Leitautor:innen: Jörg E. Drewes, Anna-Katharina Hornidge, Aletta Bonn, Kai Maaz, Karen Pittel,Hans-Otto Pörtner, Sabine Schlacke, Claudia Traidl-Hoffmann, Joscha Wullweber
Mitautor:innen: Julia Behrens, Mareike Blum, Kerstin Burghaus, Catharina Caspari, Astrid Dähn, Verena Engelhardt, Tallulah Gundelach, Paula Haufe, Magdalena Knabl, Katharina Michael, Alexander Mitranescu, Katharina Molitor, Jürgen Orasche, Marion Schulte zu Berge, Astrid Schulz, Jan Siegmeier, Nikola Tietze

Recent calls by Friedrich Merz and Emmanuel Macron for a rapid EU enlargement in the Western Balkans have sent an important signal. In view of geopolitical tensions and Russia’s influence in South-Eastern Europe, the European Union (EU) needs credible enlargement prospects. Yet precisely because so much is at stake, accelerating accession primarily for geopolitical reasons would be a mistake. If the EU relaxes its accession criteria today for strategic purposes, it risks the next Orbán tomorrow.

The EU must not lower its standards

EU enlargement is a success story. It has promoted prosperity, fostered democracy and defused conflicts. The EU should keep the door open for the countries of the Western Balkans and work towards their timely accession. However, it must not do so by relaxing its own standards. Democracy, the rule of law and the fight against corruption are the cornerstone of European integration. They are not mere bureaucratic hurdles.

If these requirements are watered down prior to a country’s accession, this can have disastrous consequences. Member states are given a say in key decisions of the EU, including a right of veto on many foreign policy issues, such as sanctions. At the same time, the options available to Brussels for enforcing compliance with democratic standards and implementing measures to promote them are considerably lower once a country has joined the EU. Experience with Hungary shows how difficult it is to mount an effective response to democratic backsliding in member states. Once the greatest incentive for reforms – accession itself – has disappeared, it becomes more difficult to exert leverage.

Autocratisation is often ignored

It is particularly problematic that several countries of the Western Balkans have seen democratic setbacks rather than progress in recent years. Nevertheless, the debate on accession focuses primarily on geopolitical issues. In the case of Serbia, it is dominated by the recognition of Kosovo, relations with Russia and regional stability – or by economic interests. The state of democracy often takes a back seat. This is dangerous because such trajectories can be difficult to reverse.

Serbia has indeed undergone far-reaching democratic backsliding over the past decade. International democracy indices and observers have documented the deterioration of rule of law and democratic standards. Under President Aleksandar Vučić, political power has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the executive. Judicial independence has been undermined, the freedom of media curtailed, state institutions politicised and control mechanisms eroded. Nevertheless, the ruling party, SNS, continues to be an associated member of the European People’s Party (EPP), the group of European conservative parties in the European Parliament.

The integrity of elections has also come under increasing scrutiny. Election observers regularly report imbalanced media coverage, pressure on public officials and favoured treatment of the governing party during the election campaign. Media close to the government dominate the debate, while critical journalists face pressure.

The consequences are clearly visible. Last year saw sustained mass protests against the government, some of which were met with violence. Many demonstrators explicitly regard themselves as pro-European. They are demanding greater democracy, independent institutions and new elections.

Credibility is at stake

The EU needs to be careful for these very reasons. Rapprochement without substantial democratic reforms would send the wrong signal. It would indicate to authoritarian governments that geopolitical considerations are more important than democratic standards.

The effect on the population would be equally disastrous. Many democratically minded citizens in Serbia and other states in the region are watching the EU with an increasing sense of disappointment, as European governments have only too often overlooked or relativised authoritarian tendencies as long as the government in question was seen as a stable partner. Yet stability without democracy remains fragile.

Enlargement needs democratic principles

The EU should work to advance enlargement, provide more support to accession candidates and offer credible accession prospects. At the same time, it must insist that the Copenhagen criteria are met in full. Among other things, the criteria require accession candidates to demonstrate stable, democratic institutions, inclusive, free and fair elections, political competition, separation of powers, the rule of law and an independent judiciary. Complete compliance with the Copenhagen criteria is therefore not merely a formal requirement, but instead the guarantee that new member states fully support the democratic values and rules that are the foundation of the EU.

A successful enlargement policy should not be measured against how quickly new members are admitted but against whether the EU upholds its values, remains democratic and continues to function effectively. Only then can enlargement strengthen the EU. To anchor the Western Balkans firmly within Europe, the focus should not be on speed alone, but equally on ensuring that the democratic foundations for a common future are in place.

