Solidarity with the people in Ukraine – what we can do now to help
On February 24th Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with coordinated assaults throughout the country. This is an unprecedented attack against a European country. Against a democracy. Against peace in Europe.
It is now up to us to speak with a united and strong voice against this aggression.
The European Union stands united with Ukraine
We as Greens/EFA in the European Parliament strongly condemn these unprovoked actions by Russia and stand firmly with Ukraine. Ukraine’s sovereignty as a democratic nation and its territorial integrity are undisputable. Russia’s military actions are in direct violation of international law and should stop immediately.
It is now up to us, the European Union, to show our solidarity with Ukraine in a swift and coordinated response. We cannot let Putin succeed in his attempt to bring down Europe’s peace architecture. Given his continued escalation, further targeted and hard-hitting sanctions must be brought to bear immediately.
Our hearts go out to the people of Ukraine, who now face stark realities. We must strengthen our financial, economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and be prepared to provide a safe haven to people fleeing the invasion. All the above will test the resolve, unity and solidarity of the European Union. Collectively, we are convinced we have the means and the will to meet the challenge.
Please follow our social media channels for any developing news.
How to help people in the Ukraine – links and resources
Now is the time to show our support and solidarity to the people in and fleeing from Ukraine. Now is the time to show them they are not alone.
There are many things you can do to help the people in the Ukraine:
Donate
Attend a demonstration
Check on your friends and family who might be affected by the situation
Share news and ways to help
Check your sources and be mindful of misinformation
If you can, donate to these organisations to help people in and fleeing Ukraine:
Posted on 23 February 2022 by Greens/EFA MEPs Kira Peter Hansen and Ernest Urtasun
The EU’s latest ‘blacklist’ for tax havens has just been released, but some of the biggest names are not on the list. Certain territories are getting away with offering 0% tax rates – meaning multi-billion dollar corporations who register there can pay no tax (while the rest of us are contributing our fair share).
It’s time for the EU to take its own blacklist seriously and stop treating tax avoidance like a game, write Kira Peter-Hansen and Ernest Urtasun.
Twice a year, European countries get together to decide which countries outside of the EU are going to make it into the so-called ’blacklist’, a list of the biggest tax havens in the world. The threat of being added to the tax haven blacklist is supposed to dissuade countries from offering low tax rates as a perk for corporations. Tax havens rob all of us from the benefit of tax money that should rightfully be paid in countries where these corporations actually do business.
The newest version of the EU’s tax haven blacklist came out today. There are some conspicuous names missing from the list: the Cayman Islands, Jersey, the Bahamas, the Isle of Man. These are all countries that offer corporationsa tax rate of 0% but they have not been blacklisted. There’s a game being played behind the scenes, and ordinary people are on the losing side. Let’s look into what’s really going on here.
What is a tax haven and why tax havens are bad ?
Tax havens are countries that offer extremely low tax rates to giant multinational corporations and rich individuals to help them avoid taxes in their home countries, where they would traditionally pay a fairer sum.
So, for example, a well-known Swedish furniture brand can do most of their business in Sweden but base their headquarters in the Cayman Islands or Jersey. Does that mean that they are transferring their business to the middle of the Caribbean Sea? Not at all. What it means is that they are setting up a fictional office on a tropical island and claiming that they make all of their money there so that they can benefit from the 0% tax rate. So, while the workers of the Swedish furniture brand are diligently paying their taxes in Sweden, the owners are using a tropical paradise to escape the taxes they have to pay.
Why are some of the world’s biggest tax havens missing from the EU’s blacklist?
In 2017, the EU started collecting the names of some of these countries that offer special benefits to the super rich in the tax haven list. The blacklist is supposed to be a tool for the EU to fight tax avoidance and to name and shame countries who create unfair tax competition.
But the catch is that they leave out some of the biggest players in the tax benefit world. Why? Because the criteria for who should be put on the list are too weak. If you don’t believe it, look at the tax haven blacklist from October. The Cayman Islands, the Seychelles, Jersey, the British Virgin Islands and other countries that offer corporationsa tax rate of 0% were missing from the blacklist. Another example is Switzerland. Even with scandals like the Suisse Secrets, Switzerland benefits from the weak criteria and isn’t listed as it should be.
There is also a weaker version of the blacklist called the grey list. It’s the blacklist’s little sibling. The grey list is for countries whose tax practices warrant further scrutiny, but who have at least made some commitment to change. Countries entering the grey list are fully aware that this is happening and they get a warning from the EU, but their intention to change their tax systems gives them a pass out of the blacklist.
If this doesn’t sound fair, it’s because it isn’t at all. Turkey has repeatedly failed to comply with the criteria or change its tax system, but it has managed to avoid the blacklist for years now. South Dakota in the US also gives preferential tax deals to corporations. But the US is far from appearing on the blacklist, despite playing a big role in the Pandora Papers and the European Parliament asking for it to be added. Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Bahamas offer big corporations a 0% tax rate but are still only making it onto the grey list because they manage to jump through the right loopholes.
How can we fix the EU’s tax haven blacklist?
All this means that the blacklist is being undermined. It should be a strong tool to fight against tax avoidance and unfair tax competition in the world. But right now it feels like a game of hide and seek, where it’s too easy for countries to be let off the hook.
We have repeatedly asked for the criteria for blacklisting tax havens to be stronger. We’ve also called for the list to be updated in a way that is both transparent and accountable, to put an end to the political games.And we are not alone in this, the European Parliament has demanded the list be revised multiple times.
It is time for the biggest tax havens to make it onto the list. Countries offering 0% tax deals should be listed immediately. The criteria need to be properly applied both inside and outside the EU.
If this doesn’t happen, we will not be able to achieve tax justice. Large corporations will still benefit from not paying taxes and it will be EU citizens who will have to pay for a mess that their own governments have the power to fix.
