Author: Greens Efa

Anyone would have thought that the year 2021 could not get any worse. But, late last year, the European Commission had one last disappointing Christmas present for the planet. Just before the clock struck midnight on New Year’s Eve, they published the draft for the new law on sustainable investments (known as the EU taxonomy) and quietly tried to include gas and nuclear power on this list.

Perhaps they thought we wouldn’t notice? They were wrong.

Quickly, youth activists from Fridays For Future and Youth For Climate organised a protest in front of the European Commission building in Brussels. Sneaking dirty energy onto a list of sustainable investments is the worst kind of greenwashing. We told the EU Commission that we do not want their dirty present.

What is the EU taxonomy?

The European Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities is a list that defines which investments should be considered green and sustainable investments… and which ones not. There is a very simple set of rules to determine what can be on the EU taxonomy list:

Step 1. The activity must achieve one or more of the following benefits to be labelled as “green”:

• Climate change mitigation (stopping greenhouse gasses emissions that created and are exacerbating the climate crisis);
• Climate change adaptation (measures to help with the consequences of the climate emergency);
• Protection or restoration of biodiversity;
• Improvement of the circular economy;
• Pollution prevention and control;
• Sustainable management of water resources.

Step 2. It must not do significant harm.

Pretty clear, right? But the European Commission managed to ignore their own rules by adding both fossil gas and nuclear power to the “green” mix.

Why did the European Commission add fossil fuel to the EU taxonomy of sustainable activities?

It’s under pressure from national governments. European countries who clearly want to invest in new fossil gas power plants – such as Germany and Italy – agreed with the French President, Emmanuel Macron, to pressure the European Commission to include both fossil gas and nuclear energy in the taxonomy. With national elections coming up in France, Macron is under a lot of political pressure to promote investment in nuclear energy. And, of course, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, agreed with their petty interests.

We will also assess how the gas, electricity and ETS markets function.

We need more renewables. They are cheaper, carbon-free and homegrown.

We also need a stable source, nuclear, and during the transition, gas.

This is why we will come forward with our taxonomy proposal.

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) October 22, 2021

But why is fossil gas not sustainable?

Once more for the people in the back: Leave. Fossils. Fuels. In. The. Ground.

We’ve said it ‘til we’re blue in the face, but it looks like EU leaders still don’t want to listen to the facts. The planet’s resources are finite. They take millions of years to replenish. We can’t keep burning them just to make rich fossil fuel companies even richer. Not when renewable alternatives exist!

According to the European Commission itself, fossil gas consumption must be reduced by 32-37% by 2030. This is one of their own climate goals. It’s even listed in the EU’s “Fit For 2030” package of climate laws (also known as “FitFor55”). At the same time, they’re defining gas as a “transitional energy”, with the condition that permits for new gas plants are granted by the end of 2030. This is just one of many contradictions in the EU taxonomy.

Even the European Investment Bank (EIB) has announced that it will not put any more money into gas because it is simply not cost effective. Fossil gas is the second largest source of energy in Europe but we buy 90% of it from other countries, such as Russia. We pay so much for it that many European citizens are now suffering from energy poverty.

Climate targets will make investments in gas increasingly disadvantageous. Continuing to fund fossil fuels is an incredible waste of money. And, guess who’ll have to pay for it? The same generations that will have to face the consequences of the climate emergency that the EU is failing to fight.

Climate activists agree: the European Commission cannot get away with a misleading EU taxonomy

On January 13th, youth activists from all over Europe protested with two handcrafted fossil gas plant cooling towers provided by Greenpeace. They were painted green, exactly as the European Commission is doing to greenwash gas plants right now.

This can still be stopped. We have four months to convince at least 353 Members of the European Parliament to block this EU taxonomy.

Will you help us? Spread the word. Join a protest (or organise one!). Write to your MEPs. And don’t lose hope. We will not accept this scam. Not for our generation and not for the ones to come.

Congratulations. Now how do we get this calendar to you?

An independent panel of EU citizens has called for the European Union to be more democratic. As part of the Conference on the Future of Europe (COFE), EU citizens are being asked to help decide on the direction of the EU for the coming years. Greens/EFA MEPs Daniel Freund, Gwen Delbos-Corfield and Damian Boeselager explain how the project works and argue that the EU must trust its citizens by following through on their demands.

Last weekend, 200 randomly-selected European citizens decided on strong recommendations for EU reform. It’s the first time a representative panel of citizens from every EU country, assembled by randomised telephone calls, has deliberated on and made recommendations directly to politicians.

The EU Citizens’ Panel, formed as part of the Conference on the Future of Europe, emphasized that they want a stronger, more democratic Europe that defends its values. They also called for work to begin on a European constitution. The recommendations show that the people of Europe want more democracy, better enforcement of European values and more investment in a fairer economy.

The panel was made up of 200 strangers, all total newcomers to the complex world of EU politics. They gathered over three weekends and put together their proposals in a spirit of serious and friendly deliberation. Seeing people from different countries coming together to dream about a fairer and greener future for the EU is truly inspiring. And that’s why it’s so important that we take these proposals seriously.

It is the duty of European and national politicians to turn these recommendations into laws. The Conference on the Future of Europe was an invitation to our citizens to shape the future of the EU, and so their proposals must be properly implemented. The Greens/EFA Group has always believed in the power of democracy, and we will keep pushing to make sure that the people of Europe are taken seriously.

What changes do citizens want from the EU?

