In a pre-recorded video address, Mr. Džaferović thanked those who came to the aid of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the crisis, and expressed his appreciation for the EU’s decision to include the country in its public procurement programme, which means that it has been able to purchase material needed to combat COVID-19, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) in a cost-effective way.
“Just like any other great misfortune”, he said “this one has also reminded us how important it is to have friends.” At a time when multilateralism and international organizations, including the UN, are coming under attack, the pandemic, he added, has shown that major challenges can only be tackled at a transnational, multilateral level, based on dialogue and cooperation of as many states as possible.
The unity shown by the European Union in agreeing a historic package for economic recovery, declared the Bosnian leader, is an example to the rest of the world. The fact that the EU has not just supported its members, but other countries as well, is a sign of its strength. Bosnia and Herzegovina, he added, has benefited from strong support for its economy and health system, which increases the prospects for continued stability in the country.
25 years of peace
The end of 2020 marks 25 years of the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord, which ended the brutal conflict in the former Yugoslavia but, said Mr. Džaferović, the Accord now requires an update. This will only be possible, he said, through a wide political consensus, adding that there is a consensus in the country about the “irreplaceable significance of preserving peace and, thus, the Peace Accord on which it is based”.
Mr. Džaferović described the country as having made a “complete turn”, from being one that required international assistance, to providing soldiers and police officers to take part in peace missions around the world.
Illegal migration support needed
However, he said that more support is needed to help Bosnia to cope with illegal migration: due to the closure of other routes, most migrants attempting to enter the EU are now passing through Bosnia and Herzegovina. “They pose an enormous security and humanitarian problem, and our county does not have enough resources to solve it.”
The Bosnian leader called on nations whose citizens are in Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign up to agreements that will enable these citizens to be returned to their home countries.
Building a stable society
The emigration of young, and educated, Bosnians to the EU, where they have greater job prospects, is also a problem for the country, according to Mr. Džaferović, who said that this can only be overcome by building a “a society which will be based on the principles of equal opportunities, political stability and legal security, where it is possible for young people to plan their future”. Eventually achieving EU membership, he said, is the way to achieve this goal.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, concluded Mr. Džaferović, is slowly making progress, and is committed to building a safe, stable and prosperous State.
The bleak news from ILO Director-General Guy Ryder coincided with an updated mid-year forecast from the UN body.
Lower and middle-income countries have suffered most, with an estimated 23.3 per cent drop in working hours – equivalent to 240 million jobs – in the second quarter.
Previously, the ILO had suggested a 14 per cent average drop in global working time, equivalent to the loss of 400 million jobs, relative to the fourth quarter of 2019.
Workers in developing nations had also seen their income drop more than 15 per cent, ILO Director-General Guy Ryder told journalists in Geneva.
“On top of this, these are the places where there are the weakest social protection systems, so there are very few resources or protections for working people to fall back upon”, he said. “If you look at it regionally, the Americas were worst-affected, with losses of 12.1 per cent.”
Mr. Ryder highlighted that while the Governments of richer countries had shored up their economies with hundreds of billions of dollars, poorer nations had been unable to do the same.
Without such fiscal stimulus, working hours losses would have been 28 per cent between April and June, instead of 17.3 per cent, he insisted.
Our latest estimates of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic paint a bleak picture for job markets, says @GuyRyder. But effective fiscal stimulus plans have offered some signs of hope. pic.twitter.com/bQjdHrZQMV
Nonetheless, State financial support has led to the emergence of an extremely worrying “fiscal stimulus gap” between wealthy economies and the developing world, amounting to $982 billion, Mr. Ryder warned.
“It runs a risk of leading us to post-COVID world with greater inequalities between regions, countries, sectors and social groups,” he said. “It’s a polar opposite to the better world that we want to build back, and it reminds us all, that unless we are all able to overcome and get out of this pandemic, none of us will.”
Although the $982 billion global stimulus package was a staggering sum, the ILO Director-General noted that low-income countries needed a fraction of this figure – $45 billion – to support workers in the same way as wealthier nations had done, while lower-middle-income countries required the remaining $937 billion.
