Binding targets to protect forests, in particular primary forests
Robust implementation and enforcement of existing instruments
Future trade and investment agreements should contain binding provisions against deforestation

MEPs outline how the EU can contribute to tackling worldwide deforestation and call for domestic policies to be revised to protect European forests.
In the non-binding resolution adopted on Tuesday with 543 votes to 47 and 109 abstentions, in response to a Commission communication, MEPs call for more support to protect, restore and sustainably manage forests, protect biodiversity and carbon sinks, as well as to recognise forests’ productivity and ecosystem services.
Binding targets and effective rules
The Plenary wants binding targets to protect and restore forest ecosystems, especially primary forests, consistent with the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy’s proposals. MEPs call on the Commission to propose due diligence rules for financial institutions that would prevent EU financial entities or banks from being linked directly or indirectly to deforestation, forest degradation or degradation of natural ecosystems, which often causes indigenous residents to be subjected to human rights violations.
Supply chains and trade agreements free from deforestation
The Commission should propose measures to ensure sustainable and deforestation-free supply chains for products and commodities placed on the EU market, with a particular focus on tackling imported deforestation, says the text. Moreover, future trade and investment agreements must contain binding provisions to prevent deforestation, says the draft resolution. Finally, MEPs want the European Green Deal’s external dimension to be strengthened through alliances and partnerships with third countries, to address climate change and biodiversity loss.
Protection of primary forests
Between 1990 and 2016, an area of 1.3 million square kilometres of the world’s forests was lost, with a destructive effect on biodiversity, climate, people, and the economy.
Afforestation, where trees are planted in an area not previously forested, could under certain conditions, help the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050, the MEPs said. However, newly planted forests cannot replace primary forests, which provide more carbon dioxide storage and more essential habitats than younger and newly planted ones.
Contacts:

Dorota Kolinska, Press Officer | dorota.kolinska[at]europarl.europa.eu

Thomas Haahr, Press Officer | thomas.haahr[at]europarl.europa.eu

Compliments of the European Parliament
The post Green Deal: measures to step up the fight against global deforestation first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Brussels, September 16, 2020 |
Building the world we want to live in: A Union of vitality in a world of fragility
Dear President,
Honourable Members,
One of the most courageous minds of our times, Andrei Sakharov – a man so admired by this House – always spoke of his unshakeable belief in the hidden strength of the human spirit.
In these last six months, Europeans have shown how strong that human spirit really is.
We saw it in the care workers who moved into nursing homes to look after the ill and the elderly.
In the doctors and nurses who became family members for those in their last breath.
In the front line workers who worked day after night, week after week, who took risks so most of us didn’t have to.
We are inspired by their empathy, bravery and sense of duty – and I want to start this speech by paying tribute to them all.
Their stories also reveal a lot about the state of our world and the state of our Union.
They show the power of humanity and the sense of mourning which will live long in our society.
And they expose to us the fragility all around us.
A virus a thousand times smaller than a grain of sand exposed how delicate life can be.
It laid bare the strains on our health systems and the limits of a model that values wealth above wellbeing.
It brought into sharper focus the planetary fragility that we see every day through melting glaciers, burning forests and now through global pandemics.
It changed the very way we behave and communicate – keeping our arms at length, our faces behind masks.
It showed us just how fragile our community of values really is – and how quickly it can be called into question around the world and even here in our Union.
But people want to move out of this corona world, out of this fragility, out of uncertainty.  They are ready for change and they are ready to move on.
And this is the moment for Europe.
The moment for Europe to lead the way from this fragility towards a new vitality.And this is what I want to talk about today.
 
Honourable Members,
I say this because in the last months we have rediscovered the value of what we hold in common.
As individuals, we have all sacrificed a piece of our personal liberty for the safety of others.
And as a Union, we all shared a part of our sovereignty for the common good.
We turned fear and division between Member States into confidence in our Union.
We showed what is possible when we trust each other and trust our European institutions.
And with all of that, we choose to not only repair and recover for the here and now, but to shape a better way of living for the world of tomorrow.
This is NextGenerationEU. 
This is our opportunity to make change happen by design – not by disaster or by diktat from others in the world.
To emerge stronger by creating opportunities for the world of tomorrow and not just building contingencies for the world of yesterday.
We have everything we need to make this happen. We have shaken off the old excuses and home comforts that have always held us back. We have the vision, we have the plan, we have the investment.
It is now time to get to work.
This morning, I have sent a Letter of Intent to President Sassoli and Chancellor Merkel – on behalf of the German Presidency – outlining the Commission’s plans for the year ahead.
I will not present every initiative today but I want to touch on what our Union must focus on in the next twelve months.
PULLING THROUGH TOGETHER: MAKING GOOD ON EUROPE’S PROMISE
Honourable members,
The people of Europe are still suffering.
It is a period of profound anxiety for millions who are concerned about the health of their families, the future of their jobs or simply just getting through until the end of the month.
The pandemic – and the uncertainty that goes with it – is not over. And the recovery is still in its early stage.
So our first priority is to pull each other through this. To be there for those that need it.
And thanks to our unique social market economy, Europe can do just that.
It is above all a human economy that protects us against the great risks of life – illness, ill-fortune, unemployment or poverty. It offers stability and helps us better absorb shocks. It creates opportunity and prosperity by promoting innovation, growth and fair competition.
Never before has that enduring promise of protection, stability and opportunity been more important than it is today.
Allow me to explain why.
First, Europe must continue to protect lives and livelihoods.
This is all the more important in the middle of a pandemic that shows no signs of running out of steam or intensity.
We know how quickly numbers can spiral out of control. So we must continue to handle this pandemic with extreme care, responsibility and unity.
In the last six months, our health systems and workers have produced miracles.
Every country has worked to do its best for its citizens.
And Europe has done more together than ever before.
When Member States closed borders, we created green lanes for goods.
When more than 600,000 European citizens were stranded all over the world, the EU brought them home.
When some countries introduced export bans for critical medical goods, we stopped that and ensured that critical medical supply could go where it was needed.
We worked with European industry to increase the production of masks, gloves, tests and ventilators.
Our Civil Protection Mechanism ensured that doctors from Romania could treat patients in Italy or that Latvia could send masks to its Baltic neighbours.
And we achieved this without having full competences.
For me, it is crystal clear – we need to build a stronger European Health Union.
And to start making this a reality, we must now draw the first lessons from the health crisis.
We need to make our new EU4Health programme future proof.  This is why I had proposed to increase funding and I am grateful that this Parliament is ready to fight for more funding and remedy the cuts made by the European Council.
And we need to strengthen our crisis preparedness and management of cross-border health threats.
As a first step, we will propose to reinforce and empowerthe European Medicines Agencyand ECDC – our centre for disease prevention and control.
As a second step, we will build a European BARDA – an agency for biomedical advanced research and development. This new agency will support our capacity and readiness to respond to cross-border threats and emergencies – whether of natural or deliberate origin. We need strategic stockpiling to address supply chain dependencies, notably for pharmaceutical products.
As a third step, it is clearer than ever that we must discuss the question of health competences. And I think this is a noble and urgent task for the Conference on the Future of Europe.
And because this was a global crisis we need to learn the global lessons. This is why, along with Prime Minister Conte and the Italian G20 Presidency, I will convene a Global Health Summit next year in Italy.
This will show Europeans that our Union is there to protect all.
And this is exactly what we have done when it comes to workers.
When I took office, I vowed to create an instrument to protect workers and businesses from external shocks.
Because I knew from my experience as a Minister for Labour and Social Affairs that these schemes work. They keep people in jobs, skills in companies and SMEs in business. These SMEs are the motor of our economy and will be the engine of our recovery.
This is why the Commission created the SURE programme. And I want to thank this House for working on it in record time.
If Europe has so far avoided mass unemployment seen elsewhere, it is thanks in large part to the fact that around 40 million people applied for short-time work schemes.
This speed and unity of purpose means that 16 countries will soon receive almost 90 billion euros from SURE to support workers and companies.
From Lithuania to Spain, it will give peace of mind to families who need that income to put food on the table or to pay the rent.
And it will help protect millions of jobs, incomes and companies right across our Union.
This is real European solidarity in action. And it reflects the fact that in our Union the dignity of work must be sacred.
But the truth is that for too many people, work no longer pays.
Dumping wages destroys the dignity of work, penalises the entrepreneur who pays decent wages and distorts fair competition in the Single Market.
This is why the Commission will put forward a legal proposal to support Member States to set up a framework for minimum wages. Everyone must have access to minimum wages either through collective agreements or through statutory minimum wages.
I am a strong advocate of collective bargaining and the proposal will fully respect national competencies and traditions.
We have seen in many Member States how a well-negotiated minimum wage secures jobs and creates fairness – both for workers and for the companies who really value them.
Minimum wages work – and it is time that work paid.
The second promise of the social market economy is that of stability.
The European Union and its Member States responded to an unprecedented crisis with an unprecedented response.
By showing it was united and up to the task, Europe provided the stability our economies needed.
The Commission immediately triggered the general escape clause for the first time in our history.
We flexibilisedour European funds and State aid rules.
Authorising more than 3 trillion euro in support to companies and industry: From fishermen in Croatia and farmers in Greece, to SMEs in Italy and freelancers in Denmark.
The European Central Bank took decisive action through its PEPP programme.
The Commission proposed NextGenerationEU and a revamped budget in record time.
It combines investment with much needed reforms.
The Council endorsed it in record time.
This House is working towards voting on it with maximum speed.
For the first time – and for exceptional times – Europe has put in place its own common tools to complement national fiscal stabilisers.
This is a remarkable moment of unity for our Union. This is an achievement that we should take collective pride in.
Now is the time to hold our course.  We have all seen the forecasts. We can expect our economies to start moving again after a 12% drop in GDP in the second quarter.
But as the virus lingers so does the uncertainty – here in Europe and around the world.
So this is definitely not the time to withdraw support.
Our economies need continued policy support and a delicate balance will need to be struck between providing financial support and ensuring fiscal sustainability.
In the longer-term there is no greater way to stability and competitiveness than through a stronger Economic and Monetary Union.
Confidence in the euro has never been stronger.                                           
The historic agreement on NextGenerationEU shows the political backing that it has.
We must now use this opportunity to make structural reforms in our economies and complete the Capital Markets Union and the Banking Union.
Deep and liquid capital markets are essential to give businesses access to the finance they need to grow and invest in recovery and in the future.
And they are also a pre-requisite to further strengthen the international role of the euro. So let’s get to work and finally complete this generational project.
 