The Citizens’ Panel on democracy, rights, rules of law and security called for several ground-breaking recommendations to be carried out by the EU:

• European public investment to create good jobs and improve the quality of life across the EU. And incentive schemes for companies to create childcare services at work.
• Tax Justice: Large companies should be properly taxed, and tax havens in the EU abolished.
• Independent media should be better protected and financially supported.
• Tougher measures against EU member states who violate the rule of law. The current rules to freeze EU funding only apply if there’s a threat to the EU budget, but citizens feel this is not enough.
• A “European Vote”, meaning that European Parties would create lists with candidates from all over Europe (also known as “transnational lists”). EU citizens would then be able to vote for a European list in addition to the national and regional constituencies that exist currently.
• A European Constitution that protects democracy and fundamental rights and is voted on by the people of Europe.
• A solution to the problem with unanimity in votes in the Council of Ministers. Currently only one country can veto all the other countries from moving forward with new EU laws. If necessary, this could mean amending the EU Treaties.
• More assemblies of randomly selected EU citizens to help solve complex problems, with an obligation for politicians to comply with their recommendations or explain why they did not.

What happens next? Politicians must reply to EU citizens’ demands

On Friday 17 December, representatives of the Citizens’ Panel will present their recommendations to the working groups of the Future of Europe Conference. This is where representatives of the EU institutions and national parliaments will give their initial feedback on the people’s proposals. It will be a key litmus test to see how seriously the other political forces are taking them.

On 22 January 2022, the citizens’ recommendations will be debated publicly for the first time in the “plenary session” of the Future of Europe Conference.

By February, three more Citizens’ Panels will vote on their recommendations and also present them in the Conference plenary.

In March, the Conference on the Future of Europe will begin discussing a draft declaration, with the involvement of citizens but also of other EU and national politicians. The conference is supposed to decide on its conclusions in May 2022.

For the final declaration to be adopted, it will need the approval of the European Parliament, European Council and European Commission and also of national parliamentarians in the Conference Plenary.

A new proposal on European minimum taxation is released today (22/12) by the European Commission. Our Greens/EFA MEPs Kira Peter-Hansen, Ernest Urtasun, Claude Gruffat, Damien Carême explain what’s included in the new plans and where they fall short of the changes needed to achieve tax justice.

New plans, released today by the European Commission, lay out the next steps needed to carry through on the recently agreed global tax deal for the world’s largest multinational companies.

At the end of October,  137 countries agreed on a minimum effective tax on multinationals after years of negotiations. The deal sets out a minimum tax of 15% for corporations with a yearly revenue of €750 million. This will directly impact the largest multinationals in the world.

What will a minimum tax rate change?

What this means in practice is that there would no longer be any incentive for a large German car manufacturer to shift profits to a country that has a lower effective tax rate, as Germany would tax the difference. The aim is to stop countries from ‘racing to the bottom’ by lowering their tax thresholds.

Large multinational companies in the EU are making millions in profits each year. Thanks to the differing tax rules in every country they’re able to pick and choose how much tax they pay. This means that they often shift profits to countries with very low tax rates. This means taxpayers are losing out. Giant companies take all the benefits of trading in the EU without giving back their fair share. Companies making huge profits should pay fair taxes.

The Greens/EFA wanted to see more ambition from this international tax deal. We strongly advocated for a minimum tax rate of 21%, in support of the Biden administration in the US. Unfortunately, this opportunity was lost during the international negotiations. Pressured by tax havens, the rate was lowered to 15% and part of the profits were made exempt from the minimum tax rate. Some EU member states were at the forefront of watering down the ambition in the deal. This raises questions about the EU’s requirement for a unanimous vote on tax matters. Right now, the threat of a single veto means that individual EU countries are able to water down international agreements despite opposition from other EU member states.

What happens next? The Commission’s proposal on European Minimum Taxation

Now all eyes are on the European Commission’s proposal. The same EU countries that helped to water down the international deal now stand ready to use their veto power against any attempt to increase minimum tax by the European Commission. In reality, the European Commission has the power to go beyond the agreed deal and propose minimum tax rules for the EU that are both stronger and more effective than the global minimum.

They could lower the threshold of €750 million in profits and target more multinational companies. They could also disregard the exemptions on certain profits when applying the minimum tax rules within the EU. This would significantly increase the effectiveness of the minimum tax.

Is European Minimum Taxation the path towards tax justice?

A European minimum tax is certainly a necessary step in the right direction, but the current plans will need to be significantly strengthened if we want to achieve tax justice. At the very least, the minimum tax should apply to more multinational companies and to all profits.

Tax justice is democratic justice. Stalling this deal and blocking its implementation only benefits European tax havens and business lobbyists.

EU countries such as Estonia, Hungary and Ireland attract profits by offering tax exemptions to large corporations. Business lobbyists have already mobilised to protect the benefits they get from countries competing aggressively against each other to lower tax rates at the expense of tax revenues. We cannot allow them to win and destroy any ambition for tax justice.

What needs to change on European Taxation?

We need to see a change on tax in the EU. The European Commission and the French presidency of the European Council must strive for the highest ambition when introducing the minimum tax in the EU. We cannot allow a few EU countries to block the needed progress in tax matters in 2022.

If needs be, the EU treaties offer the tools for the Commission to use a legal base that does not require a unanimous vote. If it’s not willing to use it, then European member states with more ambition should further their cooperation and move forward together.

This is the first step to achieve some form of tax justice across the EU. If we want to see this happen, we must spare no effort.

This year wasn’t an easy one for any of us. But we’ve been inspired by some truly incredible people who have been fearlessly fighting for the rights of women, gender diverse people and our planet. During the 16 Days of Activism against gender-based violence, we reached out to some of our favorite feminists to find out their hopes for a feminist and fierce future free from fossil fuels. 

Whether in the streets or in government – each of them are fighting for a feminist future in their own way. But what gives them hope for 2022?

