Preparation Kit - Hiber 2015

PREPARATION KIT

HIBER 20154TH INTERNATIONALFORUM OF EYP SPAIN

Joining forces towards development

2

Preparation KitHiber 2015 - 4th International ForumEuropean Youth Parliament Españ[email protected] | hiber2015.eype.es

[email protected] | www.eype.es

Original logo by David Teruel. Layout and design by Aritz Labrador.

3

COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - AFCO

COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE - CLIM

COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION - CULT

COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT - DEVE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY - ENVI

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE - INTA

COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS - JURI

COMMITTEE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES, JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS - LIBE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM I - TRAN I

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM II - TRAN II

4

9

14

42

26

31

38

43

49

55

4

COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

An existential crisis: In light of the 2017 EU referendum in the United Kingdom and pressure from the UK’s corporate sector to renegotiate with other Member States, how should the EU deal with the in-creased call for a ‘Europe à la carte’ and referenda that are potentially harmful to its own existence, whilst maintaining its democratic principles?

by: Ioanna Yiallourides (CY)

In or out? With increasing pressure from the UK to selectively choose EU Legislation and successfully managing to opt-out of key pieces, such as the Eurozone Membership or the Schengen Agreement, this has resulted in differentiated integration on an economic and political level within the EU. In fact, the EU is faced with major questions regarding its integration strategy and to what extent Member States are allowed to opt-in or out of EU Legislation. So far, these boundaries have been unclear, partially due to difficulties with the Lisbon Treaty.

The Europe à la carte model reinforces the notion of a multi-speed Europe, where Member States are allowed to integrate at different levels or speeds based on their political and economic situation. Howe-ver, despite the European Commission’s disapproval of tailored integration and opt-outs of policies, the-re is an evident lack of guidance on the extent to which Member States should be allowed to pick and choose, with some states even pushing for a fully tailor made approach, such as the UK.

Nevertheless, the UK has always been a firm negotiator with the EU regarding policies and adjusting them to the island’s needs. Yet, the ‘Brexit’ notion is setting a precedent to the European political lands-cape, with David Cameron planning to hold its a referendum to determine whether to stay or leave the EU. This has come as a result of growing pressures from the corporate sector and nationalist parties such as UKIP, claiming that the UK is better off alone. However, holding a referendum could cause a major chasm in the UK’s political landscape, which could also change the political landscape of the EU should the referendum fail, with more Member States wanting to negotiate or redefine their membership, pos-sibly leading to more referenda.

The EU is facing more pressure to align with its Member States on its integration policy and to clarify the extent to which Member States can be selective in order to allow Member States to decide whether they are in or out.

Additional links:

Europe a la carte: the whats and the why’s behind UK Opt outshttp://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/europe-la-carte-whats-and-whys-behind-uk-opt-outs-314379#group_positions

RELEVANCE AND EXPLANATION OF THE TOPIC

Preparation KitHiber 2015

5

KEY TERMS

‘Europe à la carte’: Refers to the idea of a non-uniform method of integration which allows Member States to select policies as if from a menu and involve themselves fully in those policies; there would still be a minimum number of common objectives.

Referendum: A referendum is a vote in which everyone of voting age can take part, normally giving a “Yes” or “No” answer to a question. Whichever side gets more than half of all votes cast is considered to have won.

Variable geometry Europe: is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integra-tion which acknowledges that there are irreconcilable differences within the integration structure and therefore allows for a permanent separation between a group of Member States and a number of less developed integration units.

Opt-out: In general, the law of the European Union is valid in all of the twenty-eight European Union member states. However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not have to participate in certain policy areas.

Multi-speed Europe: is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integration whe-reby common objectives are pursued by a group of Member States both able and willing to advance, it being implied that the others will follow later.

European Integration: the process of industrial, political, legal, economic, social and cultural integra-tion of states wholly or partially in Europe. European integration has primarily come about through the European Union and its policies.

Additional links:

Variable geometry:http://www.euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/v.html

The EU Democratic Principles:http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/OS/CIT5.php

• All or nothing? With the European Commission disapproving opt-outs from EU Legislation1 should Member States be allowed to selectively choose to opt-in a piece of legislation or should have it as a mandatory requirement?

• Does the European a la carte phenomenon, hinder integration or promotes the concept of mul-ti-speed Europe?

• Should Member States be allowed to opt-in or out of EU Legislation? To what extent? • Referendums are often considered harmful and risky, do you believe this is the best way to select the

future of the UK in the EU?

1Euractiv, Retrieved from: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/europe-la-carte-whats-and-whys-behind-uk-opt-outs-314379#group_positions

KEY QUESTIONS


6

KEY FACTS AND FIGURES

• Currently 5 Member States so far have taken opt-outs from EU Legislation2. These are United King-dom, Denmark, Poland and Ireland and the Czech Republic.

• Opt-outs have occurred regarding 4 major legislation areas: joining the European Monetary Union, being part of the Schengen Agreement, the Common Security and Defence Policy and Justice and Home Affairs (Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union)

• The UK and the Prime Minister David Cameron, has promised to renegotiate terms of membership with the EU and hold a referendum by the end of 2017 for the people to decide whether they want to remain members of the EU.

• The Czech Republic refused to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, unless the country was given an opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Additional Links:

Opt-out of EMU - UK:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/economic_and_monetary_affairs/institutional_and_economic_framework/l25060_en.htm

Opt out of JHA:http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/jha-block-opt-out/

European Commission disagreement: The European Commission has repeatedly expressed its opposi-tion to the so called à la membership of the EU. It argues allowing the freedom to pick and choose policies would lead to the negation of the European project.3

‘All or nothing’, there is a major debate within the European Union on whether Member States should reap the benefits of being part of the EU, without accepting all of the European legislation. The European Commission has been an advocate of this notion along with Member States like Germany and France. Whilst on the other hand, the UK and Denmark are encouraging further choice when it comes to opting in legislation, so that they can maintain control of important legislative agendas when it comes to them.

Additionally, there is a gulf of opinion amongst various corporations4 who have opposing views of whe-ther the UK should exit the EU. In fact, several corporations advocate that there needs to be reform for the UK to benefit more from the EU membership rather than supporting a referendum, which they argue would result in significant economic unrest and unrest.

Additional links:

British referendum and the EU Membership:https://uk.news.yahoo.com/business-thinks-britains-referendum-eu-membership-131525691--finance.html#JKJgQJf

2Wikipedia, Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union3Euractiv, Retrieved from: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/uk-europe/europe-la-carte-whats-and-whys-behind-uk-opt-outs-314379#group_positions 4Reuters, Retrieved from: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/business-thinks-britains-referendum-eu-membership-131525691--finance.html#JKJgQJf


KEY CONFLICTS

7

STAKEHOLDERS

MEASURES IN PLACE


Business Views on leaving the EU:https://uk.news.yahoo.com/business-thinks-britains-referendum-eu-membership-131525691--finance.html#JKJgQJf

There are various key stakeholders when it comes to answering the question of whether we should be promoting the Europe à la carte model or whether the EU should allow for Member States to choose which policies to follow through a multi-speed system.

Firstly, certain Member states, in particular the ones using opt-outs such as the UK, Ireland, Poland and Denmark, excluded themselves from key pieces of European legislation, such as the Eurozone and the Convention on Human Rights for the European Union (UK),5 which has enforced the Europe à la carte model. This has been further reinforced, by the corporate sector in the UK, which has been disillusioned with the current contributions the UK has to make to the EU and that these have not resulted in adequate returns. This has added pressure for EU reform with regards to economic and political affairs and more recently with demands regarding further border control and regulating further EU freedom of movement, coming from Nationalist parties. These have been the main reasons behind Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum by the end of 2017 to decide on EU Membership to appease opposition and eurosceptics within the UK.

On the other hand, the European Commission has been disapproving of the à la carte model, advoca-ting for full political and economic integration amongst Member States. This has also been the view point from other EU countries who advocate for further integration instead of a pick and choose model.

The Lisbon Treaty6 introduced a series of legislative changes to make EU governance more efficient and democratic, these also were designed to allow Member States to control legislation that they fully disa-greed with. Therefore, when it comes to key legislative areas where Member States want to retain their full powers, such as Criminal Justice7, they introduced the ‘emergency brake’, which allows Member States to block the adoption of a legislative proposal and to send it to the European Council, if they feel that the proposal has an impact on fundamental aspects of their criminal law system.

Moreover, the opt-out / opt-in system, which the UK and Ireland use, is widened under the Treaty of Lis-bon so that it includes judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.The measures relating to passports, ID cards, permits or all other similar documents now are also included the opt out / opt in system.The Danish opt-out is widened to police cooperation and judicial cooperation for criminal matters. However, Denmark can – at any time – abandon this system and choose an opt-in system on a case by case system (i.e. like UK and Ireland benefit from) or completely abandon any opt-ins / opt-outs and choose the same approach as all other Member States. 8

The Amsterdam Treaty’s formulation, entitled “closer cooperation”, was that groups of Member States

5Eurolex, Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l250606BBC News, Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm7European University Institute, Retrieved from: http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/Documents/EUDOreport922011.pdf 8Europa, Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-531_en.htm?locale=FR

8 Preparation KitHiber 2015

wishing to act together, using EU’s institutions including the Court of Justice, could ‘as a last resort’9 do so by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers, provided that none of the non-participants exercised a veto at head of government level (the ‘emergency brake’). There were other conditions, too. The participants must represent a majority of the member states, the acquis communautaire must remain inviolate and there must be a right of deferred participation by those who chose to stay out initially.

There have been several opt-outs which have taken place so far and have set a precedent for member states since opt-outs have happened from early on and the UK is not the only country in which EU le-gislation selectively applies. The biggest exception is that Denmark and the UK are the only countries who are not part of the Economic and Monetary Union and can therefore legislate about economic affairs on their own. This also means that they are excluded from European Parliament voting on EMU matters.

Secondly, the UK and Ireland are not members of the border-free Schengen area agreement and, therefore, regulate their borders with visas and passports. As part of the Lisbon Treaty, Britain also opted out of justice and home affairs legislation, in fact it did not sign the Fundamental Charter on Human rights10 for the European Union. It is important to note that none of these opt-outs mean the UK cannot opt-in to legislation in these regulatory areas. But new laws in these areas do not automa-tically apply to the UK.

Additional links:

The Lisbon Treaty explainedhttp://www.thetimes.co.uk

Democratic Improvements in the European Union under the Lisbon Treatyhttp://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/Documents/EUDOreport922011.pdf

Is Brexit a viable option?https://uk.news.yahoo.com/analysis-britain-wins-eu-games-sets-match-never-080444462.html#l-S1Uisl

9European University Institute, Retrieved from: http://www.eui.eu/Projects/EUDO-Institutions/Documents/EUDOreport922011.pdf 10Europa, Retrieved from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/charter_fundamental_rights_en.htm

9

COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate of compromise: The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) is to be held in Paris this year, with the aim of reaching an international agreement to effectively combat climate change. What stance should the EU take during the COP21 negotiations and what long-term binding targets should be set within the EU in order to ensure a sustainable transition to a low-carbon energy sector?

by: David Teruel (ES) and Oliver Stenbom (SE), VP

Decreasing our greenhouse gas emissions is a global responsibility. Some scientists predict that we have to reach a peak of carbon dioxide emissions in 2015 and then enter a rapid decline to avoid a 2 degrees centigrade (2C) increase1. Harsh predictions indicate that for every degree the temperature rises, we could eventually experience a 2.3m temperature rise2. Considering the EU’s industrial past, it is impor-tant that Member States do as much as possible to halt a rise in temperature. Internally, the EU has the EU 2020, EU 2030 and EU 2050 goals with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 80% of 1990 levels. Some argue that this goals are unrealistic 3, while others criticize them for not being ambitious enough 4. While decreasing carbon dioxide emissions should be a top priority for the EU, it is important that the EU is not alone in its emission reduction endeavour. Moving away from fossil fuels and investing in environmentally friendly energy such as wind power is one costly example of reducing emissions, and it is important that the EU can remain competitive in a global market while making these investments.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) is one place where the EU can take a stance to other nations greenhouse gas emissions, and agree on global emission reduction targets. With the Kyoto Protocol5 set to run out in 2020 and no other agreements with set deadlines in place to further reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is more important than ever for the nations at COP21 to achieve a legally binding agreement that continues after 2020 and sets the world on course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safe levels. Should the EU conclude negotiations successfully, the global market could remain competitive while investments in green energies and technologies could become more viable investments.

• EUROPE 2020: It is an EU’s growth strategy launched in 2010 to create the conditions for a sustai-nable and inclusive growth. It is based on 5 targets agreed for the EU to achieve by the end of 2020. These range from employment, research and development, climate and energy, education, social inclusion and poverty reduction.

1http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/below2degrees_tcm9-132866.pdf2http://e360.yale.edu/feature/leaving_our_descendants_a_whopping_rise_in_sea_levels/2675/3http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-environment-europe-idUSKBN0LY2L2201503024http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26446-eu-emissions-target-isnt-as-ambitious-as-it-seems.html#.VYPP0mDWx5g5http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php



KEY TERMS


• 20-20-20 targets: These targets, included inside the climate change and energy sustainability pac-kage, set three key objectives for 2020: A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, a 20% improvement in EU’s energy efficiency and an increase of 20% in the energy con-sumption produced from renewable resources.

• Conference of Parties (COP21) also called The United Nations Climate Change Conference is an international conference to be held by the end of 2015. The objective is to reach a global a and legally binding agreement on climate change adaptation and mitigation.

• Renewable energy: Is the energy that comes from inexhaustible resources such as the sun, wind, rain or geothermal heat. They replace carbon-based resources, such as earth minerals, metalores or fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas…).

• Energy efficiency directive: establishes a set of binding measures to help the EU reach its 20% energy efficiency target by 2020. Under the Directive, all EU countries are required to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain from its production to its final consumption.

• Decarbonisation: The reduction or removal of carbon dioxide from energy sources . 6

• How can the EU remain competitive while decarbonising the energy sector?• What combination of measures should be set to reach the roadmap 2050 and how can they be

met?• To what extent should the measures be binding? Should Member States have a higher level of autonomy?• Are the EU 2030 targets enough to ensure a sustainable transition to a competitive low carbon economy?

