Месечни архиви: юли 2016

Public opinion and EU security: exploring the expectations gap

Written by Clare Ferguson,

Security and the fight against terrorism have been headline news for many months now, with terrorist attacks on European soil bringing security policy to the forefront of EU citizens’ minds. A recent Eurobarometer survey looked at the perceptions and expectations of Europeans regarding EU action on security and defence matters, including combating terrorism. EPRS has identified the gaps between citizens’ expectations in this field and the potential for increased EU intervention to work alongside Member States to protect Europeans.

Security and defence policy

Public expectations and EU commitment regarding security and defence

Public expectations and EU commitment regarding security and defence

Decisions on security and defence policy are generally a Member State matter, taken behind closed doors. Nevertheless, almost two thirds of EU citizens would like to see greater EU intervention in this policy area. Although the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) allocates the role of regional security provider to the EU, Member States are reluctant to use the mechanisms provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, despite their potential positive impact on EU security. Financial support for EU action could also be more flexible.

The fight against terrorism

Public expectations and EU commitment on the fight against terrorism

Public expectations and EU commitment on the fight against terrorism

Perception of the international, and indeed national, response to terrorism and radicalisation drives much of the current EU political discourse. European citizens demonstrate strong expectations for EU action in the fight against terrorism. As with security and defence, EU Member States hold the primary role in this policy area. However, there is scope for increased EU involvement within the current legal framework, and financing for counter-terrorism measures is increasing.

Read the complete briefing on:

See other policy areas covered with this Eurobarometer.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/29/public-opinion-and-eu-security-exploring-the-expectations-gap/

The cost of banking – Recent trends in capital requirements

Written by Andrej Stuchlik

As the European Banking Authority gets set to release the results of the latest stress tests on 51 major EU banks, EPRS looks at the developing rules on capital requirements for financial institutions in the EU.

Abacus calculation flat icon

© juliars / Fotolia

Capital and liquidity requirements are provisions to make banking activities safer through measures to cover a firm’s unexpected losses as well as to fund its ongoing activities. The supervision of financial institutions is benchmarked against international standards (Basel III), set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). These non-binding provisions are transposed into EU norms through the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD-IV/CRR – the ‘CRD-IV package’).
Current data suggest a limited overall negative impact of increased capital requirements on bank lending. Considering the long-term benefits, an appropriate increase in capital requirements appears to be positive.

Equally, at international level, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) has developed resolution standards for globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs), requiring even higher buffers. Known as Total Loss Absorption Capacity (TLAC), this will enter into force after 2019. In parallel, the EU Banking Union’s single resolution mechanism (SRM) is currently finalising its own loss-absorption rules: minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL), which are required by the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The European Commission is currently making efforts to align these different provisions and to reduce the complexity for the banking sector.

At the same time, with remaining high political risk within the euro area and unparalleled ultra-low interest rates, challenges remain. These include sovereign risk, the provision of state aid to banks and the upcoming revision of the CRD-IV package, including proposals to standardise models for risk-weighted assets.

Read the complete briefing on:

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/28/the-cost-of-banking-recent-trends-in-capital-requirements/

Podcasts of January 2016: Tune in again!

Written by Richard Freedman,

Over the summer parliamentary recess, we take a look back at the podcasts published from January 2016 until June 2016. Each week, we will publish a retrospective with an opportunity for you to (re)listen to the EPRS Policy, Plenary and Science and Technology Podcasts.

Looking back at the podcasts published in January 2016, we highlighted two topics for the plenary podcasts namely: Measuring on-road air pollution from cars, and secondly, Strengthening the presumption of innocence in the EU.

Measuring on-road air pollution [Plenary Podcast]

Air pollution kills and drains the EU economy. The European Commission wants to introduce tests that better reflect real on-road emissions, but it is likely to run into serious opposition from MEPs, who say the rules are too soft on carmakers. Although emissions of air pollutants from transport have fallen considerably in recent decades, current levels still have adverse effects on health and the environment.

In an implementing regulation on new tests that better reflect real on-road emissions, the Commission sets higher limits than current standards, but below current levels of emissions. A move to veto a plan to raise NOx emission limits for diesel cars temporarily was rejected by MEPs in February, after the European Commission promised a review clause and tabled a long-term legislative proposal to revamp the EU car approval regime.