Line: “Climate activism is run by girls, trans and non-binary people around the world.”

Line Niedeggen has been an activist for global climate justice at Fridays For Future Germany since 2019. She was among the activists who led the major climate strikes in Heidelberg. At Fridays for Future, she works on national strategy and public relations with a special focus on intersectionality.

What made you start identifying a feminist? Share the story with us!

Growing up, I never questioned my ability to become anything I wanted to be. But as I grew older, the world seemed to keep questioning me. I get treated differently. My expertise is often not taken seriously. Looking at the relationship between climate and gender, we know that FLINTA* (Female, Lesbian, Intersex, Trans and Agender and anyone who is structurally oppressed in a cispatriarchal society) people are more heavily affected by climate change. Discrimination intensifies in crisis situations. Logically, fighting for climate justice means breaking down patriarchal structures.

If you could give one piece of advice to make climate activism and advocacy better for women and gender diverse people, what would it be?

Climate activism is run by girls, trans and non-binary people around the world. Joining our struggles, standing in solidarity with each other and building feminist structures in our local activist groups will make our fight sustainably empowering!

Petra: “When we join forces, we can truly achieve a feminist future.” 

Petra De Sutter is the Deputy Prime Minister of Belgium. She is also the Belgian Minister for Public Administration, Public Enterprises, Telecommunications and Postal Services. Before getting into politics, Petra worked as a gynecologist and fertility specialist. Petra is a champion for women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, for refugee rights and for people from the LGBTI community.

What gives you hope for a feminist future?

The energy and the inspiration of young people. So many young people are committed to climate justice and social justice. They are fighting for gender equality. Young people are shaping their own future and making it equal. When we join forces, we can truly achieve a feminist future. This gives me hope that our work for a fair society will only get more support.

Tell us your biggest feminist policy goal in 5 words!

Sexual and reproductive rights for every person.

Kim: “It’s not up to individuals to fight against injustices on their own. We need to change society.”

Kim van Sparrentak is a Dutch politician and Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in the Greens/EFA Group. Kim is a strong advocate for LGBTIQ+ rights and all things related to digital rights and the online space. 

What made you start identifying a feminist? Share the story with us!

I started identifying as a feminist when I became active in the Federation of Young European Greens. I realised that women and queer people were facing the same struggles everywhere. This really opened my eyes that it’s a systemic issue. It’s not up to individuals to fight against injustices on their own. We need to change society. When I joined the fight to change patriarchal structures with other intersectional feminists, that’s when I started callling myself a feminist.

Who is your ultimate feminist icon?

Tarana Burke, the person who started the #MeToo movement. For me, Tarana exemplifies a true feminist icon. She has done so much important work in her own community, bringing tangible change to women who suffered from sexual violence. Ultimately, she’s inspired the entire world to speak up. 

She became an icon because of hard work and dedication. It really shows that people at all levels can make change in their own communities.

Fatim: “When attacks happen against women in politics, I make it a point to show up and defend them”

Fatim Diarra is the Chair of Helsinki City Council where she advocates for the rights of women and minorities. Her priorities are climate change, education, equality and anti-racism. Fatim is also the Chair of the Feminist Association Unioni, Finland’s oldest women’s rights organisation. 

If you could give one piece of advice to make your field of work better for women and gender diverse people, what would it be?

Let’s be there for each other. For me, it is an honor to support and be there for other women and gender diverse people in politics. When coordinated attacks happen against women in politics, I make it a point always to show up and defend my colleagues.  

What gives you hope for a feminist future? 

Social media! I feel like our collective efforts for feminism are growing as we connect to each other by social media. 

Margaux: “The exploitation of minority groups and of the Earth is a common problem”

Margaux De Ré is a Member of the Brussels Parliament and the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. She’s active in the areas of economy, employment and digital, gender equality, culture and media. Margaux’s ambition is to contribute to a more inclusive, more altruistic society, where everyone feels good and free to build a future for themselves.

We’re now in the middle of #16DaysofActivism against gender-based violence. What example of feminist activism has inspired you?

I am inspired and empowered by activism which combines environmental ethics with feminism. We live in a world where all fights are one. For this reason, the exploitation of minority groups and of the Earth as a common problem, with deep roots in the sexist, capitalist and colonialist mindset of violating instead of preserving and growing together. The change I want to be a part of is moving towards a society which recognises women and nature as fundamental and irreplaceable parts of humanity. We may walk under different conditions of opportunity, but we’re all going in the same direction.

Tell us your biggest feminist policy goal in 5 words!

From school to retirement, more autonomy for women! 

Did you know that digital technologies in Europe weighs more than all humans on earth? This is why the Greens/EFA are demanding an environmental life cycle approach to make our technological devices last longer and therefore more sustainable. Read the full study on the environmental impact of digital technologies here.

Our digital world impacts our physical world

A constant and uncontrolled increase in our green-house gas emissions will make our reality one of cataclysmic and irreversible climate change.

Biodiversity is under unparalleled attack, with the sixth mass extinction underway. In the Anthropocene era, the evidence that our “extractivist” industrial model and our “consuming” society disrupt the Earth’s natural cycles is indisputable. We need to take action.

This study highlights the resounding impact of digital technology and the IT sector on our environment. It deconstructs the notion that the digital world is light and dematerialised – “virtual”, “in the clouds” – and that it has no impact on the physical world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the Euro-pean Union’s heavy dependence on critical resources for the production of our digital devices. This is not just an environmental threat, but is precarious for the EU’s digital sovereignty.

How can we ensure our digital resilience for the times to come?

