JÁVORT Az EU-BA!

Támogasd Te is küzdelmünket a zöld és igazságos jövőért!

Category: Press

EU energy rules – Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

Posted on

EU energy rules

Parliament calls for greater ambition ahead of upcoming review

PRESS RELEASE – Brussels, 23 June 2016

The European Parliament today adopted two reports setting out its assessment of how the EU’s laws on energy efficiency and renewable energy are being implemented. The Greens welcomed the votes, which called for more ambition, ahead of reviews of the legislation expected to be presented by the European Commission before the end of this year. Commenting after the votes, Green energy spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The European Parliament has today set down a marker ahead of the forthcoming reviews of the EU legislation on energy efficiency and renewable energy. If the EU is to take its responsibility in delivering on the Paris UN climate deal, it will have to increase the ambition of its energy and climate goals. This would also bring clear economic benefits and create sustainable jobs in Europe. The EP has today sent out a strong call to increase the ambition of the EU’s energy targets and to ensure proper binding rules for meeting these targets.

“Crucially, MEPs have highlighted that the frontline in delivering on the EU’s energy and climate goals must be energy efficiency and saving. They have called for the EU’s 2030 energy efficiency target to finally be made binding and to be increased to 40% (up from the 27% suggested by Council). This is essential for delivering European energy security, reducing our energy imports as well as tackling the problem of energy poverty.

“Parliament has also called for a strengthening of the 2030 EU renewable energy target to 30% (up from the 27% suggested by Council) and for this to be delivered through binding national binding targets. This is the model that proved successful in the expansion of renewables to date.  The current overall ‘headline target’ for 2030 is little more than an aspirational goal, with no binding provisions on individual EU member states. This is a major step back for the promotion of renewables, which undermines the economic and employment creation potential of the sector, and which must be addressed. MEPs also called for the creation of clear rights for those who generate and consumer their own renewable energy, whilst strengthening the role of local and regional authorities in the energy transition, which is crucial to its success.

“Commission must now take these votes on board and ensure its proposals for reviewing the current legislation reflect the call for greater ambition.”

(1) The Greens last year outlined their proposals on what Europe’s energy union should look like. The paper and a short overview can be found at: http://www.greens-efa.eu/a-green-energy-union-13369.html

 

(Image source: greens-efa.eu)

MEP Benedek Jávor’s message on strengthening Roma participation in politics

Posted on

Mr. Benedek Jávor’s message on the political participation of Romas was given on the occasion of the European Roma Information Office’s conference titled “Strengthening Roma Political Participation”. The conference was held 10th of June, 2016; Mr. Jávor’s video message can be watched below.

 

(Image source: erionet.eu)

Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant – Security Challenge for Entire Europe

Posted on

European Parliament’s agenda for June 6 was focused on the question of safety and security of Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant. This construction implemented by Russian energy concern “Rosatom” in Ostrovec, Belarus, less than 20 kilometres from the European Union external border, is followed by multiple accusations for failing to conform with international environmental standards, such as set by United Nations Aarhus and Espoo Conventions, as well as to provide response on inquiries submitted by its nearest neighbour Lithuania on the safety and security of the project.

‘The issue is of utmost importance for people all over Lithuania and entire Europe, as the Ostrovec project is rapidly being implemented and the threats it pose are becoming more and more tangible. With this European Parliament’s plenary debate we ask for the issue of unsafe Belarusian NPP to finally appear on the Commission’s agenda. We urge the Commission to finally wake up from ignorance of threat, appearing at the very border of the EU and use all levers available to start impacting Belarus, a non-democratic country, to stop breaching international conventions and international nuclear security practices in building Ostrovec NPP. We need a strong message, political will and dedicated efforts of the Commission in order not to sacrifice the health and security of European citizens in exchange for unclear political gains’, – notes Bronis Ropė, Lithuanian member of the Greens / European Alliance Group at the European Parliament.

Despite multiple violations of international conventions and protests of neighbouring countries and civil society, Belarusian authorities take all opportunities to declare that Ostrovec NPP will be the cheapest and fastest built nuclear power plant. The commissioning of first reactor is expected in 2018, with the second following in 2020.

