Mediaboss Marketing

When people think of EU policymaking, they generally think of developments within the EUs institutions. But local authorities across Europe are responsible for a wide range of social and economic tasks that are regulated by the EU. Marius Guderjan and Tom Verhelst explain why understanding this local dimension of EU politics is vital for appreciating the impact of the integration process.

Looking at European integration through the prism of local government might seem a little odd at first. Since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, major reforms to the EU have been off the table, and the EU has faced a number of regional and global challenges during the last decade, including the euro crisis, an influx of refugees, the climate emergency, a global pandemic, Brexit, autocratic regimes breaking the Unions fundamental principles and laws, and external security threats at the member states doorsteps.

In response, national governments have returned to more intergovernmental and even unilateral modes of governance to steer through difficult times. Even in less troubled waters, the relationship between the European and the local levels of government were never a hot topic among scholars of European integration. In political science, the study of local government in the EU has remained a niche subject for a rather small community of enthusiasts.

And yet, we believe that the lack of a comprehensive contemporary account of EU-local relations presented an urgent need and a great opportunity for a systematic study. This is why in a new book we link the macro-trajectories of European integration with micro-developments at the local level. Drawing from a combination of European integration theories and approaches (including intergovernmentalism, functionalism, fusion, post-functionalism, multilevel governance and Europeanisation), we introduce the idea of an integration cycle to explain how local government responds to the evolution of European governance in different domains and phases.

Next to the high politics dealt with in Europes capitals, politicians and scholars tend to forget that without cities, towns and counties EU policies could hardly be realised. Local authorities across Europe are responsible for a wide range of social and economic tasks that are regulated by the EU, including environmental change, energy transition, the integration of refugees, healthcare and other essential public services.

Through regulations and directives, but also through policy programmes and funding schemes, local authorities are drawn into the European polity. Policymakers in Brussels have therefore turned to the local level to find effective and innovative ways of developing and implementing their objectives. In particular, the European Commission and the European Parliament clearly acknowledge the essential role of local government for delivering the EUs agenda, as a 2018 Report on the role of cities in the institutional framework of the Union indicates:

new global challenges posed by security and immigration, demographic shift, youth unemployment, challenges relating to the quality of public services, access to clean and affordable energy, natural disasters and environmental protection demand local responses and, therefore, a stronger commitment on the part of cities when designing and implementing EU policies.

In line with our metaphor of an integration cycle, local government is not only at the receiving end of policies and laws coming top-down from Brussels. In response to European integration, municipalities adjust their practices, orientation, organisation and politics both internally and externally. Some local authorities and actors engage proactively in European affairs and connect themselves in European-wide networks and associations; the most prominent examples are the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, and Eurocities.

Local government drives ambitious initiatives that feed bottom-up into European policies around urban mobility, social service provision, environment, procurement, transport, and housing, and has strengthened the local dimension within the Cohesion Policy and the Urban Agenda. Significant constitutional and procedural reforms highlight the growing role of the local level within European integration. The Committee of Regions, the right to local self-government, and the principles of subsidiarity and partnership promoted local and multilevel governance within the EUs formal and living constitution.

While local actors have to make strategic choices on how to approach European decisionmakers, it is often the interplay of formal participation and informal lobbying that provides them with conditional but substantial influence in EU policymaking. According to our findings, local influence has expanded far beyond what is commonly assumed. Being systematically and officially involved in decision-making increases their chances of affecting policy in advance. In turn, informal mobilisation is more effective to wield concrete political power and to prevent unfavourable outcomes and interventions in local autonomy.

Our theoretical reflections suggest that European integration of local government represents a third way between an intergovernmental and a supranational perspective. Functional spillover of constraining laws triggers a sovereignty reflex to preserve local autonomy, while cultivated spillover shifts the focus of local government towards European agendas.

Political spillover then activates a small group of entrepreneurial local authorities and actors, who understand that engaging in European affairs is both a necessity and an opportunity for the future of their municipality. Considering the vast diversity of local government across Europe, the different stages of the integration cycle do not equally involve all local authorities. Yet, as local pioneers seek to shape and access EU policymaking both formally and informally, local government completes the integration cycle. Subsequently, this may trigger a new loop of top-down and bottom-up dynamics in return.

