The legal, financial and practical aspects of sexuality education, as well as the methods used, are shaped by the social and political views existing in each country which leads to a wide range of approaches in the Member States. The EU does not have policy-making competence in the area and can only influence national measures through recommendations. Lastly, access to contraception and sexual health is also dependent upon national healthcare systems, which present significant structural differences. The costs associated with contraception vary significantly among Member States, therefore accessing contraception in countries where it is not covered under public health insurance schemes can be hindered by financial difficulties.

Key Conflicts Sexual and reproductive rights are often the subject of heated debates due to ethical and moral implications and societal trends, which can also explain the significant differences within and between Member States. The heated subject of abortion involves complex debates, wherein the main conflict is whether abortion is a woman’s personal right and free choice, or whether it constitutes murder and should thus be punished as a crime. The reasons leading to an abortion can differ significantly from case to case, varying from a lack of access to contraception which led to an untimely and unwanted abortion, to possible damage to the mother’s health or danger for her life if the pregnancy continues or to prenatal screenings showing a foetal defect that will lead to the child’s death or to significant impairments. Despite the fact that this practice is legal in most Member States, the conscientious objection is a significant and controversial barrier that prevents women from having a legal abortion, which might push them to terminate their pregnancy illegally. At the same time, there is a wide variation of standards and limits regarding abortion and the grounds on which it is permitted, with main areas of conflict being cases of incest, rape, threat to the mother’s health or life and the freedom of choice to have an abortion. The issue becomes even more complicated when considering the rights of the unborn foetus; at which point can we establish that the

“Europe’s abortion rules- no single policy”, Euronews (April 14th, 2016): http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy 51

foetus should be considered as a human being with a right to live and how can we respect right? When it comes to sexuality education, many parents accuse may deem these classes as inappropriate for children of an early age, condemning sexual education as a provocateur of liberated and immoral sexual behaviours, such as the encouragement of premarital sexual promiscuity. On the other hand, some call for sexuality education to be mandatory in all EU Member States, as it transmits objective information on all sexual and reproductive issues, namely family planning, contraception and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.

How can Member States protect and promote the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women, whilst taking into account moral, religious and societal implications? What stance should the EU take with regards to abortion, provision of contraception and sexuality education? o How can Member States ensure equal access to contraception and information on sexual and reproductive health and rights? o

Research Material Sexual and reproductive health and rights - deconstructing the myths (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJyL-v8ZpfA EU divided over abortion in development policy (article): https://www.euractiv.com/section/development-policy/news/eu-divided-over-abortionin-development-policy/ The complex and emotive debate on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuSt4YZTG-Y

abortion

Europe

(video):

Europe’s abortion rules – no single policy: http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/14/europes-abortion-rules---no-single-policy Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHrihwWJv8o

America?

(video):

Why we need sexuality education (article): http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/social/physed/Page s/aboutwhy.aspx Youth health rights in sex education (article): http://futureofsexed.org/youthhealthrights.html

INTA COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE “In light of the EU’s accession to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in 2015, what further actions should the EU take to prevent the illegal trafficking of wildlife across international borders?” Ilias Pagkozidis (GR), Margarita Samouridou (CY, Vice- President)

Definitions and Keywords Endangered species: a species of animal or plant at risk of extinction, which may be brought about from threats such as habitat destruction, climate change and overexploitation. Specimen: any animal, whether alive or dead, or any easily recognisable part or product of them. Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT): the illegal sale or exchange of wild animals and plant resources, either dead or alive. Environmental crime: refers to acts that are in contrast with national and international laws concerning the protection of natural resources, such as illicit exploitation of resources and concealing the financial benefits of such activities. Overexploitation: the unsustainable overuse of natural resources which may occur when harvesting exceeds reproduction of wild plants/ animals. Poaching : the illegal hunting and capturing of wild animals and the illegal harvesting of wild plant species. Keywords: flora, fauna, wildlife trafficking, poaching, CITES, TRAFFIC.

Relevance of the Topic Although IWT may not be a new phenomenon, its impact over the last couple of years has intensified significantly; IWT has become one of the most profitable criminal activities, with devastating effects on biodiversity and negative impacts on the rule of law, as it’s closely linked to corruption93. Aside from the negative effects on ecology, wildlife trafficking and poaching threaten national security, as they contribute to financing militia and terrorist groups, and the economy, which in turn undermines decades’ worth of conservation and development gains.