Posted on 4 February 2022 by Greens/EFA MEPs Gwendoline Delbos Corfield and Patrick Breyer
With the Winter Olympics starting this week in Beijing, and the FIFA World Cup in Qatar later this year, human rights organisations are sounding the alarm on ‘sportswashing’. Gwendoline Delbos Corfield MEP and Patrick Breyer MEP investigate how big sporting events operate as a distraction from persecution, mass surveillance and human rights violations.
Are mass-scale sports events being used to normalise the use of surveillance technologies in our cities? Biometric mass surveillance, like high-tech facial recognition, is on the rise – but what is the cost to our human rights?
What do sports events have to do with human rights violations?
On 4th February, the Winter Olympics will kick off in Beijing, China, against a dark backdrop of serious human rights concerns. International human rights associations have warned participants of human rights violations and security concerns linked to the games. They are calling the sports event an apparent attempt to “sportswash” away its abusive rights reputation. What’s more, there are grave security concerns about the ‘My2022’ app that participants are required to download and use. The app monitors the health and travel data of athletes, but has been found to have a “devastating” encryption flaw that leaves this sensitive data open to attack.
Later this year, the FIFA World Cup will be hosted in Qatar. The country has come under criticism for the abuse of two million migrant workers, limited press freedom, a total absence of LGBTIQ+ rights, and a male guardianship system that severely limits the basic rights of women and girls.
With this year’s two biggest sporting events being hosted by major human rights abusers, it is hard not to see this as a worrying trend that normalises a complete disregard for human rights. The effect is similar to ‘greenwashing’, where corporations use marketing to claim their environmentally-friendly credentials in order to boost their sales and image. Instead, authoritarian states are using ‘sportswashing’ to create the same positive effect for their bad public image.
Alarmingly, research shows that China and Qatar are not the only countries ‘sportswashing’ their human rights reputation. Ahead of the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics, organisers in Europe are also exploring the possibility of using biometric mass surveillance, like facial recognition, in cities hosting major sporting events.
What would this mean for our human rights?
An Olympic-sized threat to human rights and democratic societies
One of the biggest threats for democracy and a diverse society is the use of biometric mass surveillance technology. The potential for abuse is unprecedented. These technologies threaten our right to self-determination and human dignity, for example by forcing athletes at the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing to use an app that does not handle users’ personal data in a sensitive way. These are core fundamental rights that must be respected in a democracy governed by the rule of law.
European countries are experimenting with increasingly intrusive technology, without ever demonstrating its efficiency and added-value. This is despite continuous requests for evidence. If left unregulated, they have the potential to change our societies fundamentally. It’s time to acknowledge the adverse effect of biometric surveillance methods on our fundamental rights. We need to act now before it’s too late.
The true cost of biometric surveillance: Loss of privacy, attacks on freedom of expression, division and discrimination
In order to understand the full impact on our rights, we commissioned a study to find out what exactly is at stake. According to our team of international researchers, biometric mass surveillance in public places, like the sportswashing at the Winter Olympics in Beijing, poses a risk to our rights and our privacy by:
resulting in the violation of our right to private life. This means that biometric data, like an image of your face on CCTV, are stored for surveillance before an offence has been committed.
leading to an unjustified loss of personal development and personal autonomy. Individuals who feel they are being monitored may have a tendency to censor themselves. They might modify their behaviour or avoid meeting someone in a publicly accessible place.
posing a genuine, ongoing and serious threat to self-determination and to dignity. Data collected through video and audio surveillance, as well as biometric characteristics that are used to identify or categorise people, relate to the human body and the human mind. They need to be protected. These rights should not be restricted in a democracy governed by the rule of law.
Our study also finds that biometric mass surveillance is not in line with our right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of assembly:
By promoting self-censorship. Freedom of expression is an “essential foundation” of democracy and the rule of law. It is “one of the basic conditions for its progress” according to the European Court of Human Rights. States have a positive obligation to ensure its effectiveness. This means giving citizens the confidence to express themselves without fear. States must not monitor them if not duly justified, necessary and framed. Chinese leaders promised to uphold these rights in light of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics but have since arrested journalists, lawyers and women’s rights activists for expressing their beliefs.
Biometric mass surveillance is also in conflict with the absolute right to hold a belief:
Technology that identifies or guesses the emotions or thoughts of real people can manipulate these people and encourage them to overly monitor their own behaviour. This impact contradicts the right to hold a belief, which is an absolute right. These technologies are powerful and cannot be used without the informed consent of the people concerned. Not even in cases of internal security or to prevent crime.
Biometric mass surveillance: Why data is never foolproof
The risks linked to errors and to the theft of biometric identifiers are many and they are common, to name a few:
Technical errors: Technology can be liable to falsely recognise or authenticate a person, or to not recognise or authenticate a person where it should. A striking example of errors is provided by an independent report, which concludes that the facial recognition system used by the London Metropolitan Police is “verifiably accurate in just 19% of cases”[1], which means that “81% of ‘suspects’ flagged by [the] technology [are] innocent”[2].
Human-based errors and weaknesses: The code behind the categories used to detect and classify people is human-based and subjective. Errors may arise. The way technology is used may itself lead to unwanted impacts, like reinforcing stereotypes.
What can sports fans do to keep enjoying the Olympics and FIFA without sportswashing? Call for an EU ban on biometric mass surveillance now!
We don’t want to live in a society in which people are tracked, judged and classified based on their appearance, identity or behaviour.
The Member States of the European Union are confronted with a crucial political choice. We must decide between maintaining the principles and values of the rule of law and the respect of human rights, or the choice to stray from this path and go down the road of division and discrimination.
‘Impacts of the use of Biometric and Behavioural Mass Surveillance Technologies on Human Rights and the Rule of Law’
This study includes a summary of the legal framework that regulates the use of such technologies, in addition to an analysis of the ways in which these technologies impact on human rights and on the rule of law.