• Europe has a population more than twice the size of the US, but represents only 11% of the world’s emissions

• Statistics and recent information on carbon reduction (per country).http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_climate_change_and_energy• One summary of temperature increase depending on how much greenhouse gasses we emit.http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_fi-nal.pdf• Summary what you need to know about the COP21 talks:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks • Summaries of the EU 2020, EU 2030 and EU 2050 goals:http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm

While there is a common agreement that decarbonisation plays a key role when dealing with climate change mitigation, the 2050 roadmap presents 5 different options and strategies7.

6http://markets.ft.com/research/Lexicon/Term?term=decarbonisation 7http://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/eu-energy-roadmap-2050-infographic

KEY QUESTIONS


KEY CONFLICTS

11Preparation KitHiber 2015

The problem is that although the EU can have binding targets imposed on members in order to reach the 2030 and 2050 targets, since the energy policy is a shared competence, Member States could crea-te their own strategies and risk the EU not reaching its target.In addition, decarbonisation changes different countries energy systems in different ways since there are many ways of cutting down on carbon, which influences the availability of domestic resources. This affects energy imports and exports and the electricity prices for both households and the indus-trial sector among other things. Therefore, considering the diversity of energy systems of the different Member States, care should be taken when deciding how strict EU energy policies should be as well as which energy mix Member States should be choosing.

When dealing about the targets to be reached by 2020, with current data predicts that, the EU will overachieve is 2020 emission reduction goal. However, there is still a more local problem as only 15 out of 28 member states are expected to reach the emission reduction deadline with their existing policies and measures8.

All these different paths that could be taken are going to be debated during the COP21. There, coun-tries from all over the world will have the chance to debate and reach common agreements. The EU’s position will be crucial because Europe still represents the 11% of the world’s emissions.

Energy policy is a shared competence9 which means that the EU and Member States may adopt lega-lly binding acts in this area. Therefore, it is subject to the negotiations and agreements between them. While the EU commission sets the agenda, Member States have a lot to say as well.

The European Council, one of the seven institutions of the EU does not have legislative functions so does not negotiate or adopt EU laws. However, they have the task to determine general political di-rections and priorities. In the field of Energy and Climate, the European Council outlined in June 2014 the EU’s work over the next 5 years and included priorities such as the diversification of EU energy supplies, setting and reaching climate targets for 2030 and the completion of the EU energy market. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) make practical arran-gements for sessions such as COP21. They serve as assistants of Parties while implementing their commitments and support negotiations. Their task, as organisers of the COP21, will be crucial when deciding on the next binding agreements to be pursued. Apart from the main stakeholders, there are also companies that contribute to the development of grids around Europe (subject to national and regional legislation) and also environmental NGO’s that can contribute into the discussion of legislative processes.

The Kyoto Protocol was the first major agreement to come out of a UN Convention on Climate Change that set internationally binding emission reduction targets. Its first commitment period ended in 2012, but was extended until 2020 at COP18.

8http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_climate_change_and_energy9http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences/faq?lg=en

STAKEHOLDERS

MEASURES IN PLACE


“The new international agreement” will be adopted this December 2015 in Paris and implemented from 2020. To prepare for the conference, there have been Climate conferences in Warsaw (2013)10 and Lima (2014)11 where countries have put forward their proposed emissions reduction targets. All these contri-butions will be be submitted to the UNFCC at a national level.

During February 2015, a negotiating text was published by the UNFCC secretariat in order to keep global warming below 2ºC12.

Recently, this June, negotiators met in Bonn to keep negotiations going for the Paris Conference. They agreed to let co-chairs of the negotiations make their own changes to the current draft and present for approval during July13.

Regardless of which are the measures and discussions that will take place in Paris 2015, the EU has its own energy and climate package with a series of binding legislation such as the 20-20-20 and four complementary legislation: the reform of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the National Renewable energy targets, the national targets for non-EU ETS emissions, the carbon capture and storage and the energy efficiency directive14. This complementary legislation serve both for the EU generally and also takes into account the different Member States.

Apart from EUROPE 2020 and having in mind the roadmap 2050, each Member State has the freedom the decide on which alternative of decarbonisation to choose, a decision that has an impact on natio-nal competitiveness15.

On the other side, progress in the topic has been made during the last weeks. The G7 meeting, that took place in Bavaria, in Germany, and that gathered 7 industrial countries agreed to decarbonise their eco-nomies by the end of the century, an agreement that could potentially led to more binding agreements at the COP21 an historic towards a sustainable energy market.

Useful links:

National targets of the EUROPE 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4411192/4411431/Europe_2020_Targets.pdf

Decarbonisationhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/24/europe-and-the-why-me-approach-to-de-carbonisation

G7 Meeting stance on Decarbonisationhttp://ann-srv.asianewsnet.net/G7-and-climate-change-76405.html

10http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/articles/0086_en.htm11http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/articles/0098_en.htm12http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/governments-agree-the-negotiating-text-for-the-paris-climate-agreement/13http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/11/sluggish-pace-mars-bonn-negotiations-on-text-for-paris-climate-deal14http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm15Complementary Information: In the first pages, different ways of decarbonisation made by some Member States are analysed. http://www.pwc.nl/nl/assets/documents/pwc-decarbonisation-and-the-economy.pdf


http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/news/v.php?id=44746http://www.economist.com/news/international/21653964-why-g7-talking-about-decarbonisation-sort

The debate of whether rich countries should pay to developing ones to help transition to a low-carbon economyhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/06/paris-climate-summit-deal-west-finance-fabius

Presents some interesting questions on how to reach the objectives of EUROPE 2020 http://www.euractiv.com/video/climate-and-energy-just-transition-314574

Failure of the Lisbon Treaty http://www.voxeu.org/article/failure-lisbon-strategy

Climate and Energy Package 2020http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm

ROADMAP 2050 - http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-strategy/2050-energy-strategyhttp://www.iiea.com/blogosphere/eu-energy-roadmap-2050-infographic

EU 2020:http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/index_en.htm

EU 2030:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm

EU 2050:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm

14

COMMITTEE ON CULTURE AND EDUCATION

‘Tackling’ corruption: In the wake of the corruption scandals of football’s international governing body, FIFA, and the Commission’s call to reform the institution, how should the EU work together with sports’ main governing bodies and corporate sponsors to ensure that ‘fair play’ is a principle practiced both on and off the field?

by: Storm Gibbons (NL)



“ I am now beginning to reflect on how the European Commission, and action at EU level more broadly, can play a role in this. We owe it to the millions of fans in Europe and beyond, who love sport – and who deserve so much better. We will develop the close cooperation we have built with a broad range of sport organisations and Member States to strengthen sport’s place in socie-ty and fight the big threats to its integrity.” 1

Tibor Navracsics, EU Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth, and Sport

Two days before the elections for the presidency of the Fédération Internationale de Football As-sociation (FIFA), football’s main governing body, United States authorities arrested fourteen senior officials of the organisation after a three-year FBI investigation. The arrested officials, of which nine were senior executives of the FIFA, were charged for money laundering, accepting bribes, wire fraud, false and fraudulent tax returns, as well as obstruction of justice2. Shortly after, Sepp Blatter, who was re-elected for a fifth term, decided that he would lay down his mandate as soon as new pre-sident was elected, as “FIFA needs a profound overhaul”3.

However, allegations of corruption are not specific to FIFA in the world of sports. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been under close inspection ever since the 1998 bribery scandal, which resulted in Salt Lake City being awarded the Winter Olympics and lead to the president of the IOC stepping down. Nevertheless, the corruption scandals in sports’ most influential governing bo-dies further demonstrate flaws as regards the corporate governance of sport.

Sport has been able to become a booming industry due to its widespread popularity, the large-scale organisation of sports, and competition for television, branding, and marketing rights. With so much money circulating in the sports industry and sports often left untarnished by economic crises, it is no wonder that the sports industry is susceptible to corruption. Especially sports’ marketing compa-nies and corporate sponsors have been found to have taken advantage of this fact to secure bran-ding, and marketing rights.

1Navracsics, T. (2015). Statement following the resignation of FIFA president Sepp Blatter. Retrieved from: http://ec.eu-ropa.eu/commission/2014-2019/navracsics/announcements/statement-following-resignation-fifa-president-sepp-blat-ter_en2New York Times (2015). FIFA Indictments. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/27/sports/soc-cer/document-fifa-indictments.html3The Guardian (2015). Sepp Blatter resigns as FIFA president – full statement. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/02/sepp-blatter-fifa-resignation-statement-full-text


Sports’ governing bodies reel in huge profits annually and may even act like enterprises, despite the fact that most governing bodies are legally classified as non-governmental, non-commercial and non-profitable organisations. Due to the governing bodies’ questionable legal statuses, they can per-form their practices with very little oversight and regulations from external parties, let alone gover-nments.

This is further reinforced by the fact that sports’ governing bodies enjoy autonomy from the state at an international, European, and national level, which has been recognised by the United Nations (UN)4. In other words, politics may not intervene with the organisation and overseeing of sport, which is remarkable as sports’ governing bodies’ activities may affect politics.

Furthermore, main governing bodies in sport do not score well in terms of accountability and transpa-rency, as exemplified by FIFA, which scored lower than the average transnational corporation, inter-national organisation, and international non-governmental organisation as regards accountability5. Sports governing bodies’ low transparency scores are most likely a result of their authority to disclose information, whereas their low accountability scores are connected with their respective governance structures.

Namely, international sports bodies in many cases resemble “a member’s club”6, in the sense that all members have equal power and all members are responsible for their own actions. With these mem-bers being both part of confederate governing body and an international governing body, it is hard to blame the international governing body for one of its members’ activities.

Moreover, this lack of accountability distances these organisations from human rights violations, fur-ther poverty, and exclusion in countries which host major sporting events7,8, such as a World Cup or Olympic Games. Host countries taxpayers often cover most of the costs of such sporting events, while sports’ international governing bodies receive the largest parts of the profits.

With sport having the potential to inspire people worldwide and the potential to serve as a role model, the Committee on Culture and Education must assess how it can remove foul play from its governance in order to restore the reputation of international sport.

Additional links:

An overview of the FIFA corruption scandal:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32897066 The FIFA scandal explained by John Oliver on Last Week Tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr6ar3xJL_Q

4International Olympic Committee (2014). Historic milestone: United Nations recognises autonomy of sport. Retrieved from: http://www.olympic.org/news/historic-milestone-united-nations-recognises-autonomy-of-sport/2402765One World Trust (2007). Global Accountability Report. Retrieved from: https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&-source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneworldtrust.org%2Fpublications%-2Fdoc_download%2F137-2007-gar-accountability-profile-fifa&ei=aiyIVfSENaSvygOVwqTIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEbYmUmsU-qhxOPGC274r2OEhPNOSg&bvm=bv.96339352,d.bGQ6Stromberg, J. (2015). A sports governance expert explains why FIFA is so corrupt – and how to fix it.Retrieved from: http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8671925/how-to-fix-fifa7Bloomer, P., Neiva, J.M. (2014). Brazil World Cup: Fifa and business miss an open goal for human rights.Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/brazil-world-cup-fifa-business-goal-human-rights8Human Rights Watch (2014). Qatar. Retrieved from: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar


Outcomes of European Parliament plenary session about FIFA:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150604IPR62873/html/FIFA-Parlia-ment-calls-for-new-interim-president

• Fair play – Fair play is a concept that encompasses more than solely abiding by rules, respecting one another and playing in the right spirit on the field. It is a concept that can enrich society if practiced properly, but also includes the elimination of cheating, gamesmanship, doping, unequal opportunities, excessive commercialisation, and corruption9. The responsibility of fair play is sha-red amongst governments, sports-related organisations, and individuals.

• Corruption – The definition that the European Commission uses for corruption is “the abuse of power for private gain”, as defined by the United Nations’ Global Programme against Corruption. The term may include activities, such as money laundering, fraud, and bribery.

• Corporate governance – a framework of rules and practices that strives to ensure accountability, fairness, and transparency in relation to all its stakeholders.

• Autonomy of sport – The United Nation’s recognition of the autonomy of sport implies that sports’ governing bodies have sole competence in overseeing and organising sport.

• Article 83 TFEU – states that the EU can adopt directives establishing minimum rules on the de-finitions of crimes and sanctions, when serious crimes are committed, which have cross-border dimensions. This may in certain cases, such as with money laundering and corruption, apply to sport and its governing bodies.

• Article 126 TFEU – explains the EU’s supporting and supplementing competence in Member States sports’ policies, as well as stating that it is the EU’s role to promote European sporting issues and that the EU may further develop cooperation with sports’ international governing bodies10.

• How can the EU ensure good corporate governance in sport if sports’ governing bodies choose not to cooperate?

• Which responsibilities should belong to sports’ main governing bodies?• To what extent should the EU be able to intervene in cases of corruption and other serious crimes?• How can corporate sponsors and banks help remove corruption from sports’ governing bodies?• Should the EU’s competence in sports policy be extended by means of a Treaty Change?

• Despite being a non-profit organisation, FIFA approximately made a profit of €128 million and paid out €37 million in salaries to its top thirteen executives11.

9UNESCO (2015). Fair play – the winning way. Retrieved from: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2223&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html10Treaty on the Function of the European Union (2010). Article 165. Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2010.083.01.0001.01.ENG11Huffington Post (2015). FIFA profits are incredibly high for a non-profit organisation. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/30/fifa-profits-sepp-blatter-_n_7474808.html

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS



• In a 2007 Global Accountability Report by OneTrust, FIFA scored 27% on transparency and 37% on accountability12.

• FIFA’s current major sponsors are VISA, Adidas, Coca Cola, and Hyundai, which together deliver an estimated amount of over €1 billion in financial support13.

The European Union has the supporting and supplementing competence in sports policy under the Treaty of Lisbon. Having this competence in the area of sport, means that the European Union can ini-tiate legislation, which facilitates Member States’ respective efforts in the area of sport. Importantly, the EU cannot harmonise legislation in the area of sport amongst its Member States, which makes it difficult to ensure mutual progress. Furthermore, Member States do not have the competence to in-tervene in the governance and organisation of their respective national governing bodies, according to the principle of the autonomy of sport, yet can draft legislation in other areas of sports policy.