The EU Approach to Combat Wildlife Trafficking, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/trafficking_en.htm 53

The IWT black market has been estimated to be worth approximately $23 billion a year94. With species populations on Earth having declined by approximately 40% between 1970 and 2000, species biodiversity is at high risk, and the illegal trade of such species has ranked as the 2nd greatest direct threat to their survival, right after habitat destruction 95, which often leads to overexploitation; this results in major concerns, as overexploitation is a direct detriment to human livelihoods. Wildlife is vital to a high proportion of the world’s population, often the poorest people who depend on such species for their dietary protein, traditional medicines96 and for fuel. Additionally, overexploitation harms the balance of nature, as it impacts the complex interlinks within the natural food chain; for example, overfishing doesn’t just affect the individual species, but causes imbalances in the entire marine system. As a global actor, a destination market, a hub for trafficking in transit of other regions and for some species the source of illegal trade, the EU plays a vital role in addressing illegal trafficking.

Key Actors The European Commission (EC) plays a vital role in dealing with this global issue, as in most cases the EU is either a destination market or a transit route to other regions, due to the EU internal market allowing for borderless trade. Firstly, the European Union (EU), has both exclusive and shared competences when dealing with the customs union and trade within the internal market and the environment respectively, which means it can enforce legally binding instruments in these fields. The EU has become an even stronger actor in the global efforts to combat illegal trade and protect the environment, through its compliance to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Furthermore, despite binding EU regulation in, the necessary enforcement provisions must be adopted by Member States in their national legislation. The Member States’ capabilities are often limited due to inadequate funding, therefore private businesses have the potential to offer significant resources and have direct links to consumers and suppliers. Additionally, developing countries and their citizens facing the greatest impact of IWT, as due to the lack of financial means and corruption they are not only the source of IWT, but do not have the means to combat it. Moreover, TRAFFIC97, the wildlife trade monitoring network, is the leading nongovernmental organisation which works on global-scale wild flora and fauna trade, 94

“Animal trafficking: the $23bn criminal industry policed by a toothless regulator”, The Guardian (September 26th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/26/animaltrafficking-cites-criminal-industry-policed-toothless-regulator 95 Unsustainable and illegal wildlife trade, WWF: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/illegal_trade/ 96 “Pangolins thrown a lifeline at global wildlife summit with total trade ban”, The Guardian (September 28th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/28/pangolins-throwna-lifeline-at-global-wildlife-summit-with-total-trade-ban 97 The Wildlife Trend Monitoring Network (TRAFFIC): http://www.traffic.org/overview/ 54

especially in the context of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It specialises in the investigation and analysis of wildlife trends; informing, supporting, encouraging action by governments and the private sector; and provides insight into consumer attitudes and purchasing motivations. The TRAFFIC is governed by a committee comprised of members of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)98 and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)99. Finally, the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime brings coordinated support to the national wildlife law enforcement agencies as well as the sub-regional and regional networks, through the efforts of five inter-governmental organisations; CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation.

Legal Framework The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a non-legally binding international agreement that provides a framework for its 183 Parties. It regulates and ensures the trading of live animals and plants, as well as specimens of these does not threaten their survival. Among its provisions, CITES also introduces export quotas for specimens, export and import permits as well as measures for the Parties. The EU acceded to CITES in 2015. Consequently, the European Commission adopted the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking100 in 2016; it includes 32 measures to be taken by 2020 by EU institutions as well as MS, that comply with its three priorities; prevention, enforcement and cooperation. The EU has already adopted several legally binding instruments that can be used to regulated wildlife trade and combat IWT. The Regulation No 338/97101 (Basic Regulation) aims to protect species of wild fauna and flora and guarantee their survival, through regulating their trade. Following the CITESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s footsteps, the regulation lists 4 Annexes that include both CITES and non-CITES species, which have to be protected according to other EU regulations. It also regulates the external and internal trading of specimens and requires that MS impose sanctions for violations such as trading of specimens without permit, fraudulent paperwork, improper shipment and failure to comply with the current regulation. It has also initiated the creation of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora, the Scientific Review Group and the Enforcement Group, all of which aid in its efforts to comply with CITES, but also in actively monitoring and reviewing border controls. Furthermore, the Regulation No 865/2006102 sets the rules for the implementation of the 98

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF): http://www.worldwildlife.org The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN): https://www.iucn.org 100 The EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (COM/2016/87): http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/WAP_EN_WEB.PDF 101 The Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1997R0338:20080411:EN:PDF 102 The Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1997R0338:20080411:EN:PDF 99

aforementioned Basic Regulation, such as the format and the use of permits, certificates and labelling mechanisms used in trade of specimens. In addition, Directive No 2008/99103 provides that environmental crimes, such as killing, possession and trading of species of wild fauna and flora, which may have a detrimental effect on their survival, are considered as a criminal offense. Lastly, though the EU Wildlife Regulations are binding for MS, all the necessary measures and laws to ensure its enforcement have to be transposed to national legislation104.

