JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

A European statute for whistleblowers

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Democracy in our time faces serious challenges. I won’t attempt to take stock of them now, but one of the challenges to mention would surely be the credibility of the democratic ideal. While authoritarian ideologies are on the rise even on the European periphery, the question whether democracy can live up to the ideals that make it preferable to other forms of government is urgent.

Corporate influence on governance and corruption are at the top of the list of phenomena that undermine the credibility of democracy. I come from a country in which, after the fall of the Communist regime when we tried to make a new start with democracy, we ran into problems that soon led to disillusion and disenchantment. Besides the inability of democratic governments to deal with the social crisis that emerged from the transformational crisis of the economy, corruption was the factor that contributed most to the deterioration of social trust, the decay of trust in fairness, in the accountability of power, in the rule of law, and ultimately in democracy itself. Now my country is taking an authoritarian turn. It should be taken as a warning signal. Democracy is not bulletproof. Its institutions cannot themselves sustain their own legitimacy. Democracy is also a stance on the norms of social cooperation, and it is only if this stance is shared by the large majority that democracy is in the safe. So corruption is not just a criminal matter. It is a failure of social cooperation that is potentially destructive of the democratic ideal.

It is partly because in most cases corruption is the business of the people of power. This is obvious in the case of political corruption, but it equally applies to other cases, too. Even at a normal workplace, if a corrupt transaction is to take place, it requires at least one player who is entrusted with responsibility and discretional power to make decisions. Corruption is an abuse of this power and trust. If corruption is relatively scarce, then it is an irregularity, a disturbance in the normal flow of social cooperation. If corruption is widespread, then it is a general experience about how the people in charge exercise their power.

There is an important consequence of this fact. If corruption is the business of the people of power, then those who stand up against it by exposing particular cases to law-enforcement or to the public are in danger. Even in countries in which corruption is perceived to be the rule rather than the exception, particular corrupt deals are usually made in secrecy. The latency of corruption is the bottleneck that prevents authorities to stand up against it, or in some case, it is the excuse for them to turn a blind eye. Secrecy is maintained in part by the ability of powerful people to crush the lives of those who would want to expose their wrongdoings. The extent to which a society comes to the aid and protection of the people who come forward and blow the whistle nevertheless, is a measure of a society’s democratic stance on social cooperation.

We are not doing particularly good in this respect. Legal provisions for whistleblower-protection are scarce in most EU countries. Very few member states have a comprehensive legislation providing for safe and accessible procedures for whistleblowers, and effective guaranties that would protect them against the retaliation and vengeance of those who they have crossed. About half of the member states have partial legislation on the subject providing legal protection to employees who come forward to report wrongdoings they witness at their workplace. In some EU countries the legal protection of whistleblowers is next to none.

If it is true that whistleblower protection is an issue that is central to the quality and credibility of democracy, then it is a proper subject for agreements and conventions that set international standards on such matters. The United Nations Convention against Corruption of 2003 is the first legal instrument that is global, adopts a fairly comprehensive approach to corruption, and is binding to its parties at least in some of its provisions. Regrettably, the protection of whistleblowers is not among the Convention’s binding provisions. Similar is the situation at the European level. There are EU policies, including binding legislation, on several aspects of corruption, but not on whistleblower protection. In October 2013, the last Parliament clearly expressed its wish to change this. In its resolution about the final report of the CRIM Committee it called on the Commission to draft a directive on the subject. The last Commission, however, declined. In this year’s Report on the protection of the EU’s financial interest, the Parliament restated its call for EU legislation on whistleblower protection. This is part of the reason we are here.

In most cases whistleblowers speak out because they feel moral obligated to protect the public interest. They do so at great personal cost. They risk their jobs, careers, often the peace and normality of their personal lives, and sometimes their safety and possibly even their lives. By blowing the whistle they usually unleash an enemy that is powerful and has every resources to use the law against them. It should be clear that the law and the society stands by their side.

If there is a progress is achieved in this matter, it is usually because of the activism and endurance of NGOs that are pushing for it. I am honoured to welcome the representatives of some of these NGOs here today. Our goal is to create a platform that influences European law-making. I pass the floor to you in the hope that it will work.

 

Paks hearing summary

Given the recent developments in the Paks-case, the hearing on the planned nuclear power plants at Paks – jointly hosted by Benedek Jávor and Rebecca Harms – was given a special emphasis.

Ms. Harms started by reminding the audience that just as we have passed the fourth anniversary of the Fukushima accident, we are nearing to the 29th of the Chernobyl disaster. She also expressed her concern over the incident at the Paks power plant in 2003 and enlisted some of the serious risks of the aftermath of the incident, such as the shipment of hazardous waste via the conflict-heavy Ukraine. In her introduction she urged the European Commission to respond.

In his opening speech, Mr. Benedek Jávor started by recalling that the EURATOM Supply Agency has just recently taken a negative decision on the fuel supply contract. Mr. Jávor warned that since the Hungarian Government has not engaged in a proper dialogue with the EU institutions, including EURATOM, now it has to restart negotiations; therefore, the Russian partner’s involvement in the project might easily become uncertain due to the conditions on fuel supply diversification. Meanwhile, during his visit to Budapest, President Vladimir Putin made no secret of his commitment to carry out the project despite the changed economic conditions. Mr. Jávor emphasized that beyond the obvious environmental dangers, there are serious political and economic risks that cannot be properly assessed due to the lack of public debate and the classification of all the relevant documents. He also reminded that in the context of the debate on European Energy Security Strategy so far, gas supply has been in the centre of attention while nuclear investments carry the same risks despite the multiple forms of dependence it creates. The dependence is not only financial and technological, but also on the fuel cycle.

