Passion.
It is not a word usually associated with the European Union. From the outside, the European Union is at best a neutral normative power. The European Union is a union systematically and meticulously built upon policy and legislation; the EU is a strategy. And yet, once in a while, you stumble upon passion.
Or you hear it.
The subject of Natura 2000 had the Netherlands's agricultural interests and the German environmentalist yelling at each other in the native tongues with such language that even the translators seemed hesitant to translate.
Natura 2000 is the name given to a network of protected areas in Europe. The areas were chosen based on two directives: the Habitats Directive and the complementary Birds Directive. The first piece of legislation was adopted by the European Union in May 1992, the latter had been adopted in 1979. The Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive are similar in structure. Where the Birds Directive requires the establishment of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to "help protect and manage areas which are important for rare and vulnerable birds because they use them for breeding, feeding, wintering or migration", the Habitats Directive sets up Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to "provide rare and vulnerable animals, plants and habitats with increased protection and management." En bref, Natura 2000 strings together vulnerable wetland habitats with large meadows and estuaries. The network of protected sites extends from Finland in the North to the Canary Islands in the South. It is a pretty hefty amount of protected land, covering approximately 20% of Europe.
The Natura 2000 project is intrinsically tied to biodiversity, and therefore to the struggle between the environmentalists and the agricultural sector.
The German environmentalist, backed by an expert present in the conference room, presented the glaring fact that land used for agriculture often squanders the natural biodiversity of an area. In his words, "the cities of Germany are more bio-diverse in pigeon species than your farm lands in the Netherlands."
For the agricultural interests this seems an insolent statement – after all, someone has to produce the food, no? If farm lands were prohibited due to their low levels of bio-diversity, all agricultural products would have to be imported from elsewhere, a highly unsustainable practice.
Furthermore, the method by which Natura 2000 sites are designated is questionable, given as these sites are recommended to the Commission by the member states, there is a lack of general standards. In practice, the choosing and then protection of these sites all across Europe varies.
Clearly, the two sides raised very important issues.
The relative versus absolute value in biodiversity. The sustainability of the European Agricultural model. And the Natura 2000 selection and designation process.
But when the conference had ended, I realized something. Nothing had been solved. Neither side had conceded their point. Neither side had changed their perspective. If anything, they had just become more deeply entrenched. But they had agreed to disagree. The European Union policy to agree stops any movement forward. How could passion be associated with policies that delicately trapezes the tight rope between such strong currents?
The European Union is an idea. It is the idea of Europe, and as such it is founded in a passionate spirit of utopian idealism.
The catch?
Reality, or what we would perceive as such.
The public does not see Europe's ideas. The public sees compromise and vaguely worded sentences. And these, are not passionate.
STUDYGROUP: Biodiversity Beyond 2010
29.6.10
17.6.10
16.6.10
TOPIC: EU- Asia Relations
There is always a marked difference between what an institution says to those on the inside and the face it bares to the world. And when it comes to Asia, it would seem the European Union is no different.
Inside the pillars of Parliament, Europe is bitter. At Copenhagen, it was the United States who took the center stage, with only an after-thought for the European Union. The climate change conference last year dropped Brussels into a depression. Many MEPs are convinced that the rest of the world considers Europe "irrelevant", and that any change Europe wants, she'll have to do it alone. This general attitude is not helped by the East's rising sun. In internal study groups, the dialogue turns somber when China is brought up: the rapporteur usually has little more to say other than the used mantra, "we need to get far enough ahead of them, and fast."
Inside the meeting rooms of Brussels, the tense air of competition makes it hard to believe that, actually, Europe and Asia are on good terms. In fact, the cooperation between Europe and Asia is a considerable driving force in the initiative for ensuring sustainable development.
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is officially a "forum for dialogue" between the Europe and Asia. ASEM began in 1996, underpinned by the European Commission and counting 45 partners today. The 45 ASEM partners make up almost half of the world's GPD, 60% of the world population, and 60% of global trade. The conferences held by the ASEM are heavily attended by experts from many fields and industries, and not lacking in their share of bureaucrats.
For such an unheard of organization, the ASEM is remarkably busy. ASEM government leaders meet at summits every two years, alternating between Asian and European locations. The last summit was held in Beijing, releasing a declaration on sustainable development. Then next summit is to be held this October in Brussels, with the theme, "Quality of Life, achieving greater well-being and more dignity for all citizens". Between the summits, ASEM hosts conferences every few months. The last conference just last month in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, was organized under the title "ASEM Development Conference II – Towards an Asia-Europe Partnership for Sustainable Development".
A pretty flashy title.
The surprising thing? The report, albeit being only two pages, actually lives up to it's name.
The report focuses heavily on climate change, low-carbon development, social cohesion, and policy coherence for development, as based on three reinforcing elements: economic, social, and environmental. There is a push in the small document for strong implementation – blending grants and loans, investment in R&D.