Effectively, the EU can only influence sports’ governing bodies governance if those bodies agree to cooperate. In example, the UEFA has worked together with the Council of Europe to promote good governance in sport, as well as supporting Communications by the European Commission and a 2012 European Parliament reports14. Similarly, the United Nations, the IOC, and the FIFA have forged a close relationship. However, whenever it has come to political intervention, sports’ governing bodies have warned off governments, due to a lack of legal justification for such actions.

Due to complex institutional set-up of sports’ international governing bodies, it can be the case that national governing bodies or even a governing body of a federation may agree with Member States and the EU, but cannot take any action at an international level. In the run-up to the election for presidency of the FIFA, this was exemplified by the UEFA’s and EU’s common stance that Sepp Bla-tter should stand down from the elections, due to the systemic corruption in FIFA under his reign. However, with FIFA’s profits being split amongst its national associations equally, many national as-sociations receive disproportionately large amounts of money to devote to their activities and as a result, they are very unlikely to press for changes within the FIFA nor to vote for a more progressive leader. This example demonstrates the difficulties the EU would face in changing the governance of an international governing body, even if the EU and a European governing body in sport would take a collective stance.

Calls for corporate sponsors to withdraw their financial support from such governing bodies have been commonplace. However, corporate sponsors ultimately profit a lot from supporting major sporting events and argue that they are not supporting sports’ governing bodies, but hugely popular sporting events. Shockingly, FIFA allegedly insisted Brazil changed a law, which banned beer from stadiums due to consequent violence and deaths, in advance of the 2014 World Cup to ensure a funding from one of its corporate sponsors, Budweiser15. In other words, sports’ governing bodies can currently be-come powerful enough to assert political pressure on countries’ legislation, whilst current legislation leaves sports’ governing bodies untouchable.

12See Footnote 6.13Fraser, I. (2015). Fifa’s finances – where does all the money come from? Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/fifa/11635985/Fifas-finances-where-does-all-the-money-co-me-from.html14Union of European Football Associations (2014). UEFA and the European Institutions. Retrieved from: http://www.uefa.org/stakeholders/europeanunion/15Oliver, J. (2014). Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: FIFA and the World Cup. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJEt2KU33I

KEY CONFLICTS


STAKEHOLDERS

With sports clearly having become commercial industries, their activities must, however, comply with certain existing legislation in their Member States, such as financial and market regulations. However, in light of the recent FIFA scandal a group of anti-money-laundering agencies, the Financial Action Task Force, stated that banks did not do enough to police suspicious financial activities. Transactions made between FIFA executives, governments, and sports marketing companies were allowed to pass through a plethora of banks worldwide, including European ones.

Additional links:

A World Cup boycott as potential solution:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/31/us-soccer-fifa-idUSKBN0OG0JP20150531

Corporate sponsors could pile pressure on FIFA to reform:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fifa-key-sponsors-visa-adidas-and-cocacola-pi-le-on-pressure-in-wake-of-corruption-scandal-10280496.html

Corporate sponsors’ benefits from sponsorship FIFA:http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/30/why-businesses-still-need-fifa-sponsorship

Banks to step up their policing of financial transactions in the wake of FIFA scandal:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/21/us-soccer-fifa-banks-exclusive-idUSKBN0P10TB20150621

Complexities of sport legislation:http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/regulation-a-governance/item/sport-politics

FIFA reluctant towards political intervention:http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/20/uk-soccer-fifa-politics-idUKKBN0MG20F20150320

• Sports’ governing bodies – At an international, confederate, and national level sports’ governing bodies have a strong interest in the way they can govern and have previously made clear that they oppose political intervention therein.

• Sport Unit of Directorate General for Education and Culture – Understanding the important role sport plays in EU citizens’ lives and its role model potential, the EU has an interest in its gover-nance and supports Member States’ efforts to promote European sporting issues in its legislation of sports policy. Functioning as the sport department of the European Commission, the Sport Unit of Directorate General for Education and Culture is the main institutional EU actor in this topic.

• Member States – With sport place being governed by respective national governing bodies in Member States, as well as Member States working together with national governing bodies in sports to table bids to host major sporting events, Member States have an interest in good gover-nance and compliance with national legislation.

19

MEASURES IN PLACE


• The Council of Europe – Not to be confused with the European Council (EC), the Council of Euro-pe (CoE) is no part of the European Union and promotes three core values: human rights, demo-cracy, and the rule of law. As sport contributes to the promotion of its core values, by increasing social integration and cohesion, the CoE has several charters and agreements in place in the area of sport, mainly serving as recommendations to reach common goals.

• United Nations – Having recognised the autonomy of sport and sport being governed at an in-ternational level, any action taken by the EU cannot oppose the position of the United Nations concerning sports nor its programmes.

• Corporate sponsors – As corporate sponsors form the main form of income for sports’ main go-verning bodies and corporate sponsors profiting greatly themselves from their partnerships, cor-porate sponsors have both financial power and interests in relation to sports’ governing bodies.

• Banks – As corruption takes place through financial transactions and banks are responsible for policing suspicious financial transactions, banks must oversee transactions between sports’ go-verning bodies, organisations, and individuals.

Sport has been a topic on the European agenda since before the EU was established. The Council of Europe adopted the European Sport for All Charter in 1976, which called for common principles in European sports policy to ensure all citizens can take part in sport. Building upon these principles, the CoE adopted and revised the European Sports Charter in 1992 and 2001 respectively, thereby providing a framework for sports policy in Europe and a balance between governmental and non-go-vernmental responsibility.

The Code of Sport Ethics, adopted in 1992, served as an amendment of the previous charter and was based on the principle that ethics are fundamental to fair play, applying to sports activity, sports management, and sports policy, in both recreational and competitive sport.

However, the most relevant work in the area of sport is the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS), which was established in 2007 to promote pan-European cooperation in addressing sporting issues, such as fair play and its governance. Partners of the agreement include the EU, UN, UEFA and Interpol.

The Treaty of Lisbon, which was signed in 2007 and entered into force in 2009, was the first EU treaty to include an article on sport and defined the EU’s competence the in sports policy, namely suppor-ting and supplementing. The Commission next issued the 2007 White Paper on Sport, which noted that most challenges sport faces can be solved by means of self-regulation, given sports’ governing bodies are well governed.

However, the Commission’s 2011 Communication on Developing the European Dimension in Sport added that sports’ autonomy and self-regulation can only be recognised, if good governance is applied. Building on this statement, the Commission initiated a Preparatory Action in 2011, which served to prepare the EU for future actions in sport and would finance 35 projects in line with its ob-jectives of good governance and organisation in sport in 2012 and 2013.


Moreover, the Commission established an EU Expert Group on Good Governance in 2011, based on the Council Resolution on an EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014. The Council stated that by promoting sustainable, smart and inclusive growth, and job creation, sport also contributes to the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy.The resolution’s main themes are the integrity, social values, and economic aspects of sport.

The EU Expert Group on Good Governance served until 2014 and based on their findings, adopted the Recommendations on the Principles for Good Governance in Sport at the end of their term, which would form the basis of the Council Resolution on an EU Work Plan for Sport 2014-2017. The most interesting point is the establishment of five nationals expert groups, which will amongst other things focus on good governance, match-fixing, and sport’s economic dimension.

Furthermore, the EU has decided to support sport with its Erasmus+ programme 2014-2020, which in the field of sports aims to tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of sport, promotes good gover-nance, and promotes voluntary activities in sport.

Additional Links

Overview of existing European Union measures in sport:http://ec.europa.eu/sport/policy/organisation_of_sport/good_governance_en.htm

Overview of existing Council of Europe measures in sport:http://www.europewatchdog.info/en/international-treaties/partial-agreements/agreement_on_sport/

21

COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPMENT

Powering global prosperity: With the Millennium Development Goals expiring in 2015 and the Sustai-nable Development Goals (SDGs) set to be negotiated as their follow-up, what should the EU’s priori-ties be in setting these targets and what steps should the EU take to adequately achieve them?

by: Triin Kaup (EE)



In 2000, the United Nations (UN) Millennium Summit1 was held and 149 Heads of State and Governments unanimously adopted the Millennium Declaration2 and set out targets known as the Millennium Deve-lopment Goals (MDGs), which had a 2015 deadline. As the MDGs are expiring, the United Nations Rio+20 Conference set out 17 new goals called the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 20123 which build upon the MDGs and serve as the core of the new goals. The UN Summit will take place this year 25-27 September to agree upon a new agenda under the slogan “Nobody will be left behind”4. Whilst the Mi-llennium Goals made a difference in large areas of the society, the goals were not fully met. The goals themselves include various areas from extreme poverty, the spread of AIDS, and primary education and environmental sustainability.5 A report published in 2014 about the progress of MDGs show that impro-vements have been made in the eight MDG areas, but it also points out that more needs to be done in the areas of environment, child mortality, and hunger6.

EU has drafted a vision on the SDGs in “A Decent Life for All: From Vision to Collective Action”, where the European Commission suggest priority areas. Furthermore, the document emphasises cooperation on a global level to develop goals in the areas of human rights-based approach, climate change and good governance7. The 2015 UN meeting is taking place in September and therefore the concrete stance on the post-2015 goals and aims are still being formulated.

Additional links:

8 Millennium Development Goals: What We Met and Missed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5giOGjj5X8

Comparing the MDGs and the SDGs.http://citiscope.org/story/2014/comparing-mdgs-and-sdgs

1Millennium Summit (6-8 September 2000). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/events/pastevents/millennium_summit.shtml 2United Nations Millennium Declaration. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/55/2 317 Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals 4Zero draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/7261Post-2015%20Summit%20-%202%20June%202015.pdf 5About MDGs. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/ 6The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf 7EC Adopts Communication on SDGs. Retrieved from http://sd.iisd.org/news/ec-adopts-communication-on-sdgs/


Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Eco-nomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. “A Decent Life for All: From Vision to Collective Action”. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:441ba0c0-eb02-11e3-8cd4-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

• Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – eight goals agreed by United Nations Member States and the world’s leading development institutions8.

• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – 17 proposed goals in the Rio+20 Conference, which build upon the MDGs. The framework will be universal and apply to all, on the basis of a partners-hip between all countries, as well as with civil society and the private sector9.

• Means of implementation’ – the technical term that refers to the exact mechanics by which the MDGs will be achieved. These include the financial and technological elements that will be inclu-ded.

Additional links:

Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/970&Lang=E

Means of implementation.http://www.socialwatch.org/node/16518

• Which kind of areas should be tackled in the new development agenda for 2015-2030?• Is there a need for a concrete framework for development, whilst taking into account that MDGs

did not fully succeed?• Which areas should the EU try to push for including in the agenda?• How is it possible to make sure that the new goals are not failing?

Additional links

What’s Wrong with the Millennium Development Goals? Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/files/3940_file_WWMGD.pdf

Priority areas and potential target topics of the EU Communication report. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:441ba0c0-eb02-11e3-8cd4-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_2&format=PDF

• In September 2000, 189 countries signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration and commit-ted themselves to achieve the eight Millennium Development Goals.

8United Nations Millennium Goals. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 9Commission presents proposal to address global poverty and sustainable development. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-620_en.htm

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS



• The MDGs expire on 31st of December 2015 and the UN General Assembly is expected to agree on a replacement for the current Millennium Development Goals in September 2015

• One of the main outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, was the agreement by Member States to launch a process to develop a set of SDGs

• If Member States agree the draft set of 17 SDGs at a UN summit in New York in September, they will become applicable from January 2016. The expected deadline for the SDGS is 2030

Additional links:

MDGs – Goals and Targets, and Indicators for Monitoring Process. http://www.unicef.org/statistics/index_24304.html

“It is now recognized that, for the first time, the world has the technology and resources to eradicate extreme poverty in our lifetime.”

Andris Piebalgs

The Millennium Development Goals try to tackle many areas for a good cause, however some find them lacking data and hard to recognise how efficient they are without knowing the world without those goals 10. Some find them overly-ambitious11 and it has been also pointed out that no concre-te individual nor organisation is fully responsible for achieving the MDGs 12. Development has been unequal in the MDG areas, some criticise the lack of development in agriculture 13. In the EU communi-cation report “A decent Life for all: from vision to collective action” it is acknowledged that sustainable agriculture should be tackled in the new development agenda 14 in order to ensure food security and eradicate hunger. On a broader scale it is questionable if we even need new development goals, since the MDGs, regardless of the impact they have had so far, did not reach its goals.

One of the main aspects that the EU has to consider is how much the new goals are in partner with The Union’s own agendas. For example, the Europe 202015 priorities include investment in education, sustainable and smart growth and it focuses on five ambitious goals in the areas of employment, in-novation, education, poverty reduction and climate/energy. Some EU countries are also concerned of the SDGs, for example the UK is not keen on a specific climate change goal and also women’s rights activist are not convinced . The SDGs have also shown that in some goals, the views of the EU differ, for example, in the area of security and peace , where the EU would like to have two separate goals. Furthermore, the EU is not fully satisfied with climate change and the means of implementation either, which bring us to the question: which areas should the EU prioritise?

10Millennium development goals: big ideas, broken promises? Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/interactive/2013/sep/24/millennium-development-goals-data-interactive 11What’s Wrong with the Millennium Development Goals? Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/files/3940_file_WWMGD.pdf12Own the Goals: What the Millennium Development Goals Have Accomplished. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/02/21-millennium-dev-goals-mcarthur 13Lack of Agriculture innovations hampering Africa MDGs target on food security. Retrieved from http://www.rnanews.com/health/9521-lack-of-agriculture-innovations-hampering-africa-mdgs-target-on-food-security 14A Decent Life For All: Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/documents/2013-02-22_communication_a_decent_life_for_all_post_2015_en.pdf 15Europe 2020. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/index_en.htm

KEY CONFLICTS


STAKEHOLDERS

Additional links:

Millennium Development Goals: What after 2015?https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/what-after-2015_en

Europe and the Sustainable Development Goals. http://ecdpm.org/talking-points/europe-sustainable-development-goals/

On the European level, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Par-liament are involved in deciding EU’s opinion on the next steps regarding the post-2015 framework. They put together a Communication report16 in 2014; together with the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. This lays out the priority areas where they see where the post-2015 framework should be heading. It also mentions that the EU is flexible regarding develo-pments in the international arena.