We neither suggest that European integration is an ever-continuing, irreversible process, nor that local government is its main driver. The UK and examples from other member states have shown that Eurosceptic politics set clear limits to the integration of all levels. Nevertheless, in times when both long-established and fairly young, democracies are challenged by populist and radical movements, cities, towns and counties can be a vital locus of political discourse and legitimacy.

Taking municipal insights and preferences better into account can make European governance more effective and in line with local practices. It can also help strengthen the links between citizens and EU institutions. This way, the European integration of local government enhances both the EUs input and output legitimacy. After all, local governments are democratically elected stakeholders within the EU with clear expertise concerning their policy challenges on the ground.

Being in direct touch with their citizens, local authorities take a vital role in overcoming national borders and contributing to a mutual understanding of differences and commonalities. It is in this spirit that our research seeks to improve our understanding of local government in the EU for politicians and people working in public authorities at multiple levels, as well as for academics who may find our empirical and theoretical insights useful for their own endeavours.

For more information, see the authors new book, Local Government in the European Union: Completing the Integration Cycle (Palgrave Macmillan, 2021)

Note: This article gives the views of theauthors, not the position of EUROPP European Politics and Policy or the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: Gabriella Clare Marino on Unsplash

Go here to read the rest:
Local government in the European Union: Completing the integration cycle - EUROPP - European Politics and Policy

The European Commission's Open Source Programme Office has decided to offer bug bounties on popular open source software. What better way of acknowledging OSS's importance than by a state driven sponsorship?

Open Source Software powers everything, from modern servers, to IoT, to the desktops at work and, as it seems, is at the heart of European Union systems too. While this EU bug bounty initiative is welcome, it is not something new; I covered the origins of the program in 2019, see"EU Bug Bounty - Software Security as a Civil Right".

Back then the bounty was focused on OpenSSL and the Heartbleed bug. As everyone knows OpenSSL is really the cornerstone of todays internet-based communication and as such bugs in it compromise the very fabric of society. From the article:

It is amazing to think that the OpenSSL Software Foundation which is responsible for the maintenance of the OpenSSL library, the cornerstone of safe transactions on the Internet used by millions of websites and organizations, receives just $2000 of donation money per year and has only ONE full-time employee working on the library.

All that was revealed after the discovery of the Heartbleed bug, something that finally shook the waters and motivated the big industry names to support the foundation with proper funding.

As such the EU Bug Bounty initiative was launched as part of the Free and Open Source Software Audit (FOSSA) project, thanks to Julia Reda MEP of the EU Pirate Party, who started the project thinking that enough is enough after severe vulnerabilities were discovered in key infrastructure components like OpenSSL. This prompted her to involve the EU Commission in contributing to the security of the Internet.

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz, legal expert of Joinup (a venue that enables public administrations, businesses and citizens to share and reuse IT solutions and good practices across Europe)added:

Like bread and beer, free software development is not for free: developers need some incentives, lets say just the money they need for purchasing their bread and beer or for ensuring their family a decent way of life.

In order to provide these incentives, the European Commission is launching in January about 15 bug bounties on Free Software projects that the EU institutions rely on. A bug bounty is a prize for people who actively search for security issues. The amount of the bounty depends on the severity of the issue uncovered and the relative importance of the software.

Now there's another round of cybersecurity sponsorship, but under a new name - European Commission Open Source Programme Office (EC OSPO). This time the EU pays for finding security vulnerabilities in LibreOffice, LEOS, Mastodon, Odoo and CryptPad, with an added 20% bonus for providing a code fix for the bugs discovered.

This bonus is very important as once a vulnerability has been identified and reported in many cases the maintainers of the project are slow in getting a patch out. The bonus tries to incentivize bug hunters to propose fixes it as well as finding vulnerabilities, hence leading to a much shorter response time.

The criteria for choosing particular applications were based on their actual use. All of them are open source solutions used by public services across the European Union:

It seems that the security of desktop apps is considered at par with those of the server-side kind. In some cases client-side attacks can be even more dangerous because desktop apps are consumed en masse, and when exploited it's not just some vague hacking attack happening on the Internet resulting in the leaking of credentials and personal information, buttaking full control of the users' PCs, therefore of their complete digital life.

