Suchergebnisse

Acknowledge: The University of Malta would like to acknowledge its gratitude to the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Budget for their permission to upload this work on OAR@UoM. Further reuse of this document can be made, provided the source is acknowledged. This work was made available with the help of the Publications Office of the European Union, Copyright and Legal Issues Section. ; The EU budget is an important tool that puts EU policies into practice. It finances actions that Member States cannot fund on their own or which they can fund more economically by pooling their resources. The EU budget is adopted through a democratic procedure: it is prepared by the European Commission (the EU's executive body) and is then discussed and agreed by the Council of the EU (representing EU Member States, including Malta) and by the European Parliament (where the democratically elected Maltese representatives sit). Once adopted, the budget is then managed either jointly by the EU Member States and the Commission, or directly by the Commission. In practice, 80 % of the EU budget is managed by national or regional governments. Through grants, loans and other forms of financing, the EU budget provides financial support to hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries such as students, scientists, NGOs, SMEs, towns and regions ; N/A

1. Introduction -- 2. The impact of climate change on security -- 3. The EU's security identity -- 4. The EU's climate security response -- 5. EU climate and energy policies : foundation or diversion? -- 6. Climate and European defence strategies -- 7. Climate and EU conflict prevention policies -- 8. The geo-economics of climate security -- 9. Conclusions.

The paper deals with the analysis of the regional development using RIV model which uses a regional sphere. The regional development is analysed as a sum of boundless number of sphere sectors. We must carry out a translating process that should make the passage from a two to a three-dimension space. Each specific influence is allotted certain, clearly cut sphere sector as shown by the pattern. We consider standard life as the element aimed at by the study at issue. Using specific factors, RIV model can obtain a diachronic time-progress diagram. More, a series of relevant comparisons can be made between regions, between regions and the country mean or between regions and the E.U. average. RIV model allows completing forecasts using scenarios method which is able, for example, to provide the regional decisions makers with a wide range of possible involvements. ; peer-reviewed

The aim of the paper is to analyze the productivity of production factors of Polish and selected EU farms from 2004 to 2017, taking into account the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments, based on the literature. In the postaccession period, there was a marked increase in the efficiency of production factors on Polish farms. The average land, labor, and capital productivity indices from 2004 to 2017 were EUR 442.89/ha, EUR 4,774.35/AWU, and EUR 0.25/ EUR 1, respectively. In 2014, land productivity increased to EUR 1,591.3/ha and labor productivity to EUR 11,800/AWU, amounting to 68.8% and 28.6% of the EU-28 average, respectively, while capital productivity was higher (EUR 1.41/EUR 1) compared to the EU-28 average (EUR 1.29/EUR 1). The share of CAP payments in the income of the Polish farms in 2014 increased to 49.5%; however, this was still below the EU-28 average (61.1%). Regardless of the fact that the total factor productivity (TFP) remains lower in comparison to other EU countries, the increased efficiency of Polish farms in the post-accession period should be considered as significant. ; Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie na podstawie literatury przedmiotu kształtowania się produktywności czynników produkcji w krajowych gospodarstwach rolnych oraz wybranych gospodarstwach unijnych w latach 2004-2017, z uwzględnieniem płatności ze wspólnej polityki rolnej. Wykazano, że w okresie poakcesyjnym nastąpiło wyraźne zwiększenie efektywności wykorzystania czynników produkcji w gospodarstwach polskich. Średnia wartość wskaźnika wydajności ziemi, pracy i kapitału krajowych gospodarstwach rolnych w latach 2004-2017 wynosiła odpowiednio: 442,89 EUR/ha, 4 774,35 EUR/AWU i 0,25 EUR/1 EUR. W 2014 roku wydajność ziemi osiągnęła wartość 1 591,3 EUR/ha, wydajność pracy 11 800 EUR/AWU, stanowiąc odpowiednio 68,8 i 28,6% średniego poziomu w UE-28, natomiast wydajność kapitału (1,41 EUR/1EUR) była wyższa od średniej wartości (1,29 EUR/1 EUR) 28 krajów unijnych. W 2014 roku udział płatności wspólnej polityki rolnej (WPR) w dochodzie krajowych gospodarstw rolnych wzrósł do 49,5% nie osiągając jednak średniej wartości (61,1%) analogicznego wskaźnika notowanego w UE-28. Niezależnie od ciągle niższego w porównaniu z krajami UE wskaźnika całkowitej produktywności wszystkich czynników produkcji (TFP) wzrost efektywności krajowych gospodarstw rolnych w okresie poakcesyjnym należy uznać za istotny.

Agricultural Markets and Policies in Turkey and the European Union - Development and Status of Agricultural Trade Relations between Turkey and the EU - Future Agricultural Trade Relations between Turkey and the EU - Qualification and Structure of the Turkish Agricultural Sector Model for Policy Analysis - Behavioral Parameters - Data Set for Model Calibration - Projection Scenarios - Results of Policy Simulations.

Intro -- Acknowledgment -- Introduction -- Contents -- 1 Food Insecurity in Europe: From the Availability of Food to the Substantive Freedoms in Accessing it -- 1.1 The Measure of Food Insecurity, from Protein Meals to the Quality of Nutrition: A Focus on Italy, Spain and Greece -- 1.2 From an Emergency Approach to a Substantive Freedoms Approach to Food Security -- 1.3 The Precipitating Factors of a State of Food Insecurity: Availability, Access and Social use of Food -- 2 Collective Initiatives and Their InnovativeResponses to Food Insecurity Challenges -- 2.1 Urban Food Diplomacy: The Local Dimension of Food Security from a Global Impact Perspective -- 2.2 Collective Initiatives in Italy, Spain and Greece -- 2.2.1 Information Box: Collective Initiatives for Food Security in Italy, Spain and Greece -- 3 Collective Actions of Solidarity and Their Impact in Terms of Capabilities -- 3.1 Capabilities and the Social Dimension of Freedoms -- 3.2 The Social Perspective of Capabilities: A Critical Review -- 3.3 The Creative Power of Collective Agency -- 3.4 Collective Actions of Solidarity in Terms of Social Co-responsibility: Individual Agency and Capability for Voice -- 4 The Empirical Research -- 4.1 Case Studies and Methods -- 4.1.1 Emporium of Solidarity, Solidarity Card and Solidarity Kitchen: The Perspective of the Coordinators -- 4.1.2 Operationalising the Capability Approach: Life Trajectories of the Beneficiaries -- 4.1.3 Capabilities-Oriented Initiatives or "Compensation for Shortcomings" Initiatives -- 5 Emporium of Solidarity, Solidarity Card and Solidarity Kitchen: The Impact of Social Solidarity in Terms of Capability for Voice -- 5.1 Rome: The Emporium of Solidarity -- 5.2 Barcelona: The Solidarity Card -- 5.3 Athens: Kipoda's Solidarity Kitchen.

INTRODUCTION Under the European Union (EU) Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU) (TPD), manufacturers and importers of tobacco products are required to report information to the European Commission (EC) and Member States (MS) on products intended to be placed on the market. We describe the distribution of notifications to the EU Common Entry Gate (EU-CEG) and identify key fields for improvement on reporting cigarettes or roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco. METHODS A cross-sectional analysis of secondary data reported in the EU-CEG was conducted for tobacco products notified within EU-CEG between June 2016 and October 2019 for 12 EU MS. Analysis of compliance to specific regulations for priority additives that refer to cigarettes and RYO was conducted for 10 EU countries. RESULTS Overall, 39170 tobacco products were notified. This included 16762 (42.8%) notifications of cigars, followed by cigarettes 11242 (28.7 %), waterpipes 3291 (8.4%), cigarillos (n=1783), pipe (n=1715), RYO (n=1635), chewing tobacco (n=1021), novel tobacco products (n=839), herbal products for smoking (n=535), other (n=258), nasal (n=74) and oral tobacco (n=15). In cigarettes and RYO tobacco products, the proportion of ingredients notified in all countries that contained an unknown Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number was 3.8% and 2.1%, respectively. The proportion of underreporting flagging of priority additives ranged from 15.9% in Malta to 41.3% in Lithuania, the mean proportion of underreporting of the variable 'priority additive' for the 10 countries together was 24.7%. CONCLUSIONS In the EU-CEG data base, for the period of analysis, a significant number of product notifications took place while large variations in the number of types of tobacco products notified across EU countries was noted. The timely monitoring of these data is needed so that products non-compliant within the EU-CEG system are assessed.

pt. 1. A historical outline : confronting teleological understandings of European integration -- pt. 2. A historical outline : confronting teleological understandings of European integration -- pt. 3. European values and the European Union -- pt. 4. The contours of a historical theory of the EU.