Organic Honey Market Size 2021 by Revenue Estimates, Capacity, Price, Gross Margin and Forecast to 2027 Research Report by Absolute Reports
The global honey market size was valued at USD 9.21 billion in 2020 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.2%. A major factor driving the market growth includes high demand for nutritious food products, such as honey, on account of rising awareness about the benefits of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Honey is an excellent source of numerous nutritional ingredients including vitamins, minerals, calcium, and antioxidants. Moreover, honey has several medicinal properties and can help improve metabolic activities, maintain blood pressure levels, reduce the risk of diabetes, and can even heal burn wounds. Thus, honey is widely used in many applications apart from food & beverages, such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, which is also estimated to augment the market growth.
The production and supply of honey depend on the country’s climatic conditions; hence, few regions, such as North and South America, Asia, and Europe hold the majority of production. However, China has emerged as a key exporter of honey in Europe and North America in the past few years.
In 2020, due to the global pandemic, the demand and supply for various products were significantly impacted. The demand for honey was surged substantially across the globe owing to its excellent medicinal properties. Beekeepers in collaboration with the local government are trying hard to regain the production and supply chain’s pace as consumers worldwide are paying more attention to a healthy lifestyle and immunity enhancement.
The European Commission is taking Germany to the European Court of Justice for violating nature and conservation laws.
The EU has long warned Germany that its efforts to protect nature under the Flora-Fauna-Habitats Directive were not adequate. On Thursday, it decided to take the country to court for not respecting its conservation obligations.
The Habitats Directive requires countries to designate special protection areas to conserve rare, threatened or native flora and fauna. More than 1,000 animal and plant species, as well as 200 types of habitat, are protected by the law.
In these special protection areas, each EU member state must establish conservation measures to maintain or restore habitats and species.
The Commission says that Germany has failed to meet some requirements, particularly when creating protected areas in the country. According to recent reporting, Germany has not designated a significant number of locations as special protection areas, the Commission says.
“Therefore, the Commission is taking Germany to the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
More than 4,500 conservation areas, known as Sites of Community Importance, were found not to have “detailed and quantified conservation objectives”.
“The European Green Deal and the European Biodiversity Strategy both stress how crucial it is for the EU to halt biodiversity loss by protecting and restoring biodiversity,” the Commission adds.
“The time limit for completing the necessary steps for all sites in Germany expired more than 10 years ago in some cases.”
Germany’s ‘only native whale’ species at risk
NABU, one of the largest and oldest environmental organisations in the country, believes that while more protected areas are needed, not enough is being done in those that already exist.
The organisation says that it is “absurd” that conservation measures have not yet been defined and implemented – seven years after Germany was first warned about the infringement.
In the Sylt Outer Reef, an area protected under the Habitat Directive, the population of this species has fallen by an average of nearly 4 per cent every year, over the last 20 years.
“Germany’s only native whale is not effectively protected from the effects of fishing, shipping or offshore wind farms, either in protected areas or in important migratory corridors,” says NABU marine protection expert, Kim Detloff.
Environmental groups, including NABU and Greenpeace Germany, hope that the legal action will finally force the country to take adequate action to protect nature.
“For years, Germany has failed miserably to protect nature and biodiversity, both on land and at sea. Short-term economic profits and the industrial exploitation of natural resources were systematically placed above the concerns of nature and species protection,” says Greenpeace Marine biologist, Thilo Maack.
“The German government must finally meet its European obligations in order to avoid fines running into the millions.”
Every weekday at 15.30 CET, Euronews Living brings you a cutting edge, environmental story from somewhere around the world. Download the Euronews app to get an alert for this and other breaking news. It’s available on Apple and Android devices.
Brussels — Microsoft and European media groups on Monday urged EU regulators to require online platforms to seek arbitration in disagreements over how to share revenues with news publishers, a sticking point in the spat between Facebook and Australia.
The EU’s 2019 overhauled copyright rules, which force Alphabet unit Google and other online platforms to sign licensing agreements with musicians, authors and news publishers to use their work, are not sufficient, Microsoft and the publishers said.