In the UN, a 30-member Open Working Group (OWG) of the General Assembly is tasked with prepa-ring a proposal on the SDGs17. It comprises 70 countries that share the 30 seats18. However in the end, it will be the Member States of the UN General Assembly who will have the power to decide which kind of goals that they will have for the next 15 years.

Additional links:

Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals.https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/owg.html

UN General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/index.shtml

In 2012 the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) was held in Rio de Janeiro, where world leaders came together in order to reform MDGs. The Conference focused on two themes: (a) a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and (b) the institu-tional framework for sustainable development19. The outcome of the conference is a document called “The Future We Want”20.

To reform the MDGs, new agendas have been made in various areas. For example in education where it states “Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all”. This altered declaration has been formed through SDGs21.

16A Decent Life For All: From Vision To Collective Action. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:441ba0c0-eb02-11e3-8cd4-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF 17Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/owg.html 18Open Working Group on SDGs. Retrieved from http://www.beyond2015.org/open-working-group-sdgs19United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). Retrieved from http://www.sidsnet.org/about-sids/rio20 20Rio+20 Outcomes Document: The Future We Want Summary. Retrieved from https://www.idf.org/sites/default/fi-les/201206%20-%20Rio%2B20%20Outcomes%20Document%20-%20The%20Future%20We%20Want%20Summary_0.pdf21Incheon Declaration. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/world-education-forum-2015/incheon-declaration

MEASURES IN PLACE


In preparation for the September UN meeting which addresses the post-2015 agenda; the EU’s main document is the 2014 Communication report22, which includes previous Communication reports on the post-2015 subject. It encapsulates what the main objectives the EU would like to achieve.

Additional links:

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). Retrieved from http://www.sidsnet.org/about-sids/rio20

Rio+20 Outcomes Document: The Future We Want Summary. Retrieved from https://www.idf.org/sites/default/files/201206%20-%20Rio%2B20%20Outcomes%20Document%20-%20The%20Future%20We%20Want%20Summary_0.pdf

The good, the bad and the hideous. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/international/21647316-which-mdgs-did-some-good-and-which-sdgs-might-work-good-bad-and-hideous

22Communication report. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:441ba0c0-eb02-11e3-8cd4-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF


COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

From trash to treasure: Recycling and waste-to-energy programmes are instrumental in the fight to divert waste from landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How should the EU incentivise the wider adoption of such programmes towards more sustainable waste management and its use for energy production?

by: Lourenço Cruz (PT)


The European Union (EU) has always been at the forefront of environmental awareness and green be-haviour in a worldwide scale. Such a solid stance grants the EU additional legitimacy 1 and importance when addressing environmental policy and, as a consequence, provides the EU with more power in the political, economic and social dimensions.

Within the EU, companies and governments are responsible to handle the waste produced. This can be achieved by recycling, reusing, setting waste-to-energy programmes, burning or burying it in landfills.

In 2011, the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM(2011)571)2 estimated that the EU would generate approximately sixteen tonnes of material per person, per year, out of which six tonnes would become waste ( three of which would end up in landfills). This quantity of waste should be addressed to avoid the damaging consequences of landfills which can result in the release of dangerous gases to the air, contamination of water streams and toxic infiltrations and long-lasting soil contamination, so that the EU can better utilise its energy sources.

A strong internal energy market is a decisive factor in cementing existing structures such as the Euro-pean market. Investing in recycling results in vaster energy sources for the EU, the possibility to invest in additional technology and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 3. Bearing in mind the multiple benefits of recycling and consequent energy production, it is imperative for the EU to finally set up the foundations of a long-lasting, efficient framework.

However, such fundamental changes require extensive planning, time to present results and, most im-portantly, investment. In the aftermath of the economic crisis, companies are reluctant about investing considerable amounts of money in more up-to-date and efficient technology, even if that means long-term profit due to increased efficiency. As such, the EU must rapidly design competitive solutions to promote recycling and waste-to-energy programmes without damaging its global competitiveness or risk further market instability.

1referenceforbusiness.com, First-Mover Advantage. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ex-Gov/First-Mover-Advantage.html2europa.eu, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. 2011. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0571&from=EN3More information can be found here: http://www.recycled-energy.com/


Bearing this in mind, the key question is how can the EU undertake such an expensive but necessary reformation as cost effectively as possible?

Additional links:

A clear overview on the functioning of waste-to-energy programmes and their impact: http://www.wtert.cn/en/data/uploadfile/201110/20111031202651268.pdf

Article on legislation for the environment and the role of the EU: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-eu-30445744

Official webpage of the Resource Efficient Europe Flagship Initiative: http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/

• Recycling - Making or manufacturing new products from products which served their purpose and are no longer suitable;

• Waste-to-energy programmes - Complementary to recycling. Systems which incinerate waste that cannot be recycled in the most efficient and environmentally-friendly way whilst generating energy;

• Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe - Part of the 2020 Strategy by the EU, this Roadmap supports the shift towards a resource-efficient and low carbon economy to achieve sustainable growth;

• 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP)4 - This programme is the EU’s guide in environmental action until 2020. In order to provide long-term guidance and support the growth of the EU, this programme sets goals until 2050;

• Global competitiveness - How successfully European firms can buy and sell on a global market.

• Which types of recycling and waste-to-energy exist? What are the main advantages and disadvan-tages of each one?

• What are the economic and political consequences of undertaking profound changes in the EU’s recycling sector?

• Is current environmental legislation enough to ensure a fast-paced shift in recycling within the EU?

• What innovative solutions should the EU implement to maintain its global competitiveness whilst investing in recycling and waste-to-energy programmes?

• Bearing in mind some countries are still not enforcing recycling, how should the EU address dispa-rities in the mentality of national governments to ensure coherent action?

4europa.eu, Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS


KEY FACTS AND FIGURES• Council Directive 1999/31/EC5 of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste required phasing out all existing

landfills within a decade, a target which was never met. However, the same Directive set strict rules for the functioning of existing landfills;

• Landfills produce high quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide6 (CO2);

• Since 2004 the percentage of renewable energy out of the total energy usage within the EU increased from 14.32% to 25.37%. The energy obtained from waste-to-energy programmes doubled in the same time period7;

• The transport sector uses the least amount of renewable energy sources from all sectors of the EU’s economy8.

The ideas and values behind recycling are openly accepted by the European community. However, rea-sons such as budget disparities between countries and companies, have caused fragmented action in the past and constantly undermine a joint European push towards a greener future. To understand the key conflict inherent to the topic, one must first consider the negative impacts of the economic crisis, namely the atmosphere of instability and doubt. In this sense, companies are still recovering from the recession and tend to avoid investments in order to safeguard savings and maintain much needed stability. This generalised tendency, however, is weakening the EU’s capacity to overcome the economic crisis9.

The lack of investment is causing a downfall in the innovation sector10 and, as a consequence, is slowing down the recovery rate of the EU as a whole. This prolonged failure in recovering from the crisis is then responsible for additional doubt and lack of trust in the economic system.

Having this in mind, one easily understands how significant such a negative situation is in regards to the investment in greener practices. Some companies just can’t afford new technologies or profound changes in their working methods, while others are very reluctant about engaging considerable expen-ses knowing how fragile the European economy is. Additionally, the debate on the advantages of “going green” is constantly growing, with more and more analysts claiming green investment might not lead to the theoretical results11. Usually, the same analysts criticise green companies for only investing very small portions of their resources into green alternatives of their products/services in order to gain access to additional bonuses12.

Finally, one must also put the role of the EU into perspective. Even though the European Commission (EC) frequently releases papers on environmental aspects, it can be argued more pressure could be applied by 5europa.eu, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31999L00316cewep.eu, Heating and Lighting the way to a sustainable future. Retrieved from http://www.cewep.eu/about/cewep/index.html7Eurostat, energy from renewable sources (shares). Excel document (2013) Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/data/shares8Same as above9europa.eu, Why does the EU need an investment plan?. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/factsheet1-why_en.pdf10Detailed information can be found here: http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/pubfiles/McKibbin_and_Stoeckel,_The_global_financial_crisis.pdf11Forbes.com, It’s not easy investing green. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/cfainstitute/2011/12/06/its-not-easy-investing-green/12Forbes.com, It’s not easy investing green. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/cfainstitute/2011/12/06/its-not-easy-investing-green/2/

KEY CONFLICTS


the EC on countries, companies and the private sector in order to slowly but steadily operate necessary changes on the working framework of the EU.

• European Commission - responsible for the Horizon 2020 goals and the maintenance of existing Roadmaps, the EC is an important overseer of the work developed towards a greener framework;

• Member States - Although the EU is responsible for setting most targets, Member States are res-ponsible for designing action plans13 and engage in bilateral and fruitful conversations with compa-nies to ensure cohesive action;

• Private sector - Numerous waste-to-energy programmes and recycling frameworks are under the umbrella of private companies or corporations. In this sense, it is imperative for the EU to work to-gether with the private sector in order to ensure mutual support and large-scope action;

• European Environment Agency (EEA) - organisation belonging to the EU responsible for provi-ding up-to-date data on the environment in which the EC can base its decision. Important for set-ting realistic, yet decisive, milestones;

• Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants14 (CEWEP) - Association which represents approximately 86% of all waste-to-energy capacity within the EU.

The EC frequently issues studies and regulations regarding environmental policy. One of the most re-levant Directives to the topic is 1999’s Directive 1999/31/EC15. This Directive set a period for the com-plete dismantle of existing landfills in the EU and established strict requirements for the functioning of existing landfills such as types of allowed waste, quantities and location. Although the Directive is strict and efficient, certain exceptions such as sludge and non-hazardous waste regulations, can be argued to have diminished its efficiency. Another very important step was the increase in the number of waste-to-energy programmes operating within the EU. Such increase led to the creation of CEWEP, which was a fundamental step in ensuring reduced bureaucracy, faster action within the sector and improvements in the efficiency of methods used16.

The insertion of recycling and waste-to-energy targets in the Europe 2020 Goals was also fundamental to consolidate the importance of such topics and to grant additional legitimacy to future undertakings on policy changes.

National governments have always played a fundamental role on the steady transition of the EU towards a more sustainable economy. Such steps include approving eco-friendly legislation (such as waste regulation programmes), the wider adoption of penalties to pollutant companies and even the creation and maintenance of waste-to-energy programmes.

13Bear in mind the environment is a shared competence and the EC mostly adopts Directives (which only set targets), allowing for Member States to decide on the best way to meet said targets.14Official webpage: http://www.cewep.eu/15europa.eu, Directive 1999/31/EC. 1999.Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31999L0031&from=PT 16cewep.eu, cewep aims. Retrieved from http://cewep.eu/about/aims/index.html

STAKEHOLDERS

MEASURES IN PLACE


Additional links:

Useful data on recyling within the EU: http://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/highest-recycling-rates-in-austria

Recycling rates in Europe: http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/what/public-events/competitions/waste-smart-competition/re-cycling-rates-in-europe/view

Website of another waste-to-energy association within the EU: http://www.eswet.eu/

Overview on waste management in Europe: http://www.elfm.eu/Uploads/ELFM/FILE_cda3ca83-aea6-432b-bc5a-f2b3782c982d.pdf


COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Emerging economies: The EU’s joint free trade deal with multiple African countries has received both criticism and acclaim. How should the EU benefit from mutual trade and political cooperation whilst ensuring the development of human rights and enhancing environmental protection in the region?

by: Tim Keegstra (NL)


In the light of the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation round in New York from the 20th to the 24th April, the media has been consumed by the potential of Free Trade Agree-ments (FTAs) as a driving force for future economic growth. With a new trade union arising in Africa the focus may soon shift to the next potential trade partner. The African Trade Union will attempt to unite the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the South African Develop-ment Community (SADC), and the East African Community (EAC).

Additionally, the current European Union (EU) trade policy is noteworthy. Following the financial crisis (2007-2009) and consequently the European sovereign debt crisis (2009-2014), the EU did not respond with increased barriers to international trade. Instead, the EU signed FTAs with South Korea (2011), Singapore (2014) and continued their pursuit of new FTA agreements under Europe2020’s Communication on Trade, Growth & World Affairs.

As currently 30 million jobs in the European Union depend on exports1, the need for prosperous trade relations is clear. However, the question becomes at what costs should the European Commis-sion pursue improved trade relations? An example is the debate over a potential EU-India Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA). The Indian government fears that the lowering of trade tari-ffs will result in the downfall of the domestic agricultural sector due to imports from the EU. Beyond the continuously highlighted benefits, the economic intricacies of an FTA pose threats to both the EU internal market as well as the partners’ markets.

Furthermore, as the Cotonou Agreement’s second revision (2010) has highlighted these agreements go far beyond the mere economic. Where the original pillars of the EU-African, Caribbean and Pa-cific Group of States (ACP) agreement were: development cooperation, political cooperation, and economic and trade cooperation, the EU-ACP agreement has now moved to include topics such as security, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and climate change. However, with regards to emerging economies, the EU walks a fine line between development aid based on equal relations and neo-colonialism.

1Sousa, N. (2012) Extra - EU exports and employment. DG TRADE Chief Economist Note, No 2.


This committee will be faced with the question of weighing the costs and benefits of FTAs, as well as deciding where to draw the line between equal trade relations with emerging economies and expec-ting societal change in return for development aid, such as the Aid for Trade (AfT) efforts.

Figure 1: Current EU FTAs and on-going negotiations.

Source: European Commission (2013). Retrieved from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/november/tradoc_150129.pdf

Additional links:

An overview of currently on-going FTA negotiations: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/november/tradoc_150129.pdf

Sustainability Impact Assessments for a great stepping stone to asses the potential impact of currently negotiated agreements: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/

• Barriers to trade: Government imposed constraints, e.g. tariffs, subsidies and embargos, that res-train the international flow of goods and services.

• Trade Tariff: Taxes levied on imports.