Other data from the ILO Monitor indicates that for the third fiscal quarter covering July to September, 12.1 per cent of global working time will be lost, which is equivalent to 345 million full-time jobs.
Final quarter challenges
The final quarter of the year envisages a significant worsening of the situation for workers since the UN agency’s last assessment in June, with a minimum 8.6 per cent drop in global working time – up from up from 4.9 per cent mid-year – corresponding to 245 million full-time jobs.
To protect workers and economies everywhere, Mr. Ryder warned against any premature loosening of support for health measures aimed at combating the pandemic, in view of increasing infection rates in many countries.
Support for jobs and incomes should be sustained into next year, he insisted, while also calling for finding ways to increase technical help and official develop assistance to emerging economies.
It was also important to prioritise income support for the hardest-hit groups, namely women, young people and informal workers, he added.
Guitarist Li Jianhong is fairly unknown in the U.S., but he’s one of the most important experimental musicians in China. Like Sonic Youth and Japanese rock collective Ghost, he straddles and/or blasts his way across the line between psychedelic rock and exploratory noise; he also frequently incorporates a spiritual component inspired by Buddhism and traditional Chinese art. The tracks on his latest album, Father, and a Wild Trail Zigzagging Down, were recorded in 2018 at various venues on his first European tour, and together they make for a lovely summation of his range and focus. The track “At Dusk, Man at the Stream” sounds like Li is slicing his guitar apart with pieces of scrap metal—it’s as though an unaccompanied rock musician wandered into an ambush and came out with an instrument stripped of its parts. “At Dusk, Daffodils at the Stream” spins its ominous ambience from feedback, drones, clicks, and warbles, and the 27-minute title track also starts out diffuse and quiet—before building into an ecstatic wah-wah drone. Its thick, harsh, sustained blast of grimy lyricism is equal parts Jimi Hendrix and Iannis Xenakis. Listeners won over by this excellent set of songs are advised to move on to Li’s 2008 magnum opus, the 51-minute, one-track San Sheng Shi—or, for something completely different, D!O!D!O!D!, his early, Ruins-esque punk duo with drummer Huang Jin. v
While recognising the positive role of forests in mitigating global warming, the European Commission has riled the agroforestry and biomass industries by stating its intention of limiting growth in the sector.
Will the EU impose a cap on the number of trees that can be felled in Europe each year? Judging by the Commission’s 2030 climate plan, presented last week, this is now looking like a distinct possibility.
The capacity of forests to act as a “carbon sink” – absorbing more CO2 than they emit – is decreasing and needs to be reversed, the Commission said in its new climate plan for 2030.
The EU executive argues that “we need a growing sink in order for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050” and calls for improved forest management as well as “re- and afforestation” initiatives to restore degraded land and preserve biodiversity.
“We really have to take care of our forests,” said Frans Timmermans, the EU executive vice-president in charge of climate action. “We need to make sure our forests stay healthy and this is going to be a momentous task,” he told journalists.
Forest owners wouldn’t contradict the Commission on this point. Time and again, they have highlighted the role of “sustainable forest management practices” in environmental conservation and how those can support the EU’s biodiversity and climate objectives.
However, they say the Commission’s 2030 climate plan places too much emphasis on the role of forests as carbon sinks.
“This approach is rather unfortunate as it omits two other major climate benefits provided by forests: carbon storage in EU forests and wood products and carbon substitution with wood replacing fossil-based products and energy,” said Fanny-Pomme Langue, secretary-general of the Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF).
For forest owners, the key is to maintain forests as “productive” economic tools providing them with the revenues necessary to take care of their land. And that implies thinning, harvesting and replanting trees as part of “active” forest management practices.
“Forest owners are custodians of forests’ future and their focus is to maintain productive, healthy and vital ecosystems,” said Sven-Erik Hammar, board member of CEPF.
This was the view espoused by the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, which backed a report earlier this month charting “the way forward” for the EU’s upcoming forest strategy, expected to be published in the coming months.
Carbon sink and carbon stock
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, seemed to acknowledge the role forests can play for the climate. In her state of the union speech last week, she said Europe’s buildings could be turned “from a carbon source into a carbon sink if organic materials like wood” are being used.