Listen to the plenary podcast Measuring on-road air pollution [Plenary Podcast]


Strengthening the presumption of innocence in the EU [Plenary Podcast]

The presumption of innocence is guaranteed at all legal levels, yet numerous breaches have reportedly occurred in the EU. In January 2016, the Parliament’s plenary voted on a proposal by the Commission to address this problem. Despite the presumption of innocence being guaranteed by international, EU and national laws, there are reports of repeated violations of this principle by EU Member States.

MEPs adopted their position at first reading in January 2016 and the procedure is now completed.

Listen to the plenary podcast Strengthening the presumption of innocence in the EU [Plenary Podcast]


Also in January 2016, longer Policy Podcasts, which tackle the role of the European Parliament on topical issues, focused on the Commission Work Programme 2016 and the Circular Economy Package.

Commission Work Programme 2016

The Commission Work Programme 2016, adopted on 27 October 2015, spells out actions on 10 political priorities for the coming 12 months, some of which were already presented in 2015, such as the measures on firearms or the Circular Economy Package. Well, ahead of the Commission’s adoption of the new work programme in October 2015, the European Parliament set out its recommendations and urged the EU executive to show clear leadership and demonstrate the importance it attaches to transparency in the legislative process

Listen to the Policy Podcast Commission Work Programme 2016 [Policy Podcast]


Circular Economy Package

In a traditional linear economic model, things work like this: a company produces a good – say a mobile phone or a hairdryer – we buy it, we use it, and when we don’t need it anymore, we throw it away. This model assumes that resources are abundant, available and cheap to dispose of, so it bases itself on a ‘take-make-consume-throw away’ pattern. In sharp contrast to this, a circular economy is based on sharing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling, in an almost closed loop. In this alternative model, products and the materials they contain are kept within the economy for as long as possible, reducing waste to a minimum.

Listen to the Policy Podcast Circular Economy Package [Policy Podcast]

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/27/podcasts-of-january-2016-tune-in-again/

The European Council in 2015

Written by Suzana Elena Anghel, Izabela Cristina Bacian, Ralf Drachenberg and
Susanna Tenhunen

European Council President speech during the Plenary Session - Week 15 2016

European Council President speech during the Plenary Session – Week 15 2016

Designed to be the first in a series of annual publications, this In-Depth Analysis by the European Council Oversight Unit of the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) examines in detail the activity of the European Council in 2015, in all of the six policy areas which have most attracted the attention of the Heads of State or Government: migration; economic governance; foreign and security policy; terrorism; and work towards a new settlement for the United Kingdom in the European Union.

Although the European Council’s principal mission is strategic, the institution mainly engaged in crisis management in 2015, due principally to the growing migration crisis. This led to an increase in the number of meetings. Eight meetings of the Heads of State or Government were held, two of which were of an informal nature. Except for one informal meeting, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, reported to the European Parliament on the outcome of the meetings of the Heads of State or Government as required by the Treaties.

EPRS aims to provide a detailed overview, both quantitative and qualitative, of the activity of the European Council in 2015. We consider the frequency of meetings, their nature – regular, extraordinary or informal – as well as the topics addressed by the Heads of State or Government. We also look at the European Parliament’s involvement in and views on the work of the European Council.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/26/the-european-council-in-2015/

Public opinion and EU foreign policies: exploring the expectations gap

Written by Clare Ferguson,

A recent Eurobarometer survey looked at the perceptions and expectations of Europeans regarding EU action, including the foreign policy, and global promotion of democracy and peace policy fields. The survey, commissioned for the only directly elected European Union institution, the European Parliament, identifies the gaps between citizens’ expectations and EU performance in related policy fields, and identifies possible areas for additional EU action.

Foreign policy

Public expectations and EU commitment on foreign policy

Public expectations and EU commitment on foreign policy

EU citizens are split on whether EU engagement in foreign policy is sufficient or not enough, and on some specific issues, the expectation gap is clear. The EU’s ability to act internationally, however, depends on whether it has sole responsibility, or shares responsibility with Member States and other international bodies such as the UN or WTO, to tackle a particular question. The fast-paced context of global issues with multiple impacts has encouraged the EU to move towards more integrated strategies and away from compartmentalised aid, development and trade. Coordination between all stakeholders is challenging but vital, not only to respond to natural and manmade shocks, but also to prevent risks.

The promotion of democracy and peace in the world

Public expectations and EU commitment regarding the promotion of democracy and peace in the world

Public expectations and EU commitment regarding the promotion of
democracy and peace in the world

In contrast to foreign policy, fully two thirds of European Union citizens are in favour of stronger EU involvement in the promotion of democracy and peace in the world. These fundamental values guide all EU external actions. Using both diplomacy and the financial leverage afforded by both development aid and trade with third countries, the EU supports good governance, fair elections and the democratic involvement of civil society and a free press throughout the world. The Parliament has already stated ‘there can be no human security in a society without a democratic and accountable government’. However, the EU could be more effective in helping to prevent conflict and its aftermath.

