Menu
28 FEBRUARY
1 MARCH
28 FEBRUARY
09h30
Registration
10h30 – 12h15
This traditional scene setting session will explore how well the EU has coped with the extraordinary challenges of 2022 in the eyes of its citizens. Are people willing to make sacrifices to continue to support Ukraine? Do they realise how much the EU does for their security? Do they feel protected from high energy prices?
Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, Director-General for Communication, European Commission
Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook, Executive Vice President/Senior Adviser, Bertelsmann Stiftung
Arnoldas Pranckevičius, Ambassador, Permament Representation of Lithuania to the European Union
Jan Zielonka, Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Venice, Cá Foscari
Daniel Gros, Distinguished Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
12h15 – 13h00
Lunch
13h00 – 13h05
Welcome and Introduction, Chair of CEPS
13h05 – 14h15
Opening Plenary: Moving Europe from darkness into light
- Don Graves, United States Deputy Secretary of Commerce (Opening remarks)
- Arancha González Laya, Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs
- Alexander Stubb, Director of the School of Transnational Governance, EUI
14h30 – 15h45
LAB SESSIONS 1
Over the past five years, at least 60 countries have adopted some form of strategy for artificial intelligence (AI), and many are now moving from strategy to policy and regulatory frameworks. Canada, one of the pioneers in this domain, adopted legislation on AI this year. The US government published a blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights in October 2022.
Meanwhile, the EU has followed a unique approach, oriented towards ‘trustworthy AI’ and the mitigation of harm to fundamental rights and safety caused by the deployment of high-risk AI systems. The proliferation of national frameworks risks creating a thicket of inconsistent requirements, which can create barriers to international trade and competition. For these reasons, international organisations such as UNESCO, the OECD, and forums such as the Global Partnership on AI and the CEPS-Brookings Forum for Cooperation in AI are actively working to promote international convergence in this crucial policy domain. At the bilateral level, the Trade & Technology Council (TTC) features an attempt to achieve enhanced convergence between the US and the EU on a risk management framework for AI.
In this session, distinguished speakers discuss whether, to what extent, and how convergence should be achieved in the coming months and whether the EU will be able to advocate for its emerging regulatory framework as a blueprint for a global approach to AI.
This session has received funding from Flexigrobots, Horizon 2020 project funded under Grant Agreement No. 101017111
Karine Perset, Head of the AI Unit, OECD
Jan Rempala, Adviser, BusinessEurope
Caterina Rodelli, EU Policy Analyst, Access Now
Irina Orssich, Head of Sector, AI Policy Development and Coordination, European Commission
Dragoș Tudorache, MEP – Committee on Civil Liberties
Rosanna Fanni, Researcher & TTD Coordinator, CEPS (moderator)
Import shortages, from medical supplies to semiconductors and fertilisers, have disrupted industries in Europe and across the world. Governments are under pressure to respond with protective policies. The immediate and popular concept of reshoring faces the limitation that imports are supplied by third countries and that some are only available from a small number of places.
This has led to the idea of ‘friendshoring’, the framing of trade relations through cooperation between governments. This form of cooperation aims to avoid policy actions that damage supply chains, building trust in government action to stabilise trade and ensure joint responses to supply disruptions.
This session on friendshoring will assess the scope of government cooperation to protect supply chains, the possible costs of policies to organise international trade in this manner, and its possible consequences for the rules-based international trade system.
Florian Dorn, Director EconPol Europe, ifo Institute
Victor Stolzenburg, Research Economist, World Trade Organisation
Peter Sandler, DG Trade, European Commission
Ambassador Didier Chambovey, Head of the Swiss Permanent Mission, WTO and EFTA
Andreas Kopp, Senior Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Over the past years, interest in the topic of sustainable finance has seen a phenomenal rise. With this have come many instances of greenwashing, and greenwishing. Despite the vast sums invested in ESG funds, it is difficult to ascertain the real impact on the environment and society. We have also seen growing criticism and scepticism about ESG claims and sustainable investing. Meanwhile, we face a reality of growing exposure to climate risks. The recent energy crisis calls for more capital flows into genuinely sustainable businesses and activities. Can the European Commission’s initiatives like the EU Taxonomy, its Green Bonds Standard, and net-zero transition plans drive the change we need to see? Can, and will, the business sector change its practices – and what would be the key enablers for accelerating the transition?