“This initiative is a logical next step,” Microsoft vice-president Casper Klynge said, adding that the company already shares revenues with publishers via its product Microsoft News.
Facebook last week imposed a news ban in Australia in protest against a forthcoming law that would require online platforms to reach deals to pay news outlets for content, or agree on a price through arbitration.
The call by Microsoft, the European Magazine Media Association, European Newspaper Publishers Association, European Publishers Council and News Media Europe comes as EU legislators limber up for talks with the European Commission and EU countries on rules to rein in US tech giants.
“Even though press publishers have a neighbouring right, they might not have the economic strength to negotiate fair and balanced agreements with these gatekeeper tech companies, who might otherwise threaten to walk away from negotiations or exit markets entirely,” they said in a statement.
Washington D.C., Feb 22, 2021 / 02:23 pm MT (CNA).- As President Joe Biden re-established a key White House faith-based office last week, former political liaisons to religious groups commended the move—but warned that the office might be misused.
On Feb. 14, President Biden announced he was reinstating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Established by President George W. Bush in 2001, the office was meant to strengthen relationships between the federal government and religious leaders in a number of policy areas.
In his announcement, Biden—just the second Catholic president in U.S. history—cited the role that civil society can play in responding to current challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and “systemic racism.”
He signaled that his faith-based office will be working with secular groups too, emphasizing that the office would not “favor religious over secular organizations.”
Melissa Rogers—who led the office during the Obama administration from 2013 to 2017—will once again serve as its executive director under Biden, in addition to serving as senior director for faith and public policy with the White House Domestic Policy Council.
Beginning with President Bush, each administration has had a faith-based liaison at the White House. President Trump in 2018 created a new “White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative,” setting up not only an office at the White House but also liaisons at various federal agencies to work with religious groups.
CNA spoke with several former federal liaisons to faith communities, in addition to a religious freedom scholar, who praised Biden for re-establishing the faith-based office but warned that it could be used for the wrong political purposes.
The office was originally meant to serve as a mediator between faith leaders and the administration. Religious leaders could inform the administration of their policy positions and concerns, and the office in turn could make policy recommendations, said Nick Bell, former staffer at the Education Department’s Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives during the Trump administration.
The office is critical for “people of faith to have direct access to senior leaders,” Bell told CNA. “I’m really happy that Biden is not scrapping the office and keeping it there.”
Ideally, the office should be promoting partnerships between the government and religious groups while protecting the religious freedom of those same groups, said Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC).
“America has a long history of the private sector and public sector partnering together to advance the common good,” he told CNA, noting the historic work of faith-based groups in fighting poverty and providing health care and education.
“When they partner with the government they should remain free to be authentically Jewish, authentically Catholic, authentically protestant, authentically Muslim, and so on,” Anderson stated. “And so the office should be at the forefront of advocating for policies that respect and protect the free exercise of religion.”
Jim Towey, who headed the office under President Bush from 2002 to 2006, complimented the choice of Melissa Rogers as its new executive director but emphasized that she needs to have direct access to the president.
“Melissa Rogers is a very capable and bright leader on these issues, but she can only do so much if the entire West Wing apparatus and the president himself is not fully committed to the success of the office,” said Towey, who is also the founder of the group Aging with Dignity.
Bell noted that he is concerned about the extent to which the Biden administration will allow faith-based government partners to retain their religious mission.
For instance, the Obama administration made certain controversial requirements of religious grantees. The administration stopped partnering with the U.S. bishops’ conference (USCCB) on anti-trafficking efforts in 2011, because of the conference’s opposition to abortion and contraception referrals for human trafficking survivors.
Religious adoption agencies partnering with the federal government were also subject to requirements that they match children with same-sex couples, under the Obama administration.
Religious freedom “will be an area to watch” with the faith-based office, Anderson said.
“Rogers is a serious scholar of and advocate for religious liberty” who “wants to work to find common ground compromises,” he said. However, “on some of the issues where religious liberty conflicts with a progressive sexual orthodoxy she tends to side with the sexual orthodoxy,” he noted.
