As US and European governments grapple with the challenges of reinforcing their economic relationships, traditional negotiations over tax and trade policy may soon be overwhelmed by a far thornier issue: the regulation of data storage, protection and analysis. As traditional global trade in goods and services has levelled off, cross-border data flows continue to expand rapidly.

Christopher Smart will outline the economic promise of data analytics to drive dramatic productivity gains, particularly for industry and financial services. He will explore contrasting political debates in the United States and Europe over personal privacy and national security and analyse how these have influenced many of the assumptions that drive the regulation of data flows. 

This event is open to coporate members only.

This event will be preceded by an informal, welcome reception from 12:15.

To enable as open a debate as possible, this event will be held under the Chatham House Rule. 

Summary

• As the US government and European governments once again grapple with the challenges of reinforcing and expanding the transatlantic economic relationship, traditional negotiations over trade or tax policy may soon be upstaged by a far thornier and more important issue: how to regulate the storage, protection and analysis of data.
• Growth in the traditional global trade in goods and services has levelled off, but cross-border data flows continue to expand rapidly and the challenges of developing policies that protect privacy, security and innovation are already tremendous. For example, data analytics are driving dramatic productivity gains in industry, particularly for large and complex installations whose safety and efficiency will increasingly depend on flows of data across jurisdictions. Meanwhile, ‘fintech’ (financial technology) start-ups and large banks alike are testing new modes of accumulating, analysing and deploying customer data to provide less expensive services and manage the risk profile of their businesses.
• While the US debate on the use of data has often been framed around the trade-off between national security and personal privacy, Europeans often face an even more complex set of concerns that include worries that their digital and technology firms lag behind dominant US competitors. The political and regulatory uncertainty helps neither side, and leaves transatlantic companies struggling to comply with uncertain and conflicting rules in different jurisdictions.
• A global consensus on data regulation is currently well out of reach, but given the expanding importance of data in so many areas, basic agreement on regulatory principles is crucial between the US and the EU. This paper proposes a ‘Transatlantic Charter for Data Security and Mobility’, which could help shape a common understanding. While it would hardly resolve all concerns – or indeed contradictions – around the prevailing traditions on both sides of the Atlantic, it could provide the basis for better cooperation and establish a framework to protect the promise of the digital age amid an unpredictable and emotional debate.

The COVID-19 epidemic has hit every aspect of American life. The upcoming November general elections will not be immune to the virus’ impact and may be scheduled to happen while the pandemic remains active, or has returned.

There is a danger the epidemic forces change to the way voting takes place this fall, amplifying risks around election security and voter suppression that ultimately undermine the integrity of the elections.

This is further highlighted by the US Supreme Court’s last-minute ruling along ideological lines to restrict an extension on the absentee voting period in the Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary despite the level of infections in the state, forcing voters into a trade-off between their health and their right to vote. The US could be thrown into a political crisis in addition to the health and economic crises it already faces.

Bipartisan sentiment

While France, Chile and Bolivia have already postponed elections in the wake of COVID-19, there is a bipartisan sentiment that the US elections should be held as scheduled on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This is enshrined not only in America’s sense of itself – having weathered elections during a civil war, a world war and heightened terrorist alert before – but also in its federal law since 1845.

Despite increasing appetite for federal elections to go ahead in November, there are serious vulnerabilities, which are already becoming visible as connections are drawn between mail-in voting and voter fraud, greater voter access and disadvantages for the Republican party, and city polling closures and Democratic voter suppression.

Concerns around voting access have gained the most attention. If voting in-person is untenable or risky (especially for vulnerable health populations), voters must have alternative means to cast ballots.

During negotiations for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives proposed $4 billion in state election grants and a nationally-mandated period for early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.

But the final CARES Act sidestepped the access question and stripped funding to $400 million for election security grants to ‘prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 Federal election cycle’. Without knowing exactly what is in store from a cyber-threat perspective, the actual cost for basic election security upgrades is estimated to be $2.1billion. And that is a pre-COVID-19 calculation.

With social-distanced voters likely to be getting more election information than ever from social media, information security is critical to prevent influence from untrustworthy sources. And opportunities for cyber intrusions are likely to increase as states transition to greater virtual registration, plus absentee and mail-in balloting.

