Author: jean-bernard pierini

Wir brauchen neue EU-Fiskalregeln. 2020 war ein Schlüsselmoment für Europas Wirtschaft. Um die größte Gesundheitskrise seit Jahrzehnten zu überstehen und das kollektive Wohlergehen aller zu sichern, setzte die Europäische Union ihre traditionellen Regeln für öffentliche Schulden und Defizite aus. Wir kamen durch die Pandemie, weil wir Lebensqualität und soziale Sicherheit über wirtschaftliche Prioritäten gestellt haben. Der Mensch und das gesundheitliche Wohlergehen hatten plötzlich Vorrang.

Als der russische Angriffskrieg begann, die Energiekrise eintrat und die Lebenshaltungskosten infolgedessen drastisch angestiegen sind, haben wir an der Aussetzung der Schuldenregeln festgehalten. Erneut  haben wir das Wohl der Bürgerinnen und Bürger über Schuldenbremsen oder Defizitreduktion gestellt. In dieser Zeit wurde auch klar, wie dringend notwendig es ist, die grüne Transformation voranzutreiben, um eine  Unabhängigkeit von fossilen Energieträgern herzustellen und durch Erneuerbare zu ersetzen – zum Schutz unserer Erde und zu unserem Schutz.

In all diesen Krisen konnten europäische Regierungen durch die Aussetzung der Schuldenregeln die soziale Sicherheit der Bürger*innen in den Fokus stellen, in unsere Zukunft investieren und in unsere dringend benötigten öffentlichen Infrastrukturen investieren. Es wurde deutlich, dass unsere Wirtschaften einige der schlimmsten Krisen überstehen können, wenn wir einen anderen Ansatz zu den Schuldenregeln der EU verfolgen.

Die Lektion sollte klar sein: Die EU-Fiskalregeln müssen geändert werden, um den Mitgliedstaaten die erforderlichen Mittel zu geben, in ihre grüne und soziale Transformation zu investieren. Obwohl Ökonomen, zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen und Gewerkschaften sich weitgehend einig sind, dass eine reformierte Auslegung der Schuldenbremse und der EU-Fiskalregelungen die nötigen Investitionsmittel ermöglichen könnte, scheint der aktuelle Stand der Reform, der eine strenge Einhaltung der Schuldenregeln vorsieht, dieselben Probleme wie die früheren Regeln zu fördern.

Die neuen Haushaltsregeln, ein Schritt in die Vergangenheit?

Vor einigen Monaten stellte die Europäische Kommission die neuen Fiskalregeln für die Zukunft Europas vor. In den nächsten Wochen werden europäische Gesetzgeber*innen und Regierungen über eine Reihe von Gesetzen entscheiden, die entscheidend dafür sein könnten, ob wir die nötigen Mittel für die Zukunft zur Verfügung haben werden, oder ob Infrastruktur, Sozialleistungen und Umweltschutz schwerwiegende Kürzungen erleiden werden.

Kurz gesagt, die neuen Regeln erlauben es der EU einfach nicht, die Ziele einer grünen und gerechten Transformation zu erreichen. Diese Regeln priorisieren systematische Reduzierung der öffentlichen Verschuldung und zwingen Regierungen dazu, wichtige öffentliche Ausgaben zu kürzen, anstatt die massiven dringend nötigen Investitionen zu ermöglichen, die Europa jetzt braucht. Dies wird auf Kosten der grünen Transformation und künftiger Generationen gehen und die Sicherung der Lebensgrundlage für unsere Bürger*innen, um ein anständiges Leben zu führen. Das bedeutet, dass wir weiterhin auf fossile Brennstoffe angewiesen wären, da wir nicht in der Lage wären, sozial gerecht zu grüneren Energien zu wechseln. Menschen könnten so zum Beispiel keine Unterstützung zur Renovierung für gut isolierten und bezahlbaren Wohnraum erhalten, Krankenhäuser würden unterfinanziert bleiben und wissenschaftliche Forschung stagnieren.

Mit den neuen Haushaltsregeln wird die Wirtschaft Europas wieder in die Vergangenheit zurückgeworfen und anfälliger für neue Wirtschaftskrisen sein. Unser Ziel ist es, sowohl die grüne Transformation zu ermöglichen und auch soziale Ungleichheiten zu bekämpfen, ohne diese gegeneinander auszuspielen, nur um Defizitregeln einzuhalten.

Wer ist für die neuen Fiskalregeln?

Die vorgeschlagenen neuen Haushaltsregeln sind nicht nachhaltig. Dennoch glauben einige Länder und politische Parteien immer noch, dass dies der richtige Weg nach vorne und durch kommende Katastrophen ist. Die konservativen und sozialdemokratischen Parteien im Europäischen Parlament scheinen die Krise von 2008 und den dadurch verursachten Schaden vergessen zu haben, da sie nun kurz davor stehen, ein Modell zu unterstützen, das uns in genau diese Austerität zurückbringen wird. Leider versuchen auch die selbsternannten „sparsamen“ oder “frugal” Länder, ein ideologisches Programm zu verhängen, das auf der Idee beruht, dass, wenn Regierungen ihre Ausgaben kürzen, sie Schulden reduzieren und dann Steuern senken können. In der Praxis bedeutet dies: Investitionen in die Zukunft werden gekürzt, weil die Zukunft keine Lobby hat.

Investitionen und soziale Ausgaben zu kürzen, würde nicht nur der Zukunft schaden, sondern auch der Gegenwart. Der Europäische Gewerkschaftsbund (ETUC) veröffentlichte kürzlich einen Bericht, der den massiven Einfluss dieser Kürzungen aufzeigt, was sie als „austerity watch“ bezeichnen. Gewerkschaften warnen uns davor, wie viele Lehrer*innen oder Pflegepersonal wir mit diesen neuen Haushaltsregeln verlieren könnten. Es wäre so, als würden wir dem Pflegepersonal und Ärzt*innen für ihre Arbeit während der Pandemie danken, indem wir ihre Jobs streichen. Und wie würde die Situation dann in einer weiteren Gesundheitskrise mit der Hälfte der Pflegepersonals aussehen?

Konservative und sozialdemokratische Parteien wollen unsere Wirtschaften stabiler machen, indem sie an den Säulen, die unsere Gesellschaften zusammenhalten, kürzen. Das Zeitalter der Austerität und restriktiver Wirtschaftspolitik gehört der Vergangenheit an.