Rogers herself has previously said that the government is free to protect “sexual orientation and gender identity” when those claims conflict with the mission of religious groups partnering with the government. Such “nondiscrimination” requirements should be applied uniformly to both secular and religious groups, she said.
“My view is that when you have taxpayer funds and nondiscrimination rules that apply to the use of those funds, then what you ought generally to do is uniformly apply those rules, not create religious – you know, these yawning religious exemptions from them,” she told NPR in 2019.
Rogers says she helped push the Obama administration to broaden religious exemptions to the HHS contraceptive mandate, after the initial exemptions were narrowly-tailored. She chaired the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships beginning in 2009, before she took over the faith-based partnerships office in 2013.
Religious groups, including EWTN and the Little Sisters of the Poor, sued over the revised mandate saying it still required them to be complicit in morally-objectionable contraceptive coverage.
Rogers, in an interview with Commonweal magazine, admitted that the revised mandate “didn’t ultimately satisfy all those who objected, but it was a genuine effort to listen.”
Towey wished that the White House faith-based partnerships office had been more vocal in support of religious objectors to the mandate.
“It sure would have been nice if the faith-based office at the time had left their voices in support of the rights of Catholic organizations, Orthodox Jewish organizations, the Salvation Army, and others who did not embrace their orthodoxy on providing abortifacients in health care plans,” he said.
Instead, the office “was a guilty bystander when the Little Sisters of the Poor and Catholic colleges like Ave Maria University were threatened with closure,” he said.
The purpose of the office can vary with each administration. Under the Obama administration, Towey said that the White House tried to solicit faith leaders to promote the Affordable Care Act, a major policy initiative. The office also worked with religious groups to help combat poverty.
During the Trump administration, offices at various federal agencies issued rules clarifying religious freedom protections for faith-based groups partnering with the government. The Education Department also issued guidance on legal prayer in public schools.
At an online meeting of the office on Thursday, Rogers and other leaders emphasized the importance of faith communities in responding to COVID-19 and during the rollout of vaccines.
Towey said he thought the office was “a great disappointment during the Obama years,” being “pretty much on the distant sidelines” of the administration and, when it took action, was “politicized.”
“In this area, I just don’t find much optimism that this office will be anything more than what it was in the Obama administration, which was ineffective and cosmetic,” Towey said.
Scott Lloyd, former senior advisor at the HHS Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives from 2018-2019, also warned against any politicization of the office.
“The danger with any such effort is that the government ends up using religion to promote or legitimize its own agenda,” he said. As the Biden administration “has committed to policies that promote intrinsic evils like abortion,” Lloyd said that was concerning for the future of the faith-based office.
Towey emphasized that Rogers must report directly to President Biden so the office is not marginalized within the administration.
That fact, he said, “will tell you if this office is going to be serious or not.” If Rogers does not report directly to the president, he said, “then that office will just be smothered in the West Wing bureaucracy, and there’ll be three events a year of token significance and nothing more.”
Threat modeling isn’t a new concept, but it remains one that many development teams struggle to understand. Threat modeling processes in the software development lifecycle, or SDLC, remain alien to development teams, which is what Izar Tarandach and Matthew J. Coles hope to combat with their book, Threat Modeling: A Practical Guide for Development Teams.
“We want readers to have knowledge of the language of security and what those concepts mean,” Coles said. “We were very careful to teach principles about what a system is, what system security is, what the language is and what we mean when we say ‘security vs. privacy’ or ‘confidentiality vs. authentication.'”
In this Q&A, Tarandach and Coles discuss the best audience for their threat modeling book and why they felt the book was needed, as well as two methods of automated threat modeling.
Editor’s note: This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
What made you decide it was time to collaborate and write this book?
Matthew J. Coles: There’s the easy answer that it needed to be done. The more extensive answer is that a couple of other books talk about threat modeling, but there aren’t a lot of books targeting developers. Many are geared toward security experts and not necessarily enabling people without security experience to get up to speed. We wanted to focus on delivering this knowledge in an easy-to-use fashion to a different target audience.
Izar Tarandach: We wrote it because we needed it. As practitioners, we deal with a lot of developers, teams and organizations constantly asking, ‘Hey, can we have something digestible that we can just hand to developers and say come back to me knowing more than you knew before?’