KEY TERMS


• Non-tariff barriers to trade (NBT): Government imposed constraints, e.g. anti-dumping measures and countervailing duties. The use of NBTs has seen a sharp rise following the WTO backed reduc-tions of trade tariffs.

• Technical barriers to trade (TBT): Technical regulations, product and service standards, testing and certification procedures, which may create obstacles to the free flow of international trade.

• Dumping: Exporting products to foreign markets at a sharply lower price than the domestic market. • Countervailing duties (CVDs): Import duties, which are meant to negate the negative effects of

subsidized exports. • Degrees of economic integration: The degree or “deepness” of economic integration is deter-

mined by the degree of unification of economic policies, with a preferential trade area on the one hand and complete economic integration, such as the union of the states of America, on the other.

• Preferential Trade Area (PTA): A trade bloc that gives preferential access to certain pro-ducts by reducing tariffs on certain products.

• Free Trade Area (FTA): A trade bloc that partially or fully abolishes customs tariffs within their inner border.

• Customs Union (CU): A trade bloc with the same characteristics as an FTA. Additionally, a common external tariff is imposed on imports from non-member countries.

• Common Market: A trade bloc with the same characteristics as a customs union. Additio-nally, services, capital and labour can freely move across borders too. However, be aware during research that terminology is slightly ambiguous with regards to common markets, single markets, and unified markets.

• Common External Tariff (CET, CTF or CXT): Uniform trade tariffs on imports from third countries adopted by an FTA or common market.

• Rules of Origin (RoO): Rules of origin are used to determine the origin of products in order to ensu-re that companies from the foreign markets with regards to an FTA agreement cannot circumvent customs duties by importing their goods to the FTA member with the lowest customs duties.

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP): The monetary value of all products and services produces within the borders of a country in a specific time frame, usually quarterly or annually.

• What barriers to trade exist for EU exports or for partners trading to the EU? Additionally, what ba-rriers exist to inter-EU trade?

• What key issues are holding back on-going FTA negotiations, such as the TTIP, BTIA, and Economic Partnership Agreements negotiations with ACP countries?

• How should the EU balance requirements for development aid with trade partnerships based on equality?

• Are there minimal requirements with respect to upholding human rights, upholding the rule of law, and environmental protection that need to be met before the EU should participate in extensive development aid, trade and political cooperation? If so, what should they be?

• What political influence on decision-making processes should the EU be willing to give up in trade agreement negotiations? To what extend can economic gain rectify loss of political power?

• At some point Least Developed Countries (LDCs) may escape the poverty trap as seen with the ‘Asian Tigers’. This raises the question under what circumstances should development aid and pre-ferential trade agreements be phased out? Furthermore, what should this process look like?

KEY QUESTIONS


KEY FACTS AND FIGURES• Jean Foure (2012) forecasts that 90% of the economic growth in the world in the next 10-15 years

is generated outside of the EU.• According to the World Input Output Database, the EU holds 28% of the global income generated

by manufactured goods.2

• When excluding fuels, the European Union imports more from developing countries than the USA, Canada, Japan and China combined.3

• Every additional 1 billion EUR of exports is projected to generate 15000 additional jobs across the EU.4

• Concluding on-going FTA negotiations could boost the EU economy by as much as 2% of the total EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is 250 billion EUR.3

Figure 2: European Union trade in the world.

Source: European Commission (2014). Trade Statistics.Retrieved from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_122532.pdf

1. The power of nation states versus private enterprises: An ever-growing concern is that the influence of companies increases in comparison to nation states as the amount of countries in a trading bloc increases. Examples have been seen in company-state disputes in previous American trade agreements, where US companies successfully sued governments over changing legislation that was in conflict with existing free trade agreements. Similar concerns exist over the TTIP’s po-tential Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism.5

2European Commission (2013). Contribution from the Commission to the February 2013 European Council Debate on Trade, Growth and Jobs. Retrieved from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_151052.pdf3EU position in the world. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/ 4Nousa, N. (2012). Extra EU-exports and employment. DG TRADE Chief Economist Note, No 2.5TTIP: Top 5 Concerns and Criticism. Retrieved from: http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-top-5-concerns-and-criticism

KEY CONFLICTS


2. Sector specific displacement & trade equality: Lowering trade barriers leads inevitably to chan-ges in trade flows, as lowered tariffs lead to new options for trade that were originally more expen-sive than domestic produce. These changes may have significant effects on domestic markets. Therefore, any FTA negotiation includes a struggle over what sectors to include and what sec-tors to exclude. Extra difficulty arises as Member States have largely varying economical interests. Lastly, disputes have arisen over state subsidized production, especially in the agricultural sector. These subsidies make it difficult for partner markets to compete; examples of such subsidies were found in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) but are currently being phased out.

3. Product standards: Aside from deciding what sectors to include. Product standards and other TBTs also hold back negotiations. Even though tariffs may be lowered, trading partners of the EU still face enormous TBTs that may create unequal benefits to the opening of trade. Additionally, negotiations may also concern the convergence of TBTs between the two parties negotiating a deal. However, as the EU’s product standards are fairly strict, this often means that the EU has to concede by lowering standards on for example food safety. This leads to significant consumer concerns.

4. Trade diversion: The bilateral lowering of tariffs also leads to economic inefficiencies. As tariffs are lowered product specific exports may shift from an efficient producer to a less efficient producer due to differences in trade barriers. These inefficiencies may not necessarily be a concern to the individual customer, but certainly affect national and global welfare.

5. Increasingly large membership: Aside from the aforementioned tensions between nation states and companies, increasingly deep and broad integration also lead to lesser influence of individual Member States in the political arena of the expanding trade blocs. With smaller influence inevita-bly smaller control over affairs affecting the nation state arises.

6. Global standards: A final concern is that ever larger trading blocs may lead to dominant product standards. It has been hypothesized that the EU-US TTIP agreement may lead to these institutions to gain control over setting close to global product standards. This will not only increase the power of these institutions, but also increase the power of lobbyist in these respective countries.

This list is far from final. Therefore, it is highly encouraged to further research areas of tensions be-tween the different shareholders.

Additional links:

It is important to read as many different views on the on going conflicts as possible in order to get a good picture of the situation. Thus ensure to read non-EU, European, and neutral sources. Additiona-lly, read Member State specific resources, as different Member States will have very different stances towards for example the TTIP negotiations. A good start would be:

On the TTIP debate: http://www.atlantic-community.org/-/ttip-top-5-concerns-and-criticism

A Member State example, the British view on the TTIP debate:http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29572475

The African concerns surrounding unequal partnership under the Cotonou and Lome agreements: http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2014/trade-between-two-unequal-partners


STAKEHOLDERS

The Indian perspective on the BTIA negotiations: http://www.worldcommercereview.com/publications/article_pdf/934

The European perspective on the BTIA negotiations:http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/european-union-intensifying-efforts-for-negotia-tions-on-india-fta/51476/

• Member States – As mentioned in key conflicts, the Member States are concerned with final FTA agreements as it may affect their own legislative procedures. Also, when it comes to lowering ba-rriers to trade, Member States may have highly differing views on what sectors should remain un-der the protection of high tariffs. An example is France’s strict opposition against including cultural and audiovisual productions in a free trade deal.

• World Trade Organisation – an international member-driven organisation that aims to help tra-de flow move as freely as possible. 161 governments and customs territories join together to set standards for trade barriers and trade agreements.

• The European Commission and specifically the Directorate-General for Trade propose and monitor legislation at the EU level.

• Custom Unions – other custom unions, e.g. Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the East African Community (CAN) are all potential partners for prefe-rential trade agreements. Additionally, depending on their share of the world GDP or future world GDP

• Developing countries – As these countries fall under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) agreement, this group faces a different treatment compared to for example the United Sta-tes. However, the GSP comes with AfT expectations, as well as human rights, labour rights, envi-ronmental and good governance expectations.

• Least Developed Countries (LDCs) form a special group of developing countries, which are offe-red the most generous GSP variant, namely the Everything But Arms (EBA) arrangement, which allows for duty and quota-free trade to the EU.

• Corporate lobby groups and consultants are constantly influencing the political debate. Not only is the tariff change of interest to companies, but also the changes in product standards. An example is the TTIP debate about whether or not GMOs will be sellable on the European market without being marked as such.

• Europe 2020 – The European Union’s growth strategy for the coming years. It outlines the require-ments for the envisioned type of growth, which is smart, sustainable and inclusive.

• Communication on Trade, Growth & World Affairs – Within the Europe2020, this communica-tion outlines the outward orientation towards world trade.

• Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GPS) – Are EU agreements with developing countries that are best able to benefit from improved international trade. These countries receive generous re-ductions in tariffs. However, there are expectations towards good governance, upholding human rights and labour rights, and environmental protection.

STAKEHOLDERS


• Everything But Arms (EBA) – The EBA is one of the three variants of the GPS and is meant for the LDCs. This arrangement gives all LDCs full duty-free and quote-free access to the EU, with exception to weapons trade.

• General Agreement on Trade on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – It is an attempt to lower tariffs on goods around the world on mutually advantageous grounds.

• General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) – A WTO treaty that extends the GATT by provi-ding a framework for liberalising services trade.

• Cotonou Agreement – The economic and political cooperation agreement between the EU and the ACP countries for 2000-2020. Additionally, this agreement phased out the original Lome Con-ventions FTA, replacing it with the possibility for ACP countries to join in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). However, many ACP countries are still negotiating terms of their EPAs.

• Different types of EU FTA’s ranging from deep integration through the European Economic Area with Norway and Iceland on the one hand to shallower forms of integration such as the Association Agreement between the EU and Chile.

• Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is the WTO’s platform for discussion on the future of trade libe-ralisations amongst its member states. However, disputes.


COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

Voting post-Schengen: The ratification of the Schengen Agreement has created a generation of de-nizens in the EU, many of whom are unable to vote in either their host country or native country’s national elections as a result of un-harmonised national legislation. In light of continuing European integration, how should the EU ensure democratic rights of denizens at a national level?

by: Maya Moss (SE) and Nora Wilhem (CH), VP

RELEVANCE AND EXPLANATION OF THE TOPICWith a core principle of the European Union (EU) being freedom of movement, it is inherent in the very fabric of the Union that people can, and will, move from country to country in pursuit of work or re-creation. Since the implementation of the Schengen Agreement in 1995, 1 this has become increasingly easy, by gradually removing passport controls entirely between its signatories. This simplified process of travel has inevitably spilled over into other areas, and has raised key questions, such as the right to vote.

Throughout Europe, countries have differing legislation regarding voting rights of people residing in or holding nationality of that country. With Council Directive 94/80/EC, all EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not a national were given the right to vote and stand as candidate in municipal elections.2 This was a move to ensure that voting conditions in Member States were the same, and thus not under the TFEU’s harmonisation article.

However, there is no similar legislation for national elections. An EU citizen does not automatically have the right to vote in their country of residence by virtue merely of being a citizen of a different EU Member State. Most countries have specific requirement with regards to national elections, the most general overarching being that a person holds citizenship of that specific country and is of age.

The differing legislation on national elections also affects people who leave their home country and settle elsewhere in Europe. In the UK, for example, there are time limits regulating external voting of nationals who have chosen to leave the UK. If one does not register to vote after 15 years of living abroad, one loses that right.3 Similar time limitations exist in Denmark, Malta, Ireland and Cyprus.4 Germany, too, had a limit of 25 years, but this restriction was removed in 2008. 5 In Sweden, one is automatically enrolled in the electoral roll for the first ten years of living abroad, after which one must apply to remain there for another ten years.6

1For a summary of the Schengen Agreement, see http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/schengen_agreement_en.htm 2For further details, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:31994L0080 3https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad 4http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-77_en.htm5http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_09/auslandsdeutsche/wahlrecht/ 6 http://www.europeancitizensabroad.eu/sweden.html http://eudo-citizenship.eu/admin/?p=file&appl=countryProfiles&f=1322-Sweden-FRACIT.pdf


The issue of electoral rights has become all the more relevant as more people travel and work abroad, and as European integration has furthered significantly since the Union’s early days. Many argue that this is a fundamentally democratic problem: people who are exercising a right they have been gi-ven, i.e. freedom of movement, should not, as a result of exercising that right, lose other rights, such as their right to vote.7 There are a number of stances on how to solve this issue. Some suggest that citi-zens should choose in which country they would like to vote (that of their nationality, or their country of residence), others that one should simply not lose the right to vote when leaving one’s country, others still that there should be a more coherent overlap when one moves between countries.

Additional links:

Greeks living abroad disillusioned with voting rights http://www.euronews.com/2015/01/22/expat-greeks-frustrated-over-voting-rights/

Voting rights in the UKhttps://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad

French citizens given right to vote in national elections even when living abroad http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/01/french-expats-vote-parliamentary-elections

EU activity regarding municipal elections http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/citizenship_of_the_union/l23026_en.htm

• Denizen: a person who lives in a particular place, in this context generally having been allowed certain rights in their country of residence, where this is different from their country of origin.

• Preliminary reference: when national courts are hearing a case on the application of European law, they can submit questions to ECJ if they are uncertain as to the correct application of EU law.

• Disenfranchisement: losing the right to vote.• Eurodemos: the concept of European citizenship; that there exists a European people, rather than Euro-

pean peoples. • Directive: one type of EU legal instrument, which stipulates a goal to be achieved in a certain time frame,

where the Member State can choose itself how to achieve that aim. Should be compared with regulations, which are specifically binding.

• Harmonisation: creating a common standard across the EU internal market, and ensuring that national legislation does not differ greatly in effect.8

• Should EU nationals gain voting rights in the national elections of other EU Member States by virtue only of residing there?

• If yes, under what conditions? • If not, what justifies denying such a basic democratic right?

• How far should European integration allow “European citizens” to become automatically part of the poli-tical sphere in a different country?

7Alain Brun (2012) “A European or a national solution to the democratic deficit?” http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/RSCAS_2012_32.pdf 8The right of the EU to harmonise legislation in its Member States can be found in article 114 of the Treaty of the Functio-ning of the European Union (TFEU), see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E114

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS


• Is the issue of national electoral rights best solved at the European or national level?• What other problems arise when citizens are denied the right to vote?