Wie können wir ein grünes und soziales Europa finanzieren?

Wir haben Alternativvorschläge zu den neuen Regeln vorgestellt. Kurz gesagt: Wir plädieren dafür, Verschuldung anders zu betrachten. Schulden, die durch Investitionen in fossile Brennstoffsubventionen entstehen, sollten nicht gleich behandelt werden wie Schulden, die durch Investitionen in die grüne Transformation entstehen. Die wirtschaftliche Situation und die Schuldenregeln eines europäischen Landes sollten nicht mehr genauso bewertet werden wie die eines anderen Mitgliedstaates mit ganz anderen Strukturen und Bedingungen. Zudem sollten wir die Möglichkeit haben, Schulden, die durch eine Investition in die Zukunft entstehen, über die Jahre der Nutzungsdauer der Investition zu verteilen. So wie bei einem Hypothekendarlehen, bei dem die Rückzahlung in monatlichen Raten erfolgt und nicht alles auf einmal gezahlt werden muss.

Wir sollten Schuldenaufnahmen durch eine positive Linse betrachten, was diese Investitionen letztendlich der Gesellschaft bringen werden, anstatt uns blind auf Schuldenprozentsätze zu konzentrieren, ohne nach links und rechts zu schauen, wie wir dabei soziale und infrastrukturelle Investitionen vernachlässigen. Was zählt, ist, was wir mit den Investitionen machen. Eine höhere Verschuldung kurzfristig, um Häuser zu isolieren, Energierechnungen zu senken und neue Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen, ist eine Investition, die langfristig eine mehrfache Dividende bringt: für das Klima, für Haushalte und für Arbeitende. So bereiten wir uns auf die kommenden Herausforderungen vor, bauen eine widerstandsfähigere, wohlhabende und stabilere Wirtschaft auf. Eine, die tatsächlich in zukünftige Generationen investiert und nachhaltig die wahren Schuldenstände unserer Gesellschaft abbaut.

Verantwortung bedeutet, ‘Nein’ zur Austerität zu sagen

Die Zeit ist gekommen, verantwortungsvoll zu handeln. Als Grüne/EFA werden wir gegen die neuen EU-Fiskalregeln stimmen und Nein zur Austeritätspolitik sagen. Wir rufen unsere Kolleginnen und Kollegen anderer politischer Gruppen auf, uns bei der Ablehnung dieser Regeln zu unterstützen. Zusätzlich fordern wir die europäischen Regierungen auf, diese neue Reform zu überdenken und nicht übereilt zu Schuldenregeln zurückzukehren, die uns in das Zeitalter fossiler Brennstoffe, Klimakatastrophen und nicht nachhaltigen Lebensbedingungen zurückwerfen würden. Die Grünen werden auch am 12. Dezember auf den Straßen Brüssels zusammen mit den Gewerkschaften gegen eine Rückkehr zu Austeritätsregeln kämpfen. Die Vergangenheit ist da, um von ihr zu lernen, nicht, um zu ihr zurückzukehren. Wir werden nicht zulassen, dass unsere Zukunft durch wirtschaftliche Unverantwortlichkeit gefährdet wird.

2020 was a determining moment for Europe’s economy. In order to survive the biggest health crisis in decades and ensure collective wellbeing, the European Union put on hold their traditional public debt and deficit rules. We survived the pandemic because we prioritised life and welfare over any other economic imperative. Social wellbeing came first.

And when the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and the cost-of-living crisis came about, the fiscal rules remained on pause. Once again, we put the welfare of citizens above debt fetishism or deficit reduction. That period also highlighted the urgent need to carry out the green transition and focus on sustainable energies to ensure the resilience of our economies and protect our planet.

During all these crises, European governments were able to take care of people, invest in our future, and rely on our much-needed public services. It reminded us that our economies can survive some of the worst crises with a different approach to the rules of EU economic governance.

The lesson is clear: EU economic rules must be changed to give the EU the means to invest in its green and social transition, in people and planet. Yet, despite an overall consensus among economists, civil society organisations, and trade unions that a reformed EU economic governance must allow the necessary means for investment, the current reform that Members of Parliament are about to vote for replicates the same problems as the previous rules.

The new fiscal rules, a blast from the past?

A few months ago, the European Commission put forward the new economic rules for the future of Europe. In the next few weeks, European lawmakers and governments will decide on a series of laws that can either make or break our economies, our societies, and our planet.

In a nutshell, the new rules simply do not allow the EU to realise the objectives of a green and just transition. These rules prioritise systematic public debt reduction and force governments to cut key public expenditures instead of allowing the massive investments that Europe needs right now.  This will come at the price of fighting climate change, ensuring a healthy planet, and securing the means for our citizens to live a decent life.  It means we would also have to further rely on fossil fuels because we wouldn’t be able to transition to greener energies. And families would not be able to access well-insulated and affordable homes. Hospitals would stay underfunded and scientific research stalled.      

With the new fiscal rules on the table, Europe’s economy will get stuck in the past and be more vulnerable to new economic crises than before. And citizens will pay the price again as any investments in the green transition, necessarily insufficient in size, could only be made possible by cutting expenses elsewhere, e.g. to social spending, education, health, culture, or housing. Our aim is to realise both the green transition and the reduction of social inequalities: we refuse to be forced to choose between them.

Who is in favour of the new fiscal rules?

The proposed new fiscal rules are not sustainable, yet some countries and political parties still believe that this recipe for disaster is the way forward. The conservatives and the socialists in the European Parliament seem to have forgotten the 2008 economic crisis and the pain that it caused as they are now about to vote for a model that will bring us back to austerity. Sadly, the self-styled “frugal” countries are also trying to impose an ideological programme based on the idea that if governments cut back on spending, they can reduce debts and then cut taxes. In practice, this means cutting investment in the future, because the future has no lobby.

Cutting investments and cutting social spending would not just damage the future, it can damage the present too. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) recently published a report that showed the massive impact that these cuts would have in what they call ‘austerity watch’. Trade unions warn us of how many teachers or nurses we could lose with these new fiscal rules. It would be like thanking nurses and doctors for their work during the pandemic by slashing their jobs. And then, imagine facing another health crisis with half of the healthcare workers.