A systemic approach to change is fundamental. The industrial revolution saw a tenfold increase in humanity’s mechanical and energy capacity, but brought with it an environmental sacrifice that has taken us centuries to fully comprehend. The digital revolution will bring about equally fundamental changes – be they ecological, social, economic, democratic or geopolitical. We need to ensure that we do not usher in a similar Trojan horse.

Data will be key to ensuring that the digital and climate transitions do not hamper each other. Knowing the exact environmental cost of technology is a pre-requisite for green digital innovation. In order to make strong policy decisions for the future, we urgently need to assess the ecological impact of digital technology and its contribution to the European Green Deal. This must be backed up by action in European legislation: we need environmental standards for digital technologies, networks and infrastructures for their entire life cycle and condition our digital strategic decisions to their cost/benefits in terms of environmental impact.

A need for sustainable digital innovation

The European Commission, under the presidency of Ursula Von der Leyen, has declared its ambition to adapt the European economy to the urgency of our time with its flagship policies, the European Green Deal and Europe Fit for the Digital Age. Reconciling the dual ecological and digital transitions will be an essential pillar of future EU legislation.

Accurately assessing the impact of our digital technology will encourage sustainable digital innovation. This is the best way to ensure that digital advancement stays in line with the European Green Deal.

A European approach is essential to achieving a green and sustainable digital economy. We hope that this study will help lay the evidence-based foundations for the urgent political decisions that we must take to meet the challenges of our time.

Methodology

The study includes two complementary parts:

(1) A life-cycle assessment of digital technologies in Europe

The first part quantitatively assesses the impacts of digital technologies on the environment: it takes an inventory of the stock of equipment in use in the EU-28 in 2019 and assesses their impact across their whole life cycle: the manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life. To ensure that all environmental impacts are taken into account, the methodology follows a multi-criteria approach that accounts for several environmental indicators beyond climate change. 

This approach ensures that so-called “impact transfers” – measures adopted to solve one environmental problem that eventually create another – or lesser-known harmful effects are not overlooked in the assessment.  

This life cycle assessment is groundbreaking for research as it is the first to create a harmonised inventory across the entire EU. 

(2) In depth-studies “Beyond the Numbers”

This part adopts a qualitative approach for emerging technologies and concepts like IoT, artificial intelligence, Cloud, 5G, autonomous vehicles, rebound effects, raw materials, e-waste and the circular economy. Each case study explains why the technology addressed is a help or a hindrance for the environment, highlighting some key findings, an expert’s input and when possible, some examples of solutions.

It is the first time that such extensive and harmonised data has been collected and gathered in one document, following a common standard and methodology. This study has been peer-reviewed with ISO 14071 methodology and complies with the best international standards regarding life cycle methodology (ISO 14040-44).

More information about the Greens/EFA’s campaign

On several occasions, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament have brought to the Commission’s attention the importance of the digital transition for promoting the green transition. In 2020, the European Parliament voted in favour of the report, Towards a sustainable single market for business and consumers, by Greens/EFA MEP, David Cormand. This report  proposes measures to tackle premature obsolescence, reduce digital waste and ensure greater transparency and consumer protection.

Several letters have been shared with the Commission: a letter dated from April 2021 calling on the European Commission to introduce a clear legislative proposal for sustainable circular data centres in the EU, and another letter dated from October 2021 calling on the European Commission to adopt an ecological approach to connectivity. 

Read more here

Le premier quart du XXIe siècle a été marqué par une augmentation sans précédent du nombre d’incendies de forêt, d’inondations et de phénomènes météorologiques extrêmes. Le constat que notre modèle de développement actuel a atteint ses limites et constitue désormais une menace directe pour notre civilisation et notre planète est clair. Les rapports scientifiques se précisent et sont de plus en plus alarmants.

Le virtuel impacte le monde physique

Une augmentation constante et incontrôlée de nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre fera advenir dans notre réalité un changement climatique cataclysmique et irréversible.

La biodiversité subit une attaque sans précédent avec la sixième extinction de masse en cours. À l’ère de l’Anthropocène, les preuves que notre modèle industriel « extractiviste » et notre société de « consummation » perturbent les cycles naturels de la Terre sont indiscutables. Nous devons agir.

Cette étude met en évidence l’impact retentissant du numérique et du secteur informatique sur notre environnement. Elle déconstruit l’idée que le monde numérique est léger et dématérialisé – « virtuel », « dans les nuages » – et qu’il n’a aucun impact sur le monde physique.

La pandémie du COVID-19 a mis en évidence la forte dépendance de l’Union européenne à l’égard de ressources critiques pour la production de nos appareils numériques. Il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une menace environnementale, mais d’une menace pour la souveraineté numérique de l’Union Européenne.

Comment pouvons-nous assurer notre résilience numérique pour les temps à venir ?

Pour faire face aux enjeux, il est fondamental d’adopter une approche systémique. La révolution industrielle qui a vu la capacité mécanique et énergétique de l’humanité décupler a aussi entraîné un sacrifice environnemental dont nous avons mis plusieurs siècles à prendre la mesure. La révolution numérique est en train d’entrainer des mutations tout aussi fondamentales, qu’elles soient écologiques, sociales, économiques, démocratiques ou géopolitiques. Nous devons nous assurer que la révolution industrielle numérique ne devienne pas un nouveau cheval de Troie.

Les données seront essentielles pour que les transitions numérique et climatique ne s’entravent pas mutuellement. Connaître le coût environnemental exact d’une technologie est une condition préalable à l’innovation numérique verte. Afin de prendre des décisions politiques fortes pour l’avenir, il est urgent d’évaluer l’impact écologique des technologies numériques et leur contribution au Pacte Vert européen. Cela doit être soutenu par des actions dans la législation européenne : nous avons besoin de normes environnementales pour les technologies, les réseaux et les infrastructures numériques pour l’ensemble de leur cycle de vie et conditionner nos décisions stratégiques numériques à leurs coûts/bénéfices en termes d’impact environnemental.