• In 2012, 62% of people did not think it was justified to lose their voting rights in their country of nationality when moving to a different EU Member State9; in 2013, 65% of people did not think it justified.10

• 72% of people thought it justified for non-nationals residing in their country to acquire voting rights in national elections11; in 2013, this dropped to 67%.12

• Overall, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/report_eucitizenship_consultation_en.pdf, particularly section 6.3, page 43

One of the main problems in this area is the longstanding argument whether solutions are best executed at na-tional or European level. As outlined, some are concerned that this is an issue that has already been clearly dealt with by purposely including only municipal and EU elections in the rights of EU citizens residing in a Member State other than their own.

One school of thought states that Member States clearly did not wish to allow the EU to legislate on issues regar-ding national elections. The Treaties and Charter cover only European Parliament (EP) and municipal elections of host Member States, not national elections; this seems to be a very clear choice of the legislators when negotiating the Treaties, and so it is argued that even if national legislation on electoral rights did breach EU law, it would be wrong for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to overrule that choice.13 On the other hand, while national elections fall outside the scope of EU law, developments in freedom of movement and the expansion of European rights makes the exclusion of EU citizens from national elections if they do not hold citizenship “unjustifiable”.14

This leads to the next problem, of whether to prioritise democratic legitimacy or national identity and integrity. On the one hand, it is argued that by exercising a legal right, one should not lose a political one, as is the case in many countries today. In relative terms, it is very easy for an individual and their family to move permanently to another EU Member State; with the Citizenship Directive (2004/38), an individual gains right of permanent residence in a host country where they have spent a continuous period of five years.15

Finally, there is an issue of voting rights concerning no individual having more voting power than another. It is therefore held that one should not be able to vote in two countries, as it allows one person to “vote twice” in e.g. European elections. It is therefore an issue of where an individual’s right to vote is most relevant: their country of origin, where they may not have lived for many years and will not return to, or their host country, where they might only have arrived recently? What of children whose parents are from one country, but they were born in another, and subsequently move to a third country? 9http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/report_eucitizenship_consultation_en.pdf 10http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_364_en.pdf 11See no.912See no.1013Kees Groenendijk (2012) “Five pragmatic reasons for a dialogue with and between member states on free movement and voting rights” http://eudo-citizenship.eu/docs/RSCAS_2012_32.pdf14Dimitry Kochenov (2012) “What’s in a People? Social facts, individual choice, and the European Union” http://eudo-citi-zenship.eu/docs/RSCAS_2012_32.pdf 15http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF, page 82, section (17)


KEY CONFLICTS


Additional links:

Disenfranchisement of EU citizens living abroad http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2014)542183

Account on difficulties of retaining or acquiring voting rights when moving to another Member State http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/living-eu-member-state-shouldnt-analysis-532285

All EU citizens are affected by the way electoral rights are currently regulated, and it is therefore in everyone’s interest that an adequate solution is found. With all EU citizens having the same right to freedom of movement, it is equally important to all that their electoral rights are not compromised as a result of exercising this right. The main way in which individuals can try and affect these policy areas is through voting (which on its own is problematic), and the European Citizens Initiative (ECI) outlined below.

When it comes to actually making any changes, national governments hold significant power, both in individual countries, and as pressures on the EU institutions to take European action.

In order to initiate legislative change in the EU, a proposal must be made by the Commission; this is therefore the most powerful EU institution when it concerns setting change in motion. Further, in order to pass EU law through the ordinary legislative procedure, both the Parliament and the Council must subsequently accept the proposal.

Various NGOs also have an interest in the question; in particular the organisation European Citizens Abroad have as their goal to encourage democratic participation and encourage the concept of Eu-ropean citizenship, with the current issue therefore falling within its remit; additionally, Europeans Throughout the World (ETTW) encourages attention towards the issue of voting rights, and supports member organisations and individuals living abroad.16

The EU recognised the problem in the Commission’s citizenship reports (e.g. 2010 and 2013), as well as in a press release in January 2014. The press release in question issued specific guidance to Member States, inviting them to (a) enable citizens to vote if they show interest in the political sphere, by e.g. registering for the electoral roll, (b) allowing applications to vote to be conducted online, and (c) to inform citizens in a timely and appropriate fashion about how to apply to retain their right to vote.17

There has been an attempt to change national regulations on electoral rights by way of an ECI called “LET ME VOTE” in 2013.18 The Initiative had four main aims: to strengthen rights by granting all EU citizens the right to vote in all political elections of their country of residence, on the same conditions as the nationals of that state; to enhance the concept of European citizenship; to facilitate freedom of 16http://euromonde.eu/about-us/17http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-77_en.htm 18http://www.letmevote.eu/en/

STAKEHOLDERS

MEASURES IN PLACE


movement in the EU; and to remedy the loss of voting rights of EU citizens who are long-term residents of another Member State. In order for an ECI to be successful, it must gather at least 1 million signatures, which this particular Initiative failed to do. Nonetheless it demonstrates certain awareness of the issue and a desire to do something about it.

The organisation European Citizens Abroad is non-partisan and non-profit, and supports European citi-zenship, education and EU policy with regards to EU citizens living abroad. One important issue for this organisation is thus voting rights for EU citizens who live outside their home country, whether within or without the Union. The organisation highlights that living abroad is a big part of European citizenship, and that it grants strengths that should be utilised to benefit all. In the run-up to the European election 2014, they ran a campaign called “Europeans Abroad Vote 2014” to encourage democratic participation of Europeans living abroad. While focus has been on participation in the EP elections, the organisation has as a standing goal the to encourage European citizenship, and civic responsibility abroad.19

Although it has not yet successfully been carried out, the possibility of asking preliminary references from the ECJ remains an option for national courts faced with challenges; this might function as an in-dicator of judicial feeling towards the problem, and highlight any changes in attitude towards the issue.

Additional links

Commission Citizenship Report 2013, see page 5 for concerns regarding national voting rights http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/com_2013_269_en.pdf

Current EU provisions as to voting in various elections throughout Europehttp://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/voting-rights/index_en.htm

19http://www.europeancitizensabroad.eu/who-we-are.html


COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

Game of homes: Across Europe 11 million homes lie vacant and yet 4.1 million people are deemed ho-meless. Dubbed ‘Europe’s greatest scandal’, how should the EU tackle this housing crisis and should steps be taken towards establishing a common housing policy?

by: Laure Steinville (FR)


New forms of homelessness and housing exclusion are developing throughout the EU as an increa-sing number of young people, families, migrants and asylum seekers are reported to be in a situation of housing exclusion or homelessness. The 2008 economic and financial crisis has exacerbated this trend, as increasing mortgage foreclosures and unemployment are pushing more and more people in to a spiral of debt and vulnerability causing homelessness and housing deprivation, according to a 2009 Report made under the Framework of the EU Social Inclusion Strategy 1. The report further outlined obstacles to fight against homelessness and housing exclusion such as “insufficient political commitment; lack of understanding of homelessness and housing exclusion; lack of agreement on definitions and appropriate indicators; absence of inadequate data sources; and inadequate (if any) monitoring and reporting”.

Homelessness and housing deprivation are persistent in every EU Member State, harming human dig-nity and basic human rights of the most vulnerable, impairing directly the capacity of people to deve-lop their potential and to participate fully in society.

In January 2014, MEPs passed a resolution demanding the EU to ‘develop an EU homelessness stra-tegy without further delay’. Indeed, in Europe, more than 11 million homes lie vacant, enough to house all the continent’s homeless twice over2. Many of the homes are in vast holiday resorts built in the feverish housing boom in the run up to the 2007-08 financial crisis, and were bought as invest-ments by people who never intended to live in them3,4. Furthermore, the property bubble that bust in 2008 following the financial crisis crippled several economies across Europe, with Ireland and Spain as the two countries most affected by the property crash. For the past seven years, whereas Ireland has experienced a smooth recovery partly due to a constant financial support from the IMF; the Spanish population is still paying at a high price the cost of heavy speculation, with 3.4m homes empty in the country and high poverty rates.

European countries have applied differing strategies to deal with the economic crisis, with each coun-try choosing to finance a specific type (or group) of social expenditure that could provide a ‘safety 1Hugh Frazer and Eric Marlier, ‘Conclusion of the report on homelessness and housing exclusion across EU Member States’, December 20092Rupert Neate, ‘Scandal of Europe’s 11m empty homes’, The Guardian, 23/02/20143‘Europe’s 11m empty properties are enough to house all the homeless on the continent twice’, The Guardian, 23/02/20144Robert Booth, ‘Inside ‘Billionaires Row’: London’s rotting, derelict mansions worth £350m’, The Guardian, 31/01/2014


net’5 for an increasing share of the population experiencing severe economic conditions. Unfortunately, housing issues are almost always excluded from this so called ‘safety net’ , with fighting unemployment and reducing national debts as top priorities of most EU Member States.

Additional Links:

‘Ireland’s ghost estates’, Euronews, 09/12/10http://www.euronews.com/2010/12/09/ireland-s-ghost-estates/

‘Europe’s house of cards’, Euronews, 11/03/2014 http://www.euronews.com/2014/03/11/europe-s-house-of-cards/

‘IMF paper on the impact of Europe’s housing crisis’, UK Business Insider, 2015http://uk.businessinsider.com/imf-paper-on-impact-of-europe-housing-crisis-2015-1?r=US

• Homelessness6: Beyond sleeping rough, homelessness may include situations of living in tempo-rary, insecure or poor-quality housing. Every Member State perceives and tackles homelessness di-fferently. Typical causes of homelessness are:

• unemployment and poverty• migration• ageing• health problems• relationship breakdowns• lack of affordable housing for rent and for sale• inadequate support for people leaving care facilities, hospitals, prisons or other public

institutions.• Housing exclusion7: There is no common consensus in the EU in defining the term. Yet, housing

exclusion is commonly referred as the process of a landlord expulsing the occupant of the housing because of their inability to pay the rent.

• ‘Housing Bubble’8: A run-up in housing prices fuelled by demand and speculation, resulting in a sharp drop in prices.

• Article 9 of the TFEU9: Incorporating the clause which states that “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to […] training and protection of human health”.

Additional Links:

ETHOS: European Typology of Homelessness and housing Exclusion, published by FEANTSA, 2006http://www.feantsa.org/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=217&cle=2d5e5c59ff85725077752fda7903b4a9718a47ae&file=pdf%2Fen.pdf&lang=en

5 ‘Social Housing in the EU’, Diractorate General for Internal Policies, January 20136‘Homelessness’, European Commission7Bill Edgar, ‘The ETHOS Definition and Classification of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion’, European Housing Research and FANTESA, 20128‘Definition of ‘Housing Bubble’, Investopedia9Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007

KEY TERMS


1. Should the issue of increasing homelessness and housing exclusion in Europe be tackled at a:• local, • national • or European level?

2. If implemented at a European level, what policies could the EU and its Member States implement to create a fairer housing market and partially tackle homelessness? Would a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach be beneficial to Member States?

3. Should the EU be allocated more competence on housing matters in order to:• harmonise the housing market,• have a stronger influence over wealthy investors in order to put houses back on the market or• simply make sure that Member States consider housing as a priority in their political agenda?

4. If Member States were about putting empty homes on the market, will governments be able to interfere in private property?

5. Is the quota system for social housing, as seen in France10 or Denmark11, efficient enough and be implemented at a EU level?

With almost 120 million persons are at risk of poverty and social exclusion12 in the EU, the need for affordable housing is higher than ever.

There are 4 million people deemed homeless in Europe, yet 11 million homes lie vacant13. Most of Europe’s empty homes are in Spain, which saw the biggest construction boom in the mid-2000s fed largely by Britons and Germans buying homes in the sun. The latest Spanish census, published last year, indicated that more than 3.4m homes – 14% of all properties – were vacant. The number of emp-ty homes has risen by more than 10% in the past decade.

In France, the latest official figures from INSEE, the government research bureau, show that 2.4m ho-mes were empty in 2012, up from 2m in 2009. In Italy, a survey by the Italian statistics institute esti-mated there were 2.7m in 2011. In the UK more than 700,000 homes are empty, according to local authority data collated by the Empty Homes campaign14.

In Portugal there are 735,000 vacant properties – a 35% increase since 2001 – according to the 2011 census. An estimated 300,000 lie empty in Greece and 400,000 in Ireland.

The current housing crisis is further impacting the job market: in France, 80,000 jobs have been lost in the last two years in the construction sector 15. On a more positive note, Danish social housing orga-nisations which have focused on creating apprenticeships when renovating found that there are cu-rrently twice as many opportunities for apprenticeships in social housing renovation as the national average.

10’Introduction to Social Housing in France’, INTA CC Habitat document, 201111‘Social Housing in Europe: Denmark’, Housing Europe, March 201012‘Social Housing in Europe’, European Parliamentary Research Service, April 201313Rupert Neate, ‘Scandal of Europe’s 11m empty homes’, The Guardian, 23/02/2014 14Empty Homes Campaign 15Adequate and affordable housing key lever for employment’, Housing Europe, April 2014

KEY QUESTIONS



KEY CONFLICTS

Additional Links:

Slideshow on International Research policy and Research Profile: the European Union, by Eoin O’Su-llivan, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin and EOHhttp://fr.slideshare.net/FEANTSA/philly-pleanary?ref=http://www.feantsaresearch.org/spip.php?rubrique10&lang=en

The main conflict at the heart of the homelessness problem is that the question of homelessness is mostly debated at a EU level, whereas EU Member States have their own definition and measures to tackle this topic. Member States have primary responsibility and competence to address homeless-ness which makes the prospect of a EU wide consensus on a common housing policy implausible. Furthermore, policymakers have struggled to deal with wealthy investors buying houses primarily as ‘investment machines’ and not as full time homes resulting in them being left vacant. According to Housing campaigners, governments should do as much as possible to put empty homes on the market16 before they fall into despair, which would be to them the best way to resolve the problem of homelessness, keeping in mind that private property is still essential to liberal thinking in Europe.

In addition, the people who are most adversely affected by housing policy believe they have little power to alter politics, and are usually the least powerful in the areas where they live: so politicians can reduce social security spending on the poorest without losing much popular support17. Indeed, social housing faces significant budget constraints in almost all Member States, due to the decrea-sing trend in resources being used to finance the sector18.