Christine Würfel, Head of Sustainability, Raiffeisen International
Linda Zeilina, CEO, International Sustainable Finance Centre (ISFC)
Martin Spolc, Head of Unit, DG FISMA, European Commission
Dora Blanchet, Head of the sustainable finance unit, ESMA
Thorsten Beck, Director of the Florence School of Banking and Finance and Professor of Financial Stability, European University Institute (EUI) (moderator)
In an attempt to tackle increasingly disruptive energy prices, the EU has been pushed into unchartered territory and has embarked on a series of unprecedented decisions. They include mandatory reduction targets for gas and electricity, an inframarginal revenues cap scheme, a ‘solidarity contribution’ from the fossil fuels sector and new measures on regulated prices and price caps. It has also put the question on the most appropriate regulation (‘market design’) for an electricity market into a situation where almost all assets are predominantly Capex-driven.
This session will take stock of the current situation, ask whether measures have worked and what else will be needed.
James Matthys-Donnadieu, Chief Officer Customers, Markets, System, Elia Group
Catharina Sikow-Magny, Director, DG Energy, European Commission
Leonardo Meeus, Director, Florence School of Regulation (FSR) and the Loyola de Palacio Chair on European Energy Regulation and Policy in the Robert Schuman Centre
Kathrine Fog, SVP Head of Energy Strategy & Policy, Hydro
Christian Egenhofer, Associate Senior Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Francesco Gazzoletti, Managing Partner, FortyEight Brussels (moderator)
Both sides are locked in a war with no clear outcome in prospect and threats of further escalation. Under what conditions might diplomacy stand a chance? If there were a ceasefire agreement that held, and negotiations about conflict resolution commence, how can each party be persuaded that conditions which they view to be essential — whether on territorial, political, security, financial, or other grounds — would result in a sustainable resolution of the war? How would Ukraine’s reconstruction be funded and managed?
Kimberly Feldewerth, Policy Manager – Europe, The HALO Trust
Fredrik Löjdquist, Director, Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies
Anna Osypchuk, Director for Research, School for Policy Analysis, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
James Moran, Associate Senior Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) policies are now at the heart of European integration. During the last 30 years we have witnessed the impressive and dynamic adoption of a previously unthinkable body of EU JHA law, the setting up and expansion of EU agencies (e.g. Frontex, Europol, eu-LISA and the EU Asylum Agency) and technologies (e.g. databases and their interoperability).
JHA policies are now routed into the institutional foundations, decision-making parameters and principles enshrined in the EU Treaties. These policies are also highly vulnerable to declared crises – e.g. the rule of law crisis, the refugee crisis in 2015/2016 or the Covid-19 pandemic. Policies have been passed in the name of crisis which raise a number of questions: first, their compatibility with the Treaty rules and principles, including the rule of law, human rights and refugee protection; and second, their impacts on the effective enforcement of Member States’ obligations under existing EU law standards. This session assesses these questions in light of the overall progress made and obstacles experienced in JHA cooperation during the past 30 years, and an assessment of the key unresolved issues which lay ahead.
This Session was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020) – AG 101007485. The content of this Session represents the views of the speaker only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
Sergio Carrera, Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Justice and Home Affairs unit, CEPS (moderator)
Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, European Commission
Joanna Apap, Member of the Strategy and Coordination Unit, DG EPRS, European Parliament
John Morijn, Chair in law and politics in international relations & Assistant professor of European human rights law, University of Groningen
Michele LeVoy, Director, PICUM
Natacha Kazatchkine, Head of Unit – Civic space, Rule of law advocacy, Open Society Foundations – Europe Programme
15h45 – 16h15
Break
16h15 – 17h30
LAB SESSIONS 2
Advances in quantum technologies may drastically change the world as we know it, and are expected to positively impact many sectors of the global economy, including pharmaceuticals, climate and weather modelling, and financial portfolio management. Yet the same technologies could fundamentally allow for the unauthorised decryption of private messages and financial transactions.
Alongside the privacy and security implications, others are concerned about the threat that quantum sensing may pose to military capabilities, such as submarine detection and sea-based nuclear deterrents. Furthermore, there are also ethical concerns related to the possibility that in the wrong hands, the great potential power of quantum computing could also be used to create harmful materials or to maliciously manipulate the human genome.
