European Union

Recent developments in the world and the strong European commitment to a regulating globalisation argue in favour of a forward looking analysis. “The World in 2025” first underlines the major future trends: geopolitical transformations in terms of population, economic development, international trade and poverty. Secondly, it identifies the likely tensions: natural resources (food, energy, water and minerals), migrations or urbanisation. Finally, it defines possible transitional pathways: towards a new production and consumption model, towards new rural-urban dynamics, towards a new gender and intergenerational balance. “Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition” is the explicit sub-title that could be an inspiring source for the future strategy of the European Union.

The EUISS has conducted a wide-ranging exercise to detect the long-term trends, factors and actors shaping the global environment of European integration - The New Global Puzzle. This Report illustrates the evolution of the key structural factors affecting change over the two decades to come - demography, the economy, energy, the environment, science and technology - and addresses some of the main questions concerning the future of the international system. The Report also includes seven regional outlooks exploring prospective developments of relevance to the European Union in Russia/Eurasia, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, the United States, China, India and Latin America.

Many critical junctures can be envisaged over the decades to come, from energy supply shocks to environmental catastrophes, from renewed confrontation between large state powers to a systemic breakdown of the Middle East. The development of the European Union into a fully-fledged global actor requires a shared assessment of the future challenges, threats and opportunities with which it will be confronted, and of the best options to drive, as opposed to endure, change.

This Report argues that the biggest challenge confronting the EU will be to reconcile the emerging multipolar international system with a sustainable, effective multilateral order. The Report is intended as a first step in paving the way towards further reflection on the future position and role of the EU in the world. Both experts and the policy-making community, at the European and national levels, need to engage in this debate with a view to defining common, effective responses to tomorrow's challenges.

This study analyses the current picture and prospects for EU–Brazil relations in the political and security arenas. As actors experiencing relevant changes, albeit in different directions in their respective international status quo, the EU and Brazil have found some common ground for convergence at the macro level on some structural issues, such as the normative framework of a changing global order, the striving for a multipolar world and the relevance and desirability of multilateralism. At the same time, it is argued that they differ significantly as to the strategies pursued in the attainment of those shared interests, resulting in competing, or eventually divergent, policy preferences when addressing specific issues and developments at the international level, limiting the prospects for a deep mutual commitment and engagement in political and security dynamics at the global level.