Because trees absorb CO2 as they grow, harvesting them to make wood products is indeed considered as a “climate positive” economic activity which sequesters carbon in the form of furniture or building materials.
More controversial however is when wood is burned in biomass plants to produce electricity, or as a way of heating people’s homes.
Critics say burning wood immediately releases CO2 which took years or even decades to accumulate during the tree’s growth phase. This, they argue, creates a “carbon debt” for future generations until new trees can grow back and suck an equivalent amount of CO2.
And since time is running out to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 2°C, they argue urgent action must be taken now to prevent a further increase in biomass burning for energy generation.
The European Commission seemed to pay heed to those concerns when it placed the emphasis on the need to restore carbon sinks in Europe.
“Projected increases in bioenergy use by 2030 are limited compared to today,” the Commission pointed out in its 2030 climate plan, guarding against any “further increases in harvesting” that could see the EU’s carbon sink decline further.
“Any unsustainable intensification of forest harvesting for bioenergy purposes should be avoided,” the EU executive warned, saying “the use of whole trees and food and feed crops for energy production – produced in the EU or imported – should be minimised” in order to limit the impact on climate and biodiversity.
Bioenergy producers dispute this, saying “active forest management” practices “will optimise the carbon flow” and promote carbon sinks in addition to providing much-needed jobs and economic activity for rural areas.
“It is important to stress that bioenergy is not a driving force of forest harvesting,” said Bioenergy Europe, a trade association. In fact, forest cover in the EU increased by 5.8% in 1995-2015 while bioenergy consumption “more than doubled” during the same period, it points out.
“The increase in bioenergy has been possible thanks to a better use of residues from the forest-based industries and increased synergies with the wood-based industry,” said Jean-Marc Jossart, secretary-general of Bioenergy Europe.
Importantly, Jossart said a distinction should be made between “carbon sinks” – the capacity of forests to capture carbon – and the “carbon stock”, which is the total amount of carbon stored in the forest at a certain moment in time.
“A forest management based on maximising the carbon stock will not deliver efficiently against climate change because of maturation of trees and carbon losses” due to fires and insects, which are becoming more frequent because of climate change, he argued.
In reality, “a better managed forest reduces the risks of forest fires as there will be less dead wood on the ground helping the propagation of fire,” Jossart told EURACTIV in emailed comments, saying landowners need to be incentivised to take care of their land.
“Planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting are part of virtuous operations of climate-friendly forests, as well as taking infected trees out of the forests,” he said.
Incentives for ‘sustainable’ biomass
The Commission doesn’t deny this, saying “the promotion of sustainable forest management” combined with strict enforcement of EU green criteria for biomass will help make the sector more sustainable.
But it wants guarantees that biomass used in Europe is genuinely sustainable. Although it keeps the door open to bioenergies in general, the Commission’s 2030 climate plan says “a shift towards growing woody biomass,” and “advanced biogas and biofuels could alleviate the situation” and help restore healthy forests.
“Bioenergy production should come from better use of biomass wastes and residues and sustainable cultivation of energy crops, rather replacing the production of first-generation food-crop-based biofuels,” the EU executive says.
If those solutions are implemented swiftly in the coming years, “this could already reverse the current trend of a diminishing EU land carbon sink by 2030, increasing it again to levels above 300 million tons CO2eq,” it adds.
The European Commission intends to push a “transformative approach” to all forms of bioenergy – including biofuels and woody biomass – as part of a biodiversity strategy due to be unveiled on Wednesday (20 May).
By the end of the year, the Commission is expected to publish an extensive review of biomass policies. And much of the debate from now on is expected to focus on the incentives that are needed to support sustainable forestry practices and carbon removals.
“Definitely, we want to recognise the removals that are being done in agriculture and forestry more strongly than what we did in the past,” said a senior EU official who was briefing journalists after the Commission presented its 2030 climate plan last week.
“That will require incentives for those who are responsible – and that’s the farmers and the foresters,” the official said.
In Germany, the government is currently debating a “tree premium” of €125 per hectare as a way to reward forest owners for reducing carbon emissions. The premiums would be linked to the EU carbon market, meaning that if CO2 prices rise, the tree premium would also increase.