Key Conflicts Wildlife trafficking poses economic, social and environmental threats worldwide. The current hotspots of wildlife traffic are Central, Eastern and South Africa; the end markets include China and Southeast Asia, whilst the EU acts as a major transit point. Wildlife trafficking is a complex problem, requiring action at every part of the supply chain; the source of the specimen, the transit country and finally at the end market, where it reaches consumers. Wildlife poaching and trafficking is closely related to poverty, as residents of rural communities with few other sources of income may indulge in this unlawful and lucrative activity. This negatively impacts the local economy, as wildlife tourism can provide a large proportion of a country’s GDP and result in the economic support of local communities. Furthermore, regardless of the efforts of CITES and the EU action plan, legislative loopholes and unharmonised Member States’ national legislation often favour IWT105, with criminal groups taking advantage of the complexity of wildlife trade regulations, with limited detection risks. For example, the same species can be subject to different trade restrictions depending on its origin and on the Member State. Additionally, a heated debate has recently started among EU countries, on the basis of harmonisation of sanctions106 for members of the supply chain. The absence of a common sanction “policy” can benefit traffickers, as they opt for transit countries that impose lower financial penalties, which are proportionately much lower than their profits. On the other hand, introducing the same sanctions inside the EU cannot guarantee the elimination of wildlife trafficking as the risk of detection still runs low. Due to inadequate funding, private businesses carry the potential for significant resources and direct link to the consumers and suppliers. How can such businesses be motivated to

support the government's efforts against IWT?

103

The Directive (EC) No 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:328:0028:0037:EN:PDF 104 An overview of the MS’ national legislation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/national_legislation.pdf 105 “Lizard traffickers exploit legal loopholes to trade at world’s biggest fair”, The Guardian (November 11th, 2015): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/11/lizard-traffickers-exploit-legalloopholes-to-trade-at-worlds-biggest-fair 106 Environmental Crime, European Policy Brief (March 2016): http://efface.eu/sites/default/files/publications/EFFACE%20Policy%20Brief%2017.pdf 56

In addition to the aforementioned problems, online IWT is making wildlife trafficking even more elusive and borderless: it poses even greater threats as it is largely unregulated, free and mostly anonymous, providing easy opportunities for criminal activity. Research conducted by the International Fund for Animal Welfare has concluded that a total of 33,006 endangered wildlife, wildlife parts and products from restricted species as listed on CITES Appendix I and II were available for sale over a study period of 6 weeks. This had an estimated worth of $10,708,137 and 56% of this IWT was found on Chinese websites107. Finally, lifestyle changes influencing the market supply and demand in developed countries represents both the root and the solution of the problem. An upsurge in market need for a specific wildlife product will raise its trading value and potentially make the “source” species extremely rare - something that fuels this cycle once again. Also, the discovery and even the declaration of a species as threatened (therefore in need of protection by CITES) automatically results in increasing the market value and poaching speed108.

What can be done to prevent wildlife trading in source areas? Is current national and EU legislation providing a sufficient framework for action? What are the next steps towards eliminating wildlife trafficking? What role, if any, does the end market have on wildlife trafficking, and what can be done to combat it? o In light of the EU Digital Single Market, how can the EU ensure the legitimacy of the online wildlife trade? o o o o

Research Material Exotic animal trade exposed (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeE9MNKn-zg Big Game, Big Money: Illegal wildlife trade documentary (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzYrtRkGcuo An overview of the 17th Conference of Parties to CITES: http://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/guest-articles/cites-cop17-a-cop-of-firsts-and-a-turningpoint-for-the-worlds-wildlife/ The EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/WAP_EN_WEB.PDF