This will open new doors on well-documented, existing voter suppression efforts. With the Supreme Court clawing back the Voting Rights Act in 2013 - allowing certain states to make changes to election and voting laws without federal pre-clearance - heightened election security requirements, such as exact match campaigns and voter purges, have been used to justify voter suppression.

As more vote remotely in the remaining primaries (many now rescheduled for 2 June) and the November general elections, the added burden on states around verification will only increase temptation to set aside ‘non-compliant’ ballots. Especially as some in the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, have advocated a contested view that higher turnout favours the Democratic Party.

A fundamental principle of US democracy is that losers of elections respect the result, but history shows that election results have been contested. In 2000, it took weeks for a result to be confirmed in the presidential election. More recently, in the 2018 race for governor in Georgia, allegations of voter suppression raised questions about the validity of the eventual result.

Without proper access, security, and verification the electoral process – whenever it takes place – will become vulnerable to questions of integrity. The federal response to the initial spread of COVID-19 saw costly delays which pushed the US into a public health crisis and economic contraction.

Any narrative thread of election illegitimacy with November’s elections will further pull apart the fabric of a country already frayed by coronavirus. Federal and state authorities must start planning now for how the US will hold elections in the midst - or immediate aftermath - of COVID-19.

One-quarter of humanity faces a looming water crisis, including the prospect of running out of water, which may seem inconceivable when 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface is water. Nevertheless up to 80 per cent of available surface and groundwater is being used every year and water demand globally is projected to increase by 55 per cent by 2050. Why is the world facing a crisis of water scarcity and what is driving the increasing demand for water?

The first reason that is causing water stress around the world is the growing human population at the same time as the water supply has remained the same. Given that there are almost one billion more inhabitants on Earth every 15-20 years, this has led to a progressive deficit in the global water supply. 

The second reason is due to the uneven concentration of the global population. There is not a clear link between the presence of the population in some regions and the presence of water, in other words, water is not where we want it to be every time.

For example, there is, what we call, a ‘triangle of thirst’ from southern Spain, to Pakistan, to the Horn of Africa and back again. In this triangle, you have around two billion people in a very water-scarce region.

Comparatively, if you go to Russia or Canada, they have more water than they need in terms of the size of their population. So this is another crucial reason we are facing a crisis of water scarcity in some regions of the world – but not everywhere. 

Climate [change] will be the fruit on the cake. Currently we have global population growth and then later we will have climate change affecting water availability. But at this very moment, however, the problem for water suppliers and for political leaders is the demographic crisis we are facing – not the climate.

Water use has grown at more than twice the rate of the human population over the last century in part due to industries, such as agriculture, which account for 70 per cent of global freshwater use.

Given that food production will need to grow by up to 70 per cent by 2035 to feed the growing human population, how do we balance the use of water with the need to provide food?

There are some solutions. The first is that we need to improve water efficiency in the agricultural sector. We need to have all around the world, but mostly in developing countries, a better capacity to increase the water efficiency of agriculture without increasing the use of industrial chemical products and to move, step-by-step, to an economical system of organic farming. It will take time – it will not be done in one or even five years but more likely over a generation – but it is the best way.   

Secondly, which could be a faster solution, is that we have to reduce all kind of food waste which represents around 30-40 per cent of all agricultural production. Agriculture is a large sector involving the growing of crops but also livestock. There’s not only waste in terms of consumption but also during the production line, for example, during the transportation of food products. So there is this, sort of, waste cycle which is very important to consider. If you are able to reduce the water waste during the production line by 30-40 per cent, then you use less water, obviously.

The third solution is to be able to, step-by-step, change our consumption patterns. Use less meat, all kinds of agricultural products which need a lot of water etc. I think we will be obliged to do this over the next couple of decades, and we will probably have low animal protein diets in the future, which will mean we have to think of different ways to be able to provide food to the increasing global population.

There are other industries that are water-intensive that also need to be looked at in terms of their water waste such as the clothing and automobile industries. One piece of paper, for example, takes about 100 litres of water to produce while one litre of milk takes about 1,000 litres of water. Another example is that one cup of coffee takes 150 litres of water – just one cup of coffee – that’s because there is not only the water you are drinking but the water needed to prepare the coffee beans and the water used in the materials that make the coffee cup and so on.