Another option is to bring agriculture under an EU regulation dealing with land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF).
“For somebody who is responsible for agriculture and forestry, it’s probably much easier to handle that as a policy field and to make the right trade-offs within the sector,” the official explained, saying any EU proposal on the matter would need to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis and fall in line with the Common Agricultural Policy.
For the bioenergy sector, incentives are fine as long as they allow foresters to “actively manage their forests through planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting”.
“If conversely, these subsidies are there to leave the forests untouched, this will have the adverse effects of reducing their resilience,” it argues.
At the next European summit, Austria wants to speak openly about sanctions against Ankara, including the possibility to break off accession talks with Turkey, the country’s EU Minister Karoline Edtstadler told EURACTIV Germany.
Karoline Edtstadler has been Austria’s Federal Minister for EU and Constitution since January 2020. In the last government, she was a state secretary in the interior ministry. In the 2019 EU elections, she moved into the European Parliament until she was sworn in as minister.
A wide range of topics will be discussed at the EU summit this week: The EU budget, the internal market, Brexit and the situation in the Mediterranean are just some of them. What are Austria’s priorities?
This broad agenda shows that some decisions are now pending. It is important that we are now informed about the state of negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) {EU’s long-term budget] and on Brexit.
Furthermore, we must strengthen the European internal market and competitiveness by presenting a new industrial strategy and adjusting state aid regulations, because Europe must become independent. The resources of the Recovery Fund should be used primarily for digitalisation and climate protection.
We must also clarify how we as the EU will continue to deal with China and Turkey. Austria advocates discussing all options and breaking off the accession talks with Turkey.
On the positive side, the rule of law proceedings against Poland and Hungary are back on the agenda for tomorrow’s General Affairs Council. The German Presidency plans to hold a hearing with the two countries in November and December.
Belarus opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya on Monday (21 September) urged the EU to show courage and impose sanctions on Alexander Lukashenko’s government, as the bloc continues to face internal squabbles about sanctions ahead of a crucial foreign policy summit later this week.
How can these consultations help make Article 7 procedures more effective?
As Hungary’s neighbour, we know that these procedures are an emotional issue, but we must not make any concessions here. That is why I am strongly in favour of linking EU funds and the rule of law. But of course, all parties involved must be given the opportunity to get out of these proceedings. To find such an exit strategy, you have to listen to all positions.
In fact, the states agreed in July to link EU funds to the rule of law, albeit in a weakened form. Is Austria nevertheless satisfied with this?
I am glad that conditionality is anchored. It could have been stronger, but the important thing is that it is inside. Now it’s a question of whether the European Parliament approves the budget.
The European Parliament is linking its approval to a stricter rule of law mechanism. Do you think it will succeed with this?
This is a point of discussion. There have now been four trilateral meetings, in which the Council and the Commission demand concrete proposals from Parliament. It is important to hear the Parliament’s position and there may be smaller movements.
However, it has been signalled that they do not want to undo the budget again and thus jeopardise the agreement. EU leaders negotiated for five days and four nights in July to reach this result. After that, it is a good tradition to exchange views in negotiation rounds. I appeal to Parliament to approve this huge budget.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has held a series of contacts with EU leaders in recent days, aiming to find allies who would block potential sanctions against Turkey at the 24-25 September EU summit over its illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.
One point of contention during these budget negotiations in July was the EU’s own resources. There is a precise timetable for the plastics tax, while only vague approval has been given for the digital tax and CO2 tax, which is to come in 2022. Wasn’t that a bit optimistic?
In politics, optimism and drive are needed. We will do everything we can to ensure that this comes about.
So Austria is in favour of these taxes?
Austria is doing everything it can to contribute to solutions that secure our future cooperation.
Turkey: Can Ankara’s actions in the Mediterranean remain unpunished?
Of course, it is not acceptable for a neighbouring state to break international law and raise warships. It is the unanimous opinion of all member states to rely on de-escalation in this case. But it will be necessary to discuss all possibilities, including sanctions.
Also, we have been in favour of breaking off the accession talks since 2016, because Turkey was already distancing itself from European values back then.