Ámon Ada Paks konferenciaMs. Ada Ámon, director of Energiaklub, explained that the problem with Paks2 is Paks2 itself. Today the 4 block at Paks have a generation capacity of 2000 MWs. This would be more than doubled by the new nuclear power plant to 4400 MWs. The cost of the total investment, she continued, is 12.5 billion Euros, which is 20% of the Hungarian yearly budget with 10 billion coming from the Russians, the rest from state budget. This will lead to a substantial increase in energy production in Hungary, which, given the long term trends in energy consumption, would barely leave any room for other types of energy on the national market. From among the problems raised by the project, Ms. Ámon emphasized the lack of transparency and public debate, which highly increases the likeliness of corruption. Furthermore, we are facing a case of potential illegal state aid, the exclusion of experts from the decision making process, the lack of an alternative energy-scenario, and the centralization of the country’s energy supplies. All the above mentioned go against EU objectives. She also emphasized the lack of tendering, calling it the sign of the government’s indifference towards market efficiency. In addition, there is a persistent threat of increasing national debt by 5-8%. According to Ms. Ámon Paks2 will never be built, because it does not serve either interest of the Hungarian public or the European Union.

Stephen Thomas Paks ConferenceProfessor Stephen Thomas from the University of Greenwich presented a comparison of the British Hinkley Point C and the Paks power plants. Beyond the many similarities, including the lack of tendering and the probability that tax-payers will suffer the consequences if the plan goes wrong, there is a difference in the ability to withdraw from carrying out the project: while in the UK this possibility can still be considered, the situation in Hungary is not so straightforward. Another difference lies between the economic situations of the two countries: Hungary is much more prone to go bankrupt after building two new power plants, whereas the UK would most likely not suffer such harsh consequences. The risks are also higher in the case of Paks, because there is a possibility that the new power plants will not yet be operational by 2026, the year when the government will have to start paying back the loan. In addition, the question of the inclusion of the overnight costs in the price also differs in the two cases: these costs are clearly included in the prices of the Hinkley Point power plants; as to Paks, the status of the cited price is not obvious. An important similarity, though, is the classification of data, hence the lack of public discourse. There is also quite a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the affordability of the Paks plants: the Russians, said Mr. Stephenson, cannot even afford plants in their own country; it is highly questionable, therefore, how they would be able to pull through with the Paks investment.

Tóth István János Paks ConferenceDr. Todor Galev, researcher at the Center for the Study of Democracy in Bulgaria, explains how the consequences of the Ukrainian crisis have had a major impact on dealing with the question of energy dependency. Mr. Galev expressed his concerns over how Bulgarian politics are penetrated by Russian influence, meanwhile suspicions circulate that certain Bulgarian political parties are financed by Russia. He urged measures to be taken in connection with the formation of a regional cooperation, saying that without such a joint action, no country can protect itself from Russian influence.

Dr. István János Tóth, researcher at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Corruption Research Centre in Budapest, described the nature of corruption within Hungary’s energy sector, where the lack of transparency is more typical than in any other sector. With regard to the Paks2 project, he described the so-called “white elephant syndrome”, i.e. the lack of an actual objective, where corruption itself is the goal. Based on statistical evidence, he said that the Paks2 project will be loss-making. He presented a comparison of 75 projects carried out between the years of 1966 and 1977, which pointed out that the price of nuclear power plant investments were the double or even the triple of their original price in addition to the fact that the time of their construction also typically expanded.

Massimo Garribba Paks ConferenceOn behalf of the European Commission, Mr. Massimo Garribba from DG Energy emphasized two major elements in connection with EU regulations since the Fukushima accident: firstly, the so-called stress tests and secondly the improvement of the legislative framework. He reminded, however, that nuclear energy is an important element of the EU energy mix. He enlisted the different aspects under the EU’s scrutiny of the project. First, he confirmed that negotiations about the fuel supply contract have restarted. He also confirmed that both DG COMP and DG GROW are instigating the project. In addition, he expressed the Commission’s commitment to reach an increased transparency in nuclear issues and called on the Hungarian government to declassify as many documents as possible.

The question of illegal state aid recurred during the question panel as well. Professor Thomas explained that at this stage there is no way of knowing whether there is state aid involved, because the documents are made secret; however, he said, it is clear that public money is involved, since the company responsible for carrying out the project is itself state-owned. His stance was seconded by Mr. Garribba, who said that some clarifications are required in order to know more. The debate on this issue tied in with, Mr. Garribba’s stance that the Commission aims towards requesting as much transparency as possible.

The topic of the lack of a public debate over the Paks decisions was given a twist as Dr. Attila Aszódi, responsible government official for the construction of the new Paks power plants, gave his remarks on the issues discussed at the hearing. He began by expressing his disappointment that no one from the Hungarian authorities had been invited to tell their side of the story. Mr. Jávor later responded to this remark saying he had no intention of creating an inconvenient situation in which a governmental official was asked questions he is legally bound not to answer, as the documents on Paks2 are classified. However, he expressed his appreciation for Mr. Aszódi’s participation in the hearing, saying this way at least a debate can finally evolve.