So everything consumes water and that’s why humans will be obliged to consume less water over the coming years. 

More than one in three people globally do not have access to safe drinking water and more than 4 billion people lack adequate sanitation. How can waste water be more efficiently used and do you think global goals to provide everyone with safe and clean drinking water are still realistic?

In French, we use a phrase, parent pauvre, which means poor relative. Most of the decisions concerning access to water are not acceptable in the long term. That’s why we at the World Water Council are pushing for the financing of water and sanitation goals [concurrently].

For example, if you have a programme for a city to increase access to water for its citizens, they also need a sanitation programme. If we don’t do that, the mismatch that currently exists between water and sanitation will remain. 

There’s also another important solution which political leaders will be obliged to invest more in which is having more water coming from water reuse. If you produce water from water reuse processes then it means that it will likely have undergone sanitation treatment already which is a win-win solution [for providing safe and clean drinking water].

It’s all moving slowly but I’m optimistic concerning the increasing consciousness of people regarding water pollution – for example the pollution of our rivers, seas and oceans – and I think we will move faster in the sanitation area than in the water access area over the next decade.

Personally, I do not think that global goals to provide everyone with safe and clean drinking water [are the best solution]. I am more in favour of national and local commitments rather than global commitments. National and local efforts are stronger then [the rhetoric] around global goals where there is no authority to oversee the progress they are making. Only the population of a country or of a city can see if their leaders have done their job regarding providing access to safe and clean water.

With the depletion of global water supplies, how can governments avoid the politicization of water, as seen in cases such as the Nile River Basin and across the Middle East, to avoid conflicts over water?

This is a complicated issue because politicians will always do politics so it will always be difficult to avoid attempts to politicize situations. But the key is dialogue, dialogue and dialogue. That is the only way to solve water conflicts as well as better management of water because, in some regions, some of these conflicts are arising from the mismanagement of water supplies – not because of water scarcity. 

If you look at Egypt and the US, people are consuming around 800 litres [of water] per day whereas in Europe people are consuming around 200 litres per day. But why is [water consumption] in Egypt, rather than Europe, the same as in the US? Because they have considerable water losses in industries such as agriculture.

In addition, in the main cities like Cairo, there is not an adequate range of water networks, so, if in the future those living in Cairo are able to consume less water, they will need less water coming from the Nile River which will make politicization of water by politicians less likely. 

In the future, social unrest from water shortages is likely, however, I do not think it will ever lead to wars. 

Countries across the Middle East have invested in modern techniques, such as desalination plants, as an answer to water scarcity, but this can have a negative impact, notably on marine life. In contrast, some of the more ancient techniques, like rainwater harvesting, are being repurposed in cities around the world today. What is your view on these practices and what other solutions are available?

There are a lot of solutions and desalination is among them. Currently probably 100 countries in the world are using, or preparing to use, desalination as a solution so it surely is an important solution. But at the same time, reused water is developing fast and is a much cheaper option than desalination. 

Nevertheless, the price of desalination has been decreasing over the past 20 years and is now less than $1 a cubic metre, whereas 15 years ago, it was $10 a cubic metre.

Some of the negative impacts of desalination exist when you are separating the water from the salt, which can lead to disasters, for example, what has happened in the Persian Gulf. When Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar first used desalination treatments, the temperature of the sea was around 30°C, whereas today, it can be up to 40°C. This increasing sea temperature as a result of the desalination plants has contributed to changes in biodiversity. For example, we are seeing fish disappearing and even the growing population of giant jellyfish – which some desalination plants in Saudi Arabia are dealing with by using shredders which is another type of disaster.

Furthermore, in some regions, we need to keep in mind that desalination is not only along the coast but it’s also in the middle of the land too. For example, in the Sahara region, like in Algeria or Morocco, the water coming from the ground is salted so you need to have desalination plants inland and not on the coast. But where they keep the salt inland, that salt mixes with the rain and enters the ground, thereby destroying some of the biodiversity there too. So it must be used prudently. 

Rainwater harvesting is a technique from centuries ago and I am a great supporter of it as a solution to water scarcity in India, particularly in Rajasthan, and I think it could also be part of the solutions in some places across Africa.