High Representative Josep Borrell said at the end of August that sanctions were in the works if there was no progress in dealing with Turkey. So there has not been any?
It is necessary to openly discuss the whole range of reactions.
Brexit also belongs to the wide range of topics for the special summit. The UK is now threatening not to adhere to the divorce agreement of spring. Did that surprise you?
In fact, I expected Britain to abide by international law. Of course we want an agreement, but we only have six weeks to settle future relations. It is a tense situation.
We are counting on the British to recognise the gravity of the situation. The EU will not be brought to its knees by blackmail.
This Wednesday (23 September), the Commission will also present its plans for a common European asylum system. What are your expectations?
It is time for a pan-European system. From the Austrian point of view, three components must be included: external border protection, cooperation with third countries and flexible solidarity.
“Flexible solidarity” means: No mandatory quota for the admission of refugees?
Exactly, we are against forced admissions. That has always been our red line, which we defend with all our strength.
Since 2015, Austria has taken in the second most refugees of all EU countries. One thing is clear: every country must make a contribution. Either by accepting people, sending officials to support the asylum authorities or by helping on the spot. In doing so, what has been achieved so far must always be taken into account. In the case of Austria, therefore, this cannot mean accepting more refugees.
Ms. Grazioli, a self-proclaimed social butterfly who loves to cook for guests, still hasn’t had friends over for dinner since the virus struck. “Am I overdoing it?” says Ms. Grazioli. “Maybe, but we had a national tragedy of epic proportions and you don’t quickly forget something like that.”
Italy, the first nation outside Asia to suffer a major coronavirus outbreak, had one of the world’s worst death tolls this spring. Overflowing hospitals in parts of northern Italy had to choose which patients got the last intensive-care beds. The Italian army drove truckloads of victims out of the city of Bergamo, which couldn’t cope with the dead.
That shocking experience helps explain why Italy is so far having greater success than many other European countries in limiting the pandemic’s second wave.
Infections in Europe are rebounding partly because millions of people have grown tired of social-distancing rules, mask-wearing and hand-sanitizing, and have relaxed their behavior, health experts said. The public’s fatigue and yearning to get back to normal life are two of the greatest challenges facing governments as they try to keep a lid on infections as winter approaches.
Experts had hoped that mask-wearing and keeping a distance would become everyday habits, at least as long as Covid-19 remains a public-health threat. East Asian societies such as South Korea, Hong Kong or Singapore have been the model for widespread acceptance of such precautions.
That has proved a tougher sell in Western nations with less experience containing viral outbreaks and especially in politically polarized countries where face masks have become another focal point for antiestablishment anger. Protests against mask-wearing and government restrictions have drawn fewer people in Rome than in Berlin or London.
But both Italy’s left-leaning national government and right-leaning opposition, which governs northern Italian regions that were badly hit by the virus, cooperated in containing the worst phase of the pandemic. Across Italy, masks are mandatory in indoor public places, on public transport and outdoors in crowded areas.
In Italy, the new precautions have become a widespread part of everyday life, more than in many other Western countries. Millions of Italians continue to wear masks outdoors, even when it isn’t obligatory, and carry hand sanitizer.
New habits and a relatively effective test-and-trace regime have helped Italy to limit the rise of infections since August. Increases in Europe have been driven by people traveling on their summer vacations and by more relaxed attitudes among young people who wanted to return to socializing.
Over the past week, Italy detected an average of under 1,500 infections a day, compared with about 3,700 in the U.K., 10,400 in France and 10,500 in Spain.
“People were very afraid in March and April and that has an effect on short-term behavior, but it’s not clear how long it will last,” said Guendalina Graffigna, a psychology professor at Milan’s Catholic University. “We’re a Mediterranean country and often we act on our emotions more than in other countries.”
Giovanni Ferrante, a 30-year-old building manager from Rome, is among those who are being extra careful. When he visited his family in southern Italy over the summer, he self-quarantined for two weeks on arrival to avoid potentially infecting them, though it wasn’t required by Italy’s rules and he had no symptoms.
“There is a bit of fear and because of that we behave appropriately,” said Mr. Ferrante, who was walking in central Rome wearing an N95 face mask, which provides more protection than a surgical mask.