Bug hunters are called to find security vulnerabilities such as leaks of personal data, horizontal/vertical privilege escalation and SQLi. The highest reward will be EUR 5,000 for exceptional vulnerabilities plus, as already mentioned, a 20% bonus if the fix is also provided. The bug bounty is going to be based on theIntigritiplatform, whichwork with teams of every size, shape and industry based in Europe to secure digital assets, protect confidential information and customer data, and strengthen a responsible disclosure process.

European Commission's Open Source Programme Office starts bug bounties

EU Bug Bounty - Software Security as a Civil Right

Joinup-Software Security IS a Civil Right

To be informed about new articles on IProgrammer,sign up for ourweekly newsletter,subscribe to theRSSfeedandfollow us on Twitter,Facebook orLinkedin.

Make a Comment or View Existing Comments Using Disqus

or email your comment to: comments@i-programmer.info

More here:
European Union Will Pay For Finding Bugs In Open Source Software - iProgrammer

Second treaty of Maastricht brings full union closer

By John Palmer in Brussels7 February 1992

Foreign and finance ministers from the 12 member states will today sign a treaty which aims to turn the European Community into an economic union and a global political power, before the end of the decade.

They will do so in the Dutch city of Maastricht, which last December saw the bruising climax to years of negotiations for a treaty on European Union.

The Commission, the European parliament, and most EC governments see the Maastricht treaty as an interim stage in the process leading to full European union. The treaty is a legally and politically messy compromise, between the majority who wanted to move faster to union and a minority primarily but not exclusively the British who were determined to slow down if not reverse the trend towards a de facto federal union.This is an edited extract. Read in full.

By Julie Wolf in Maastricht8 February 1992

The French almost missed the show, Norman Lamont opted out and Douglas Hurd wasnt sure what he had signed. But compared to the last time the European Communitys foreign and finance ministers got together in Maastricht, yesterdays ceremony to sign the Treaty on European Union was a breeze.

The Dutch province of Limburg pulled out the stops. There were hussars and a band to welcome the dignitaries, glorious spring flowers everywhere, the Limburg Symphony Orchestra playing Mozart and, of course, a champagne reception and banquet.

Still, there were some hitches. The French delegation, led by the foreign minister, Roland Dumas, and the finance minister, Pierre Beregovoy, steamed in after the pre-signing speeches had started, apparently delayed by a parliamentary debate on the Habash affair. The new Europe goes ahead even without the French, one onlooker commented.

Mr Hurd, meanwhile, responded with an embarrassed laugh when asked what was contained in the two bound volumes the ministers autographed. We had better find out what we signed, the foreign secretary accompanied by Treasury Eurosceptic Francis Maude, standing in for the Chancellor, Mr Lamont was heard telling officials.

Whatever it was, it would not lead to a federal Europe, Mr Hurd said. Logic was now running against more centralisation, with a Europe of 17 or 18 nations likely in the not-so-far-off future.

This was a view not shared by the president of the Commission, Jacques Delors, who used his speech to call for a federal Europe, while insisting he was not trying to reopen an old argument.

For the Dutch prime minister, Ruud Lubbers, the treaty was just one step to ever closer union: with would-be members queueing up, he said, negotiations on a new political union treaty might have to begin before 1996.

8 February 1992

With the Maastricht treaty just signed, and Portugals presidency only in its second month, the foreign secretarys unveiling of our new EC logo may appear slightly odd timing. (Not to dwell on the oddness of the logo itself, in which the lion remains half outside the EC symbol.) To announce British presidential priorities five months before we take over begs a fairly large electoral question. Yet it does focus minds otherwise preoccupied upon the vast range of issues raised by European Union which have oddly faded since last years storms. It also poses two very necessary questions: how to ensure a smooth presidential transition, and how to define the enlargement which Britain (like Portugal) sees rightly as an urgent task.