‘The plan to build two new reactors in Belarus, close to the Lithuanian border poses a great risk to citizens of the EU, but also to the citizens of Belarus that still suffer from the aftermath of the Chernobyl catastrophe 30 years ago. The plans of Belarusian government to build these reactors under immense time pressure and at extremely low costs raises additional concerns. International conventions to include neighbouring states are not respected and there are serious doubts regarding the safety of the project. The EU-Commission has to use all possible avenues to make sure that international conventions will be respected and that Belarus will take part in the EU-stress tests and will accomplish IAEA SEED mission for the site in its full scope in order to ensure that international nuclear safety standards are applied’ – underlines Rebecca Harms, co-president of the Greens / EFA at the European Parliament.

It is noteworthy the so far ambiguous role of the European Commission. EU climate action and energy commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete is known for assuring the conformity of Belarusian NPP to international stress test requirements in his reply to MEP Ropė’s request in December 2015. However in April 2016 the Commission, answering to another similar question, posed by three green MEP’s – Rebecca Harms, Bronis Ropė and Claude Turmes, has indicated that such stress tests are not conducted yet only planned, meanwhile announcing its reluctance apply pressure to Belarus on this issue.

Monday’s plenary debate shall encourage the Commission to take into more serious account the threats posed by the Ostrovec NPP to the health and security of the citizens of the European Union. Close involvement of the EU institutions rather than efforts of single Member State is expected to have tangible results on halting the construction of Belarusian NPP until its safety and security will be ensured in line with the international conventions and corresponding standards.

Frequently asked questions about whistleblowers and whistleblower protection

Posted on

Draft directive for the protection of whistle-blowers across Europe:

A Greens/EFA Transparency and Democracy initiative

 

  1. What are whistleblowers and why should we protect them?

In a world in which transparency is not always the norm and in which institutionalised secrecy still allows some to act against the public interest with no fear of being caught or brought to justice, whistleblowers are essential for the protection of our democracies. Several scandals that have hit the news – such as the Panama Papers, SwissLeaks, LuxLeaks, or even cases of sexual abuse in Central Africa – would have probably remained unknown without the courage of the brave men and women who chose to speak up and defend the public interest. Since there is no strong legal protection, whistleblowers often risk their careers, their reputations and their privacy. The pressures they face as a result of their disclosures, which include criminal and civil proceedings, are a clear sign that our democracies have not yet developed satisfactory legal instruments to protect those who disclose information in the public interest. Furthermore, the soon-to-be-adopted trade secrets directive has expanded protections for business’ trade secrets and hence has made even more urgent the need to ensure adequate levels of protection for whistle-blowers across the EU. Finally, wrong-doing often occurs across borders, and often negatively affects the internal market.

 

  1. Why action at EU level rather than national level?

Protection of whistleblowers in Europe is very uneven. Where protection exists, provisions tend to be scattered across different laws, with some member states having regulated some level of protection in anti-corruption laws, others in public service laws, and again others in labour, criminal and sector-specific laws, leaving significant legal loopholes and gaps. As a consequence, whistle-blowers across EU Member States enjoy uneven levels of protection, or in six countries[1], no protection at all.

In addition, the public interest in whistle-blower disclosures extends beyond the national level. There is a general European public interest which cannot be reduced to the sum of the particular interests of a given Member State. For example, the LuxLeaks scandal could be considered an example of this: although the authorities in Luxembourg might believe that there is a public interest in keeping their “sweetheart” tax deals secret, it is hard to argue that this public interest is the same for the other Member States, who are losing tax revenue as a result. For this reason, a collection of national pieces of legislation to protect whistle-blowers will never ensure that, within the EU, those who have the courage to disclose information of public interest are properly protected.

  1. Is the EU competent to legislate on the protection of whistleblowers?

Yes, the EU has several possibilities to provide protection to whistleblowers, as shown by the fact that European legislation already covers those who reveal sensitive public interest information when it comes to the fight against money laundering or against market abuse, so as to protect the functioning of the internal market.

In addition, articles 151 and 153(2)(b) TFEU provide a clear and unambiguous basis for EU legislative action which would empower employees to report wrongdoing by setting up a framework that provides for legal certainty and a which establishes a common minimum level of legal protection for workers throughout the Union. After all, although the hardships a whistle-blower might have to face are multifaceted, they almost always start at the workplace and have consequences on a whistle-blowers’ future career prospects too. In choosing this legal basis, we have ensured that the Directive would apply to all sectors of activity, thus covering both the public and private sectors.