This report summarizes discussions among a group of experts who met on 1 July 2011 to examine the prospects for cooperation in the Atlantic space. Summarizing the tenor of these discussions is a challenge given the wide variety of experts involved – academics and government officials from all parts of the Atlantic participated, drawing on themes across a range of issues – economic, security, energy, environmental, crime and many others. The report therefore stays close to the original discussion, with some small editorializing here in this executive summary and in the conclusion.
The Atlantic space is a region connected by growing linkages and common challenges. One of the aims of this conference was to begin thinking about and elaborating that which distinguishes and unites the region, and indeed whether unifying characteristics are sufficient to overcome the divergences and disparities among these four continents, which together house the world’s richest and its poorest.
It is clear that economic flows and social linkages are growing across the Basin. Investment, trade, migration, social networking, criminal activities, and other indicators are on the rise, though in some cases the same is true for extra-Atlantic interactions, especially with Asia. Yet most agreed that these flows and links alone were sufficient to call for agenda-setting on governance issues, and to begin thinking about how to resolve common problems collectively.
Meanwhile Northern Atlantic basin states are the architects of the post-war economic and security order – a liberal order whose foundational ideas remain more widely accepted today than its institutional architecture, which represents a snapshot of the distribution of power in 1945. In the absence of global agreement on reframing institutions of governance, it seems doubly important to examine the Atlantic space as a region ripe for better mechanisms of cooperation.
In terms of cross-border interactions, conference participants discussed activities between social actors such as private enterprises; they looked at region-wide economic and social activity; they disaggregated activity by state and by sector. Different pictures emerged from these analyses. Taken as a whole, economic activity between South America and Africa is low (by comparison to the EU-US relationship), but in certain areas like mining and energy there is growing investment in Africa, especially from Brazil. A bewildering host of challenges and concerns emerged from these discussions. Promoting security linkages in the South Atlantic – where there is virtually nothing in place – was seen as important both because of Brazil’s rising military strength and also because new discoveries and new technologies make it possible to exploit offshore resources more comprehensively.
Likewise, new security threats – including drug shipments, piracy, and other illicit activities – threaten weak littoral states and call for cooperative security solutions. Energy, climate change, and natural resources are a key theme in the Atlantic. The divergence between the most and least efficient producers (and the most and least prolific consumers) is perhaps greater than anywhere else on the planet. The North Atlantic states have technological solutions that are the most advanced in the world. Yet they cannot translate into control of agendas and solutions, or preservation of historical rights and access to common resources. Governance mechanisms for common resources have been devised in the North
Atlantic. How can these be translated successfully to other parts of the basin? Thus, different parts of the Atlantic basin clearly have diverging objectives and concerns given varying levels of development, democratization, and security challenges. Opening the discussion of these factors raises a host of questions needing attention, among them:
★ How do interactions drive interests and what does that mean for Atlantic basin cooperation? Most (but not all) Atlantic states are market economies and democracies – can norms and values also play a role in driving cooperation, and if so what should they be?
★ What should the emerging powers of the South Atlantic do with their power? Can they serve as anchors (along with North America and the EU) around which all Atlantic states can coalesce in order to promote democracy and development, and to find solutions to common natural resource problems?
★ What is the best way forward for cooperation and policy coordination? A sectoral approach often seems most feasible, drawing together stakeholders in agreements which are limited to interested actors and to narrow sectors. But how does this affect national sovereignty? Is sovereignty still so tightly held by most states that meaningful cooperation is precluded, or can cooperative solutions be forged among Atlantic basin states without EU-style relaxation of sovereignty norms?
★ What role do (and should) civil society groups play in the Atlantic space, and how do we best ensure respect for democratic accountability and the rule of (international) law given the deep power imbalances and the diverse interests at stake?

This study provides the initial results of a survey of foresight activities undertaken by a select group of governments around the world.
The study was begun following the recent initiative by European Union (EU) institutions to build a joint foresight capacity (European Strategy and Policy Analysis System – ESPAS) that assesses long-term global trends to help them strengthen policy planning. In addition to contributing to the discussion about this new EU activity, the study is also intended to be of interest for the wider European policy planning community and to anyone interested in learning about how governments practise ‘the art of the long view’ (Schwartz, 1991).
This study looks at the way governments approach foresight, the issues they try to grapple with and the challenges they face in connecting foresight and policy. Its focus is on foresight exercises that look ten years or more into the future. The study does not include within its scope foresight activities undertaken at the initiative of business, academic or non-governmental organisations, though some government-led activities do involve these other actors.
Foresight work includes a range of activities related to the production of knowledge about possible futures. This knowledge is not of the future, nor any real future, but rather ‘the manufactured knowledge of [a] restricted number of possibilities’ (Sardar, 2010). The output of foresight work very often involves the creation of scenarios for the future which can be analysed for their likelihood and potential impact.
sight also commonly uses practices such as ‘trend impact analysis’, ‘horizon scanning’, or the Delphi method (see Box 1).
This study presents an initial tour d’horizon of a limited number of countries who undertake foresight activities: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). The countries were chosen to represent a diverse selection of countries based on location, economic profile, power status and political regime. The analysis is based on desk research and interviews conducted with professionals in government, academia and think tanks. This study also looked at the foresight activities of a range of international organisations with mandates for public service and which interact with governments as sources of knowledge and policy advice. As foresight activity tends to be scattered across departments and not always made public, it was not possible to be exhaustive in our analysis of the countries in this study. Time constraints and language barriers may also have affected the outcome of the study.
The first part of the study identifies the main issues that governments grapple with and offers a preliminary historical overview to shed light on current practice. The second part compares the approaches to foresight taken by governments and the institutional setting for foresight activities. The third part tries to assess the conditions for fruitful foresight.