Against this backdrop, this lab will discuss the implications of quantum technologies for cybersecurity; how quantum technologies can be wielded to ensure tamper-proof communications; how to promote the development, standardisation and deployment of quantum-resistant cryptography; how to implement and govern the migration to quantum-resistant cryptography; and how to enhance the recruitment, development and retainment of the cyber talents needed to respond to the quantum revolution.
Sabrina Maniscalco, Professor of Quantum Information, Computing and Logic, University of Helsinki
Michael Osborne, CTO for IBM Quantum Safe IBM Research Division , Zurich
Ralf Schneider, Group CIO, Allianz SE
Gustav Kalbe, Acting Director, Digital Excellence and Science Infrastructure, DG Connect, European Commission
Lorenzo Pupillo, Associate Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Cybersecurity@CEPS Initiative, CEPS (moderator)
In response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the EU has adopted several packages of sanctions covering a wide range of restrictive measures such as export and import bans on selected goods and services, -financial sanctions, restrictive measures on transport, individual sanctions imposed on Russian elites, restrictions on media and suspension of visa facilitation agreement. The EU’s sanction’s packages also target the third countries such as Belarus and Iran in an attempt of closing loopholes and constraining third country’s engagement in Russian aggression against Ukraine. Working together with the like-minded countries, such as the US and the UK has proved to be crucial for mobilising Western response against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This particularly refers to the energy-related sanctions, including ban on imports of Russian oil and gas and price caps imposed on Russian seaborne crude oil by G(7) and Australia. This session will discuss whether all the sanctions mobilised by the EU and its Western allies are working, how hard they are hitting Russian economy, what are the costs of sanctions for the Western allies and what should be done further to curb Russia’s ability to fund the war.
Edouard Bourcieu, Chief Economist, DG Trade, European Commission
Elina Ribakova, Deputy Chief Economist, IIF
David O’Sullivan, International Special Envoy for the Implementation of EU Sanctions
Tinatin Akhvlediani, Research Fellow and Head of the Financial Markets and Institutions Unit, CEPS (moderator)
The covid-19 pandemic and, more recently, the energy crisis have resulted in large negative economic and social impacts. While the policy response has been quick and unprecedented in size, social risks have increased. The labour markets, which until now has shown resilience, is undergoing major transformations with unpredictable outcomes. Vulnerable households are exposed to higher risk of poverty. Are current social policies fit for the purpose of protecting citizens? Should we rethink social policies?
Bea Cantillon, Professor, University of Antwerp
Slavina Spasova, Senior Researcher, European Social Observatory (OSE)
Ivailo Kalfin, Executive Director, Eurofound
Olivier Bontout, Deputy head of Unit – social policies, child guarantee and social protection Committee, European Commission
Cinzia Alcidi, Director of Research, CEPS (moderator)
The war in Ukraine and the effects of the EU’s dependency on Russian gas has brought another acute challenge to the centre stage of the policy debate, that being the fact that the EU is also highly dependent on metals imports which are critical for the transition to a low-carbon economy.
While the European Commission is preparing a proposal for a new EU policy framework for raw materials there are a number of open questions. How can we avoid the risk of replacing the EU’s dependency on foosil fuels imports with a dependency on metals imports? How far can adopting a circular economy reduce this risk? Is it possible to reconcile the objectives of a rapid development of metal-intensive renewable energy technologies and halting biodiversity loss?
Jana Plananska, Member of the Board of Advisors, Norge Mining Ltd
Hildegard Bentele, MEP
Wouter Ghyoot, Vice President Government Affairs, Umicore
André Månberger, Associate Senior Lecturer, Lund University
Vasileios Rizos, Research Fellow and Head of Sustainable Resources and Circular Economy, CEPS (moderator)
EU Member States had told themselves after the Balkan Wars of the 1990s that they would no longer rely on US support to put out blazes in Europe. Alas, in all likelihood Ukraine would not have been able to sustain Russia’s aggression if it had relied solely on European support. This raises questions over the mantra of European strategic autonomy. What can the EU, EU Member States and partners like the US and NATO do to shore up European defence for present and future conflict?
H.E. Julianne Smith, US Ambassador to NATO
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former NATO Secretary General
Dr. Benedikta von Seherr-Thoß, European External Action Service Managing Director for CSDP and Crisis Response
Nicholas Nelson, Senior Advisor, CEPS; Principal Researcher and Adjunct Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dylan Macchiarini Crosson, Researcher, CEPS (moderator)
The 2015-16 refugee crisis and the recent controversies with the Belarusian, Moroccan and Turkish regimes have translated into far-reaching Commission proposals for reforming the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and the Schengen regime.