Read the complete briefing on:

See other policy areas covered with this Eurobarometer.


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/26/public-opinion-and-eu-foreign-policies-exploring-the-expectations-gap/

A guide to EPRS podcasts

Written by Richard Freedman,

Since July 2015, the European Parliamentary Research Service has been producing informative, timely and varied podcasts. The podcasts fall into three categories:

  • Plenary Podcasts
  • Policy Podcasts and
  • Science and Technology Podcasts.

Each month, on the Thursday before the European Parliament’s plenary session, five podcasts are published on various platforms (see below). Two podcasts are linked to the plenary agenda and are based on the ‘Plenary at a Glance’ notes. Two are based on policy related issues, either a topical issue or relating to ‘President Juncker’s Political Guidelines’. And one podcast per month based on a scientific and/or technological issue.

Plenary Podcasts

EPRS Plenary PodcastsSince July 2015, two plenary podcasts are produced per month. These are an opportunity to listen to a selection of briefing material on the key issues in each month’s European Parliament plenary session. Crafted for Members and their staff by expert policy analysts, these podcasts capture the essence of upcoming business in a few minutes of listening. Their duration is short and snappy (around 2-4 minutes), and are an easy way to listen and find out some key themes on the plenary agenda.

Policy Podcasts

EPRS policy podcastsSince November 2015, two Policy podcasts are produced per month. They take an in-depth look at different topical EU policy areas based on objective authoritative and independent research. They are focussed on topical issues and/or are related to ‘President Juncker’s Political Guidelines’. These Policy podcasts are broad in nature and take an in-depth approach to the topic. They examine the current situation, stakeholder positions, criticisms and steps forward and always highlight the role of the European Parliament. These podcasts aim to have a long ‘shelf-life’ and can be turned to in order to listen to a well-rounded analysis of a particular EU topic. They last between 7-11 minutes and range from topics from the European Semester to the Schengen area or the situation in Ukraine to name just a few topics.

Science and Technology Podcasts

EPRS STOA podcastsSince May 2016, one Science and Technology podcast is produced per month. These podcasts are an opportunity to listen to a selection of podcasts reporting on the latest science & technology developments, looking into the impact they will have on our lives and capturing their policy implications. The duration is about 3-5 minutes each. They focus on punchy topics and so far have focus on the ‘What if’ series of publications.

Together these five monthly podcasts highlight some of the work of EPRS in a different, easy to listen to format. Whether you are on the move, at home, or perhaps working out, these podcasts are a great way to find out the latest information and to gain an in-depth understanding into EU policies in an informative, objective and independent manner.

In addition to the EPRS blog, LinkedIn and Twitter accounts, it is possible to listen to EPRS podcasts on a range of platforms. Below are some of the main platforms available to download and/or subscribe.

Happy listening!


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/25/a-guide-to-eprs-podcasts/

Public opinion and EU policies: exploring the expectations gap

Written by Clare Ferguson with Alina Dobreva and Eva-Maria Poptcheva,

Gap between expectation and current EU involvement

Gap between expectation and current EU involvement

Public opinion is key in any representative democracy, and none more so than the only directly elected European Union institution, the European Parliament. Commissioned for the European Parliament, and published shortly after the United Kingdom referendum vote to leave the European Union, a special Eurobarometer survey looked at the perceptions and expectations of Europeans regarding EU action, and specifically the fight against terrorism and radicalisation.

The European Parliamentary Research Service has taken the results of the survey, has analysed the gaps between citizens’ expectations and EU performance in related policy fields, and has identified possible areas for additional EU action.

The Eurobarometer survey showed that citizens have high expectations regarding EU action, and that the majority would like the EU to intervene more, particularly regarding migration and the protection of external borders. In spite of the UK decision, in many Member States, citizens remain positive as regards the Union and agree that ‘what brings them together is more important than what separates them’. Regarding the fight against terrorism and radicalisation, citizens are on high alert; and would like to see a global response, tackling both the economic aspects and the root causes of the spread of radicalisation and terrorist organisations in Europe.

