The European Parliament has voted against changing the legal definition of when dumped paper ceases to be considered waste and fit for recycling over concerns that the proposed new rules could undermine existing environmental laws.

The European Commission proposal would have moved the point at which used paper is no longer considered waste to an earlier point in the recycling chain.

Currently, the “end of waste” point is when the raw material enters the paper (re)processing mill.

MEPs approved on Tuesday (10 December) by 606 votes to 77 and 10 abstentions a recommendation by the Parliament's environment committee to reject the proposal.

A European Parliament statement said that MEPs were concerned that the proposal could compromise the health and environmental standards contained in the Waste Shipment Directive. This is because the mass containing the used paper, which could contain hazardous materials, would no longer have to comply with those regulations as it would no longer be considered waste.

The revised law could have led to greater impurities in the used paper mass, which is recycled to make a paper product by the mills, the statement added. “If enacted, the law could have led to recovered paper being sold while containing 15,000 times more impurities than the relevant paper product standards require,” MEPs said.

European recycling jobs in the balance

There were also concerns that the proposals could damage the European paper recycling sector.

“MEPs consider that the proposed regulation could have a negative effect on the paper recycling rates in the EU, and risks undermining the viability of manufacturing quality paper from recycled materials within the European Union,” the Parliament said.

The Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) applauded the Parliament's decision, saying it would save more than 20,000 “green jobs” in the paper industry and an estimated 140,000 other jobs indirectly connected to the industry.

“If this legislation had passed it would have relaxed the EU’s waste management rules and triggered a flight of waste paper out of the EU to Asia, pushing up prices in Europe and undermining the quality of waste paper available for the European recycling sector,” CEPI said in a statement.

"We now hope that the Commission's environmental protection department will reflect on the content of this resolution and revise the criteria for determining when used paper is waste and when it's not," said Jori Ringman-Beck, Recycling and Product Director at CEPI.

China has become the second largest trade partner of Ukraine after the EU, and the recent visit of the Ukrainian President in Beijing shows Kiev is trying to rebalance its economic and trade ties in case of tensions with Moscow or Brussels, writes Oleksandr Okhrymenko.

Oleksandr Okhrymenko is a Ukrainian economic expert.

“Viktor Yanukovych’s visit to China on 3-6 December marked Ukraine’s course to diversification of economic partners. The Ukrainian president and the General Secretary of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, have signed a joint declaration on the further more profound strategic partnership. It comprises more than twenty agreements, memoranda and contracts in different areas for the amount of over 30 billion dollars (over €21.8 billion). The Ukrainian and Chinese trade and economic breakthrough was in the making for more than a year with the active participation of the first vice-premier of Ukraine, Serhiy Arbuzov, who laid the foundation for the currently signed agreements during his visit to the People’s Republic of China.

Choosing China as one of the leaders in the world economy is not accidental. With the help of the new cooperation format between Kyiv and Beijing the current annual goods turnover of 10 billion dollars (€7.3 billion) can be soon tripled.

On Viktor Yanukovych’s visit to the People’s Republic of China there were outlined the contours of strategic cooperation between the countries until the year 2018. China bets on Ukraine as one of its important partners in Eastern Europe. In particular, as soon as next year Ukraine will get 18 billion dollars (€13 billion)in the form of loans and investment. According to the Memorandum between the state mortgage company and the Chinese corporation CITIC Construction on the construction of affordable housing in Ukraine, Chine will provide 15 billion dollars (€10.9 billion) for the period of 15 years with a possible prolongation to expand the projects.

Moreover, as a result of the visit, the Memorandum on the construction of the new modern deep-water port in Saki district of the Crimea and on the reconstruction of the Sebastopol sea fishing port was signed. The new deep-water port comprises a container terminal and also terminals for grain and bulk cargo. The general freight turnover according to the estimates will total to about 140 million tonnes a year. An industrial park will be created and a branch line will be built near the port. The amount of Chinese investment into these projects is planned at the level of 13 billion dollars (over €9.4 billion).

 In the energy area an agreement between the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine and the Chinese National Company Wuhuan Engineering Co. Ltd., providing for the construction of the factory, producing synthetic gas. This project will allow Ukraine to create about 2.000 new workplaces in the factory itself and approximately 100 thousand more at coal-mining factories.

The signed protocol on the phytosanitary and inspection requirements for soy and barley export from Ukraine will allow Kyiv to significantly expand the range of agricultural produce supplies to the Chinese market. Next year the Ministry of Agricultural Policy and Food of Ukraine is intending to prepare phytosanitary protocols on rape and wheat export to China. Experts observe that the signed protocols must facilitate the increase in the share of the domestic agricultural produce in the general goods turnover of the People’s Republic of China. They will also become the beneficial factor for the infusion of investment into the domestic economy. In the process of negotiations the Government of China declared that in the upcoming years the investment of the People’s Republic of China into the Ukrainian economy could reach 8 billion US dollars (€5.8 billion), including into the agricultural sector.

In the financial field China will provide the National Bank of Ukraine with the export loan in the yuans in the equivalent of 5 billion dollars (€3.6 billion) with the possible expansion to use the possibility of the currency “swap” in the bilateral foreign payments. Besides, the People’s Bank of the People’s Republic of China will purchase the Ukrainian external loan bonds, which will enable to secure an additional inflow of foreign exchange into the country. The procedure of financial turnover is basically being created to simplify and accelerate the economic programmes with China. Chinese bank are expected to open in Ukraine soon and Ukrainian to appear in China. 

China is also one of the biggest importers in the world. In the next five years the People’s Republic of China is planning to import $10 trillion of products. Ukraine may get its share.

Thus, China is becoming a strategic partner to Ukraine alongside the EU and Russia. This will allow significant balancing the Ukrainian economy and diversifying risks in case of trade complications either with Moscow or Brussels.

The impulse from the joint projects with China will allow increasing the pace of the development in the construction area, in the infrastructure modernization; will lead to the growth in the export of agricultural produce.

At the same time, the Ukrainian government understands that China will demand the fulfillment of additional requirements for the implementation of the projects such as Ukraine’s purchase of the Chinese equipment and construction materials to build housing. These risks will be compensated by the general positive effect from the growth of the economic cooperation with the People’s Republic of China.

In general, the new format of the trade and economic partnership of Ukraine will allow discussing the expansion of Ukraine’s economy and also the expansion of China’s presence on the border with the EU. The possible Association Agreement signature with the EU in 2014 will expand the prospects of the Ukrainian and Chinese partnership even more and will play for the harmonization of the interest of all the trade partners in the region.”

We are often told that in the European Union human rights, democracy and the rule of law are respected. Although this is generally true, anomalies do exist, one of which is the right to vote for EU citizens moving from their home country to another member state, writes Rebecca Taylor.