From reading through the book, it’s clear that, while the audience is mainly developers, it isn’t only for them. Why is that?
Click here to learn more
about Threat Modeling: A Practical Guide for Development Teams
by Izar Tarandach and
Matthew J. Coles.
Tarandach: We had this image of developers picking it up. But, as we wrote the book, we started noticing it went beyond the developer and the person writing code. It became a text we think is useful for anybody involved in the development process — product managers, product owners, development managers. It’s for people who have to understand writing and designing a secure product. We don’t say this book is the bible for threat modeling, that it’s the end-all be-all. But it’s an easy way for people in those roles to get into threat modeling and get a common view of the threat landscape.
In Chapter 4, you discuss automated threat modeling. Is that an easier sell for executives compared to hiring multiple developers with threat modeling knowledge?
Tarandach: In security, like in so many other areas, people are constantly looking for the silver bullet that’s going to solve all the problems with one click of the mouse. We are careful in the book to point out that threat modeling is a conceptual exercise. We show how you can automate that process to the extent it’s possible but not beyond that. Without disparaging any other tools out there, we look at the way they operate. We took care to let readers make up their minds on what tool is appropriate for their environment or process.
Coles: For Chapter 4, we wanted to take the threat modeling methodologies from Chapter 3 and introduce the concept of automation to help facilitate a threat model, facilitate information sharing or facilitate threat detection. We weren’t trying to sell any specific tools. We used Pytm as one example because we use it. But we made sure we talked about how there are other tools in the space and how they do different things. Some tools automate data collection, modeling or identification, and they all do it differently. That’s what we wanted to introduce readers to in Chapter 4. It’s not about just providing information, but also providing a launching point for people to do their own research and figure out what works for them.
You explain two approaches to automating threat modeling: threat modeling with code and from code. Does their spot in the SDLC affect which approach development teams choose?
Coles: Yes, because both threat modeling with code and threat modeling from code have different goals. We have to be careful. There’s the approach that the tool stores data versus the tool creates data. We can take a system like Threatspec, where you’re documenting your threats. You have to know what the threats are, and you have to understand the system and the properties. You’re documenting them and use the tool to stitch all that information together — compared to Pytm, for example, where you’re defining your system in code and then the tool generates threat models and diagrams.
Both approaches are valuable. You may have a tool that processes an input language or system description language that then does the same thing Pytm does. It depends on what you’re comfortable using. Pytm requires someone to know how to write the basic object.attribute syntax and use a Python program, which some people have difficulty with. Threatspec, on the other hand, requires someone to use a text editor. They don’t do the same thing, but the approach they take is important for accomplishing a particular task. It’s hard to say which is more effective or more appropriate because it depends on the goal and the comfort level.
Tarandach: Another important distinction to make is where you’re coming from. Threat modeling from code implies that you already have code and a system and that you’re threat modeling. So, it becomes a heavy documentation process: Let’s look at this code, let’s figure out what this code represents, etc. From there, let’s bring out the threats it may be subject to or the mitigations it may be bringing. Whereas threat modeling with code is more like: ‘I’m thinking about this system that’s going to look like this and do this, so now let’s start building this model from scratch and see what threats I may encounter. Then, I’m going to add mitigations to it.’
Coles: Another thing to consider is capability and maturity levels. Some tools are better focused for a security practitioner. For example, Izar and I could use a tool to facilitate a threat modeling conversation with those writing code versus a development team using a results-oriented tool themselves. We provide initial knowledge in the early chapters, but companies still may want to supplement that with automated tools. They can use some of these tools so they can concentrate on applying the principles of threat modeling correctly and not necessarily on the minutiae of running a threat modeling exercise.
Tarandach: That’s a great observation. I think it translates to the tool as part of the process, the tool as part of the conversation or the tool as the facilitator for the process and the conversation.
How has threat modeling progressed over the last few years?
Coles: It’s not new, but it’s not well understood. System developers and designers have been doing threat analysis; they’ve been doing risk analysis and risk assessments. They’ve been doing vulnerability detection. So, the notion of threat modeling is a mature concept. But the maturity of organizations applying it is not, and that’s really a problem.