Expectations for more EU involvement – Differences between Member States

Expectations for more EU involvement – Differences between Member States

So, is there a gap between citizens’ expectations of European Union action and EU policies? While the survey results vary widely across policy areas, the data show that, in most policy areas there is a clear gap between citizens’ perception of current EU involvement and their expectations and preferences for future EU action. EPRS looks at the potential – within the constraints of the current EU Treaties – for the EU to do more to meet those expectations.

In a series of blogposts over the summer months, EPRS will highlight the issues where citizens express a desire for greater intervention, and what possible actions the EU might take in:

  • foreign policy, and the promotion of democracy and peace in the world;
  • security and defence policy, and the fight against terrorism;
  • the issue of migration, and the protection of external borders;
  • health and social security, the fight against unemployment, and equal treatment of men and women;
  • environmental protection, and agriculture;
  • industrial policy, and energy supply and energy security;
  • economic policy, and the fight against tax fraud.

Read the complete briefing on ‘Public expectations and EU policies: Identifying the gaps‘.

See other policy areas covered with this Eurobarometer.

Europeans in 2016: Perceptions and expectations, fight against terrorism and radicalisation

Special Eurobarometer of the European Parliament, conducted by TNS Opinion

Sample size: 27 969 interviews

Representativeness: EU-28, representative for EU citizens aged 15 or older

Fieldwork: 9-18 April 2016

Methodology: face-to-face interviews


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/22/public-opinion-and-eu-policies-exploring-the-expectations-gap/

Freedom of panorama

Written by Helmut Masson and Sarah Watson,

A selfie in front of an Eiffel Tower

© Andrey Yurlov / Fotolia

Creative works, including buildings, sculptures or street art are, as a matter of principle, subject to copyright protection under EU law. However, Article 5(2)(h) of the 2001 Copyright directive states that Member States may limit copyright for the use of such works located permanently in public places.

This exception, generally referred to as freedom of panorama , allows e.g. to take photographs of public spaces and use such photographs for personal and for commercial purposes depending how the copyright exception is defined in national law.

However, under current EU law, the freedom of panorama exception is merely optional which means that Member States can decide to introduce them in their national law (e.g. the UK or Germany) or not (e.g. France or Italy). The exact scope of the freedom of panorama and its availability depends, therefore, on national law and, ultimately, on its interpretation by domestic courts.

On 23 March 2016 the Commission launched an open consultation on copyright and freedom of panorama to determine a best approach to the freedom of panorama exception. The consultation closed 15 June 2016.

The following Keysource is a compilation of informative materials presenting the various interests and issues at stake, and the progression of proposals for amendments.


Review of the EU Copyright Framework: Implementation, application, and effects of the “InfoSoc” Directive (2001/29/EC) / Stéphane Reynolds … [et al.], European Parliamentary Research Services Impact Assessment, PE 558.762, October 2015, 356 p.
This is a commissioned study conducted by the European Parliamentary Research Services at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to evaluate proposals for amending key aspects of EU copyright legislation. It begins by examining the current legislative framework, identifying the key problem areas (p. 47 & 127) and evaluating it based on its effectiveness, efficacy, coherence, and relevance. Freedom of Panorama is explicitly addressed in section 2.3.8 (p. 136), and in Table 14, Annex A: National implementation of selected copyright exceptions and limitations in a sample of Member States. (214)

A large number of Wikimedia authors are quite engaged in the defence of freedom of panorama. Pages like Commons: Freedom of panorama , EU policy/Strategy/FoP/Argumentation and  Panoramafreiheit (in German) adequately sum up the current debate and provide a number of links to further reading.

France: Projet de loi pour une République numérique
End of June 2016 the mixed committee agreed on a compromise text including Art. 18ter which gives panorama freedom to private persons, but excludes all commercial use.
See also Liberté de panorama : le Sénat persiste dans l’erreur et signe ! , Wikimedia, 28.04.2016 or La liberté de panorama encadrée sur le web , Hubert d’Erceville, Le Moniteur des Travaux Publics et du Bâtiment, 20.05.2016 ( full article only available within the EP).

Swedish Supreme Court issues decision regarding the freedom of panorama / Johan Norderyd and Elna Jönsson, Kluwer Copyright Blog, 09.05.2016.
In the case between Bildupphovsrätt i Sverige ek.för. (BUS) vs Wikimedia Sverige (Case nr Ö 849-15), Swedish authors and a company wishing to create a public database of works of fine art faced a dispute concerning copyright laws and how the word “depict” in copyright legislation should be interpreted. The Swedish Supreme Court applied the test laid out in the InfoSoc Directive, and on 4th April 2016 handed down its decision . The Court found that the intended database exploited the works of art, and failed to provide due compensation to the authors.