Rebecca Taylor is a member of the European Parliament for the British Liberal Democrat party, representing Yorkshire and the Humber.

The right for citizens to participate in democratic elections is one you would think would not be questioned within an EU member state. However, as is the case in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark, you can lose your voting rights after a certain number of years of residence abroad.

If you are an EU citizen living in another member state, you have the right to vote in local, regional and European elections, but not in elections to the national parliament – a right reserved only for nationals of this respective country.

This means that across the EU, there are law abiding EU citizens living, working and paying taxes in an EU country who have no right to participate in electing any national government.

Within my own family there are two such people; my aunt and uncle who are school teachers in Germany and have lived there for over thirty years.

They exercised their right to vote in the UK as overseas voters until it expired after 15 years. As EU citizens, they still exercise their right to vote in local, regional and European elections, but cannot vote in national elections in Germany. Indeed, my aunt and uncle have even been politically active through involvement in their local Ausländerrat or foreigners' council.

They could now apply for German nationality without being required to give up their British passports. However, this would cost them around €600 each and involve a lot of form-filling, and the only real difference would be the right to vote in the Bundestag elections.

It seems rather excessive that exercising your democratic rights requires you to apply for citizenship of the country you live in, despite the fact that your legal status as an EU citizen means you have the same rights and obligations as citizens of that country.

The current rules related to overseas voters in the UK mean that after 15 years of residence abroad, the right to vote is withdrawn. The most common explanation for this rule is that people lose their links to a country after living abroad for such a period of time. Another is that tax exiles should not be able to vote.

Both reasons do not stack up. With the Internet and social media today, it is far easier to stay in touch with your home country even if you don't live there, and high speed rail and cheap flights mean it's not too difficult to visit home fairly frequently.

The second reason applies only to a handful of very wealthy people living in places like Monaco. It does not apply to the majority of Brits living abroad, many of whom are not tax exiles, but merely EU citizens exercising their right to free movement by living and often working and paying taxes in another EU country.

Some Brits living abroad, such as pensioners, even pay taxes to the UK treasury and still cannot vote – a good moment perhaps to recall that the demand for "no taxation without representation" was a key cause of the American Revolution.

The local branch of the UK Liberal Democrats in Brussels has long been active on this issue. During my work on this subject as chair of the branch, I discovered that some British citizens residing abroad for longer than 15 years who still owned property in the UK were able to vote - essentially from their holiday home address.

I am unsure of the legality of this, but it seemed even more unfair that the small minority wealthy enough to own homes back in the UK (and not need to rent them out) while living abroad could vote, while the majority could not.

This is not however just a UK issue, but one of the right to non-discrimination in the exercise of EU free movement. Why should an EU citizen who takes advantage of the right to go and live in another EU country suffer a loss of democratic rights?

Last year, the European justice commissioner Viviane Reding said that the practice of some member states to deprive their citizens of the right to vote for moving to another EU country, was "tantamount to punishing citizens for having exercised their right to free movement".

As millions of EU citizens (including an estimated 2.2 million of my fellow countrymen and -women) now exercise the right to free movement, perhaps the time has come to ensure that doing so does not result in the loss of any rights to democratic participation?

The Let Me Vote initiative is trying to do just that by demanding that EU citizens who legally reside in an EU member state that is not their country of origin, can have the right to vote in all elections. This would reinforce the notion of European citizenship as well as ensure that exercising your right to free movement does not cost you the right to vote. Doesn't it seem wrong that so many law abiding, tax paying EU citizens have no right to vote for any national government?

The European Union should stop funding Palestinian civil servants in the Gaza Strip because money is going to officials who do not work, European auditors said on Wednesday (11 December).

As the biggest aid donor to the Palestinian territories, EU taxpayers pay a fifth of the salaries of teachers, doctors and bureaucrats in the small coastal territory, which has been governed by the Islamist group Hamas since 2007.

But following an investigation into how EU aid is being spent, the European Court of Auditors has found that large numbers of recipients are providing no public service.

The court did not have overall figures on the size of the problem. But in one spot check, 90 of the 125 employees at the National Audit Institute of Palestine said they did not work.

In another sample, 40 percent of civil servants were not working, EU auditor Hans Gustaf Wessberg, who led the inspections over the past 16 months, told a news conference.

"Our suggestion is to discontinue the programme for employees in Gaza," said Wessberg, saying the money could go to the West Bank instead. "The payment of civil servants who do not work does not meet one of (the EU's) main objectives to provide public services to the Palestinian people."

Wessberg denied EU money was going to former prisoners or militants and blamed the problem on the split in the Palestinian Authority between Hamas in Gaza and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party in the West Bank.

The auditors looked into around €1 billion of spending in the Palestinian territories between 2008-2012.

Auditors could not establish what had happened to €90 million that was meant to pay fuel taxes and keep Gaza's only power plant running. Fuel shortages mean it has now ceased to serve nearly half the 1.8 million population.

Israel's on-off blockade of Gaza and Egypt's closure of around 1,200 tunnels that once linked the territory to the Sinai peninsula have choked off a large amount of economic activity.

The auditors' report raises questions about the oversight exercised by the European Commission, the EU executive, which is responsible for overseeing EU aid programmes.

But a Commission spokesman said many people were prevented from going to work in Gaza, referring to the fragile security situation in the strip, and needed financial support.

"If the Palestinian Authority is not paying these people, who is going to provide for them? If you have people running around without income, then of course, they are more prone to be taken by extremists," said Commission spokesman Peter Stano.

The report follows an EU audit published in June that found that a €1 billion euro package of support for Egypt from 2007 to 2013 had been mismanaged.

The Global Energy Prize, an initiative of Russian gas monopoly Gazprom and other Russian energy corporations, hopes to build the same notoriety as the Nobel Prize, according to its President, Igor Lobovski.

Igor Lobovski is President of the Global Energy Prize, which awards 33 million roubles (approx. US$1.17m) each year for outstanding energy achievements and innovations.

He was responding to written questions by EurActiv’s founder Christophe Leclercq.

You have been awarding a prestigious prize to top scientists at the St Petersburg Economic Summit for ten years. What do laureates have in common so far? Can you mention one research outcome that gained greater visibility thanks to the award?

There are two principal things that all the laureates have: a high innovation level in their achievements and their personality.

Here are some examples: Arthur Rosenfeld, as the advisor on energy for California Governor Schwarzenegger has carried out his ideas in the field of energy saving and energy efficiency. Among those ideas, some obvious ones were to repaint roofs in white, or the development of new LED equipment that consumes less energy while on standby. As a result, energy consumption in California has been stable, while it has increased in the rest of the USA.

The other laureates received the prize for developing the scientific foundations of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ITER: Robert Aymar (France), Yevgeny Velikhov (Russia) and Massadzhi Yoshikawa (Japan). They created the basis for a revolution in energy. As a result, the international organization ITER was created. It gathered 22 billion euro and started the creation of this unique equipment.