107

Exposing Online Wildlife Trade, International Fund for Animal Welfare: http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/IFAW-Wanted-Dead-or-Alive-Exposing-Online-Wildlife-Trade2014.pdf 108 “Poachers using science papers to target newly discovered species”, The Guardian (January 1 st, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/01/poachers-using-science-papers-totarget-newly-discovered-species 57

Criminals making millions from illegal wildlife trafficking (article): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/26/revealed-the-criminals-makingmillions-from-illegal-wildlife-trafficking Who is gaining from illegal wildlife trade? (article and video): http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2016/05/illegal-wildlife-trade160524184513425.html â&#x20AC;&#x153;Illicit wildlife trafficking is about people - they alone can fix itâ&#x20AC;? (article): http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wildlife-trafficking-cite-un-people-alone-can-fix-ita7233731.html Elephant poaching costing African nations million in lost tourism revenue (article): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/01/elephant-poaching-costingafrican-nations-millions-in-lost-tourism-revenue Fighting illicit wildlife trafficking (report, see pages 23-30): http://www.dalberg.com/documents/WWF_Wildlife_Trafficking.pdf

LIBE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS “When in Rome, do as the Romans do? ; with the French ‘burkini ban’ ruled to be violating fundamental human rights by domestic courts, how should the EU ensure that its Member States respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity towards the integration of Muslims in their society?” Robin Bucher (FI), Triantafyllos Kouloufakos (GR)

Definitions and Keywords Integration: The act of incorporating individuals of different religious, ethnic and political groups as equals into a society. Burkini: A type of bathing suit for women which covers the whole body except the face, the hands and the feet. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1 billion followers. The followers of Islam are called Muslims and believe in the existence of a one true God; the religion of Islam knows two major divisions, the Sunni and the Shi’a. Islamophobia: The fear, hatred or prejudice against Muslims and the Islamic culture. Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity: The coexistence of a variety of cultures, religious belief systems and concentrations of unique languages, within a specific region. Secularism: The belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country. The principle of secularism involves the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. Key words: integration, diversity, Islamophobia, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, secularism.

Relevance of the Topic It is estimated that over 20 million Muslims are living in EU Member States109; the countries with the largest Muslim populations are Germany with around 6 million, followed by France with 5 million and the UK with at least 3 million. Moreover, in 2015, over a million refugees fled from their war-torn home countries and arrived in Europe, the vast majority of which come from Syria and adhere to Islam; their arrival sparked tension in EU Member

109

“46 Million Muslims in Europe”, The New Observer (April 10th, 2016): http://newobserveronline.com/46-million-muslims-europe/ 59

States and led to heated debates on their integration in their societies, as the EU pledged to relocate up to 160,000 refugees in all Member States. In recent years, Islamophobia has seen a rise due to public anxiety over migration and the integration of Muslims in European societies110. Islamophobia has also been fuelled by the aftermath of the recent economic crisis as well as terrorist attacks in Europe carried out by Muslim extremists111, such as the attacks in Charlie Hebdo magazine or the most recent massacres in Paris and Brussels. Nowadays, Islam is seen as a threat and its followers as the enemy. A variety of factors have lead many Muslims living in the EU to social exclusion; in major European cities, such as Paris and Brussels, Muslims are living in ghettos, facing a higher rate of hate crime, unemployment and radicalisation112. The effectiveness of Muslim integration in European societies is thus called into question. The Czech President Milos Zeman claimed that “The experience of western European countries which have ghettos and excluded localities shows that the integration of the Muslim community is practically impossible”, adding an urge to “Let them have their culture in their countries and not take it to Europe”113. In this context, cultural and societal differences between Islam and the ‘Western’ society are seen as a threat to European values. The issues of Muslim integration in Europe were brought back in the limelight this summer, when various French local authorities imposed a ban on women wearing burkinis in French beaches, invoking reasons such as public disorder, the practice of secularism which prohibits people from showing a religious affiliation, as well as the fight against the oppression of women and the promotion of their rights114. This controversial measure led to intense debates across Europe; the ban on burkinis was however soon declared as illegal and violating fundamental rights and freedoms, in domestic French courts.