Un besoin d’innovation numérique durable

La Commission européenne, sous la présidence d’Ursula Von der Leyen, a affiché son ambition d’adapter l’économie européenne à l’urgence de notre temps avec ses politiques phares, le Pacte Vert européen et l’Europe adaptée à l’ère numérique. La conciliation de la double transition écologique et numérique sera un pilier essentiel de la future législation européenne.

L’évaluation précise de l’impact de notre technologie numérique encouragera l’innovation numérique durable. C’est le meilleur moyen de s’assurer que les progrès du numérique restent en phase avec le Pacte Vert européen.

Une approche européenne est essentielle pour parvenir à une économie numérique verte et durable. Nous espérons que cette étude contribuera à jeter les bases factuelles des décisions politiques urgentes que nous devons prendre pour relever les défis de notre époque.

Méthodologie

L’étude comprend deux parties complémentaires :

(1) Une évaluation du cycle de vie des technologies numériques en Europe

La première partie évalue quantitativement les impacts des technologies numériques sur l’environnement : elle réalise l’inventaire du stock d’équipements numériques en usage dans l’UE-28 en 2019 et évalue leur impact sur l’ensemble de leur cycle de vie : la fabrication, la distribution, l’utilisation et la fin de vie. Pour s’assurer que tous les impacts environnementaux sont pris en compte, la méthodologie suit une approche multicritère qui tient compte de plusieurs indicateurs environnementaux au-delà du changement climatique.

Les évaluations multicritères sont essentielles pour fournir une vue d’ensemble systémique des impacts environnementaux et éviter les transferts d’impact.

Cette évaluation du cycle de vie est inédite en qu’elle est la première à créer un inventaire harmonisé dans toute l’UE.

(2) Des études de cas approfondies “Au-delà des chiffres”.

Afin d’assurer une compréhension globale des impacts environnementaux du numérique et apporter des réponses à ces problématiques, nous avons rédigé 8 études de cas.

Cette partie adopte une approche qualitative pour les nouvelles technologies comme les objets connectés, l’intelligence artificielle, le Cloud, la 5G, les véhicules autonomes, les effets rebonds, les matières premières, les déchets électroniques et l’économie circulaire. Chaque étude de cas explique en quoi la technologie abordée est une aide ou un obstacle pour l’environnement, en mettant en avant certains résultats clés, l’avis d’un expert et, lorsque cela est possible, quelques exemples de solutions.

C’est la première fois que des données aussi complètes et harmonisées sont collectées et rassemblées dans un seul document, selon une norme et une méthodologie communes. Cette étude a été examinée par des experts selon la méthodologie ISO 14071 et est conforme aux meilleures normes internationales concernant la méthodologie du cycle de vie (ISO 14040-44).

Plus d’informations sur la campagne des Verts/ALE :

A plusieurs reprises, le Groupe des Verts/ALE au Parlement européen a attiré l’attention de la Commission sur l’importance de la transition numérique pour promouvoir la transition verte. En 2020, le Parlement européen a voté en faveur du rapport “Vers un marché unique durable pour les entreprises et les consommateurs” du député européen Verts/ALE David Cormand. Ce rapport propose des mesures pour lutter contre l’obsolescence prématurée, réduire le gaspillage numérique et assurer une plus grande transparence et protection des consommateurs.

Plusieurs lettres ont été partagées avec la Commission : une lettre datée d’avril 2021 demandant à la Commission européenne d’introduire une proposition législative claire pour des centres de données circulaires durables dans l’UE, et une autre lettre datée d’octobre 2021 demandant à la Commission européenne d’adopter une approche écologique de la connectivité.

Plus d’informations ici

La Commission européenne a finalement publié sa tant attendue proposition visant à réduire la déforestation provoquée par l’Union, après des années de pression exercée par les Verts/ALE et les ONG.  Les députés européens Verts/ALE, Marie Toussaint (FR), Heidi Hautala (FIN), Tilly Metz (LUX), Ville Niinisto (FIN), Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (DE-FR), Rosa d’Amato (IT), Grace O’Sullivan (IR) et Anna Cavazzini (DE) affirment qu’il s’agit d’une étape importante, mais que des améliorations considérables sont nécessaires si l’on veut protéger la nature et mettre un terme à la violation des droits humains provoquée par la consommation de l’Union européenne.

La Commission a enfin publié sa proposition, attendue de longue date, visant à réduire la contribution de l’UE à la déforestation et à la dégradation des forêts dans le monde ! Les Européens ont besoin de savoir si leurs achats ne les rendent pas complices de la destruction des forêts naturelles, et pour cela, de nouvelles mesures sont absolument nécessaires. En effet, l’UE est responsable de 16 % de la déforestation tropicale liée aux échanges internationaux de produits tels que la viande, l’huile de palme ou le soja.

Grâce à cette nouvelle réglementation, l’Union européenne obligera les entreprises à vérifier, dans le cadre d’un processus appelé «devoir de diligence obligatoire», que quelque soit les produits vendus sur le marché européen, ils ne proviennent pas de terrains où les forêts ont été dégradées ou entièrement défrichées pour les produire.

Malheureusement, la proposition finale de la Commission présente des lacunes majeures qui, si elles étaient inscrites dans la législation finale, nuiraient gravement à son efficacité.