 

  1. Who would be protected?

This directive seeks to protect all whistleblowers, defined as “any worker or contractor who discloses, attempts to, or is perceived to disclose information or supporting evidence that is in the public interest or that is related to a threat or prejudice to the public interest, of which he or she has become aware in the context of his or her work-based relationship.“ By using a broad definition of “worker” (any person employed by an employer, including trainees, apprentices and former employees) we are able to cover a wide range of cases, including for example the case of Edward Snowden, who was a contractor for the US National Security Agency.

 

  1. Does the intention behind the protected disclosure matter?

As recommended by the Council of Europe and the UN, and as included in the Irish whistle-blower law, we believe that the personal intentions behind the disclosure of information are not relevant. Instead, we focus on the information itself, and on whether its exposure is in the public interest. In this way, controversies over whether or not selling the information counts as a public interest disclosure are avoided – this is relevant for example to the Swissleaks case involving Hervé Falciani who reportedly offered the information on HSBC’s clients in return for a fee. Since the information itself was beneficial to the public interest, he would be covered by this draft directive.

 

  1. How/to whom can the whistleblower provide the information?

According to our proposal a protected disclosure can be made by any means available to the whistleblower. By not requiring the whistleblower to go through a specific reporting channel (except for where the information concerns national security or classified material), we avoid situations in which the whistleblower should disclose information to people or organizations that already know about the potential scandal, which could create a risk that the information is never actually reported.

In the directive also include a requirement that the employer or relevant authorities must acknowledge receipt of the whistle-blowers’ alert and must inform them within 30 days of any action taken as a consequence of the disclosed information.

 

  1. What protection does the directive provide for whistleblowers?

Protections include exemptions from criminal proceedings related to the protected disclosure, exemptions from civil proceedings and disciplinary measures, and prohibitions of other forms of reprisal, including inter alia dismissal, demotion, withholding of promotion, coercion, intimidation, etc.

Furthermore, the directive foresees that there the whistle-blower must be granted anonymity and confidentiality in their protected disclosure.

 

  1. What happens if a whistle-blower reveals trade secrets or information related to national security?

The Directive protects whistle-blowers who disclose trade secrets as well as confidential information related to national security, though a specific procedure is envisaged for the latter.

In case of an overlap or clash between the whistle-blower protection directive and the trade secrets directive, the provisions to protect whistle-blowers must be complied with. The same is true where the information relates to national security issues. Thus, protection of trade secrets may not be invoked to the detriment of the whistle-blower concerned, even if the information revealed is not actually illegal in itself. In this way we can be sure that the directive would also protect people like Antoine Deltour, currently on trial following the LuxLeaks revelations.

 

  1. What will you do next?

The European Parliament’s latest call for legislation to protect whistle-blowers established, in the TAXE special committee report, a deadline of June 2016 for the European Commission to react. We plan to continue to campaign so that the European Commission finally proposes legislation to protect whistle-blowers across the EU. We already have broad cross-party support on the matter, as shown by the numerous European Parliament resolutions that called on the Commission to propose specific legislation.

[1] Spain, Greece, Finland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal

Press release – Whistleblower protection Greens present draft EU law as Deltour trial continues

Posted on

The Greens/EFA group in European Parliament are presenting a draft for a new EU directive on whistleblower protection. The draft directive, which has been launched coinciding with the trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour, aims to provide the basis and further impetus for a proposal to this end from the European Commission. Outlining the draft directive, Green MEP and transparency spokesperson Benedek Javor said:

“The Panama Papers leak has once again underlined the essential role performed by whistleblowers in shedding light on vital information in the public interest, just as the ongoing trial of Luxembourg Leaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour has driven home the precarious situation of whistleblowers even in modern democratic states. Whistleblowers serve a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability and it is a scandal that they are very often hung out to dry, with no protection, once they have revealed information in the public interest.