Nearby, a bank put up a sign telling clients to stop applying hand sanitizer to its ATM keyboard because it was causing damage.
About 85% of Italians said they wear a mask in public places, more than anywhere else in Europe except for Spain, which is now battling Europe’s biggest outbreak, according to a coronavirus behavior survey by Imperial College London and YouGov. Italians are also more likely to say they avoid crowded public places than most other Europeans, according to the survey, which was updated last week.
It isn’t just about individual behavior. Italy has done a better job than most at detecting infected people through its testing and tracing regime. Over two-thirds of Italians who tested positive for the coronavirus in recent weeks were identified not because they had symptoms, but through contact tracing and widespread screening tests, according to the National Health Institute.
The percentage of tests that come back positive—a measure of whether testing is sufficiently comprehensive—is 2.1% in Italy, higher than it was in June but lower than in most of Europe, according to official data. A low positivity rate indicates that testing is widespread and not restricted to people who show symptoms. The World Health Organization recommends a positivity rate of 5% or less as a condition for reopening.
The percentage of positive tests is lower still in Lombardy, the epicenter of Italy’s pandemic, according to the regional government.
In Spain, by comparison, government data shows 11.9% of tests are positive, suggesting many infections go undetected.
Italian authorities fear infections could rise more strongly as a result of the reopening of schools on Sept. 14, and as fall weather leads Italians to spend more time indoors again. Italy was the first Western country to close its schools and was among the last to reopen them.
Italian schools have reorganized their classrooms to ensure social distancing, sometimes splitting up classes or moving them to other buildings.
In the Milan school attended by Ms. Grazioli’s two sons, some classes are held in the cafeteria, where there is more space, and lunch is served in the classrooms. Face masks are required except when students are seated. There is no interaction between classes, so that if a student tests positive for the virus, their class is quarantined at home, but the school stays open.
Despite the precautions, several classes were quarantined across Italy in the first week after reopening. Administrators at Ms. Grazioli’s school are waiting for test results from several students who turned up with fevers and coughs.
As schools reopen and children begin to socialize again, scientists say a priority for Italian families should be to keep the young away from the old. Ilaria Capua, an Italian virologist at the University of Florida, warned that big family dinners—part of the fabric of Italian life—are especially risky.
“Families need to organize themselves differently: grandparents are still vulnerable,” she said. “Intergenerational segregation is key.”
That has placed many Italian parents in a pickle as they manage the interactions between their elderly parents and school-age children. After school hours, many Italian grandparents look after children whose parents are working. Three-generation households are common.
But there are signs that Italy’s grandparents have absorbed the lessons of the pandemic.
“I hear lots of grandparents saying, ‘If you don’t really need me, I think I won’t pick up the children for now,’ ” said Ms. Grazioli. “I still have to see what my parents are comfortable with.”
Young adults are much less attentive to the rules than their parents and grandparents, a problem that came to light this summer as infections surged among people in their 20s and 30s. The generational divide continues in September as balmy weather draws crowds of mask-free 20-somethings to bars and restaurants.
On a recent Saturday evening, Mirko Marin, who works in corporate relations at Milan’s Polytechnic University, headed out to the city’s trendy Navigli canal district for a stroll with his wife and three children. They quickly returned home when they saw the crowds.
“During the day the rules are respected, and then at night the young people suddenly forget what happened in March and April,” said Mr. Marin. “We have to remember so we never live that nightmare again.”
On the eve of the opening of the Gothenburg Book Fair, which runs September 24-28, fair director Frida Edman, along with Frankfurt Book Fair director Juergen Boos, co-signed an editorial in Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, called “Why we need book fairs more than ever.” The piece offers their perspective on the role of book fairs in fostering the literary community and asserting the need to for live, in-person fairs to persist.
Edman supplied PW with a translation of the editorial, which reads as follows:
Today, the Nordic region’s largest cultural event, the Book Fair in Gothenburg, begins, and in a few weeks, the Frankfurter Buchmesse, the world’s most important book fair for the industry will launch its virtual Special Edition and its festivals BOOKFEST city and digital. By writing these words, we want to emphasize how important book fairs are – not only for publishers, authors and readers, but also for our communities.