When biometric data, for example highly sensitive data about our body or behaviour collected by cctv-cameras, is monitored, tracked and processed in one way or the other, we call it Biometric mass surveillance. When used to scan individuals or groups in an indiscriminate or arbitrarily targeted manner in public or publicly accessible spaces (a form of mass surveillance), biometric processing violates a wide range of fundamental rights.
What is ‘sportswashing’?
Sportswashing refers to the practice of an individual, group, corporation, or a state using major international sports events to improve its reputation and public image, and to direct attention away from wide-spread human rights violations. Countries like China and Qatar have been under scrutiny for using lucrative sports events as an opportunity to launder their image.
Human rights organisations have criticised China, for instance, on its deteriorating human rights situation, including the on-going mass persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and the clampdown on freedom of speech.
Did you know? Many European cities and regions are already experimenting with these dangerous technologies. Last year, as an effort to promote privacy and human rights, we got together with a team of international experts to understand where biometric mass surveillance is put to use at this very moment in different European cities and states.
Check out our study and an interactive map on the current practises here!
Posted on 31 janvier 2022 by Eurodéputé.e.s Verts/ALE Yannick Jadot et Anna Cavazzini
Un nouveau sondage YouGov, publié aujourd’hui, a recueilli l’opinion des chefs d’entreprise sur l’accord commercial UE-Mercosur.
Le sondage montre que près de la moitié (46,3 %) des chefs d’entreprise sont préoccupés par les incidences environnementales de l’accord.
Un nombre encore plus élevé (49 %) est favorable à des protections environnementales juridiquement contraignantes dans l’accord, y compris des sanctions en cas de violation des normes environnementales.
Le sondage a été réalisé tout au long du mois de novembre 2021 auprès de 2 420 chefs d’entreprise de huit États membres de l’UE (France, Allemagne, Pays-Bas, Italie, Espagne, Irlande, Belgique et Hongrie). Il a été commandé par le Groupe des Verts/ALE.
L’accord commercial UE-Mercosur entraînera une augmentation des exportations de bœuf, de soja, de bioéthanol (principalement dérivé de la canne à sucre) et d’autres produits agricoles de la région du Mercosur vers l’UE. Il entraînera également une augmentation des exportations de l’UE vers le Mercosur, notamment de voitures, de pièces détachées, de machines, de produits chimiques et de produits pharmacologiques.
L’accord s’est révélé controversé. Les activistes, la société civile et les experts ont tiré la sonnette d’alarme sur les ramifications possibles pour l’environnement et les droits de l’homme. Le Médiateur européen a critiqué la Commission européenne pour ne pas avoir finalisé l’évaluation de durabilité de l’accord UE-Mercosur avant de conclure les négociations[1]. Néanmoins, la Commission européenne reste désireuse de ratifier l’accord aussi rapidement que possible.
Près de la moitié des chefs d’entreprise sont préoccupés par l’impact environnemental de l’accord.
Le sondage révèle que près de la moitié des chefs d’entreprise interrogés sont préoccupés par l’impact environnemental de l’accord. 46,3 % des chefs d’entreprise se sont déclarés “très préoccupés” ou “plutôt préoccupés” par l’impact de l’accord sur l’environnement.
Des préoccupations importantes concernant l’impact potentiel de l’accord sur l’environnement et le climat ont été soulevées au cours des dernières années par diverses parties prenantes, y compris les États membres eux-mêmes. Le Parlement européen a déclaré à deux reprises qu’il ne ratifiera pas l’accord dans sa forme actuelle en raison des préoccupations environnementales[2],[3].
Une étude d’experts commandée par le gouvernement français a estimé que l’accord entraînera une augmentation de 25 % de la déforestation en Amérique du Sud[4].
Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous inquiets des impacts environnementaux de l’accord UE-Mercosur?
Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous inquiets des impacts environnementaux de l’accord UE-Mercosur?
Les chefs d’entreprise souhaitent que l’accord UE-Mercosur comporte des normes de durabilité pouvant être sanctionnées
Un grand nombre de chefs d’entreprise interrogés (49 %) estiment que la meilleure façon de répondre à ces préoccupations environnementales serait d’adopter des clauses juridiquement contraignantes, assorties de sanctions en cas de non-respect. Seuls 22,7 % préféreraient des engagements sans sanctions. Un groupe important (28,3 %) ne sait pas comment répondre au mieux aux préoccupations environnementales.
Ces résultats envoient un signal clair à la Commission européenne, qui refuse à ce stade d’inclure des normes de durabilité sanctionnables dans l’accord UE-Mercosur. La Commission cherche à créer un protocole additionnel avec les pays du Mercosur. Celui-ci inclurait des engagements en matière de protection de l’environnement, mais ne prévoirait pas de sanctions en cas de non-respect, ce qui est largement insuffisant.
Comment pensez-vous que ces problèmes peuvent être résolus au mieux dans l’accord?
Comment pensez-vous que ces problèmes peuvent être résolus au mieux dans l’accord?
La plupart des entreprises ne connaissent pas l’accord et ne croient pas qu’il puisse affecter leur activité
La Commission européenne s’efforce de faire ratifier l’accord commercial UE-Mercosur en raison de ses avantages pour l’industrie européenne. Cependant seulement un chef d’entreprise sur cinq (22,4 %) dans les huit États membres interrogés connaissait l’accord commercial UE-Mercosur, 40,7 % des personnes interrogées ne le connaissaient pas du tout et 22,3 % ne le connaissaient pas très bien.
A quel point connaissez-vous l’accord UE-Mercosur et son contenu?
A quel point connaissez-vous l’accord UE-Mercosur et son contenu?
A quel point connaissez-vous l’accord UE-Mercosur et son contenu?