Mr. Aszódi also explained that one third of Hungary’s electricity is imported and it mainly consists of coal-based technologies. “We strongly believe that this isn’t sustainable,” he said, “we need energy sources not relying on coal.” 40% of Hungary’s electricity should come form from nuclear energy in the long run according to the energy mix chosen for long term by the Hungarian government, he explained. He also pointed out that the country would be much more able to use green energy if it had high mountains, like the Alps; however, Hungary is flatland and as such, its energy policy is determined by limited possibilities.

In response to Mr. Tóth’s presentation and other remarks on non-transparency, Mr. Aszódi rejected claims that the Paks project was in any way corrupt, as corruption, he said, is a crime. He urged the speakers to initiate a legal procedure if they suspected corruption. He also warned Mr. Tóth not to mix the concept of corruption risk with nuclear safety. He stated that the 12,5 billion euros is the total cost of the project with all inflation and other risks included.

Mr. Jávor provided Mr. Aszódi with the conclusions of a recent study that found that there had not been any investigations initiated on corruption cases by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the last 5 years. He also called Mr. Aszódi’s attention to the fact that there were a number of occasions when he filed reports on corruption with documents and evidence to the public prosecutor, however, without any effect. He also mentioned, that the total cost cannot be 12,5 billion euros, because the interest is around 11 billion to begin with, so the total cost (overnight+capital costs together) of the project should be over 20 billion euros.

Ms. Harms also reacted to Mr. Aszódi’s comments telling about her visit to Paks in 2013, when her aim was to find out more about the project; however, as she said referring to the problem of secrecy and non-transparency, during her visit she found out more about the gardening around the plants than the actual project itself. Should she be invited to Paks this time to have a more elaborate view, she would be more than happy to come, she said.

Paks Hearing

The recording of the event is available. (Click here). Photos are also available here.

Programme:

Welcome by co-hosts
Rebecca Harms, Benedek Jávor

Energy security, Energy policy implications of a large nuclear investment within the EU, with special regard to energy security
Ada Ámon
, President, Energiaklub (Hungary)
For Ada Ámon’s presentation click here

Stephen Thomas, Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK)
Stephen Thomas’s presentation

Political security – Risks of Russian dependence of a member state
Dr. Todor Galev
, senior research fellow Center for the Study of Democracy (Bulgaria)
Dr Todor Galev’s presentation

Nuclear safety – How the abuse of rules and the presence of corruption poses a threat to nuclear safety
István János Tóth
, Corruption Research Centre and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Tóth István János’s presentation

The European Commission’s assessment of the situation
Massimo Garribba, Director, DG ENERGY, European Commission

Discussion, Q/A

Closing remarks from the co-hosts.

 

TTIP Talks: What’s Cooking? – Perspectives on Food & Farming

Benedek Jávor MEP moderated a panel discussion at a succesful event on TTIP and its impacts on food and farming, organized by the Greens/EFA last December.

Here you can find the Live Stream and Programme that 500 persons followed live online.

About the event

In the first event of its kind, the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament with the support of civil society and farmers’ organisations from both sides of the Atlantic, is pleased to invite you to a conference on the impacts of a potential EU-US trade agreement (TTIP) on food and farming.

With invited speakers from the food and farming sectors and civil society, and invited respondents from the European Commission, this conference promises to be an open and frank debate on TTIP and its potential consequences on food safety standards, consumer rights, animal welfare and the wider impact on rural areas.

With much of the debate on TTIP focusing on questions relating to food, we want to examine in further detail:

  • How can such differing standards for food and farming be harmonised without a serious compromise on the European side?
  • Will TTIP lead to the further industrialisation of agriculture in Europe?
  • Who benefits from the deal? Agri-businesses or farmers?
  • How can we maintain a high level of transparency and traceability for European consumers?
  • How a lack of transparency in the negotiations themselves is doing nothing to stem public fears that the TTIP negotiations could already be watering down key rules and standards for food and farming.

Organisers

Greens-EFA in cooperation with ARC2020, Compassion in World Farming, Corporate Europe Observatory, Euro Coop, European Milk Board, Friends of the Earth Europe, Slow Food & European Coordination Via Campesina.

Programme

15:05
Welcome word
by MEP Ska Keller – general concerns about TTIP

15:10
Keynote speech
by Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen (USA)

15:20
Start of the first panel
, moderated by MEP José Bové

TTIP – trading away good food and farming

Objective: general overview major concerns for consumers, farmers and food producers

Short, 5 min contributions (key concerns) from:

  • Magda Stoczkiewicz, director Friends of the Earth (precautionary principle, food safety differences EU-US)
  • Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Director International Strategies at Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (on US-EU perspective, via video connection in Washington)
  • Todor Ivanov, Secretary General EuroCoop (on consumers rights, labeling issues and food safety standards)

15:50
Response
from John Clarke, Director of International affairs in DG AGRI, European Commission

16:00
Response by
Elena Bryan, Senior Trade Representative at the US Mission to the EU

16:10
Debate / Q&A

16:20
Start Second Panel
moderated by MEP Bart Staes:

Harmonizing rules and standards – a race to the bottom?