Key Actors The European Union has a pivotal interest in the integration process of Muslim population within its Member States’ societies. The EU’s motto itself, “United in diversity”, signifies the importance of peace and prosperity in a union enriched by different cultures, traditions

110

Islamophobia in Europe, Open Society Foundations: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/islamophobia-europe 111

“Europe’s cycle of terrorism and Islamophobia”, The Huffington Post (March 25 th, 2016): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamil-jivani/europes-cycle-of-terrorism-andislamophobia_b_9548190.html 112 “Muslim ghettos in Europe are breeding grounds for terror”, New York Post (March 22nd, 2016): http://nypost.com/2016/03/22/muslim-ghettos-in-europe-are-hotbeds-for-terror/ 113 “Integrating Muslims into Europe is ‘impossible’, says Czech President”, The Guardian (January 18th, 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/18/integrating-muslims-into-europe-isimpossible-says-czech-president 114 “Burkini ban: Why is France arresting Muslim women for wearing full-body swimwear and why are people so angry?”, The Independent (August 24th, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-why-is-france-arresting-muslimwomen-for-wearing-full-body-swimwear-and-why-are-people-a7207971.html 60

and languages. The EU has a mandate to promote integration at EU level115 and has thus set common principles for integration to be followed by its Member States; at the same time, the EU has adopted an Integration Action Plan which provides a comprehensive framework to support Member States' efforts in developing and strengthening their integration policies, and describes the concrete measures the EU will implement in this regard. The European Commission also takes an active stance against discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and religion or belief116, again by setting guidelines and supporting the development of anti-discrimination policies amongst Member States, as well as by imrpoving awareness and promoting diversity and inclusion. The EU Member States are responsible for implementing EU policies for integration, against discrimination and exclusion. Coordination and cooperation between Member States can lead to more effective integration, through the share of good practices and knowhow. Member States’ governments show different attitudes with regards to integration and Islam, with some of them publicly labelling Muslims as unwanted. The Muslim Community constitutes of people with very diverse backgrounds, cultural and ethnic origins, languages and upbringing, as Islam counts more than 1 billion followers. Muslims are facing discrimination and Islamophobia and their active engaging in European societies and fight against the violation of their rights can lead to significant progress in their integration.There are several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) advocating for the Muslim community and working towards raising awareness with regards to Islam. At the same time, many NGOs promoting human rights have taken specific action against discrimination and Islamophobia. Lastly, EU citizens forming European society are key in the integration of Muslims; public attitudes towards Islam and its followers, as well as the willingness to integrate and accept Muslims in society, is crucial for the facilitation of the process. Therefore, the way a society regards issues of diversity and integration influence the success of the integration procedure for Muslims117.

Legal Framework The EU’s mandate to promote diversity is recognised in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights118, which provides that “The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity” (article 22), while article 21 also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, language, religion or belief etc. At the same time, article

115

The EU and integration, European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/the-euand-integration 116 EU fight against discrimination, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/index_en.htm 117 “Migrant crisis: Finland’s case against immigration”, BBC (September 9th, 2015): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185297 118

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN 61

10 ensures the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the freedom to manifest, worship, teach, practice and observe a religion. The European Union provides a comprehensive framework on the integration of thirdcountry individuals into EU societies. The European Commission has adopted a European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals119 which provides a framework for coordinated national actions towards integration of individuals from non-EU countries. The Agenda builds on the Common Basic Principles for Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU120, adopted in 2004. In addition, the EU has already taken a number of further actions towards the promotion of integration121. On a national level, the attitudes and practices of Member States towards Muslims and their integration differ; for example, France is a traditionally secularist state, wherein clothes or symbols that designate a particular religion have been banned from being worn in public places122, a practice later adopted by Belgium.

Key Conflicts The integration of Muslims is one of the most contentious issues that Europe is facing and one that gets right to the heart of public anxiety. Restrictive measures such as the French ‘burkini ban’ or the ban of the constructions of minaret mosques in Switzerland123, have been met with mixed reactions; some regard them as a means to stop to the overexpansion of the threats posed by Islam, while others as an attack to fundamental freedoms. While Islamophobia and opposition to integration of Muslims are on the rise, some countries have sought to smooth tensions between locals and Muslims with the introduction of Muslim councils, independent bodies that promote cooperation between the country and its Muslim community. The reasons behind public opposition to Muslim integration vary and generally stem from the significant cultural differences and the imposition of an obligation for Muslims to adopt the values and identity of the country they are living in. Facing rejection and exclusion, Muslims are forced to live in ghetto areas and many turn to radicalisation, as a revenge on a society that expelled them124. Moreover, the integration of Muslims has become more problematic, especially after the recent terrorist attacks in France and