These include a revision of the EU Dublin system and the adoption of a crisis framework under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum; a new inisitiative on the instrumentalisation of migration by third countries; and finally, a new reform of the Schengen Borders Code and the rules for reintroducing internal border controls.
The envisaged Pact’s reform of the responsibility-sharing or relocation components of the EU asylum system is, however, still unresolved. The implementation of arrangements, such as the recent Declaration on a Voluntary Relocation Mechanism that covers people rescued in the Mediterranean are continuing to experience serious practical challenges. This session explores the role of crisis in the scope and features of the proposed reforms of the EU asylum and Schengen acquis, and their impacts on Member States’ discretion, as well as the enforcement of existing EU law standards in these areas.
This Session has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement nº 870787. This Session reflects only the speaker’s view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Lina Vosyliute, Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Catherine Woolard, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE)
Jonas Grimheden, Fundamental Rights Officer, Frontex
Stephanie Pope, EU Migration Policy Advisor, Oxfam International
Emilio de Capitani, Visiting Professor – Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London
Davide Colombi, Research Assistant, CEPS
18h00 – 22h00
Reception in honour of the 40th Anniversary of CEPS
Bozar – 23 Rue Ravenstein
1000 Bruxelles
We were the first European think tank to actively advise EU policymakers. Today, we’re still the largest independent think tank in Brussels. To celebrate this milestone, we will host a reception dinner at Bozar, the Centre for Fine Arts.
The reception will be followed by a high-level debate to reflect on one fundamental question – Why did we create Europe, as we know it today, in the first place? Confirmed speakers for the debate include:
Margrethe Vestager
Executive Vice-President for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age and Commissioner for Competition, European Commission
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus
Marija Pejčinović Burić
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
1 MARCH
08h15 – 9h15
BREAKFAST SESSIONS
Empowering ordinary citizens to actively shape and control their participation in the digital economy has become a central challenge in a world where fake news overtakes governments, companies use artificial intelligence to shape and control human behaviour, and where personal information has become a major source of revenue.
The session introduces and examines ‘Empowering Digital Citizens’, a comprehensive, human-centred proposal for data governance developed by the Global Initiative for Digital Empowerment (GIDE). The proposal shows how digital citizens can be empowered to make informed decisions about how their data is used, while proposing a three-tiered definition of data and a governance ecosystem with data intermediaries. The discussion will address the challenges of potential political implementation, alignment with existing European regulations and the role that policymakers – as well as civil society stakeholders – can play in this area.
Christian Kastrop, Honorary Professor of Public Finance, Fiscal Rules and International Institutions, Freie Universität Berlin
Heather Grabbe, Senior Adviser, Open Society Foundations
Dennis Snower, President of the Global Solutions Initiative and Professor of Macroeconomics and Sustainability at the Hertie School (moderator)
This session examines the key implementation issues and open questions regarding the activation of the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) to respond to refugees’ fleeing the war in Ukraine. This will include an assessment of the lessons learned thus far from the practical application of the TPD regime in various Member States, including issues related to practical accessibility to the envisaged set of rights and guarantees – such as access to the TPD status, and rights such as family reunification, labour market, social assistance, housing, etc.
The session includes an assessment of what should be the next policy steps to be taken by the EU. This session falls within the scope of the Horizon 2020 ASILE project. It will also serve as the launchpad of a new e-book co-edited on the EU Temporary Protection responses to the Ukraine War.
This Session has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement nº 870787. This Session reflects only the speaker’s view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Davide Colombi, Research Assistant, CEPS (moderator)
Meltem Ineli Ciger, Jean Monnet Fellow at the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and an Associate Professor at the Suleyman Demirel University Faculty of Law
Giulio di Blasi, Member of the Cabinet, Commissioner Ylva Johannson, European Commission
Stefan Maier, Head of Policy and Legal Support Unit, Representation for EU Affairs, Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland and the Netherlands, UNHCR
Birte Schorpion, Europe Regional Advocacy Coordinator, Danish Refugee Council (DRC)
Boldizsár Nagy, Associate Professor, Central European University
Europe is confronting an end to peace and prosperity. The liberal ideas and values that drove globalisation are in retreat. Instead, economic interconnectivity is weaponised by great power politics.
