JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

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

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.

 

Bringing light: social aspects of the energy agenda

In order for green ideas on energy to resonate in the mainstream, questions need to be answered about how the transition will be financed, and how it will benefit those are already marginalised and struggling economically. A positive initiative targeting the Roma minority in Hungary shows one way in which this can be achieved.

(Source of the picture: fortytwotimes.com)

Energy poverty: a pervasive problem

Europe’s energy policy has seen profound changes in the last decades, but it is currently facing a new situation with multiple challenges. Although choices around energy in different Member States may vary, we have three common and distinct policy objectives: limiting the climatic and environmental impact of energy production, transport and use; ensuring a reliable and uninterrupted supply of energy; and making energy affordable for every citizen while fighting against energy poverty.

The first two aspects have been widely discussed, thus in this article I put emphasis on energy affordability and in general the social aspects of the energy agenda, which has clear linkages with climate and energy security issues. Before examining the social aspects in detail, I would like us to remind ourselves that:

  • We need substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to avoid climate or ecological tipping points. Moving towards a low carbon economy would also result in substantial savings in terms of fuel costs in the EU, namely € 175-320 billion annually over the next 40 years according to the European Commission estimates.
  • We need to reverse the current trends and reduce energy dependency in the EU. EU dependency increased from less than 40% of gross energy consumption in the 1980s to reach 53.4 % by 2012. To reverse the trend, an ambitious and coherent energy framework with interlinked targets is crucial.

These two challenges are accompanied by the pervasive problem of energy poverty in many regions of the EU (mainly in Eastern-Central Europe and the Mediterranean member states). Hence, making energy affordable for each and every member of 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, afford to use energy services at an adequate level, and are forced to spend an extremely high proportion of their incomes for maintenance. Many households are unable to escape energy poverty and are basically excluded from existing energy modernisation 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 a 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 modernisation will cover their loan instalments. We also need low-cost micro projects targeted at the most vulnerable groups.

Hungary: a positive initiative against a difficult background

To give you examples from my home 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 receive a bank loan to cover the investment costs. As recent Eurostat reports show, in 2013 33.5% of the residents in Hungary were living at risk of poverty or social exclusion and the number of those living under the poverty line is 1.363 million. More importantly in Hungary – in many cases as a result of misusing EU funds – the gap between the richest and the poorest is bigger than ever: as the Bertelsmann Foundation states in its report “Social Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison” Hungary is the 25th out of 28 EU countries in the field of social cohesion and non-discrimination.

Nevertheless, I can also showcase a best practice example based on a participatory approach. The “Fényhozók” (“Light bringers”) project aims to provide simple, DIY energy solutions using solar energy for vulnerable Roma households in Hungary.

Source: greeneuropeanjournal.eu

Within this programme, the students and alumni of the Romaversitas Foundation provide help to the most vulnerable families living in ghettos in establishing Self-Financing Communities. The goals are tangible: to equip the poorest houses with solar panels, LED lightning and accumulators; to find the most efficient and sustainable techniques for heating as well as to disseminate the necessary knowledge among the people with lowest education. Besides these very concrete goals the program focuses on the empowerment of communities’ through decreasing the families’ dependency from service providers.

Having some insight into the use of EU funds in Hungary and the current priorities of the Hungarian Environmental and Energy Efficiency Operational Programme in particular, I can remark that alleviating fuel poverty is not an integral part of the Programme, and there is a high risk of EU-co-funded developments actually resulting in growing disparities. As many good European examples show us, EU funds could and also should be diverted towards energy efficiency programs planned, implemented and run by (poor) local communities. It is essential to pay special attention to the question by EU bodies, decision makers and even experts working in any of the related fields.

Widening access to energy

There is a threefold challenge that Europe’s energy policy needs to tackle, and here I argued for a need to intelligently reframe the energy agenda by combining green energy efforts with the alleviation of energy poverty.

We should build on the momentum of the energy security efforts, and we definitely need an ambitious policy framework that provides proper incentives, brings about behaviour change and at the same time, provides benefits for the wider public. While mainstreaming sustainable technologies, new solutions should follow with a view to reducing disparities in the EU.