Book fairs nourish our communities because they put stories and storytelling in the spotlight. They bring together authors, spark debates and literary conversations, they organize readings and provide first-hand information on book markets. Moreover, they are an immense tribute to free speech, a concrete manifestation of literature and public discourse. And, of course, our fairs are big festivals for the publishing industry and for all book lovers.
In 2020, the coronavirus has forced many book fairs to cancel or go completely digital. In doing this, we embrace a new experience: we learn a lot and develop, make new collaborations and reach new (and broader) target groups. But we also hear questions about the book fairs’ future existence. Has the physical meeting played its role now that everything is going digital?
Our answer is crystal clear: absolutely not. The physical encounter between people will always be a cornerstone of a democratic society – it is essential for driving one’s business and for maintaining successful business relations. Plus, book fairs around the world are a strong engine for the international literary economy.
Every year, more than a hundred Nordic and international agents participate in the Book Fair in Gothenburg, and a few thousand exhibitors from around 100 countries attend Frankfurter Buchmesse. It is not possible to describe in numbers the value that is lost by agents not meeting and negotiating international rights – often the first bids are placed in Gothenburg, stressed during intensive negotiations in Germany and then sold in the world.
Göran Wiberg, Sales Manager, Bonnierförlagen, believes that 50% of book sales at the Gothenburg Book Fair are dependent on the meeting between authors and readers. At Frankfurter Buchmesse last year, for the first time, publishers were allowed to sell their books to the public on Saturday and Sunday of the fair, making a significant amount of revenue. This is indicative of the importance of book fairs for publishers’ financial position in the future.
A prerequisite for this to remain the case is that book fairs take place and that publishers, agents, readers and not least politicians realize how important the book fairs are, and that in the future they secure their participation, visit or support. This year, their participation shows by each group taking part in and getting involved in supporting these book fairs.
Book fairs around the world remind us every year of the importance of literature, reading, and free speech. Book fairs are a prerequisite for the story’s survival and future. Without book fairs, there will be fewer publishers and authors. With fewer authors, we lose readers. Without readers, there is no strong democracy.
The world would be poorer without book fairs. This year we try to cater to the needs of publishers, authors, the industry and the audience with as many formats and offers as we possibly can. But in the uncertain future, we think that for us, as organizers of book fairs, it’s absolutely crucial that we take additional responsibility to create conditions for physical meeting. Together with the industry. And with the support of politics.
Artificial intelligence (AI) affects our lives more and more. Learn about the opportunities and threats for security, democracy, businesses and jobs.
Europe’s growth and wealth are closely connected to how it will make use of data and connected technologies. AI can make a big difference to our lives – for better or worse – and the European Parliament established a committee on artificial intelligence in digital age that examined the impact of the technology and proposed a long-term EU Roadmap to AI. MEPs have also called for a future-proof AI regulation. Below are some key opportunities and threats connected to future applications of AI.
175 zettabytes The volume of data produced in the world is expected to grow from 33 zettabytes in 2018 to 175 zettabytes in 2025 (one zettabyte is a thousand billion gigabytes)
EU countries are already strong in digital industry and business-to-business applications. With a high-quality digital infrastructure and a regulatory framework that protects privacy and freedom of speech, the EU could become a global leader in the data economy and its applications.
Benefits of AI for people
AI could help people with improved health care, safer cars and other transport systems, tailored, cheaper and longer-lasting products and services. It can also facilitate access to information, education and training. The need for distance learning became more important because of the Covid-19 pandemic. AI can also make workplace safer as robots can be used for dangerous parts of jobs, and open new job positions as AI-driven industries grow and change.
Opportunities of artificial intelligence for businesses
For businesses, AI can enable the development of a new generation of products and services, including in sectors where European companies already have strong positions: green and circular economy, machinery, farming, healthcare, fashion, tourism. It can boost sales, improve machine maintenance, increase production output and quality, improve customer service, as well as save energy.
11-37% Estimated increase of labour productivity related to AI by 2035 (Parliament’s Think Tank 2020)
AI opportunities in public services
AI used in public services can reduce costs and offer new possibilities in public transport, education, energy and waste management and could also improve the sustainability of products. In this way AI could contribute to achieving the goals of the EU Green Deal.