Conservatives and socialists want to make our economies more “stable” by cutting down on the very pillars that hold our societies together. They are wrong. The age of austerity and restrictive economic policies belong to the past. There will be no sustainable debt in an unsustainable world.   

How can we finance a green and social Europe?

Some might wonder how we plan on financing the future of our economies. A while ago we anticipated the upcoming new rules and put forward a series of proposals. Briefly, what we ask for is to look at debt in different ways, as one size cannot fit all. Debt coming from investing in fossil fuel subsidies cannot be at the same level as debt coming from investments in green energies. The situation of one country’s economy cannot be evaluated in the same way as that of a different country with completely different structures. Also, we should be able to spread out the debt coming from an investment in the number of years that the investment will last. Similarly, to getting a mortgage, people can pay the loan out in monthly payments, they are not expected to pay it all off in one go.

We should look at these investments through a positive lens, through what they will bring to society rather than how they will make our debt percentages look. What matters is what we do with it. Higher debt in the short run to insulate homes, reduce energy bills and create new jobs is an investment that comes with a triple dividend, for climate, for households, and for workers. This is how we prepare for the challenges ahead, build a more resilient, prosperous, and stable economy, one that can actually thrive. And one that will actually give us the means to reduce our debt in the long run. This is what responsibility is about. It is about addressing the real deficits in society.

Responsibility means saying ‘no’ to austerity

The time has come to be responsible. As Greens/EFA we will vote against the new fiscal rules to say no to austerity. We call on our colleagues of other political groups to join us in rejecting these rules. We call on European governments to rethink this new reform and not rush into an economic system that would leave us in the era of fossil fuels, climate disasters and unsustainable living conditions. The Greens will also be alongside the trade unions on the 12th of December in the streets of Brussels to fight against a return to austerity rules. The past is there to learn from it, not to recreate it. We will not let our future be hostage to economic irresponsibility.

Reisen, Arbeiten, Studieren in einem anderen EU-Land? Was für viele selbstverständlich scheint, ist es oft für Menschen mit Behinderungen nicht. Der EU-Behindertenausweis soll das jetzt ändern. Katrin Langensiepen ist Abgeordnete für die Grünen im Europaparlament, und eine der wenigen Abgeordneten mit einer Behinderung. In diesem Beitrag erklärt sie, was der EU-Behindertenausweis ist und warum er so ein großer Schritt für die Europäische Barrierefreiheit ist.

Was ist der EU-Behindertenausweis?

Die Anerkennung des Behindertenstatus und damit verbunden Leistungen, Hilfen oder Vergünstigungen hören oft an der Grenze zwischen zwei EU-Ländern auf.

Der neue EU-Behindertenausweis soll das ändern. Seit Jahren fordern wir Grünen im Europaparlament gemeinsam mit Aktivistinnen seine Einführung. Dieses Jahr hat die Europäische Kommission nun einen Gesetzesvorschlag dazu vorgelegt.

Unsere Vorgespräche haben sich gelohnt. Zumindest, was das Reisen eingeht, ist der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission ein Meilenstein.

Warum brauchen wir einen EU-Behindertenausweis?

Menschen mit Behinderung sollen im EU-Ausland arbeiten, studieren und ein Praktikum machen können, auch wenn sie auf Hilfe angewiesen sind.

Aber um in einem anderen Land Vorteilen, Assistenz oder Sozialleistungen in Anspruch zu nehmen, muss ich dort erstmal beweisen, dass ich eine Behinderung habe.

Es kann nicht sein, dass Menschen mit Behinderungen erst einen monatelangen, oft demütigen, nationalen Prüfungsprozess durchlaufen müssen, bevor sie entsprechende Hilfen, Assistenz oder angemessene Vorkehrungen am Arbeitsplatz in Anspruch nehmen können.
Das bedeutet im Umkehrschluss keine Spur von Flexibilität und Freizügigkeit.

Mehrere Menschen mit Behinderungen haben mich bereits kontaktiert und mir erzählt, dass sie auf Auslandsstudium oder Praktikum verzichten mussten –  einfach aus dem Grund, dass sie sich nicht auf Hilfe vor Ort verlassen können, außer sie zahlen sie privat. 
Verglichen zu Menschen ohne Behinderung ist das klare Diskriminierung. Bereits vor über 10 Jahren hat sich die EU zur Umsetzung der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention verpflichtet und damit auch zu EU-Freizügigkeit für alle.

Was ändert der EU-Behindertenausweis für Menschen mit Behinderung?

Der Richtlinienvorschlag sieht vor, dass Menschen mit Behinderungen für eine kurze Zeit von drei Monaten alle öffentlichen Vorteile in Anspruch nehmen können, die jeweils national gelten.

wahrzunehmen.

Wenn es beispielsweise für eine Person mit Behinderungen in Frankreich so ist, dass sie keine Maut auf der Autobahn zahlen muss, gilt dies nun nicht nur für die Person aus Frankreich. Mit dem neuen EU-Behindertenausweis gilt dies genauso für Menschen mit Behinderungen aus Österreich, Polen oder Italien, die in Frankreich auf Reisen sind.

Der EU-Ausweis soll den nationalen Ausweis nicht ersetzen, sondern freiwillig ergänzen.

Bis jetzt soll der EU-Behindertenausweis vor allem das Reisen für Menschen mit Behinderungen vereinfachen. Der Anspruch auf Sozialleistungen ist im aktuellen Vorschlag der Kommission nicht inbegriffen.

Wie soll der neue EU-Behindertenausweis aussehen?

Der EU-Behindertenausweis soll in Karten- und Digitalform erhältlich sein und in der gesamten EU gelten und anerkannt werden. Er bietet damit gleichberechtigten Anspruch auf Hilfen für Menschen mit Behinderungen, egal welcher EU-Nationalität. Das ist der übergeordnete Gedanke Leitgedanke hinter dem EU-Behindertenausweis. 

Doch schon jetzt zeigen sich einige EU-Mitgliedstaaten skeptisch. So fallen beispielsweise in Deutschland Argumente von “Inländer-Diskriminierung”, Umsetzungsaufwand und Mehrbelastung. Das bezieht sich beispielsweise auf den deutschen Nahverkehr, wo Vergünstigungen derzeit je nach Grad der Behinderungen unterschiedlich ausfallen. Menschen mit einem EU-Ausweis, der keinen Grad vorsieht, hätten damit einen “Vorteil”.