What are the priority research areas for the prize? Is there a place for renewable energy?

The Prize does not give priority to anyone. Every year, the International Award Committee (25 scientists from 10 countries) receives hundreds of nominations and elects the laureates by secret ballot.

Certainly, their decisions might be influenced by the changing trends, etc. However, that is not stipulated in the Statute of the Global Energy Prize, which constitutes the basis for the Committee’s decision.

The Foundation’s board of trustees reads like a 'Who’s Who' of Russian business and political establishment. What role does it perform? Is the Foundation independent from the Russian State? How is this independence guaranteed?

Originally, three organisations [Gazprom, UES Russia and Surgutneftegaz] founded the non-profit Global Energy partnership.

In accordance with the Statute of the Global Energy Prize, their role is limited to the financing of the project. In addition, the leaders of these companies are members of the Board of Trustees. The nomination process is a closed procedure: the founders do have neither the right nor the opportunity to influence it in any way.

One of the foundation’s trustees is Mikhail Gorbachev who is still known in the West for ending the cold war and the communist system. Is his membership meant to convey non-alignment with the Putin administration, or is it due to Mr. Gorbachev's past environment credentials as founding president of the NGO Green Cross?

Mr. Gorbachev is a member of the Board of Trustees. He is keenly interested in the affairs of the Prize and participates in our events. Honestly, his participation in the Board of Trustees is neither a signal nor anything else. For 11 years, he has been a member of the Board of Trustees and actively helps us. It is useless to look for subtext when there is none.

The Global Energy Prize is not well-known yet outside specialised circles, unlike the Nobel Prize to which it is sometimes compared. Do you have plans to make the Prize more famous, and how?

The Nobel Prize has 113 years of existence, Global Energy Prize only 11. How could we compare? Awareness of the project is not a goal in itself. We work a lot with the scientists. This year, for example, we have created a nomination pool of 3,000 scientists and professionals of the energy sector!

Sincerely, we are jealous, and in a good way, of our colleagues and of their enormous notoriety in the world. Let’s come back to the topic of notoriety of the Global Energy Prize in 100 years.

The Global Energy Prize organised a conference on 28 November on EU-Russia Energy Research, hosted by MEPs Vittorio Prodi and Csaba Sógor. What was your objective?

We organise events in Russia and in other countries on a regular basis. We participate in the biggest international forums in the energy field.

The goal is the same every time – to understand the world’s energy trends better and to disseminate information about the achievements of our laureates, and if an opportunity presents, about the winners of the contest of Youth scientific projects “Energy of Youth”.

Russia is a major energy producer, it probably wishes to modernise this industry, also thanks to scientific exchanges. But it could be less keen on energy savings by its users, or competing energies like shale gas. What is the focus of this EU-Russia energy research cooperation?

Global Energy is a scientific organisation; we are not involved in politics. We believe in the perspectives of a scientific cooperation in the energy field, because we all live on the same planet. Now is the time when Earth needs some help.

At the same time I have to admit that currently, nothing is done in Russia in the area of energy savings. I have read today on the Internet that the Russian Ministry of Energy came up with the initiative of creating a Federal agency that would take care of all the real estate owned by the budgetary organisations in order to implement energy saving programmes.

Russia is a major energy producer, and sometimes perceived as 'pushy' in foreign affairs. This was the case lately in the EU-Ukraine discussions, given the risk of gas supplies being interrupted or priced higher. The EU on the other hand is an economic giant, but only a soft power. Is the Award - "approved by Russia's President" as your website states - an effort to soften Russia's image in its core business?

Since I speak frequently and personally to the top officials of companies and founders of the prize, I can assure you that the prize is supported by companies and by the President only thanks to their understanding of the importance of innovation in the energy sector.

Ukrainian anti-riot forces took the central square of Kyiv by storm last night, clashing with protestors just hours after EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton had met Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich to repeat that the door remained open for him to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union.

The latest developments in Ukraine appear as an affront to the EU, as Ashton had come to Kyiv to agree a roadmap with Yanukovich and opposition leaders leading to the signature of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement some time next spring.

US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland had also come to Kyiv in an effort to prevent Ukraine from joining Russia’s Customs Union.

Ashton visited Kyiv's central square, the Maidan, yesterday (10 December), which has been occupied by protestors for the last ten days, since Yanukovich made a geopolitical U-turn towards Russia. She was received “as a rock star” according to citizens on Twitter. She also met with Yanukovich for a three-and-a-half hour long discussion.

But as soon as Ashton had her back turned, riot police entered Maidan, tearing down barricades erected by the protesters. Clashes broke out as police tried to detain some of the protesters. On one of the main streets leading into the square, a large group of protesters in hard hats, appointed to protect the demonstrators, held back a separate unit of riot police.

The Ukrainian news agency Unian wrote that the Ministry of Interior had dubbed the operation “amenities of territory”, as it was reportedly aimed at “lifting obstacles for citizens who live or work in the capital”.  

According to a statement by the ministry, special forces “made no use of tear gas or other special means with respect to protestors”.

At 5 a.m. CET Ashton tweeted through her spokesperson’s account that “the authorities did not need to act under the coverage of night to engage with society by using force”.

Unian published a gallery of photos and videos showing special forces using tidal wave tactics to dash the protestors' ranks.

According to Reuters, clashes broke out between the protesters' security guards and the police as they tried to make arrests. The Interfax news agency said some people had been hurt but it could not give an exact tally.

EU has doubts

Linas Linkevičius, the foreign minister of Lithuania, the country holding the rotating EU presidency, made a statement indicating that EU’s patience with Yanukovich was running short.

“Tonight’s events in the Independence Square in Kiev have shown the conscious choice that the Ukrainian authorities appear to have taken against the European path, the choice which is opposite to what the President of Ukraine has been saying publicly,” Linkevičius said.

The Lithuanian minister repeated EU calls to the Ukrainian authorities to stop any violent actions and provocations immediately, investigate all cases of violence and to punish those responsible.

Reportedly, students who have been badly beaten have mysteriously disappeared, and some protestors have been detained. Also, some media and the political party Batkivschchyna (Fatherland) of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko have been raided. “The Ukrainian authorities have over a short period of time, especially over this night, lost a lot of credibility. Only by taking the immediate steps to abide by the European values can they start a long way towards reestablishing trust,” Linkevičius said.

Speaking on television yesterday, Yanukovich showed no indication of giving in to protesters' demands for the dismissal of his government. He defended his policy shift back to Russia, saying that Ukraine had no choice but to restore close trade relations with Moscow.

"We cannot talk about the future without talking about restoring trade relations with Russia," Yanukovich said in televised comments. He added he was also committed to European integration - wording he has often used since his government turned its back on a trade pact with the EU on 21 November.