“We believe there needs to be a basic level of protection for whistleblowers across Europe. Whistleblowers face uneven levels of protection in the EU, with no protection at all in some member states. The European Parliament has called on the EU Commission to propose EU legislation on the protection of whistleblowers on a number of occasions and there is a clear legal basis for such a framework under the EU Treaties. In the absence of an initiative to this end from the Commission, this draft directive on whistleblower protection aims to provide the basis and further impetus for such a proposal. We want to work to build a broad consensus around this legislation with a view to ensure whistleblowers can finally have a basic level of protection across Europe.”

The draft directive and a summary can be found at:http://www.greens-efa.eu/whistle-blowers-directive-15498.html

The Greens/EFA group will host a conference on whistleblower protection tomorrow in the European Parliament at which the draft directive will be outlined. More details: http://www.greens-efa.eu/the-right-to-speak-out-15199.html

ITCO Press Statement – Trade Secrets Directive hampers prevention of corruption

Posted on

Today, the Trade Secrets Directive was adopted during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The highly contested directive harms the protection of whistleblowers and hinders the work of investigative journalists and trade unionists. The ITCO intergroup regrets that the European Commission does not attribute a more prominent role to whistleblowers and investigative journalists in the struggle against corruption.

 

The public consultation held by the European Commission, clearly indicated that the Trade Secrets Directive lacks public support: citizens trade unions, civil society organizations and SME’s reacted negatively. Although several improvements have been made in comparison to the original proposal, the final proposal still burdens the journalist, the whistleblower or the trade unionist with the obligation to prove that he or she acted in the realm of the (restricted) freedom of expression, for the purpose of the general public interest, or as part of helping workers’ representatives in their legitimate exercise of their representative functions. These strict conditions, combined with a very broad definition of ‘trade secrets’, restrict the possibilities of whistleblowers to be acknowledged and for journalists and unionists to do their work properly.

 

Consequentially, disclosing information on practices that may not be illegal but are yet undesirable, such as tax avoidance, will become more easily punishable. Dennis de Jong, co-chair of the ITCO intergroup comments: ”One would think that after Luxleaks, the Panama papers and Dieselgate, in which whistleblowers or investigative journalists have played a crucial role in revealing crucial information, the Commission would do anything to stimulate the important role of whistleblowers and investigative journalists. Instead, the Commission subordinates the struggle against corruption to the interests of multinationals. Antoine Deltour, who revealed the Luxleaks scandal, is already facing criminal charges against him, and the directive will undermine his position.

 

Benedek Javor, ITCO bureau member adds:

“We as Greens wanted to reject the proposal or at least delay the vote until the directive can be packaged with a Whistleblower Protection Directive. Adopting a text that creates a situation where secrecy is the legal norm for companies’ internal information and transparency is the exception is clear proof of the European Commission preference of corporate interest over the public interest, as also shown most recently by the glyphosate authorization.”

 

(Image source: itcointergroup.eu)

Une protection européenne pour les lanceurs d’alerte

Posted on
Lors d’une conférence organisée par Eva JOLY, une représentante de la Commission européenne a affirmé que la Commission n’avait aucune intention de faire une proposition législative sur la protection des lanceurs d’alerte au niveau européen dans un futur proche. Les députés écologistes ont décidé de rédiger une question écrite à la Commission européenne afin d’obtenir son positionnement officiel et pouvoir agir en conséquence.

Eva JOLY, membre de la Commission Libertés civiles, a souhaité réagir :

« Nous souhaitons mon collègue et moi-même obtenir la confirmation officielle par la Commission européenne des propos tenus par sa représentante affirmant qu’aucune législation ou programme de protection des lanceurs d’alerte ne serait proposé par la Commission européenne. Si tel est le cas, si la Commission s’obstine à refuser aux lanceurs d’alerte un statut européen les protégeant, ce serait pour moi une erreur absolue. Leur garantir une protection devrait être une priorité démocratique. On pourrait alors légitimement se demander si Jean-Claude Juncker, le Président de la Commission, n’aurait pas un problème avec les lanceurs d’alerte pour ne pas vouloir les protéger.
 
J’ai une conviction : dans ce Parlement, les lobbyistes sont plus forts que nous. Mais j’ai aussi une certitude : seule la société civile mobilisée peut arrêter tout cela et peut faire le changement.