Jetzt ist nicht der Moment, sich in diesen national getriebenen Detail-Debatten zu verlieren. Bis jetzt soll der EU-Ausweis nur für einen begrenzten Zeitraum von drei Monaten am Stück gelten. Das ist ein sehr kurzer Zeitraum im Gegensatz zu Vorteilen, die für Inländer*innen viel länger gelten. Dabei wäre es das Mindestmaß an europäischer Solidarität, Menschen mit Behinderungen auf Reisen Vergünstigungen und Hilfen zu ermöglichen!

Die Grünen kämpfen weiter für einen EU-Behindertenausweis

Wir müssen alles daran setzen, dass der EU-Behindertenausweis noch in dieser Legislatur verabschiedet wird. Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten dürfen in den Verhandlungen mit Kommission und Parlament nicht in eine Blockadehaltung verfallen. 

Umso wichtiger ist es, dass Menschen mit und ohne Behinderungen, sowie ihre NGOs sich mobilisieren und auch in ihren Mitgliedstaaten laut werden für einen EU-Behindertenausweis.
Wir appellieren an euch, die jeweilige Minister*innen für Menschen mit Behinderungen, aber auch Verkehr gezielt anzuschreiben. 

Denn für uns Grüne im Europaparlament ist der EU-Behindertenausweis nur ein Start.

Der neue EU-Behindertenausweis wäre ein historischer Schritt für die Reisefreiheit von Menschen mit Behinderungen. Von echter Freizügigkeit sind wir damit aber immer noch weit entfernt. 

Was kommt nach dem EU-Behindertenausweis?

Mit Blick auf die Zukunft  fordern wir langfristig eine gemeinsame Definition von Behinderung, damit nationale Begutachtungen nicht mehr notwendig sind und auch Sozialleistungen in Anspruch genommen werden können. 

Aber auch schon im jetzigen Gesetzentwurf versuchen wir Grünen bereits eine Zwischenlösung für Menschen mit Behinderungen zu finden, die sich für längere Zeit zwischen zwei EU-Mitgliedstaaten befinden. Wenn eine Person mit einer Behinderung ihren Wohnsitz wechselt, werden ihre Rechte und Sozialleistungen oft sofort eingestellt. Bis sie jedoch Anspruch auf Hilfen im anderen EU-Land bekommen, können Monate vergehen. 

Deshalb fordern wir in den aktuellen Verhandlungen im Europaparlament, dass während eines laufenden Verfahrens der EU-Ausweis Vorrang hat und die nationalen Rechte erhalten bleiben sollen, bis ein neuer nationaler Ausweis ausgestellt wird. Wir sagen auch, dass dieser Prozess nicht länger als 6 Monate dauern sollte. 

Außerdem möchten wir den Zeitraum der 3 Monate für Menschen, die Teil eines EU-Mobilitätsprogramms, wie zum Beispiel Erasmus, sind, verlängern. Wir fordern eine EU-Plattform mit Informationen und Übersichten zu den jeweiligen national geltenden Vorteile und Leistungen und wollen prüfen lassen, inwiefern der EU-Behindertenausweis in Zukunft zur Koordinierung der Systeme der sozialen Sicherheit genutzt werden kann. 

Der neue EU-Behindertenausweis ist eine Chance, Menschen mit Behinderungen endlich ihr Recht auf EU-Freizügigkeit zu garantieren. EU-Parlament, Kommission und Rat müssen sie gemeinsam nutzen und darauf aufbauen. 

Die Zukunft ist barrierefrei, für alle.

Zum Gesetzesgebungsprozess berichtet das EU-Disability Forums aktuell hier

Travelling, working, studying in another EU country? What many people take for granted is often not accessible for people with disabilities. With the EU disability card we want to change this. Katrin Langensiepen is a member of the European Parliament for the Greens/EFA. She is also one of the few MEPs with a disability. In this article, she explains what the EU disability card is and why it is such a big step towards European accessibility.

What is the EU disability card?

The recognition of disability status and the associated benefits, assistance or advantages often stop at the border between two EU countries. 

I want to change this with the new EU disability card. Together with activists, we, the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament have been calling for its introduction for years. This year, the European Commission has now presented a legislative proposal. 

Our preliminary discussions have paid off. At least as far as travelling is concerned, the EU Commission’s proposal is a milestone. 

Why do we need an EU disability card?

People with disabilities should be able to study, work, and do an internship in another EU country. And they should be able to do so even if they are dependent on specific help. But in order to claim benefits with a disability card in another EU country, I first have to prove that I have a disability.

It is unacceptable that people with disabilities first have to go through a months-long, often humiliating, national assessment process before they can make use of appropriate assistance or reasonable accommodation in the workplace. Conversely, this means no trace of flexibility and freedom of movement.

Several people with disabilities have already contacted me about this. They told me that they have had to let go of the wish to study abroad or do an internship in another country. They had to, simply because they cannot rely on local assistance unless they pay for it privately. 

Compared to people without disabilities, this is clearly discrimination. More than 10 years ago, the EU committed itself to implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and thus also to EU freedom of movement for all.

What will it change for people with disabilities?

The proposed directive stipulates that people with disabilities can use the new card to take advantage of all preferential treatments that apply nationally. 

If, for example, a person with a disability in France does not have to pay tolls on the motorway, this now applies not only to people from France. With the new EU disability card, this also applies to people with disabilities from Austria, Poland or Italy who are travelling in France.

The EU ID card is not intended to replace the national ID card, but to supplement it voluntarily.

The access to preferential treatments is limited to travelling, currently meaning a short period of 3 months. Social benefits are not included in the disability card.

What will the new EU disability card look like?

The EU disability card will be available in card and digital form. It will be valid and recognised throughout the EU. It will therefore offer equal access to assistance for people with disabilities, regardless of their EU nationality. This is the overarching idea behind the EU disability card. 

However, some EU member states are already sceptical. In Germany, for example, there are arguments of “discrimination against nationals”, implementation costs and additional burdens. This relates to local public transport in Germany, for example, where discounts currently vary depending on the degree of disability. People with an EU ID card that does not provide for a degree would therefore have an “advantage”.

We must not loose ourselves in these nationally driven detailed debates. Up to now, the EU ID card has only been valid for a limited period of three months at a time. This is a very short period in contrast to benefits that apply to nationals for much longer. It would be the minimum level of European solidarity to provide people with disabilities with benefits and assistance when travelling!