Challenges for the EU include that the profile of the homeless population has been changing and now includes more young people, children, migrants, Roma and other disadvantaged minorities.

Member States are unevenly affected by the housing crisis and the rising number of homeless peo-ple. Moreover, little data on Central and Eastern European countries is available, showing the Wes-tern focus of EU institutions and research centres on the matter. More comprehensive data would allow for a better monitoring homelessness in the EU.

The EU does not have direct competency on homelessness or housing policy, and is therefore not in a position to draw up a legally binding Europe wide strategy19. Nevertheless, Member States have come to realise that they were facing more and more common challenges, such as the fight against poverty and social exclusion. They consequently agreed on an EU level cooperation and coordina-tion process to “support and complement Member states activities in various social policy relevant fields”20.

169 Paths to Better Homes for a Better Europe’, Housing Europe, April 201417Danny Dorling, ‘Housing has become the defining economic issue of our times’, The Guardian, 19/02/2014 18‘Social Housing in the EU’, Directorate general for international policies, European Parliament publication, January 2013

19 20

STAKEHOLDERS


The European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA)21 is a Eu-ropean NGO established in 1989 to prevent and alleviate the poverty and social exclusion of people threatened by or living in homelessness. It is the only major European network that focuses exclu-sively on homelessness. FEANTSA collaborates with a range of Housing Actors in order to promote better integration of housing and homelessness people, including through the European Housing Forum22, a grouping of major international or European organisations working in the area of housing.

The European Observatory on Homelessness (EOH)23 has been set up by FEANTSA as the body carr-ying out transnational research on homelessness and housing exclusion in Europe and beyond. It pu-blishes twice a year the European Journal on Homelessness24, providing a critical analysis of policy and practice on homelessness in Europe for policy makers, practitioners, researchers and academics.

With housing being the greater political consequence than most other areas of government policy, the whole EU civil society is concerned by such issue. Indeed, it’s as near as most people get, personally, to what is called the greater economy25. Housing campaigners play a big part in this matter. Amongst them, we find Housing Rights Watch26, a European NGO liking voluntary organisations, lawyers and academics committed to promoting the right to housing for all, as well as Empty Homes27 campaign, which operations for vacant homes to be made available for those who need housing.

Furthermore, recent examples in Sweden and Denmark for instance have shown that bringing toge-ther of a range of different actors from the private and public sector as well as local NGOs create social innovation and change for the benefit of the individual tenant, the local community and the society as a whole. In fact, for 10 jobs created within a renovation program, 7 indirect jobs are created in the community and elsewhere.

Additional Links:

A comprehensive article by the European Commission explaining how EU Member States should fo-cus on growth and social exclusion: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes

A well-detailed article reviewing the manifestos of the European Political Groups on housing policies at the 2014 parliamentary elections: http://www.housingeurope.eu/resource-272/the-agenda-for-housing

Social housing is a key element in implementing the Fundamental Right to Housing , also laid down in the Fundamental Rights Charter, and is recognised as a Social Service of General Interest (SSGI) . As a result, social housing can be supported by state aid.

21‘About FEANTSA’, 2011 22European Housing Forum 23European Observatory on Homelessness 24European Journal on Homelessness25Danny Dorling, ‘Housing has become the defining economic issue of our times’, The Guardian, 19/02/2014 26Housing Rights Watch website 27Empty Homes Campaign

MEASURES IN PLACE


Furthermore, improved access to housing is one of the Commission’s Europe 202028 key actions. The EC further supports social housing through the Social Investment Package29 , presented in February 2013. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)30, aiming at strengthening economic and social cohesion in the EU by correcting imbalances between its regions is also a key-actor in the improvement of housing conditions in several EU Member States. However, with new targets and investments such as the digital agenda or the low-carbon-economy, the ERDF is not funding any further projects in housing. Most of the ERDF agenda on the matter has been transferred to the European Social Fund (ESF)31, Europe’s main instrument for investing in Europe’s human capital – workers, young people. Yet, since the 2008 crisis and the adoption of Europe’s 2020 goals, the EUR 10 billion budget of the ESF is entirely focused on creating job opportunities rather than helping the homeless.

The Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD)32 is the European body supporting countries’ actions to provide material assistance to the most deprived, including food, clothing and other essential items for personal use. Over €3.8 billion are earmarked for the FEAD for the 2014-2020 period. The FEAD complements the ESF as it addresses the most deprived people by addressing their most basic needs, which is a precondition for them to be able to get a job supported by the ESF.

Although EU Member States have primary responsibility and competence to address homelessness, the EU’s Social Investment Package (SIP), set up in 2013, encourages them to adopt long-term, housing-led, integrated housing strategies at national, regional and local levels and to introduce efficient policies to prevent evictions. Furthermore, it aims at upgrading active inclusion strategies in the Member States such as affordable quality childcare and education, prevention of early school leaving, training and job-search assistance, housing support and accessible health care are all policy areas with a strong social investment dimension.

Lastly, in a Communication on Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion33 the Commission adop-ted last year, it has called on Member States to prioritise social investment and to modernise their wel-fare states.

Additional Links: A list of 6 recommendations set up by Eurodiaconia for the fight against homelessness and housing exclusion:http://www.eurodiaconia.org/files/Eurodiaconia_policy_papers_and_briefings/POV_15_10_HHE_poli-cy_paper.pdf

An other list of 6 recommendations by a local Swedish newspaper to tackle the housing shortage Swe-den has recently been experiencing:http://www.thelocal.se/20150324/more-homes-are-needed-to-solve-housing-shortage

28 ‘Europe 2020 targets’, European Commission, 201129 ‘Social Investment: Commission urges Member States to focus on growth and social cohesion”, European Commission, February 201330 ‘What is the European Regional Development Fund?’ European Commission, 01/201431 ‘What is the European Social Fund?’ European Commission, 01/201432 ‘Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived’, European Commission, 02/201533 Communication on Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion, European Commission, 2013


COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM I

No man’s land: Technologies with the potential to revolutionise transport, such as driverless cars and drone deliveries, will soon be ready to enter the commercial market. Balancing both the risks of intro-ducing these technologies too early with their possible economic benefits, how should the EU posi-tion itself when legislating the introduction of these innovations?

by: Irida Karasmanoglou (GR)

RELEVANCE AND EXPLANATION OF THE TOPICDuring the last decade a huge leap forward has been made in the field of technology and innovations. Smartphones, robots, automated car systems, nanotechnology have begun to enter the commercial market. Driverless cars and drones have started to become within reach of citizens, but there is little legislation to regulate these new technologies. The concept of automated vehicles is also something citizens must strongly consider, and many Europeans are initially rejecting the idea.

Concerning driverless cars, there are several issues surrounding their presence. There are already some technologies such as Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) that aid steering, but driverless cars will take charge of steering, accelerating, indicating and braking by them-selves, driven by a complex computer system. So far, some manufacturing companies in both Europe and America have attempted to use prototype driverless vehicles on roads; Google’s first prototypes being the most prominent example1.

Europe is still taking baby steps towards the implementation and full freedom of those inventions. The UK has announced that driverless cars will be on the roads by the end of 2015 and the Swedish city of Gothenburg has given Volvo permission to test 100 driverless cars, although that trial is not scheduled to occur until 20172.

One of the main regulatory barriers in the EU is the Vienna Convention of 19683. In this, Article 8 states that “Every moving vehicle or combination of vehicles shall have a driver” and Article 13 that “Every driver of a vehicle shall in all circumstances have his vehicle under control…” which pragmatically sta-tes that there is currently no legal possibility for a software to be standing alone behind the “steering wheel”. Only assisted or partially automated driving would comply with this convention [Articles 4 & 7]. The EU has not yet taken a clear stance on which assumptions should be made and which rules should be applied to partially autonomous vehicles, not to mention the fully autonomous vehicles Google has in mind.

Besides legal issues, other economic, environmental and moral issues are important to consider. The potential benefits and costs of driverless cars vary from reduction of car theft, reduction in fuel 1http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/28/google-self-driving-car-how-does-it-work 2BBC article on UK and Sweden’s attempts with driverless cars http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28551069 3https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20XI/XI-B-19.en.pdf


consumption (as well as carbon and particulate emissions) and cars working together to avoid con-gestion, to software reliability, elimination of transport related jobs (e.g. bus drivers4) and maleficent programmers.

Drone technologies are also becoming a more common occurrence. Here, there is also lacking legisla-tion in the EU to decide how they should be dealt with. Beside the military using unmanned aerial ve-hicles (UAVs), there are now a wide range of industries that are finding similar technologies useful, such as surveillance of crops, to search and rescue operations, to delivery of medical supplies to remote or otherwise inaccessible regions. How should the EU position itself to these? So far, there have been some drone laws in the UK5.

With these technologies developing faster than their paired legislation, where does the EU stand on the race for modern day transportation and technology?

Additional links:

European Roadmap Smart Systems for Automated Driving http://www.smart-systems-integration.org/public/documents/publications/EPoSS%20Roadmap_Smart%20Systems%20for%20Automated%20Driving_V2_April%202015.pdf

Driverless cars - the future of transport in cities? http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/driverless-vehicles-future-car-sharing

‘Our Kids Will Not Believe Humans Ever Drove Cars’: The Real Question About Driverless Autos http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewcave/2015/05/26/our-kids-will-not-believe-humans-ever-drove-cars-the-real-question-about-driverless-autos/

5 confounding questions that hold the key to the future of driverless cars http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/15/5-confounding-questions-that-hold-the-key-to-the-future-of-driverless-cars/

Can driverless cars be made safe from hackers?http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/09/driverless-cars-safe-hackers-google

Self-Driving Cars Are Gearing Up For European Roads (19/1/2015)http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/are-self-driving-cars-ready-for-european-roads.html/?a=viewa-ll#ixzz3dGsO5pSD

Netherlands first to operate a self-driving shuttle in public traffic? http://www.driverless-future.com/?p=730

Civilian drones and the legal issues surrounding their use https://www.wbs-law.de/internetrecht/civilian-drones-legal-issues-surrounding-use-50459/

4http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11180429/Driverless-buses-on-the-way.html , http://www.grreporter.info/en/first_bus_without_driver_trikala/10722 5Drone laws in the UK – what are the rules? (16/4/15), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11541504/Where-is-the-legal-line-in-flying-drones.html


The legal turbulence hindering drones in the UK (20/2/14)http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/20/shoot-down-drones

• Driverless/Autonomous cars – self-driving car and robotic car, an automated or autonomous ve-hicle capable of fulfilling the main transportation capabilities of a traditional car. As an autono-mous vehicle, it is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input.

• Drone – a flying robot. The aircraft may be remotely controlled or can fly autonomously through software-controlled flight plans in their embedded systems working in conjunction with GPS6.

• Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) – advanced applications which, without embodying intelli-gence as such, aim to provide innovative services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated, and ‘smarter’ use of transport networks.

• EU Competences – everything deriving from EU law that affects what happens in the Member Sta-tes. Transportation falls under the shared competences the EU has with the Member States7.

• Software – Software is a general term for the various kinds of programs used to operate computers and related devices.

• What set of requirements should the EU set in order for autonomous cars to be sold on market?• What security precautions can the EU set in order to prevent future mal-usage of these technolo-

gies?• To what extend can cars ever be autonomous?• Who would be liable if a driverless car crashes?• Is our infrastructure ready for these technologies? • Should EU collaborate with international agencies so as to be better informed about these techno-

logies, and, if yes, to what extend?

− Every year about 1.3 million people are killed in road traffic accidents globally. Those deaths are just the tip of the iceberg: injuries can add up to a staggering 50m per annum, according to the Association for Safe International Road Travel.− The autonomous vehicles of 2020 will likely self-drive only under certain conditions and relinquish control to a human driver if situations change.− Europeans have mixed feelings about the application and implementation of autonomous cars in today’s society. The majority of respondents are still uncomfortable with the idea of using an auto-nomous car: an absolute majority of respondents in 23 Member States claim that they would not be comfortable with travelling in one. Six in ten respondents have heard something about civil drones, 6Drones: What are they and how do they work? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10713898 7The competences explained http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/competences/faq?lg=en#q1 , http://en.euabc.com/word/208 , EU transport policy http://europa.eu/pol/trans/index_en.htm

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS



with around four in ten hearing something about them in the media. However, similar to results seen for autonomous cars, Europeans are still uneasy with the concept where two thirds think they are a threat to privacy. However, respondents do recognise the potential of these technologies since a re-latively high proportion of people agree that autonomous vehicles and drones could be used for the transportation of goods8.

European Roadmap for automated Driving

New technologies with huge potential and yet, no legal barriers -in terms of policy measures or direc-tives to the Member States- is one of the main conflicts for this topic. Various industries and sectors 8Special Eurobarometer 427→Fieldwork: November – December 2014 Publication: June 2015 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_427_sum_en.pdf


are get excited by the potential and possibilities of such new age technologies. Driverless cars, drone delivery and on-demand transportation of all kinds open up a number of opportunities, but they also present challenges. Equity, public versus private delivery of city services and worker displacement are key concerns.

Concerning the drones, to begin with, since there’s an absence of legal guidelines on their usage, ma-nufacturers are free to conduct any kind of experiment, with the risk of trespassing an individual’s privacy. What is more, we cannot be sure that these innovations will ultimately behave as we want them to, since Artificial Intelligence is also involved.

Furthermore, there’s an absence of legislation about licensing, damage liability and computer’s compromise for driverless vehicles.

A clean start has to be made, by implementing new legislation and support systems for those tech-nologies. Bearing in mind that transportation belongs to the shared competences of the EU where Member States cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so, there has been an inconsistency about what Member States can, or cannot in this area.

A stance must also be taken on drone deliveries. Although they sound promising9, they have the pos-sibility to record video and concerns have been raised of individuals turning drones or automated vehicles into explosive devices.