For the EU, merely defending its economic interests is no longer sufficient. It must learn to use the instruments of geoeconomics to assert European values and interests. The region where the EU must prove to the world that it can become a geopolitical actor is its own neighbourhood.
Together with the Vienna Institute for International Economic Policy (wiiw) the Bertelsmann Stiftung has measured the degree of the EU´s trade, financial, technological, infrastructural and labour force interconnectivity with 23 neighbouring states and compared the results with the ‘footprint’ of its peers and rivals – the US, China and Russia.
In this session we will present our findings and discuss what concrete actions can be identified for the EU´s evolving enlargement and neighbourhood policy.
Richard Grieveson, Executive Director, wiiw
Stefani Weiss, Senior Expert, Bertelsmann Stiftung (moderator)
In late 2021, the GRID team at CEPS and Fraunhofer ISI organised foresight workshops to identify alternative future paths for EU integration. We identified four scenarios, set in the year 2040. ‘Optimistic New Deal’ portrays a strong EU backed by Member States and leading the world towards tackling global challenges. ‘Wretched fortress’ see the EU facing difficulties due to rising Euroscepticism and a significant slowdown in the process of integration. ‘United Force’ features a minimalistic EU focused on a narrow set of global challenges, while Member States rely on inter-governmental agreements in remaining policy domains. Finally, ‘Chinese province’ implies that the EU ‘forks’, with remaining Member States merging into a Eurasian bloc under the leadership of an increasingly eco-authoritarian China.
Written during the Covid-19 pandemic, these scenarios do not account for the war in Ukraine and all subsequent developments, which led the world into a complex quagmire that has been defined as ‘poly-crisis’.
In this breakfast session, we meet with experts to discuss what future may lay ahead for Europe, and how to avoid the most dystopian of the above scenarios.
Kalypso Nicolaidis, Chair in International Affairs, School of Transnational Governance, EUI
Lieve Van Woensel, Former Foresight Adviser, European Parliament
Aaron Rosa, Foresight Researcher, Fraunhofer ISI
Berta Mizsei, Research Assistant, CEPS (moderator)
The EU has turned towards borrowing to address the growing policy priorities and respond to the various crises it is facing. Programmes like SURE and NextGenerationEU helped transform the EU from a relatively small supranational issuer to a sovereign style issuer –both in terms of volumes and funding techniques. Most recently, the EU announced that in the future it will be issuing single branded EU-Bonds under a unified funding approach, making yet another step towards being a sovereign style issuer. How is this impacting the capital markets, other issuers and the capacity of the EU to swiftly respond to crises? This breakfast session will look for the answers.
Niall Bohan, Director of Borrowing and Lending, DG Budget, European Commission
Rebecca Christie, Europe columnist for Reuters Breakingviews (moderator)
09h30 – 10h45
LAB SESSIONS 3
Recent economic crises have led to a widespread belief that international economic integration has gone too far. The belief is based on the conviction that risks to supply-chains have been overlooked or underestimated. Industries are held to have fragmented production processes to an extent that threatens supply security, technical progress, and macroeconomic stability.
The recent shortages in supplies of semiconductors has led to particularly strong concerns about keeping pace with competitors in the digital transition and national security. Increasingly, government interventions rather than the operation of markets are perceived as the major risks for semiconductor supplies. All major exporting countries have decided to strongly support local production. In such a context, policy actions may prevent supply disruptions but may also be steps in a wasteful process of protection and retaliation.
In this session, distinguished speakers will discuss whether and how the characteristics of the industry imply a dependence that we should be concerned about. It will also suggest measures to protect the EU from semiconductor supply shortages.
Ondrej Burkacky, Senior Partner, McKinsey
Janine Dobelmann, Head of Government Affairs EU, NXP Semiconductors
Adrian Wende, Researcher, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna
Andreas Kopp, Senior Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
With its growing reliance on trading with China, the EU has been calling it a partner for cooperation and negotiation, an economic competitor and a systemic rival. Up to date, China is the number one source of the EU’s imports and the number three destination for the EU exports. However, China’s counter-measures to EU sanctions on human rights, trade measures against the single market, and China’s tacit acceptance of Russia’s war raise major concerns on politicisation and weaponization of trade and technology. The session will discuss what is at stake while trading with China and how to rebalance trade with the third largest economy in the world.