And what does all of this mean?
It means that China's Five-Year Plan from 2010-2015 is called the Green Plan. It means that Europe is pushing to reduce their carbon emissions by 30% instead of 20%. It means that Asia is willing to push, and Europe is willing to pull. Asia will push for sustainable development if Europe leads them, and Europe will lead with sustainable development if Asia pushes them.
That the wonder of EU-Asia relations. So perhaps those mutterings in the stuffy internal seminars are nothing more than ignorance dyed with prejudice.
When it comes to Asia, the European Union is different.
The dialogue between Europe and Asia seems like a sunbeam in a dark horizon. The Chinese representative was smiling when he cast aside North America and instead made it clear that for Asia, "the EU is a model for low-carbon emissions and a more sustainable life-style."
CONFERENCE: Ensuring Sustainable Development: A Common Challenge for Asia and Europe
Inside the pillars of Parliament, Europe is bitter. At Copenhagen, it was the United States who took the center stage, with only an after-thought for the European Union. The climate change conference last year dropped Brussels into a depression. Many MEPs are convinced that the rest of the world considers Europe "irrelevant", and that any change Europe wants, she'll have to do it alone. This general attitude is not helped by the East's rising sun. In internal study groups, the dialogue turns somber when China is brought up: the rapporteur usually has little more to say other than the used mantra, "we need to get far enough ahead of them, and fast."
Inside the meeting rooms of Brussels, the tense air of competition makes it hard to believe that, actually, Europe and Asia are on good terms. In fact, the cooperation between Europe and Asia is a considerable driving force in the initiative for ensuring sustainable development.
The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is officially a "forum for dialogue" between the Europe and Asia. ASEM began in 1996, underpinned by the European Commission and counting 45 partners today. The 45 ASEM partners make up almost half of the world's GPD, 60% of the world population, and 60% of global trade. The conferences held by the ASEM are heavily attended by experts from many fields and industries, and not lacking in their share of bureaucrats.
For such an unheard of organization, the ASEM is remarkably busy. ASEM government leaders meet at summits every two years, alternating between Asian and European locations. The last summit was held in Beijing, releasing a declaration on sustainable development. Then next summit is to be held this October in Brussels, with the theme, "Quality of Life, achieving greater well-being and more dignity for all citizens". Between the summits, ASEM hosts conferences every few months. The last conference just last month in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, was organized under the title "ASEM Development Conference II – Towards an Asia-Europe Partnership for Sustainable Development".
A pretty flashy title.
The surprising thing? The report, albeit being only two pages, actually lives up to it's name.
The report focuses heavily on climate change, low-carbon development, social cohesion, and policy coherence for development, as based on three reinforcing elements: economic, social, and environmental. There is a push in the small document for strong implementation – blending grants and loans, investment in R&D.
And what does all of this mean?
It means that China's Five-Year Plan from 2010-2015 is called the Green Plan. It means that Europe is pushing to reduce their carbon emissions by 30% instead of 20%. It means that Asia is willing to push, and Europe is willing to pull. Asia will push for sustainable development if Europe leads them, and Europe will lead with sustainable development if Asia pushes them.
That the wonder of EU-Asia relations. So perhaps those mutterings in the stuffy internal seminars are nothing more than ignorance dyed with prejudice.
When it comes to Asia, the European Union is different.
The dialogue between Europe and Asia seems like a sunbeam in a dark horizon. The Chinese representative was smiling when he cast aside North America and instead made it clear that for Asia, "the EU is a model for low-carbon emissions and a more sustainable life-style."
CONFERENCE: Ensuring Sustainable Development: A Common Challenge for Asia and Europe
14.6.10
TOPIC: Challenges to the Europe 2020 Plan
The European Union's next strategic plan, to be formally adopted in June of 2010, boast itself a scheme for "smart, sustainable and inclusive growth." The economic and financial crisis has rocked the foundations of Europe, and this is the continent's attempt to throw off the old ways that lead them to destruction in the first place and begin anew. Of course, not quite in that language. What Barroso states instead is the need to use this crisis in order to "find the path to create new jobs and to offer a sense of direction to our societies." Europe 2020, is about rebuilding a way of life. Increased economic interdependence demands that the political world be equally united. This is not a covert cry for European integration, but rather a fact. The bickering between the European states is not sustainable.
The plan, in all, is progressive and a breath of fresh air. But: it is not, as it would claim to be, "ambitious." Attainable, maybe – if Europe set her mind to it, but ambitious? No.
The EU 2020 has three priorities: smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Smart growth, in that the European economy needs to shift towards a concentration in knowledge and innovation. Sustainable growth, the buzz-word of the entire document, pushes for a greener and thus more competitive economy. The last, inclusive growth, is included in true EU fashion: a push for social and territorial cohesion as a method to boost employment levels. These three priorities guide the five targets: "75% of the population aged 20-64 should be employed; 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D; the '20/20/20' climate/energy targets should be met (including and increase to 30% of emissions reduction if the conditions are right); the share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree; 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty."