The six monthly EC presidential cycle generates an arbitrary but on the whole positive sort of democracy by alphabet. Though unkind words have been said about the recent sequence of presidential terms by Europes smaller nations (Luxembourg, the Netherlands and now Portugal) there are advantages in the perspective from a smaller power base. Portugal has largely shaken free of the Atlanticist outlook which once placed it at the same table with Britain. Six years of growth since entering the Community has created a feeling of benefit in Lisbon which Britain does not share. Its energetic Foreign Minister Joao de Deus Pinheiro says he hopes to pay back this help by working hard on a European approach. Portugal has its own interests, particularly in agriculture where its farmers will be served by the pursuit of a reform which is neither radical or superficial. But Lisbon can still talk more credibly of a universalist approach than Paris or Bonn or London with their substantial and sensitive national interests. Portugals location also encourages a proper concern that the South, both of Europe and beyond, may suffer if western resources and attention are focused exclusively upon eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union. Portugals commitment to press ahead at once with all the dossiers which have been generated by Maastrichts three pillars, rather than establish priorities, may yet come unstuck by June. But in a period when the main task is to establish new structures and agendas for political and economic union which flow from the decisions of the last summit, such a broadly based effort still makes sense.

The issue of enlargement has itself been potentially enlarged by the mounting pace of disintegration in the east since Maastricht was agreed. The task for the Portuguese presidency ahead of the next Lisbon summit is to define both an adequate strategy and its institutional consequences. The EFTA applicants clearly have to be dealt with first, but how much wider should the EC go, and how soon? The Treaty of Rome should not be a closed club, but different forms of decision making will have to be devised for a Community which could number 15 quite soon and 20 or more by the end of the decade. By the normal economic criteria even Hungary and Poland would hardly be ready to join by the next review in 1996. But are these necessarily the right tests to apply? The ECs patronage in central and eastern Europe serves a far more urgent purpose of immunisation against the risks of instability, even without formal defence guarantees. The real task may be how to find new forms of association, with much more meaningful political body, in which the frontiers can be extended without diluting the ECs core strength. Enlargement has been tarnished by the suspicion that it can serve as an alibi for slowing the agreed pace of union. But the EC may yet be faced with new crises in the east which inevitably result in some slackening of effort elsewhere.

Beyond the Treaty and enlargement lies the still broader role of the EC as a future superpower. Here too a country which in modern times has never claimed great power status may more easily regard the EC as a great world actor. Certain EC members, Lisbon suggests, could play a more prominent part in dealing with areas where they have special leverage, as Portugal itself does over East Timor. Similarly as the Middle East peace process flags, it would be appropriate for Britain particularly when it becomes president to claim a higher EC role.

Read this article:
Treaty on European Union signed in Maastricht archive, 1992 - The Guardian

10 February 2022

The European Union wants to encourage investment in "sustainable" activities to help it get to net-zero by 2050.

The European Union aims to be climate neutral by 2050. To help that process it has come up with a system to "facilitate sustainable investment". The Taxonomy Regulation provides investors with guidance on economic activities that can be considered environmentally sustainable. It also obliges European companies to report their level of taxonomy-aligned undertakings. Any activity excluded from the list faces being cut out of sustainable finance products and will find itself at odds with long-term EU policy objectives.

There has been a split within the European Union over whether or not nuclear power - and natural gas - should be included as being "sustainable". Nuclear energy was left out of the initial Delegated Act pending further assessment. But this further assessment by the EU Joint Research Centre,reviewed by two further expert bodies, concluded that the technology is sustainable. As a result, the Commission has now taken steps to included nuclear energyas a transitional activity in the taxonomy by adopting a Complementary Delegated Act (CDA).

Supporters of nuclear power, including 12 EU member states who publicly backed its inclusion, say that nuclear is a low-carbon power source that must be part of any energy mix to tackle climate change, and does not cause more significant harm than other industries included in the taxonomy. They say that the science, and evidence-based policy support its inclusion. Opponents say that it should not be included because radioactive waste means it is not sustainable. For the European Union it has been one of the highest profile recent issues where France - which backs nuclear - is on the opposite side to Germany.

Sectors which are responsible for about 80% of the EUs direct greenhouse gas emissions have been initially targeted, including:

In future the taxonomy is expected to be expanded to cover more economic sectors.