119

European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (COM/2011/455): http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_en_act_part1_v10.pdf 120 Common Basic Principles: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/common-basicprinciples_en.pdf 121 EU Actions to make integration work, European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/migrantintegration/main-menu/eus-work/actions 122 “French Senate approves burqa ban”, CNN (September 15th, 2010): http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/?hpt=T1. 123

“Swiss vote to ban construction of minarets on mosques”, The Guardian (November 29 th, 2009): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/29/switzerland-bans-mosque-minarets 124

“The rift between Muslims and the West”, Pew Research Center (July 21 st. 2011): http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/chapter-1-the-rift-between-muslims-and-the-west/ 62

Belgium, perpetrated by Muslim extremists; nowadays, many see Muslims as the face of the enemy, threatening peace and security within Europe. On the other hand, many argue that the need for Muslim integration is greater now than it ever was before, as the only means to combat radicalisation, hate crimes and public safety.

In light of recent developments, what should be the EU and its Member States’ stance towards the integration of Muslims in society? How can integration be achieved, whilst allowing for Muslims to uphold their unique cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics? o How can the EU promote respect for fundamental rights and address the concerns about the strong presence of Muslims within its borders? o What is the role of Muslims in their own integration and what are the responsibilities of European societies? o

Research Material 5 Facts about the Muslim population in Europe http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/19/5-facts-about-the-muslim-populationin-europe/ European Agenda for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (COM/2011/455): http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_en_act_part1_v10.pdf EU actions to make integration work, European Commission: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/index.cfm?action=furl.go&go=/the-eu-andintegration/eu-actions-to-make-integration-work Integrating Europe's Muslim Minorities: Public Anxieties, Policy Responses (article): http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/integrating-europes-muslim-minorities-publicanxieties-policy-responses How can Europe better integrate immigrants? (article & infographic): http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/07/02/how-can-europe-better-integrateimmigrants/#.WC4O8n_YXIU Integration of Muslims is Europe’s best kept secret (article): http://europesworld.org/2016/02/14/integration-muslims-europes-best-keptsecret/#.WDMZAtKLSM9 Islamophobia in Europe (article): https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/islamophobia-europe France’s burkini ban exposes the hypocrisy of its secularist state (article): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/france-burkini-bansecularist-equality-muslim

SEDE COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE “Securing Europe’s external borders; with the newly established ‘European Border and Coast Guard’ becoming fully operational in early 2017, how can the EU take advantage of its enhanced powers in order to effectively respond to the security and migration challenges at the continent’s external border?” Sofia Kathareiou (GR), Evgeny Sukhov (PT)

Definitions and Keywords The European Union’s external borders are the borders that separate a Member State from a non-EU country. Migration is the movement of people from one place to another with intentions of settling permanently in the new location. Economic migrants are thus people who leave their country of residence due to economic reasons and wish to settle in another country in order to improve their quality of life. Refugees are people fleeing confliction or persecution in their country of origin. They are defined and protected by international law and must not be expelled or returned to situations where their life and freedom are at risk. Refugees are entitled to international protection and assistance in their host country. Asylum seekers are people who have sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed. Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker. Keywords: border management, external borders, European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex, terrorism, migration crisis, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers.

Relevance of the Topic Europe is currently facing the most severe migration crisis since the Second World War. Conflicts in the Middle East have caused an unprecedented flow of people towards the EU seeking refuge or better living conditions; with the clear majority of them resorting to illegal and dangerous attempts by crossing the Mediterranean in fragile boats. The challenge of dealing with this situation is not equally grave for all the EU Member States with certain countries, such as Italy and Greece125, being particularly strained to manage the number of people crossing their borders. This unequal distribution is caused by geographical factors but also due to the current Common European Asylum System (CEAS)126 which is characterised by differing treatment of asylum seekers and varying recognition rates amongst Member States. At the same time, the horrible terror acts by Islamic extremist groups, especially their recent attacks in big European cities, has left the 125

“More than 10,000 refugees rescued in two days in Mediterranean”, The Guardian (October 5th 2016): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/05/ 126 Common European Asylum System, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/backgroundinformation/docs/20160713/factsheet_the_common_european_asylum_system_en.pdf 64

