One month on since the Brussels attacks, is the EU ready to change?

By Ana Maria Sarmento

The news shocked the world but, sadly, it was not entirely a surprise for those who live in Brussels. It was shortly after 8h00 in the morning of 22^nd of March 2016 when broadcasters reported a blast in Brussels international airport, Zaventem. At first, caution was taken not to allege this incident as a deliberated attack. After all, just four months before Paris was brutally hit by terror attacks and even if the threat was real for Brussels, hopes dispelled this thought at first. Yet, when the second explosion in Zaventem airport was announced, there was no more room for doubts. The media started to report extensively these incidents as another act of terror in the European soil. Every second, new pictures from the Belgium airport were posted on the internet. More news were incessantly updated in the media, whether it was a radio station or a TV channel. At 9h11 another blast took place. This time in Maalbeek metro station, right at the European headquarters. Fear was widespread by then. How many others bombs would explode in Brussels? Eventually a misinformed news broadcast a possible fourth blast in Schuman metro station. Fortunately for so many, this one did not occur as it was the reflect of fear raising among people. This was probably the moment when EU citizens felt the most vulnerable, as they realised – yet again - that anytime and anywhere in Europe, random citizens can be a target of a terror attack. 

 

Brussels attacks claimed 35 lives (including the 3 suicide bombers) and made more than 300 wounded. One month on, routine has been slowly reinstated in Brussels, yet the wounds have not faded. Not only to those who directly suffered from this atrocity, but also to every resident in Europe. The aftermath of a terror attack goes beyond the number of people deceased and wounded and their love ones. It affects every person who witnessed the horror in the city where they live. It is a sense of liberty and security taken for granted in the EU that is brutally stolen. All over Europe, EU citizens have frequently declared that fear won't change their daily lives. But, in fact, it already has. The routine of the city that welcomes 1,2 million people from all over the world has almost returned to normal by now. But people still feel a looming threat.

Indeed, this is the only aim of a terror attack. An unexpected, random and irrational violent action, which only purpose is to feed fear and despair among people. And so it did it. For the victims and their families, for which our prayers and thoughts go to, life won't be the same. Yet, for those fortunate to be speared in this sad day for Belgium, little by little, life goes on with caution and distrust.

But it will not be enough to fight terror if Europe and its citizens are not actively committed to do it. This fight has been appointed by so many as a military one. As if only a “witch hunt” from the police, the army and secret services to destroy these terror cells would be enough to maintain Europe as a “safe ground” as we used to believe before. Others may even say that it is a political matter only. To set in motion urgent measures was demanded immediately by citizens to EU leaders. And they were right! What should have in fact be done months ago. Even if citizens have taken for granted the right of privacy, difficult times request strong measures. The list was endless: stronger cooperation among states, a more efficient intelligence information sharing, a re-evaluation of the Schengen agreement, closing boarders to refugees... In short, citizens ask for steady security policies from the EU. But steady policies does not mean inhuman, though. The EU values, and specially the human values, which is a pillar of today's Europe, must not be forgotten. The increase of extreme far right groups is a real fear, but it should not influence the future policies taken in the EU or by its member states. With or without the threat of these movements, Europe must keep doing the right thing, and stick to its core values. It is not a foreign affair issue where a EU fortress should be built in order to prevent desperate man, women and children reaching Europe while running from the horrors of others countries. It is in fact a EU home affairs struggle. The general profile of the actors of these attacks suggest that they were born and raised in EU member states, which brings up another question. How was this monstrosity carried out by a second or third generation of EU citizens who do not feeling European citizen? Where have European countries failed in integrating Muslims communities? And why, did these communities fail to integrated in European countries after two, three and even four generation?

These arguments seems to simplify a very much complex issue that Europe has had brewing for years and is now emerging dramatically. A military intervention is needed and political measures can't be postponed. But this is only a quick fix EU strategy to fight terrorism. Rather, Europe needs to embrace cultural changes to fight terror, as well. From debating the lack of integration among the 28 different member states, we are now discussing how to create more integration of Europe’s diverse communities. Integration is a two way process, though, and both sides must take action. Responsibilities have not been taken in, which leads to a reality where different communities live completely apart from each other in the same city. Some people may point the finger at Brussels, but this same issue exists in other cities among the EU member states. A more united EU is needed more than ever before. Without an ever closer integration the European Union will have a hard time to fight terror in its soil. This fight has only now started and it does request many changes not only at the political level, but especially at a community and individual levels. And taking responsibility as a EU citizen on working together for a better EU integration is becoming crucial.