That’s why I believe there needs to be an exchange of solutions because something which is successful here could be successful somewhere else. In this way, we need to be able to show a Senegalese farmer a solution which has been implemented elsewhere, such as in India, and show him this can work for you too – it’s sort of like when the Japanese built the Toyota by looking at the British Land Rover.

With billions of people threatened by the global water crisis, increased water stress could lead to more ‘Day Zeroes’, a term used in 2018 as Cape Town in South Africa came dangerously close to running out of water. In your view, what will happen if the world doesn’t adequately address the global crisis of water scarcity?

The increasing absence of water would mean not only the migration of humans to more water-abundant regions but also the absence of socioeconomic growth of any kind in some places because water scarcity will pose a risk to businesses who will be forced to move to new areas – from small businesses like a hairdresser to factories that are unable to produce any goods or provide any services. So not tackling the water crisis means not being able to tackle our own capacity to prosper by not protecting the environment we depend on.

In Cape Town, there was a lack of rain in the city which contributed to the water crisis there but there was also a lack of water management. They knew they could have a lack of rain, and when you have a lack of rain, you have the obligation to prepare a reservoir of water for the year to the next year and so on but that did not happen.

There is a French poem from Jean de La Fontaine about a grasshopper and an ant. The grasshopper just spends his time in the summer enjoying life but the ant keeps working hard throughout the summer to save all of his supplies for the winter. In this way, we need to be like the ant, preparing water supplies for today and for tomorrow.

In the case of Cape Town, there was also another element, which was that the water supplies were being used by the central government as a tool to isolate the regional governor there who was part of the opposition. So the lack of water management was almost used as a political tool as we discussed earlier.

Some say that the water scarcity we are seeing is because of climate change. Yes it is but there is also a lack of water management by humans. If you look at the people living throughout the centuries all the way to antiquity, you see that people around the world prepared reservoirs of water to keep water from the winter to the summer, from the one year to the next, whereas today, we are seeing bad water management. So, in this way, I believe climate change should not be the scapegoat of human error.

The COVID-19 epidemic has hit every aspect of American life. The upcoming November general elections will not be immune to the virus’ impact and may be scheduled to happen while the pandemic remains active, or has returned.

There is a danger the epidemic forces change to the way voting takes place this fall, amplifying risks around election security and voter suppression that ultimately undermine the integrity of the elections.

This is further highlighted by the US Supreme Court’s last-minute ruling along ideological lines to restrict an extension on the absentee voting period in the Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary despite the level of infections in the state, forcing voters into a trade-off between their health and their right to vote. The US could be thrown into a political crisis in addition to the health and economic crises it already faces.

Bipartisan sentiment

While France, Chile and Bolivia have already postponed elections in the wake of COVID-19, there is a bipartisan sentiment that the US elections should be held as scheduled on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This is enshrined not only in America’s sense of itself – having weathered elections during a civil war, a world war and heightened terrorist alert before – but also in its federal law since 1845.

Despite increasing appetite for federal elections to go ahead in November, there are serious vulnerabilities, which are already becoming visible as connections are drawn between mail-in voting and voter fraud, greater voter access and disadvantages for the Republican party, and city polling closures and Democratic voter suppression.

Concerns around voting access have gained the most attention. If voting in-person is untenable or risky (especially for vulnerable health populations), voters must have alternative means to cast ballots.

During negotiations for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives proposed $4 billion in state election grants and a nationally-mandated period for early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.

But the final CARES Act sidestepped the access question and stripped funding to $400 million for election security grants to ‘prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 Federal election cycle’. Without knowing exactly what is in store from a cyber-threat perspective, the actual cost for basic election security upgrades is estimated to be $2.1billion. And that is a pre-COVID-19 calculation.

With social-distanced voters likely to be getting more election information than ever from social media, information security is critical to prevent influence from untrustworthy sources. And opportunities for cyber intrusions are likely to increase as states transition to greater virtual registration, plus absentee and mail-in balloting.

This will open new doors on well-documented, existing voter suppression efforts. With the Supreme Court clawing back the Voting Rights Act in 2013 - allowing certain states to make changes to election and voting laws without federal pre-clearance - heightened election security requirements, such as exact match campaigns and voter purges, have been used to justify voter suppression.