Report on the freedom of panorama in Europe / Plamena Popova, 2015, 29 p.
This report examines relevant legal provisions of each Member State of the European Union and Russia on the extent of their individual legislation pertaining to freedom of panorama – or more specifically regarding permanent copyrighted works in public places. The author then compiles the data in a table, and conducts a comparative analysis.

Panoramafreiheit in Europa / Susanne Janetzki und John Weitzmann, 2014, 35 p.
Die Autoren untersuchen die Rechtslage zur Panoramafreiheit in der EU und den Mitgliedsstaaten, sowie in Norwegen, der Schweiz und Island.  Der allgemeinen Übersicht folgen eine Auflistung der Länder, sortiert nach Reichweite der Panoramafreiheit, und der dazu gehörigen Problemstellungen, sowie mögliche Lösungsvorschläge.

Freedom of panorama: what copyright for public art and architectural works ? / Lilla Montagnani, Kluwer Copyright Blog, 12/07/2015.
This blog post begins by highlighting the growing debate surrounding what forms of copyright can be applied to subject material. It also examines the key tensions between public art and architectural works, which are then displayed in four characterizations of conflict types. It concludes with comments pertaining to the proposed amendments to the EU InfoSoc Directive, and expresses a need for greater, more in depth research into public interest underpinning public art and architectural works.

Freedom of Expression and Right to Privacy in the European Union: The Right to Photograph Private Properties / Alifia Qonita Sudharto, Indonesian Journal of International Law, July 2014, Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp. 25 p.
This piece explores the growing tensions between balancing the right to privacy, and freedom of expression that have surrounded the recent production and progression of the implementation of European Union copyright law. The author begins with an analysis of these two rights as laid out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, then critically analyses the 2001 Copyright Directive, particularly the power it gives to Member States regarding the regulation of Freedom of Panorama in their own jurisdiction and its juxtaposition with certain fundamental rights.

The EU Public Interest Clinic and Wikimedia Present: Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe / Joshua Lobert [et. al.] HEC Paris Research Paper No. LAW-2015-1092, April 2015, 26 p.
This proposal advocates for the adoption of freedom of panorama at the EU level, creating harmonization throughout all Member States. It examines the benefits and drawbacks of drafting an EU freedom of panorama exception. It submits ultimately that this would not only benefit consumers and service providers alike, but also the general public interest and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Panorama: A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography / Bryce Clayton Newell, Creighton Law Review, 2011, Vol. 44, p. 405-428
Although directed primarily towards restrictions on Freedom of Panorama in the United States, this piece addresses some of the key debates surrounding this phenomenon, as well as provides a comparative analysis of cross national approaches from the UK, the EU and Brazil. He concludes by voicing concerns pertaining to the direction freedom of panorama is taking, and how some laws restricting public photography for the sake of national security may be arbitrarily infringing on the public’s right to freedom of panorama.

Stakeholder views

Copyright Reform: Working Document / European Parliament, Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Reform, 17/05/2016, 29 p.
This report was compiled by a Working Group that was established by the European Parliament in order to examine various issues in EU legislation regarding intellectual property rights – including freedom of panorama. It was presented with and considered the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders, including Wikimedia, the European Visual Artists Organization (EVA), architects, academics, and the Federation of European Professional photographers (FEP). It concludes that the exception to freedom of panorama is increasingly central to the modern digital era, and thus in need of attention.

Freedom of panorama: a political “selfie” in Brussels / Anne-Catherine Lorrain and Julia Reda, European Intellectual Property Review, 2015, Vol. 37, Issue 12, p. 753-755.
Julia Reda, MEP representing the German Pirate Party and rapporteur of the recent InfoSoc Report is a strong advocate/activist for the liberalization of the freedom of panorama, but also copyright legislation in general. This piece is a synopsis of the recent progression that Freedom of Panorama has had through copyright law and describes the discussions during the elaboration of the InfoSoc Report. It analyses the current proposed legislation and holds that there needs to be a European standard which is applicable across all Member States. For further information on her views click here .

Commission seeks views on neighbouring rights and panorama exception in EU copyright / European Commission.
On March 23, 2016 the Commission launched an open consultation so as to determine views on whether the current legislative framework surrounding freedom of panorama will potentially create specific problems with the Digital Single Market. The consultation ran until 15 June 2016.