1.5-4% Estimate of how much AI could help reduce global greenhouse emissions by 2030 (Parliament’s Think Tank 2020)
Strengthening democracy
Democracy could be made stronger by using data-based scrutiny, preventing disinformation and cyber attacks and ensuring access to quality information . AI could also support diversity and openness, for example by mitigating the possibility of prejudice in hiring decisions and using analytical data instead.
AI, security and safety
AI is predicted to be used more in crime prevention and the criminal justice system, as massive data sets could be processed faster, prisoner flight risks assessed more accurately, crime or even terrorist attacks predicted and prevented. It is already used by online platforms to detect and react to unlawful and inappropriate online behaviour.
In military matters, AI could be used for defence and attack strategies in hacking and phishing or to target key systems in cyberwarfare.
Threats and challenges of AI
The increasing reliance on AI systems also poses potential risks.
Underuse and overuse of AI
Underuse of AI is considered as a major threat: missed opportunities for the EU could mean poor implementation of major programmes, such as the EU Green Deal, losing competitive advantage towards other parts of the world, economic stagnation and poorer possibilities for people. Underuse could derive from public and business’ mistrust in AI, poor infrastructure, lack of initiative, low investments, or, since AI’s machine learning is dependent on data, from fragmented digital markets.
Overuse can also be problematic: investing in AI applications that prove not to be useful or applying AI to tasks for which it is not suited, for example using it to explain complex societal issues.
Liability: who is responsible for damage caused by AI?
An important challenge is to determine who is responsible for damage caused by an AI-operated device or service: in an accident involving a self-driving car. Should the damage be covered by the owner, the car manufacturer or the programmer?
If the producer was absolutely free of accountability, there might be no incentive to provide good product or service and it could damage people’s trust in the technology; but regulations could also be too strict and stifle innovation.
Threats of AI to fundamental rights and democracy
The results that AI produces depend on how it is designed and what data it uses. Both design and data can be intentionally or unintentionally biased. For example, some important aspects of an issue might not be programmed into the algorithm or might be programmed to reflect and replicate structural biases. In adcition, the use of numbers to represent complex social reality could make the AI seem factual and precise when it isn’t . This is sometimes referred to as mathwashing.
If not done properly, AI could lead to decisions influenced by data on ethnicity, sex, age when hiring or firing, offering loans, or even in criminal proceedings.
AI could severely affect the right to privacy and data protection. It can be for example used in face recognition equipment or for online tracking and profiling of individuals. In addition, AI enables merging pieces of information a person has given into new data, which can lead to results the person would not expect.
It can also present a threat to democracy; AI has already been blamed for creating online echo chambers based on a person’s previous online behaviour, displaying only content a person would like, instead of creating an environment for pluralistic, equally accessible and inclusive public debate. It can even be used to create extremely realistic fake video, audio and images, known as deepfakes, which can present financial risks, harm reputation, and challenge decision making. All of this could lead to separation and polarisation in the public sphere and manipulate elections.
AI could also play a role in harming freedom of assembly and protest as it could track and profile individuals linked to certain beliefs or actions.
AI impact on jobs
Use of AI in the workplace is expected to result in the elimination of a large number of jobs. Though AI is also expected to create and make better jobs, education and training will have a crucial role in preventing long-term unemployment and ensure a skilled workforce.
14% of jobs in OECD countries are highly automatable and another 32% could face substantial changes (estimate by Parliament’s Think Tank 2020).
Competition
Amassing information could also lead to distortion of competition as companies with more information could gain an advantage and effectively eliminate competitors.
Safety and security risks
AI applications that are in physical contact with humans or integrated into the human body could pose safety risks as they may be poorly designed, misused or hacked. Poorly regulated use of AI in weapons could lead to loss of human control over dangerous weapons.
Transparency challenges
Imbalances of access to information could be exploited. For example, based on a person’s online behaviour or other data and without their knowledge, an online vendor can use AI to predict someone is willing to pay, or a political campaign can adapt their message. Another transparency issue is that sometimes it can be unclear to people whether they are interacting with AI or a person.