The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament continue to fight for freedom of movement

We must do everything in our power to ensure that the EU adopts this disability card before the end of this legislative period. The EU member states must not fall into a blockade position in the negotiations with the Commission and Parliament. 

It is therefore all the more important that people with and without disabilities, as well as their NGOs, mobilise and speak out in their member states in favour of an EU disability card. 

We appeal to you to write specifically to the respective ministers for people with disabilities, but also for transport. 

Because for us Greens in the European Parliament, the EU disability card is just a start.

The new EU disability card would be a historic step towards freedom of movement for people with disabilities. However, we are still a long way from real freedom of movement. 

What’s the next step after the EU disability card?

Looking to the future, we are calling for a common definition of disability in the long term. This way we don’t need national assessments anymore and social benefits can also be claimed. 

But even in the current draft law, we, the Greens/EFA are already trying to find an interim solution for people with disabilities who are between two EU member states for a longer period of time. When a person with a disability changes their place of residence, their rights and social benefits are often terminated immediately. However, it can take months before they are entitled to benefits in the other EU country. 

That is why we are calling in the current negotiations in the European Parliament for the EU ID card to take precedence during an ongoing procedure. We are also calling for national rights to be maintained until a new national ID card is issued. This process should not take longer than 6 months. 

We also want to extend the 3-month period for people who are part of a mobility programme. This is why we are calling for an EU platform with information and overviews of the respective nationally applicable benefits and services. We also want to examine the extent to which people can use the EU disability card to coordinate social security systems in the future. 

The new EU disability card is an opportunity to finally guarantee people with disabilities their right to freedom of movement within the EU. The EU Parliament, Commission and Council must utilise it together and build on it. 

The future is accessible, for everyone.

Déclaration de Terry Reintke et Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe des Verts-ALE :

« Nous sommes profondément attristés par la disparition de notre collègue Michèle.

Son parcours remarquable, ses batailles politiques passionnées et son empathie ont marqué toutes celles et ceux qui ont eu la chance de la rencontrer.

Fondatrice d’associations comme la Criirad en 1986, au lendemain de Tchernobyl, le Criirem en 2005, Association Zones Blanches en 2014, toujours prête à défendre les principes qu’elle chérissait, Michèle Rivasi a consacré sa vie à la protection de la biodiversité et de notre santé et au combat pour la transparence de nos institutions. 

Élue députée de la Drôme en 1997, vice-présidente du conseil général de la Drôme, conseillère municipale à Valence, elle a été élue au Parlement européen en 2009. 

Notre groupe, et le Parlement Européen perdent aujourd’hui une personnalité politique qui a, tout au long de sa carrière, cherché, avant tout, à défendre l’intérêt général.

Nos pensées vont à sa famille et ses amis. »

Statement by Terry Reintke and Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group:

“We are deeply saddened by the death of our colleague Michèle Rivasi.

Her remarkable career, her passionate political battles and her empathy have left their mark on all those who had the chance to meet her.

She founded several associations such as Criirad in 1986, in the aftermath of Chernobyl, Criirem in 2005, and Zones Blanches Association in 2014, always ready to defend the principles she cherished. Michèle Rivasi dedicated her life to the protection of biodiversity and our health, as well as the fight for transparency in our institutions in the interest of European citizens.

She was elected as Member of French Parliament for Drôme in 1997 and later as a Member of the European Parliament in 2009. 

Our Group and the European Parliament are today losing a political figure who, throughout her career, sought above all to defend the public interest.

Our thoughts are with her family and friends.”

We live in a world dominated by rapidly advancing technology. We buy a new phone and exactly two years later it breaks, a relentless cycle of planned obsolescence. This is where the Right to Repair legislation  comes in to change this. The right to repair is not just going to be about fixing our gadgets. The new legislation is a revolutionary call for a sustainable future. It’s the end of our throw-away culture and the basis for a flourishing European circular economy.

The Greens/EFA have been calling for a Right to Repair for a long time. Now we face a crucial vote in the European Parliament. The Greens/EFA MEP Anna Cavazzini explains why the Right to Repair is a win for people and the planet.

What is the Right to Repair and who will benefit from it? 

The Right to Repair is a revolutionary concept, which grants consumers and independent repair professionals the ability to repair and modify the products they own. It also ensures that manufacturers provide access to necessary tools, documentation, and spare parts, allowing individuals to fix or maintain their devices rather than being forced into costly replacements. 

The Right to Repair will benefit:

1. Consumers: The Right to Repair will help consumers to save hundreds of euros and empower them to have greater control over the lifespan of their products.
2. The planet: The Right to Repair will cut millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions (See the EEB’s 2019 report Coolproducts don’t cost the earth), reduce loss of precious resources and biodiversity, and prevent environmental degradation – It provides you with transparency through reliable information.
3. And Businesses: The Right to Repair will increase consumer protection and confidence in products and markets, ultimately leading to sustainable consumption and fair competition among businesses. Repair shops become the heroes of this story. They get more business, and you get more options for fixing your stuff.

As the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament we  recognize the urgent need for a Universal Right to Repair. The impending vote in the European Parliament is not just a decision; it’s a pivotal moment in the journey toward a circular economy. 

Picture this: You buy a shiny new device, only to watch it become obsolete within a blink. The Right to Repair legislation isn’t just about giving you the freedom to fix your gadgets; it’s about handing you the power to choose repair over replacement. It’s about breaking the cycle of forced obsolescence, reducing electronic waste, and steering us towards a circular economy that benefits both consumers and the planet. 

What will the Right to Repair do for economy and innovation? 

This legislation isn’t a war on businesses; it’s a call for industries to evolve. By granting consumers access to manuals, spare parts, and repair services, we’re not just fixing our devices; we’re fixing our planet. The Right to Repair fosters innovation, encourages the development of durable products, and opens doors for local repair businesses. It’s an economic boost with a green twist. 

The Urgent Need for Fair Pricing Repair costs should be reasonable, but they shouldn’t promote a throw-away culture. Fair pricing for repairs means transparent costs for parts, labour, and services. Tech repairs for reasonable prices also means holding manufacturers accountable, making them disclose the true cost of repairs, and putting an end to anticompetitive practices that artificially inflate repair prices. It’s about ensuring that consumers have access to the tools they need without being forced into expensive replacements. 