De plus, après que les principales caractéristiques de l’accord leur aient été expliquées, un grand nombre des personnes interrogées (40,2%) a déclaré penser que l’accord n’aurait aucun effet sur leur activité et seuls 22% pensent que l’accord aura un effet positif sur leur activité[5]. Une part faible mais significative (11,4%) des chefs d’entreprise interrogés pensent que l’accord aura un effet négatif sur leur activité.
Une fois signé, comment pensez-vous que l’accord UE-Mercosur impactera votre entreprise?
Une fois signé, comment pensez-vous que l’accord UE-Mercosur impactera votre entreprise?
L’eurodéputée Verts/ALE Anna Cavazzini, rapporteur fictif sur l’accord UE-Mercosur, commente :
“Nous entendons encore et encore le même argument : L’industrie veut l’accord commercial UE-Mercosur ! Mais cette affirmation ne tient pas la route. En fait, l’enquête montre que le soutien à l’accord commercial controversé UE-Mercosur n’est pas particulièrement élevé dans le milieu des affaires européen.
Les chefs d’entreprise partagent nos préoccupations quant à l’impact de l’accord sur le climat, les forêts tropicales et les droits de l’homme, tandis que beaucoup ne voient pas de conséquences positives directes pour leur entreprise. Ce n’est pas surprenant, car l’accord UE-Mercosur comporte trop de défauts. La plupart des chefs d’entreprise européens soutiennent la demande d’inclusion de normes de durabilité sanctionnables dans l’accord. La Commission européenne doit enfin changer de cap pour que cela se produise.”
L’eurodéputé des Verts/ALE Yannick Jadot, rapporteur fictif sur l’accord UE-Mercosur, commente :
“Les résultats de ce sondage auprès des chefs d’entreprise sur l’accord UE-Mercosur sont éloquents. La moitié deschefs d’entreprise interrogés à travers l’Europe s’inquiètent de son impact environnemental. Et ils ont raison. Pour les petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) en particulier, c’est un très mauvais accord, écrit au profit des plus grands business tels que BASF et Bayer Monsanto qui exportent plus facilement de dangereux pesticides pourtant interdits dans l’UE. En facilitant les exportations pour les grands business, l’accord accentue la concurrence, à laquelle seront exposées les PME. Le texte de l’accord n’offre aucune garantie pour ces petites entreprises exposées à une concurrence indue. C’est un mauvais accord pour l’environnement, pour la santé, pour les PME. Refusons l’accord UE-Mercosur !”
Disclaimer
Cette enquête a été menée par YouGov auprès de personnes occupant un poste de direction dans huit États membres de l’UE (Allemagne, France, Belgique, Hongrie, Pays-Bas, Irlande, Italie et Espagne), avec un total de 2 420 entretiens, répartis de manière égale entre les huit pays. Les entretiens ont eu lieu du 8 au 18 novembre 2021.
[5] “L’Union européenne et les pays du Mercosur (Brésil, Argentine, Uruguay, Paraguay) sont sur le point de signer un accord de libre-échange. Cet accord entraînera une augmentation des exportations de bœuf, de soja, de bioéthanol (principalement dérivé de la canne à sucre) et d’autres produits agricoles du Mercosur vers l’UE. Il entraînera également une augmentation des exportations de l’UE vers le Mercosur de voitures, de pièces détachées, de machines, de produits chimiques et de produits pharmaceutiques.”
Posted on 31 January 2022 by Greens/EFA MEP Yannick Jadot and Anna Cavazzini
A new YouGov poll, published today, has captured the opinion of business leaders on the EU-Mercosur Trade deal.
The poll shows that nearly half (46.3%) of business leaders have concerns about the deal’s environmental impacts.
An even higher number (49%) are in favour of legally binding environmental protections in the agreement, including sanctions in the cases where environmental standards are breached.
The poll ran throughout November 2021 and surveyed 2,420 business leaders from across 8 EU Member States (France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Belgium and Hungary). It was commissioned by the Greens/EFA Group.
The EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement will lead to an increase in the export of beef, soy, bioethanol (mostly derived from sugar cane) and other agricultural goods from the Mercosur region to the EU. It will also lead to an increase of exports from the EU to Mercosur, particularly of cars, car parts, machinery, chemicals, and pharmacological products.
The deal has proven to be controversial. Activists, civil society and experts have sounded the alarm about the possible ramifications for the environment and human rights. The European Ombudsman criticised the European Commission for not finalising the sustainability assessment on the EU-Mercosur deal before concluding negotiations[1]. Nonetheless, the European Commission remains eager to ratify the deal as swiftly as possible.
Nearly half of business leaders are concerned about the deal’s environmental impacts
The poll reveals that nearly half of business leaders surveyed have concerns about the deal’s environmental impacts. 46.3% of business leaders declared themselves to be either “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the deal’s impact on the environment.
Significant concerns about the agreement’s potential impact on the environment and the climate have been raised in the past few years by a variety of stakeholders, including Member States themselves. The European Parliament has twice stated that it will not ratify the deal in its current form because of environmental concerns[2],[3].
An expert study commissioned by the French Government estimated that the agreement will lead to an expected 25% increase in deforestation in South America[4].
To what extent are you concerned about the environmental impacts of the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement?
To what extent are you concerned about the environmental impacts of the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement?
Business leaders want sanctionable sustainability standards in the EU-Mercosur deal
A majority of business leaders surveyed (49%) believe that the best way to address these environmental concerns would be via legally binding clauses, including sanctions in the case of non-compliance. Only 22.7% would prefer commitments without sanctions. A large group (28.3%) did not know how the environmental concerns could be best addressed.
This sends a clear signal to the European Commission, which currently opposes sanctionable sustainability standards in the EU-Mercosur agreement. Instead, the Commission is seeking to create an additional instrument with the Mercosur countries. This could include commitments on environmental protection, but would stop short of sanctions in the case of non-compliance, which is far from sufficient.
How do you think these concerns would be best addressed in the trade agreement?
How do you think these concerns would be best addressed in the trade agreement?