European citizens anxious and alarmed about an external menace threatening their safety. The abolition of the EU’s internal borders, as the Schengen Agreement dictates, amplifies these security concerns. Clearly, the EU Member States could not bear the responsibility to manage the reception of such a large number of people alone and simultaneously deal with the security challenges that arose. During the migration crisis, the Frontex agency, responsible for coordinating national operations, gained gradually more operational power and responsibilities. Stricter border controls have made the illegal crossing to Europe rougher, but have certainly not averted the attempts; refugee camps in Greece, Italy and France are crowded with people living under inhumane conditions. The EU pledge to relocate up to 160,000 of them in all the Member States has not been met yet127. Earlier this year, in order to minimise the migration wave through the Mediterranean, the EU made an agreement with Turkey; according to this, for every Syrian refugee on the Greek islands returned to Turkey, a Syrian asylum seeker in Turkey will be found a home in Europe. Many of the return operations are carried out by the newly founded European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG), which replaces the old European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex).

Key Actors The Directorate-General (DG) on Migration and Home Affairs (HOME)128 is the department of the Commission which deals with the policies regarding the area of its competence. Its policy portfolio comprises migration and asylum, internal security, and it is responsible for the establishment of agencies such as Frontex, European Police Office (Europol), and European Police College (CEPOL). Member States are facing uneven challenges with relation to the current refugee crisis. Member States located in the EU external borders, such as Italy and Greece, are dealing with increasing pressures in their border and also bear the primary responsibility of rescuing and hosting refugees. At the same time, other EU Member States have pledged to accept relocated refugees. Member States must agree unanimously to adopt policies in the areas of defence and foreign affairs. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCG)129, formerly Frontex, has its main role in helping provide integrated border management at the external borders. The EBCG has the ability to act without the request or permission of Member States and is responsible for carrying out vulnerability assessments of Member States’ border control capacity, search and rescue operations;,rapid border interventions and return operation of illegally staying individuals.

127

“Thousands of refugees stranded in Greece”, The Independent (October 15th, 2016): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-refugees-syria-iraq-stranded-camps-eurenege-promise-burden-share-a7363076.html 128 European Commission; DGs - About HOME; http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/who-weare/about-us/index_en.htm 129 Mission and Tasks, Frontex: http://frontex.europa.eu/about-frontex/mission-and-tasks/ 65

The Political and Security Committee (PSC)130 is responsible for the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). It recommends strategic approaches and policy options to the European Council, provides guidance to the Military Committee, the Politico-Military Group and the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management and ensures political control and strategic direction of crisis management operations. International Human Rights Organisations, namely the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)131, are important in monitoring asylum-seekers’ safety and daily needs, the number of refugees crossing the border into the EU daily, as well as cooperating with the EU ensuring the security of its external borders.

Legal Framework The Schengen Agreement establishes six measuresthat all signatory countries must implement in order to abolish all internal borders without compromising security132 and creates a single external border; the Schengen countries also cooperate and coordinate national police services and judicial authorities. The Schengen Area is comprised of 26 European countries that have abolished passport and any other type of border control at their common borders. It is constituted by the EU Member States excluding the United Kingdom (UK), the Republic of Ireland, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Cyprus. The Schengen Agreement provides for a right to temporary reintroduction of internal border controls in cases of serious threat to public policy or internal securities; several European countries, such as Germany and Austria have currently used this prerogative133. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCG) was established by Regulation (EU) 2016/1624134. The EBCG replaces the “European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union” and it maintains the same legal personality, and the same short name - Frontex. The European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur)135 provides for a common framework for the exchange of information and for the cooperation between Member States and Frontex. It aims to aid Member States by improving their situational awareness and reaction capability at the external borders, and in combatting cross-border crime. The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)136 aims to strengthen the EU’s external ability to act through the development of civilian and military capabilities in conflict 130

The Political and Security Committee: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/councileu/preparatory-bodies/political-security-committee/ 131 The UN Refugee Agency; http://www.unhcr.org/ 132 EUR-Lex; The Schengen area and cooperation http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3Al33020 133 Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control, European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control/index_en.htm 134 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624: http://frontex.europa.eu/assets/Legal_basis/European_Border_and_Coast_Guard.pdf 135 Eurosur, Frontex: http://frontex.europa.eu/intelligence/eurosur/ 136 Common Foreign and Security Policy: https://eeas.europa.eu/topics/common-foreign-securitypolicy-cfsp/420/common-foreign-and-security-policy-cfsp_en 66

prevention and crisis management. The CFSP is also used to influence policies violating the rule of law, democratic principles, or international law and human rights. The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) determines the path a person should follow in order to apply for asylum in an EU country. CEAS provides common minimum standards for the treatment of all asylum seekers and applications. In addition, the Dublin Regulation137 establishes a hierarchy of criteria for identifying the Member State responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. The aim of the Regulation is to ensure that only one Member State is responsible for the examination of an asylum application.