Objective: clear examples about different standards applied in EU and US

Short 5-minute contributions (key concerns) from :

  • Olga Kikou, Compassion in World Farming (on animal welfare issues)
  • Vito Buonsante, Client Earth (on pesticides and chemicals in food)
  • Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen (on US perspective consumer protection)
  • Michael Scannell, Director of the Food and Veterinary Office FVO (on controls and inspections)
  • Erica Smith, law and policy consultant for the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL)  (on how the pesticide industry uses TTIP to harmonise EU and US law)

16:45
Response
from Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director General DG SANCO,  European Commission

16:55
Debate / Q&A

17:15
Start Third panel
, moderated by MEP Benedek Javor

TTIP: Socioeconomic Impact on Food and Farming

Objective: Who benefits in the farming sector, who is losing and impacts on working conditions

Short 5 minute contributions (key concerns) from:

  • Hanny van Geel, Via Campesina (on consequences for farmers of free trade agreements)
  • Sieta van Keimpema, Vice-Chair European Milk Board (on consequences for farmers of free trade agreements)
  • Robert Marshall Pederson, Food Policy expert Aalborg University and Arc2020 (on impacts on nutrition and dietary transition, sustainable food and agriculture systems)

17:35
Response by Monique Pariat, Deputy Director General DG AGRI, European Commission

17:45
Response
by Jim Higginston, Minister Counselor for FAS (foreign agriculture service) US Mission to the EU

17:55
Concluding remarks
by MEP Philippe Lamberts, vice-president Greens/Efa Group in European Parliament

18:00
End

Below you can find more information about the event:

Video clip from the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtgCG3JAAOc&feature=youtu.be

compiles interventions of our MEPs and guest speakers.

 

Photos of the event: https://www.flickr.com/photos/greensefa/sets/72157649287771168/
All photos of MEPs, speakers and the audience.

 

Twitter Storify: https://storify.com/EUFoodChat/ttip-perspectives-on-food-and-farming-in-collabor

Overview of the TTIP&Food discussion held on Twitter ahead of the event.

Benedek Javor is hosting an event on Anti-Corruption Day

Benedek Javor is hosting an event on the occasion of the international Anti-Corruption Day. 

Here you can read his opening speech:

Ladies and Gentleman,

Let me greet you with the warmest welcome, and with great respect for your interest in defending the public interest against corruption, and for the work you do for it in your respective fields, as scholars, activists, lawmakers or otherwise. This day, December the ninth, has been international anti-corruption day for more than a decade, since the United Nations Convention against Corruption has been passed in 2003. The Convention is the first legal instrument that is global, adopts a fairly comprehensive approach to corruption, and is binding to its parties at least in some of its provisions. Sadly, the protection of whistleblowers, the brave people who risk their jobs, careers, often the peaceful and normal operation of their personal lives, and sometimes their safety and possibly even their lives, to uncover corrupt deeds, usually of powerful people, is not among the Convention’s binding provisions. The Convention only suggests to its parties that they consider adopting provisions to protect whistleblowers in their respective national legal systems. Similar is the situation at the European level. There are EU policies, including binding legislation, on several aspects of corruption, but not on whistleblower protection. In October 2013, the last Parliament clearly expressed its intention to change this, in its resolution in which it adopted the final report of the CRIM Committee, and called on the Commission to draft a directive on the subject. The last Commission, however, declined. This is part of the reason we are here now.

Democracy is in crisis, at least in some of the EU member states. I, for one, come from country which is currently taking an authoritarian turn, partly because the decay has reached the moral foundations of democracy. Corruption contributed greatly to this situation. At the core of the democratic ideal there are ideas about equality, fairness, the accountability of power, and the rule of law. Corruption is not just a criminal activity causing material loss to the economy and to public revenues. Corruption, especially if it is widespread in the power-structure, hollows out these core ideals and undermines the credibility of democracy.

Corrupt dealings are done in secrecy. So corruption is not just a matter for law-enforcement, because in many cases it is invisible to law-enforcement authorities until somebody decides to break the secrecy. The secrecy is maintained by the powerful people involved in corruption in great part by the potential threat they might mean to those who, in possession of inside information, would uncover their secrets. The ability of powerful people to crush the lives of those who might want to uncover their wrongdoings is at the heart of corruption. So whistleblower-protection is not just a policy area among many others related to corruption, it is a tool without which effective anti-corruption policy is impossible.

Yet, the legal provisions for whistleblower-protection are surprisingly scarce in many EU countries. Very few EU countries have a comprehensive legislation providing for safe and accessible procedures available for whistleblowers, and effective guaranties that would safeguard them against the retaliation and vengeance of those whose corrupt deeds they reported. About half of the member states have some partial legislation on the subject providing legal protection to employees who come forward to report wrongdoings they witnessed. In some EU countries the legal protection of whistleblowers is next to none.

Whistleblowers speak out, because they feel it is their moral obligation. They do so at great personal cost. As it is reflected in a collection of really heart-breaking stories of the lives of whistleblowers who followed their moral instincts published in Guardian just about two weeks ago, even in countries like the UK, which is among the few EU countries where the legal framework for whistleblower protection can be regarded as well-developed, whistleblowing might have devastating consequences on both the professional careers and personal lives of those who undertake it. Whistleblowers are seldom given credit for what they have done for the public good. By blowing the whistle they usually unleash an enemy that is powerful and has every resources to use the law against them. They do so, because they care for what is right and what is wrong. It should be clear that the law and the society stands by their side.