An economic activity must substantially contribute to at least one of six environmental objectives without causing significant harm to the others:

The European Commission has included certain nuclear and gas activities in the "transitional"category of activities - ones that "cannot yet be replaced by technologically and economically feasible low-carbon alternatives, but do contribute to climate change mitigation and with the potential to play a major role in the transition to a climate-neutral economy, in line with EU climate goals and commitments, and subject to strict conditions, without crowding out investment in renewables."

- Advanced technologies with closed fuel cycle ("Generation IV") to incentivise research and innovation into future technologies in terms of safety standards and minimising waste (there is no end date for this bit);

- New nuclear power plant projects for energy generation, which will be using best-available existing technologies ("Generation III+"), will be recognised until 2045 (date of approval of construction permit);

- Modifications and upgrades of existing nuclear installations for the purposes of lifetime extension, will be recognised until 2040 (date of approval by competent authority).

The CDA sets out many safety and waste-related requirements for nuclear activities to be considered sustainable, in addition to specific Do No Significant Harm criteria. Many of these are in line with existing EU regulation and expectations but some go beyond. In general the requirements are more restrictive than for other energy technologies already included in the first Delegated Act. The special requirements include:

- Accident Tolerant Fuel, which is not yet commercially available for all reactor types, mustbe used at all existing plants and Gen III new-build by the year 2025.

- The project has been notified to the Commission and the Commission has given its view whether all criteria have been satisfactorily addressed.

-A high-level waste repository to be operational by 2050, and for final disposal facilities for low and intermediate-levelwaste to be operational in the country where a given project is based.

- Nuclear fuel cycle activities are currently not included in the CDA as enabling activities and nuclearinvestments outside the EU remain excluded from the taxonomy.

The European College of commissioners backed the plan and among the pro-nuclear power countries there was a welcome that nuclear power was included in the taxonomy but the warmth of the welcome was tempered by some of the restrictions and conditions on what was included, as well as the expiry dates.

For those countries opposed to nuclear powerthere was disappointment at its inclusion. Austriasenergy and climate minister Leonore Gewessler called it "greenwashing"andis threatening to take legal action. WWF Europe called on the European Parliament to vote down the plan.

European nuclear trade body Foratoms Director General Yves Desbazeille welcomed the CDA but said some of the criteria put forward for nuclear would "prove very challenging to attain" and "we remain disappointed that nuclear continues to be treated as a transitional technology we firmly believe that it contributes to climate mitigation objectives and does not cause more harm than any other power-producing technology already considered as taxonomy compliant."

Sama Bilbao y Len, director general of the World Nuclear Association, said: The adoption of this CDA is a hugely important milestone that the international financial community cannot afford to ignore the Commission has been right to reject political pressure to keep nuclear excluded from the taxonomy. But in seeking a politically acceptable compromise, it has produced some conditions that are not scientifically justified or applied consistently to other energy technologies. This will hinder the EU from achieving its energy and environmental goals.

The European Unions decision to include nuclear in its "sustainable"list has been closely watched around the world. It will have implications for EU investors and businesses operating outside the union, as well as foreign investors into Europe. The EU's decision is also likely to set a precedent for countries around the world as they set their own sustainable investment frameworks and work out which technologies to prioritise for support in the path towards net-zero.

The European Parliament (whose members are elected by voters across the union every five years) and the European Council(which is made up of the governments of the 27 member states) have four months to scrutinise the Complementary Delegated Act. They can request an additional two months of scrutiny time if they need it.

To stop the CDA coming into force there needs to be a reinforced qualified majority opposing it in the European Council - so at least 20 member states representing at least 65% of the EU population would have to oppose it. Given the number of countries known to back it, this seems extremely unlikely to happen. TheEuropean Parliament because it can object if a majority of its members vote against it in plenary (i.e. at least 353 MEPs).

If the European Council and the European Parliament do not object to it, the Complementary Delegated Act will enter into force and apply as of 1 January 2023.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News

More:
A guide to the EU's 'green' taxonomy - and nuclear's place in it : Energy & Environment - World Nuclear News

Let's be clear: so far, the approach to tackling the climate crisis has not been equitable between the European Union and African Union.