What’s next for the threat modeling industry as it expands beyond security practitioners?
Coles: As an industry, we’ll start to get some consistency in the language, which will allow us to better penetrate organizations. As developers and others build up that body of knowledge and start doing threat modeling regularly, more and more people enter the conversation. Existing techniques, tools and approaches will get refined, and the ones that don’t yet exist will be created and potentially replace older ones. With improved tools comes greater accessibility. With greater accessibility, you have more individuals doing the activity or more businesses funding and investing in that activity. And, with that, you’ll get better system security, which, ultimately, is the goal is of the activity.
The European Union is poised to impose sanctions against the military leaders in Myanmar, according to a joint statement released after EU foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday.
The statement came as protesters in Myanmar continued to take to the streets despite a deadly crackdown by military and police forces. At least three protesters have died since Friday, and the military has reported that one policeman had also lost his life.
On Monday, the European Union announced that it was “ready to adopt restrictive measures targeting those directly responsible for the military coup and their economic interests.”
The US Treasury Department late Monday placed two high-ranking members of Myanmar’s military under sanctions for their role in the coup.
Lieutenant General Moe Myint Tun and General Maung Maung Kyaw were added to the Treasury’s blacklist, which freezes their US assets and bars US citizens from doing business with them.
“The military must reverse its actions and urgently restore the democratically elected government in Burma, or the Treasury Department will not hesitate to take further action,” the department said in a statement.
Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, told DW last week that sanctions need to go beyond targeting individual generals, and go after businesses the military owns, to be more effective.
“The military needs these businesses to be operating. And if they face sanctions, that’s going to cut off their lifeblood and their ability to maintain their repressive rule,” Roth said.
Global leaders call on military to step aside
The European Union also called for the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the ousted president, Win Myint, as well as others who had been detained during the military coup.
Other world leaders also spoke out against the military regime as protesters gathered in the streets on Monday, a day after US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken expressed explicit support for the protesters over Twitter.
The UK foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, told the UN Human Rights Council that the situation in Myanmar was deteriorating.
He laid out demands for the junta to relinquish power. “The military must step aside. Civilian leaders must be released. And the democratic wishes of the people of Myanmar must be respected,” he said.
UN chief Antonio Guterres also called on the generals to hand power back to the civilian government.
“I call on the Myanmar military to stop the repression immediately. Release the prisoners. End the violence. Respect human rights and the will of the people expressed in recent elections. Coups have no place in our modern world,” Guterres said.
(Photo: UN Photo/Manuel Elias)Participants at event on “Interfaith harmony: Implementing the Transformative Agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals”, co-organized by the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) and the Committee of Religious NGOs (2016).
A national leader and a foreign minister from two countries — Poland and Turkey — one Christian and one Muslim, spoke out about religious freedom, persecution and hatred during the opening day of the 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Poland’s President Andrzej Dudas told the council in a video address on Feb. 22, “The fact that for more than a year now, most of the attention has been paid for to combating COVID-19 does not mean that other problems have magically disappeared.”
Duda said that violation of fundamental rights should be addressed by the international community more efficiently as he and Turkey’s foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu offered Christian and Muslim perspectives about persecution of religion which basically focus on the same rights.
“Poland has been particularly concerned by the increasing phenomenon of discrimination against and religious persecution of Christians and other religious minorities,” said the president of the country which has a population of some 38 million people of whom around 86 percent are Roman Catholics.
The president explained that on Aug. 22 2019, on Poland’s initiative, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution titled International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief.
That resolution “strongly deplored all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centers or places of worship.”
It also censured “all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law.”
“Poland also remains committed to protecting vulnerable groups, including children, older persons, and persons with disabilities.
“We must stand up for those who will not be able to stand up for themselves, we must strive for solidarity,” said the president whose country has put a near-total ban on abortions, including the termination of pregnancies with fetal defects,.
The resolution the president referred to strongly deplored all acts of violence against people based on their religion or belief.
It also refers to such acts directed against their homes, businesses, properties, schools, cultural centers or places of worship, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines that are in violation of international law.