If there was a progress in some member states in this respect, it was, to a large extent, because of the activism and endurance of NGOs that are active in this field. I am proud that I can be a partner in your work, and I hand over the floor to experts and representatives in the hope of a fruitful cooperation towards our shared objectives.

 

Moving beyond GDP in European economic governance high level expert conference

organized by DG ENVI in cooperation with the Italian Presidency of the Council

10 Oct 2014

 

Expert debate – input from MEP Benedek JÁVOR

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion.

To reflect on the debate’s main question, not only do I think that the beyond GDP agenda may help improve policies, but in my presentation I would like to demonstrate why I believe it is an essential element for reformulating EU policies. I envisage a policy reform process integrating beyond GDP approach based on three distinct building blocks:

  1. We need proper signals not only on the performance of our economies, but also on social aspects, state of the environment and the citizens’ well-being, as well as information on potential synergies and trade-offs of our policies.
  2. We need systematic evaluation of existing polices covering all the above aspects to be able to assess the real effects, the real added value as well as to point out the shortcomings allowing us to improve our policies.
  3. By improving I mean making our policies more forward looking and more sustainable, incorporating the needs of future generations as well.  In this respect, political willingness and citizens’ involvement are essential.

Thus, I will present my ideas around these 3 blocks, which I call the 3 ‘S’s: signals, systematic policy evaluation and stakeholders engagement.

First, let’s discuss the issue of sending the right policy signals. I highly welcome the European Commission’s efforts in compiling information on the existing initiatives to go beyond measuring economic growth. As previous speakers pointed out, measurement of social development and environmental issues are essential to sound and long-term policies. What we need, is to bring the above elements together. We need signals and answers around the questions of quality of life, well-being, progress and social cohesion as well as transition to a green economy.

Let’s have a look at the European Semester as an example. The Semester is not merely a mechanism of economic and fiscal policy coordination. It offers a potentially powerful tool by which we can monitor Member States’ progress on various issues, including environmental ones, in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The iterative working method and the country specific recommendations of the process which help us better align national efforts with EU policy objectives.
However, as for the implementation, the process lacks comprehensive consideration of environmental (as well as social) measures, only a few environmental issues are covered (e.g tax reform, transport infrastructure, better energy market design, renewable energy) while others, such as biodiversity, air pollution, water and waste management, resource efficiency and eco-innovation are side-lined or entirely absent.
With regard to the economic and financial context of recent years, the dominant focus of the Semester process, namely resolving the economic crisis is perhaps not surprising. However, let me remind you that European Semester is a tool to implement the Europe 2020 Strategy which has wider objectives embedded in the EU environmental acquis, including inter alia climate change, energy and resource efficiency related objectives.
In order to improve economic governance and to successfully leave the economic crisis behind, longer term perspective is of fundamental importance.  In terms of monitoring we should go beyond refining the macroeconomic imbalances scorecard, and complement it with social and environmental, natural resource indicators.

Here I would like to mention a policy-oriented  exercise that I was involved in: a complex, Green Scorecard was drawn up for Hungary, www.greenscorecard.hu, attempting to give an overall picture of various challenges ranging from resource use and climate change to state of human capital (education, health) and state of democracy. The idea was to go beyond single indicators (reflecting silo-thinking) and give an overall assessment of the performance of policies from sustainability point of view. We wish to further develop the scorecard and it would be useful to make it for other EU Member States as well.

This brings me to my second point, the need for evaluation, and if necessary revision, of all EU policies with the help of the ‘beyond GDP’ agenda.

As I said, the European Semester process should better support sustainability objectives by further integrating these considerations and by supporting the implementation of these wide-scope recommendations.
We must make the best use of the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 Strategy and ensure its better alignment with wider EU strategic documents including the 7th Environment Action Programme and the Resource Efficiency Roadmap.
Policy coherence, long term thinking and sustainability should be guiding principles for the revision and improvement of other European policy processes.
In more general terms, we need green investments and actions that have an effect on our everyday life by contributing to the creation of jobs, combatting poverty and rebuilding social justice.

To give you a timely example, the EU is formulating its future energy policy where currently we see problems both in terms of the level of ambition and comprehensiveness. I have always stressed the need for a new Climate and Energy Package with 3 intertwined, ambitious targets (on GHG emissions, energy efficiency and renewables) both at EU and Member States level. Our renewed energy policy, should be addressing the issues of affordability, accessibility, security and sustainability of the energy system at the same time.

Within this framework, security is again a highly complex issue. The European Energy Security Strategy (to which I act as shadow rapporteur) in its current form has an extremely narrow focus, aiming only at diversification and improvement of the infrastructure and not leaving the fossil fuel domain.

In my view, the strategy should take into consideration the potential security gains from energy efficiency and renewables measures. It should help combatting energy poverty, help households reaching energy savings and energy autonomy. It should also result in a decentralisation of the energy systems (bringing a new balance between consumers and providers and improving system resilience).

This example clearly demonstrates the need for holistic and long term approaches in policy making, which could be facilitated by beyond GDP efforts. A consistent follow-up process which reflects lessons learnt from previous policy cycles is also indispensable.