Finbarr Bermingham, Europe Correspondent, SCMP
Mikko Huotari, Executive Director, MERICS
Alicia Garcia Herrero, Chief Economist Asia Pacific, Groupe BPCE – Global Markets Research, Natixis Corporate & Investment Banking
Adeline Hinderer, Head of Unit Far East, DG Trade, European Commission
Tinatin Akhvlediani, Research Fellow and Head of the Financial Markets and Institutions Unit, CEPS (moderator)
After almost four decades of price stability, inflation is climbing to historical highs. Initially driven by global energy and food price increases, the magnitude of surge caught central banks and markets by surprise. Price pressures are now increasingly broadening to housing and other services, amplified by wages adjustments. Despite monetary policy tightening, inflation upside risks are large. How can central banks restore control? With the economy weakening and risks of recession raising, how far should monetary policy tightening go?
Markus Ferber, MEP
Alex Brazier, Managing Director, Deputy Head of the Blackrock Investment Institute (BII)
Ignazio Angeloni, Part-time Professor, Robert Schuman Center, European University Institute
Dora Xia, Senior Economist, Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
Sarah Holton, Head of Prices and Costs Division, ECB
Daniel Gros, Distinguished Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
The ETS remains the EU’s most prominent climate policy – policymakers and stakeholders remain committed to the EU’s carbon pricing approach, even in the face of unprecedented energy prices and geopolitical turmoil. What is the impact of the energy crisis on the operational and investment decisions of power plants and energy-intensive industries? If fuel switching from coal to gas becomes nearly impossible due to the high gas price, what does the EU price signal do then for the electricity sector? For energy-intensive industries that see their costs surge, how does the ETS support their low-carbon investments? Do we need to reconsider some of the distributional elements of the ETS, especially the role of free allocation?
The CBAM was envisioned for a world where significant trade in certain industrial commodities takes place with close EU neighbours, including Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. Meanwhile, the US has adopted an ambitious federal climate/industrial policy (the Inflation Reduction Act) for the first time. How will CBAM fare in this new political reality?
Lars Zetterberg, Director of Mistra Carbon Exit, IVL
Vicente Hurtado Roa, Head of unit of CBAM and green taxation at DG TAXUD, European Commission
Suzana Carp, Deputy Executive Director, Cleantech for Europe
Milan Elkerbout, Research Fellow and Head of the climate policy programme, CEPS (moderator)
The need for ‘gradual’ and ‘accelerated’ integration of EU candidate countries has been widely accepted in order to already provide concrete visible benefits for citizens during the negotiations process and to help build institutional capacities. Yet, beyond the low-hanging fruit of free roaming, increasing cyber resilience and alignment with sanctions, few agree which areas of the Single Market to frontload and how to restructure the pre-accession process.
Milena Lazarevic, CEP Belgrade
Veronika Movchan, Academic Director, Head of the Center for Economic Studies, Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting (IER)
Lawrence Meredith, Director, DG NEAR, European Commission
Arturas Piliponis, Digital Leader for EU institutions, EY
Heather Grabbe, Senior Adviser, Open Society Foundations (moderator)
Crises have been key catalysts of EU cooperation in the areas of criminal justice and policing. This has also been the case in EU-US transantlatic relations. Particular focus has been given to the collection and sharing of electronic data and evidence, particularly in light of increasing private-public partnerships and the expansive role of large-scale IT service provides from the US providing their services in Europe. The two previously envisaged EU-US frameworks for data sharing – the so-called ‘Safe Harbour’ Agreement and the ‘Privacy Shield’ – have been struck down by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) because of their incompatibility with EU privacy and rule of law standards.
Following the EU and the US authorities’ announcement of an agreement on a new instrument, this session will explore its feasibility and the main legal and political challenges that any new arrangement may actually face, as well as the lessons learned from previous CJEU rulings and the standards required for any new attempt to reach a new EU-US agreement on data sharing.
This Session was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020) – AG 101007485. The content of this Session represents the views of the speaker only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
Anjum Shabbir, Associate Researcher, CEPS (moderator)
Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, MEP
Anna Buchta, Head of Policy & Consultation Unit, EDPS
Estelle Masse, Senior Policy Analyst and Global Data Protection Lead, AccessNow, EDRI
Georgia Skouma, Security & Privacy legal director, Delloitte
Valsamis Mitsilegas, University of Liverpool
10h45 – 11h15
Break
11h15 – 12h30
PRIME TALKS
European cooperation is firmly rooted in a shared commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. These commitments lay at the basis of the general principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition in EU policy areas such as Justice and Home Affairs, and more recently, to financial integrity issues related to the EU budget.