Honourable Members, the third enduring promise is the promise of opportunity.
The pandemic reminded us of many things we may have forgotten or taken for granted.
We were reminded how linked our economies are and how crucial a fully functioning Single Market is to our prosperity and the way we do things.
The Single Market is all about opportunity – for a consumer to get value for money, a company to sell anywhere in Europe and for industry to drive its global competitiveness.
And for all of us, it is about the opportunity to make the most of the freedoms we cherish as Europeans. It gives our companies the scale they need to prosper and is a safe haven for them in times of trouble. We rely on it every day to make our lives easier – and it is critical for managing the crisis and recovering our strength.
Let’s give it a boost.
We must tear down the barriers of the Single Market. We must cut red tape. We must step up implementation and enforcement. And we must restore the four freedoms – in full and as fast as possible.
The linchpin of this is a fully functioning Schengen area of free movement. We will work with Parliament and Member States to bring this high up our political agenda and we will propose a new strategy for the future of Schengen.
Based on this strong internal market, the European industry has long powered our economy, providing a stable living for millions and creating the social hubs around which our communities are built.
We presented our new industry strategy in March to ensure industry could lead the twin green and digital transition. The last six months have only accelerated that transformation – at a time when the global competitive landscape is fundamentally changing. This is why we will update our industry strategy in the first half of next year and adapt our competition framework which should also keep pace.
PROPELLING EUROPE FORWARD: BUILDING THE WORLD WE WANT TO LIVE IN
Honourable Members,
All of this will ensure Europe gets back to its feet. But as we pull through together, we must also propel ourselves forwards to the world of tomorrow.
There is no more urgent need for acceleration than when it comes to the future of our fragile planet.
While much of the world’s activity froze during lockdowns and shutdowns, the planet continued to get dangerously hotter.
We see it all around us: from homes evacuated due to glacier collapse on the Mont Blanc, to fires burning through Oregon, to crops destroyed in Romania by the most severe drought in decades.
But we also saw nature come back into our lives.
We longed for green spaces and cleaner air for our mental health and our physical wellbeing.
We know change is needed – and we also know it is possible.
The European Green Deal is our blueprint to make that transformation.
At the heart of it is our mission to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050.
But we will not get there with the status quo – we need to go faster and do things better.
We looked in-depth at every sector to see how fast we could go and how to do it in a responsible, evidence-based way.
We held a wide public consultation and conducted an extensive impact assessment.
On this basis, the European Commission is proposing to increase the 2030 target for emission reduction to at least 55%.
I recognise that this increase from 40 to 55 is too much for some, and not enough for others.
But our impact assessment clearly shows that our economy and industry can manage this
And they want it too. Just yesterday, 170 business leaders and investors – from SME’s to some of the world’s biggest companies – wrote to me calling on Europe to set a target of at least 55%.
Our impact assessment clearly shows that meeting this target would put the EU firmly on track for climate neutrality by 2050 and for meeting our Paris Agreement obligations.
And if others follow our lead, the world will be able to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
I am fully aware that many of our partners are far away from that – and I will come back to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism later.
But for us, the 2030 target is ambitious, achievable, and beneficial for Europe.
We can do it.We have already shown we can do it.
While emissions dropped 25% since 1990, our economy grew by more than 60%.
The difference is we now have more technology, more expertise and more investment. And we are already embarking towards a circular economy with carbon neutral production.
We have more young people pushing for change. We have more proof that what is good for the climate is good for business and is good for us all.
And we have a solemn promise to leave no one behind in this transformation. With our Just Transition Fund we will support the regions that have a bigger and more costly change to make.
We have it all. Now it’s our responsibility to implement it all and make it happen.
 
Honourable Members,
Meeting this new target will reduce our energy import dependency, create millions of extra jobs and more than halve air pollution.
To get there, we must start now.
By next summer, we will revise all of our climate and energy legislation to make it “fit for 55”.
We will enhance emission trading, boost renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, reform energy taxation.
But the mission of the European Green Deal involves much more than cutting emissions.
It is about making systemic modernisation across our economy, society and industry. It is about building a stronger world to live in.
Our current levels of consumption of raw materials, energy, water, food and land use are not sustainable.
We need to change how we treat nature, how we produce and consume, live and work, eat and heat, travel and transport.
So we will tackle everything from hazardous chemicals to deforestation to pollution.
This is a plan for a true recovery. It is an investment plan for Europe.
And this is where NextGenerationEU will make a real difference.
Firstly, 37% of NextGenerationEU will be spent directly on our European Green Deal objectives.
And I will ensure that it also takes green financing to the next level.
We are world leaders in green finance and the largest issuer of green bonds worldwide. We are leading the way in developing a reliable EU Green Bond Standard.
And I can today announce that we will set a target of 30% of NextGenerationEU’s 750 billion euro to be raised through green bonds.
Secondly, NextGenerationEU should invest in lighthouse European projects with the biggest impact: hydrogen, renovation and 1 million electric charging points.
Allow me to explain how this could work:
Two weeks ago in Sweden, a unique fossil-free steel pilot began test operations. It will replace coal with hydrogen to produce clean steel.
This shows the potential of hydrogen to support our industry with a new, clean, licence to operate.
I want NextGenerationEU to create new European Hydrogen Valleys to modernise our industries, power our vehicles and bring new life to rural areas.
The second example are the buildings we live and work in.
Our buildings generate 40% of our emissions. They need to become less wasteful, less expensive and more sustainable.
And we know that the construction sector can even be turned from a carbon source into a carbon sink, if organic building materials like wood and smart technologies like AI are applied.
I want NextGenerationEU to kickstart a European renovation wave and make our Union a leader in the circular economy.
But this is not just an environmental or economic project: it needs to be a new cultural project for Europe. Every movement has its own look and feel. And we need to give our systemic change its own distinct aesthetic – to match style with sustainability.
This is why we will set up a new European Bauhaus – a co-creation space where architects, artists, students, engineers, designers work together to make that happen.
This is NextGenerationEU. This is shaping the world we want to live in.
A world served by an economy that cuts emissions, boosts competitiveness, reduces energy poverty, creates rewarding jobs and improves quality of life.
A world where we use digital technologies to build a healthier, greener society.
This can only be achieved if we all do it together and I will insist that recovery plans don’t just bring us out the crisis but also help us propel Europe forward to the world of tomorrow.
 
Honourable Members,
Imagine for a moment life in this pandemic without digital in our lives. From staying in quarantine – isolated from family and community and cut off from the world of work – to major supply problems. It is in fact not so hard to imagine that this was the case 100 years ago during the last major pandemic.
A century later, modern technology has allowed young people to learn remotely and millions to work from home. They enabled companies to sell their products, factories to keep running and government to deliver crucial public services from afar.  We saw years’ worth of digital innovation and transformation in the space of a few weeks.
We are reaching the limits of the things we can do in an analogue way. And this great acceleration is just beginning.
We must make this Europe’s Digital Decade.
We need a common plan for digital Europe with clearly defined goals for 2030, such as for connectivity, skills and digital public services. And we need to follow clear principles: the right to privacy and connectivity, freedom of speech, free flow of data and cybersecurity.
But Europe must now lead the way on digital – or it will have to follow the way of others, who are setting these standards for us. This is why we must move fast.
There are three areas on which I believe we need to focus.
First, data.
On personalized data – business to consumer –  Europe has been too slow and is now dependent on others.
This cannot happen with industrial data. And here the good news is that Europe is in the lead – we have the technology, and crucially we have the industry.
But the race is not yet won. The amount of industrial data in the world will quadruple in the next five years – and so will the opportunities that come with it.  We have to give our companies, SMEs, start-ups and researchers the opportunity to draw on their full potential. And industrial data is worth its weight in gold when it comes to developing new products and services.
But the reality is that 80% of industrial data is still collected and never used. This is pure waste.
A real data economy, on the other hand, would be a powerful engine for innovation and new jobs.  And this is why we need to secure this data for Europe and make it widely accessible.  We need common data spaces – for example, in the energy or healthcare sectors. This will support innovation ecosystems in which universities, companies and researchers can access and collaborate on data.
And it is why we will build a European cloud as part of NextGenerationEU – based on GaiaX.
The second area we need to focus on is technology – and in particular artificial intelligence.
Whether it’s precision farming in agriculture, more accurate medical diagnosis or safe autonomous driving – artificial intelligence will open up new worlds for us. But this world also needs rules.
We want a set of rules that puts people at the centre.  Algorithms must not be a black box and there must be clear rules if something goes wrong. The Commission will propose a law to this effect next year.
This includes control over our personal data which still have far too rarely today. Every time an App or website asks us to create a new digital identity or to easily log on via a big platform, we have no idea what happens to our data in reality.
That is why the Commission will soon propose a secure European e-identity. 
One that we trust and that any citizen can use anywhere in Europe to do anything from paying your taxes to renting a bicycle. A technology where we can control ourselves what data and how data is used.
The third point is the infrastructure.
Data connections must keep pace with the rapid speed of change.
If we are striving for a Europe of equal opportunities, it is unacceptable that 40% of people in rural areas still do not have access to fast broadband connections.
These connections are now the prerequisite for home working, home learning, online shopping and, increasingly by the day, for new important services.  Without broadband connections, it is now barely possible to build or run a business effectively.
This is a huge opportunity and the prerequisite for revitalising rural areas. Only then can they fully exploit their potential and attract more people and investment.
The investment boost through NextGenerationEU is a unique chance to drive expansion to every village. This is why we want to focus our investments on secure connectivity, on the expansion of 5G, 6G and fiber.
NextGenerationEU is also a unique opportunity to develop a more coherent European approach to connectivity and digital infrastructure deployment.
None of this is an end in itself – it is about Europe’s digital sovereignty, on a small and large scale.
In this spirit, I am pleased to announce an investment of 8 billion euros in the next generation of supercomputers – cutting-edge technology made in Europe.
And we want the European industry to develop our own next-generation microprocessor that will allow us to use the increasing data volumes energy-efficient and securely.
This is what Europe’s Digital Decade is all about!
 