European businesses do not know enough about the EU-Mercosur trade deal and believe it will not affect them
The European Commission has been pursuing a ratification of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement on the grounds of its benefits for European industry. However, only one in five (22.4%) business leaders across the eight surveyed EU Member States were even familiar with the EU-Mercosur Trade Deal. Meanwhile, 40.7% of those surveyed were not at all familiar and 22.3% were not very familiar with the deal.
How familiar are you with the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement?
How familiar are you with the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement?
How familiar are you with the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement?
Furthermore, many business leaders do not see any direct positive consequences for their company. After the main features[5] of the deal in terms of exports and imports was explained to them, a large percentage of the respondents (40,2%) said they think the deal will not have any effect on their business whatsoever. Only 22% think the deal will affect their business in a good way. A small but relevant part (11.4%) of the business leaders surveyed think the deal will have a negative effect on their business.
How do you believe the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement once signed will affect your business?
How do you believe the EU-Mercosur Trade agreement once signed will affect your business?
Anna Cavazzini MEP, Greens/EFA Shadow Rapporteur on the EU-Mercosur Agreement, has commented:
“Again and again we hear the same argument: The industry wants the EU-Mercosur trade agreement! But this statement does not hold water. In fact, the survey shows that support for the controversial EU-Mercosur trade agreement is not particularly high in the European business community.
Business leaders share our concerns about the impact of the agreement on the climate and rainforests, while many do not see any direct positive consequences for their company. This is not surprising, since the EU-Mercosur agreement has too many flaws. Most European business leaders support the demand to include sanctionable sustainability standards in the agreement. The European Commission must finally change its course in order to make that happen.”
Yannick Jadot MEP, Greens/EFA Shadow Rapporteur on the EU-Mercosur agreement, has commented:
“The results of this survey among business leaders on the EU-Mercosur agreement are clear. Half of the business leaders surveyed across Europe are concerned about its environmental impact. And rightly so. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular, it is a very poor agreement, written to benefit the biggest businesses, such as BASF and Bayer Monsanto, who would more easily be able to export dangerous pesticides that are banned in the EU. Furthermore, the agreement increases competition between the biggest businesses and the rest. The text of the agreement offers no guarantee that small businesses would not be exposed to undue competition. It is a harmful agreement for the environment, for health and for SMEs. ”
Disclaimer
This survey was conducted by YouGov among people at a managerial level in eight different EU member states (Germany, France, Belgium, Hungary, the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy and Spain) with a total of 2,420 interviews, evenly distributed among the eight countries. The interviews took place from 8th – 18th November 2021.
[5] The survey provided a short overview, as follows: “The European Union and the Mercosur countries (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay) are about to sign a free trade agreement. It will lead to an increase of Mercosur exports of beef, soy, bioethanol (mostly derived from sugar cane) and other agricultural goods to the EU. It will also lead to an increase of exports from the EU to Mercosur in cars, car parts, machinery, chemicals, and pharmacological products.”
Posted on 27. Januar 2022 by Grünen/EFA MdEP Rasmus Andresen
Warum haben wir das Gefühl, dass die Mieten immer teurer werden? Wie kann es sein, dass die Immobilienpreise immer weiter steigen, während Löhne in vielen Ländern stagnieren? Warum bauen die Städte glänzende neue Hochhäuser, die dann aber leer stehen?
Für viele Menschen wird es immer schwieriger eine bezahlbare Wohnung zu finden, und die Obdachlosigkeit nimmt stetig zu. Die Europaabgeordneten der Grünen/EFA, Rasmus Andresen öffnet die Türen zur europäischen Wohnungskrise und findet für uns heraus, wer wirklich die Kontrolle über unseren Wohnungsmarkt hat.
Melden Sie sich für unsere Newsletter zur Wohnraum-Kampagne an, um auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben.
Eines der großen Probleme ist die “Finanzialisierung” des Wohnungsmarktes.
Große institutionelle Investoren haben immer mehr und mehr Einfluss auf unsere Städte. Investmentfirmen versuchen verstärkt Wohnungen zu aufzukaufen – von Mehrfamilienhäusern bis hin zu Mehrfamilienwohnungen – um diese dann gewinnbringend zu vermieten. Häuser werden so zu einer Möglichkeit Geld zu verdienen. Ein sicheres Investment anstelle von einem gesicherten Zuhause.
Institutionelle Vermieter:innen sind vor allem in den großen europäischen Städten, wie Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Dublin und Kopenhagen zu finden. Aber auch in kleinen Städten sind große Investoren:innen präsent, wie z. B. in den Niederlanden. Mit diesen Graphen und dieser Karte kannst du dir ein Bild davon machen, in welchen Städten die Investoren:innen sind und wie viel Geld jeweils im Spiel ist.
Steigende Mieten und Immobilienpreise: Wer profitiert wirklich vom europäischen Wohnungsmarkt?
In Spanien ist der größte Vermieter ein einziges Unternehmen namens Blackstone. Blackstone besitzt 40.000 Wohneinheiten und 40 % aller von institutionellen Investoren gehaltenen Wohnungen in Spanien. Als die neuen spanischen Wohnungsbaugesetze diskutiert wurden, sprach sich Blackstone gegen eine Zielvorgabe von 30 % für sozialen Wohnungsbau in institutionellen Portfolios aus. Sie argumentierten, dass die Regierung zusätzliche Subventionen für den sozialen Wohnungsbau zahlen sollte, anstatt dafür zu sorgen, dass Unternehmen diese bereitstellen müssen.
In Berlin haben institutionelle Vermieter:innen, wie Blackstone und andere Unternehmen, einen Umsatz von 40 Milliarden Euro mit Immobilien in der Stadt erzielt. Genauso wurden in Paris in den letzten zehn Jahren, zwischen 2011 und 2021 rund 43 groß Investitionen im Wert von mindestens 14 Milliarden Euro in Wohnraum getätigt. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam und Den Haag kommt man zusammen gerechnet, in den Jahren zwischen 2013 und 2021 etwa auf 120 große Transaktionen im Wert von 13,82 Mrd. Euro (wobei es sich aufgrund von Datenlücken um eine ungefähre Schätzung handelt).