This session explores what’s in the current EU arsenal to safeguard and enforce the rule of law, democratic and fundamental rights principles, and what other new EU-led measures or instruments could be considered to effectively uphold EU values by both Member States and EU institutions and agencies.
This Session was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020) – AG 101007485. The content of this Session represents the views of the speaker only and is his/her sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
Sergio Carrera, Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Justice and Home Affairs unit, CEPS (moderator)
Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Values and Transparency, European Commission
Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman
Michael O’Flaherty, Director, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights – FRA
Ilze Tralmaka, Senior Legal and Policy Officer, Fair Trials (FTE)
Petra Bard, Professor at Radboud University, Research Centre for State and Law (SteR), Nijmegen; Associate Professor at ELTE School of Law, Budapest; Research Affiliate at CEU Democracy Institute
The EU energy-intensive and materials industry has been experimenting with transformative technologies such as green steel, green cement and green hydrogen. However, with the war in Ukraine and the end of abundant and relatively cheap gas, the current industrial strategy has called into question. At the same time, the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) focuses on tax breaks, subsidies and local content requirements. So now, the natural question to ask is: Does Europe also need a EU-style IRA?
Jacek Truszczyński, Deputy Head of ‘International Value Chains’, DG GROW, European Commission
Jules Besnainou, Executive Director, Cleantech for Europe
Georgina Wright, Senior Fellow and Director of Europe Programme, Institut Montaigne
Jonathan Barth, Co-founder and Policy Director, ZOE – Institut für zukunftsfähige ökonomien
Christian Egenhofer, Associate Senior Research Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Over the past years, the EU has been expected to act quickly to address the crises it has faced – from the coronavirus pandemic to the war in Ukraine. The EU budget has been instrumental to secure a strong joint response. However, the numerous and large-scale challenges have demonstrated the limitations of the EU budget, whose structure and governing rules are pre-defined. The question therefore arises, is the EU budget the way it functions today fit to meet the expectations towards it? Should the EU redesign the rules of its budget to make it fir for the future or hope to squeeze the future into the existing rules? The current session will seek to provide answers to these and more questions. The discussion is particularly timely in view of the review of the long-term budget that the European Commission has announced for 2023.
Damian Boeselager, MEP
Jorge Núñez Ferrer, Senior Research Fellow, CEPS
Eulalia Rubio, Senior Research Fellow, Jacques Delors Institute
Lourdes Acedo Montoya, Head of Unit for MFF and economic budgetary analysis, DG Budget, European Commission
Katharina Gnath, Senior Project Manager, Program Europe’s Future, Bertelsmann Stiftung (moderator)
The Covid-19 pandemic has not ended but global events like the Ukraine War, inflation, the energy crisis and the specter of recession have taken the spotlight, overshadowing old and new problems in the pursuit of global health for all. The risk is that the world will fail to learn the lessons already learnt from the pandemic.
The scientific and policy community today agrees that February 2020 was a ‘lost month’ in the early phases of the response to the pandemic; that 2021 was a completely ‘lost year’ in the quest for more equitable access to knowledge and technology for more decentralised vaccine production; and that the world now faces a ‘lost decade’ for development.
Several proposals and possible solutions have been developed by international organisations and international forums such as the WTO, G7 and G20. The EU launched a very ambitious global health strategy in November 2022, with the aim to keep alive the flame of better health for all. At the same time, it remains to be seen whether the world will be able to take sufficient action to make Covid-19 the last pandemic; and whether the solutions pursued will just tackle for the last pandemic but fail to prevent, or at least mitigate, future health threats.
In this session, we take stock of the evolving global, regional and local governance of pandemic preparedness and response and we discuss the role that the EU could play in the emerging global health security architecture.