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt tweeted this morning: “Eurasia versus Europe in streets of Kyiv tonight. Repression versus reform. Power versus people.”

Kerry expresses ‘disgust’

US State Secretary John Kerry published a statement on the events in Ukraine yesterday night. “The United States expresses its disgust with the decision of Ukrainian authorities to meet the peaceful protest in Kyiv’s Maidan Square with riot police, bulldozers, and batons, rather than with respect for democratic rights and human dignity. This response is neither acceptable nor does it befit a democracy,” Kerry stated.

The US State Secretary calls for “utmost restraint” and warns that the Ukrainian authorities “bear full responsibility for the security of the Ukrainian people”.

“As church bells ring tonight amidst the smoke in the streets of Kyiv, the United States stands with the people of Ukraine. They deserve better,” Kerry said.

Ukrainian citizens wrote on Twitter that the bells of Kyiv's churches were ringing, “like during attacks on the city in the Middle Ages”.

Ukrainian commentators blamed the opposition for not being courageous enough to inspire a real revolution. Many consider that the Ukrainian revolution had died before it was born. 

Eurozone countries edged toward agreeing a plan to tackle ailing banks early today (11 December), but divisions remain about key parts of the reform that is needed to underpin confidence in the bloc's lenders.

After a financial storm that toppled banks and dragged down states from Ireland to Spain, countries are considering a fresh blueprint outlining what to do when a bank fails, a critical second pillar of a wider reform dubbed banking union.

Sealing a deal ahead of next week's meeting of EU leaders will allow Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and her peers to trumpet an important overhaul of banking although their readiness to share the costs of failed lenders, a central tenet of banking union, may fall short of what was hoped.

A draft plan, circulated among EU ministers at a meeting in Brussels, spells out how a new agency may close failing banks chiefly in the euro zone and, crucially, how the cost can be shared out among different national funds in the scheme.

Linking these funds will take 10 years, however, and it will fall to countries to cover the costs in the mean time.

Significant divisions remain. A quick succession of daily meetings have been planned to seal agreement when the ministers meet on the eve of the leaders' two-day summit on Dec. 19-20.

"We have sent a common signal to the markets that the European banking sector is stable," Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany's finance minister, told reporters.

"Europe is a bit more complicated than the United States but ... we have found a solution," he said, adding, however, that a ministers' meeting next week was needed to finalise the agreement. "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

The new agency to shut banks and a fund to pay for the clean-up will form a second pillar of banking union, as soon as the European Central Bank starts supervising banks late next year.

Stronger countries in the euro zone do not assist weaker ones with direct financial support. Germany, Europe's strongest economy, is reluctant to set a precedent by helping repair banks in struggling countries such as Spain.

On Tuesday, Schaeuble emphasised that it was down to countries to individually shoulder the burden.

To complicate matters further, Germany wants a new treaty agreement between governments in the scheme, a step that could be cumbersome.

France's Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said that the basis for an agreement had been reached, a view echoed by Michel Barnier, the European commissioner responsible for the law.

But two officials inside the meeting painted a bleak picture. "There are more questions than answers," said one.

Sealing an accord next week is crucial in drawing a line under a financial crisis that first struck Europe more than five years ago with the near-collapse of Germany's IKB.

But building this union is proving divisive as it requires countries to surrender sovereignty and may force them to pay toward repairing banks in neighbouring states.

Cypriot model

Winning German's support will also require countries to back an early introduction of rules to impose losses on senior bondholders and large depositors in failing banks, as was done in Cyprus.

Germany has long called for such a fast-tracking of rules, which were originally planned only for 2018.

In the draft paper, officials proposed a starting date of January 2016, an acceleration that would have significant implications for bondholders as well as savers with more than 100,000 euros ($137,200) in their accounts.

A deal among governments on how to wind down banks by the self-imposed year-end deadline is important because it will allow countries to address potential problems revealed by a health check of banks by the ECB next year.

Failure to reach agreement would reflect badly on the bloc's politicians, whose response to the crisis has at times been slow and chaotic.

For the bank union to work, an agency has to get the power to close down a bank.

But Germany, Finland and Slovakia want the final say to go to the European Union's 28 ministers if needed, a process that could bog down attempts to make quick decisions in an emergency.

The draft proposal leaves a question over the issue, proposing a number of different and often unwieldy options when taking the decision to close a troubled bank. Barnier warned that the process proposed was too complex.

The Czech Republic's Social Democrats reached a coalition deal with two other parties late on Tuesday (10 December), agreeing to leave taxes on companies and high earners unchanged next year to help clear the way for a centre-left government to take power.

The leftist Social Democrats, winners by a slim margin of an October parliamentary election, are looking to return to government for the first time since 2006 in a coalition with the centrist ANO movement and the Christian Democrats.

Tax policy had been the main sticking point in coalition talks, with ANO, founded two years ago by billionaire businessman Andrej Babis, opposed to higher taxes.

"It is definitely done. We have agreed on controversial areas that have lingered until now," Bohuslav Sobotka, the Social Democratic party chairman and likely next prime minister, said after talks with the parties that lasted more than five hours.

Sobotka and the deputy leaders of the other two parties said the parties would give final details of their coalition agreement later in the week when they unveil their programme.

Sobotka said some tax changes could come in 2015.

The parties have aimed to wrap up coalition talks in the next week so that Sobotka could present his government to President Milos Zeman by the end of the year.

Anti-corruption movement ANO's opposition to tax rises has pushed the Social Democrats to back off plans for now to lift taxes for banks, telecommunications companies and utilities to boost budget revenue. Sobotka said the question of a so-called sector tax was addressed in the coalition deal but did not give further details.

"For us it is important that we will create tax stability in our country for the next four years and that we will begin to function as the new government," ANO deputy leader Jaroslav Faltynek said.

ANO surged in the polls this autumn and finished a strong second in the October vote, winning voters that had in the past supported more established centre-right parties.

A centre-right government collapsed in June following a bribery and spying scandal. Its popularity had been dented by austerity measures that helped bring down the budget deficit but led to a six-quarter recession that ended earlier this year.

The centre-left parties have agreed to keep the central European country's budget deficit below the European Union-prescribed limit of 3% of annual economic output but also want to boost spending to help the recovering economy.

Britain has proposed a way to lower the European Union's 2020 target for renewable energy by counting the contribution from biofuels twice, avoiding the need for billions of euros in investment, a document shows. 

Policy on transport fuel made from crops and other plant matter has stirred heated debate because of concern some biofuels add to greenhouse emissions and drive up food prices. 

Energy ministers later this week will debate policy reform. 

Diplomats said the British biofuel idea was attracting support from several member states, although they did not specify which. Dominant EU power Germany opposes it, they said. 