Key Conflicts The subject of border control is a rather sensitive one, as it involves matters of national policies and sovereignty clashing with EU-wide policies, as well as social and humanitarian concerns. The Schengen countries may share a common external border but they reserve the right to manage their own borders and they are primarily responsible for doing so. Each country carries out their border management and controls differently, either due to available resources or government policy; this results in a complex and interlinked system. The EBCG has the power to intervene in situations when it is considered necessary, even without the request or permission of Member States; however, this power is also heavily criticised as interfering with national sovereignty138. Simultaneously, others are questioning whether Frontex is the right response to this massive migrant and refugee crisis. Many are criticising the EU for militarising its external border and holding an inhuman attitude towards asylum seekers, who are fleeing from places where their safety or life is under threat; it is argued that these people should be granted a safe passage to Europe and integration policies139. Despite EU advocating for humanitarian policies thousands of asylum seekers are now stranded in refugee camps and face complicate asylum procedures or deportation. The fact that the ECBG is not monitored by a democratically elected political authority raises concerns that it may act without transparency and uncontrollably. In contrast, many strongly argue that agencies like Frontex are needed now more than ever. Many insist that in order to reap the benefits from the abolishment of internal borders within the Schengen area, there is need of a secure external border. Additionally, witnessing the terrorist attacks of the past year, many call for an increase of European coordination towards a strengthened external border140 and stricter border controls.

137

Dublin Regulation(Regulation (EU) No 604/2013); http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0604&from=EN 138 “EU to unveil controversial border guard system”, eKathimerini (December 15 th, 2015): http://www.ekathimerini.com/204354/article/ekathimerini/news/eu-to-unveil-controversial-borderguard-system 139 “More Frontex is not the answer to the refugee crisis”, Open Democracy (October 2 nd, 2015): https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nina-perkowski/more-frontex-is-not-answer-to-refugee-crisis 140 “Security and selective solidarity”, ecfr.eu (April 5th, 2016): http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_view_from_warsaw_security_and_selective_solidarity6058 67

Furthermore, there are those who advocate that the efficiency of the new agency is overestimated141. In fact, the ‘rapid reaction pool’ of the EBSG consists of 1,500 officers when in 2014 ‘old Frontex’ had a total of 1,315 border guards; likewise, the EBSG budget for the following year is going to be increased by 18%142, while the range of its responsibilities has effectively been enlarged.

How can the EU find a balance in satisfying both the demands for security, and the demands of humanitarian policies? o What is the Frontex’s role in ensuring security within the EU, and patrolling the Mediterranean whilst respecting human rights and Member States’ sovereignty? o How can the European Union learn from the mistakes made with Frontex, and ensure that the ECBG will be successful in its operations? o

Research Material The European Refugee Crisis and Syria Explained (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOnXh3NN9w Profiting from misery - how smugglers bring people to Europe (video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7OsRz4Ubeg Securing Europe’s External Borders: A European Border and Coast Guard (infographic): http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/securing-euborders/fact-sheets/docs/a_european_border_and_coast_guard_en.pdf European Border and Coast Guard-Roles and Responsibilities: http://frontex.europa.eu/operations/roles-and-responsibilities/ Frontex’s new mandate, a controversial EU approach to the refugee crisis (article): http://www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu/frontexs-new-mandate-a-controversial-euapproach-to-the-refugee-crisis/ Frontex Joint Operation Triton (infographic): http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/backgroundinformation/docs/frontex_triton_factsheet_en.pdf The New European Border and Coast Guard Agency (article): http://pacifictechbridge.com/new-european-border-coast-guard-agency/

141

The European Border Guard New in name only?, ecfr.eu (June 2 nd, 2016): http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_european_border_guard_new_in_name_only_7035 142 European Public Affairs - Frontex’s new mandate, a controversial EU approach to the refugee crisis; http://www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu/frontexs-new-mandate-a-controversial-eu-approach-tothe-refugee-crisis/ 68

Υπό την Αιγίδα της Γενικής Γραμματείας Δια Βίου Μάθησης και Νέας Γενιάς

Under the Auspices of