So scheint es, dass es jeweils zwei Seiten einer Stadt gibt: Eine für die Investoren und eine für den Rest von uns. Für diejenigen, die in Städten leben und arbeiten, bedeuten steigende Mieten und Immobilienpreise, dass sie jeden Monat bis zu 40 % oder mehr ihres Einkommens für ihren Wohnraum ausgeben müssen. Steigende Energiepreise erhöhen zusätzlich die Kosten für Wohnungen. Viele Menschen kommen dadurch in eine Schieflage, während institutionelle Investoren (von denen die meisten außerhalb der EU sitzen), die nicht einmal in den Häusern, die sie besitzen, wohnen, einen Gewinn daraus abschöpfen.
Auf Veränderung drängen: Wie können wir für bezahlbaren Wohnraum in der EU sorgen?
Angesichts dieser Situation fühlt man sich schnell machtlos. Und es ist schwer sich vorzustellen, wie man an der jetzigen Situation etwas ändern kann. Die Städte und die nationalen Regierungen spielen bei der Veränderung eine große Rolle. Das Gleiche gilt aber auch für die Europäische Union. Wir neigen leider dazu, die Thematik um Wohnraum nicht als europäisches Thema zu betrachten. Dabei sind genau europäische Verordnungen und Finanzvorschriften die, die diese Entwicklung vorantreiben und Auswirkung darauf haben, wie Länder ihre Vorschriften für Investor:innen gestalten.
Die europäischen politischen Entscheidungsträger:innen werden langsam aufmerksam. Es gibt viele Möglichkeiten, wie sie sich für Veränderungen einsetzen können. Ein Umdenken und Wandel kann uns helfen, mehr bezahlbaren Wohnraum für alle zu schaffen, Wohnraum für Menschen und nicht für Profit.
Folgendes schlagen wir europäischen Entscheidungsträger:innen vor, um die Wohnungskrise zu entspannen:
Regelmäßiger Austausch zwischen Wohnungs- und Finanzministerien der EU, um für die vielschichtige Thematik gemeinsam Ideen auszutauschen und Lösungen auszuarbeiten.
Städte müssen mehr Werkzeuge zur Steuerung von kurzfristigen Mietverhältnissen wie Airbnb bekommen.
Eine genaue Bewertung und Untersuchung, wie die derzeitigen Regularien für Investitionen innerhalb der EU (the Capital Markets Union), europaweite Bank Regularien sowie allgemein europäische Finanzvorschriften die Entwicklung des Wohnungsmarktes befeuern. Dabei sollte auch untersucht werden, ob der gegebene regulatorische Rahmen es institutionellen Investoren erst ermöglicht, Wohnraum in dem derzeitigen Stil in eine Anlage umzuwandeln. Änderungen der Regularien sollten dementsprechend vorgeschlagen werden.
Es muss offengelegt werden, wem die Städte wirklich gehören. Mehr Transparenz über institutionelles Eigentum und Immobilienpreise auf dem Wohnungsmarkt.
Investor:innen müssen zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, wenn es um Renovierungen und Erfüllung von Energieeffizienzstandards der Wohnungen geht.
Investor:innen müssen sozial-nachhaltige Standards (wie Mietpreisbindung und langfristige Mietverhältnissen) für in ihren Besitz befindlichen Wohnungen erfüllen.
Die oben genannten Vorschläge sind einige Änderungen, die wir uns von der Europäischen Union wünschen würden. Jetzt liegt es an der Europäischen Kommission, dem entsprechende Entwürfe zu politischen Maßnahmen vorzuschlagen.
Die französische Regierung hat derzeit die europäische Ratspräsidentschaft inne. Diese veranstaltet am 7. und 8. März 2022 ein Ministerium treffen zum Thema Wohnungsbau in Nizza. Das könnte eine echte Chance für die Ministerien sein, bei diesem Treffen ihr Engagement für menschenwürdigen und erschwinglichen Wohnraum zu bekräftigen.
Mein Zuhause ist eine Anlagevermögen (“My home is an asset class”): eine neue Studie der Grünen/EFA über die Finanzialisierung des Wohnens
Die Fraktion der Grünen/EFA im Europäischen Parlament hat eine Studie veröffentlicht (Donnerstag, 27. Januar), die sich mit der Finanzialisierung des Wohnungswesens in Europa befasst, und mit der Frage, was die EU für bezahlbaren Wohnraum tun kann.
Wenn Du tiefer in das Thema eintauchen möchtest, finden Sie hier weitere Informationen:
Posted on 27 febbraio 2022 by Eurodeputata Greens/EFA Rosa D'Amato
Perché sembra che gli affitti siano in continuo aumento? Hai notato come nelle città vengono costruiti nuovi e scintillanti grattacieli che però restano vuoti, mentre c’è una generale carenza di alloggi a prezzi accessibili e un numero sempre più alto di senzatetto? Com’è possibile che in molti paesi i salari siano stagnanti, mentre i prezzi delle case e gli affitti sono in vertiginoso aumento? Vi siete mai fermati a chiedervi cosa sta realmente accadendo, dietro le quinte?
Questo fenomeno è noto come ‘finanziarizzazione degli alloggi’ e significa che i grandi investitori istituzionali o “corporate landlords” hanno un potere crescente nelle nostre città. Le società d’investimento cercano di acquistare alloggi – condomini, appartamenti plurifamiliari – e poi li usano come un bene che affittano e da cui ricavano un profitto. Le case diventano un modo per fare soldi, un investimento stabile.