More sustainable repairs, more responsibility for the economy

As the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, it’s our responsibility to champion legislation that puts pressure on the economy to produce products that last. The Right to Repair legislation embodies these principles, offering a crucial step towards a better, more sustainable future for all. It’s not a luxury; it’s a necessity—an opportunity to empower consumers, promote sustainable practices, and reduce the environmental footprint of our throwaway culture. 

The Right to Repair legislation is a big win that we, Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, fought very hard for. The EU Right to Repair will shape the way we treat tech devices for generations to come. We can finally break free from the chains of a disposable society. We can finally embrace a future where repair isn’t just a choice; it’s a right.

Let’s seize this moment.– the future is all about fixing, not tossing! Get ready to rock your repaired gadgets and join the movement for a sustainable, savvy lifestyle. Your right to repair is now officially reality! 

Our forests in Europe are vital for preserving wildlife and for fighting against climate change. But we lack knowledge about our forests, that would help us to restore and protect them. We need to know what we want to protect.

This is why the Greens/EFA welcome the European Commission’s proposal for a forest monitoring law. Some improvements are needed, but most importantly, negotiations on the law must advance quickly, argues our MEP Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg.

Forests – not only producers of timber, but also of the air we breathe

Most European forests are used to produce wood. These ‘production forests’ are usually managed to maximise wood harvests. As a result, they are losing their biodiversity and capacity to absorb and store carbon. But we need our forests as ‘carbon sinks’ to reduce our emissions to net-zero by 2050.

In fact, timber harvests are suffering too, because weakened ecosystems cannot withstand the rising pressures linked to climate change, like excessive heat, storms, and droughts. Wildfires, storms, pests, and diseases are causing the loss of more and more trees, eroding timber harvests and incomes.

We need to heal our forests and restore their capacity to sustain wildlife and regulate our climate. Let’s not forget that our forests also protect us against soil erosion and flooding, purify the air we breathe, improve water quality, and enhance water retention. Finally, healthy forests are our best insurance against climate-related extreme weather, such as heat, drought, and floods.

There are almost none of our precious natural forest left in Europe

Few forests are in a state where natural processes are undisturbed by man. We call them ‘primary forests’, or ‘old-growth forests’ when they have not been logged in many years and reached a near-primary state.

Experts estimate that less than 3 percent of our forests are of such quality. But until today, we do not know exactly where they are, and where they are in danger of logging.

We urgently need to protect these remaining forests where ecosystems are intact, nature thrives and carbon cycles function as they should.

What do we know about our forests?

When governments collect data, it is mostly related to timber production. Since forests have been viewed as ‘timber fields’ only, other valuable ‘services’ provided by forest ecosystems have been largely neglected. And so, we know the forest area of our countries, how much wood is in our forests (‘timber stock’), and how much is harvested. We also know which tree species are planted.

Much of this information is in our National Forest Inventories. These inventories have their limitations, however. In Germany, for example, the National Forest Inventory is performed every ten years and is based on data from sample plots.

The inventories give us little information about the biodiversity in our forests, such as the number of old and rare trees, the naturalness of the tree species composition, or the composition of the vegetation other than trees. Where the data exists, it is not necessarily comparable between countries, due to the wide range of methods and definitions used.

In addition, national datasets do not have to be publicly available. This leads to unfortunate situations in which different stakeholders present contradictory datasets and decision makers must choose which data they want to trust.

NGOs and researchers are already mapping forests, using satellite data and expert observations. Good examples are Global Forest Watch and Naturwald Akademie. Metsä, a big company from Finland, is developing a system based on Artificial Intelligence to monitor storm and insect damage.

What has the European Commission proposed? 

Under the proposed law, the European Commission itself and EU governments would collect data on a set of 22 indicators, ranging from the overall forest area to tree species composition and richness. The Commission would use satellite technology to gather standardised data across all 27 EU countries. National governments would complement this with on-the-ground data that is comparable between countries. The frequency for collecting the data would vary between one week and six years, depending on the indicators. 

Governments would be obliged to map (and share) the location of primary and old-growth forests by 1 January 2028. They would also need to map the forest habitats defined under the EU’s Habitats Directive. This would have to happen first inside EU-protected areas, then also outside them. All data would be made publicly available in a machine-readable format. 

In addition, governments would be encouraged – but not obliged – to set up integrated long-term forest plans, based on an EU template. 

Some forest industries want to hide their disastrous impacts 

Some governments and powerful industry groups seem to be anxious about what the new monitoring system could reveal. They want to continue clear-cutting our EU forests, even old-growth forests, and it suits them that the data is patchy and logging often goes unnoticed. They question the added value of the proposed legislation and argue that the monitoring law will increase costs and duplicate existing efforts. 

But the collection and publication of timely and accurate forest data is not a burden but an investment into our future. 

Robust and up-to-date EU-wide forest monitoring will offer our governments, forest owners, forest-based industries, investors, and insurers the accurate and detailed information they need to track progress towards our climate and biodiversity objectives. Several EU laws rely on such data, including the EU rules on carbon emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) and the EU’s Habitats Directive. 

It will help to inform the management of our ‘production forests’ as well as our efforts to strictly protect our remaining natural forests. It will also help us to compensate forest owners for the ‘ecosystem services’ their forests provide us with, beyond the production of timber. 

No more delays – let’s clear the way for an EU forest monitoring law

To be able to restore our overused, degraded forests and to strictly protect our remaining natural forests, we need a good understanding of what is there and what could be there instead. 

What we do not measure, we will not value. What we do not value, we will not pay for. 

To prevent further damage to our forests, the new EU monitoring obligations should be introduced as fast as possible. The location of Europe’s precious old-growth forests should be published already in 2025, as proposed in the Commission’s guidelines on the matter. Not only the Commission and national authorities, but also independent experts should be involved. The EU must move quickly to finalise this law, in tandem with the EU soil monitoring law. This way we can restore our forests in good time to reach the 2030 objectives that we set ourselves in the EU and globally.

Greens/EFA MEPs Jordi Sole and François Alfonsi travelled to Tunisia from 5-8 September, to meet representatives of Tunisian civil society and the People’s Assembly to discuss the current situation on the ground and relations between the EU and Tunisia.