For his part, Turkey’s Cavusoglu told the HRC, “Islamophobia, and hate speech are on the rise.”
He said the COVID-19 pandemic has increase such trends, and noted that some publications foster “hate speech against Islam and Muslims,” that “insult nearly 2 billion believers around the world.”
“Yes, freedom of speech is key to any democracy. But this freedom doesn’t give the right to insult the sacred values of others.
“Unless we promote a culture of living together, we risk damaging our common democratic values and social cohesion,” he said in an apparent reference to a satirical magazine in France, which Turkey had said published a cartoon insulting the Prophet Mohammed.
He also said “Turkey closely follows the human rights situation in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region. The findings of the UN and other international reports are cause for concern,” in a reference to the Muslim minority in China.
“We share our concerns and expectations on the matter with the Chinese authorities. We expect transparency on this issue while respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
At the opening of the HRC session UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about “policies of assimilation that seek to wipe out the cultural and religious identity of minority communities.
“When a minority community’s culture, language or faith are under attack, all of us are diminished. When authorities cast suspicion on entire groups under the guise of security, all of us are threatened,” said Guterres.
(UN Photo/Rick Bajornas)UN Secretary-General António Guterres (right) is greeted by Arthur Schneier, Senior Rabbi at Park East Synagogue, at an interfaith tribute in solidarity with those killed and wounded in the massacre in Pittsburgh. At left is Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
BRUSSELS — European Union foreign ministers on Monday tasked the bloc’s top diplomat and its executive wing with drawing up a series of measures to target those responsible for the military coup in Myanmar, as people rallied in the streets of the country’s biggest city.
“The European Union calls for de-escalation of the current crisis through an immediate end to the state of emergency, the restoration of the legitimate civilian government and the opening of the newly elected parliament,” the ministers said in a statement as they met in Brussels.
“In response to the military coup, the European Union stands ready to adopt restrictive measures targeting those directly responsible. All other tools at the disposal of the European Union and its Member States will be kept under review,” the ministers said.
Such sanctions usually involve a freeze on people’s assets and a ban on them traveling to Europe.
Myanmar’s military junta prevented Parliament from convening on Feb. 1. It claimed that last November’s elections, won by Aung San Suu Kyi’s party in a landslide, were tainted by fraud. The election commission that confirmed the victory has since been replaced by the junta.
The coup was a major setback to Myanmar’s transition to democracy after 50 years of army rule that began with a 1962 coup. Suu Kyi came to power after her party won a 2015 election, but the generals retained substantial power under a military-drafted constitution.
Around 640 people have been arrested, charged or sentenced, with 593, including Suu Kyi and President Win Myint, still in detention, according to the independent Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.
The EU ministers condemned the arrests and called for the unconditional release of the President, Suu Kyi and all those held since the coup. They also condemned the security crackdown and expressed solidarity with citizens, saying that any sanctions they impose are not aimed at ordinary people.
Despite the junta’s thinly veiled threat to use lethal force if people answered a call for a general strike, and roadblocks around the U.S. Embassy in Yangon, more than a thousand protesters gathered there Monday. Military trucks and riot police stood nearby.
BVI International Arbitration Centre Expands Global Representation, Welcomes Dr. John J. Maalouf to Arbitration Panel – Book Publishing Industry Today – EIN Presswire
The Council today adopted conclusions on the EU’s priorities in UN human rights fora in 2021. The conclusions reaffirm the EU’s commitment to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to stand united in support of the UN human rights system as a cornerstone of its external action.
Especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU will ensure that all human rights remain at the core of its response to the pandemic and global recovery.
The EU will continue to monitor the human rights situation globally and will denounce human rights violations and abuses wherever they occur, making use of all available instruments including the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.
The EU will fully support the work and mandate of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and her office and will call on all states to respect her independence, cooperate on the effective delivery of her mandate, and ensure adequate financing.
The EU will continue to use all available tools to fulfil its commitments to human rights, including in the framework of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council and any other relevant fora.
Council conclusions on EU priorities at UN human rights fora are adopted on a yearly basis.