In a document seen by Reuters, Britain sets out the financial benefits of an accounting method that would include biofuels towards an overall renewable energy target as well as a sub-target for reducing the emissions of transport fuel. A move EurActiv has initally reported about in November.

It would reduce to 19.6% an EU-wide target to get 20% of energy from renewable sources, equating to up to 60.9 terawatt hours (TWh) and savings of 5.4 billion euros ($7.4 billion) per year by 2020 on investment that would have been spent on renewable power, the British analysis shows. 

The cost of green energy has become a major political debate in Britain and other EU states keen to curb fuel prices. 

Britain, which is looking to nuclear energy for carbon-free power, is one of the nations that falls short of its share of the EU renewable goal. Member states that fail to meet their targets could eventually face stiff financial penalties. 

A spokesman for the UK Department for Transport said its biofuel approach would avoid "displacing costs on to consumers" and could help to fund next-generation biofuels, such as those from algae or waste that do not compete with food production. 

Environmental campaign groups said the move would undermine confidence in EU green policy. 

"Sustainability concerns about biofuels can't be misused by one member state to water down the EU's common 20% target," Isabel Cancela de Abreu, a policy adviser for the European Renewable Energy Council, said. 

The latest available official EU data showed Britain had achieved a 3.8% green energy share in 2011, compared with its national goal of 15% by 2020. 

The bloc, meanwhile, has begun the debate on 2030 climate and energy targets. As part of that, Britain has pushed for a relatively ambitious target for reducing carbon emissions but does not want a new goal for renewable energy. 

In 2008, an EU target was introduced to get 10% of transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020 as part of the 20% EU green energy goal. 

Most would have come, however, from first generation biofuels made from sugar, cereals and oilseeds, which research has shown can displace food production, inflate food prices, force forest clearance and the draining of peat land. 

The Commission proposed last year capping first-generation biofuels at 5% of total transport fuel demand, causing outrage in the EU biofuel sector, which is worth an estimated 13 billion euros per year. 

The industry says it has invested on the basis of the Commission's original proposal and that a sudden change would lead to plant closures and job losses. 

In the European Parliament, lawmakers called for a 6% limit. 

Lithuania, holder of the EU presidency, has drawn up a compromise proposal of 7% and said in a statement it expected the backing of EU energy ministers on Thursday. 

Even if they do, the proposal would require endorsement from the European Parliament, and a final deal is not expected until 2015 because of parliamentary elections in May, followed by a change of Commissioners, whose term expires next October.

EU labour ministers reached an agreement this week on new rules to regulate workers posted from one country to another, but the compromise has been deemed “less ambitious” than what MEPs wanted, putting the Socialists under pressure.

The compromise text was agreed on Monday (9 December) after 18 months of negotiations on the so-called posted workers directive, which is supposed to curtail abuses of European Union law that enable companies to move cheaper, foreign workers from one EU country to another, but which trade unions say prevent locals from getting work, is yet to be agreed in the European Parliament.

Five months before the European elections, the matter is highly sensitive.

While the Parliament rapporteur, Polish centre-right MEP Danuta Jazłowiecka, thinks that there is a “real chance” of finalising the negotiations before the last plenary session in April, the question will keep dividing MEPs along political and national lines until the end of the process.

The president of the employment committee in the Parliament,  French socialist MEP Pervenche Bérès, welcomed EU minister’s compromise “given the difficult circumstances” but told EurActiv that the MEPs' report on the enforcement of the directive was more ambitious, a report which never reached the plenary, however, and was already very divisive during the committee vote.

Where the Council’s text says that only the direct subcontractor will be held liable, the Parliament’s report wanted responsibility from the entire chain of subcontractors. In addition, yesterday’s agreement by EU member states proposes that sanctions be mandatory only in the construction sector, whereas the MEPs had agreed on a text making them obligatory in all sectors, a demand formulated by labour unions, too.

“We need to find a compromise between the two institutions but we don’t want to alienate the trade unions,” Bérès said.

The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) said in a press release on Tuesday (10 December) that unionists would keep pressuring MEPs in the coming months.

“Problems are particularly acute in the construction sector, but not limited to it. The ETUC will continue to demand a compulsory joint and several liability covering all sectors”, ETUC said, adding that “in the upcoming negotiations ETUC will look to the European Parliament to clear ambiguities and ensure that mechanisms are put in place so that all EU workers enjoy fair and equal working conditions”.

On the campaign trail

The posted workers directive will be an important issue in the upcoming European elections in May, especially in countries like France, where the presence of foreign low cost workers is often perceived as a threat even though they represent “less than 0.5%” of the workers.

The issue is at the heart of the Social-Democrat Group’s programme and concerns, too.

Sources in the S&D group told EurActiv that the “feeling in the group is that a majority of countries lean toward reaching strong solution”, even if it meant a “full revision” of the directive, rather than rush to a lukewarm compromise with the Council ahead of the EU elections.

>> Also read the interview with Pervenche Berès on EurActiv France (in French)

But Social-Democrats are well aware that the divisions on the posting of workers issue are much more national than they are political.

“Even if we had the backing of the Greens and the Liberals (ALDE) on this, it might not be enough; individual members in each group would reject it, as the divisions are mainly national, making this practically a lost position”, a source said.

SPECIAL REPORT / With changing demographics putting pressure on the European labour markets, EU countries need to put in place healthy and sustainable work systems, argues Serge Volkoff.

Serge Volkoff is a statistician, author, expert on the labour market and research director at the Centre for Employment Studies (CEE) in France. He spoke to EurActiv's Henriette Jacobsen.

I would like to start by asking you a question on the retirement age. In Sweden, their prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, has said that he wants the retirement age in Sweden to be 75, which he thinks is a reasonable age as we’re all becoming older and the children who are born today may live to 100 years. If you work until you are 75, you’ll still have around 25 years of retirement. Maybe this is true for the future labour markets, but how does it sound to your ears to have a retirement age at 75 now?

The first element, I would like to bring forward is that retirement age is not a very accurate way of talking about this. This means that from a country to another, the meaning of a retirement age is not the same. For example, in France we have a rather low retirement age which is moving forward to 62 by now, but at the same time we have a work-life duration condition. This means that one has to have worked around 41 years. So you’ll have many people that when they reach 61.5 years which must be the legal retirement age, you have an important proportion of employees who will not have had their 41 years of work-life duration. Therefore, they must wait a little bit. So with this work-life duration condition, it makes it difficult to say that the retirement age will be at 62.

Another aspect is that while the legal retirement age in some countries is at 65, if you leave at 64 or 63, you lose a little bit of the amount of your pension, but not too much. So this is quite different from a situation where it’s 65 and if you leave at 64, you lose quite a lot. This is very different. Therefore, you see that even now, you compare European countries which is easy to do with the OECD statistics, you can see that the differences on retirement age are much bigger than the actual average age of the end of a professional life. Maybe you have sometimes seven years of differences on retirement ages, and you have only 2.5 years maximum of differences of effective actual retirement age.