Honourable Members,
If Europe is to move forward and move fast, we must let go of our hesitancies.
This is about giving Europe more control over its future.
We have everything it takes to bring it to life. And the private sector is desperately waiting for this too.
There has never been a better time to invest in European tech companies with new digital hubs growing everywhere from Sofia to Lisbon to Katowice.  We have the people, the ideas and the strength as a Union to succeed.
And this is why we will invest 20% of NextGenerationEU on digital.
We want to lead the way, the European way, to the Digital Age: based on our values, our strength, our global ambitions.
 
A VITAL EUROPE IN A FRAGILE WORLD
Honourable Members,
Europe is determined to use this transition to build the world we want to live in. And that of course extends well beyond our borders.
The pandemic has simultaneously shown both the fragility of the global system and the importance of cooperation to tackle collective challenges.
In the face of the crisis, some around the world choose to retreat into isolation. Others actively destabilise the system.
Europe chooses to reach out.
Our leadership is not about self-serving propaganda. It is not about Europe First. It is about being the first to seriously answer the call when it matters.
In the pandemic, European planes delivering thousands of tonnes of protective equipment landed everywhere from Sudan to Afghanistan, Somalia to Venezuela.
None of us will be safe until all of us are safe – wherever we live, whatever we have.
An accessible, affordable and safe vaccine is the world’s most promising way to do that.
At the beginning of the pandemic, there was no funding, no global framework for a COVID vaccine – just the rush to be the first to get one.
This is the moment the EU stepped up to lead the global response. With civil society, the G20, WHO and others we brought more than 40 countries together to raise 16 billion euro to finance research on vaccines, tests and treatments for the whole world. This is the EU’s unmatched convening power in action.
But it is not enough to find a vaccine. We need to make sure that European citizens and those around the world have access to it.
Just this month, the EU joined the COVAX global facility and contributed 400 million euro to help ensure that safe vaccines are available not only for those who can afford it – but for everyone who needs it.
Vaccine nationalism puts lives at risk. Vaccine cooperation saves them.
 
Honourable Members,
We are firm believers in the strength and value of cooperating in international bodies
It is with a strong United Nations that we can find long-term solutions for crises like Libya or Syria.
It is with a strong World Health Organisation that we can better prepare and respond to global pandemics or local outbreaks – be it Corona or Ebola.
And it is with a strong World Trade Organisation that we can ensure fair competition for all.
But the truth is also that the need to revitalise and reform the multilateral system has never been so urgent. Our global system has grown into a creeping paralysis. Major powers are either pulling out of institutions or taking them hostage for their own interests.
Neither road will lead us anywhere. Yes, we want change. But change by design – not by destruction.
And this is why I want the EU to lead reforms of the WTO and WHO so they are fit for today’s world.
But we know that multilateral reforms take time and in the meantime the world will not stop.
Without any doubt, there is a clear need for Europe to take clear positions and quick actions on global affairs.
Two days ago, the latest EU-China leaders meeting took place.
The relationship between the European Union and China is simultaneously one of the most strategically important and one of the most challenging we have.
From the outset I have said China is a negotiating partner, an economic competitor and a systemic rival.
We have interests in common on issues such as climate change – and China has shown it is willing to engage through a high-level dialogue. But we expect China to live up to its commitments in the Paris Agreement and lead by example.
There is still hard work to do on fair market access for European companies, reciprocity and overcapacity. We continue to have an unbalanced trade and investment partnership.
And there is no doubt that we promote very different systems of governance and society. We believe in the universal value of democracy and the rights of the individual.
Europe is not without issues – think for example of anti-semitism. But we discuss them publicly. Criticism and opposition are not only accepted but are legally protected.
So we must always call out human rights abuses whenever and wherever they occur – be it on Hong Kong or with the Uyghurs.
But what holds us back? Why are even simple statements on EU values delayed, watered down or held hostage for other motives?
When Member States say Europe is too slow, I say to them be courageous and finally move to qualified majority voting – at least on human rights and sanctions implementation.
This House has called many times for a European Magnitsky Act – and I can announce that we will now come forward with a proposal.
We need to complete our toolbox.
 
Honourable Members,
Be it in Hong Kong, Moscow or Minsk: Europe must take a clear and swift position.
I want to say it loud and clear: the European Union is on the side of the people of Belarus.
We have all been moved by the immense courage of those peacefully gathering in Independence Square or taking part in the fearless women’s march.
The elections that brought them into the street were neither free nor fair. And the brutal response by the government ever since has been shameful.
The people of Belarus must be free to decide their own future for themselves. They are not pieces on someone else’s chess board.
To those that advocate closer ties with Russia, I say that the poisoning of Alexei Navalny with an advanced chemical agent is not a one off. We have seen the pattern in Georgia and Ukraine, Syria and Salisbury – and in election meddling around the world. This pattern is not changing – and no pipeline will change that.
Turkey is and will always be an important neighbour. But while we are close together on the map, the distance between us appears to be growing. Yes, Turkey is in a troubled neighbourhood. And yes, it is hosting millions of refugees, for which we support them with considerable funding. But none of this is justification for attempts to intimidate its neighbours.
Our Member States, Cyprus and Greece, can always count on Europe’s full solidarity on protecting their legitimate sovereignty rights.
De-escalation in the Eastern Mediterranean is in our mutual interest. The return of exploratory vessels to Turkish ports in the past few days is a positive step in this direction. This is necessary to create the much needed space for dialogue. Refraining from unilateral actions and resuming talks in genuine good faith is the only path forward.  The only path to stability and lasting solutions.
 
Honourable Members,
As well as responding more assertively to global events, Europe must deepen and refine its partnerships with its friends and allies.
And this starts with revitalising our most enduring of partnerships.
We might not always agree with recent decisions by the White House. But we will always cherish the transatlantic alliance – based on shared values and history, and an unbreakable bond between our people.
So whatever may happen later this year, we are ready to build a new transatlantic agenda. To strengthen our bilateral partnership – be it on trade, tech or taxation.
And we are ready to work together on reforming the international system we built together, jointly with like-minded partners. For our own interests and the interest of the common good.
We need new beginnings with old friends – on both of sides of the Atlantic and on both sides of the Channel.
The scenes in this very room when we held hands and said goodbye with Auld Lang Syne spoke a thousand words. They showed an affection for the British people that will never fade.
But with every day that passes the chances of a timely agreement do start to fade.
Negotiations are always difficult. We are used to that.
And the Commission has the best and most experienced negotiator, Michel Barnier, to navigate us through.
But talks have not progressed as we would have wished. And that leaves us very little time.
As ever, this House will be the first to know and will have the last say. And I can assure you we will continue to update you throughout, just as we did with the Withdrawal Agreement.
That agreement took three years to negotiate and we worked relentlessly on it. Line by line, word by word.
And together we succeeded. The result guarantees our citizens’ rights, financial interests, the integrity of the Single Market – and crucially the Good Friday Agreement.
The EU and the UK jointly agreed it was the best and only way for ensuring peace on the island of Ireland.
And we will never backtrack on that. This agreement has been ratified by this House and the House of Commons.
It cannot be unilaterally changed, disregarded or dis-applied. This a matter of law, trust and good faith.
And that is not just me saying it – I remind you of the words of Margaret Thatcher:
“Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for relations with the rest of the world, and bad for any future Treaty on trade”.
This was true then, and it is true today.
Trust is the foundation of any strong partnership.
And Europe will always be ready to build strong partnerships with our closest neighbours.
That starts with the Western Balkans.
The decision six months ago to open accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia was truly historic.
Indeed, the future of the whole region lies in the EU. We share the same history, we share the same destiny.
The Western Balkans are part of Europe – and not just a stopover on the Silk Road. 
We will soon present an economic recovery package for the Western Balkans focusing on a number of regional investment initiatives.
And we will also be there for the Eastern Partnership countries and our partners in the southern neighbourhood– to help create jobs and kickstart their economies.
When I came into office, I chose for the very first trip outside the European Union, to visit the African Union, and it was a natural choice. It was a natural choice and it was a clear message, because we are not just neighbours, we are natural partners.
Three months later, I returned with my entire College to set our priorities for our new strategy with Africa. It is a partnership of equals, where both sides share opportunities and responsibilities.
Africa will be a key partner in building the world we want to live in – whether on climate, digital or trade.
 