However, there is still a third, equally important component for successfully improving our policies: political willingness, ownership and engagement of our stakeholders.  To succeed in the above mentioned cases, or in any other policy field, we obviously need bold action by policymakers and a stakeholder engagement. The first two building blocks, signals (information on economic, societal, environmental processes) as well as systematic assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and added value of our policies can help creating political will and mobilize citizens. We need to reshape our policies and reach out to the general public, help them understand the various effects EU policies can have on their daily life. We also need to build alliances between all actors.

And when I talk about stakeholders, I also mean future generations. For improving our policies, we should also guarantee that intergenerational justice prevails and is an integral and formalized part of the policy processes.

Here I would like to refer to a project when we created a complex indicator regarding the pressure on future generations, encompassing inter alia environmental, demographic, health, pension data. I call for the strengthened use of similar measures and indicators.

 

To sum up and conclude

In my speech I touched upon 3 particular areas where I see the merit and potential of beyond GDP thinking and initiatives.

First, beyond GDP indicators can provide the right policy signals. Currently, we have far too many descriptive indicators and the information silo thinking still prevails.

Here I argue for integrated (partly complex, aggregated) policy relevant indicators. We have to develop more indicators on efficiency, policy effectiveness and well-being.

As for the topics, (global) resource flows, value and degradation of natural capital, intergenerational aspects of life have to be covered much better. Existing practices and ongoing initiatives in the field of indicators, accounts and assessments (SEEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, indicator activities of European Environment Agency including the revised core set, natural capital assessments, etc) should be further developed.

Secondly, future EU policies require a broad and long term perspective, which can also be facilitated by beyond GDP thinking.

I showed that there is a scope for greening the European Semester and in more general terms I argued for reshaping concepts like sustainable development and green economy and for recontextualizing our policies to provide solutions to real life challenges. Sustainable solutions (e.g. in the fields of energy, but also food, transport, housing, etc.)  make our life cheaper, more efficient, more convenient.

Thirdly, beyond GDP initiatives can raise awareness and mobilize efforts of policymakers and citizens. Actors should be well-informed and enabled to opt for genuinely sustainable solutions, take win-win steps towards an environmentally and socially just transition which includes respecting the needs of (and measurement of pressures on) future generations.

As a Member of the European Parliament, I will work towards these goals, by raising these issues during exchanges of views with relevant representatives of other EU institutions, by helping to create the necessary links among stakeholders and by encouraging my colleagues so the Parliament can play a more proactive role in the process.

 

Ref:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/ags2014_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/indicators_environment_en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/macroeconomic_imbalance_procedure/index_en.htm

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/digest-of-eea-indicators-2014

http://greennewdeal.eu/what-is-the-green-new-deal.html

http://www.greens-efa.eu/environmental-policy-in-the-european-semester-assessing-progress-to-date-11518.html

Accelerating renewable energy development for reduction of energy dependence of Europe

organised by the Innovative Business Centre in cooperation with the Energy Watch Group at the European Energy Security Forum 2014

 

26 September 2014

Session 1

SPEECH BY MEP BENEDEK JÁVOR

 

We have seen that several support mechanisms and forward looking initiatives exist in the diverse fields of renewable energy, yet, there are still substantial obstacles and barriers for further development of renewables both in financial terms and attitudes.

In my short presentation I look at some of the challenges and give a few examples to show the need for re-contextualization of the renewable energy agenda and making clear links with various issues like energy efficiency, energy security, environment, climate change mitigation, not to forget energy poverty and wellbeing.

I point to some of the interlinkages, highlight possible synergies and call for establishing or reinforcing the policy links among these issues. The geographical scope of the paper is mainly Europe with an outlook to regional (Eastern-Central Europe) or country level aspects.

 

The EU has committed itself to a low carbon economy, which implies a much greater need for renewable sources of energy. The use renewables is also crucial for reducing the EU’s dependence on energy imports (EU dependency increased from less than 40 % of gross energy consumption in the 1980s to reach 53.4 % by 2012), and its vulnerability to price increases. According to the Commission estimates, by moving towards a low carbon economy EU could save € 175-320 billion annually in fuel costs over the next 40 years.

However, we all see that the current energy and climate framework with 3 interlinked targets on energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy) is at risk of being consolidated into a single emission reduction target. This would likely result in an uncertain future for the EU’s renewables sector and other low-carbon technologies. These projects in general face a danger of cost overruns, operational and regulatory risks, problems of carbon price and weather variability, public acceptance. Renewables are associated with very significant investment needs and long payback times. Besides, these projects have the added risk of uncertain load factor due to grid integration challenges. Hence, spreading renewables is highly challenging from a policy point of view.

Focus of my speech is on a coherent policy framework and appropriate financing.

I argue that the foreseen reform of climate and energy policy in itself would not provide sufficient motivation to all member states, business, households and other actors for a wide-scale sustainable energy use.

To give you 2 examples from my country, according to a recent study, 75 – 85% of households in Hungary do not have any savings; 80% of those households planning energy related investments would not take a bank loan to cover the investment costs.

If we look at the allocation of renewables-related development funds in the country, mayor distortions occur, as well.

The link between renewables, climate change mitigation and energy efficiency is obvious. There are other, seemingly unrelated aspects, too. Here I would like to highlight the importance of combining green energy efforts with the alleviation of energy poverty. To put it simply, energy (or fuel) poverty occurs when a household is unable to heat its home or afford to use energy services at an adequate level which hampers the fulfillment of other basic needs of individuals. Based on estimates from EPEE (European fuel poverty and energy efficiency) project, 50-125 million EU citizens are affected.