Additional links:

The truth about driverless vehicles: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141013-convoys-of-huge-zombie-trucks

A scepticism on Google: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/22/what-does-google-want-glass-drones-self-driving-cars

Who should be legally responsible for autonomous cars?http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/sonstiges/meldungen/detail/artikel/wer-haftet/

• European Commission – responsible for proposing and legislating in the EU, bearing in mind the shared competence state. Also, with new technologies being imported on Transportation, new funds are used to update Europe’s transport infrastructure effectively, which means more respon-sibilities10.

• Manufacturers – able to build and reform the current innovations in transport.• National Governments – taking under consideration the lack of an overall legal framework, na-

tional governments are free to implement any conditions they think fit.• Citizens – although usually undermined, citizens must also accept these technologies before they

can be introduced.

9“Matternet” expert explaining drone deliveries on TED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yEl0-bCA9M 10https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/feature/commission-guide-technology-will-bring-new-array-opportu-nities-transport-sector

STAKEHOLDERS


With the exception of the absence of an overall legal framework to cover all possible aspects of the ma-tter, there are collateral efforts trying to fill the gaps. To begin, the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, is an international treaty designed to facilitate international road traffic and to increase road safety by establishing standard traffic rules among the contracting parties. The Safe Road Trains for the Envi-ronment (SARTRE) Project11 is funded by the European Commission under the Framework 7 program-me, which aims to develop strategies and technologies to allow vehicle platoons to operate on normal public highways with significant environmental, safety and comfort benefits. The World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP 29) offers a unique framework for globally harmonised regulations on vehicles. WP.29 is a permanent working party in the institutional framework of the Uni-ted Nations with a specific mandate and rules of procedure. It works as a global forum allowing open discussions on motor vehicle regulations. Additionally, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (“UNECE”) is one of five regional commissions of the United Nations and its main purpose is to promote pan-European economic integration. Last but not least, there is the Horizon 2020: The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, which is the financial instrument imple-menting the Innovation Union12, a Europe 202013 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness.

Additional links:

Review of the legislative and regulatory framework for testing driverless carshttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/340622/review-le-gislative-regulatory-framework-driverless-cars.pdf

Directives and regulations - motor vehicles (Archived on 2/2/15)http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/documents/directives/motor-vehicles/index_en.htm

EU Regulations, Directives and other actshttp://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/legal-acts/index_en.htm

An article for insurance companies and driverless cars in case of an accident http://www.forbes.com/sites/federicoguerrini/2015/06/11/soon-your-self-driving-car-could-save-you-from-paying-for-insurance/

Autonomous or ‘driverless’ cars and disability: a legal and ethical analysis. http://webjcli.org/article/view/344/471

11http://www.sartre-project.eu/en/Sidor/default.aspx 12http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm13http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm


COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND TOURISM II

With the traffic levels likely to double by 2020 and European Air Traffic Management costing signifi-cantly more than similar systems around the world, how can the EU build on the two existing Single European Sky Packages in order to accommodate increasing traffic flows and to ensure safety, sustai-nability and cost-efficiency in air traffic?

by: Anna Nichols (IE)


Despite economic cutbacks and crises, more Europeans are taking to the skies than ever before, with 10 million passengers from 440 airports across European airspace in 2014. This makes the aviation sec-tor an increasingly important employer and economic contributor in the EU, creating 5.1 million jobs and generating 365 billion EUR or 2.4% of European GDP.1

However, flight numbers are expected to grow at 5% per year, meaning that by 2020 there could be up to 16.9 million flights per year in the same amount of airspace.2 Air traffic control is a crucial link in the industry’s value chain, as it is responsible for ensuring the safe, expeditious and cost-efficient flow of air traffic, which minimises fuel usage, emissions and flying times.

In response to the increasing pollution, delays and congestion brought about by the growing num-ber of flights, the Commission introduced the first Single European Sky (SES) package in 20043, giving the EU competences to deal with Air Traffic Management (ATM) for the first time, in the hopes that a move away from individual Member State ATM systems towards an overarching EU framework would streamline the aforementioned issues. A second SES Package, known as SES II, was introduced in 2009 with an emphasis on improving economic, financial and environmental performance.4 Despite this, concerns over Member State failures to meet implementation deadlines, the continued fragmentation of airspace and the prolonged usage of outdated operational procedures, have all contributed towards flight delays and ATM contributing to 6-12% the cost of an airline ticket.5 All of these factors have led to the European ATM Network (EATMN) falling far behind its peers in the area of cost-efficiency, in particu-lar the US, which operates in a similar sized airspace with a greater number of flights at almost half the cost. With increasing global competition for European airlines and a shift towards aviation growth in the Middle East and Asian Pacific, Europe cannot afford to remain at the back of the ATM pack for much longer, which has prompted the SES2+ Proposal.

1http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/index_en.htm2SESAR: The Future of Flying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k-2G_vxso9g3Regulation (EC) No 549/2004 .4 European Commission on SES II: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/ses_2_en.htm5Report on the implementation of the Single European Sky- ‘Time to Deliver’: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/doc/reports/2011_11_14_com_2011_0731_f_rapport_en.pdf


Additional links:

Introduction to the SES, be sure to watch both videos- you can find a link to the second one after watching the firsthttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/index_en.htm

Comprehensive FAQs on the SEShttp://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-525_en.htm

SES II- the links to the Regulations are particularly important to readhttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/ses_2_en.htm

• Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP): an organisation that provides the service of managing the aircraft in flight or on the maneuvering area of an and which is the legitimate holder of that respon-sibility. Member State governments are often majority shareholders or owners of ANSPs.

• Fragmentation: The current division of the European airspaceinto smaller jurisdictions often based on Member State boundaries. This is an inefficient use of airspace, leading to a decline in capacity and performance.

• Functional Airspace Block (FAB): an airspace block based on operational requirements. FABs are established regardless of State boundaries, where the provision of air navigation services and rela-ted functions are performance-driven and optimised with a view to introducing, in each block, en-hanced cooperation among ANSPs oran integrated provider. FABs were created in SES I with the aim of being a catalyst for fostering co-operation between ANSPs and for dealing with fragmentation.

• Interoperability: The procedures for operation in order to ensure safe, efficient and seamless ope-ration in the EATMN. This includes the functional, technical and operational properties which the systems and constituents of the EATMN must have.6

• Free Route Airspace (FRA): a specific section of airspace in which users may freely plan a route be-tween a defined entry point and a defined exit point, with the possibility of routing via intermediate (published or unpublished) waypoints, without reference to the ATS route network, subject to airs-pace availability. In this airspace, flights remain subject to air traffic control.

Additional links:

FRA’s roles in SES explained: https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/free-route-airspace

FAB’s roles in SES explained: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/fab/index_en.htmhttp://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Functional_Airspace_Block_(FAB)

• Compared to other ATM systems, why is the European Air Traffic Management Network (EATMN) so costly?

6http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/air_transport/l24070_en.htm

KEY TERMS

KEY QUESTIONS


• What can be done to reduce it?• What has been achieved by the existing SES packages? • How can the next round of legislation, the proposed SES2+ be improved?• What are the political ramifications of changing the current ATM set up?• How can the vested interests of Member States and airline companies be met in alterations?• Where do technology and the environment come into the question of ATM?• How can technological developments help resolve congestion and delays?• What effect does this have on the environment?• What does the current situation say about how businesses operate in Europe?• How does this affect business incentives and Europe’s global competitiveness?

Additionalen links

New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/business/global/europe-aims-to-unify-its-air-traffic-system.html?_r=0

• The SES initiative aims to have increased capacity by:1. improved capacity by a factor of 10, 2. reduced the effect of flights on the environment by 10% 3. Ireduce the cost of ATM to airspace users by 50% by 2020.

• In 2010, the European ATM system controlled 9.5 million flights, with up to 33,000 flights on busy days.

• The 2020 forecast shall increase to almost 17 million flights yearly and 50,000 flights on busy days.

• The European airspace covers 10.8million km² and is governed by 60 different control centres.• There are 37 ANSPs in the European ANS system, making it the most diverse network of ANSPs in

a high density area in the world. • The 5 biggest ANSPs bear 60.3% of total European gate-to-gate ATM provision costs and

operate 54% of European traffic.• 32 smaller ANSPs deal with the remaining 40% of traffic.

• It is estimated that the fragmentation of airspace costs between 4-5 billion EUR a year, 19.4 million minutes’ delay for en-route aircraft in the EATMN and adds an extra 42km on average onto each flight.

It is clear that the airspace is managed by too many ANSPs, preventing aircraft from taking the most direct route and thus, wasting valuable fuel and time. However, most Member States, which are ei-ther sole or majority owners of service providers, have a strong tendency to focus on steady reve-nue streams of the user-financed system of air traffic control services. This makes them reluctant to endorse fundamental change towards a more integrated operating airspace if there is a potential threat to their revenue stream.


KEY CONFLICTS


This fear of loss extends to many people working ANSPs in the support services sector, such as air tra-ffic controllers, where it is believed most savings could be made. Many workers fear that further harmo-nisation would lead to poorer working conditions, further job losses, and a compromise to relati-vely constant safety standards. However, the protection of air traffic controllers’ jobs is a contentious issue for other Member State citizens, given their consistently high pay throughout economic recession.

Decision-making progresses and SES implementations are further delayed by Member States’ ultimate decision-making capacity, which has allowed nationally vested interests to halt proceedings, sustai-ning fragmentation and allowing its by-products to continue to stagnate. This occurred most recently in 2013 with protests in France over fears of the SES’ implementation of FABs posing a threat to natio-nal sovereignty.

These power struggles are particularly problematic. The longer they continue unresolved, the longer problems regarding inefficient flight routes, carbon emissions and the brunt of the costs being borne out by the passengers continue.

Additional links:

News report on French protests:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22850250

Accelerating the implementation of the Single European Sky:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/doc/ses2plus/com(2013)408_en.pdf

Outline of both sides’ perspective:http://skift.com/2013/06/12/the-eu-battle-over-air-traffic-control-is-just-beginning/#/0

The EU has been the key driver of change in how the EATMN operates, most evidently in its current SES2+ proposal to strengthen the Commission’s role in SES implementations in the hopes of accelera-ting reform. As a result, the Commission is now prepared to launch infringement procedures against Member States who have failed to comply with certain requirements, such as moving towards the FAB-based integrated operating airspace. However, individual Member States currently have the ul-timate say in targets and adopting corrective measures when those targets are not met. This capacity has often lead to a delay in policy implementation where EU and national interests clash.

Since 2011, the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), has been the nominated Network Manager 7 for all EATMN functions of the SES. Eurocontrol is an intergovernmental organisation with 41 Member States, and is committed to implementing the SES alongside the EU, pro-viding expertise in the area of airspace capacity management.

Trade associations such as the European Regions Airline Association (ERA), whose membership in-cludes 52 airlines and 120 other aviation sector providers, seek to protect members from burdensome regulation in the firm belief that regional aviation is essential to the European air transport market. The

7The Network Manager is responsible for managing the entire ATM Network (with nearly ten million flights every year), in close liaison with the ANSPs, airspace users, the military and airports. Source: http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/our-role

STAKEHOLDERS


ERA has stated that it firmly supports the continued implementation of the SES initiative.8 However, other trade unions such as The European Air Traffic Controllers Union, in which 14,000 members are organised, and the European Transport Workers’ Union, have been trying for a long time to ne-gotiate a deal with the Commission in opposition if its uniform saving targets, and want the unions to be used as an intermediary between workers and authorities in brokering the best solution pos-sible.

Additional links

Eurocontrol membership- click on the maps to see the intersection of Eurocontorol and EU Member States http://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/who-we-are

ERA videohttps://youtu.be/SINp_jRYlJQ

ERA route network map http://eraa.innosked.com/(S(2xx5vj45ula5lenxvp2mto45))/default.aspx

The proposed SES2+ package aims to update legislative issues that were overlooked or unsuc-cessful in the previous SES II package, and to facilitate the application of a more hands-off, perfor-mance orientated economic regulation with the aviation market across the EU. SES2+ purports that it will do this by clarifying responsibilities between EASA and Eurocontrol, allowing greater flexibility in FAB implementation, strengthening the Performance Scheme, and most controversially, bolste-ring the independence of National Supervisory Authorities (NSAs)9 and requiring the application of normal procurement rules to secure the tender for the provision of support services.

Meanwhile SESAR, the technological pillar of the SES initiative, was initially launched in 2007 with the aim of improving ATM performance by modernising and harmonising ATM systems by de-veloping and implementing innovative technological and operational solutions. SESAR works with stakeholders in both the public and private sector, and has so far been largely successful, with a num-ber of its innovations, including User-preferred routing, Dynamic Sectorisation and Time-Based Separations declared ready for industrialisation in 2014, while the signing of a partnership agree-ment in December 2014 has secured another 3 billion EUR worth of funding for implementing the SES initiative.

Finally, in response to the concerns raised by non-EU parties, a 12 week public consultation period for citizens was opened from March to mid-June 2015 with the aim of giving citizens a chance to air their views on the EU’s stance on competitiveness in the aviation sector. The results of the survey are expected in the coming weeks.

Additional links:

Summary of the SES2+ programme, read the links at the bottom: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/ses2plus_en.htm

8ERA Policy Statements on SES and SESAR Projects http://www.eraa.org/policy/airports-ground-ops/single-european-sky-ses-sesar-projects-09NSAs are EU-established bodies independent of ANSPs. They are responsible for supervising the regulatory fra-mework in all Member States.

MEASURES IN PLACE


SESAR Introduction and statistics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=k-2G_vxso9g

SESAR Innovations explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7shT5W_rI1Q

Interesting Commentary on technological developments in the global aviation sector:http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21615069-more-aircraft-take-sky-new-tech-nology-will-allow-pilots-pick-their-own

Outcome of signing the SESAR agreements:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/news/2014-12-05-funding_en.htm

Public consultation page- although you can no longer take the survey, it might be interesting to see how the EU presents a consultation procedure:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/consultations/2015-aviation-package_en.htm

NSAs in relation to SES:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/single_european_sky/national_supervisory_en.htm


Notes and Drafts

HIBER 20154TH INTERNATIONAL

FORUM OF EYP SPAIN

Website: http://hiber2015.eype.esDelegates’ Support: [email protected]

Head Organisers: [email protected] us in Facebook! www.fb.com/Hiber2015

HIBER 2015 is supported by: