After more than three decades in the pharmaceutical industry, I know one thing: science transforms lives, but policy determines whether innovation thrives or stalls. That reality shapes outcomes for patients — and for Europe’s competitiveness. Today, Europeans stand at a defining moment. The choices we make now will determine whether Europe remains a global leader in life sciences or we watch that leadership slip away. It’s worth reminding ourselves of the true value of Europe’s life sciences industry and the power we have as a united bloc to protect it as a European good. Europe has an illustrious track record in medical discovery, from the first antibiotics to the discovery of DNA and today’s advanced biologics. Still today, our region remains an engine of medical breakthroughs, powered by an extraordinary ecosystem of innovators in the form of start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, academic labs, and university hospitals. This strength benefits patients through access to clinical trials and cutting-edge treatments. It also makes life sciences a strategic pillar of Europe’s economy. The economic stakes Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. The EU is already home to some of the world’s most talented scientists, thriving academic institutions and research clusters, and a social model built on universal access to healthcare. These assets are powerful, yet they only translate into future success if supported by a legislative environment that rewards innovation. > Life sciences is not just another industry for Europe. It’s a growth engine, a > source of resilience and a driver of scientific sovereignty. This is also an industry that supports 2.3 million jobs and contributes over €200 billion to the EU economy each year — more than any other sector. EU pharmaceutical research and development spending grew from €27.8 billion in 2010 to €46.2 billion in 2022, an average annual increase of 4.4 percent. A success story, yes — but one under pressure. While Europe debates, others act Over the past two decades, Europe has lost a quarter of its share of global investment to other regions. This year — for the first time — China overtook both the United States and Europe in the number of new molecules discovered. China has doubled its share of industry sponsored clinical trials, while Europe’s share has halved, leaving 60,000 European patients without the opportunity to participate in trials of the next generation of treatments. Why does this matter? Because every clinical trial site that moves elsewhere means a patient in Europe waits longer for the next treatment — and an ecosystem slowly loses competitiveness. Policy determines whether innovation can take root. The United States and Asia are streamlining regulation, accelerating approvals and attracting capital at unprecedented scale. While Europe debates these matters, others act. A world moving faster And now, global dynamics are shifting in unprecedented ways. The United States’ administration’s renewed push for a Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy — designed to tie domestic prices to the lowest paid in developed markets — combined with the potential removal of long-standing tariff exemptions for medicines exported from Europe, marks a historic turning point. A fundamental reordering of the pharmaceutical landscape is underway. The message is clear: innovation competitiveness is now a geopolitical priority. Europe must treat it as such. A once-in-a-generation reset The timing couldn’t be better. As we speak, Europe is rewriting the pharmaceutical legislation that will define the next 20 years of innovation. This is a rare opportunity, but only if reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, Europe’s ability to compete in life sciences. To lead globally, Europe must make choices and act decisively. A triple A framework — attract, accelerate, access — makes the priorities clear: * Attract global investment by ensuring strong intellectual property protection, predictable regulation and competitive incentives — the foundations of a world-class innovation ecosystem. * Accelerate the path from science to patients. Europe’s regulatory system must match the speed of scientific progress, ensuring that breakthroughs reach patients sooner. * Ensure equitable and timely access for all European patients. No innovation should remain inaccessible because of administrative delays or fragmented decision-making across 27 systems. These priorities reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens competitiveness, improves health outcomes and drives sustainable growth. > Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class > science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most > sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. Despite flat or declining public investment in new medicines across most member states over the past 20 years, the research-based pharmaceutical industry has stepped up, doubling its contributions to public pharmaceutical expenditure from 12 percent to 24 percent between 2018 and 2023. In effect, we have financed our own innovation. No other sector has done this at such scale. But this model is not sustainable. Pharmaceutical innovation must be treated not as a cost to contain, but as a strategic investment in Europe’s future. The choice before us Europe has everything required to shape the future of medicine: world-class science, exceptional talent, a 500-million-strong market and one of the most sophisticated pharmaceutical manufacturing bases in the world. What we need now is an ambition equal to those assets. If we choose innovation, we secure Europe’s jobs, research and competitiveness — and ensure European patients benefit first from the next generation of medical breakthroughs. A wrong call will be felt for decades. The next chapter for Europe is being written now. Let us choose the path that keeps Europe leading, competing and innovating: for our economies, our societies and, above all, our patients. Choose Europe. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The ultimate controlling entity is European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) * The political advertisement is linked to the Critical Medicines Act. More information here.

LONDON — In the corridors of Whitehall, armies of officials are working out how best to spend billions of pounds earmarked for defense equipment. However, they have yet to inform the people it concerns the most: Britain’s arms industry. Many in the sector now fear that they’ve wasted their own money developing cutting-edge gear, as the government drags its feet on awarding contracts. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has made a lot of noise on defense since entering government last year, plundering the aid budget to get defense spending to reach 2.6 percent of GDP by 2027 and a promise of 3.5 percent by 2035.  Alongside the funding boost, Starmer asked George Robertson, a Labour Party politician who is a former NATO secretary-general, to lead a major inquiry into how the U.K. would meet geopolitical threats, known as the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). The SDR was well received across the defense industry and viewed as a statement of intent from the government to devote effort and resources to building up the sector, with an emphasis on resilience and innovation.  Those good intentions were supposed to be followed by a series of complementary announcements — including a defense industrial strategy, the appointment of a new national armaments director, and a defense investment plan.  The industrial strategy and armaments director both arrived late, while the defense investment plan is still missing in action. It is now expected after this week’s fall budget.  Six months since the SDR, many in the industry complain that they haven’t received the certainty they need about where the British government — in many cases, their sole buyer —plans to invest.  Business owners say this is limiting their ability to make long-term plans and risks skilled workers departing for other jobs.  One representative of a mid-sized arms manufacturer — granted anonymity like others in this piece in order not to damage commercial prospects — said the problem was that the “big, bold” prescription of the SDR has given way to “repeated deferral, which always happens with delivery plans of this complexity.” INNOVATING IN THE DARK The war in Ukraine has radically reshaped other countries’ understanding of what’s needed on the battlefield, and the SDR set out a clear expectation that innovation would be rewarded. At September’s DSEI — an industry jamboree held in London — it was plain to see that private companies had stepped up to deliver prototypes for novel weaponry and other equipment, from modular robots that can deliver materiel to a battlefield and can also serve as stretchers, to AI that can read and predict threats on the ground in real time.  Defence Minister Luke Pollard said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” | John Keeble/Getty Images Much of that research and development was done by companies drawing on their own budgets or taking out loans as they wait for news of any specific government contracts.  For small suppliers in particular, the lag could prove existential.  One small manufacturer based in England said: “We are ready to go; we have built factories that could start making equipment tomorrow. But we can’t until an order is placed.” Armored vehicle maker Supacat has said that while its business is stable, suppliers will suffer without a predictable path ahead. “This is about the wider industry and our partners in the supply chain that have been contributing,” Toby Cox, the company’s head of sales, told POLITICO. “Our assumption is we don’t get more [orders], some of these companies will have a downturn in their orders.” KEEPING PRODUCTION LINES WARM Andrew Kinniburgh, defense director general of manufacturers association Make UK, echoed those concerns. While the industry “warmly welcomed” the Defence Ministry’s commitment to boost SME spending, he said, “the MOD must give companies certainty of long-term demand signals and purchase orders, allowing businesses to make the private investments needed in people, capital, and infrastructure.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, which has recently opened a plant in Britain, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” Even some bigger companies that deal with the government on components for aircraft and submarines have privately complained about putting money into research and development without knowing what the end result will be.  An engineer working at one of Britain’s largest defense firms said: “We have multi-use items that could be for both military and civilian purposes, but cannot invest until we know what government strategy is. If it’s bad for us, it must be so hard for SMEs.” Mike Armstrong, U.K. managing director of German defense firm Stark, added: “Giving the industry a clear view of future requirements is the fastest way to ensure the U.K. and its allies stay ahead.” | Andrew Matthews/Getty Images The issue is not only one of investment, but also of skills. Supacat’s Cox said that keeping production lines warm matters because the workforce behind complex fabrications is fragile. “The U.K. has a skill shortage, particularly around engineering fabrication. If we’ve got an employee in that sector, we absolutely don’t want to lose them in another sector,” he said.  NOT LONG TO GO The Ministry of Defence said it appreciates the need for clarity. Defence Minister Luke Pollard, speaking to POLITICO at DSEI, said:  “We need to move to war-fighting readiness, and the SDR gave industry a very clear direction of how an increasing defense budget will be spent on new technologies and looking after our people better.” He argued there was “a neat synergy” between the “duty of government to keep the country safe and the first mission of this Labour government to grow the economy.” An MOD spokesperson said the defense investment plan would “offer clear, long-term capability requirements that enable industry to plan and unlocking private investment.” They pointed out that £250 million had already been allocated for “defense growth deals” alongside a £182 million skills package, and that the MOD had placed £31.7 billion in orders with U.K. industry in the last financial year. A government official rejected claims that ministers were moving too slowly, pointing to Defence Secretary John Healey’s recent announcement on new munitions factories as exactly the kind of demand signal that industry is looking for.  The director of a large U.K. defense producer said the signs from the government were “encouraging,” specifying that Chancellor Rachel Reeves, having agreed to more money for defense, “wants to see a return on investment.” While most of the country will be braced for Reeves’s big moment on Wednesday when she announces the national budget, one sector will have to hold its breath a little longer. Luke McGee contributed to this report.

With multiple legislative processes underway, we are now in an important moment for Europe’s ambition to boost access and be a global leader in innovation. An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual property and access policies — can attract research and development and advanced manufacturing to Europe. This will contribute to the earlier availability of new cures for European patients and a healthier innovative ecosystem. Unfortunately, today we see that Europe is falling behind global competition. Over the last decade, there has been a 10 percent decrease in clinical trials in the European Union, which has led to 60,000 fewer European patients participating in trials.[1] Europe’s fragmented system for clinical trial approvals is a leading cause of this decline, impacting early access to innovative treatments. As scientific breakthroughs can deliver better health outcomes for patients, governments need to keep pace with this speed of innovation. > Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical > innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report > also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind > it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that > could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic > autonomy. Europe’s marketing authorisation process now exceeds 14 months (444 days), causing patients to wait nearly three months longer than in the US (356 days) and over five months longer than in Japan (290 days) for access to innovative medicines.[2] Such delays, combined with complex and lengthy country-level market access systems, mean patients in Europe are waiting an average of 20 months longer than people living in the United States to benefit from scientific innovation.[3] Last year’s Draghi report on EU competitiveness importantly identified pharmaceutical innovation as a strategic sector for growth in Europe. That said, the report also noted that what is missing is a simple and strong execution plan behind it, with simplified regulation and coherent and predictable policies that could drive the European goals of increased competitiveness and strategic autonomy. Ongoing discussions on the revision of the General Pharmaceutical Legislation and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), the Critical Medicines Act and the upcoming Biotech Act (Part 1) mark crucial opportunities for Europe to become a global leader for innovation. However, to make this vision a reality, the EU must address structural challenges that undermine innovation and patient access to novel, lifesaving medicines. > To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU > should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial > applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics > committees consistent with other global leaders. The successful implementation of structural, future-proof policy changes can ensure timely access to innovative medicines for EU citizens, and this can be achieved through five key policy recommendations: Facilitate and accelerate clinical trial applications To reverse the worrying decline in European clinical trial activity, the EU should implement a maximum two-month approval process for clinical trial applications (CTAs), encompassing the reviews of both regulators and ethics committees consistent with other global leaders. It is equally important to increase collaboration among EU member states to remove unique and specific national CTA requirements and questions, and to also introduce opportunities for an informal dialogue with regulators to expediently address smaller challenges that can be quickly fixed. Legislative overlaps and fragmentation between the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) and the IVDR should also be addressed to avoid delays in clinical trials that utilize companion diagnostics. Expand expedited pathways Despite their potential, the EU’s expedited pathways (such as the European Medicines Agency’s PRIME scheme for unmet medical needs, Conditional Marketing Authorisation and Accelerated Assessment) are underutilised, limiting rapid patient access to important medicines. Similar expedited pathways are widely used by other regulators around the world, like the United States and Japan. Expanding the use of expedited pathways in the EU to new indications and aligning eligibility criteria with global standards would ensure that the EU has more competitive regulatory pathways and earlier patient access to life-saving medicines. Shorten scientific advice and approval timelines Shortening the EU’s scientific advice procedure is critical to optimise the development of innovative products, ensure timely and efficient resource management for both applicants and regulators, and maintain the EU’s influence in global scientific and clinical research. By evolving to a more integrated and agile dialogue, the EU can provide comprehensive, consistent guidance throughout the product lifecycle and remain competitive with other regions. Given their growing number, scientific advice should be available for medicines used with all types of medical devices and in vitro diagnostics (including combinations diagnostics) to address the complexities of working across these regulatory frameworks. > An agile, modernized regulatory system — coupled with supportive intellectual > property and access policies — can attract research and development and > advanced manufacturing to Europe. Regarding the current lengthy approval times, the proposed reduction of EMA’s standard assessment timelines from 210 to 180 days — as suggested in the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation — would allow regulators to accelerate their scientific assessments. Furthermore, the European Commission can streamline its decision phase (currently requiring up to 67 days) by conducting its activities in parallel with the scientific assessment. Strengthen the EU Medicines Regulatory Network and embrace regulatory sandboxes Achieving greater speed and agility within a regulatory system requires an appropriately resourced, sustainable regulatory infrastructure. We support transparent regulatory budgets across the network, backed by consistent investments in expertise, funding and infrastructure to support continuous capacity and capability advancements. Collaborative regulatory pathways (such as the EMA OPEN framework) could be further expanded to encourage simultaneous approvals and supply chain resilience across geographies. Additionally, regulatory sandboxes would be beneficial to pilot and adapt frameworks for disruptive future innovations, while ensuring appropriate guardrails to enable the safe development and implementation of these innovations. Enhance patient engagement Effective regulatory decision-making requires both inclusivity and adaptability. Limited patient and expert input can hinder effective regulatory decision-making, while rapid pharmaceutical innovation requires adaptable frameworks. Expert and patient perspectives are crucial for informed benefit-risk and clinical meaningfulness determinations. Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Eli Lilly & Company * The advertisement is linked to General Pharmaceutical Legislation (GPL), In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR), Critical Medicines Act (CMA), Biotech Act (Part 1), Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), EU Medicines Regulatory Network More information here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] IQVIA, Assessing the clinical trial ecosystem in Europe, Final Report, October 2024: efpia_ve_iqvia_assessing-the-clinical-trial-ct-ecosystem.pdf. [2] Lara J, Kermad A, Bujar M, McAuslane N. 2025. R&D Briefing 101: New drug approvals in six major authorities 2015-2024: Trends in an evolving regulatory landscape. Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. London, UK: https://cirsci.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/08/CIRS-RD-Briefing-101-v1.1.pdf. [3] The Patients W.A.I.T. Indicator 2024 Survey. https://www.efpia.eu/media/oeganukm/efpia-patients-wait-indicator-2024-final-110425.pdf

LONDON — Britain’s Department of Health is pressing ahead with plans to open up a trove of pandemic-era patient data to outside researchers — despite concerns from doctors’ representatives. A formal direction titled “GP Data for Consented Research,” yet to be signed by Health Secretary Wes Streeting but shared in draft format with doctors’ reps, would enable NHS England to disseminate patient data originally collected solely for the purpose of Covid-19-related research to other studies. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) confirmed to POLITICO that the direction has been drafted and is awaiting Streeting’s signature. A group of doctors has warned the government that the move could erode patient trust. While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. NHS England has been in discussions with the Joint GP IT Committee, which comprises representatives from the British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), about the data, a person close to the talks told POLITICO. DHSC confirmed it had been in dialogue with the doctors’ groups, and a spokesperson said it had delayed signing the direction in order to engage with doctors’ concerns. The JGPITC argued it hasn’t been properly consulted on the change in line with established governance processes, and that repurposing the dataset without asking patients’ permission risks damaging already-fragile public confidence in the profession, the same person said.  While the direction says government will obtain patient consent to share the data more broadly, doctors groups are worried this won’t happen in practice, and that patients won’t be aware their data is being funneled to other studies. | Pool photo by Hannah McKay/EPA It comes after the same group of doctors filed a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in June alleging that NHS England had breached data protection law by training a general-purpose AI model on the same dataset without consent. The disagreement is also set against the wider backdrop of a long-running dispute between government and the BMA over doctors’ pay and working conditions. DHSC maintains that proper processes have been followed. “As the Secretary of State made clear last year during his speech to the Royal College of GPs in October 2024, we are committed to implementing this direction in line with patients’ explicit consent for their data to be used in research,” a DHSC spokesperson said. ‘CONSULTED EXTENSIVELY’ In his speech last month, Streeting said he would direct NHS England to take responsibility for sharing patient data with projects including UK Biobank, Genomics England and Our Future Health. “I know there are issues we need to work through together around information governance, risk and liabilities,” he said. “There’s also, let’s be honest, some producer interest in play.” NHS England asked the JGPITC to confirm whether it was happy with the direction on broadening access to the dataset by Nov. 4. The JGPITC couldn’t reach a consensus to give its blessing to the change, the same person close to the talks and cited above said. The doctors’ group has pushed for NHS England to notify consenting participants about where their data is going via text or the NHS App, they added. DHSC is not obligated to comply with any of the JGPITC’s requests. “We have consulted extensively with GP representatives over the past 18 months to ensure patients’ wishes are respected and their data used appropriately, while minimizing the burden on busy GPs,” DHSC’s spokesperson said.

Andrea Dugo is an economist at the European Centre for International Political Economy. In the late 1400s, Italy was the jewel of Europe. Venice ruled the seas; Florence dominated art and finance; and Milan led in trade and technology. No corner of the Western world was more advanced. Yet, within decades, both its political independence and economic primacy were gone. Europe today risks a similar fate. Once the envy of the world, the bloc’s lead has eroded. The EU isn’t just politically divided, it’s also falling behind in industries that will define the rest of this century. Young talent is fleeing for the U.S. and Asia, while its economy increasingly resembles an open-air museum of past achievements. Whether in growth, technology, industry or living standards, Europe is in jeopardy of becoming a province in a world defined by others. And it stands to learn from Italy’s decline. The warning signs are unmistakable: Since 2008, the EU’s GDP expanded by just 18 percent, while the U.S. grew twice as fast and China grew nearly three times bigger. Tourism across the continent is still booming, of course, but the millions chasing their Instagram-able escapes aren’t enough to offset stagnation, and also bring costs. The bloc’s fall in living standards echoes Renaissance Italy as well. Around 1450, Italy’s income per person was 50 percent higher than Holland’s. A century later, the Dutch were 15 percent richer, and by 1650, they were nearly twice as rich. Modern Europe is slipping even faster than that. In 1995, Germany’s GDP per capita was 10 percent higher than America’s, whereas today, the U.S. is 60 percent higher. At this pace, Germany’s prosperity levels could shrink to a third of its transatlantic partner’s within a generation. Much like in Renaissance Italy, this economic malaise reflects a deep technology gap. Once the queen of the seas, Venice clung to old technology and paid the price. Its galleys, superb in calm Mediterranean waters, were no match for the ocean-going caravels that carried Spain and Portugal across the world. Modern Europe is now doing the same: On artificial intelligence, the EU invests barely 4 percent of what the U.S. does. Today, OpenAI is valued at $500 billion, while Europe’s biggest AI startup Mistral is worth just $15 billion. And though it pioneered the science in quantum, Europe trails behind in commercialization — a single U.S. startup, IonQ, raised more capital than all the bloc’s quantum firms combined. Even when it comes to batteries, Sweden’s much-touted Northvolt collapsed in March, only to be snapped up by a Silicon Valley startup. Traditional industries are faltering too. Taken together, Germany’s top three carmakers are worth just an eighth of Tesla. Ericsson and Nokia, once world leaders in mobile network technology, lag behind Asian rivals in 5G. And France’s Arianespace, once dominant in satellite launches, now hitches rides on tech billionaire Elon Musk’s rockets. The problem isn’t invention, though — it’s scale. Despite its top engineers and universities, nearly 30 percent of the bloc’s unicorns have transferred to the U.S. since 2008, taking its most entrepreneurial spirits with them. It seems the continent sparks ideas, while America fuels them and profits — yet another pattern that mirrors Italy, which supplied talent as others built empires. Its greatest explorers like Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci and Verrazzano had also trained at home, only to sail under foreign flags. The prescriptions are known. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi detailed them in his report on the EU’s future. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images The fundamental issue in both cases is political. Like Italy’s warring city-states in the 1500s, today’s Europe is divided and feeble. Capitals quarrel over energy, debt, migration and industrial policy; a common defense strategy remains only an aspiration; and ambitious plans for joint technology spending or deeper capital markets get drowned in debate. This disunity is what doomed Italy as it fell prey to foreign powers that eventually carved up the peninsula. And the bloc’s current divisions leave it similarly vulnerable to global competitors, as Washington dictates defense; Russia menaces the continent’s east; China dominates supply chains; and Silicon Valley rules the digital economy. But is this all fated? Not necessarily. The EU has built institutions Renaissance Italy could never have dreamed of: a single market, a currency, a parliament. It still hosts world-class research institutions and excels in advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, green energy and design. The continent can still lead — but only if it acts. Sixteenth-century Italy had no such chance. Geography trapped it in the Mediterranean while trade routes shifted to the Atlantic, and commerce stagnated. New naval technologies left its fleets behind, and its brightest minds sought their fortunes abroad. But Europe faces no such limit. Nothing is stopping it other than its own political timidity and fractiousness. The bloc needs to accept costs now in order to avoid the greatest of costs later: irrelevance. It needs to invest heavily in frontier technologies like AI, quantum, space and biotech, while also building real defense and creating deep capital markets so that start-ups can scale up at home. The prescriptions are known. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi detailed them in his report on the EU’s future. What’s missing is political will. Once Europe’s beating heart, Italy eventually became a land of visitors rather than innovators. And history’s lesson is clear: Its culture endured, but its power withered. The EU still has time to avoid that destiny. Europeans can either wake up or resign themselves to becoming a continent of monuments and echoing memories.

Ban Ki-moon is the eighth secretary-general of the U.N. and the co-chair of the Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens. Ana Toni is the CEO of COP30. As world leaders gather in Belém, Brazil for this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), we are standing at a global tipping point. 2024 broke temperature records, as the world temporarily surpassed the 1.5 degrees Celsius target for the first time. And now, we’re on track to cross it permanently within just five years. This means adaptation action has never been more vital for our survival. From the year 2000 to 2019, climate change already cost the world’s most vulnerable countries an estimated $525 billion. This burden only continues to rise, putting lives at risk and undoing hard-won development gains, with global annual damages likely to land somewhere between $19 trillion and $59 trillion in 2050. Even more sobering, the world economy is already locked into a 19 percent loss of income by 2050 due to climate change, no matter how successful today’s mitigation efforts are. This makes one thing clear: The consequence of inaction is far greater than the consequence of action. The world must stop seeing adaptation as a cost to bear but as an investment that strengthens economies and builds healthier, more secure communities. Every dollar invested in adaptation can generate more than 10 times that in benefits through avoided losses, as well as induced economic, social and environmental benefits. Every dollar invested in agricultural research and development generates similar returns for smallholder farmers, vulnerable communities and ecosystems too. This remains true even if climate-related disasters don’t occur. Effective adaptation does more than save lives — it makes the economic case for resilience. And if we really want to tackle the crises of today’s world, we need to put people — especially those most vulnerable — at the center of all our conversations and efforts. Those least responsible for climate change are the ones our financing must reach. Here, locally led adaptation provides a path forward, focusing on giving communities agency over their futures, addressing structural inequalities and enhancing local capacities. Today, more than 2 billion people depend on smallholder farms for their livelihoods, but as little as 1.7 percent of climate finance reaches Indigenous communities and locally operated farms. Small-scale agri-food systems, which are essential to many in developing countries, receive a mere 0.8 percent of international climate finance. This is deeply unjust. These are the people and systems most threatened by climate impacts — and they’re often the best-placed ones to deliver locally effective and regionally adaptive solutions. To that end, appropriate investments in global networks like the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) could accelerate and scale technologies that can be adopted by these local systems. These tools could then be used to improve resilience and increase productivity in low- and middle-income countries, while also reducing inequalities and advancing gender equity and social inclusion. The world economy is already locked into a 19 percent loss of income by 2050 due to climate change. | Albert Llop/Getty Images Scaling such efforts will be crucial in moving toward systemic climate solutions. Our ambition is to move from negotiation to implementation to protect lives, safeguard assets and advance equity. But it’s important to remember that adaptation is distinct — it is inherently local; shaped by geography, communities and governance systems. Meeting this challenge will require more than just pledges. It will necessitate high-quality public and private adaptation finance that is accessible to vulnerable countries and communities. That’s why governments around the world — especially those in high-income countries — must design institutional arrangements and policies that raise additional public funds, incentivize markets and embed resilience into every investment decision. The decade since the Paris Agreement laid the foundations for a world at peace with the planet. And with COP30 now taking place in the heart of the Amazon, we must make adaptation a global priority and see resilience as the investment agenda of the 21st century. At its core, climate finance should be driving development pathways that put people first. In Belém, leaders must now close the adaptation finance gap and ensure funding reaches those on the front lines. They need to back investable national resilience strategies, replicate successful initiatives and put resilience at the center of financial decision-making. COP30 needs to be transformative and lead to markets that reward resilience, communities that are better protected and economies built on firmer, more climate-resilient foundations. Let this be the moment we finally move from awareness to alignment, and from ambition to action. Our collective survival depends on it. Question is, will our leaders have the political will to seize it?

Today, as the world reaches a critical juncture in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the EU must choose: match scientific breakthroughs with political will and investment or retreat, putting two decades of hard-won progress at risk. Having saved over 70 million lives, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (the Global Fund) has proven what smart, sustained investment can achieve.  But the impact of its work — the lives protected, the life expectancy prolonged, the systems strengthened, the innovations deployed — is now under threat due to declining international funding.  > The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the > Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. The real question is no longer whether the EU can afford to invest in the Global Fund, but whether it can afford to let these hard-won gains unravel. Declining international funding, climate change, conflict and drug resistance are reversing decades of progress. HIV prevention is hampered by rising criminalization and attacks on key populations, with 1.3 million new infections in 2024 — far above targets. TB remains the deadliest infectious disease, worsened by spreading multidrug resistance, even in Europe. Malaria faces growing resistance to insecticides and drugs, as well as the impacts of extreme weather. Without urgent action and sustained investment, these threats could result in a dangerous resurgence of all three diseases. The stakes could not be higher  The Global Fund’s latest results reveal extraordinary progress. In 2024 alone: * 25.6 million people received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy, yet 630,000 still died of AIDS-related causes; * 7.4 million people were treated for TB, with innovations like AI-powered diagnostics reaching frontline workers in Ukraine; and * malaria deaths, primarily among African children under five, have been halved over two decades, with 2.2 billion mosquito nets distributed and ten countries eliminating malaria since 2020. Yet one child still dies every minute from this treatable disease.  What makes this moment unprecedented is not just the scale of the challenge, but the scale of the opportunity. Thanks to extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, we now have the tools to turn the tide:  * lenacapavir, a long-acting antiretroviral, offers new hope for the possibility of HIV-free generations; * dual active ingredient mosquito nets combine physical protection with intelligent vector control, transforming malaria prevention; and  * AI-driven TB screening and diagnostics are revolutionizing early detection and treatment, even in the most fragile settings. Some of these breakthroughs reflect Europe’s continued research and development and the private sector’s leadership in global health. BASF’s dual-active-ingredient mosquito nets, recently distributed by the millions in Nigeria, are redefining malaria prevention by combining physical protection with intelligent vector control. Delft Imaging’s ultra-portable digital X-ray devices are enabling TB screening in remote and fragile settings, while Siemens Healthineers is helping deploy cutting-edge AI software to support TB triage and diagnosis.  But they must be deployed widely and equitably to reach those who need them most. That is precisely what the Global Fund enables: equitable access to cutting-edge solutions, delivered through community-led systems that reach those most often left behind. A defining moment for EU Leadership The EU has a unique chance to turn this crisis into an opportunity. The upcoming G20 summit and the Global Fund’s replenishment are pivotal moments.  President Ursula von der Leyen and Commissioner Síkela can send a clear, unequivocal signal: Europe will not stop at “almost”. It will lead until the world is free of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.  The Global Fund is a unique partnership that combines financial resources with technical expertise, community engagement and inclusive governance. It reaches those often left behind — those criminalized, marginalized or excluded from health systems.  > Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has > ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments > deliver impact, even in crisis. Its model of country ownership and transparency aligns with Africa’s agenda for health sovereignty and with the EU’s commitment to equity and human rights. Even in Ukraine, amid the devastation of war, the Global Fund partnership has ensured continuity of HIV and TB services — proof that smart investments deliver impact, even in crisis. The cost of inaction Some may point to constraints in the Multiannual Financial Framework. But history shows that the EU has consistently stepped up, even in difficult fiscal times. The instruments exist. What’s needed now is leadership to use them. Failure to act would unravel decades of progress. Resurgent epidemics would claim lives, destabilize economies and undermine global health security. The cost of inaction far exceeds the price of investment. For the EU, the risks are strategic as well as moral. Stepping back now would erode the EU’s credibility as champion of human rights and global responsibility. It would send the wrong message, at precisely the wrong time.  Ukraine demonstrates what is at stake: with Global Fund support, millions continue to receive HIV and TB services despite war. Cutting funding now would risk lives not only in Africa and Asia, but also in Europe’s own neighborhood. A call to action Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for us, is a resounding no. We therefore urge the European Commission to announce a bold, multi-year financial commitment to the Global Fund at the G20.  This pledge would reaffirm the EU’s values and inspire other Team Europe partners to follow suit. It would also support ongoing reforms to further enhance the Global Fund’s efficiency, transparency and inclusivity. > Ultimately, this isn’t a question of affordability, but one of foresight. Can > the EU afford for the Global Fund not to be fully financed? The answer, for > us, is a resounding no. This is more than a funding decision. It is a moment to define the kind of world we choose to build: one where preventable diseases no longer claim lives, where health equity is a reality and where solidarity triumphs over short-termism. Now is the time to reaffirm Europe’s leadership. To prove that when it comes to global health, we will never stop until the fight is won.

President Donald Trump has struck a multi-pronged deal with pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to lower the price of some of the company’s medicines, while clearing a path for the drugmaker to receive a three-year reprieve from certain tariffs. The drugmaker will participate in a new direct purchasing platform named TrumpRx.gov  that will let American patients buy a “large majority” of its primary care treatments and “some select specialty brands” at a discount. Those drugs will be offered at “savings that will range as high as 85% and on average 50%,” Pfizer said in a press release Tuesday. The deal comes after Trump demanded that 17 of the largest drugmakers voluntarily offer their medicines at levels similar to what they charge other nations. Pfizer said that it has agreed to voluntarily “implement measures designed to ensure Americans receive comparable drug prices to those available in other developed countries and pricing newly launched medicines at parity with other key developed markets.” “Pfizer is committing to offer all of their prescription medications to Medicaid, and it will be at the most-favored nations prices,” said Trump, who added during an Oval Office press conference that other drugmakers will also make commitments in the coming weeks. “It’s going to have a huge impact on bringing Medicaid costs down.” Chris Klomp, Medicare director at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the most-favored nation price will be based on a basket of other wealthy countries. “Pfizer will be putting virtually all of its portfolio of drugs at MFN prices available to Medicaid in the near future,” Klomp said. The deal marks a success for Trump, who has been pressuring industries to comply with his requests voluntarily. It is unclear how the deal will impact prices in the commercial insurance market. “While Democrats are threatening to shut down the federal government to subsidize health care for illegal aliens, President Trump is leveraging the power of the federal government to drastically cut drug prices for everyday Americans,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Democrats talked the talk for decades about drug prices, but only President Trump is actually walking the walk.” Pfizer said it would spend an additional $70 billion over the “next few years” on research and development, as well as capital projects, which would likely make it eligible for a three-year reprieve from tariffs stemming from the Trump administration’s section 232 investigation. That investigation on pharmaceuticals could result in tariffs being applied based on the effects of imports on national security. Trump announced last week that the government would place a 100 percent tariff on “any branded or patented” drug made by companies that are not building manufacturing facilities in the U.S. starting on Oct. 1. “We now have the certainty and stability we need on two critical fronts, tariffs and pricing, that have suppressed the industry’s valuations to historic lows,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. Brand drug lobby Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America announced Monday that its members would be investing $500 billion in new U.S.-based infrastructure investments.

The European Commission has opened a door marked danger. In July it issued a guidance letter blessing the creation of what is known as an Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group (Auto LNG). In doing so, it gave the green light to rival carmakers to form a cartel-like entity to negotiate licenses for patents that underpin standardized technologies (standards essential patents, or SEPs).   > SEPs are vital in many industries because they enable devices and services to interoperate seamlessly across different manufacturers, platforms and geographies. They cover technologies such as Wi-Fi, 5G and video coding, and are integral to the Internet of Things.   > SEPs are vital in many industries because they enable devices and services to > interoperate seamlessly across different manufacturers, platforms and > geographies. For decades, EU competition law treated the collective bargaining among competitors that LNGs of any kind represent as off-limits. The timing of the change was not incidental.   In September the Commission also released draft revisions of its Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Technology Transfer Guidelines (TTG). Together, these texts shape how Europe manages its innovation economy, including its SEP licensing market.  A success story at stake  On the positive side, the drafts reaffirm the importance of transparent patent pools. Such pools bring together complementary SEPs owned by multiple parties and make them available through a single license. Pools cut transaction costs, create efficiencies and provide clarity to technology implementers.    SEP owners who contribute technology to a standard promise to license their patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Pools put that commitment into practice by offering a single license that the market can accept or reject.   The draft TTG strengthens requirements for transparency and governance in pools by emphasizing the importance of essentiality checks, published terms, open participation and safeguards against collusion. These measures codify practices many pools already follow. In doing so, the Commission is rightly cementing transparent pools’ role as trusted intermediaries in SEP licensing.  LNGs and FRAND cannot co-exist  Properly structured pools only succeed if implementers view their terms as balanced; they cannot ‘enforce’ acceptance into existence. When the market pushes back, pools adjust. That responsiveness makes them both pro-competitive and self-correcting.   LNGs invert that logic. As coalitions of buyers, their explicit objective is to aggregate purchasing power to secure discounts from the prevailing FRAND rate — all while their members continue to use the technology. However, the non-discrimination limb of FRAND makes across the board ‘group discounts’ very hard to square with commitments owed to all implementers, including those that have already taken licenses, directly or through a pool. This distorts competition by enabling buyers to exert undue pressure on licensors.  The draft TTG seeks to allay concerns by requiring LNG participation to be open and internally non-discriminatory, yet it does not grapple with the external effect on the SEP holder’s non-discrimination duty. That omission risks forcing a de facto “LNG rate” onto the whole market.   Asymmetry and holdout risk  The asymmetry here is striking. If price talks fail for tangible inputs, suppliers can simply stop shipments. Not so with SEPs: once standardized, the technology is embedded and keeps being used unless long, costly litigation is pursued. This reality gives coordinated buyers leverage to delay or avoid paying – a textbook recipe for holdout and cartel-like behavior.  Some argue that if licensors can license jointly through pools, licensees should be able to do so in LNGs. This is false logic. Pools aggregate non-competing assets to make complementary patents accessible. LNGs aggregate competing buyers to dictate price, a monopsony dynamic that competition law has long treated with suspicion. Pools, by contrast, have no such power. They live or die by market acceptance. Their incentive is to align with existing demand.  Process shortcuts, shaky justifications  Equally troubling is how the Commission chose to act. The July letter was issued under an ‘informal guidance’ procedure, an opaque tool usually used to clarify cutting-edge cases. SEP holders and smaller innovators were not consulted, despite being directly affected.  The substantive justification is no better. Both the Commission and Germany’s Bundeskartellamt, which had previously authorized the ALNG in June 2024, leaned on a market-share threshold, finding automakers represent less than 15 percent of the ‘general mobile communications’ market.   However, connected cars represent a completely separate vertical, with distinct technical features like vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and the market threshold should apply to it specifically. Furthermore, in licensing markets, a coordinated 15 percent holdout can freeze dealmaking across the board. That risk is ignored.  > Connected cars represent a completely separate vertical, with distinct > technical features. Meanwhile, the invocation of decarbonization as a reason to tolerate cartel-like structures conflates policy domains. Climate objectives, however worthy, cannot excuse weakening competition law guardrails.  Keep the back door closed  Pools already deliver the benefits LNGs claim — lower transaction costs, broader access, transparent terms, market efficiencies — without cartel risks. Most importantly, the FRAND framework, tested in courts and practice, continues to support rapid technology rollouts across the EU and is fully compatible with pools. It is utterly incompatible with LNGs. To adhere to FRAND principles that are the cornerstone of SEP licensing worldwide, LNGs cannot exist.  > Pools already deliver the benefits LNGs claim — lower transaction costs, > broader access, transparent terms, market efficiencies — without cartel risks. If the Commission wants to modernize SEP policy, it should do so openly and only when market failures are identified. This involves consultation to establish clear criteria and evidence of consumer benefit. By contrast, its current approach threatens to disrupt efficient markets, squeeze royalties that fund research and development, and slow Europe’s pace of innovation.  In reinforcing transparent pools, the Commission got one big thing right with its draft TTG. It should not squander that by blessing LNGs.  Roberto Dini has more than 40 years’ experience in patent licensing and is recognized as one of the global market’s most respected experts.    For a detailed analysis of the legal, economic and procedural defects in the Auto LNG approach — and a fuller comparison between pools and LNGs — see: Auto Licensing Negotiation Groups are a Bad, Anticompetitive Idea.   

Policymakers are overlooking a $370 billion market that will determine whether climate goals succeed or fail.  In the grand narrative of the clean energy transition, materials like lithium, rare earths and silicon dominate headlines. Yet the most strategically important materials for this transition may be hiding in plain sight, dismissed by policymakers as environmental villains rather than recognized as the enablers of human progress they truly are. The $370 billion blind spot Polyolefins — the family of materials that includes polyethylene and polypropylene — represent perhaps the greatest strategic oversight in contemporary clean industry policy Here is a reality check. Polyolefins represent a global market approaching $370 billion, growing at over 5 percent annually.1,2 They make up nearly half of all plastics consumed in Europe.3 By 2034, global production is expected to hit 371 million tons.4  Yet in the European Union’s Clean Industrial Deal — a €100 billion strategy for industrial competitiveness — polyolefins receive barely a mention.4 This represents a profound strategic miscalculation. While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already critical materials— they simply happen to be abundant rather than scarce. In the infrastructure-intensive clean energy transition ahead, abundance is not a weakness; it is the ultimate strategic advantage. > While policymakers focus on securing access to exotic critical materials like > lithium and cobalt, they overlook the fact that polyolefins are already > critical materials. The EU’s REPowerEU plan calls for 1,236 GW of renewable capacity by 2030 — more than double today’s levels.4 Every offshore wind farm, solar array and electric grid connection depends on polyolefins. They insulate cables, protect components and form structural parts of turbines and solar panels. Every solar panel relies on polyolefin elastomers to protect its inner workings for up to 30 years, even in harsh weather.8 And every grid connection depends on polyethylene-insulated cables to carry electricity efficiently across long distances. 7 Multiply these requirements across thousands of installations, and the strategic importance of polyolefins becomes undeniable. Yet, currently, the policy framework treats these materials as afterthoughts, focusing instead on the relatively small quantities of rare elements in generators and inverters while ignoring the massive volumes of polyolefins that make the entire system possible. Beyond energy: the hidden dependencies The strategic importance of polyolefins extends far beyond energy infrastructure. As one example, modern medical systems depend fundamentally on polyolefin materials for syringes, IV bags, tubing and protective equipment. Global food security increasingly depends on polyolefin-based packaging systems that extend shelf life, reduce waste and enable distribution networks — feeding billions of people. Meanwhile, water infrastructure relies on polyethylene pipes engineered for 100-year lifespans. These applications are rarely considered alongside energy priorities — a dangerous fragmentation of strategic thinking. The waste challenge and a circular solution Let’s be clear, plastic waste is a real environmental challenge demanding urgent action. However, the solution is not abandoning these essential materials, it is building the infrastructure to capture their full value in circular systems. The fundamental error in current approaches is treating waste as a material problem rather than a systems problem. Europe currently captures only 23 percent of polyolefin waste for recycling, despite these materials representing nearly two-thirds of all post-consumer plastic waste.3 That’s not because the material can’t be recycled. The infrastructure to do so isn’t at the scale needed to collect, sort and recycle waste to meet future circular feedstock needs. Polyolefins are among the most recyclable materials we have. They can be mechanically recycled multiple times. And with chemical recycling, they can even be broken down to their molecular building blocks and rebuilt into virgin-quality material. That’s not just circularity, it’s circularity at scale. This matters because the EU’s target of 24 percent material circularity by 20305 is unlikely to be met without polyolefins. However, current frameworks treat them as obstacles rather than enablers of circularity. The economic transformation The transition represents an economic transformation, creating competitive advantages for regions implementing it effectively. A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs.6 > A region processing 100,000 tons of polyolefin waste annually could capture > €100-130 million in additional economic value while creating up to 1,000 jobs. At the end of the day, the clean energy transition must be affordable. Polyolefins help make that possible. They’re cheaper, lighter and longer lasting than many alternatives. Manufacturers with access to cost-effective recycled feedstocks can reduce input costs by 20-40 percent compared with virgin materials. Polyethylene pipes cost 60-70 percent less than steel alternatives while lasting twice as long.9 These aren’t marginal gains. They’re system-level efficiencies that make the difference between success and failure at scale. The strategic choice The real challenge isn’t technical, it’s institutional. Polyolefins sit at the crossroads of materials, environmental and industrial policy, yet these areas are treated as separate domains. There’s also a geopolitical angle. Unlike lithium or rare earths, polyolefins can be produced from diverse feedstocks — natural gas, biomass and even captured CO2 — enabling domestic production and supply chain resilience. This flexibility is a major asset, but current policies largely overlook it. > The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather > than environmental problems. The path forward requires recognizing polyolefins as strategic assets rather than environmental problems. This means including them in critical materials assessments — not because they are scarce, but because they are essential. It means coordinating research and development efforts rather than leaving them to fragmented market forces. Most importantly, it means recognizing that the clean energy transition will succeed or fail based on our ability to build infrastructure at unprecedented scale and speed. And that infrastructure will be built primarily from materials that combine performance, abundance, sustainability and cost-effectiveness in ways only polyolefins can provide. The choice facing policymakers is clear: continue treating polyolefins as problems to be managed or recognize them as strategic assets enabling the clean energy future. The regions that understand this integration first will shape the global economy for decades to come. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Grand View Research. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share, Growth | Industry Report, 2030. Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/polyolefin-market 2. Fortune Business Insights. (2024). Polyolefin Market Size, Share & Growth | Global Report [2032]. Retrieved from https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/polyolefin-market-102373 3. Plastics Europe. (2025). Polyolefins. Retrieved from https://plasticseurope.org/plastics-explained/a-large-family/polyolefins-2/ 4. European Commission. (2025). Clean Industrial Deal. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/clean-industrial-deal_en 5. European Commission. (2022). Circular economy action plan. Retrieved from https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en 6. Watkins, E., & Schweitzer, J.P. (2018). Moving towards a circular economy for plastics in the EU by 2030. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Think-2030-A-circular-economy-for-plastics-by-2030-1. 7. Institute of Sustainable Studies (2025). EU Circular Economy Act aims to double circularity rate by 2030 EU Circular Economy Act – Institute of Sustainability Studies 8. López-Escalante, M.C., et al. (2016). Polyolefin as PID-resistant encapsulant material in PV modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 144, 691-699. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927024815005206 9. PE100+ Association. (2014). Polyolefin Sewer Pipes – 100 Year Lifetime Expectancy. Retrieved from https://www.pe100plus.com/PPCA/Polyolefin-Sewer-Pipes-100-Year-Lifetime-Expectancy-p1430.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------------