The EU should not fear Russia’s “gas weapon”

By Rick Van Assel

One of the key priorities of the European Commission’s Energy Union is to improve energy security. This entails that EU countries can enjoy energy supplies without interruptions, and at an affordable price. In the past years, energy has become more and more a geopolitical weapon, as the current Ukraine-Russia crisis shows. This, of course, is not a good evolution with regard to the goal of achieving more energy security. However, European citizens should not fear that Russia will turn off the gas switch to Europe entirely when the Kremlin wants to achieve other policy goals, for example today in Syria. This view is too narrow minded, because there are several limitations to the so called energy weapon of the Russian Federation.

Being dependent on energy imports is not abnormal. Countries cannot do magic and create oil and gas fields out of the blue. It is not even necessarily a bad thing, but therefore two conditions need to be fulfilled: there should be diversification of both suppliers and supplies. For the European Union (EU), this becomes a problem when we look at some figures regarding gas imports. Eurostat figures reveal that in 2013 more than two thirds of natural gas imports (69%) came from only two suppliers: Norway and Russia. Especially Russia has a very large share in the EU’s gas imports. In 2013 our eastern neighbours accounted for 39% of the entire gas imports to the EU. You do not have to be an award winning scientist to see that such a situation is not really healthy.

Thus, should EU member states’ governments and citizens be scared? Might Russia make abuse of the European Union’s dependence on its gas? Could Russia threaten the EU by claiming that it will turn off the gas switch whenever the EU is standing in the way of a Russian foreign policy goal? In theory it could, but it is highly unlikely.

Firstly, the dependence is not just a disadvantage for the European Union alone. Russia gets an income out of gas sales. A high income. 68% of Russia’s export revenues in 2013 were generated through selling oil and gas. Russia’s federal budget is highly dependent (about 50%) on the export of oil and gas. And the most important client of Gazprom, Russia’s state owned energy company, is the EU. From an economic point of view, it would therefore not be wise to cut off gas supplies.

This brings us to the second argument, which has been pointed out before by Thijs Van De Graaf, a Belgian professor in global energy politics. One might say that Russia should then sell its gas to other, non-EU countries. That way it could make up for the loss of income it gets from EU states. However, this is not possible. Unlike oil, which is a liquid and gets round the world through oil tankers, gas is mainly transported through pipelines, and not every country has a direct link with the Kremlin. Russia cannot send a lot of extra gas to countries with which it already has a pipeline link, because they might not have enough storage infrastructure. Another option might be sending the gas through Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers, but this is a very expensive option. Building new pipelines is a long and expensive process, so Russia would remain tied to the countries with which it has direct links through pipelines for its gas relations.

In 1973, the world got hit by a massive oil shock. After the Yom Kippur war, where the United States supported Israel in a war against Egypt and Syria, the Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) started an oil embargo against several countries, among which the United States and the Netherlands. The consequences were severe. Oil prices quadrupled and production declined. If Russia would impose a gas embargo on the EU, the consequences would not be the same as with the 1973 oil embargo, and not because the scale would be different. 

From 1973 up until today, oil was and still is the driving force for the entire transportation sector. There was no alternative, which explains why prices soared. For natural gas, things are different, as Van De Graaf pointed out. The energy services that are running on gas, are also being driven by other forms of energy, such as coal or nuclear energy. Russia could threaten the EU that it would cut gas supplies, this would (in the short term) not hurt our way of life because there are substitutes for natural gas, which was not the case in 1973 with the oil embargo.

A last argument relates to Russia’s international reputation. If Russia were to cut off gas supplies for its own political benefit, this would, without a doubt, damage its reputation. Gas demanding countries might be thinking twice to sign an agreement with Gazprom if they see that the guarantee of supply is not a full 100%. Therefore it would not be wise of Russia to stop gas supplies, let alone threaten with it. Because this might jeopardize future investments, which in turn could have a negative impact on the Russian federal budget. To put it simple: doctor Putin might not want to threaten his patient’s life, because he might not be getting any more patients afterwards.

All this does not mean that Russia does not have an appetite of influencing other states’ internal policies through its role as gas supplier. In 2013, Russian president Vladimir Putin promised a discount on the gas price for Ukraine if Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s former president, would drop an association agreement with the European Union. We all know what has happened since then. The real Russian gas power thus lies in setting the prices and allowing discounts. That way it can still have an influence in third countries and shape its own interests. This analysis just shows that the gas ties between the EU and Russia are too big to start messing with them. At this time, nor Russia, nor the EU would gain something by cutting off gas ties. And if this game were to be played after all, there would only be losers.