I proprietari aziendali sono concentrati soprattutto nelle grandi città europee, da Parigi a Berlino, Madrid, Amsterdam, Dublino e Copenhagen. Ma il quadro è variegato, e gli investitori hanno un’impatto anche nelle città più piccole, nei Paesi Bassi per esempio. Da questi grafici e da questa mappa, si ottiene un quadro di dove sono gli investitori e una stima di quanto denaro è coinvolto.
In Spagna una sola azienda, Blackstone, è il più grande proprietario di unità residenzili. Blackstone possiede 40.000 unità abitative e il 40% di tutte le abitazioni di proprietà istituzionale in Spagna. Quando le nuove leggi spagnole sugli alloggi erano in discussione, Blackstone si è opposto alle misure per un obiettivo del 30% di alloggi sociali nei portafogli istituzionali, sostenendo che lo stato dovrebbe sovvenzionare piuttosto che imporre la fornitura di alloggi sociali.
A Berlino, i corporate landlords come Blackstone, tra gli altri, hanno guadagnato 40 miliardi di ricavi dagli immobili della città. A Parigi, nel decennio tra il 2011 e il 2021, circa 43 accordi di investimento residenziale sono stati pari ad almeno 14 miliardi di euro.
Aumento degli affitti e dei prezzi delle case
Questa è la storia di due città possibili. Per coloro che vivono e lavorano in città, l’aumento degli affitti e dei prezzi delle case significa spendere fino al 40% o più del loro reddito per l’alloggio ogni mese. L’aumento dei prezzi dell’energia sta rendendo i costi del riscaldamento delle case più alti e molti sentono una pressione insostenibile. Nel frattempo, i grandi investitori istituzionali che non vivono nelle case che possiedono, possono trarne profitto.
È facile sentirsi impotenti di fronte a questo fenomeno. Sembra difficile immaginare un cambiamento di rotta. Le città e i governi nazionali hanno un grande ruolo da svolgere. Ma anche l’Unione Europea. Non riusciamo a pensare agli alloggi come ad una questione europea, ma i regolamenti europei e le regole finanziarie hanno un impatto su come i paesi possono organizzare le loro regole nei confronti di questi investitori.
Un esempio è l’organizzazione di incontri regolari dei ministri degli alloggi e delle finanze dell’UE, in modo che possano scambiarsi idee e lavorare insieme per trovare soluzioni.
Un’altra azione è quella di dare alle città più controllo sugli affitti a breve termine come AirBnB.
I politici europei dovrebbero anche valutare i molti modi in cui l'”unione dei mercati dei capitali”, le regole bancarie e finanziarie a livello europeo, in realtà rendono più facile per gli investitori istituzionali l’accesso agli alloggi come bene e fissare queste regole.
Una maggiore trasparenza sulla proprietà istituzionale è necessaria per rivelare chi possiede davvero le nostre città. E con queste informazioni, sarebbe più facile chiedere conto agli investitori quando si tratta di standard ambientali (efficienza energetica, ristrutturazioni) e sociali (controllo degli affitti, affitto a lungo termine) degli edifici che gestiscono.
Questi sono alcuni dei cambiamenti che vorremmo vedere a livello europeo. La Commissione europea, incaricata di avanzare nuove proposte legislative, può contribuire a far sì che ciò avvenga. Il governo francese ha la presidenza del Consiglio europeo in questo momento e sta organizzando una riunione ministeriale sugli alloggi a Nizza il 7-8 marzo. Chiediamo che in occasione della riunione ministeriale di marzo i ministri dichiarino chiaro e tondo il loro impegno per case dignitose e accessibili per tutti.
La mia casa è un Asset Class: Studio dei Verdi/EFA al Parlamento Europeo
Il gruppo Greens/EFA al Parlamento europeo ha pubblicato un nuovo studio che esplora la finanziarizzazione degli alloggi in Europa e le risposte politiche dell’UE a questo fenomeno.
Posted on 27 de febrero de 2022 by Eurodiputados de los Verdes/ALE, Kim van Sparrentak y Ernest Urtasun
¿Por qué parece que los alquileres siempre están subeniendo? ¿Por qué el precio de la vivienda sigue subiendo cuando los salarios siguen siendo bajos en muchos países? ¿Por qué las ciudades construyen nuevos y brillantes bloques de pisos que luego se quedan vacíos? Mientras tanto, muchas personas tienen dificultades para encontrar una vivienda asequible y sigue aumentando el número de personas sin hogar. Los eurodiputados de los Verdes/ALE, Kim van Sparrentak y Ernest Urtasun, abren las puertas a la crisis de la vivienda en Europa y descubren quién controla realmente nuestros hogares.
El asunto se conoce como la “financiarización” de la vivienda. Significa que los grandes inversores institucionales o “propietarios corporativos” tienen una presencia cada vez mayor en nuestras ciudades. Las empresas de inversión pretenden comprar viviendas -desde bloques de pisos hasta apartamentos multifamiliares- y luego alquilarlas para obtener beneficios. Las viviendas se convierten en una forma de ganar dinero. Una inversión estable en vez de un hogar.
Los arrendadores corporativos se concentran sobre todo en las grandes ciudades europeas: desde París a Berlín, Madrid, Ámsterdam, Dublín y Copenhague. Pero el panorama es diverso. Los inversores también están presentes en ciudades más pequeñas, por ejemplo en los Países Bajos. A partir de estos gráficos y este mapa, puede hacerse una idea de dónde están los inversores y una estimación de la cantidad de dinero que hay en juego.
Aumento de los alquileres y del precio de la vivienda: ¿quién se beneficia realmente del mercado inmobiliario europeo?
En España, el mayor arrendador es una sola empresa llamada Blackstone. Blackstone es propietaria de 40.000 viviendas y del 40% de todas las viviendas propiedad de inversores institucionales en España. Cuando se debatieron las nuevas leyes de vivienda en España, Blackstone se opuso al objetivo del 30% de viviendas sociales en las carteras institucionales. Argumentaron que el gobierno debería pagar más en subvenciones para la vivienda social en lugar de asegurarse de que las empresas la proporcionen.