Honourable Members,
We will continue to believe in open and fair trade across the world.  Not as an end in itself – but as a way to deliver prosperity at home and promote our values and standards. More than 600,000 jobs in Europe are tied to trade with Japan. And our recent agreement with Vietnam alone helped secure historic labour rights for millions of workers in the country.
We will use our diplomatic strength and economic clout to broker agreements that make a difference – such as designating maritime protected areas in the Antarctica. This would be one of the biggest acts of environmental protection in history.
We will form high ambition coalitions on issues such as digital ethics or fighting deforestation – and develop partnerships with all like-minded partners – from Asian democracies to Australia, Africa, the Americas and anyone else who wants to join.
We will work for just globalisation. But we cannot take this for granted. We must insist on fairness and a level playing field. And Europe will move forward – alone or with partners that want to join.
We are for example working on a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism.
Carbon must have its price – because nature cannot pay the price anymore.
This Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism should motivate foreign producers and EU importers to reduce their carbon emissions, while ensuring that we level the playing field in a WTO-compatible way.
The same principle applies to digital taxation. We will spare no effort to reach agreement in the framework of OECD and G20. But let there be no doubt: should an agreement fall short of a fair tax system that provides long-term sustainable revenues, Europe will come forward with a proposal early next year.
I want Europe to be a global advocate for fairness.
A NEW VITALITY FOR EUROPE
Honourable Members,
If Europe is to play this vital role in the world – it must also create a new vitality internally.
And to move forward we must now overcome the differences that have held us back.
The historic agreement on NextGenerationEU shows that it can be done. The speed with which we took decisions on fiscal rules, state aid or for SURE – all this shows it can be done.
So let’s do it.
Migration is an issue that has been discussed long enough.
Migration has always been a fact for Europe – and it will always be. Throughout centuries, it has defined our societies, enriched our cultures and shaped many of our lives. And this will always be the case.
As we all know, the 2015 migration crisis caused many deep divisions between Member States – with some of those scars still healing today.
A lot has been done since. But a lot is still missing.
If we are all ready to make compromises – without compromising on our principles – we can find that solution.
Next week, the Commission will put forward its New Pact on Migration.
We will take a human and humane approach. Saving lives at sea is not optional. And those countries who fulfil their legal and moral duties or are more exposed than others, must be able to rely on the solidarity of our whole European Union.
We will ensure a closer link between asylum and return. We have to make a clear distinction between those who have the right to stay and those who do not.
We will take action to fight smugglers, strengthen external borders, deepen external partnerships and create legal pathways.
And we will make sure that people who have the right to stay are integrated and made to feel welcome.
They have a future to build – and skills, energy and talent.
I think of Suadd, the teenage Syrian refugee who arrived in Europe dreaming of being a doctor. Within three years she was awarded a prestigious scholarship from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
I think of the Libyan and Somalian refugee doctors who offered their medical skills the moment the pandemic struck in France.
Honourable Members, if we think about what they have overcome and what they have achieved, then we simply must be able to manage the question of migration together.
The images of the Moria camp are a painful reminder of the need for Europe to come together.
Everybody has to step up here and take responsibility – and the Commission will do just that. The Commission is now working on a plan for a joint pilot with the Greek authorities for a new camp on Lesvos. We can assist with asylum and return processes and significantly improve the conditions for the refugees.
But I want to be clear: if we step up, then I expect all Member States to step up too.
Migration is a European challenge and all of Europe must do its part.
We must rebuild the trust amongst us and move forward together.
And this trust is at the very heart of our Union and the way we do things together.
It is anchored in our founding values, our democracies and in our Community of Law – as Walter Hallstein used to call it.
This is not an abstract term. The rule of law helps protect people from the rule of the powerful. It is the guarantor of our most basic of every day rights and freedoms. It allows us to give our opinion and be informed by a free press.
Before the end of the month, the Commission will adopt the first annual rule of law report covering all Member States.
It is a preventive tool for early detection of challenges and for finding solutions.
I want this to be a starting point for Commission, Parliament and Member States to ensure there is no backsliding.
The Commission attaches the highest importance to the rule of law. This is why we will ensure that money from our budget and NextGenerationEU is protected against any kind of fraud, corruption and conflict of interest. This is non-negotiable.
But the last months have also reminded us how fragile it can be. We have a duty to always be vigilant to care and nurture for the rule of law.
Breaches of the rule of law cannot be tolerated. I will continue to defend it and the integrity of our European institutions. Be it about the primacy of European law, the freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary or the sale of golden passports. European values are not for sale.
 
Honourable Members,
These values are more important than ever. I say that because when I think about the state of our Union, I am reminded of the words of John Hume – one of the great Europeans who sadly passed away this year.
If so many people live in peace today on the island of Ireland, it is in large part because of his unwavering belief in humanity and conflict resolution.
He used to say that conflict was about difference and that peace was about respect for difference.
And as he so rightly reminded this House in 1998: “The European visionaries decided that difference is not a threat, difference is natural. Difference is the essence of humanity”.
These words are just as important today as they ever have been.
Because when we look around, we ask ourselves, where is the essence of humanity when three children in Wisconsin watch their father shot by police while they sit in the car?
We ask where is the essence of humanity when anti-semitic carnival costumes openly parade on our streets?
Where is the essence of humanity when every single day Roma people are excluded from society and others are held back simply because of the colour of their skin or their religious belief?
I am proud to live in Europe, in this open society of values and diversity.
But even here in this Union – these stories are a daily reality for so many people.
And this reminds us that progress on fighting racism and hate is fragile – it is hard won but very easily lost.
So now is the moment to make change.
To build a truly anti-racist Union – that goes from condemnation to action.
And the Commission is putting forward an action plan to start making that happen.
As part of this, we will propose to extend the list of EU crimes to all forms of hate crime and hate speech – whether because of race, religion, gender or sexuality.
Hate is hate – and no one should have to put up with it.
We will strengthen our racial equality laws where there are gaps.
We will use our budget to address discrimination in areas such as employment, housing or healthcare.
We will get tougher on enforcement when implementation lags behind.
Because in this Union, fighting racism will never be optional.
We will improve education and knowledge on the historical, cultural causes of racism.
We will tackle unconscious bias that exists in people, institutions and even in algorithms.
And we will appoint the Commission’s first-ever anti-racism coordinator to keep this at the top of our agenda and to work directly with people, civil society and institutions.
 
Honourable Members,
I will not rest when it comes to building a Union of equality.
A Union where you can be who you are and love who you want – without fear of recrimination or discrimination.
Because being yourself is not your ideology.
It’s your identity.
And no one can ever take it away.
So I want to be crystal clear – LGBTQI-free zones are humanity free zones. And they have no place in our Union.
And to make sure that we support the whole community, the Commission will soon put forward a strategy to strengthen LGBTQI rights.
As part of this, I will also push for mutual recognition of family relations in the EU. If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country.
CONCLUSION
Honourable Members,
This is the world we want to live in.
Where we are united in diversity and adversity. Where we work together to overcome our differences – and pull each other through when times are hard.
Where we build today the healthier, stronger and more respectful world we want our children to live in tomorrow.
But while we try to teach our children about life, our children are busy teaching us what life is about.
The last year has shown us just how true this really is.
We could speak of the millions of young people asking for change for a better planet.
Or of the hundreds of thousands of beautiful rainbows of solidarity posted in the windows of Europe by our children.
But there is one image that stuck in my mind from the last six difficult months. An image that captures the world through the eyes of our children.
It is the image of Carola and Vittoria. The two young girls playing tennis between the rooftops of Liguria, Italy.
It is not just the courage and talent of the girls that sticks out.
It is the lesson behind it. About not allowing obstacles stand in your way, about not letting conventions hold you back, about seizing the moment.
This is what Carola, Vittoria and all the young people of Europe teach us about life every day. It is what Europe’s next generation is all about. This is NextGenerationEU.
This year, Europe took a leaf out of their book and took a leap forward together.
When we had to find a way forward for our future, we did not allow old conventions hold us back.
When we felt fragility around us, we seized the moment to breathe new vitality into our Union.
When we had a choice to go it alone like we have done in the past, we used the combined strength of the 27 to give all 27 a chance for the future.
We showed that we are in this together and we will get out of this together.
Honourable Members,
The future will be what we make it. And Europe will be what we want it to be.
So let’s stop talking it down. And let’s get to work for it. Let’s make it strong. And let’s build the world we want to live in.
Long live Europe!
Compliments of the European Commission.
The post State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

