JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Category: Public Affairs

A European statute for whistleblowers

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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.

 

SOER workshop opening speech

Posted on

Dear participants,

First of all, let me express my warm welcome to all of you who decided to take part in the SOER2015 launch event at the European Parliament.

A special welcome to Mr Falkenberg and other representatives of the COM, Mr Bruyninckx and his colleagues from the European Environment Agency including Ms Fay, Mr Scoullos, to our knowledgeable expert speakers, the co-hosts and all MEP colleagues. Unfortunately, Mr Leinen could not join us but we very much welcome Ms Miriam Dalli as our co-host from the SnD Group, together with Mr Jose Inacio Faria representing the ALDE group. I am Benedek Jávor, Green MEP and first vice-chair of the ENVI Committee.

I feel honoured to co-host the event as the State and Outlook report is highly relevant for the work of the members of the European Parliament and other stakeholders as its serves as a key source of feedback for environmental policies in place in terms of their achievements and impacts. This is an essential element we crucially need for policy adjustment and improvement.

The flagship report of the Agency analyses the state of Europe’s environment every 5 years. It is not a simple study with standalone figures. Importantly, the 2015 report provides a state and outlook placed in the context of the 7th Environment Action Programme and its 2050 vision. The report clearly demonstrates that despite some positive short-term trends Europe is not on track to achieve long-term sustainability. Just to name a few areas where long term prospects are alarming: land use and soil functions, climate change and the associated health risks, energy consumption as well as transport demand. Biodiversity and habitat loss, land-take and overexploitation of resources continue despite existing policy targets at different levels. As the report itself stresses, in some cases the level of ambition of our existing policies seems inadequate. Current efforts will not be sufficient to achieve the 2050 vision set in the 7EAP.

As our speakers will also highlight, we urgently need to create more integrated, coherent and truly ambitious policies and actions. We need to further strengthen implementation and improve governance as well as our institutions. I believe that institutions should better reflect long term sustainability efforts and the needs of future generations. New approaches in governance could help us exploit synergies among policies and policy approaches. And above all, we need to bring about profound changes in practices and behaviour – taking into account possible lock-in effects and trade-offs as well. These aspects are all reflected in the SOER report. The report goes beyond the long-term vision and offers credible and feasible transition pathways.

Another asset of the SOER2015 report is that it is based on objective, reliable and comparable environmental information, and draws upon the evidence and knowledge base available to the Agency and the European environment information and observation network in 39 European countries. We need to further improve the knowledge base, to rethink some of our indicators and in more general terms, how we measure progress. I was also happy to find reference to the importance of giving full value to natural capital.

The report states that implementation of existing environment and climate policies resulted in improvement on the state of the environment and reduced health risks yet it also stresses that further implementation efforts by countries can reinforce these trends. I am convinced that governments and other actors need to be assisted, inter alia by providing room and level playing field for citizens` based initiatives, by ensuring that citizens are well-informed and have effective access to justice in line with the Aarhus Convention and by strengthening environmental inspections e.g. through extending the inspection requirements. These are of utmost importance when it comes to the effectiveness of our policies. As for better regulation and governance, I feel a bit concerned about some recent developments in this respect – e.g. in the 2015 work programme of the Commission there are a huge number of withdrawals or modification of pending proposals including crucial pieces of environmental and health legislation such as the circular economy package. I believe that the EU must prioritise legislation that serves the citizens’ needs and lead to the fulfilment of the 2050 vision of 7EAP ’living well, within the limits of our planet’.

To sum up, I would like to underline one of the key messages of the SOER2015 report, namely the need to recalibrate existing policy approaches. I truly believe that policy coherence, long-term thinking and sustainability should become the guiding principles for the revision and continuous improvement of European policy processes. I envisage a policy improvement process based on three distinct elements:

  1. proper signals on the state of the environment quality of life, well-being, progress and social cohesion, transition to a green economy as well as information on potential synergies and trade-offs of our policies..
  2. systematic evaluation of existing polices to assess the tangible effects, the actual added value as well as to point out the shortcomings.
  3. political willingness and stakeholder engagement, outreach to the general public to help them understand the various effects EU policies can have on their daily life

I believe that the reason the SOER reports are extremely valuable is because they contribute substantially to all three elements I just mentioned. I truly hope that the report will experience a broadening uptake reaching out to an ever-wider audience, including the Members of the European Parliament and all policy and decision makers at all levels. This could lay the foundations for reshaping European policies with holistic and long term approaches.