The Commission will be heading seven flagship initiatives to drive the progress. Primarily of interest for the environment is the initiative for a "Resource Efficient Europe". This initiative supports a shift in the economy with the aim to "decouple our economic growth from resource and energy use, reduce CO2 emissions, enhance competitiveness and promote greater energy security."
En bref, the goals of the project are attainable, if perhaps only for their broadness. It must also be said that Europe has a great capacity to change, that much over its history has been clear. And this plan does seem to offer a break for the environment: the word green is amply used in the report, and all economic ventures demand for sustainability. Europe knows that economic recovery will not come without a green economy.
However, this plan is not enough.
In a report released by the WWF, we, as a human species, are in ecological overshoot: we use the equivalent of 1.3 planets every year. The human demand on the environment is greater than the capacity of the earth to sustain us. We are changing resources into waster faster than nature can accommodate them or change them back into resources. This is a problem: we simply cannot live on more than there is. In Europe and in North America we live on land that cannot sustain us: we thus import resources and export waste and pollution.
And down this path leads to the dark side: for over-consumption leads to ecological debt, which leads to ecological degradation, and ultimately to ecological collapse. And all of us can feel the ecological debt: smaller fish in the market, extreme weather, and desertification are just a few examples.
By 2030 we will need 2 planets to support ourselves.
This is not a recent phenomenon: we have been exceeding the earth's biocapacity since the 1980s. Sustainable is not only a word. It is a harsh reality: the earth can not sustain us. We must change the way we live, or else drive ourselves into extinction by destroying the resources we need to sustain our existence.
From this perspective, Europe 2020 falls short. Where the strategy should be a radical transformation of our civilization, it is nothing but a weak call for Europe to change her point of view. Too much from the top, and too little from civil society?
WORKSHOP: Environmental Challenges to the Europe 2020 Plan
Go check out your ecological footprint: http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
And your carbon footprint: http://www.myfootprint.org/
The plan, in all, is progressive and a breath of fresh air. But: it is not, as it would claim to be, "ambitious." Attainable, maybe – if Europe set her mind to it, but ambitious? No.
The EU 2020 has three priorities: smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Smart growth, in that the European economy needs to shift towards a concentration in knowledge and innovation. Sustainable growth, the buzz-word of the entire document, pushes for a greener and thus more competitive economy. The last, inclusive growth, is included in true EU fashion: a push for social and territorial cohesion as a method to boost employment levels. These three priorities guide the five targets: "75% of the population aged 20-64 should be employed; 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D; the '20/20/20' climate/energy targets should be met (including and increase to 30% of emissions reduction if the conditions are right); the share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a tertiary degree; 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty."
The Commission will be heading seven flagship initiatives to drive the progress. Primarily of interest for the environment is the initiative for a "Resource Efficient Europe". This initiative supports a shift in the economy with the aim to "decouple our economic growth from resource and energy use, reduce CO2 emissions, enhance competitiveness and promote greater energy security."
En bref, the goals of the project are attainable, if perhaps only for their broadness. It must also be said that Europe has a great capacity to change, that much over its history has been clear. And this plan does seem to offer a break for the environment: the word green is amply used in the report, and all economic ventures demand for sustainability. Europe knows that economic recovery will not come without a green economy.
However, this plan is not enough.
In a report released by the WWF, we, as a human species, are in ecological overshoot: we use the equivalent of 1.3 planets every year. The human demand on the environment is greater than the capacity of the earth to sustain us. We are changing resources into waster faster than nature can accommodate them or change them back into resources. This is a problem: we simply cannot live on more than there is. In Europe and in North America we live on land that cannot sustain us: we thus import resources and export waste and pollution.
And down this path leads to the dark side: for over-consumption leads to ecological debt, which leads to ecological degradation, and ultimately to ecological collapse. And all of us can feel the ecological debt: smaller fish in the market, extreme weather, and desertification are just a few examples.
By 2030 we will need 2 planets to support ourselves.
This is not a recent phenomenon: we have been exceeding the earth's biocapacity since the 1980s. Sustainable is not only a word. It is a harsh reality: the earth can not sustain us. We must change the way we live, or else drive ourselves into extinction by destroying the resources we need to sustain our existence.
From this perspective, Europe 2020 falls short. Where the strategy should be a radical transformation of our civilization, it is nothing but a weak call for Europe to change her point of view. Too much from the top, and too little from civil society?
WORKSHOP: Environmental Challenges to the Europe 2020 Plan
Go check out your ecological footprint: http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
And your carbon footprint: http://www.myfootprint.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)