Energy savings, efficiency and sustainable sources have to be fundamental elements of a renewed, common European energy policy. I also argue for a decentralised energy system which is based on the ‘prosumer’ (consumer and provider at the same time) concept which requires clearly distinctive developments, investments and infrastructural priorities in comparison to a traditional energy network.

In addition to this, we should look far beyond progress in terms of infrastructure, systems, and technologies, and also aim for providing better services and above all, improving accessibility to these in the widest sense.

The “Fényhozók” (“Light bringers”) project of the Romaversitas Foundation provides a good example for all the above aspects.

 

http://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/bringing-light-social-aspects-energy-agenda/

 

What’s the hurry?

pm_sidebar

To our knowledge, the European Commission initiated at least two procedures in connection with the expansion of the Paks power plants: one concerns forbidden of state aid; the other that I initiated, concerning the absence of public procurement procedure. These procedures can end with the Commission’s demand towards Hungary to amend the agreement for the new nuclear power plant. Before the EC has pronounced its verdict in the on-going procedures, it is irresponsible to sign the three implementation agreements. A hurried signing procedure only suggests that what is important to the government has nothing to do with energy safety, but all the more with the “friendly” exploitation of 4000 billion Forints’ worth of public money. We do not see guarantees on how these implementation agreements can be repealed if requested from the Commission.

At the same time, even after the signing, there is no answer to the fundamental questions related to the expansion. We do not know how much the entire project will cost together with the relating investments, we do not know what electricity price could balance out the investment, it is not clear whether the cost of capital will be included in the investment or not, we do not know what will happen to the waste generated in the new blocks and we do not know how great of a financial risk the Hungarian government took with the early signing of the agreements.

In the last couple of weeks it became clear that Russia does not have the financial background to finance projects that are important to the country (e.g. the South Stream), that Putin is an unreliable business partner and that the West sees all Russia-related energy investment projects as an obvious safety risk.

What all this information underlines is that it was a severe mistake to sign premature agreements; meanwhile, with the proposal of the new Paks law, the government aims at limiting the publicity of information in connection with the Paks expansions even beyond the already restricted possibilities. Only those who have something to hide behave in such manner.

In order to unveil the secret, as of today, I submitted a request for the signed agreements before the government, with its legal authority, could make it impossible for us to know what it actually committed itself to in connection with the Paks investment.

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.

 

UN deal key to climate fight



A new international climate agreement in Paris is key to keep the world on track for a sub-2°C climate warming scenario, as the European Parliament stressed in a resolution voted 26 Nov 2014.

The resolution is largely in line with the draft resolution of COP 20 adopted by the ENVI Committee of the Parliament stating that the 2015 agreement needs to meet the goal of reducing global emissions in a way compatible with the 2°C carbon budget and should also aim at phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

A year ahead of the Paris, COP 20 conference in Lima should make progress in order to make the Paris agreement as ambitious as possible. Delaying action would increase costs and reduce options.

To structure negotiations for Paris, key elements of the draft treaty should be ready in Lima including main goals for mitigation, adaptation, capacity building as well as means of implementation to meet the goal of phasing out carbon emissions by 2050.

Clear and ambitious national contributions are also fundamental. In the last climate conference in Warsaw, there was a call to put forward intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) by Q1 2015. COP20 meeting in Lima should provide guidance on the format of INDCs to ensure that contributions are quantifiable and comparable.

Besides, MEPs reiterated the pledge made by EU and its member states to step up contributions to the UN’s Green Climate Fund. Funding is crucial, indeed. I argue for allocating sufficient funds inter alia for renewables, energy efficiency and security measures addressing social challenges, too.

Equally importantly, MEPs reiterated the need for binding 2030 targets for emission reduction, energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. I personally believe that the targets agreed at EU level for 2030 are not enough to keep us on track for the 2050 target and to avoid possible environmental or climate tipping points. Climate and energy relevant challenges should be addressed in a comprehensive manner with special attention to the energy-intensive sectors.

These clearly show that the EU needs to step up its own efforts. In this regard, citizens must hold governments accountable.

At the same time, as the EU is accounting for only around 10% of global GHG emissions, we should also look beyond our own borders and enable global partners to make their own commitments. The recently made joint announcement on new climate policy targets by the US and China provides practical and political momentum and boosts the prospects for a meaningful, forward-looking and legally binding international agreement.

 The Parliament Magazine, 1 December 2014