As for the format of the event, first the Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, Prof. Bruninckx will deliver his keynote speech on the main outcomes and policy-relevant messages of the SOER2015 report. Then our well-known and very knowledgeable experts speakers, namely Mr Luc Bas, Director of IUCN, Mr Ernst von Weizsäcker,Co-President of the Club of Rome, Ms Laura Burke,Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland and Mr Janez Potocnik, co-chair of the UNEP International Resource Panel will respond from perspectives of the priority objectives of the 7th Environment Action Programme (natural capital, resource efficiency, human health and well-being, implementation) In the Q/A session we will open the floor for all participants to raise questions, give comments. This will be followed by reflections from Mr Falkenberg, Director General of DG ENVI. After the closing remarks by Mr Jose Inacio Faria we will have a short, technical break and a cocktail reception here in the room.

I wish ourselves a fruitful workshop and a lively exchange of views.

Benedek Javor, MEP

How to sell a country? Some thoughts on Putin’s visit to Hungary

Posted on

Viktor Orban’s evolving relations with the oligarchs both in Hungary and the wider region are having serious effects on Hungary’s energy strategy. Now, Putin is in town for meetings that will no doubt result in a new contract for the supply of gas, a development which will be to the benefit of a minority and to the detriment of most of the population, and which could also lead to tensions arising with the EU. – Article in Green European Journal

On February 17, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia is traveling to Hungary, as part of an official visit, to meet with the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. According to official statements, they are going to discuss the two countries’ economic and political relations, as well as energy security issues.What should we expect from this encounter? One of the concrete goals of the visit could be to renew the long-term gas supply contract with Russia, and –although Hungary is not in a particularly bad negotiating position– the short-term interests of the government will force Hungary to renew this contract under very humiliating conditions. This would not be the first time for Viktor Orbán to take a decision in energy policy matters that goes against common sense, a decision, which enables a small number of people to make huge gains, while the rest of the population can only lose.

The Hungarian energy strategy has numerous controversial elements. What is most disturbing is the fact that, in the last few years, Hungarian energy policy wasn’t determined by internal capabilities, external constraints and by keeping pace with changes in energy technology. Instead decisions were based on choices made due to “superior” goals that had nothing to do with experts’ opinions: the government’s goal was to reward people loyal to Orbán, build a new clientele (using taxpayers’ money), and replace some people at the top of the pyramid of Hungarian oligarchs. These were supposed to strengthen the political power of Orbán.

Orbán and his oligarchs

The first two-thirds majority of Orbán (in 2010) would have been impossible without his long-time friend, and former treasurer of the Fidesz-party, Lajos Simicska. The political and the economic arm of the party were codependent at that time, and the support of oligarchs was necessary to receive the amount of votes needed for the kind of success Orbán was hoping for. The second two-thirds majority in 2014, however, was different: now keeping the oligarchs around was too costly, and by far not as helpful as before. Thus, it was about time to get rid of the boundaries and dependencies Simicska and other oligarchs meant to Orbán and his government. But creating a new clientele – one whose members don’t behave like the kinds of all-powerful oligarchs as Simicska, and are absolutely loyal to and dependent on Orbán – can be just as expensive. Thus, the energy industry is one of the few industries that can provide sufficient funds for this project.

In the past few years we have seen many obvious signs of the industry being corrupted and put under the direct influence of the government. A good example is the increasingly important role of MET Holding. MET is an energy trading company – owned by a number of off-shore firms, related to, among others István Garancsi, a businessman with close ties to Orbán – that is in a privileged position due to some well thought out decrees and contracts: the company can use the 2,2-2,9 billion square meters of gas coming from Austria, without competition, thanks to the state-owned MVM Electricity Ltd.

MVM earns nothing on transporting the gas from Austria to Hungary. MET, on the other hand, is getting richer and richer. The owners of MET’s Hungarian subsidiaries have earned millions of Euros in the last few years. In 2012, the owners have received dividends worth HUF 55 billion (approximately EUR 180 million). But MET’s activities extend to much more than just the import of gas, it has also bought a power plant, and is about to overtake the natural gas trading activities of GDF Suez, a French multinational electricity company, on the Hungarian free market.

The incredible success of MET, and Orbán’s close friendship with Putin is no coincidence.

Orbán obviously needs Putin – a person who has great influence on his country’s energy exports – in order to make the corrupt Hungarian energy system work, and in order to make profits on the country’s natural gas transactions. From this meeting with Putin, he expects a political deal that can further increase his share of profits in the energy sector, and will thus help him further pursue his power interests.

A top priority

Not so long ago, Orbán has called the new, long-term gas supply contract with Russia a top priority of the country. Assigning it such a high importance, however, seems to be irrational: a 2013 study by the Regional Centre for Energy Policy Research (commissioned by the government) has shown that a new contract, right now, would not make too much sense, unless it would require Hungary to buy a much smaller amount of gas than before, and to do that for a much lower price than it currently does. This is not the case: the contract will be about an increased amount of gas, which means that Hungary has to buy more gas than it would normally consume. And it will also pay a higher price than necessary.

Given that the surplus of the previous years will be able to cover the energy needs of the next few years, Orbán is wrong to say that the new long-term contract is badly needed.