Une définition de “déforestation” excluant des écosystèmes à risques ; des produits responsables de déforestation exclus

La Commission européenne souhaite s’en tenir à six produits qui peuvent poser un grave danger pour les forêts: bœuf, huile de palme, soja, café, cacao et bois. Toutefois, les scientifiques ont averti que l’UE ne devrait pas exclure certains produits de base «prématurément» de sa législation. La production de caoutchouc et de maïs, par exemple, est également à l’origine de la déforestation.

La Commission souhaite que la nouvelle loi protège les forêts, mais pas d’autres écosystèmes précieux tels que les savanes, les zones humides et les tourbières.

Bien que la Commission indique que ces zones et produits pourraient être ajoutés ultérieurement, ce délai présente des risques. En effet, si ces lacunes ne sont pas comblées, la nouvelle loi risque de provoquer des effets pervers : les entreprises pourraient commencer à déboiser les forêts pour le caoutchouc plutôt que le cacao, ou à déplacer la destruction des forêts vers des écosystèmes riches en nature tels que les zones humides du Pantanal ou Cerrado savannah.

Impunité pour les violations des droits humains et pour les banques qui s’enrichissent de la destruction des forêts tropicales

Dans la nouvelle proposition de la Commission européenne relative à la déforestation, les entreprises n’ont pas à vérifier si les produits de base sont liés à des violations des droits humains.

La conversion des forêts tropicales et d’autres écosystèmes précieux en terres agricoles est souvent liée à l’accaparement des terres ou à des actes de violence, en particulier envers les peuples autochtones. Il est donc primordial d’inclure la défense des droits humains dans le texte sur la déforestation importée ! L’UE ne doit pas être complice des violations des droits de l’homme, tout comme elle ne doit pas être complice de la déforestation tropicale.

La proposition néglige également les organisations financières qui soutiennent les entreprises impliquées dans la destruction de la nature par des investissements, des prêts ou d’autres services. Entre 2016 et 2020, les banques et les gestionnaires d’actifs basés dans l’UE ont généré 401 millions d’euros de recettes dans le cadre d’accords avec des entreprises accusées de détruire les forêts tropicales.

Une absence de contrôle potentielle pour les produits originaires de certains pays

La proposition de la Commission se base sur un classement des États importateurs selon les «risques» qu’ils font courir à la forêt. La Commission européenne souhaite abaisser les exigences applicables aux entreprises qui s’approvisionnent en produits dans des pays dits «à faible risque». Mais cela risque de créer une faille importante : il suffirait de «blanchir» les produits provenant de «pays à haut risque» en les faisant passer par l’intermédiaire de «pays à faible risque».

De toute évidence, une loi n’est efficace que si elle est mise en œuvre et appliquée. Or, si l’UE adopte une coquille vide, un texte aux apparences ambitieuses mais totalement inefficace dans la pratique, alors elle continuera à entraîner la destruction d’écosystèmes fragiles dans le monde entier.

Proposition de la Commission visant à mettre un terme à la déforestation provoquée par l’UE: des améliorations peuvent et doivent être incluses dans le texte

La bataille ne fait que commencer. La proposition de la Commission va maintenant être suivie d’une réponse par le Parlement Européen. Ici donc, nous devons réussir à adopter un texte fort avec notamment deux points essentiels : Premièrement, la loi doit contraindre les entreprises à montrer que leurs chaînes d’approvisionnement sont totalement exemptes de destruction de la nature et de violations des droits humains. Deuxièmement, la loi doit exiger des banques opérant dans l’UE qu’elles démontrent que leurs investissements ne contribuent pas à ces résultats.

Si nous ne tenons pas compte des entreprises qui tirent profit de ces pratiques, l’engagement pris récemment par l’UE de dépenser un milliard d’euros pour protéger les forêts du monde reviendrait à des paroles en l’air. L’UE ne serait pas non plus en mesure d’honorer l’engagement qu’elle a pris lors de la COP 26 de contribuer à «enrayer et inverser la perte de forêts et la dégradation des terres d’ici à 2030».

L’UE doit jouer un rôle moteur dans la lutte mondiale en faveur de la protection de nos forêts ; nous ne pouvons pas fermer les yeux sur les entreprises responsables de la destruction de nos précieux écosystèmes et des violations flagrantes des droits humains. Les consommateurs européens doivent être sûrs que leurs achats ne détruisent pas les forêts. Si la proposition de la Commission européenne formule quelques très bonnes suggestions, elle manque toutefois de s’attaquer aux racines du problème. Les Verts au parlement européen veilleront à ce que notre nouvelle réglementation sur la déforestation importée ne soit pas une coquille vide.

Pour en savoir plus sur ce sujet, consultez notre page de la campagne.

La Commissione europea ha finalmente pubblicato la proposta che aspettavamo da tempo per porre fine alla deforestazione imputabile all’UE, dopo anni di pressione da parte del Gruppo Greens/EFA e di diverse ONG. Gli eurodeputati Greens/EFA Rosa d’Amato (IT), Marie Toussaint (FR), Heidi Hautala (FIN), Tilly Metz (LUX), Ville Niinisto (FIN), Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (DE-FR), Grace O’Sullivan (IR) and Anna Cavazzini (DE) affermano che si tratta di un importante passo avanti, ma c’è ancora tanta strada da fare se vogliamo davvero che questa proposta metta fine una volta per tutte alla complicità dell’UE nella distruzione globale delle risorse naturali e nella violazione dei diritti umani.

La Commissione ha finalmente pubblicato la proposta per ridurre il contributo dell’UE alla deforestazione globale e alla distruzione delle foreste. I cittadini europei devono essere sicuri che nessuno dei prodotti che mettono nel loro carrello li renda complici della distruzione di foreste naturali. Le nuove misure sono estremamente necessarie. L’UE è responsabile del 16% della deforestazione tropicale legata ai prodotti di base commerciati a livello internazionale come la carne, l’olio di palma o la soia.