So it’s important to know when the Swedish prime minister says 75 years, does this include that when you are 74, you lose 10% and at 72, you lose 30% and so on and so forth? Or does this only diminish your pension a little bit if you leave sooner? This has to be clear.

So if the question is, are we able to work until 75, which is another question, then some people do and some people don’t. In some job situations it’s possible. Some people do that. You already have people who do work until they are 75, for example some managers, politicians, artists, scientists work even after their retirement age. They keep on working because they like their job. So of course it is possible to do so, but it depends completely on the person and the job. You can’t set that as a general measure. Then you are right that it can’t be the same for every generation. There will definitely be a difference from now and 40 years from now.

The last thing I would like to say is that the link between the length of life as a whole and the length of working life is not necessarily determined in such a narrow way. For a very long time, the age of retirement has remained steady or even, depending on the country, diminishing a little but, although at the same time, life expectancy would grow. In a historical perspective, what the Swedish prime minister said is not true. The real evolution at a historical scale has been more the contrary. We have retired sooner and sooner although we would live longer and longer. This is what has happened for the last two centuries. So you may say that it will be normal and necessary to raise the retirement age little by little, but it can’t be done so automatically and it’s not only because we are going to live longer. One hundred years as average life expectancy… I think nobody foresees that. That is too many years. In industrial countries now, life expectancy grows at a rhythm of about 2-3 months per year. This means that the life expectancy in our countries now is around 79. If you want to reach 100, this means 21 more years at the present rhythm of growth, so it will take around a century. Many things might have changed in the meantime.

Another thing which the Swedish prime minister emphasised is that those who have tough physical jobs, how would they be able to work for that many years. He proposed that they, when they turn 50, should get a new education so that during their last years as part of the workforce they wouldn’t have a tough physical job. I have spoken to another expert who said this could not work as those with tough physical jobs usually don’t have an education in the first place so it would be difficult to make them get one later on. Do you agree on this?

I would be more moderate, especially talking about Sweden which sort of stands out as an example for life-long learning. It’s probably one of the most if not the most developed countries. There’s a real practice and a real knowledge on life-long learning in Sweden. At least that’s what we think in France, which is the last one in the class. We are not good at all at that. I would say that the Swedish prime minister is partly right. I wouldn’t say that suddenly at 50, having a big an long period of training which would allow you to completely change your job is necessary. I would rather praise a life-long learning from the very beginning when you start in one job which a tough physical job and everyone is aware that there is a risk that it won’t last, then you start thinking about what is going to happen afterwards.

The good example is the elite athletes. When things are well-organised, these people have next to practicing their sport prepared what will follow. This model could be considered for all kinds of physical and painful jobs.  In France in the present reform of the retirement system, where there is a law now being discussed in the French parliament, was is going to be called a ‘painfulness account’ which means that when a person has a job with physical constrains, or has night work or deals with hazards such as noise or various toxic products as part of the work environment, they will add points to their account. These points will allow them first of all to have a training period after a certain number of years that might help them being able to change job eventually and give them the possibility to change their career. The same account with points will allow them to have periods of part-time and also in the end to have opportunities to leave jobs to retire sooner than others. This is an actual measure which is present in the reform of the retirement system in France which is now being discussed by our deputies.

I think it is necessary anyhow… even if we don’t change the retirement age, the idea of opening possibilities of changing jobs among those who have tough physical jobs after 10 or 20 years is not a bad idea. It already more or less exists in several big industrial companies. They try to build opportunities for re-allocation.

Something I came across when I looked at statistics in different EU countries regarding their retirement ages is that women can sometimes retire earlier than men. What do you think of this?

I know that these differences exist. In France it doesn’t. I suppose it has something to do with family laws. This could be in countries where the rate of employment among women is rather lower than in other EU countries. This means that it keeps on being considered that women are well at their place when they are at home, partly.

You could also put it the other way around and say that women live longer so they should also be part of the labour force for a longer time?

I wouldn’t recommend such a solution either because the reason for having a shorter life expectancy shouldn’t have a shorter professional life as a consequence. In my view this should only be when work by itself shortens life expectancy. For example, if you work at night, it has been proved that this shortens life expectancy. Therefore, this can be a good justification for retiring sooner, but the other characteristics of life expectancy shouldn’t play a part.

I can give you another example: We see in France a slightly longer life on average in the southern part of the country compared to the northern part. We don’t quite know why. Maybe it has something to do with the food or the weather. Nevertheless, nobody should pay for having later retirement in the south of France than in the north.

In the face of an ageing population, what work environment needs to be created to help workers retain their physical and mental health, their motivation and productivity throughout an extended working life?

First of all, we must not forget that there is a birth rate issue. This means that from a country to another… for example, France is not too bad there. We have of course had a drop in the birth rates most visible in the 1970s, but not a drop that was too strong. This is very different for Germany, Italy and Spain where the birth rate has fallen dramatically. I know that this is not the question you asked me, but I think we need to keep this in mind. In a country where you still have many young people, it’s not the same as in countries where you’ll have only few of them. This depends very much on the birth rate from a country to another.

Now to go back to your question, we need anyhow to have policies for what for example some Swedish researchers call ‘sustainable work systems’. It means that health and skill competences are not consumed, but on the contrary have the opportunity to be developed. Sweden is not a too bad country for that if we look through various indicators.

It’s true that we have to have policies that prevent as much as possible health declining and competences becoming obsolete. The development of our countries should go hand in hand with improvements concerning working conditions and life-long learning.

It is true that in countries where the birth rate is low as I mentioned in German, Italy and Spain, it’s an emergency issue because if we want to avoid either many people over 60 in work situations they don’t want to be in or having a terrible concentration of difficulties for young people, you need to have a very active policy on the improvement of working conditions.

Who will influence those policies from a worker’s perspective – would it be the trade union or the individual worker?

Well, I don’t know as a matter of fact. Anyway, I should say that the role of trade unions is ought to be very precious. It could be at the level of the sector, the company or at national level. I should say even at a European level. Why? Because trade unions are supposed to have an ability and capacity to build links between individual situations. This ageing issue is being felt by people on a personal level. It’s very important that negotiations have the capacity to give a general, collective framework to that, keeping in mind the historical evolution, sectors, productivity, issues surrounding wages and the working time. It seems to me that it ought to be a very important field for trade union activity.

For 10 years now, the European Commission has put in place a strategy for health and safety on working conditions. For the first time they have decided not to have an EU strategy anymore. Do you think that is a smart move and would you say those strategies have had an impact so far?