On the contrary, in the light of the current natural gas market developments, Hungary could have relatively large margin of maneuver. The Russians would benefit from a long-term gas contract, since the revenue would improve their unstable budgetary position and improve their regional position. The gas market is currently supply-driven and in the coming years is likely to remain so. In a supply-driven gas market the customer is the one who’s in a good bargaining position, this is what Orbán is giving up for pennies in his oligarchy fighting spirit.

Don’t trust the short-term benefits

The Orbán-Putin meeting is likely to yield a more political bargain and as a result – according to internal sources – Hungary will receive Russian gas cheaper below market price, at least in the short term. You can cut utilities in the coming years and possibly provide for the 2018 election campaign financing. In addition, the price difference between the contracted and the marketed price enriches the new oligarchs. However, the agreement does not serve a healthy functioning energy market or the long-term interests of Hungarian consumers.

Russia will, for sure, ask a high price for this deal. There are two possible scenarios:

(1) In exchange for the current short-term reduction, we might, in the long-term, be forced to buy natural gas for a price above the market price. If we look at the neighbouring countries, it becomes quite obvious that all the countries who have signed long-term contracts with Russia, around 2005, are now paying a much higher price for gas as does Hungary at the moment.

(2) Putin might as well ask for a political favour: a consistent pro-Russian stance in the EU. The Russians badly need a disagreement inside the EU, so that it cannot act in a unified manner when it comes to Russia. A veto on sanctions against Russia can be very valuable for Putin.

Angela Merkel has visited Budapest less than two weeks prior to Putin. During her visit she made it clear to Orbán that Hungary cannot have a Russia policy that is not in line with the EU stance: the Union has to act in a unified way when it comes to Crimea or the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Orbán, however, defended Hungary’s relations with Russia, on their press conference. This lets us infer that he won’t say no to Putin. He will rather pick a fight with the EU. Especially when the EU’s warnings seem to be so distant for Orbán. Russia in the meantime seems to be quite sure that Hungary can be the partner it is looking for, in order to mess with European unity.

I believe that nothing will stop Orbán from selling the country and the future of its people to Russia.

 

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

Posted on

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 speechby 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.

Accession of the EU to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

Posted on

I highly welcome the proposal for the accession of the EU to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is one of the world’s most powerful tools for biodiversity conservation.

However, as I see it, this step is only a drop in the bucket.

Let me remind you that despite the EU’s (renewed) commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020 and to restore biodiversity wherever possible in the longer term as well as out long-term vision for biodiversity for 2050, the natural capital and the ecosystem services are being continuously depleted which will have profound consequences for our well-being. As stated the European Commission itself, over half of the habitats and species covered by the EU Habitats Directive are considered to be in an unfavourable conservation status and there is evidence that the status of many ecosystems is reaching or has already reached the point of no return. It is estimated that, each year we lose 3% of our GDP due to the loss of biodiversity! Besides undermining the economy, biodiversity loss and changes in the habitats and ecosystems also erodes social cohesion in (and outside) the EU.

Thus, we must step up efforts in Europe to achieve our biodiversity targets (and to reach international biodiversity goals set within the CBD framework). We must ensure that none of the EU and MS policies (covering fields such as agriculture, forest management, fisheries and other resources, spatial planning, climate and energy, transport and products) have harmful impacts on biodiversity. We must reinvest in natural capital, construct green infrastructure and ensure that all spending under the EU budget (including CAP, ERDF, EMFF, Cohesion Fund, Connection Europe Facility, Horizon 2020 and LIFE) is supportive of halting the loss of biodiversity.

I therefore urge the European Commission and all European decision makers to set their priorities and structure their work mindful of the biodiversity targets and not to compromise biodiversity as it is key to sustaining the ecological systems and their services we all depend on.

 

Benedek Javor is hosting an event on Anti-Corruption Day

Posted on

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.

 

Democracy in Hungary

Posted on

Thank you, Madame President!

Originally, I was going to talk about something else; however, fellow representatives Mr. Szájer and Mr. Kósa laid false accusations against Hungarian NGOs; therefore, I must respond. The charges involved in the investigation against Hungarian NGOs change on a weekly basis; neither the prosecutor nor the police, nor even the government knows what they are looking for; they are just desperate to find something. Only one thing is certain in connection with these investigations, my fellow representatives; namely, that the KEHI-investigation against NGOs was unlawful; the KEHI did not have the authority to conduct an investigation in these organizations. The Hungarian government’s violation of the law is the only evidence. And this proves, better than anything, how democracy functions in Hungary and how the Hungarian government operates. And respected colleagues, let me call your attention to one more thing: this debate is not about the Hungarian government or about Hungary exclusively. What is currently happening in Hungary, and what the European institutions do not act upon, can serve as an example for the aspirations of other political forces in other member states, as well. Respected Fidesz representatives, this includes political forces that you might not agree with, either.

Thank you!