Con questa nuova legge l’Unione Europea obbligherà le imprese a controllare, attraverso un processo chiamato “due diligence obbligatoria”, che tutto ciò che vendono in Europa non provenga da terreni dove le foreste sono state degradate o abbattute interamente per fare spazio alla produzione agricola.

Purtroppo però la proposta finale della Commissione ha alcune importanti lacune che, se trasformate in legge, ne minerebbero gravemente l’efficacia.

Lacune nella legge sulla deforestazione: alcuni prodotti ed ecosistemi importanti potrebbero essere esclusi

La Commissione europea vuole limitare la legge a sei prodotti di base che possono rappresentare un grave rischio per le foreste: carne di manzo, olio di palma, soia, caffè, cacao e legno. Ma gli scienziati hanno avvertito che l’UE non dovrebbe escludere “prematuramente” alcuni prodotti dalla legislazione. Anche la produzione di gomma e mais, per esempio, è nota per il suo impatto in termini di deforestazione. 

La Commissione vuole che la nuova legge protegga le foreste ma non altri ecosistemi preziosi come le savane, le zone umide e le torbiere, sostenendo che questi possano essere aggiunti in un momento successivo.

Se queste scappatoie non vengono chiuse, c’è il rischio che la nuova legge abbia conseguenze negative. Le aziende potrebbero iniziare a disboscare le foreste per la gomma invece che per il cacao, o spostare l’azione distruttiva dalle foreste ad altri ecosistemi ricchi di natura come le zone umide del Pantanal o la savana del Cerrado.

Un lasciapassare per le violazioni dei diritti umani e per le banche che traggono profitto dalla distruzione della foresta pluviale

Secondo la proposta della Commissione Europea sulla deforestazione le aziende non sono obbligate a controllare se le materie prime che utilizzano siano legate a violazioni dei diritti umani. Questo è un fallimento indifendibile nella difesa dei diritti umani. La conversione delle foreste pluviali e di altri preziosi ecosistemi in terreni agricoli è spesso legata all’accaparramento della terra, alla violenza e a violazioni dei diritti umani, in particolare per i popoli indigeni. L’UE non deve essere complice degli abusi dei diritti umani così come non deve essere complice della deforestazione tropicale.

La proposta chiude anche un occhio sulle organizzazioni finanziarie che sostengono le imprese coinvolte nella distruzione della natura con investimenti, prestiti o altri servizi. Tra il 2016 e il 2020, banche e gestori patrimoniali con sede in UE hanno generato 401 milioni di euro di entrate su accordi con aziende accusate di distruggere le foreste tropicali.

Mancanza di controlli adeguati sulle materie prime provenienti da alcuni paesi

La Commissione europea vuole abbassare i requisiti per le aziende che acquistano prodotti e materie prime dai cosiddetti “paesi a basso rischio”. Questo potrebbe creare una scappatoia che permetterebbe agli operatori di riciclare le materie prime prodotte in “paesi ad alto rischio” commercializzandole attraverso “paesi a basso rischio”.

Ovviamente qualsiasi legge è buona solo quanto la sua applicazione. Se l’UE adotta una “tigre di carta”, ovvero una legge che sembra ambiziosa e forte ma è inefficace nella pratica, continuerà a guidare la distruzione di fragili ecosistemi in tutto il mondo.

Proposta della Commissione europea per fermare la deforestazione guidata dall’UE: sono necessari importanti miglioramenti

Ci aspetta un importante compito. Al termine della procedura legislativa, dobbiamo approvare una legge che faccia due cose fondamentali: in primo luogo, la legge deve obbligare le aziende a dimostrare che le loro catene di approvvigionamento non hanno nessun impatto in termini di distruzione della natura e di abusi dei diritti umani. In secondo luogo, la normativa deve obbligare le banche che operano in UE a dimostrare che i loro investimenti non contribuiscono a questi fenomeni.

Se non chiediamo conto alle aziende che traggono profitto da queste pratiche, il recente impegno dell’UE di spendere un miliardo di euro per proteggere le foreste pluviali del mondo diventerebbe completamente inutile, come buttare soldi al vento. L’UE non sarebbe inoltre in grado di onorare la sua promessa alla COP26 di fare la sua parte per “fermare e invertire la perdita di foreste e il degrado del territorio entro il 2030”.

L’UE dovrebbe essere un leader globale nella lotta per proteggere le nostre foreste. Non possiamo dare un lasciapassare alle aziende responsabili della distruzione dei nostri preziosi ecosistemi e di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. I consumatori europei devono essere sicuri che la loro spesa non finanzi accidentalmente la distruzione delle foreste pluviali. La proposta della Commissione europea contiene alcuni suggerimenti molto buoni, ma manca di ambizione. Dobbiamo assicurarci che la nostra nuova legge sulla deforestazione sia ambiziosa e venga applicata correttamente.

Leggi di più su questo argomento sulla pagina della nostra campagna.

Chaque jour, des milliers d’animaux sont transportés dans des conditions horribles à travers l’Union européenne et au-delà pour être élevés, engraissés ou abattus. Les trajets peuvent durer plusieurs jours et les animaux souffrent souvent d’un manque d’espace, d’eau potable ou de nourriture adéquate. Au sein de la commission d‘enquête du Parlement européen sur le transport des animaux (ANIT), les Verts/ALE se battent pour mettre fin à ces pratiques cruelles. Les négociations sur le rapport de la commission d‘enquête touchent à leur fin.