 

As the map below shows, a main aspect of energy poverty is manifest across the EU.

% of households unable to afford to keep their home adequately warm

eu-inability-to-heat-home-map-031013

Source: EU Fuel Poverty Network

To flag some of the multiple consequences of energy poverty: across the EU as a whole, 9.8% of the population are unable to keep their home adequately warm, 15.5% live in homes that are damp, rotting or leaking, and 8.9% are behind on payments for utility bills (results of recent Fuel Poverty research based on 2011 data from the Eurostat SILC survey). In addition, energy poverty is associated with a wide range of physical and mental illnesses. According to a recent study, only in Hungary, 5000 deaths per year can be associated with non-adequately heated homes.
If we take a closer look at the characteristics of energy poor households (regardless of the exact definition or threshold) we can see that – besides other features – these households usually inhabit buildings with bad energetic characteristics (including panel blocks in Eastern-Central Europe).

If we look at former energy poverty alleviation strategies across Europe based on income or energy prices (subsidies, tariff policies) have often turned out to be contraproductive and become a burden for public budgets.

It is only when synergies between building efficiency, social welfare and climate mitigation was recognised that the policy efforts have accelerated in parts of Europe (e.g. Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, energy-efficient refurbishments). Studies focusing on Eastern Central Europe show that efficiency improvements and sustainable energy investments would enable many households to escape energy poverty, yet due to their unfavourable financial situation households cannot take the necessary investments and thus this potential synergy remains unexploited in the region.

Another striking example is that while in many countries households are incentivised to use sustainable energy, in my country, the payment of the utility bills are subsidised – mostly providing a driver for higher consumption of imported gas instead of shaping attitude towards energy savings, improved efficiency and greener sources.

This brings me to the issue of financing low carbon investments.

 

Renewable energy investments, according to recent data from Hungary, are mainly concentrated to upper middle class living environments, as they need a remarkable contribution from the households themselves. This characteristic cuts off low income households from being beneficiaries of renewable subsidies, as well as from harvesting the energy and cost advantages of such investments. Very simply we can say, that most of the public money spent on household energy efficiency and small-scale renewable investments is finally allocated to, and supports middle or high income households, and thus these subsidies are widening the gap between low and high income groups.

 

The presentation does not allow me to address the issue in its complexity, yet I see an opportunity for vulnerably groups in mainstreaming the ESCO (Energy Service Company) financial model. An other important issue is creating specialized programmes for low income households, marginalized groups – like the Roma community in Central and Eastern Europe, or immigration groups in the West – and financially extremely fluctuating and vulnerable families. In this environment very often the simple electrification of the buildings is not established yet, so cheap, affordable and low tech renewable solutions might move those households from the 19th to the 21st  century.

 

In my presentation I argued that separate energy policy goals might not lead to wished results. There is a need to show co-benefits of renewables in terms of social and economic aspects. I used energy poverty as an example show that linking different policy goals is likely to tip the cost-benefit balance and help mobilise efforts of the stakeholders in all fields.

As for renewables, possible directions, steps include:

  • developing a common understanding of related concepts, indicators
  • further improving relevant research and establish a proper science-policy interface
  • developing methodologies to quantify co-benefits and co-costs
  • establishing specified, well targeted programmes for disseminating the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable investments for our most needy fellow citizens .

On that basis, further and better targeted incentives can be drawn for the wider use of renewables, which not only help boosting the economy and improving employment in the EU, but also brings about substantial benefits for the environment and the whole society.

To conclude, I argue that the new climate and energy policy has to be comprehensive combining renewable energy target with further aspects in order to bring a socially just transition.

 

 

LINKS, REFERENCES:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/pdf/ocp145_en.pdf

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/towards-a-green-economy-in-europe

http://energiaklub.hu/sites/default/files/energiaklub_poverty_or_fuel_poverty.pdf

http://www.fuel-poverty.org

http://fuelpoverty.eu/wp-content/gallery/fuel-poverty-maps/eu-inability-to-heat-home-map-031013.jpg

http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/climate-change-and-energy/transport/2014/01/important-decisions-on-future-eu-energy-and-climate-policy-ahead

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511009918

https://www.shef.ac.uk/cees/pgfuelpoverty/presentations

http://www.map.ren21.net

Conference on the role of renewables for EU’s energy security

organised by AEBIOM

22 SEPT 2014

KEYNOTE SPEECH BY MEP BENEDEK JÁVOR

 

Being personally committed to the energy transition issue, it’s a pleasure to join you at today’s conference. Europe’s energy policy has seen profound changes in the last decades, but it is currently facing a new situation with multiple challenges. Although energy mixes and choices around energy in member states may vary, we have three common and distinct policy objectives: limiting the environmental impact of energy production, transport and use, ensuring a reliable and uninterrupted supply of energy as well as making energy affordable for every citizen and fighting against energy povertyIn my speech I will focus on this threefold challenge that Europe’s energy policy needs to tackle and argue for a need to smartly reframe the renewables agenda by closely linking sustainability, energy security and social aspects.

First, lets have a closer look at the sustainability and climate change aspects of the energy policy agenda. I quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5): “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming.”