This session has received funding from Periscope, Horizon 2020 project funded under Grant Agreement No. 101016233
Anders Nordstrom, Swedish Ambassador for Global Health, Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
John Ryan, Acting Deputy Director-General, DG SANTE, European Commission
Eloise Todd, Co-founder, Pandemic Action Network
Fatima Abba, Senior Programme Officer, Global Health Security & Pandemic Preparedness Advocacy, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Hien Vu, Associate Researcher, at the Global Governance, Regulation, Innovation and the Digital Economy Unit (GRID), CEPS (moderator)
The green energy transition in the EU and the success of the Green Deal will also depend on its ability to inspire and support the green transition and effective climate action around the world. Africa may play a key role in achieving this goal. Up until now, fossil fuels have constituted a large share of exports from Africa to Europe, and the dramatic raise in gas prices has sparked some local politicians to push for new investment in fossil fuels. However, this could turn out to be nothing more than a mirage, both environmentally and economically, putting Africa into a trap of stranded assets. Can Africa, with its abundance of sun and wind, become a major producer of clean energy and step up as a supplier for Europe? What would this entail? How can EU-Africa cooperation add value in managing the transition?
Catherine Collin, Advisor to the acting Managing Director – EIB Global
Assaad Saab, Senior Advisor, Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie (OME)
Luca Giansanti, Head of European Government Affairs, Eni
Marc Sadler, Program Leader, Sustainable Development, World Bank
Prof. Rym Ayadi, President, EMEA (moderator)
The voluntary carbon market has recently attracted a lot of attention. According to some accounts, in 2021 it was worth about USD 2 billion and is expected to grow to USD 10-40 billion in value by 2030. At the same time, it has attracted criticism, including over the environmental integrity of some of its underlying projects. This session will discuss the important role for the voluntary carbon market in promoting capital flows to climate mitigation projects, the significant work being done to improve market integrity, and notably its role in the international climate change architecture and how the EU should position itself.
Nigel Howorth, Partner and Head of Clifford Chance’s Global Environment Group and Environment & Climatic Trading Group
Jeff Swartz, Vice President, Low Carbon Solutions, bp trading & shipping
Jos Delbeke, EIB Chair, School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute, Florence (moderator)
11h15 – 12h30
SIDE SESSION
Amid economic uncertainty, political upheaval, the climate emergency, global pandemics, and war in Europe, youth increasingly question political decisions that affect them – and the future of Europe. With these unprecedented changes and challenges, what are the EU’s strategic policy goals, and do they suffice to address the most pressing challenges?
Europe’s youth today is the first generation not to improve on the previous one in terms of wealth, income, and future prospects. Although young people will have to live with the impact of many political decisions the longest, policymaking lacks meaningful youth participation. This session, organised by the CEPS Young Thinkers Initiative, will discuss necessary paradigm shifts and re-frame the most pressing policy questions in four key areas: energy and climate policy, security and defence, trade and technology, and democracy and institutions.
Elia Tello, Minister Counselor for Public Affairs, U.S Mission to the EU (opening remarks)
Erik Jones, Director of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUI
Young Thinkers: Nubia Rodrigues, Simon Van Hoeve, Felicitas Murat, Sofia Romansky
Dylan Macchiarini Crosson, Researcher, CEPS (moderator)
12h45 – 13h30
The EU used to be a champion of free trade and the rules-based global trading system. Can it continue with this stance when it has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia and other major powers, while using trade and domestic economic levers to defend its geopolitical interests? Should the EU follow the example of others, not only with respect to its trade policy but also other policies, such as state aid? What are the EU’s interests in this geopolitical ‘new normal’ that is currently threatening to eclipse the economic pillars that the EU was originally built on?
Jens Eskelund, Vice President of the EU Chamber of Commerce in China
Roberto García Martínez, CEO, Eurobattery Minerals
Maria Martin-Prat, Deputy Director General, DG TRADE, European Commission
Cecilia Malmström, Former European Commissioner for Trade (moderator)
13h30 – 14h30
Lunch
14h45 – 15h30
Europeans are currently worrying about many different things – inflation, war, energy prices, long-Covid, climate change and rising debts. With all of these challenges, they are increasingly worrying about the future. Does that imply that our democracy is not working? What if European democracy is no longer able to effectively cope with an evermore interdependent global environment that’s running at an ever-faster pace? This lecture will try to answer these questions by focussing on the politics of time and space in Europe and beyond.
Jan Zielonka, Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of Venice, Cá Foscari
Daniel Gros, Distinguished Fellow, CEPS (moderator)
Erik Jones, Director of the Robert Schuman Centre, EUI (moderator)