Rarement une décennie à venir n’a été aussi importante pour notre avenir, pour l’avenir de la démocratie. Nous avons une énorme responsabilité en tant que membre du Parlement et de la société civile. L’avenir de nos démocraties, si nous ne laissons pas toute leur place aux contre-pouvoirs, dont les lanceurs d’alerte font partie intégrante, est tout à fait inquiétant.
 
J’attends donc avec impatience la réponse de la Commission et je souhaite qu’elle présente rapidement une proposition législative visant à mettre en place un programme européen efficace et complet de protection des lanceurs d’alerte. »

Pour Benedek JAVOR, Porte-parole du groupe des Verts sur la transparence :

« Jean-Claude Juncker a affirmé au début de son mandat que cette Commission serait la Commission de la transparence et qu’il comptait coopérer étroitement avec le Parlement Européen. La déclaration de la Commission lors de la conférence d’ignorer les demandes répétées du Parlement européen pour un standard minimum de protection des lanceurs d’alerte ne remet pas seulement en question la crédibilité de Monsieur Juncker et de sa commission. Elle envoie également un très mauvais signal aux potentiels lanceurs d’alerte sur l’engagement Européen à protéger ceux qui agissent dans l’intérêt général. »

La conférence « Un statut européen pour les lanceurs d’alerte » où sont également intervenus Julian Assange de Wikileaks et Sarah Harrison de la Fondation Courage est consultable en ligne et en intégralité ici : http://greenmediabox.eu/en/ct/93-A-European-statute-for-whistleblowers

photo: Holly Occhipinti. CC BY

Investigative journalism fund – Greens press release

Posted on

Commission under fire for blocking proposed fund

The Greens/EFA group in the EU Parliament today submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission for blocking a proposed funding programme under the EU budget aimed at promoting cross-border investigative journalism. The complaint focuses on the Commission’s use of dubious administrative procedures not to implement a programme for investigative journalism, despite the fund having been proposed by the European Parliament in 2009 and officially included as an EU budget line from 2010-14 (1). Commenting on the case, Green MEP Benedek Javor said:

“It is unacceptable that the Commission has used underhand administrative methods to block this important initiative. The role of investigative journalism in a democracy is vital, as has been confirmed by the recent Luxembourg Leaks revelations. The EU should be doing all in its power to promote this important democratic tool and that was the reason the European Parliament proposed this fund. It is inexplicable and reflects badly on the credibility of the EU for the Commission to go to such lengths to prevent this programme from taking off.”

Green budgetary spokesperson Helga Truepel said:

“We are now calling on the Ombusman to investigate the matter and the methods used by the Commission to block the funding. In particular, it is important to clarify how the conclusions of the feasibility study carried out were altered and who in the Commission was responsible for this. The Greens/EFA group will continue to push for this programme to be included in the negotiations on the forthcoming EU budget, as we have done in the past.”

(1) The European Parliament proposed a research grant scheme to support cross-border investigative journalism in 2009. A budget line was included in the EU budget between 2010 and 2014 but the European Commission made sure the fund was not implemented during that period and the budget line was dropped in 2015 without any trial run either as a pilot project or a preparatory action.

In addition, the conclusions of the feasibility study commissioned in the framework of the preparatory actions and carried out by an expert team were reversed from positive to negative when the study was finally published in March 2015. The expert team last week issued a statement complaining about the manipulation of its findings: http://www.aej-uk.org/investigative-pr.pdf

Biodiversity is too low on the political agenda

Posted on

Benedek Jávor’s article on Europe’s World:

Biodiversity is not high enough on the political agenda, despite the fact that trends recently reported are almost entirely negative. The European Environment Agency’s 2015 State of the Environment Report confirms that Europe’s natural capital is not yet being protected, conserved and enhanced in line with the ambitions of the 7th Environment Action Programme. Longer-term trends are especially alarming. Challenges such as the loss of soil functions, land degradation and climate change continue to threaten the ecosystem services that underpin economic activities and wellbeing.

On the global scale, we are experiencing an enormous loss of diversity with the ever-growing rate of species extinction. As the UN warns in its Global Biodiversity Outlook, several ecosystems are approaching a ‘tipping point’ and if current trends continue, we may see them never recover.