La Commission d‘enquête sur le transport des animaux a commencé ses travaux en septembre 2020. Le Groupe des Verts/ALE a obtenu la présidence de la Commission, occupé par la députée européenne Tilly Metz. Le député Thomas Waitz est notre rapporteur fictif au cœur des négociations et Caroline Roose a assuré la coordination du groupe sur le sujet. Ces derniers mois, la commission a travaillé sur un rapport et des recommandations à la Commission européenne. Ce rapport servira de base à une nouvelle réglementation du transport des animaux dans l’UE.

Pour mieux protéger les animaux, nos objectifs les plus importants sont :

• Interdiction du transport d’animaux non sevrés
• Un temps de transport maximum de 8 heures pour les animaux vivants, quel que soit le mode de transport.
• De meilleures conditions pour le transport d’animaux vivants en mer
• La fin des exportations vers les pays tiers, hors de l‘Union européenne.

Comment les Verts/ALE luttent-ils pour protéger les animaux transportés dans l’UE ?

Le 2 décembre, la commission ANIT adoptera un rapport d‘enquête et se prononcera sur des recommandations pour un nouveau règlement européen sur le transport des animaux. Celui-ci définira de nouvelles règles obligatoires pour le transport des animaux dans l’UE, notamment en établissant des normes spécifiques pour le bien-être des animaux. La Commission européenne a annoncé qu’elle publierait sa proposition de nouveau règlement en 2023. Il s’agit donc d’une occasion cruciale pour le Parlement européen de lister les améliorations qu’il souhaite voir figurer dans la nouvelle législation.

Nos membres Verts/ALE de la commission ANIT ont travaillé dur pour renforcer les formulations sur le bien-être animal dans le rapport. En tant que rapporteur fictif, le député Thomas Waitz a représenté la position des Verts/ALE sur le transport des animaux lors des négociations entre les différents groupes politiques. Son objectif était de trouver un accord qui garantisse les normes les plus élevées possibles en matière de bien-être animal. Plus d’un millier d’amendements ont été déposés par les député-e-s européen-ne-s de tous bords politiques. Les négociations pour trouver des compromis sur lesquels tout le monde pouvait s’entendre ont été âpres, et arrivent maintenant à leur terme.

Faut-il transporter les jeunes animaux qui ne sont pas encore sevrés ?

Les jeunes animaux qui dépendent encore du lait de leur mère, les “animaux non sevrés”, ne sont absolument pas aptes au transport. C’est l’une des principales leçons soulignées par les experts lors de la commission d‘enquête. Les animaux non sevrés, surtout dans les premières semaines de leur vie, n’ont pas encore développé le système immunitaire nécessaire pour résister à des conditions de transport cruelles. Se pose également la question de l’accès à la nourriture, car il est encore techniquement impossible de nourrir les animaux non sevrés pendant le transport.

La législation actuelle autorise pourtant le transport d’animaux âgés de 10 jours seulement. Elle autorise même le transport sur de longues distances à partir de 14 jours (dans le cas des veaux, cela signifie une durée de transport jusqu‘à 19 heures).

Nous demandons l’interdiction du transport commercial des animaux non sevrés. Lors des négociations au sein de la commission ANIT, nous avons été confrontés à une forte résistance sur ce point de la part des membres des partis conservateurs, libéraux et d’extrême droite qui craignent des pertes financières pour les grandes exploitations industrielles.

Comment améliorer les conditions de transport des animaux vivants en mer ?

Selon la législation actuelle sur le transport des animaux, il n’y a pas de durée maximale de voyage pour les animaux transportés par voie maritime. Les voyages en mer peuvent durer des jours, voire des mois, sans enfreindre la législation européenne. C’est ce qui s’est produit à plusieurs reprises rien qu’en 2021, par exemple dans le cas des navires Karim Allah et Elbeik ou lors du blocage du canal de Suez. Les conditions à bord des navires sont souvent terribles pour ces animaux. Des milliers d’animaux sont entassés à bord sans nourriture ni eau appropriées. Il n’est pas non plus obligatoire d’avoir un vétérinaire à bord pour soigner les animaux malades.

Nous demandons que le délai de transport des animaux vivants s’applique à tous les voyages, quel que soit le mode de transport. En outre, nous demandons qu’au moins un vétérinaire soit présent lors de tous les voyages en mer.

Quelle doit être la durée maximale du trajet pour le transport d’animaux vivants ?

Il existe deux types de transport d’animaux par la route : le transport sur courte distance, avec une durée maximale de 8 heures, et le transport sur longue distance. Pour les longues distances, il existe des réglementations spécifiques pour les différents types d’animaux. Pour certains, comme les porcs ou les poulets, le voyage peut durer jusqu’à 24 heures. Pour d’autres, comme les poissons, les animaux domestiques ou les visons, il n’y a pas de limite de temps du tout.

Nous exigeons des limites claires de durée de transport des animaux en fonction de l’espèce et de l’âge. La durée maximale du voyage devrait être de 8 heures, quel que soit le moyen de transport.

Quelles sont les prochaines étapes vers une nouvelle législation européenne sur le transport d’animaux ?

Au cours des négociations, les Verts/ALE ont réussi à améliorer une partie de la formulation du rapport final et des recommandations à la Commission. Malheureusement, les autres groupes n’étaient toujours pas disposés à se joindre à notre appel en faveur d’une durée maximale des trajets. Le 2 décembre, la commission ANIT votera le rapport et les recommandations à la Commission européenne. En janvier 2022, le Parlement européen votera sur les recommandations en séance plénière.

Rejoignez-nous et restez informé des derniers développements