Peter Hongler ist Professor für Steuerrecht an der Universität St. Gallen. 
Agustin Redonda ist Senior Fellow beim Council on Economic Policies (CEP). Er ist Mitbegründer und Co-Direktor des Tax Expenditures Lab, das die Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) und den Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) publiziert.

Peter Hongler is a professor of tax law at the University of St. Gallen. 
Agustin Redonda is a Senior Fellow with the Council on Economic Policies (CEP), where he leads CEP’s work on
tax expenditures and tax incentives. He is also the co-founder and co-director of the Tax Expenditures Lab, which
hosts the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED) and the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI).
 

The annually celebrated World Desertification and Drought Day on 17 June 2026 falls into the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists. This is an occasion to remind that pastoralism is an important element of global land use and that sustainable pastoralism must be promoted to enhance global (rural) sustainable development. Pastoralism means that livestock is not (only) kept on a permanent farm but part of the year and/or part of the herds roams in the landscape in search of fodder (grass).

The International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists is guided by the motto “Recognize, Respect, and Restore.” The first step – recognize – is to make the importance of pastoralism more visible. Given its contributions to food security, biodiversity conservation, climate protection, and rural development, this recognition is long overdue. In fact, permanent natural grasslands (grass is the typical vegetation cover of rangelands), covering more than 3.2 billion hectares, are the second-largest vegetation type on Earth after forests and occupy roughly twice as much land as cropland. Globally, between 200 and 500 million people, depending on the definition used, rely on pastoralism for their livelihoods. Pastoralists make a substantial contribution to global meat production; in addition, they provide milk, hides, manure, and other products. In some African countries, such as Somalia, pastoralism even forms the backbone of the economy. In many regions, rangelands also provide the foundation for tourism and recreation.

However, the importance of rangelands extends far beyond their economic function. Natural grasslands store large amounts of carbon, protect soils from erosion, regulate water cycles, and support high levels of biodiversity. Depending on the way they are used, these functions can be maintained and even enhanced or seriously deteriorated. Sustainable pastoralism follows the available vegetation in the landscape, avoids overgrazing, allowing vegetation, including the scarce trees, to recover. Animals trample grass into the soil, thereby increasing soil organic carbon. In contrast, unsustainable pastoralism exists if herds are overstocked, overgrazing leading to vegetation degeneration up to bare soils. This makes the land prone to wind and water erosion, sand and dust storms and losing its carbon storage function.

The second step - respect - aims to preserve the achievements and potential of pastoralism. This, however, should also clearly see the challenges. In traditional pastoralist systems vegetation availability and herd density roughly corresponded, including through losses of (parts of) the herds in times of droughts. In modern times, this balance can be challenged in multiple ways. For instance, loss of parts of the grazing/ecosystem e.g. to agriculture can deprive pastoralists of important sources of permanent, seasonal or reserve grazing areas. Infrastructure and border controls may cut the movement of herds. Creation of fenced ranches and compartmentalisation of rangelands for more intensive grazing can increase the carrying capacity in the short run but also deteriorate or change the ecosystems, depending on rainfall patterns, vegetation and management system.

The third step - restoration - focuses on correcting developments that have weakened rangelands and pastoralist livelihoods. Important measures include greater tolerance and active support for the mobility of livestock herds, effective protection of animals, and the restoration of floodplains or peatlands that can be used for variable grazing. Livestock migration corridors must be maintained, restored, and legally protected. The expansion of irrigated agriculture or large-scale ranching operations must be regulated in a way to respect the interests of pastoralists. Improvements in animal health, marketing systems, and infrastructure can increase incomes and can be combined with measures to prevent overgrazing. Investments in animal health can also reduce both the risk and fear of disease transmission and epidemics, thereby facilitating herd mobility. 

Nevertheless, the long-term trend toward sedentarisation is unlikely to be completely stopped or even reversed. Many pastoralists themselves choose settled lifestyles because these offer better access to education, healthcare, and additional sources of income. Population growth and climate change also place limits on pastoral systems. These moving factors make balanced and location-specific consideration of competing interests all the more important.

Despite its importance, pastoralism often receives little attention in politics. A prerequisite for more attention is the stronger involvement of pastoralists in decision-making processes. Their representative organisations must be strengthened, and their participation rights institutionally embedded. If this can be achieved, many of the goals embodied in “Recognize, Respect, and Restore” will follow. Developed countries can do more in their own countries in (some of) these regards, as well as encourage and support their partner countries to do the same. According to the broad spectrum of issues, potential entry points are numerous: In policy dialogue and project planning on rural areas, human rights of indigenous people, environmental protection, economic development, peace and security, poverty and food security.