Europe is not on track to meet its overall target of halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services

As for Europe’s biodiversity, the State of the Nature report freshly launched by the European Commission stresses that it continues to be eroded due to cumulative pressures. Currently, a large proportion of protected species (60%) and habitat types (77%) in the EU are considered to be in unfavourable conservation status, and a significant share of previously unfavourable assessments have deteriorated further. The status of species and habitats depending on agricultural and forestry ecosystems are especially worrying.

The report also confirms that Europe is not on track to meet its overall target of halting biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services by 2020, even though some more specific targets are being met. Improvements are basically limited to local or regional level, and have not yet scaled up to European level.

I am nevertheless convinced that the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and the two nature directives – the Birds and Habitats Directives – play a central role in the EU’s biodiversity and nature conservation policies; if implemented well and effectively, they provide a very useful framework and effective solutions for biodiversity and nature protection.

The European Commission is currently working on an in-depth evaluation of the nature directives with a possibility to review or even revise them in 2016  – the former mainly resulting in changes to the annexes, the latter bringing more substantial changes. The mid-term review of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy is also coming this year. I see much risk inherent in these processes. As the initial reactions of stakeholders indicate, we can expect very different interests to be clashing here.

To achieve the EU’s main biodiversity targets, no weakening of the nature directives is acceptable

And with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s words about ‘business-friendly’ legislation and cutting ‘green tape’ in mind, I fear that the Commission will not necessarily focus on correcting the malfunctioning bits of legislation as well as providing and enabling a framework for improved implementation. However, several case studies and assessments clearly point out that this is exactly what is much needed. Scientific evidence shows that the natural directives are not obstacles to sustainable economic development. The economic benefits from only the Natura 2000 network, created by the Habitats Directive, have been estimated in the order of €200-300bn a year, while the annual costs associated with managing and protecting the network are approximately €5.8bn.

The nature directives are recognised worldwide and have already contributed substantially to short-term improvements in the status of specific species and habitats. Besides, they can bring substantial benefits in the longer run both in social and economic terms.

Thus, any changes to the directives have to be done with extreme care, not allowing industrial and economic lobbying forces to dilute important elements of the legislation such as by the broader use of exemptions or any other flexibility mechanisms or the biased application of the concept of biodiversity offsetting.

To achieve the EU’s main biodiversity targets, no weakening of the nature directives is acceptable. The European Commission and member states should instead put more effort into enforcing and implementing them as well as upscaling effective measures. These measures should be taken immediately, encompassing the creation of connected and ecologically coherent networks of protected areas (green infrastructure), the proper management of these sites with a focus on species, habitats and ecosystems as well as the integration of biodiversity concerns in various fields and sectors including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, transport and industry to reduce the pressures on biodiversity.

Together with fellow MEPs, I will keep an eye on the Commission’s plans and actions deriving from the evaluation of the nature directives and make sure there are no backward steps in biodiversity protection and nature conservation in Europe, but rather that we live up to our legacy and step up our efforts.

 

EU nature protection – Greens/EFA

Posted on

New report must focus attention on need to defend EU rules on nature and birds.

The European Commission today presented its State of Nature report, which looks at the status of species and habitats protected under EU legislation on birds and nature over a 6 year period (2007-12). The report underlined concerns about the endangered status of species and habitats, as well as the EU’s goal of halting biodiversity loss. Commenting on the report, Green environment spokesperson Bas Eickhout said:

“This report should be a warning signal for European policy makers about the need to redouble our efforts to protect our indigenous nature and address biodiversity loss. With some in the European Commission sharpening their knives ahead of a review of EU legislation on birds and habitats, this report should serve as a rallying call to ensure these essential rules are not just maintained but properly enforced.”

Green environment spokesperson Benedek Javor added:

“While EU rules on birds and habitats have helped improve the status of some species, it is clear that many habitats and species are still in precarious situations. Despite some local improvements the majority of habitats and species in Europe have an unfavourable conservation status and the main EU target of ‘halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services’ by 2020 will not be achieved if the efforts are not upscaled. The report underlines the numerous, manmade threats to habitats and it is clear that more needs to be done to address this. Ahead of the mid-term review of the EU’s biodiversity strategy and with EU rules on birds and habitats in the line of fire, this report could not have come at a more timely moment. We hope its findings will be central to considerations on these issues.”

05.20.2015.
Greens/EFA