Tunisia –  Much has changed since the revolution

“2011 we lived in a dream, today we cannot believe the nightmare we slid into”: This is how many of our conversations with human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and academics begin, as we toured the buzzing capital Tunis for three days. Much has changed since the “explosion of liberties” that followed the fall of Ben Ali in 2011 and the initiation of the Arab Spring in the idyllic town of Sidi Bouzid, just north of Tunis.

We learn about the flaws and hardships that burden the country’s transition post-2011, such as widespread corruption and constant battling between political parties and listen to diverging opinions about its achievements and failures. There seems to be a consensus that President Kais Saied´s power grab from 25 July 25, 2021, has brought matters from bad to worse: a significant backslide in terms of democratic checks and balances and civil rights.

Authoritarian reversal at the speed of light

In the course of the last two years President Saied dismantled democratic institutions in the country, decided to dissolve the Parliament unconstitutional, dismissed over 50 judges and adopted a new constitution penned by himself which grants huge powers to the presidency and very few to the new parliament, voted by only 11% of the electorate. Now an NGO bill to curb civil society is looming. Early this year arrests of politicians, activists, journalists, and entrepreneurs began. Some of them were imprisoned without proper indictments nor judicial investigation accused of such vague crimes as “complot against the security of the state”. A state of fear is growing amongst civil society. Apathy reigns amongst the population, a large part of which struggles to survive economic hardship. Many of the achievements in the field of fundamental rights brought by the democratic transition, however imperfect it was, may be jeopardised. 

The EU must defend democracy against autocracy, also outside of Europe

The European Union is a close neighbour and long-standing partner of Tunisia. After the 2011 revolution in Tunisia, the EU stood on the side of Tunisians. The EU substantially increased funding and engagement on institution-building and civil society. Our interlocutors       remind us that the close cooperation between the EU and Tunisia civil society not only built trust but also evoked the expectation and conviction that the EU would not abandon Tunisia´s transition to democracy. Evermore bitter is the frustration of our partners and allies on the ground about the silence of the European Commission and Member States regarding the many alarms of growing authoritarianism and most recently the ratification of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between “Team Europe” and President Saied.      

Tunisia and the EU – “the Memorandum of Misunderstandings”

As has been widely reported, the Memorandum of Understanding is essentially a deal on migration, paying 105 million € for Tunisia to decrease departures from Tunisian shores towards Italy and to be able to return refugees and asylum seekers. Another 150 million € are given immediately to delay bankruptcy. Some further funds are earmarked for Erasmus+ exchange and research cooperation.

The Anti-Migration deal between the EU and Tunisia is bad – and it won’t succeed

The European Commission and Member States are betting on the wrong horse. Kais Saied is not a counterpart that can deliver. First, there are no indicators that President Saied has any plan to navigate the country out of its economic crisis.

Hence, while the EU´s recent budget support may have paid some days of subsidies for basic goods, the macro-financial assistance, tied to an IMF agreement, will remain untapped and Tunisia’s economy will remain in emergency mode. Second, opposite to the declared goal of the agreement between the EU and Tunisia, departures of refugees and asylum seekers from Tunisia to Italy have been constantly rising since President von der Leyen´s visit to Tunis.

The EU – Tunisia relationship must be based on human rights

President Saied and the Interior Ministry’s campaign against migrants in Sfax, who now are forbidden to work and exposed to arbitrary violence, led many of them to depart from Tunisia immediately.

The EU-Tunisia policy needs to be based on and guided by the respect for human rights and democracy, as stipulated in the EU-Tunisia Association Agreement. Violations of fundamental freedoms by the President and security forces need to be criticised and called by their name.

The EU must let go of dirty deals with autocrats that go against human rights and European values. We need to push for a coherent and value-based EU foreign policy vis-a-vis Tunisia and the region. It is paramount that we support and protect our partners and allies on the ground and act strategically to counteract the shrinking spaces for human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers.

Find out more about our campaign ‘Defend Civil Society’

Finally, the European Parliament adopted its position on the Directive for combating violence against women and domestic violence! This is a historic step for the European Union as this directive will constitute the first legislative document of the EU for addressing gender-based violence. Gender-based violence may affect people who do not identify themselves as women. Therefore it should not only be referred to as the violence against women. We did not succeed to change the name of the document, but its content can relate to other genders.

We fought this feminist fight for years in the European Parliament. It is now up to the European Commission and the EU Council to finalise the text.

The Directive on gender-based violence, together with the Istanbul Convention, ratified by the European Union in June 2023, will form the long-awaited legal framework to protect people from gender-based violence.

Only yes means yes: The proposal for a law against gender-based violence

In brief, the initial proposal for a law against gender-based violence by the European Commission focused on three main issues:

1. Only yes means yes: the crime of rape based on the lack of consent and the criminalisation of other forms of violence related to the sexual exploitation of women and children.
2. A safe online space: Ending cyberviolence and gender-based computer crimes.
3. What do victims need? Specialised support, access to justice and protection for victims of gender-based violence with special attention to marginalised communities

Overall, the European Commission’s proposal was to criminalise certain forms of violence that disproportionately affect women. They also wanted to strengthen victims’ rights. As to the offenses, in the Commission proposal, we could find rape, female genital mutilation, and four articles regarding cyber violence.

In the newly adopted position of the European Parliament, we were able to add sexual assault, intersex genital mutilation, forced sterilisation and forced marriage to the list of gender-based violence. Also, we added offences concerning sexual harassment in the world of work . Another great win is that we have better reformulated cybercrimes upon recommendations and opinions of NGOs who we consulted during the negotiation process.

We, as the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, are proud that we have been able to strengthen the provisions on the protection of victims and prevention of violence. We have also been able to expand the list of crimes to help more people seek justice when they are victims of violence. More generally speaking, we have worked hard for the European Parliament to adopt a much more inclusive approach to combating gender-based violence.

So, what did our feminist fight result in? What does the law against gender-based violence entail? Read on to find out how close we are now to a Europe free from gender-based violence and what we still need to do.

The Greens/EFA wins for a law against gender-based violence: Intersectionality, inclusivity, companion animals and solid measures on prevention

Through the negotiation process, the Greens/EFA strongly defended the group’s position and its priorities for a more feminist and equal Europe.  As a result of intensive and hard negotiations, and with the support of NGOs and civil society, we added very important issues for the Greens/EFA group to the final text.