There is a general sense of urgency among experts regarding the situation in Afghanistan. The period of transition that is currently underway is seen as a last opportunity to create the necessary conditions for transforming international support in a way that reinforces a viable democratic state. The key lies in transforming what is basically a foreign military operation into a peace building operation led by the Afghan government and the UN backed by international support, including military support if necessary, but always subordinate to civilian authorities. Thus, as ISAF scales down, the EU and the US must work closely and intensively together, starting with supporting a strengthening of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), along the following lines.

The mass protests in Moscow and other Russian cities after the parliamentary elections on 4 December 2011 shattered long-standing assumptions about the Russian political system and the apathy of Russian society. They raise new questions about the evolution of Russian society and state-society relations. These are extremely serious issues not only for the protesters and external observers, but also for a Russian leadership whose legitimacy is at risk and who, in one way or another, will have to react to this vocal expression of discontent and demand for change. This EUISS Report features contributions from a group of Russian authors with outstanding expertise on important Russian domestic and foreign policy issues. They all contributed analytical papers to the Institute’s ‘Russia Insights’ series, which were published online during the weeks before the parliamentary and presidential elections. Therefore, some of the papers where written before and some after the public protests started. Together, they provide valuable insights into Russian politics and society and into the country’s economic system as well as into Russia’s foreign policy posture. The result is a very complex picture combining elements of dynamism, stasis and stagnation.

The EUISS is pleased to present the final report prepared in the framework of the research project ‘Developing a comprehensive EU strategy towards China’, including the revised papers and commentaries that were presented at the expert meeting organised by the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris on 11-12 October 2012. The aim of this project was to examine and assess EU policy towards China in the following fields: trade, investment, the euro and global economic governance, environment and resources, defence and security, politics, and the regional context. The report concludes that China represents a great opportunity but also a challenge for the EU. China is poised to become the EU’s most important commercial partner, while simultaneously being a serious challenger in trade and a competitor for resources. China also continues to be viewed with suspicion across Europe due to the non-democratic nature of the Chinese regime, raising questions as to what use the new leaders will make of their country’s increased capabilities. Yet, it is precisely this authoritarian Communist China, informed by values and principles quite different from those of the EU and its member states, that has come to support the EU’s integration process – including key initiatives such as the European common currency. There seems thus to be a dual and sometimes overlapping image of China across Europe: that of a rising power challenging the Old Continent’s values and standards of living; and that of an enormous opportunity for European companies and EU global aspirations. Given this situation, devising the right approach towards Beijing is possibly one of the greatest tasks currently facing the EU. In this vein, the contributions in this report offer a number of suggestions that could assist EU policymakers in developing a more coherent and strategic approach towards China.

Since the launch of the Lisbon strategy in 2000, innovation has been regarded by EU policy-makers as key to long-term growth and a number of initiatives have been developed over the past decade. In light of profound social and economic shifts that have taken place in the meantime, however, it is now time to take a fresh look at a dynamic and renewed policy to drive innovation. This report, undertaken jointly with Ernst and Young, focuses on EU innovation initiatives and identifies changes that would lead to more responsive and dynamic innovation policy. The report asks what would such a policy look like and what needs to be changed for policy to be more effective and create growth.

Transcontinental Infrastructure Needs to 2030/50 explores the long-term opportunities and challenges facing major gateway and transport hub infrastructures -- ports, airports and major rail corridors – in the coming decades. The report uses projections and scenarios to assess the broader economic outlook and future infrastructure requirements, and examines the options for financing these, not least against the backdrop of the economic recession and financial crisis which have significantly modified the risks and potential rewards associated with major infrastructure projects. Building on numerous in-depth case studies from Europe, North America and Asia, the report offers insights into the economic prospects for these key facilities and identifies policy options for improved gateway and corridor infrastructure in the future.