Their relationship is bound up in colonial and post-colonial exploitation, and structural inequalities, thrown into sharp relief most recently by rich countries' failing to do enough to address the vaccine inequity and economic damage of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Negotiations on a new partnership between the two have been on a rocky path. The climate and energy elements have not been helped by an EU-centric European Green Deal approach, without enough attention to increasing climate impacts in Africa, African ownership, and without putting people at the centre of the debate and the solutions.

The African Union in turn, rejecting the European Green Deal approach, has not centred its own vision for solving the climate crisis.

Both sides failed to ensure meaningful participation and inclusion of civil society voices in the development of the partnership. But if they can correct these failures, the EU and AU should be natural partners - exchanging expertise on climate adaptation and loss and damage, developing successful models for just energy transition, and allying for successful outcomes on ambition, finance, adaptation and loss and damage at the next UN climate summit, COP27, hosted by Egypt in November.

On 17-18 February leaders of the African Union and European Union will meet at a summit in Brussels where they will confirm a new partnership covering global challenges.

Heads of state from the EU and AU will sit down together at various roundtables, including one on climate and energy transition, digital and transport (connectivity and infrastructure) where Egypt is touted to head a discussion on COP27.

An investment package built on existing funds from the EU budget's Global Europe Instrument will be showcased at the summit, with Brussels busy trying to drum up further support from EU and African Union member states and institutions in the final days.

Key tests will be how the summit deals with climate impacts and solutions.

Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change whilst having done least to cause it. Africa has been experiencing record-breaking heat in the last years, and millions are right now facing severe hunger due to devastating drought in eastern Africa.

The forthcoming IPCC report on adaptation, impacts and vulnerability, to be adopted by governments by 25 February, will lay bare the latest assessments.

With the summit a first major milestone after COP26, the EU and AU should demonstrate that they will make clear progress on and go beyond the Glasgow Climate Pact, which failed to deliver enough for climate vulnerable countries, including missing the $100bn [88bn] climate-finance commitment.

This requires the EU to scale up its climate finance, and re-orientate its focus and show that it is serious about upping its game on adaptation and addressing losses and damages, to regain trust of climate vulnerable countries.

It can do this through increasing financing (at COP26, parties agreed to double adaptation finance by 2025), supporting African adaptation initiatives, and learning from African communities' expertise on locally-led adaptation, including indigenous peoples' knowledge and guardianship of nature protection and restoration.

Crucially the EU needs to show that it is ready to move forward the agenda on loss and damage finance by engaging with African countries to understand needs on the ground, and with their negotiators to build a constructive path towards the Glasgow loss and damage dialogues to be held in June.

Furthermore, without strong action from the EU at home to rapidly scale up and accelerate its own emissions reductions, and phase-out fossil fuels, Africans face even greater risks from climate impacts.

The other side of the coin is supporting livelihoods, households and businesses through renewable energy solutions.

African countries themselves have identified renewable energies as a key contribution to their national climate plans submitted to the UNFCCC.

In a vast and diverse continent this requires understanding and tailoring to needs in different regions and localities - from clean cooking to developing green industries.

The EU's much-touted Global Gateway Strategy, set up as an offer to counter Chinese investment and with first projects to be showcased at the summit, will likely focus on big energy infrastructure.

While important, it's much easier for these projects to attract public and private investment. A key test will be how smallholder farmers, hard to reach communities, and informal workers who make up the backbone of many countries' economies, can be supported towards universal 100 percent renewable energy access, an end to energy poverty, and solutions to support women's and household needs, as well as the future generations.

At the same time the EU should commit to an end to any finance in fossil fuels which undermines these goals.

In higher income countries the partnership should support a just transition out of fossil-fuel industries and into quality green jobs and healthy environments.

A just energy transition partnership between the governments of South Africa, the EU and others at the last COP is a step in the right direction, if designed right.

The EU and African countries should now go on to develop successful partnership models, involving all stakeholders in the planning, incorporating finance for infrastructure and affected communities, technology transfer, technical assistance and training, and just transition funds for affected workers and communities.

The EU and African countries can't afford not to repair relations and make the most out of this summit. They need to work for concrete outcomes that balance years of neglecting tackling people's and environmental needs in an equal, fair, inclusive way.

See the rest here:
Making the most of an unequal African-European dynamic - EUobserver