Exceptions for Works Permanently Located in Public Places / European Visual Artists, 13/04/2015, 7 p.
This article advocates on behalf of artists, architects and sculptors who are at risk of exploitation should the current exceptions surrounding freedom of panorama be maintained. Furthermore, it submits that the proposed legislation for harmonization at the lowest level would unduly prejudice visual authors, and cautions its pursuit.

The Panorama Exception: Why you should confirm the JURI report / Authors Society, 26/06/2015, 4 p.
This brochure was published by GESAC, who represent the interests of artists and creators. It briefly answers some crucial questions that citizens may have surrounding the current copyright debate, and believes ultimately that there is no substantial indication for the need for further harmonization of EU Member State copyright legislation.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/21/freedom-of-panorama/

How the EU budget is spent: Common Agricultural Policy

Written by Gianluca Sgueo, Francesco Tropea and Marie-Laure Augere-Granier,

Rural area view

© Andreas P / Fotolia

With 52% of the European Union (EU) territory classified as predominantly rural, more than 170 million hectares of agricultural land, and 113 million people (nearly one quarter of the EU population) living in rural areas, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) represents one of the largest shares of expenditure from the EU budget. The CAP pools European Union resources spent on agriculture to protect the viable production of food, the sustainable management of natural resources, and to support rural vitality.

The CAP consists of two ‘pillars’, the first includes direct payments (i.e. annual payments to farmers to help stabilise farm revenues in the face of volatile market prices and weather conditions) and market measures (to tackle specific market situations and to support trade promotion). The second pillar concerns rural development policy and it is aimed at achieving balanced territorial development and sustaining a farming sector that is environmentally sound, as well as promoting competitiveness and innovation.

Read the complete briefing on ‘How the EU budget is spent – Common Agricultural Policy’:
Pillar I and Pillar II

The CAP 2014-2020 accounts for 38% of the EU budget. Under the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework, a total of €408.31 billion is earmarked for the CAP, of which the largest part (€308.72 billion) is allocated to the first pillar, whereas the remaining €99.6 billion is allocated to the second pillar.

These two briefings offer a comprehensive overview of the legal basis, the state of the art and the scopes of the two pillars of CAP. The briefings follow the same structure: after illustrating the legal basis of the concerned CAP pillar, they focus on the objectives of the pillar. A thorough explanation of the measures funded as well as their assessment follows. In the conclusive remarks, the two briefings focus on other EU programmes operating in the same field.

Which challenges will CAP face in future years? The challenges identified for the CAP 2014-2020 included a broad variety of actions, ranging from the guarantee for viable food production, to the promotion of sustainable management of natural resources, and to the adoption of actions aimed at mitigating climate change. Five of these are the main objectives of CAP 2014-2020, as defined by the Treaties, namely:

  • To increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and to ensure the optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
  • To ensure a fair standard of living for farmers;
  • To stabilise markets – a crucial challenge, given the frequent alternation between sharp increases in global food prices and severe price depression;
  • To ensure the availability of supplies;
  • To ensure reasonable prices for consumers.

Looking to the future, CAP simplification is a key priority for the European Parliament. The Parliament adopted a resolution on CAP simplification in May 2010. The resolution underlines that further simplification of the CAP is necessary to reduce its implementation costs for EU institutions, Member States and the whole array of beneficiaries. The Parliament emphasises that administrative burdens and the CAP implementation costs should be reduced to enable farmers to spend more time working on their land.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/20/how-the-eu-budget-is-spent-common-agricultural-policy/

Structural reform support programme 2017-2020 [EU Legislation in Progress]

Written by Agnieszka Widuto (1st edition),

Reform word

© Gina Sanders / Fotolia

Structural reforms have been identified as crucial to accelerating economic recovery, boosting growth and reducing unemployment. In November 2015, the European Commission proposed to establish the Structural Reform Support Programme 2017-2020, to provide Member States with technical assistance in designing and implementing structural reforms, with a budget of €142.8 million taken from existing allocations to the structural and investment funds. Building on experience relating to reforms in Greece and Cyprus, the programme aims to improve administrative and institutional capacity, to facilitate better implementation of EU law, in particular the country-specific recommendations issued under the European Semester, more efficient use of EU funds and the introduction of growth-enhancing structural reforms.

The Council prepared its negotiating stance in April 2016, while the EP’s REGI Committee is to discuss its draft report in the autumn.


Stage: draft report


Implementation of CSRs, 2013 and 2014

Implementation of CSRs, 2013 and 2014


Source Article from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/07/18/structural-reform-support-programme-2017-2020-eu-legislation-in-progress/