As more vote remotely in the remaining primaries (many now rescheduled for 2 June) and the November general elections, the added burden on states around verification will only increase temptation to set aside ‘non-compliant’ ballots. Especially as some in the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, have advocated a contested view that higher turnout favours the Democratic Party.

A fundamental principle of US democracy is that losers of elections respect the result, but history shows that election results have been contested. In 2000, it took weeks for a result to be confirmed in the presidential election. More recently, in the 2018 race for governor in Georgia, allegations of voter suppression raised questions about the validity of the eventual result.

Without proper access, security, and verification the electoral process – whenever it takes place – will become vulnerable to questions of integrity. The federal response to the initial spread of COVID-19 saw costly delays which pushed the US into a public health crisis and economic contraction.

Any narrative thread of election illegitimacy with November’s elections will further pull apart the fabric of a country already frayed by coronavirus. Federal and state authorities must start planning now for how the US will hold elections in the midst - or immediate aftermath - of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 epidemic has hit every aspect of American life. The upcoming November general elections will not be immune to the virus’ impact and may be scheduled to happen while the pandemic remains active, or has returned.

There is a danger the epidemic forces change to the way voting takes place this fall, amplifying risks around election security and voter suppression that ultimately undermine the integrity of the elections.

This is further highlighted by the US Supreme Court’s last-minute ruling along ideological lines to restrict an extension on the absentee voting period in the Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary despite the level of infections in the state, forcing voters into a trade-off between their health and their right to vote. The US could be thrown into a political crisis in addition to the health and economic crises it already faces.

Bipartisan sentiment

While France, Chile and Bolivia have already postponed elections in the wake of COVID-19, there is a bipartisan sentiment that the US elections should be held as scheduled on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. This is enshrined not only in America’s sense of itself – having weathered elections during a civil war, a world war and heightened terrorist alert before – but also in its federal law since 1845.

Despite increasing appetite for federal elections to go ahead in November, there are serious vulnerabilities, which are already becoming visible as connections are drawn between mail-in voting and voter fraud, greater voter access and disadvantages for the Republican party, and city polling closures and Democratic voter suppression.

Concerns around voting access have gained the most attention. If voting in-person is untenable or risky (especially for vulnerable health populations), voters must have alternative means to cast ballots.

During negotiations for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives proposed $4 billion in state election grants and a nationally-mandated period for early voting and no-excuse absentee voting.

But the final CARES Act sidestepped the access question and stripped funding to $400 million for election security grants to ‘prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 Federal election cycle’. Without knowing exactly what is in store from a cyber-threat perspective, the actual cost for basic election security upgrades is estimated to be $2.1billion. And that is a pre-COVID-19 calculation.

With social-distanced voters likely to be getting more election information than ever from social media, information security is critical to prevent influence from untrustworthy sources. And opportunities for cyber intrusions are likely to increase as states transition to greater virtual registration, plus absentee and mail-in balloting.

This will open new doors on well-documented, existing voter suppression efforts. With the Supreme Court clawing back the Voting Rights Act in 2013 - allowing certain states to make changes to election and voting laws without federal pre-clearance - heightened election security requirements, such as exact match campaigns and voter purges, have been used to justify voter suppression.

As more vote remotely in the remaining primaries (many now rescheduled for 2 June) and the November general elections, the added burden on states around verification will only increase temptation to set aside ‘non-compliant’ ballots. Especially as some in the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, have advocated a contested view that higher turnout favours the Democratic Party.

A fundamental principle of US democracy is that losers of elections respect the result, but history shows that election results have been contested. In 2000, it took weeks for a result to be confirmed in the presidential election. More recently, in the 2018 race for governor in Georgia, allegations of voter suppression raised questions about the validity of the eventual result.

Without proper access, security, and verification the electoral process – whenever it takes place – will become vulnerable to questions of integrity. The federal response to the initial spread of COVID-19 saw costly delays which pushed the US into a public health crisis and economic contraction.

Any narrative thread of election illegitimacy with November’s elections will further pull apart the fabric of a country already frayed by coronavirus. Federal and state authorities must start planning now for how the US will hold elections in the midst - or immediate aftermath - of COVID-19.