The internal energy market: key to a successful Energy Union

By Rick Van Assel

The European Commission on 18 November held its first ever State of the Energy Union. The statement was meant to give an update on the progression of constructing a European Energy Union. On that occasion, viEUws, an independent media organization that provides exclusive interviews and policy analyses from within European institutions, organized a debate on 30 November regarding this progress. “It is my dream to trade energy between Portugal and Finland, or between Ireland and Greece”, said Jerzy Buzek, president of the Industry, Research and Energy commission in the European Parliament.

The internal market lies at the core of the European integration project. Creating a European market where goods and services would flow freely across borders was the cornerstone of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community, which was signed in 1957 in Rome. Boundaries that intervened with the functioning of the internal market (such as customs fees) had to be removed.

The internal market that exists today lacks a very important element: energy. Making a simple comparison: a Spanish banana from Gran Canaria, which is a regular good for example, can travel freely across the European Union (EU) and be sold without limitations. Spanish solar energy on the contrary cannot do the same as the banana. Because there are still boundaries, both physical and regulatory, that impede energy resources to cross European boarders. Physical boundaries, on the one hand, imply that there is a lack of transport infrastructure (such as pipelines). Regulatory issues refer to the lack of a European body that possesses legal power to enforce the plans for this single energy market. It is still the 28 national regulators that hold that power.

Today, this issue is more relevant than ever. With the Energy Union, the European Commission hopes to achieve a sustainable, secure and affordable energy system. Therefore it indicated five priorities: ensuring security of supply, creating an internal energy market, improving energy efficiency, reducing emissions and facilitating research and innovation. “But the internal energy market is the foundation of all these pillars”, Anders Marvik said in the viEUws debate. Marvik is head of the EU affairs department of Statoil, a multinational oil and gas company. “Without an internal market, it would be very hard to achieve energy security or efficiency”, he continued. An internal energy market implies that energy flows through the EU without any limitations. This would indeed reduce import dependency, which at the same time would improve energy security.

Maros Sefcovic, one of the vice-presidents of the European Commission and responsible for the Energy Union project, stated that the EU should improve its work on the regulatory issues: “We need to work on the rules of an internal energy market and enhance cooperation between regulators.” According to Marvik, this will prove a more difficult task than investing in transport infrastructure, because member states will have to give up national power in order to achieve this goal.

When it comes to transportation, steps in the right direction have already been taken, as Jerzy Buzek noted. “Regional cooperation is effective”, he confirmed. The State of the Energy Union summed up some of the developments in the transport infrastructure part, such as a new electricity interconnector between France and Spain for example, or an agreement on the installation of a gas interconnector between Poland and Lithuania. However, these are just small steps forward and come nowhere near Buzek’s dream of trading energy between Portugal and Finland.

“I hope that we have solid fundamentals for the Energy Union, of which the internal market is a strong element, by the end of the term of this European Commission”, Sefcovic stated. Let us hope that the EU member states take the path of European integration, so that Spanish solar energy can have the same future as the bananas from Gran Canaria.

The interest for protecting specialty agriculture products

By Laura Nobel

The EU is encouraging third countries (those not part of the EU) to adopt and develop systems of protection for their specialty and regional products through national systems necessary to obtain the European labelling system for protection. What is this labelling system and why is it interesting for producers in third countries?

The European Union (EU) has a quality policy for the protection of agriculture products of geographical origin. The aim of the quality policies is to protect and enhance the food production through regulations of quality standards, product conditions and legal protection through Intellectual Property Rights. The EU-labels are a feature of the policies that aims for the protection of specialty products and are divided into three labels:

• Protected Geographical Indication (PGI);
• Protected Designation of Origin (PDO);
• Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG).

The labels guarantee a product to be unique or special enough to be under protection of the European Union laws. The labels have specific requirements to guarantee production with recognized work methods, thereby increasing the quality of the product. Companies can benefit from these labels for several reasons. Firstly, the labels are a form of protection of Intellectual Property Rights. This means the product is registered and products without the label cannot be falsely market. Secondly, it can contribute to the rise of consumer’s trust. Thirdly, the labels can increase competitiveness on local and international markets with mandatory EU-standards. Lastly, the labels could contribute to rural development policies.

The many perks of a label does not signify the interests of many countries and producers. On the contrary, there are only a few countries that really delve into the wonders of the labels. There are 1,307 products registered in the DOOR-database that have received an EU-label as of November 2015. DOOR-database is a system operated by the European Commission. It shows all registered labelled products and those that are currently applying or have been declined in the past. All information about the product is available through this database.