The United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union on 1 February 2020. The two sides are now negotiating what form future relations will take. Here is the most important information.
What has happened since 1 February 2020?
A Withdrawal Agreement was negotiated before the UK left the EU in order to ensure that the main political and economic links between the EU and the UK were not severed from one day to the next upon departure. This Agreement has been in force since 1 February 2020, the day the UK left the EU. It provides for a transition period until 31 December 2020 during which EU law continues to apply to the UK, and the UK remains a part of the EU’s single market EU customs union.
The EU and the UK are also negotiating their future relationship during this transition period. The Political Declaration on the future relationship agreed to by both sides accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement and sets out the framework for negotiations.
What happens at the end of the transition period? Which preparations are necessary?
The transition period stipulated in the Withdrawal Agreement ends on 31 December 2020. It is no longer possible to extend this period. This would have required a joint decision on an extension to have been taken by 1 July 2020. The UK let this deadline pass. As of 1 January 2021, the UK will thus no longer be part of the single market or the customs union.
Even if an agreement on the future relationship is concluded by year’s end, the EU’s relationship with the UK will fundamentally change; it will be very different from when the UK was a member of the single market. Customs formalities, for example, will become necessary. Citizens and businesses of Germany and the entire EU must prepare for these consequences following the end of the transition period, regardless of whether an agreement on the future partnership is reached with the UK before then or not.
The European Commission published what is known as a readiness communication on 9 July 2020 to prepare for the end of the transition period between the EU and the UK. To support this, the European Commission is currently revising and, where necessary, updating the over 100 sector-specific stakeholder readiness notices published during negotiations with the UK on the basis of Article 50.
The updated readiness notices pertaining to individual areas (e.g. customs duties, including preferential rules of origin, data protection law, industrial products, chemicals, etc.) are intended to help public administrations, businesses and the general public prepare for the inevitable changes that will occur after the transition period ends, regardless of the outcome of negotiations on future relations.
The EU wants to continue to have a close partnership with the UK. We believe it is possible to reach a successful agreement on the basis of the Political Declaration. However, it is important for us to prepare for all possible outcomes to the negotiations. This includes preparing for no agreement.
What is the status of negotiations on the future relationship?
The Political Declaration envisages an agreement between the EU and the UK on their future relationship to be essentially an economic and security partnership. In accordance with the Political Declaration, the 27 member states of the EU agreed on 25 February 2020 to the negotiating mandate for the European Commission, which is conducting negotiations on the future relationship between the EU and the UK on behalf of the member states.
On this basis, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, presented the draft text of a comprehensive Agreement on the New Partnership with the UK in mid March, to which further components have since been added. You will find this and the other texts on the website of the Task Force for Relations with the United Kingdom.
Since March, the EU and the UK have continued with regular rounds of negotiations, the difficulties ensuing from the COVID-19 pandemic notwithstanding. The EU is conducting negotiations on the basis of the jointly agreed Political Declaration.
Significant differences have still not yet been resolved, however. After the seventh round of negotiations, substantial differences remain in key areas, particularly on the issue of fair competition and fisheries, and also on the question of horizontal governance and the role of the ECJ, mobility, etc. Two further formal rounds of negotiations will take place by the beginning of October. Furthermore the negotiators from the EU and the UK, Michel Barnier and David Frost, will hold discussions with close advisers on a weekly basis.
The clock is ticking: a deal must be concluded by the end of October at the latest in order to allow sufficient time for ratification by the European Parliament.
What role does the Withdrawal Agreement play?
Thanks to the Withdrawal Agreement, nothing much changed for citizens and businesses when the UK left the EU on 1 February 2020.
The EU’s freedom of movement (i.e. the right to live, work, study or have social security coverage in the EU and in the UK) continues to apply in full during the transition period.
However, the UK has not had a say in the EU institutions since its withdrawal. UK citizens are thus also excluded from participating in European citizens’ initiatives and have no right to vote in local elections in other EU countries or in European Parliament elections, nor to stand as candidates in such elections.
EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU will enjoy lifelong comprehensive protection of their rights; they can continue to live, work, study and enjoy social security in the UK and the EU, respectively. You must, however, register to protect your rights. German legislation on this issue is currently being considered by Parliament and will enter into force in due time before the end of the transition period. Further information is available on the website of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community.
The rules that will apply to citizens and businesses who want to relocate, work or study in another country after the end of the transition phase will largely depend on the outcome of present negotiations on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom.
The special Protocol for Northern Ireland, attached to the Withdrawal Agreement, guarantees the integrity of the EU single market; at the same time, it ensures that there will be no controls at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and that the Good Friday Agreement remains fully in force. The Protocol provides that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK’s customs territory but that all relevant rules of the EU single market will apply in Northern Ireland, as will the Union Customs Code. Checks and the collection of customs duties this entails will take place at the entry points to the island of Ireland in Northern Ireland.
The UK’s financial obligations towards the EU are also one of the points laid down in the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Withdrawal Agreement also establishes the Joint Committee and a number of specialised committees, in which the EU and the UK regularly discuss questions relating to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement and, if necessary, may adopt decisions by mutual consent, for example, on questions of interpretation.
It is now important that the Withdrawal Agreement and the attached Protocols are implemented in full. We also consider this a key foundation of trust for the negotiations.
Where can I find more information about the Withdrawal Agreement?
The European Commission answers questions, including the ones below, on its website:

What is included in the Common Provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement?
What has been agreed on citizens’ rights?
What has been agreed on separation issues?
What has been agreed on the governance of the Withdrawal Agreement?
What has been agreed regarding the financial settlement?
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

Compliments of the German Presidency for the Council of the European Union.
The post Brexit has arrived: Where are we now? What happens next? first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Watch the live webcast of the press conference here |
The COVID-19 crisis has exposed the many inadequacies and inequities in education systems around the world. As governments start rebuilding their economies and people’s livelihoods, it is critical that long-term public spending on education remain a priority to ensure that every young person has the same opportunity to continue education, succeed at school and develop the skills they need to contribute to society, according to a new OECD report.
Education at a Glance 2020, together with an accompanying brochure analysing the impact of the crisis, warns that, while there is uncertainty about the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education expenditure, governments may face difficult decisions on the allocation of public funds as economic growth slows, tax incomes decline and healthcare and welfare costs rise. In 2017, total public expenditure on primary to tertiary education as a percentage of total government expenditure was 11% on average across OECD countries, with the share ranging from around 7% in Greece to around 17% in Chile.
“Strengthening education systems needs to be at the heart of government planning to recover from this crisis and give young people the skills and competencies they need to succeed,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría, launching the report in Paris. “It’s critical that every effort be made to ensure that the crisis does not exacerbate the inequalities in education that have been revealed in many countries. The current crisis has tested our ability to deal with large-scale disruptions. It is now up to us to build as its legacy a more resilient society.”
The crisis has hit the vocational and education training (VET) sector particularly hard. This is a major concern, according to the report, as many of the professions that formed the backbone of economic and social life during the lockdown hinge on vocational qualifications.
On average across OECD countries, young adults today are less likely to attain an upper secondary vocational path than their parents were and more likely to pursue an academic university degree. Earnings are also lower: adults with an upper secondary vocational qualification have similar earnings to those with an upper secondary general qualification, but they earn 34% less than tertiary-educated adults on average across OECD countries.
Governments should step up their efforts to make vocational education and vocational qualifications more attractive to young people. This should include enhancing work-based learning and strengthening ties with the private sector. Currently, only one third of upper secondary vocational students take part in combined school and work-based programmes on average across OECD countries.
Making it easier for students to move from vocational to higher education is also key and can improve learning outcomes. Upper secondary vocational students are more likely to complete their qualification when the programme provides access to tertiary education than when it does not. Today, almost seven in ten students are enrolled in programmes that, in theory, enable them to progress to higher degrees.
The crisis has also raised concerns around the value proposition of higher education institutions, with students reluctant to commit large amounts of time and money when much of the course work is only available online. This may affect international student mobility as students question the very value of obtaining a degree abroad.
Any decline in enrollment of international students for the next academic year will hit the core education services universities offer, but also will indirectly affect the financial support they provide to domestic students, as well as research and development activities. While international students represent 6% of tertiary students on average across OECD countries, they represent 20% or more in Australia, Luxembourg and New Zealand. International student mobility is particularly high at doctoral level, where one out of five students on average travels abroad to earn their degree. To remain relevant, universities will need to reinvent learning environments so that digitalisation expands and complements, but does not replace, student-teacher and student-student relationships.
Education at a Glance provides comparable national statistics measuring the state of education worldwide. The report analyses the education systems of the OECD’s 37 member countries, as well as of Argentina, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
Further information on Education at a Glance, including country notes and key data, is available at:  http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/.
CONTACTS:

Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills | andreas.schleicher[at]oecd.org
The OECD’s Media Office | news.contact[at]oecd.org

Compliments of the OECD.
The post OECD | Education critical to build a more resilient society first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Many countries are making “green” recovery measures a central part of stimulus packages to drive sustainable, inclusive, resilient economic growth and improve well-being in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. However some countries are also implementing measures that risk having a negative environmental impact and locking in unsustainable growth, according to new OECD analysis discussed by member country ministers today.
New OECD analysis, Making the Green Recovery Work for Jobs, Income and Growth, indicates that OECD member governments have committed USD 312 billion of public resources to a green recovery, according to a preliminary estimate that will be refined in the coming months. However, a number of other measures within broader recovery packages are going into “non-green” spending such as fossil fuel investments.
“It is encouraging to see many governments seizing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure a truly sustainable recovery, but countries should go much further in greening their support packages,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría, during a Ministerial Roundtable to discuss the issue. “Climate change and biodiversity loss are the next crises around the corner and we are running out of time to tackle them. Green recovery measures are a win-win option as they can improve environmental outcomes while boosting economic activity and enhancing well-being for all.” (Read the full speech.)
The analysis finds that among OECD and other major economies, a majority of countries have included measures directed at supporting the transition to greener economies in their recovery strategies. These include grants, loans and tax relief for sustainable transport and mobility, the circular economy and clean energy research; financial support to households for improved energy efficiency and renewable energy installations; and measures to foster the restoration of ecosystems.
At the same time, some countries have unveiled measures likely to have a direct or indirect negative impact on environmental outcomes. Some of these are temporary and form part of emergency economic rescue plans; others risk having longer-term implications. Measures include plans to roll back environmental regulations, reductions or waivers of environment-related taxes or charges, unconditional bailouts of emissions-intensive industries or companies, and increased subsidies of fossil fuel infrastructure investment.
“Addressing global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean degradation, and inefficient resource use is more important than ever as we seek to rebuild our economies and enhance resilience against future shocks,” said Spanish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge Teresa Ribera, chairing the Roundtable. “Well designed and implemented stimulus packages can drive a recovery that is both green and inclusive, driving income, prosperity and jobs as well as accelerating action on national and global environmental goals.”
The meeting included ministers of environment, climate or ecological transition from OECD member countries and Costa Rica as well as the European Commission Executive Vice President. The Roundtable is part of the preparations of the OECD’s Ministerial Council Meeting, which will take place on 28-29 October under the chairmanship of Spain and with Chile, Japan and New Zealand as Vice-chairs. This Roundtable comes just before the OECD releases its Interim Economic Outlook on 16 September.
The analysis notes that a period of low oil prices offers an opportunity to scale up the introduction of carbon pricing and continue phasing out support for fossil fuels. Taxing environmentally harmful consumption and production can mitigate environmental harm while improving economic efficiency. It is crucial that energy tax reforms do not increase the share of “energy poor”, as good access to energy services is essential for good standards of living. The distributional implications of other pricing instruments, such as taxes and charges on vehicle and fuel use should be also addressed. Similarly, reform of fossil fuel subsidies, which amounted to USD 582 billion in 2019 according to OECD and IEA data, should be accompanied by transition support for industries, communities, regions and vulnerable consumers.
The OECD analysis underlines the need to monitor and evaluate the impact of recovery measures on environmental outcomes, something that was lacking after the 2008 financial crisis. It presents 13 environmental indicators that can be used to measure the impact of stimulus measures, including carbon intensity, fossil fuel support, exposure to air pollution, water stress and environmentally related tax revenue.
Read Making the Green Recovery Work for Jobs, Income and Growth
Access the OECD’s Green Recovery platform
CONTACT:

Catherine Bremer, OECD Media Office | catherine.bremer[at]oecd.org

Compliments of the OECD.
The post OECD | More can be done to ensure a green recovery from COVID-19 crisis first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Report of the Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, Market Risk Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Below includes the executive summary, while access to the full report can be found here: Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System
Executive Summary
Climate change poses a major risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system and to its ability to sustain the American economy. Climate change is already impacting or is anticipated to impact nearly every facet of the economy, including infrastructure, agriculture, residential and commercial property, as well as human health and labor productivity. Over time, if significant action is not taken to check rising global average temperatures, climate change impacts could impair the productive capacity of the economy and undermine its ability to generate employment, income, and opportunity. Even under optimistic emissions- reduction scenarios, the United States, along with countries around the world, will have to continue to cope with some measure of climate change-related impacts.
This reality poses complex risks for the U.S. financial system. Risks include disorderly price adjustments in various asset classes, with possible spillovers into different parts of the financial system, as well as potential disruption of the proper functioning of financial markets. In addition, the process of combating climate change itself—which demands a large-scale transition to a net-zero emissions economy—will pose risks to the financial system if markets and market participants prove unable to adapt to rapid changes in policy, technology, and consumer preferences. Financial system stress, in turn, may further exacerbate disruptions in economic activity, for example, by limiting the availability of credit or reducing access to certain financial products, such as hedging instruments and insurance.
A major concern for regulators is what we don’t know. While understanding about particular kinds of climate risk is advancing quickly, understanding about how different types of climate risk could interact remains in an incipient stage. Physical and transition risks may well unfold in parallel, compounding the challenge. Climate risks may also exacerbate financial system vulnerabilities that have little to do with climate change, such as historically high levels of corporate leverage. This is particularly concerning in the short- and medium-term, as the COVID 19 pandemic is likely to leave behind stressed balance sheets, strained government budgets, and depleted household wealth, which, taken together, undermine the resilience of the financial system to future shocks.
The central message of this report is that U.S. financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks. Achieving this goal calls for strengthening regulators’ capabilities, expertise, and data and tools to better monitor, analyze, and quantify climate risks. It calls for working closely with the private sector to ensure that financial institutions and market participants do the same. And it calls for policy and regulatory choices that are flexible, open-ended, and adaptable to new information about climate change and its risks, based on close and iterative dialogue with the private sector.
At the same time, the financial community should not simply be reactive—it should provide solutions. Regulators should recognize that the financial system can itself be a catalyst for investments that accelerate economic resilience and the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Financial innovations, in the form of new financial products, services, and technologies, can help the U.S. economy better manage climate risk and help channel more capital into technologies essential for the transition.
Findings of the Report
This report begins with a fundamental finding—financial markets will only be able to channel resources efficiently to activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions if an economy-wide price on carbon is in place at a level that reflects the true social cost of those emissions. Addressing climate change will require policy frameworks that incentivize the fair and effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of such a price, financial markets will operate suboptimally, and capital will continue to flow in the wrong direction, rather than toward accelerating the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. At the same time, policymakers must be sensitive to the distributional impacts of carbon pricing and other policies and ensure that the burden does not fall on low-to-moderate income households and on historically marginalized communities. This report recognizes that pricing carbon is beyond the remit of financial regulators; it is the job of Congress.
A central finding of this report is that climate change could pose systemic risks to the U.S. financial system. Climate change is expected to affect multiple sectors, geographies, and assets in the United States, sometimes simultaneously and within a relatively short timeframe. As mentioned earlier, transition and physical risks—as well as climate and non-climate-related risks—could interact with each other, amplifying shocks and stresses. This raises the prospect of spillovers that could disrupt multiple parts of the financial system simultaneously. In addition, systemic shocks are more likely in an environment in which financial assets do not fully reflect climate-related physical and transition risks. A sudden revision of market perceptions about climate risk could lead to a disorderly repricing of assets, which could in turn have cascading effects on portfolios and balance sheets and therefore systemic implications for financial stability.
At the same time, this report finds that regulators should also be concerned about the risk of climate-related “sub-systemic” shocks. Sub-systemic shocks are defined in this report as those that affect financial markets or institutions in a particular sector, asset class, or region of the country, but without threatening the stability of the financial system as a whole. This is especially relevant for the United States, given the country’s size and its financial system, which includes thousands of financial institutions, many regulated at the state level. Sub-systemic shocks related to climate change can undermine the financial health of community banks, agricultural banks, or local insurance markets, leaving small businesses, farmers, and households without access to critical financial services. This is particularly damaging in areas that are already underserved by the financial system, which includes low-to-moderate income communities and historically marginalized communities.
The report finds that, in general, existing legislation already provides U.S. financial regulators with wide-ranging and flexible authorities that could be used to start addressing financial climate-related risk now. This is true across four areas—oversight of systemic financial risk, risk management of particular markets and financial institutions, disclosure and investor protection, and the safeguarding of financial sector utilities. Presently, however, these authorities and tools are not being fully utilized to effectively monitor and manage climate risk. Further rulemaking, and in some cases legislation, may be necessary to ensure a coordinated national response.
While some early adopters have moved faster than others in recent years, regulators and market participants around the world are generally in the early stages of under- standing and experimenting with how best to monitor and manage climate risk. Given the considerable complexities and data challenges involved, this report points to the need for regulators and market participants to adopt pragmatic approaches that stress continual monitoring, experimentation, learning, and global coordination. Regulatory approaches in this area are evolving and should remain open to refinement, especially as understanding of climate risk continues to advance and new data and tools become available.
Insufficient data and analytical tools to measure and manage climate-related financial risks remain a critical constraint. To undertake climate risk analysis that can inform decision-making across the financial system, regulators and financial institutions need reliable, consistent, and comparable data and projections for climate risks, exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, and adaptation and resilience. Demand will likely grow for public and open access to climate data, including for primary data collected by the government. Public data will enable market participants to, among other things, compare publicly available disclosure information and sustainability-benchmarked financial products. At the same time, proprietary data and analytical products can introduce innovations that improve climate risk management. A key challenge will be how best to balance the need for transparency through public data on one hand, with the need to foster private innovation through proprietary data, on the other.
The lack of common definitions and standards for climate-related data and financial products is hindering the ability of market participants and regulators to monitor and manage climate risk. While progress has been made in this area thanks to voluntary disclosure frameworks and work by foreign regulators, the lack of standards, and differences among standards, remains a barrier to effective climate risk management. The problem is compounded by a lack of international coordination on data and methodology standards. A common set of definitions for climate risk data, including modeling and calculation methodologies, is important for developing the consistent, comparable, and reliable data required for effective risk management. Also, taxonomies or classification systems can help foster greater transparency and comparability in markets for financial products labeled as “green” or “sustainable.”
Climate-related scenario analysis can be a useful tool to enable regulators and market participants to understand and manage climate-related risks. Scenarios illustrate the complex connections and dependencies across technologies, policies, geographies, societal behaviors, and economic outcomes as the world shifts toward a net-zero emissions future. Scenario analysis can help organizations integrate climate risks and opportunities into a broader risk management framework, as well as understand the potential short-term impact of specific triggering events. Scenario analysis is gaining traction in several contexts, both domestically and internationally, and regulators are increasingly using scenario analysis to foster greater risk awareness among financial market actors.
Yet, the limitations of scenario analysis should be recognized. While useful, climate scenarios and the models that analyze them have important limitations. Scenarios are sensitive to key assumptions and parameters, most have been developed for purposes other than financial risk analysis, and they cannot fully capture all the potential effects of climate- and policy-driven outcomes. Scenario analysis should have a valuable place in the risk management toolkit, but it should be used with full awareness of what it can and cannot do.
The disclosure by corporations of information on material, climate-related financial risks is an essential building block to ensure that climate risks are measured and managed effectively. Disclosure of such information enables financial regulators and market participants to better understand climate change impacts on financial markets and institutions. Issuers of securities can use disclosure to communicate risk and opportunity information to capital providers, investors, derivatives customers and counterparties, markets, and regulators. Issuers of securities can also use disclosures to learn from peers about climate-related strategy and best practices in risk management. Investors can use climate-related disclosures to assess risks to firms, margins, cash flows, and valuations, allowing markets to price risk more accurately and facilitating the risk-informed allocation of capital.
Demand for disclosure of information on material, climate-relevant financial risks continues to grow, and reporting initiatives have led to important advances. Investors and financial market actors have long called for decision useful climate risk disclosures, and in 2019, more than 630 investors managing more than $37 trillion signed the
Global Investor Statement to Governments on Climate Change, which called on governments to improve climate-related financial reporting. Disclosure frameworks have been developed to enhance the quality and comparability of corporate disclosures, most notably, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Also, in 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change, which provides public companies with interpretive guidance on existing SEC disclosure requirements as they apply to climate change.
However, the existing disclosure regime has not resulted in disclosures of a scope, breadth, and quality to be sufficiently useful to market participants and regulators. While disclosure rates are trending in a positive direction, an update published by the TCFD found that surveyed companies only provided, on average, 3.6 of the 11 total TCFD recommended disclosures. Large companies are increasingly disclosing some climate-related information, but significant variations remain in the information disclosed by each company, making it difficult for investors and others to understand exposure and manage climate risks. In addition, the 2010 SEC Guidance has not resulted in high-quality disclosure across U.S. publicly listed firms; it could be updated in light of global advancements in the past 10 years.
In addition to the absence of an economy-wide carbon pricing regime in the United States, other barriers are holding back capital from flowing to sustainable, low-carbon activities. One involves the misperception among mainstream investors that sustainable or ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investments necessarily involve trading off financial returns relative to traditional investment strategies. Another is that the market for products widely considered to be “green” or “sustainable” remains small relative to the needs of institutional investors. In addition, lack of trust in the market over concerns of potential “greenwashing” (misleading claims about the extent to which a financial product or service is truly climate-friendly or environmentally sustainable) may be holding back the market. And policy uncertainty also remains a barrier, including in areas such as regulation affecting the financial products that U.S. companies may offer their employees through their employer-provided retirement plans.
These barriers can be addressed through a variety of initiatives. For example, a wide range of government efforts—through credit guarantees and other means of attracting private capital by reducing the risks of low-carbon investments—catalyze capital flows toward innovation and deployment of net-zero emissions technologies. A new, unified federal umbrella could help coordinate and expand these government programs and leverage institutional capital to maximize impact and align the various federal programs. Climate finance labs, regulatory sandboxes, and other regulatory initiatives can also drive innovation by improving dialogue and learning for both regulators and market innovators, as well as via business accelerators, grants, and competitions providing awards in specific areas of need. In addition, clarifying existing regulations on fiduciary duty, including for example, those concerning retirement and pension plans, to confirm the appropriateness of making investment decisions using climate-related factors—and more broadly, ESG factors that impact risk-return—can help unlock the flow of capital to sustainable activities and investments.
Derivatives markets can be part of the solution. Refinements or modifications could be made to existing instruments to reduce derivatives market participants’ risk exposure. For example, commodity derivatives exchanges could address climate and sustainability issues by incorporating sustainability elements into existing contracts and by developing new derivatives contracts to hedge climate-related risks. New products may include weather, ESG, and renewable generation and electricity derivatives. However, development of new derivatives will require that the relevant climate-related data is transparent, reliable, and trusted by market participants. This also applies to a wide range of asset classes that can direct capital to climate-related opportunities and help manage climate risk.
U.S. regulators are not alone in confronting climate change as a financial system risk; international engagement by the United States could be significantly more robust. Financial regulators and other actors have launched important initiatives to tackle the challenge. The United States already participates in the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s climate task force, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) sustainable finance network, and relevant committees within the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to study climate-related financial risks. However, at the federal level the United States is not yet a member of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, or the Sustainable Insurance Forum (SIF). The Group of Seven (G7) and Group of Twenty (G20), in which the United States plays a central role, could also address this challenge and promote international cooperation, but only if the United States is supportive.
Key Recommendations
The full list of the report’s recommendations can be found at the end of relevant chapters and compiled in an annex at the end of this report. Below, we highlight some of the most important.
We recommend that:

The United States should establish a price on carbon. It must be fair, economy-wide, and effective in reducing emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement. This is the single most important step to manage climate risk and drive the appropriate allocation of capital. (Recommendation 1)
All relevant federal financial regulatory agencies should incorporate climate-related risks into their mandates and develop a strategy for integrating these risks in their work, including into their existing monitoring and oversight functions. (Recommendation 4.1)
The Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)—of which the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is a voting member—as part of its mandate to monitor and identify emerging threats to financial stability, should incorporate climate-related financial risks into its existing oversight function, including its annual reports and other reporting to Congress. (Recommendation 4.2)
Research arms of federal financial regulators should undertake research on the financial implications of climate-related risks. This research program should cover the potential for and implications of climate-related “sub-systemic” shocks to financial markets and institutions in particular sectors and regions of the United States, including, for example, agricultural and community banks and financial institutions serving low-to-moderate income or marginalized communities. (Recommendation 4.3)
U.S. regulators should join, as full members, international groups convened to address climate risks, including the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, and the Sustainable Insurance Forum (SIF). The United States should also engage actively to ensure that climate risk is on the agenda of G7 and G20 meetings and bodies, including the FSB and related committees and working groups. (Recommendation 4.6)
Financial supervisors should require bank and nonbank financial firms to address climate-related financial risks through their existing risk management frameworks in a way that is appropriately governed by corporate management. That includes embedding climate risk monitoring and management into the firms’ governance frameworks, including by means of clearly defined oversight responsibilities in the board of directors. (Recommendation 4.7)
Working closely with financial institutions, regulators should undertake—as well as assist financial institutions to undertake on their own—pilot climate risk stress testing as is being undertaken in other jurisdictions and as recommended by the NGFS. This climate risk stress testing pilot program should include institutions such as agricultural, community banks, and non-systemically important regional banks. (Recommendation 4.8) In this context, regulators should prescribe a consistent and common set of broad climate risk scenarios, guidelines, and assumptions and mandate assessment against these scenarios. (Recommendation 6.6)
Financial authorities should consider integrating climate risk into their balance sheet management and asset purchases, particularly relating to corporate and municipal debt. (Recommendation 4.10)
The CFTC should undertake a program of research aimed at understanding how climate-related risks are impacting and could impact markets and market participants under CFTC oversight, including central counterparties, futures commission merchants, and speculative traders and funds; the research program should also cover how the CFTC’s capabilities and supervisory role may need to adapt to fulfill its mandate in light of climate change and identify relevant gaps in the CFTC’s regulatory and supervisory framework. (Recommendation 4.11)
State insurance regulators should require insurers to assess how their underwriting activity and investment portfolios may be impacted by climate-related risks and, based on that assessment, require them to address and disclose these risks. (Recommendation 4.12)
Financial regulators, in coordination with the private sector, should support the avail- ability of consistent, comparable, and reliable climate risk data and analysis to advance the effective measurement and management of climate risk. (Recommendation 5.1)
Financial regulators, in coordination with the private sector, should support the devel- opment of U.S.-appropriate standardized and consistent classification systems or taxonomies for physical and transition risks, exposure, sensitivity, vulnerability, adapta- tion, and resilience, spanning asset classes and sectors, in order to define core terms supporting the comparison of climate risk data and associated financial products and services. To develop this guidance, the United States should study the establishment of a Standards Developing Organization (SDO) composed of public and private sector members. (Recommendation 5.2)
Material climate risks must be disclosed under existing law, and climate risk disclosure should cover material risks for various time horizons. To address investor concerns around ambiguity on when climate change rises to the threshold of materiality, financial regulators should clarify the definition of materiality for disclosing medium- and long- term climate risks, including through quantitative and qualitative factors, as appropriate. (Recommendation 7.2)
In light of global advancements in the past 10 years in understanding and disclosing climate risks, regulators should review and update the SEC’s 2010 Guidance on climate risk disclosure to achieve greater consistency in disclosure to help inform the market. Regulators should also consider rulemaking, where relevant, and ensure implementation of the Guidance. (Recommendation 7.5)
Regulators should require listed companies to disclose Scope 1 and 2 emissions. As reliable transition risk metrics and consistent methodologies for Scope 3 emissions are developed, financial regulators should require their disclosure, to the extent they are material. (Recommendation 7.6)
The United States should consider integration of climate risk into fiscal policy, partic- ularly for economic stimulus activities covering infrastructure, disaster relief, or other federal rebuilding. Current and ongoing fiscal policy decisions have implications for climate risk across the financial system. (Recommendation 8.1)
The United States should consolidate and expand government efforts, including loan authorities and co-investment programs, that are focused on addressing market failures by catalyzing private sector climate-related investment. This effort could centralize existing clean energy and climate resilience loan authorities and co-investment programs into a coordinated federal umbrella. (Recommendation 8.2)
Financial regulators should establish climate finance labs or regulatory sandboxes to enhance the development of innovative climate risk toolsas well as financial products and services that directly integrate climate risk into new or existing instruments. (Recommendation 8.3)
The United States and financial regulators should review relevant laws, regulations and codes and provide any necessary clarity to confirm the appropriateness of making investment decisions using climate-related factors in retirement and pension plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as well as non-ERISA managed situations where there is fiduciary duty. This should clarify that climate-related factors—as well as ESG factors that impact risk-return more broadly—may be considered to the same extent as “traditional” financial factors, without creating additional burdens. (Recommendation 8.4)
The CFTC should coordinate with other regulators to support the development of a robust ecosystem of climate-related risk management products. (Recommendation 8.5)