Intersex genital mutilation is a violation of human rights and should be a crime in the EU

Intersex genital mutilation (IGM) is an intervention on a healthy intersex body – that is a body that has sex characteristics of both sexes. The intention is to make their bodies fit in either category of the binary construct of male and female. Often these procedures are done without the persons’ consent and have lifelong consequences. For these reasons, intersex people are one of the most discriminated groups among the LGBTI population. With the proposal to introduce Intersex genital mutilation as a crime, the European Parliament stands firmly for intersex and LGBTIQ rights.

Forced sterilisation is still happening in the 21st century – Let’s end these human rights violation

Forced sterilisation is a practice that removes the ability of victims to reproduce. It mainly affects racialized people, people with disabilities, people wishing to obtain gender affirming treatment as well as people living in institutional care. According to the European Disability Forum, 13 countries in the EU still have legal frameworks that authorise forced sterilisation. We need to do something about it and the European Parliament is ready to put its foot down with this directive.

No law against gender-based violence without intersectionality

During the negotiations the Greens/EFA pushed firmly for the law against gender-based violence to be as inclusive as possible. Gender-based violence affects women disproportionately but there are women from specific communities who face a higher risk. We are talking about racialized women, working class women, LBTIQ women, women with disabilities, women living in institutional care, migrant and undocumented women and young women and girls, among others. The position of the European Parliament has been clear: an intersectional approach to address gender-based violence is necessary and groups at specific risk must be regarded with special attention.

How can the EU prevent gender-based violence?

Our goal is not only to address violence and its consequences but also to make everything possible to keep it from happening. For the Greens/EFA, it is of high importance that we tackle the root causes of gender-based violence. We will continue to promote institutional and structural change to achieve a European Union free of all forms of gender-based violence.

On the grounds of this, one of the victories of the Greens/EFA is the inclusion of a provision for National Action Plans for the elimination of violence against women and domestic violence. Each EU country now has to develop its own National Action Plan to combat gender-based violence. National Action Plans will have to delineate priorities and actions to combat violence against women and domestic violence in the Member States. Moreover, to achieve these priorities and actions, they will include targets and monitoring mechanisms, as well as necessary resources to combat violence.

Another important win has been the introduction of perpetrator programmes as part of the measures on prevention. That provision was already contemplated in the European Commission’s proposal, but the European Parliament has specified further what it should entail. We were also able to include provisions for the rehabilitation of offenders, especially in cases when barring, restraining or protection orders have been issued.

Let’s not forget the rights of the victims with companion animals

Multiple studies acknowledge the close relationship between animal abuse and interpersonal violence, especially gender-based violence. This alarming situation can have dramatic consequences on victims with companion animals. The abusers can build on the strong animal-owner bond to threaten, control, or coerce the victims. In this context, victims of domestic violence can even refrain from leaving the household if they cannot find a shelter welcoming their companion animal. In Spain, researchers found that statistically half of the victims of violence take care of companion animals. 59% of those victims do not leave their abusers, being scared of their animals’ health and lives. In addition, these animals provide emotional support to victims at crucial moments. We acknowledge that animal abuse is often an indicator and precursor of violence towards humans. According to different studies, around 76% of animal abusers are hurting their relatives.

During the negotiations, we managed to convince other political groups to include the reference to victims’ rights with companion animals in the article on individual assessment only. As other political groups did not want to broaden the perspective of gender-based violence and provide a more complex approach to the victims’ rights, we did not manage to push for the inclusion of shelter accommodating victims with their animals. Sadly, this is also what happened with our amendments on the protection and support needs, together with preventive measures as to the victims with animals – those are included only in the preamble which is a part of the directive not binding on the Member States. However, this is the first time ever in the EU legislation to refer to the rights of the victims with companion animals. It is a big Green success and can be a precedent for future legislation!

For a safe and feminist internet: Addressing gender-based cyberviolence

As the world moves online, forms of violence that already affect women and girls disproportionately are taking different dimensions. The EU did not have a legislative framework to address this gender-based violence, despite its harmful impacts on individuals, society, and democracy. Finally, the Directive combating violence against women and domestic violence is recognising this problem and taking measures to protect women online.

Based on surveys carried out by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency in 2012 and 2019, it estimates that between 4 and 7 % of women aged over 18 in the EU-27 experienced cyber-harassment in the previous 12 months, and between 1 and 3 % experienced cyberstalking. The study finds that prevalence has risen with greater use of the internet and social media and is likely to increase further. This particularly affects younger age groups.

The survey found that women in public life, including journalists, activists and politicians are especially likely to receive misogynistic and sexualised online abuse. This also affects women from ethnic minorities and LGBTIQ+ people disproportionately. Increased internet usage during the coronavirus pandemic has put more women and girls at risk of cyber-violence, as well as creating new types of crime, with evidence that misogynistic online content is spreading from minority to mainstream social platforms, normalising abuse.

As for the cybercrimes, the Directive against gender-based violence will criminalise the following behaviour online:

• Non-consensual sharing of intimate or manipulated material
• Cyber stalking
• Cyber harassment
• Cyber incitement to violence or hatred

Finally, a law against gender-based violence. What is the next step?

Now the directive against gender-based violence will enter interinstitutional negotiations with the European Commission and the EU Council. We expect the institutions to adopt it in approximately one year. After that, the Directive will be part of the European Union’s legal framework for defying gender-based violence, together with the Istanbul Convention.

In the European Parliament, we will continue demanding that the EU adds gender-based violence to the list of euro crimes in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.

This is an absolutely necessary action if we want to have the most comprehensive and ambitious legal basis for all further actions towards the eradication of gender-based violence!

What can you do?

The Istanbul Convention, first signed by the European Union in 2013, has been subject to propagandistic campaigns by different populist governments and groups in many Member States for years. Many use it to scare people from the progressive approach to gender and gender-based violence. Populists claim it would destroy different national and family traditions as well as being in contradiction to religious beliefs.

Many eurosceptics use this issue to claim that the EU is interfering in private family matters and national traditions. Therefore, we need to explain the reasons behind the Directive to prevent probable attacks from the populists and right-wing groups who may try to question its importance.

Many people are still not aware of the scale of gender-based violence, some are not aware of this phenomenon even though they are subject to different forms of discrimination.

What you can do is talk to your family, friends, and relatives about this widespread human rights violation, and explain why we need legislation against it!