Italy is on the top with 277 products registered in the database as of November 2015, closely followed by France with 224 products. This is a stark contrast with other EU countries such as Bulgaria, Denmark and Finland with only 5 or 6 products.

The interest for the EU to promote labels for intellectual property rights in third countries has multiple reasons. The national system named Geographical Indication (GI) is formed by the WIPO and counts as encouragement for protection of national agricultural specialties. The government of that country is responsible for the implementation of the system and offers only national protection of that product. National protection is important, but for companies that wish to export their goods, international protection is even more important. For bilateral trades within the EU, the EU labelling system is very interesting for third countries.

For third countries applying for EU membership it is a form of European integration. Serbia, for example, has implemented the GI regulation since April 1995 under the Law of Geographical Indications. It was changed on March 23, 2010 to harmonize it with the European labelling system. Once Serbia gains membership to the EU, they have the rights to give EU labels to their nationally protected GI products. This is easier than to have producers file for registration on their own through the European Commission. There are two products in Serbia that are filing for an EU label through the European Commission, both with an interest to export to the EU.

The EU labelling system consists of 3 labels. It is only obtainable for third countries if they have implemented a national Geographical indication system, therefore the EU promotes this system.

EU Energy Union: a weapon against terrorism

By Rick Van Assel

The European Commission launched an ambitious energy project in the beginning of 2015. The so called Energy Union should make European countries exchange their energy resources, thus reducing the independence on foreign suppliers. But there might be another advantage to this plan, as several members of the European Parliament stated during the plenary session in Strasbourg that started on Monday the 23d of November. The Energy Union could well be an instrument in the fight against terrorism. 

In February 2015, the European Commission adopted its strategy to construct a European Energy Union. The aim of this project is to achieve an energy system that is more affordable, sustainable and secure. The strategy includes five dimensions: reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, promote research and innovation, achieve an integrated internal energy market and assure security of supply. These efforts should, in the first place, make European Union (EU) countries less dependent on imports of oil and gas from foreign countries. For example, several EU states depend fully on Russia for their gas imports. This dependency puts these countries in a very weak position, both economically and politically.

However, the plans of forming this Energy Union could also be of importance when it comes to tackling terrorism. This is particularly the case for the import of oil coming from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni Gulf state is the fourth largest oil supplier to the EU, as statistics from the Commission show. In 2014, their supplies accounted for a small 9% of the EU’s total imports. And this is where the problem begins. “The energy problem has a direct link with the refugee crisis and with terrorism. The wealthy Saudi’s are one of the biggest sources of funding for the Islamic State”, Peter Liese stated during the plenary debate on the Energy Union on 24 November. Liese is a German member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the centre-right European People’s Party.

With that comment, Liese referred to the nature of the Saudi Arabian regime, the Wahhabism, which is a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The Gulf state has been accused of supporting Sunni extremist groups several times. Belgian MEP Marc Demesmaeker, member of the European Conservatives and Reformists, said that the EU should perhaps reconsider its relation with Saudi Arabia. “This is a personal statement, but I have read a lot on this topic. Saudi Arabia has been exporting the Wahhabism to Europe and other parts of the world, for many decades. Their oil revenues made it possible to spend billions of dollars on exporting the Wahhabism into the heart of our society. We see the consequences of these actions in our cities. In Molenbeek for example”, he said during an interview with Belgian television in between the debates during the Strasbourg plenary session.

It will not be easy, however, to just ban EU countries from importing Saudi Arabian oil. Energy is a shared competence between the EU and the member states. This means that ultimately the member states decide from which countries they will import oil and gas. Investments in renewable energy and interconnectors between countries to share their energy reserves require big investments. From an economic point of view, it might be wiser for countries to keep importing cheaper Arabian oil.

The Energy Union could be one of the many instruments to combat terrorism. In order to succeed, European solidarity should prevail over countries’ nationalist reflexes and economic interests.

The influence of the Organisation for Animal Health on animal welfare and health

By Laura Nobel

Bernard Vallat, Director-General of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), spoken to the European Commission: Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development in Brussels on the first of December. The mandate standards for animal health in different countries and the activities of the OIE were topics discussed during the committee. The organisation was created in 1994 and works independently of the United Nations (UN) network. In 2003 it expanded outside its headquarters in Paris to a global organisation, with 13 regional offices throughout the world. The organisation is placed under the authority and control of a World Assembly of Delegates consisting of Delegates designated by the Governments of all Member Countries.