AUTHORS

Commissioner Rostin Behnam, Sponsor

David Gillers, Chief of Staff, Office of Commissioner Behnam

Bob Litterman, Chairman

Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Editor

Jesse M. Keenan, Editor

Stephen Moch, Associate Editor

Compliments of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The post Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Countries need to work together to defend the ocean from a steady rise in temperature, pollution and overfishing that threatens its ability to continue supporting marine life and providing food and income to billions of people, according to a new OECD report.
Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the benefits of sustainable ocean economies for developing countries says that with ocean-related economic sectors forecast to grow rapidly over the next decade, ensuring this development takes place in a sustainable way is critical.
While the COVID-19 crisis is hurting key ocean-based sectors, such as tourism and shipping, demands on marine resources for food, energy, minerals, transport, tourism and leisure will persist as the global population grows towards an expected 9 billion by 2050. If managed sustainably, the ocean could have the capacity to regenerate, be more productive, and support more prosperous societies. This will require governments to support those sectors less equipped to foster sustainable ocean economies by facilitating their access to finance and policy evidence.
“More than 3 billion people rely on the ocean for their livelihoods, and we are all dependent on it for supporting ecosystems, providing food and regulating the climate. Yet human activity is causing long-lasting and in some cases irreversible damage to it,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “It is crucial that we invest in ocean-related sectors in a way that fosters environmental and economic sustainability and puts people’s well-being at the centre, especially as we shape the recovery from COVID-19.”
Noting that the poorest countries tend to be both the most exposed to the effects of ocean degradation and the least equipped to respond, the report calls for co-ordinated action and more effective international development co-operation to improve sustainability of the ocean economy. The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, starting in 2021, should foster greater use of science and innovation to develop sustainable practices in a post-COVID world.
The report calls on all countries to phase out government support for environmentally harmful economic activities and use instruments like fees, charges, taxes and tradable permits to discourage over-exploitation, pollution and greenhouse emissions and encourage conservation and sustainable development of ocean activities. Such instruments can also generate much-needed financing for ocean sustainability. Taxes relevant to ocean sustainability – in particular taxes on ocean-related pollution, transport and energy –generated at least USD 4 billion globally in 2018.
The report’s analysis of six ocean-based industries (fishing, fish farming, fish processing, shipbuilding, maritime passenger transport, and freight shipping) shows that they contributed to more than 11% of GDP in lower middle-income countries and 6% of GDP in low-income countries in 2015, compared to less than 2% of GDP for high-income countries. In some low-income or island states, key ocean-based sectors like tourism can account for over 20% of GDP.
This reliance leaves developing countries highly exposed to the risks of deteriorating marine ecosystems, yet less than 1% of foreign aid is spent on conserving marine ecosystems and improving sustainability of ocean-related economic activities. The USD 3 billion in official development assistance (ODA) that was allocated on average to ocean activities annually over 2013-18 has tended to focus on expanding activities like ports or shipping without including efforts to improve sustainability.
Well-designed financing is essential to achieving sustainable ocean economies, yet data on ocean finance is scarce, and it is unclear how much of it contributes to sustainability. To help fill this gap, the report measures global development finance for the sustainable ocean economy and looks at private finance mobilised by ODA for ocean activities. It calls for environmental and social sustainability criteria relating to the ocean economy to be integrated into traditional financial services and investments, financial markets and credit markets.
Read the report Sustainable Ocean for All: Harnessing the benefits of sustainable ocean economies for developing countries.
Access the OECD platform on development finance for sustainable ocean economies
For further information, journalists are invited to contact Catherine Bremer in the OECD Media Office (+33 1 45 24 97 00).
Compliments of the OECD.
The post OECD | Countries must do more to ensure sustainable development of ocean activities first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

03/09/2020 – Governments have taken unprecedented fiscal action in response to the COVID-19 crisis, but countries will need to support economic recovery in the face of significantly increasing fiscal challenges, according a new OECD report.
Tax Policy Reforms 2020 describes the latest tax reforms across OECD countries, as well as in Argentina, China, Indonesia and South Africa. The report identifies major tax policy trends adopted before the COVID-19 crisis and takes stock of the tax and broader fiscal measures introduced by countries in response to the pandemic, from its outbreak to June 2020.
The report shows that while the size of fiscal packages in response to the COVID-19 crisis has varied across countries, most have been significant, and many countries have taken unprecedented action. It also points out that most countries have adopted a phased approach to COVID-19, gradually adapting their fiscal packages as the crisis has unfolded. Initial government responses focused on providing income support to households and liquidity to businesses to help them stay afloat. As the crisis has continued, many countries expanded their initial response packages. The most recent measures and discussions suggest that the recovery phase will be supported by expansionary fiscal policy in a number of countries.
With countries facing such high levels of uncertainty, policy agility will be key and targeted support measures should be maintained as long as needed to avoid scarring effects, according to the report. Once recovery is well underway, governments should shift from crisis management to more structural tax reforms, but they must be careful not to act prematurely as this could jeopardise recovery. “Right now, the focus should be on the economic recovery. Once the recovery is firmly in place, rather than simply returning to business as usual, governments should seize the opportunity to build a greener, more inclusive and more resilient economy,” said Pascal Saint-Amans, Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration. “One path that should be urgently prioritised is environmental tax reform and tax policies to tackle inequalities”.
Rising pressure on public finances as well as increased demands for fairer burden-sharing should also provide new impetus to reach an agreement on digital taxation. “Tax co-operation will be even more important to prevent tax disputes from turning into trade wars, which would harm recovery at a time when the global economy can least afford it,” Mr Saint-Amans said.
Tax Policy Reforms 2020 also provides an overview of the reforms introduced before the COVID-19 crisis. It highlights continuation of a number of trends identified in previous years, including personal income tax reductions for low and middle-income households and the stabilisation of standard value-added tax (VAT) rates observed across many countries. Corporate tax rates have continued to decline, but at a faster pace than in 2019.
Areas where clear progress has been made include reforms to ensure the effective collection of VAT on online sales of goods, services and intangibles, and the adoption of measures in line with the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project to protect corporate tax bases against international tax avoidance. On the other hand, progress on environmentally related taxes has been slow, with reforms being concentrated in a small number of countries and limited in scope.
The report also notes that there has been a marked change in property taxation compared to previous years, with an increase in the number of reforms in that area, generally aimed at raising taxes.
Media queries should be directed to Pascal Saint-Amans, Director of the OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration (+33 1 45 24 91 08), David Bradbury, Head of the Tax Policy and Statistics Division (+33 1 45 24 98 15 97), or Lawrence Speer, in the OECD Media Office (+33 1 45 24 79 70).
Compliments of the OECD.
The post Countries have responded decisively to the COVID-19 crisis, but face significant fiscal challenges ahead first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

Today, the Council agreed to add €6.2 billion to the EU 2020 budget to address the impact of the COVID-19-crisis and to fund inter alia the vaccine strategy. The Council adopted draft amending budget No 8 for 2020 by written procedure.
The revised budget increases payments for the Emergency Support Instrument (ESI) by €1.09 billion to ensure the development and deployment of a COVID-19 vaccine. The European Commission will use this money as a down-payment for pre-ordering vaccine doses.
Draft amending budget No 8 also increases payments by €5.1 billion for the Corona Response Investment Initiative (CRII) and the Corona Response Investment Initiative Plus (CRII+). The money will be used to cover the additional needs for cohesion funding forecast until the end of the year. The CRII redirects unspent money from the EU budget to tackling the COVID-19 crisis, whilst the CRII+ relaxes the cohesion spending rules to increase flexibility.
During its plenary on 14-17 September 2020, the European Parliament is expected to agree on its position on the draft amending budget proposal. Once there is an agreement, the draft amending budget will enter into force.
Compliments of the Council of the European Union.
The post Addressing COVID-19: Council of the EU approves €6.2 billion budget increase for 2020 first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.

By Kristalina Georgieva, IMF Managing Director, Washington, DC | As prepared for delivery
I would like to start by thanking Minister Freeland in her new role as Finance Minister. And my thanks to Finance Minister Clarke of Jamaica, and to Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed.
I will focus my remarks today on two issues.
One, the outlook for the world economy. And two, the implications of this outlook for what we must collectively do.
On the outlook, since we last met in the end of May, incoming data paints a picture that is less bleak. In other words, we are seeing some signs of recovery in the world economy.
The outlook for a number of advanced economies is somewhat less bad than we anticipated. China has turned the corner and is recovering a little faster than anticipated.
And all of this is on the grounds of three important factors. First, a very strong and synchronized policy response by finance ministries, and by central banks.
A massive policy response put a floor under the world economy. This included $11 trillion of fiscal measures. And central banks have done miracles to inject huge amounts of liquidity and support their national economies and – through spillovers – the economies of other countries. We have seen it has become easier for emerging market countries with good fundamentals to raise money.
The IMF has been part of this very strong response. Never in our history have we done so much so quickly, supporting over 80 countries through emergency financing and also through our regular lending programs. We have now extended support of $270 billion – out of the Fund’s $1 trillion capacity – and more than a third of this support has been provided in recent months.
The second reason the situation is better is that the world has learned to function while the pandemic is still around us. We wear masks, we socially distance and we follow protocols.
And that has allowed some rebounds. We are seeing that non-contact-dependent activities like manufacturing are doing somewhat better than expected.
Third, there are improved results in testing and treatment. And we are very hopeful to have a vaccine. So, this is on the more optimistic side.
But it is not good or positive news everywhere.
The majority of emerging markets and developing countries – excluding China – are not seeing a reversal of fortunes yet. In fact, some would see a downgrade in our projections.
And, as we know very well, small countries with tourism-dependent economies are on their knees. Countries with high debt levels are in terrible trouble, and the virus is now moving to places where health systems are weaker.
What does that mean for us? I will focus on three priorities.
One, make sure that we maintain support until we see the economy turn around.
We project a recovery that is only partial and uneven.
We are at a point when we can say that the world economy will lose $12 trillion this year and next year.
To continue support in advanced economies, is somewhat easier. With low interest rates, it is more affordable.
For developing economies and for emerging markets with weaker fundamentals, we must all work to boost the financing that is available to them. All of us.
For the Fund, it means that we are expanding the use of existing SDRs, encouraging a shift from advanced economies towards developing economies so they can rely on strong financing capacity at the IMF on concessional terms.
Two, we have to be mindful of debt levels that are high in many emerging and developing economies – high to a point of suffocating capacity to act.
We have had the Debt Service Suspension Initiative — a great achievement. It has to be extended and both the World Bank and the IMF are calling for a one-year extension. And we are calling for greater private sector participation.
And we have to recognize that – for some countries – this is not going to be enough, and some countries will need a restructuring to bring debt down to a sustainable level.
I call for debt transparency as a priority. If we know debt levels, then this issue is much easier to handle.
Last – but not least – we need to recognize that this crisis is telling us to build resilience for the future.
That means investing in education, digital capacity and human capital – the health systems and the social protection systems. We need to make sure the other crises in front of us – like the climate crisis – are well integrated and addressed. And we need to prevent inequality and poverty – including gender inequality – from raising their ugly heads again.
To do this, we have to take care of taxation in a way that transforms and builds resilience for the future.
Yes, it is going to be hard. Everybody on the political side knows how hard this will be. But after the global financial crisis, we built resilience in the banking sector by reforming it.
Now, we have to do it for the functioning of our economies as a whole.
Thank you very much.
Compliments of the IMF.
The post IMF | Event of the Finance Ministers on Financing for Development in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond first appeared on European American Chamber of Commerce New York [EACCNY] | Your Partner for Transatlantic Business Resources.