I can only answer this question through our practice and what we see in our country. I haven’t at all studied this at a European level. I can only say that this European strategy has had in a country like ours, France, a very positive impact on the various decisions regarding the laws and the various incentives decided by our governments of various political convictions. Therefore, I should hope, that with the will of the Commission, that work conditions could keep improving. Improvement of work conditions should be pushed forward through activities by the Commission. It’s very useful to have this message because after that, among social partners and the national administrations, you can use these European indicators, initiatives and directives to push forward several projects, systems and policies. It would be useful for sure.

The European Commission yesterday (10 December) proposed that EU finance ministers place Croatia under the excessive deficit  procedure and recommend an “adjustment path and budgetary targets” to bring the new member state’s deficit and debt back into line with EU rules.

Croatia became the European Union's 28th member state at the beginning of July 2013 and only the second entrant, after Slovenia, of the republics that emerged from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

But after four years without growth and only limited efforts to reduce the state's role in the economy, debt and budget deficit levels breach EU limits.

The proposal followed the Commission's report published on 15 November – under the so-called ‘two-pack’ procedure (see background) – which revealed that the deficit and debt rules of the EU treaty remained unfulfilled.

The move is likely to result in Croatia being placed under an excessive deficit procedure (EDP).

Croatia's general government deficit reached 5% of GDP in 2012, and total government debt amounted to 55.5% of GDP. In the draft 2014 budget adopted on 4 December, the Croatian government envisaged that the deficit would stay above 3% of GDP over the entire period 2013-2016.

The Commission's Autumn Economic Forecast found that on current policies the Croatian deficit will increase to 5.4% of GDP in 2013 and 6.4% of GDP in 2014.

The Commission recommended that Croatia pull out of excessive deficit situation by 2016, setting out budgetary targets to achieve this.

Excessive deficits should normally be completed one year after they have been identified – that would mean 2015 in this case – unless there are special circumstances, such as here, where the Commission deems that Croatia needs longer to implement structural reforms.

EU finance ministers will consider the Commission’s recommendation when they meet next year, on 28 January, and are likely to set Croatia a deadline of 30 April to begin putting measures in place to deal with the deficit.

Unlike other countries such as Macedonia or Serbia which have problems with their neighbours, Montenegro has no “political issues” to solve and should be able safely to consider itself the next EU member, the country’s chief negotiator Andrija Pejović told EurActiv Germany in an exclusive interview.

Ambassador Aleksandar Andrija Pejović is chief negotiator for  Montenegro’s EU accession and state secretary for European integration. He spoke to EurActiv.de's Ewald König.

One and a half years ago, Montenegro began accession talks. What progress have you made so far?

We have provisionally closed two chapters and now, and over the past few weeks, we were able to open the two most important chapters regarding the rule of law. We hope to open more chapters at the intergovernmental conference in December.

I would say that the first two years of experience in the accession process have been extremely positive. The European Commission has been, and continues to be a very helpful partner. In addition, we have been able to improve the cooperation with member states; negotiations should not only be conducted with the EU institutions in Brussels, but also with the capitals. That is why this is my third visit to Berlin. And starting in January, we will begin the first bilateral consultations with Austria.

Apart from this, we are using the accession process to establish first contacts with countries Montenegro has not regularly dealt with before such as Finland, Lithuania, or Ireland.

Which member states would you say are the closest?

Well, that's difficult to say.  With Germany, we have several levels of cooperation on many issues ranging from the rule of law to economic chapters. Slovakia is also very present and very interested. The Croat expertise is also a great assistance and obviously we have very good cooperation with Slovenians as well, as they are ex-compatriots. We are their greatest priority. As a small country, this support means a lot.

What are you able to learn from Croatia, who has recently joined the EU as its 28th member state?

We have been extensively using their expertise in many chapters, from taxation to food safety and agriculture. Our relationship with Croatia is an excellent example of how two countries use European integration to improve their bilateral ties. Through this, you see how much we are actually building up our common future. That is exactly what we are trying to do with the rest of the region now. We are currently trying to transmit the experiences we have accumulated over the past two years to the Serbs, to the Macedonians, to the Bosnians.

So Montenegro is taking on its own special role for the rest of the Western Balkan countries?

Yes. For example, I meet with the Serbian Chief Negotiator regularly. We have sent some of our experts to Serbia and have exchanged materials and documents. The same goes for the Bosnians and the Albanians. In this way, we hope to pursue a basis for better cooperation with all the countries in the western Balkans.

Montenegro is likely to be the next EU member state. When do you think Serbia and the other countries will be able to join?

It would be ungrateful for me to talk about them because, unlike Serbia, Croatia or Macedonia, we don't have a political issue. The technical process we are face with is much easier; you do your homework and you reach the goal. With political issues, you never know how much time is needed. In any case, we hope for equal progress in the entire region without large discrepancies among the countries.

You mentioned that your country must do its homework. How far has Montenegro progressed with regard to corruption, unemployment, youth unemployment, etc.?

Of course corruption is also addressed in chapters 23 and 24. We have planned many measures, most notably the creation of a new agency for anti-corruption. We are creating track-record tables to monitor how many corruption cases are there and are working with the prosecutors in the judiciary to monitor how these are dealt with.

On unemployment, Montenegro is a specific case. At 13.5%, it is relatively low. According to the latest figures this is close to the euro zone average. Montenegro imports a high amount of labour from Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia, showing that we have a very flexible labour market.

On the issue of youth unemployment, obviously this is a key area of focus for the new government.  The question is, how to find and qualify young people for the jobs on the labour market and how to improve the education system. Basically, the primary concern of the new government is employing more people, creating jobs, and creating smart growth through better education system and better access to the labour market.

Europe has certain problems in the eurozone, problems with the relatively weak leadership at the top of the European Union and the possibility that one-third of the seats in a new European Parliament will be won by populist MEPs. Is the European Union still as attractive as it was for the Montenegrin people?

Yes. We have polls that show 75% are in support of joining the EU. So, if we had a referendum today, 75% would vote in favour. I think people feel overwhelmingly positive about not only the EU, but how the integration process transforms the country and pushes reforms. In our case, we have never had a problem with negative perceptions on the EU. But we should work to improve this feeling even more. Through the communication strategy, we would like to reach out to citizens and explain the benefits they would receive throughout the process.

Which countries, in your opinion, should join the EU after Montenegro's accession?

We would have liked Iceland to join because we have cooperated quite a lot in previous years. As far as the western Balkans, we naturally feel that the Balkans should be in. Turkey should also do its homework and carry out the necessary reforms so as to join the EU one day.

Do really believe Turkish accession can be accomplished?

Of course I cannot speak on behalf of the Turkish government, but in Montenegro we see how the integration process helps the country. In terms of a long-term plan, Turkey could be in the EU between 2020 and 2030.

Are you afraid of growing Euroscepticism in the EU? Has this made joining the EU more and more difficult? Even for Montenegro, as the next country...

