Thirty-six million Europeans — including more than one million in the Nordics[1] — live with a rare disease.[2] For patients and their families, this is not just a medical challenge; it is a human rights issue. Diagnostic delays mean years of worsening health and needless suffering. Where treatments exist, access is far from guaranteed. Meanwhile, breakthroughs in genomics, AI and targeted therapies are transforming what is possible in health care. But without streamlined systems, innovations risk piling up at the gates of regulators, leaving patients waiting. Even the Nordics, which have some of the strongest health systems in the world, struggle to provide fair and consistent access for rare-disease patients. Expectations should be higher. THE BURDEN OF DELAY The toll of rare diseases is profound. People living with them report health-related quality-of-life scores 32 percent lower than those without. Economically, the annual cost per patient in Europe — including caregivers — is around €121,900.[3] > Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and > patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. In Sweden, the figure is slightly lower at €118,000, but this is still six times higher than for patients without a rare disease. Most of this burden (65 percent) is direct medical costs, although non-medical expenses and lost productivity also weigh heavily. Caregivers, for instance, lose almost 10 times more work hours than peers supporting patients without a rare disease.[4] This burden can be reduced. European patients with access to an approved medicine face average annual costs of €107,000.[5] Yet delays remain the norm. Across Europe, the average time for diagnosis is six to eight years, and patients continue to face long waits and uneven access to medications. With health innovation accelerating, each new therapy risks compounding inequity unless access pathways are modernized. PROGRESS AND REMAINING BARRIERS Patients today have a better chance than ever of receiving a diagnosis — and in some cases, life-changing therapies. The Nordics in particular are leaders in integrated research and clinical models, building world-class diagnostics and centers of excellence. > Without reform, patients risk being left behind. But advances are not reaching everyone who needs them. Systemic barriers persist: * Disparities across Europe: Less than 10 percent of rare-disease patients have access to an approved treatment.[6] According to the Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator (2025), there are stark differences in access to new orphan medicines (or drugs that target rare diseases).[7] Of the 66 orphan medicines approved between 2020 and 2023, the average number available across Europe was 28. Among the Nordics, only Denmark exceeded this with 34. * Fragmented decision-making: Lengthy health technology assessments, regional variation and shifting political priorities often delay or restrict access. Across Europe, patients wait a median of 531 days from marketing authorization to actual availability. For many orphan drugs, the wait is even longer. In some countries, such as Norway and Poland, reimbursement decisions take more than two years, leaving patients without treatment while the burden of disease grows.[8] * Funding gaps: Despite more therapies on the market and greater technology to develop them, orphan medicines account for just 6.6 percent of pharmaceutical budgets and 1.2 percent of health budgets in Europe. Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway and Finland — spend a smaller share than peers such as France or Belgium. This reflects policy choices, not financial capacity.[9] If Europe struggles with access today, it risks being overwhelmed tomorrow. Rare-disease patients — already facing some of the longest delays — cannot afford for systems to fall farther behind. EASING THE BOTTLENECKS Policymakers, clinicians and patient advocates across the Nordics agree: the science is moving faster than the systems built to deliver it. Without reform, patients risk being left behind just as innovation is finally catching up to their needs. So what’s required? * Governance and reforms: Across the Nordics, rare-disease policy remains fragmented and time-limited. National strategies often expire before implementation, and responsibilities are divided among ministries, agencies and regional authorities. Experts stress that governments must move beyond pilot projects to create permanent frameworks — with ring-fenced funding, transparent accountability and clear leadership within ministries of health — to ensure sustained progress. * Patient organizations: Patient groups remain a driving force behind awareness, diagnosis and access, yet most operate on short-term or volunteer-based funding. Advocates argue that stable, structural support — including inclusion in formal policy processes and predictable financing — is critical to ensure patient perspectives shape decision-making on access, research and care pathways. * Health care pathways: Ann Nordgren, chair of the Rare Disease Fund and professor at Karolinska Institutet, notes that although Sweden has built a strong foundation — including Centers for Rare Diseases, Advanced Therapy (ATMP) and Precision Medicine Centers, and membership in all European Reference Networks — front-line capacity remains underfunded. “Government and hospital managements are not providing  resources to enable health care professionals to work hands-on with diagnostics, care and education,” she explains. “This is a big problem.” She adds that comprehensive rare-disease centers, where paid patient representatives collaborate directly with clinicians and researchers, would help bridge the gap between care and lived experience. * Research and diagnostics: Nordgren also points to the need for better long-term investment in genomic medicine and data infrastructure. Sweden is a leader in diagnostics through Genomic Medicine Sweden and SciLifeLab, but funding for advanced genomic testing, especially for adults, remains limited. “Many rare diseases still lack sufficient funding for basic and translational research,” she says, leading to delays in identifying genetic causes and developing targeted therapies. She argues for a national health care data platform integrating electronic records, omics (biological) data and patient-reported outcomes — built with semantic standards such as openEHR and SNOMED CT — to enable secure sharing, AI-driven discovery and patient access to their own data DELIVERING BREAKTHROUGHS Breakthroughs are coming. The question is whether Europe will be ready to deliver them equitably and at speed, or whether patients will continue to wait while therapies sit on the shelf. There is reason for optimism. The Nordic region has the talent, infrastructure and tradition of fairness to set the European benchmark on rare-disease care. But leadership requires urgency, and collaboration across the EU will be essential to ensure solutions are shared and implemented across borders. The need for action is clear: * Establish long-term governance and funding for rare-disease infrastructure. * Provide stable, structural support for patient organizations. * Create clearer, better-coordinated care pathways. * Invest more in research, diagnostics and equitable access to innovative treatments. Early access is not only fair — it is cost-saving. Patients treated earlier incur lower indirect and non-medical costs over time.[10] Inaction, by contrast, compounds the burden for patients, families and health systems alike. Science will forge ahead. The task now is to sustain momentum and reform systems so that no rare-disease patient in the Nordics, or anywhere in Europe, is left waiting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [2] https://nordicrarediseasesummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25.02-Nordic-Roadmap-for-Rare-Diseases.pdf [3] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [4] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [5] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf [6] https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/partner/article/a-competitive-and-innovationled-europe-starts-with-rare-diseases? [7] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [8] https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/library/publications/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024.pdf [9] https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Copenhagen-Economics_Spending-on-OMPs-across-Europe.pdf [10] https://media.crai.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/28114611/CRA-Alexion-Quantifying-the-Burden-of-RD-in-Europe-Full-report-October2024.pdf Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Alexion Pharmaceuticals * The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor: AstraZeneca plc * The political advertisement is linked to policy advocacy around rare disease governance, funding, and equitable access to diagnosis and treatment across Europe More information here.

LONDON — The U.K. government is “dragging its heels” on whether to classify China as a major threat to Britain’s national security, the parliament’s intelligence watchdog warned on Monday. Lawmakers on the Intelligence and Security Committee — which has access to classified briefings as part of its work overseeing Britain’s intelligence services — said they are “concerned” by apparent inaction over whether to designate Beijing as a top-level threat when it comes to influencing Britain. Ministers have been under pressure to put China on the “enhanced tier” of Britain’s Foreign Influence Registration Scheme — a tool to protect the economy and society from covert hostile activity. Both Iran and Russia have been placed on the top tier, which adds a new layer of restrictions and accountability to their activities in Britain. The government has so far resisted calls to add China to that list, even though Beijing has been accused of conducting state-threat activities in the U.K. such as industrial espionage, cyber-attacks and spying on politicians.  In its annual report the Committee said British intelligence agency MI5 had previously told them that measures like the registration scheme would “have proportionately more effect against … Chinese activity.” The Committee said “hostile activity by Russian, Iranian and Chinese state-linked actors is multi-faceted and complex,” adding that the threat of “state-sponsored assassination, attacks and abductions” of perceived dissidents has “remained at a higher level than we have seen in previous years.”  It added that while there are “a number of difficult trade-offs involved” when dealing with Beijing, it has “previously found that the Government has been reluctant to prioritise security considerations when it comes to China.” “The Government should swiftly come to a decision on whether to add China to the Enhanced Tier of the [Foreign Influence Registration Scheme],” the Committee said, demanding that it be provided a “full account” to “ensure that security concerns have not been overlooked in favour of economic considerations.” The pressure comes as U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to visit China in January — the first British leader to visit the country since Theresa May in 2018.  A government spokesperson said: “National security is the first duty of this government. We value the [Intelligence and Security Committee]’s independent oversight and the thoroughness of their scrutiny. “This report underscores the vital, complex work our agencies undertake daily to protect the UK. “This Government is taking a consistent, long term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests. We will cooperate where we can and challenge where we must.”

LONDON — The British government is working to give its trade chief new powers to move faster in imposing higher tariffs on imports, as it faces pressure from Brussels and Washington to combat Chinese industrial overcapacity. Under new rules drawn up by British officials, Trade Secretary Peter Kyle will have the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) to launch investigations and give ministers options to set higher duty levels to protect domestic businesses. The trade watchdog will be required to set out the results of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations within a year, better monitor trade distortions and streamline processes for businesses to prompt trade probes. The U.K. is in negotiations with the U.S. and the EU to forge a steel alliance to counter Chinese overcapacity as the bloc works to introduce its own updated safeguards regime. The EU is the U.K.’s largest market and Brussels is creating a new steel protection regime that is set to slash Britain’s tariff-free export quotas and place 50 percent duties on any in excess. The government said its directive to the TRA will align the U.K. with similar powers in the EU and Australia, and follow World Trade Organization rules. It is set out in a Strategic Steer to the watchdog and will be introduced as part of the finance bill due to be wrapped up in the spring. “We are strengthening the U.K.’s system for tackling unfair trade to give our producers and manufacturers — especially SMEs who have less capacity and capability — the backing they need to grow and compete,” Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement. “By streamlining processes and aligning our framework with international peers, we are ensuring U.K. industry has the tools to protect jobs, attract investment and thrive in a changing global economy,” Kyle added. These moves come after the government said on Wednesday that its Steel Strategy, which plots the future of the industry in Britain and new trade protections for the sector, will be delayed until next year. The Trump administration has been concerned about the U.K.’s steps to counter China’s steel overcapacity and refused to lower further a 25 percent tariff carve-out for Britain’s steel and aluminum exports from the White House’s 50 percent global duties on the metals. Trade Secretary Kyle discussed lowering the Trump administration’s tariffs on U.K. steel with senior U.S. Cabinet members in Washington on Wednesday.  “We are very much on the case of trying to sort out precisely where we land with the EU safeguard,” Trade Minister Chris Bryant told parliament Thursday, after meeting with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Wednesday for negotiations. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we have a strong and prosperous steel sector across the whole of the U.K.,” Bryant said. The TRA has also launched a new public-facing Import Trends Monitor tool to help firms detect surges in imports that could harm their business and provide evidence that could prompt an investigation by the watchdog. “We welcome the government’s strategic steer, which marks a significant milestone in our shared goal to make the U.K.’s trade remedies regime more agile, accessible and assertive, as well as providing greater accountability,” said the TRA’s Co-Chief Executives Jessica Blakely and Carmen Suarez. Sophie Inge and Jon Stone contributed reporting.

BRUSSELS ― Ursula von der Leyen is facing the starkest challenge to the EU’s accountability in a generation ― with a fraud probe ensnaring two of the biggest names in Brussels and threatening to explode into a full-scale crisis. Exactly a year into her second term as Commission president, von der Leyen, already plagued by questions over her commitment to transparency and amid simmering tension with the bloc’s foreign policy wing, must now find a way to avoid being embroiled in a scandal that dates back to her first years in office. An announcement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office that the EU’s former foreign affairs chief and a senior diplomat currently working in von der Leyen’s Commission had been detained on Tuesday was seized on by her critics, with renewed calls that she face a fourth vote of no confidence. “The credibility of our institutions is at stake,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left in the European Parliament. If proven, the allegations would set in motion the biggest scandal to engulf Brussels since the mass resignation of the Jacques Santer Commission in 1999 over allegations of financial mismanagement. Police detained former Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini, a center-left Italian politician who headed the EU’s foreign policy wing, the European External Action Service, from 2014-2019, and Stefano Sannino, an Italian civil servant who was the EEAS secretary-general from 2021 until he was replaced earlier this year. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office said it had “strong suspicions” that a 2021-2022 tendering process to set up a diplomatic academy attached to the College of Europe, where Mogherini is rector, hadn’t been fair and that the facts, if proven, “could constitute procurement fraud, corruption, conflict of interest and violation of professional secrecy.” The saga looks set to inflame already strained relations between von der Leyen and the current boss of the EEAS, EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, four EU officials told POLITICO. Earlier this year Sannino left his secretary-general job and took up a prominent role in von der Leyen’s Commission. An EU official defended von der Leyen, instead blaming the EEAS, an autonomous service under the EU treaties that operates under the bloc’s high representative, Kallas — who is one of the 27 European commissioners. “I know the people who don’t like von der Leyen will use this against her, but they use everything against her,” the official said. Police detained former Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini, a center-left Italian politician who headed the EU’s foreign policy wing, the European External Action Service, from 2014-2019. | Christoph Gollnow/Getty Images “Because President von der Leyen is the most identifiable leader in Brussels, we lay everything at her door,” the official added. “And it’s not fair that she would face a motion of censure for something the External Action Service may have done. She’s not accountable for all of the institutions.” Mogherini, Sannino and a third person have not been charged and their detention does not imply guilt. An investigative judge has 48 hours from the start of their questioning to decide on further action. When contacted about Sannino, the Commission declined to comment. When contacted about Mogherini, the College of Europe declined to answer specific questions. In a statement it said it remained “committed to the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and compliance — both in academic and administrative matters.” ‘CRIME SERIES’ The investigation comes as Euroskeptic, populist and far-right parties ride a wave of voter dissatisfaction and at a time when the EU is pressuring countries both within and outside the bloc over their own corruption scandals. “Funny how Brussels lectures everyone on ‘rule of law’ while its own institutions look more like a crime series than a functioning union,” Zoltan Kovacs, spokesperson for the government of Hungary, which has faced EU criticism, said on X. Romanian MEP Gheorghe Piperea, a member of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, who was behind a failed no-confidence vote in von der Leyen in July, told POLITICO he was considering trying to trigger a fresh motion. Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova told state media that EU officials “prefer to ignore their own problems, while constantly lecturing everyone else.” The EU has struggled to shake off a series of corruption scandals since this decade began. Tuesday’s raids come on the back of the 2022 “Qatargate” scandal, when the Gulf state was accused of seeking to influence MEPs through bribes and gifts, as well as this year’s bribery probe into Chinese tech giant Huawei’s lobbying activities in Europe.  Those investigations implicated members of the European Parliament, and at the time Commission officials were quick to point the finger at lawmakers and distance themselves from the scandals. But the Commission hasn’t been immune to allegations of impropriety. In 2012, then-Health Commissioner John Dalli resigned over a tobacco lobbying scandal. Von der Leyen herself was on the receiving end of a slap-down by the EU’s General Court, which ruled earlier this year that she shouldn’t have withheld from the public text messages that she exchanged with the CEO of drug giant Pfizer during the Covid-19 pandemic. Tuesday’s revelations are far more dangerous for the Commission, given the high profile of the suspects and the gravity of the allegations they face. ‘DISASTROUS IMPACT’ After serving as a European Commission vice president and head of the EEAS, Mogherini was appointed rector of the College of Europe in 2020, amid criticism she wasn’t qualified for the post, didn’t meet the criteria, and had entered the race months after the deadline. In 2022 she became the director of the European Union Diplomatic Academy, the project at the heart of Tuesday’s dawn raids. Sannino, a former Italian diplomat, was the EEAS’s top civil servant and is now the director-general for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf department in the Commission. Stefano Sannino, a former Italian diplomat, was the EEAS’s top civil servant and is now the director-general for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf department in the Commission. | Pool Photo by Johanna Geron via Getty Images Cristiano Sebastiani, the staff representative of one of the EU’s major trade unions, Renouveau & Démocratie, said that if proven, the allegations would have “a disastrous impact on the credibility of the institutions concerned, and more broadly on citizens’ perception of all European institutions.” He said he had received “tens of messages” from EU staff concerned about reputational damage. “This is not good for EU institutions and for the Commission services. It is not good for Europe, it steers attention away from other things,” said a Commission official granted anonymity to speak freely. “It conveys this idea of elitism, of an informal network doing favors. Also, Mogherini was one of the most successful [EU high representatives], it’s not good in terms of public diplomacy.”

The European Commission did not follow the proper lawmaking procedure when it drafted a plan to cut red tape, the European Ombudsman office said in a damaging assessment released Thursday. The administrative watchdog — which has no enforcement powers — found “a number of procedural shortcomings” which “amount to maladministration” in how the Commission prepared several proposals to review EU rules on supply chain transparency, agricultural funding, and migration. It comes as the EU executive attempts to quickly pass a long list of legislative amendments to simplify rules for business and boost the bloc’s global competitiveness. The findings conclude three separate investigations launched by the Ombudsman, following complaints from civil society that the Commission was bypassing its own “Better Regulation” rules, which outline what steps the EU needs to take when drafting legislative proposals. “The Commission must be able to respond urgently to different situations, particularly in the current geopolitical context,” European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho said in a statement. “However, it needs to ensure that accountability and transparency continue to be part of its legislative processes and that its actions are clearly explained to citizens.” The Commission did not provide enough evidence to “justify the ‘urgency’ of the legislative proposals towards the public,” the Ombudsman conclusions state. It recommends that the EU executive be more transparent, evidenced-based and inclusive in its future lawmaking. The Ombudsman Office monitors whether the institutions are upholding transparency norms investigates complaints of poor administration by EU institutions.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

LONDON — Voters across the Western world are alarmed about threats to democracy, worrying that extremist parties, fake news and corruption will undermine elections.  A major poll by Ipsos of almost 10,000 voters in nine countries — seven in the European Union, plus the U.K. and the U.S. — found about half of voters are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working.  With the exception of Sweden, where people think democratic politics is working well, a clear majority worry about the risks to their systems of self-government over the next five years, according to the survey shared exclusively with POLITICO.  “There’s widespread concern about the way democracy is working, with people feeling unrepresented particularly by their national governments,” Gideon Skinner, senior director of U.K. politics at Ipsos, told POLITICO. “[There are] particular concerns around the impact of fake news, disinformation, lack of accountability for politicians, and extremism. In most countries there is a desire for radical change.”  The survey comes amid growing concern that democracy across the West is under threat. Wealth inequality around the world is driving support for extremist parties, undermining debate and preparing the ground for authoritarianism, according to a recent report for the G20. This week, the European Commission unveiled its plans to strengthen democracy across the EU’s 27 countries. But critics said its proposal to tackle foreign interference in European elections was too weak, with participation voluntary across the bloc. Authorities have identified Russian disinformation and meddling in elections in many European countries over the past year, from Romania to Germany.  For the new poll, Ipsos questioned more than 9,800 voters in the U.K., France, the U.S., Spain, Italy, Sweden, Croatia, the Netherlands and Poland between Sept. 12 and Sept. 29. The pollsters found an average of 45 percent of respondents across all nine countries examined were dissatisfied with the way democracy was working, Skinner said.  Voters who identified as belonging to the political extremes — both on the far left and far right — were most likely to say democracy was failing.  In France and the Netherlands, satisfaction levels have fallen over the past year in response to political turmoil. The French government has repeatedly collapsed amid an ongoing crisis over the national budget, while the Dutch coalition fell apart earlier this year, triggering an election that was held in October. In none of the nine countries surveyed did a majority of voters believe their national government was representing their views well. Voters in Croatia and the U.K. were the least likely to agree that their governments were representing them effectively, with just 23 percent saying so in both cases.  In every country surveyed apart from Poland — which saw a high turnout in presidential elections this year — more voters said the way democracy was working had worsened over the past five years than said it had improved. In the U.S. 61 percent of voters thought the state of democracy had worsened since 2020.  Voters in France (86 percent) and Spain (80 percent) were the most worried about what the next five years would mean for their democratic systems. Respondents identified the biggest risks to democracy as disinformation, corruption, a lack of accountability for politicians and the rise of extremist politics.    Generally, most people questioned still strongly supported democratic ideals, though in Croatia more than half (51 percent) said keeping democracy was only worth it if it delivered a good quality of life.  Ipsos found that respondents backed action to protect democracy, especially laws and enforcement to combat corruption, protecting the independence of the courts, better civic education in schools, and regulations against fake news and hate speech on social media.

LONDON — Two thirds of women in the British armed forces have experienced forms of “sexualized behavior” in the last year, according to a new in-depth study carried out by the Ministry of Defence. The most common type of harassment faced by female service personnel was being subjected to sexual jokes or comments (58 percent). Yet there was a high incidence of other kinds of misconduct, with a significant minority saying they had faced unwelcome comments about their body (41 percent), sexual gestures or body language (29 percent), unwanted attempts to establish a romantic or sexual relationship (25 percent), or exposure to pornographic material (19 percent). Almost a third (32 percent) of women surveyed said they had experienced unwanted touching and eight percent reported non-consensual sexual activity. Male service personnel also faced sexual harassment, with 34 percent saying they had encountered sexualized behavior, most of which was verbal. Junior personnel were disproportionately targeted, with 71 percent of women below officer ranks having experienced sexualized behavior compared with 58 percent of female officers. Women of both rank groupings were more likely to have experienced sexualized behavior than equivalent male ranks. The survey of more than 94,000 service personnel was carried out following previous reviews by Air Chief Marshal Michael Wigston and the House of Commons Defence Committee, both of which called for a more thorough inquiry into the scale of the issue. Defense Minister Louise Sandher-Jones MP called the results “wholly unacceptable.” The survey “provides a no-holds barred baseline to fully confront and address the root causes of this issue,” she added, while “new standards in transparency and accountability are being set across our armed forces.” Chief of the Defence Staff Richard Knighton said: “The results of the survey show just how much more I, and leaders at every level, need to do to stamp out behaviour which has no place in the U.K. armed forces.” He highlighted new independent mechanisms for reporting the most serious incidents outside of the chain of command and a complaints app, both launched recently. The armed forces have long struggled to grapple with reports of inappropriate behavior and assault, which came to the fore again this year at the inquest into the death of teenage Royal Artillery gunner Jaysley Beck. The inquest found that she had been overwhelmed by unwanted sexual advances and messages from a superior officer before she took her own life in 2021.

The spirit of mutirão — communities joining forces to get something done — runs deep in Brazil’s culture. Here at COP30 it is inescapable. The phrase is on the lips of negotiators from nearly 200 countries and it has become the defining ethos of this conference: global climate cooperation built on shared effort and mutual accountability.  National governments and cities, campaigners and businesses must now come together in that same spirit to move from the age of negotiation to the decade of delivery. Here in Belém it is impossible to forget why this matters. Every country has its story of floods, heatwaves, wildfires or supercharged storms that strike hardest in the places least able to cope. At both the Brazilian Ministry of Cities and C40 Cities we see every day that adapting to current challenges and turning the tide on the climate crisis are not separate challenges but part of one mission: to protect the people and places we love now and for generations to come. We are becoming a planet of urbanites, even here in the Amazon rainforest there are nearly 22 million people living in cities like Belém, so it’s crucial to combine preservation with sustainable and inclusive development for those communities. Across Brazil and around the world, cities are already facing up to this challenge. They are greening streets, serving sustainable and nutritious lunches to school children, keeping the most vulnerable safe from heat and floods, designing urban areas that meet the needs of people — not cars — and creating good green jobs for all.  > Every country has its story of floods, heatwaves, wildfires or supercharged > storms that strike hardest in the places least able to cope. Last week we both joined mayors, governors and regional leaders representing more than 14,000 cities, towns, states and provinces at the Bloomberg COP30 Local Leaders Forum in Rio de Janeiro. It was the largest and most diverse gathering of subnational climate leaders in history, and it sent an unmistakable message to national governments: local leadership is already delivering and it is ready to go further.  Via C40/Caroline Teo – GLA Following this historic moment and boosted by the COP30 presidency’s willingness to put urban climate action to the fore, cities came to COP30 with three clear offers: 1. Partner with us to implement national climate plans and turn strategies into results that improve lives. 2. Invest in the local project pipeline. More than 2,500 projects seek support and thousands more can follow if the political will is forthcoming. 3. Make COP a place of action and accountability where progress is measured not in pledges but in cleaner air, reduced health risks and green jobs created.  If countries accept these offers the COP process itself can evolve from negotiation to delivery, from promises to proof that the Paris Agreement goals can be not just agreed but also delivered.  This is not just a theory. It is already happening here. Under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s leadership Brazil has embedded ‘climate federalism’ into national policy, linking the federal government, states and municipalities in coordinated delivery for the good of all Brazilians and the planet.   Research shows that, in countries that are part of the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships for Climate Action (CHAMP), collaboration between national and subnational governments could close 37 percent of the global emissions gap needed to stay on a Paris-aligned pathway. Launched at COP28, CHAMP already includes 77 nations and continues to grow. Brazil is showing what this looks like in practice and is inspiring more countries to take action.  Via 10 Billion Solutions, Mariana Castaño Cano On the city side of the equation the evidence is unequivocal. Per-capita emissions in C40 Cities are falling five times faster than the global average and more than 70 percent of C40 cities have already peaked emissions and are now delivering significant emissions reductions. Many C40 cities are also committing to a Yearly Offer of Action, demonstrating how to translate global ambition into measurable progress by announcing every year what they will do in the next 12 months to accelerate climate action.  To unlock that progress the financial system must evolve too. The world’s development and climate finance architecture was designed for national ministries not city halls. Yet cities control or influence most of the decisions that shape emissions from transport, waste, buildings and land use. This means they can enhance and accelerate the implementation of National Climate Plans. Much more could be achieved if urban climate finance is increased and local governments have direct access to the capital they need. The Baku to Belém Roadmap is calling for $1.3 trillion of annual climate investment to support developing countries. This could help scale-up finance and make it more reliable and accessible while prioritizing a just and resilient transition. Cities have the projects, partners and are the closest level of government to people’s daily needs — enhanced collaboration, preparation and direct access to finance can help bring their ambitious visions to life.     > To unlock that progress the financial system must evolve too. The world’s > development and climate finance architecture was designed for national > ministries not city halls. We have both witnessed here in Brazil how quickly change accelerates when local and national leaders come together. When buses run on clean power, when families in flood-prone neighborhoods move into resilient homes, when air is cleaner and streets are safer, climate policy stops being abstract. It becomes tangible progress that citizens can see and support.  If COP30 becomes the moment the world embraces climate federalism and genuine national and sub-national collaboration, then Brazil will have set a new global standard for collective climate delivery and a real just transition.  The decade of delivery begins here in Belém. Let us build it together, in mutirão. 

BRUSSELS — One of the EU’s top courts is being asked to examine whether the European Parliament breached its legal obligations by denying lawmakers the chance to investigate the bloc’s handling of vaccine contracts. According to a legal file, seen by POLITICO, the General Court has received a motion prepared by MEPs from right-wing and far-right parties that argues a decision by political group leaders on Sept. 3 to not allow a vote on the establishment of an investigative committee was unlawful. The challenge is bring brought by lawmakers from the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations and Patriots factions, as well as by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group, which in April called on colleagues to support an inquiry into “allegations of corruption, money-laundering, abuse of power, undue interference in legislative processes.” “More than 180 Members demanded an inquiry into how the EU handled billions in vaccine contracts and related dealings,” said ESN chief whip and Alternative for Germany politician Christine Anderson, who is named on the lawsuit. “The Parliament’s leadership has no right to silence that request.” Court documents show the application was lodged on Oct. 31. The Parliament has until Nov. 20 to respond to the lawmakers’ request for an expedited ruling — if the ordinary procedure is followed, the issue could be under consideration for years. The Parliament’s press service said it doesn’t comment on lodged or ongoing judicial cases. Speaking on Monday, Patriots MEP Marieke Ehlers accused the Conference of Presidents — a meeting of political group chairs — of having blocked the establishment of the inquiry by not allowing a parliament-wide vote. “It’s not up to the group leaders to block an initiative that has its origin in giving individual members a particular right,” she said. Parliamentarians have the power to establish Committees of Inquiry on Transparency and Accountability if they can collect enough signatures. The three MEPs behind the lawsuit argue parliamentary leaders violated the rules by killing off the proposal behind closed doors and failing to refer it to a full plenary vote. The Parliament president and centrist groups currently submit any request for an inquiry committee to the conference of presidents before sending it to a plenary vote. That interpretation of the rules is being challenged by the right-wing lawmakers. “The next step is now we are positioning the court to annul the decision and to prompt the President of the Parliament to put it up to a vote in the [plenary],” ESN’s Anderson told POLITICO.  Inquiry committees are convened to look into allegations of wrongdoing by the EU’s institutions, including the powerful European Commission, which has faced bruising condemnation over its refusal to disclose correspondence with vaccine-maker Pfizer in recent months. ECR lawmaker Charlie Weimers said “this is not a political issue for the court to consider, but rather a procedural, legal one where rules quite obviously were not followed … we are rather optimistic that this will go our way.” Daniel Freund, a Green MEP who is typically outspoken against far-right initiatives, said the lawmakers “might have a point that, legally speaking, it should have probably been decided in plenary.” “I’m not advocating that we now let the Patriots pester us with one committee after another,” Freund said. However, he cautioned that committees of inquiry are meant to be a tool by the opposition to scrutinize governance, and said the fact that the Parliament requires a majority of groups to support it in plenary defeats its purpose.