With a world more and more aware of animal welfare, the need for improvement in all animal sectors (livestock, pets, test animals and wildlife) becomes a more relevant topic of discussion in the public and governments. The OIE is an important asset of the EU’s animal welfare policy as well as policies in third countries. Animal welfare is also tied with animal health, which in turn is tied to human health.

Animal diseases are huge economic and ethnical risks within the livestock sector. Antibiotics, vaccinations and alternative medicine are topics often brought to the table among farmers and higher ups, because the health of one’s farm animals can influence not only the farmer’s income, but also the public’s health. Mr. Vallat stated that around 60 % of human diseases actually origin from diseases found in animals. Their concept of “One Health” is the unification of vets and doctors for closer communication regarding zoonoses (animal diseases that affect human health). This will benefit both parties and allow for faster intervention.

The OIE works on disease control methods through standards and guidelines. These standards are created for disease control management, vaccination cycles, safe trade in animals & animal products and transport. The organisation is not a governmental institution that can enforce laws, but many countries do follow the words of the OIE to prevent outbreaks of diseases. The EU in particular takes its standards and guidelines very seriously. As a result, the EU is one of the leading states in the prevention of animal disease outbreaks as well as one of the major donors to the OIE for improvement of animal welfare and animal health in third countries.

The OIE also works in a lot of underdeveloped countries, providing quality training for vets, educating government bodies on animal welfare and health, evaluating one’s country’s policies with trained experts as well as provide financial support.

The OIE is a very important organisation for disease prevention throughout the EU and various parts beside that. The EU has a similar vision as OIE, which is the eradication of dangerous diseases in countries and protect animal and human health.

For more information about the Organisation for Animal Health, visit their website: www.oie.int

Refugee crisis and job are centrals in the EU budget 2016: will it be enough?

By Matteo Placidini

If we should prepare a list of the most critical issues Europe is living in the last months, we should certainly put on the first positions the lack of jobs and the refugee crisis. Analyzing this framework, we could say the EU is tackling these problems on two different fronts: the first one is internal, namely the economic crisis, and hits particularly young citizens and small-medium enterprises. The second one is external, since European countries must cope with a huge number of migrants coming from outside their borders.

Europe needs a change of gear of its policies on these topics and, obviously, more significant investments.

Clearly, the EP must have taken in strong consideration these two issues in the last plenary session. As a matter of fact, the EU budget for 2016, approved on 25 November 2015, provides relevant changes and improvements.

Concerning the refugee crisis, the European budget has more than doubled, increasing from 658 million Euros in 2015 to 1,6 billion Euros in 2016. Furthermore, an amendment of the budget invites the member states to invest 2,3 billion Euros to finance the Africa Trust Fund and the Syria Trust Fund, two important instruments to tackle the problem at its origin.

More important than the milestones mentioned above are the measures taken to boost the competitiveness of European enterprises. In fact, the European Parliament decided to allocate 14,3 million as extra resources for small and medium-sized enterprises, 184,5 million for the Horizon2020 - the ten-year economic strategy to foster sustainable growth across Europe - and 150 million for the Connecting Europe Facility - the investment plan to improve EU's transport, energy and digital networks.

Finally, the EP did not forget young people. First of all, 6,6 million were allocated for the student exchange programme Erasmus+. This programme allows students to study at least 3 months or do an internship for a period of at least 2 months to an academic year in another European country. It represents a significant occasion to foster not only understanding and learning of the host country, but also a sense of community among young European citizens.

Furthermore, the plenary session persuaded the European Commission and the European Council to continue the Youth Employment Initiative, a programme that supports young people who are not in education, employment or training. This objective is to offer guidance and assistance to find a job throughout specialized training, preparatory actions to work in foreign countries, company placements, placements for young entrepreneurs and volunteering opportunities.

However, analyzing the mentioned measures, a question arises spontaneously: will these investments be enough? Will they allow the EU to tackle effectively these problems?

Undoubtedly, the decision of the European Parliament to increase the budget on these subjects is extremely positive and represents the clear commitment to improve the situation.

Unfortunately, it is fare to say that the EU answers are too slow, especially regarding the migration issue. Only after strong public pressures, concrete measures have been taken. This shows once again the slowness and the ineffectiveness of the European decision-making process, mediated by too many actors. Timing represents a critical aspect for policies to succeed and the European Institutions should work hardly on that.

Moreover, what is most important, we should recognize that money alone is not an answer to solve complicated problems such as the migration emergency and the economic crisis. It would be time for the EU not only to increase financial resources, but also to implement long period plans on how to use them effectively.