This means that the world is (again) being warned of an ecological or climate tipping point by the UN. I say, it might be already late or we might delay too long in reacting to these risks and may see irreversible changes in all parts of the environmental system. Hence, its time for urgent action at all levels (from governments to individuals). We need substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions and other environmental impacts related to energy.

If we look at the level of ambition of the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Package as it stands, even if discussions are on-going on its details, it is clearly insufficient.

We need more. (Of course, we also have to look beyond Europe’s borders and prevent outsourcing carbon emissions and footprint to other parts of the world.)

 

However, this is only part of the overall picture. We all sense that energy security and is now higher and higher on the agenda, an issue that has clear linkages with renewables.

Yet, even if there is currently much political will around energy security, providing clear opportunities for you, renewables stakeholders, there are also some threats that I would like to point out.

In the 2030 Climate and Energy Package we have to thrive for much more (at least a 45% share for renewables) than the numbers currently discussed and I will only support a deal that has this ambition.

Beyond ambitious and binding goals at the European level we have to define specific targets at the level of member states, together with well designed, result-oriented and conditional support schemes.

 

Besides, energy security as a new buzzword and umbrella concept might provide an opportunity for the fossil fuel (e.g. shale gas) or nuclear lobby, which, if successful, can delay the genuinely sustainable energy transition alternatives in the EU. I personally am fully convinced that energy efficiency in combination with a nuclear free energy supply and a rapidly growing share of renewables is the direction we should move towards.

This would also make national and European energy systems less dependent on external sources, less vulnerable and more resilient in an energy crisis situation.

 

Furthermore, I warn decision makers not to throw out the baby with the bathwater and let go the achievements the EU has made in environment and climate-protection. Sustainability goals and new investments (physical and intellectual) in climate-friendly technologies using energy from various renewable sources need to remain an inherent part of future energy policy in the EU.

In some regions of the European Union (mainly in Eastern-Central Europe and the Mediterranean member states), the issues I have mentioned are accompanied by a third challenge, namely the extensive problem of energy poverty.

 

Hence, making energy affordable for each and every member of the European society and making sustainable technologies available for all are of utmost importance. (This is also valid at global scale – according to the International Energy Agency estimates provided in the World Energy Outlook, 1,8 billion people lack access to electricity and in some regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and developing Asia, energy poverty either stagnated or worsened as population growth outpaced energy access efforts.)

 

In Europe itself, it is estimated that 50-125 million EU citizens are affected by energy (or fuel) poverty meaning that these households are unable to heat their home or afford to use energy services at an adequate level. Many households are unable to escape energy poverty and are basically excluded from existing energy modernization programmes (e.g. insulation and improving heating efficiency of homes) due to their unfavourable financial situation.

In my view, at the European level, efforts should be concentrated on providing programs for low-income households to reach energy savings and to help them to get access to renewable energy investments. The latter would allow them to diversify their own energy sources and to build energy autonomy at household level.

We need programmes that do not require an own contribution from disadvantaged households, as savings that they will be able to achieve via energy modernization will cover their loan instalments. We also need low-cost micro projects targeted at the most vulnerable groups.

 

 

To sum up, I am convinced that the future European energy policy can only be successful if it integrates and provides solutions for all the above challenges.

Based on our geopolitical position, we, member states and stakeholders in Europe need to deepen our cooperation, aim at an energy transition along the lines of improved affordability, security and sustainability of our energy system.

Energy savings, efficiency and sustainable sources have to be fundamental elements of a renewed, common European energy policy. Here I stress the need for strong cooperation with the energy efficiency community. Supporting each others’ ambitions and exploiting synergies are crucial.

 

I also argue for a decentralized energy system which requires clearly different developments, investments and infrastructural priorities than a traditional energy network. We have to apply a participatory approach, as vast local use of renewables turns consumers to “prosumers”.

It’s essential to give regional answers for system regulation challenges in order to open up the possibility for higher shares of renewables in some Member States.

We also need to look beyond our borders. Creating linkages, better integration with our neighbors would be a chance of spreading renewables technology and know-how, in addition to helping the sustainable development of these regions.

 

In conclusion, we need to build on the momentum of the energy security efforts, and we definitely need to a more ambitious Climate and Energy Package that provides proper incentives, brings about behavior change and at the same time, provides benefits for the widest public. Mainstreaming sustainable technologies, new solutions should follow with a view to reducing disparities in the EU.

We should look far beyond progress in terms of infrastructures, systems, technologies and also aim for providing better services and beyond all, improving accessibility to these in the widest sense.

These are the preconditions for boosting investments in renewables.

 

As a member of the European Parliament I wanted demonstrate that in the EP we have forward looking ideas. As for the next steps (e.g. upcoming decision on energy policy priorities and short-term measures) the European Parliament wishes to play an active role and be as much involved as possible. Here I would like to mention that we are currently working on a European Energy Security Strategy where I act as shadow rapporteur and I aim for integrating the above thoughts and elements into this Strategy.

Nevertheless, I am here also to hear your opinion, your contributions and to gain new insights.

I wish ourselves a fruitful conference, a lively exchange of views. I hope we keep looking for new solutions together.

 

 

Ref:

Carbonbrief.org – tipping elements 

IPCC AR5

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-1.jpg

COM paper http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/energy2_en.pdf

EEA Technical report No 5/2013 Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: what does it take?

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/137433.pdf

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/01/in-brief-the-eu’s-new-2030-climate-and-energy-package-(1)/