Yes. In a way we are concerned because there is less than 25% support for enlargement in Germany and in France less than 40% are satisfied with the EU, according to the latest polls. Obviously we need to recon the idea of European and also show that enlargement is not a negative thing.

Actually, enlargement has created an enormous benefit for growth, improved trade and has opened up markets. In addition, it has greatly spread democratic principles and rule of law governance on the European continent, to an extent that we have never experienced before.

When you look at it from this viewpoint, you see that enlargement has only produced benefits. Somehow there is a lack of communication among the population, that they do not recognize this as a productive process.

So it has also been a question of the media?

Yes, but also the communication from the political elites. Especially in Germany and Austria, two countries who have actually experienced the impact of foreign labour coming in but who are also exporting to the markets of the new member states. Austria, for example, is one of the biggest foreign direct investors in Montenegro. So obviously, it is in the interest of their business for Montenegro join. They should understand why our accession will be good for them. 

Al-Shabaab militants in Somalia established a highly sophisticated system to monitor and squeeze money out of aid agencies before and during the 2011 famine that killed almost 260,000 people, according to a new report.

Al-Shabaab set up a humanitarian co-ordination office to demand payments of up to $10,000 to allow access into areas of Somalia devastated by famine. Humanitarian co-ordination officers were locally appointed to control access, collect "taxes" and monitor aid agency activities.

Al-Shabaab asked agencies to disclose project details, including specific activities, budgets and staff member names. In some cases, additional taxes were demanded based on project type or size. At the same time, relief groups were hamstrung by counter-terrorism legislation in the US that had a chilling effect on their aid efforts, according to the report by the humanitarian policy group of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the Heritage Institute for Policy Studies (Hips), Somalia's first independent thinktank.

Relief agencies were put in a difficult position. While they received money to deal with the famine, legislation threatened aid workers with imprisonment if they dealt with al-Shabaab.

"Strict counter-terrorism legislation creates a culture of fear that drives negotiations with militant groups underground, prohibiting honest and open discussions among the aid community about how to best negotiate access in dangerous countries like Somalia," said Abdi Aynte, director of Hips and co-author of the report.

Ashley Jackson, ODI research fellow and report co-author, said the legislation was heavy-handed as there is little evidence that aid supplies were a major source of funding for al-Shabaab. However, the legislation imposed onerous reporting requirements and forced relief groups to strike individual deals with al-Shabaab instead of sharing information with each other and presenting a united front with the Islamist group.

The political pressure to isolate al-Shabaab meant that relief agencies had to improvise discreetly with little co-ordination among themselves on how to deal with the militants.

"Greater information sharing and collaboration among aid agencies in addressing the factors that limited access, including counterterrorism restrictions, would have been more effective than the often disconnected and ad hoc efforts that were ultimately made," said the report.

The ad hoc efforts had the result of pushing responsibility down from senior aid officials usually based in Nairobi on to local Somalis.

"Life and death decisions were delegated to the front line, raising ethical questions," said Jackson. "There was a transfer of risk on to people who deserved more support."

The authors also criticised leaders in the humanitarian community for failing to take a principled stand on engagement with al-Shabaab and also in pushing back on harmful counter-terror restrictions. Individual agencies that pursued bilateral engagement with the al-Shabaab leadership were able to secure greater guarantees of access than those that did not.

"Comprehensive dialogue with al-Shabaab at all levels appeared to be the single most important action aid agencies could take to reduce the risk of diversion and improve the prospects for long-term access to areas under its control," said the report.

While it is unclear whether the humanitarian leadership within the UN or collectively on behalf of NGOs could have achieved similar guarantees had it attempted dialogue with the al-Shabaab leadership, the authors say attempts do not appear to have been made systematically. Conditions in Somalia remain difficult for aid agencies, despite setbacks experienced by al-Shabaab.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) pulled out of Somalia in August after 22 years because of attacks on its staff, cutting off hundreds of thousands of people from vital treatment. The aid group, which has 1,500 people working in the Horn of Africa country, described it as "one of the hardest decisions MSF has had to make in its history".

Rob Bailey, of Chatham House, has argued that antagonism between the west and al-Shabaab contributed to the group's catastrophic decision to expel the UN's World Food Programme in 2010, and a further 16 UN agencies and international NGOs for "illicit activities and misconduct" the following year.

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener used in light food products and soft drinks, does not pose risks to the general population, the European food safety agency (EFSA) said on Tuesday (10 December). It urged the Commission to strengthen the confidence of consumers, hoping to overcome the mistrust of citizens towards the additive.

After considering the results of hundreds of studies, EFSA concluded “that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for consumption,” the chair of its panel on food additives, Alicja Mortensen, announced on Tuesday.

The amount of aspartame one person can consume per day, or ‘acceptable daily intake’ (ADI), is currently at 40 milligrams per kilogram (of food). “There was no reason to revise this ADI,” EFSA argued.

The agency flagged that people suffering from phenylketonuria (PKU) do not fall under this recommendation: PKU patients are unable to metabolise a certain type of amino acid found in aspartame and, EFSA advised, “should avoid all food items containing aspartame”.

Aspartame is primarily known as an artificial sweetener that is used as an alternative to sugar substances in many soft drinks and ‘light’ food products on the European market. The sweetener has been re-assessed six times since it was authorised for use in the EU in 1994.

The agency added that the European Commission can now work towards strengthening the confidence of European consumers in products containing aspartame.

Wave of public concerns

In 2010, public mistrust towards the artificial sweetener peaked after two studies linked aspartame to the development of cancers in mice and to premature childbirth. As a result, the European Commission asked EFSA to fast-track its re-evaluation of aspartame, which was originally up for scrutiny only by 2020.

The agency’s final opinion paper was supposed to come out last May. But when the agency opened up the process to public consultation last January, it received more than 200 comments, the majority of which were submitted by NGOs, members of the food industry and journalists.

“We wanted to take the time to answer all of the criticisms,” said Mortensen, acknowledging that there were many important aspects in the earlier draft opinion document that needed clarification.

The opinion claimed that more recent scientific research has discredited the studies of 2010, referring to research that demonstrated the levels of aspartame detected in the blood during similar tests are low and show no cause for concern.

>>Read: EFSA consults the public before completing opinion on aspartame

The European Food Safety Authority is often criticised by NGOs for its ‘revolving door’- experts sitting on panels and in decision-making bodies often have a background in the food industry, or return to this industry after they leave EFSA, leading to conflicts of interest.

Early in the re-evaluation process for aspartame, two members of the panel voluntarily resigned because they took on jobs in companies with a commercial interest in the sales of products using aspartame.

“These persons only participated in the first, introductory meeting [of the panel],” being offered such positions only after this meeting, senior officer of the food ingredients unit Georges Kass stressed, dismissing allegations of possible conflicts of interest.