En Berlín, los propietarios corporativos, como Blackstone y otros, han ganado 40.000 millones de euros con los inmuebles de la ciudad. En París, unas 43 operaciones de inversión residencial ascendieron a al menos 14.000 millones de euros en la década comprendida entre 2011 y 2021. En Ámsterdam, Róterdam y La Haya juntas, se produjeron aproximadamente 120 operaciones por valor de 13.820 millones de euros entre 2013 y 2021 (y se trata de una estimación baja debido a la falta de datos).
Se trata de una historia de dos ciudades: una para los multimillonarios y otra para el resto de personas. Para los que viven y trabajan en las ciudades, el aumento de los alquileres y del precio de la vivienda supone gastar hasta un 40% o más de sus ingresos en alojamiento cada mes. El aumento de los precios de la energía encarece el coste de la calefacción de los hogares. Muchas personas están sufriendo las consecuencias. Mientras tanto, los inversores institucionales (los más importantes son los de fuera de la UE), que no viven en las viviendas que poseen, pueden obtener beneficios de ellas.
Impulsar el cambio: ¿cómo garantizar una vivienda asequible en la UE?
Es fácil sentirse impotente ante esta situación. Parece difícil imaginar cómo podría cambiar. Las ciudades y los gobiernos nacionales tienen un gran papel que desempeñar. Pero también lo tiene la Unión Europea. No solemos pensar en la vivienda como una cuestión europea, pero la normativa europea y las reglas financieras influyen en la forma en que los países pueden organizar sus reglas hacia los inversores.
Esto es lo que pueden hacer los responsables políticos europeos para ayudar a solucionar la crisis de la vivienda:
Organizar más reuniones periódicas de los ministros y ministras de vivienda y finanzas de la UE, para que puedan intercambiar ideas y trabajar juntos en la búsqueda de soluciones.
Dar a las ciudades más control sobre los alquileres a corto plazo, como el caso de AirBnB.
Evaluar cómo las normas de inversión dentro de la UE (la Unión de Mercados de Capitales), las normas bancarias a nivel europeo y otras normas financieras facilitan realmente a los inversores institucionales la compra de vivienda como activo. Y después cambiar estas normas.
Revelar quién posee realmente nuestras ciudades. Necesitamos más transparencia sobre la propiedad institucional de la vivienda.
Exigir a los inversores que rindan cuentas sobre el medio ambiente (en aspectos como la eficiencia energética y las rehabilitaciones)
Exigir a los inversores que rindan cuentas sobre las normas sociales (como el control de los alquileres y el arrendamiento a largo plazo) de los edificios que gestionan.
Estos son algunos de los cambios que nos gustaría ver en la Unión Europea. La Comisión Europea es responsable de proponer nuevas políticas y pueden ayudar a que esto ocurra.
El Gobierno francés ostenta actualmente la Presidencia del Consejo Europeo. Está organizando una reunión ministerial sobre vivienda en Niza los días 7 y 8 de marzo de 2022. Esta podría ser una oportunidad real para que los ministros establezcan su compromiso con las viviendas decentes y asequibles en esta reunión.
Mi casa es una clase de activo: un nuevo estudio de los Verdes/ALE sobre la financiarización de la vivienda
El Grupo de los Verdes/ALE en el Parlamento Europeo ha publicado un estudio (jueves, 27 de enero) que explora la “financiarización” de la vivienda en Europa, y lo que la UE puede hacer al respecto.
Para profundizar en el tema, encuentra más información aquí (en inglés):
Posted on 27 February 2022 by Eurodéputé Verts/ALE Mounir Satouri
Pourquoi avons-nous le sentiment que les loyers ne cessent d’augmenter ? Pourquoi les prix de l’immobilier continuent-ils d’augmenter alors que les salaires sont stables dans de nombreux pays ? Pourquoi les villes construisent-elles de nouvelles tours d’habitation qui restent ensuite vides ? Pendant ce temps, de nombreuses personnes ont du mal à trouver un logement abordable et le sans-abrisme est en augmentation. L’eurodéputé Verts/ALE Mounir Satouri lève le rideau sur la crise du logement en Europe pour révéler qui contrôle vraiment nos logements.
Le problème est connu sous le nom de « financiarisation » du logement. Les grands investisseurs immobiliers institutionnels ont une empreinte croissante sur nos villes. Les fonds d’investissement cherchent à acheter des logements – des immeubles d’appartements aux appartements multifamiliaux – puis à les louer pour réaliser un profit. Le logement devient un moyen de gagner de l’argent. Un investissement stable au lieu d’un logement.
Les investisseurs immobiliers institutionnels sont principalement concentrés dans les grandes villes européennes – de Paris à Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Dublin et Copenhague. Mais leur activité est diversifiée : les investisseurs ont également un impact sur les petites villes, aux Pays-Bas par exemple. Grâce à ces graphiques et de cette carte, vous pouvez désormais obtenir une vue d’ensemble d’où se trouvent ces investisseurs et une estimation des sommes d’argent impliquées.
Hausse des loyers et des prix de l’immobilier : à qui profite vraiment le marché immobilier européen ?
En Espagne, le plus gros propriétaire est une seule entreprise, du nom de Blackstone. Blackstone possède 40 000 logements, soit 40 % de tous les logements appartenant à des investisseurs institutionnels en Espagne. Lors du débat sur les nouvelles lois espagnoles sur le logement, Blackstone s’est opposée à l’objectif d’allouer 30 % des parcs de logements institutionnels au logement social. Son argument ? Le gouvernement devrait, plutôt que de s’assurer que les investisseurs fournissent du logement social, payer des subventions supplémentaires pour celui-ci.
À Berlin, les investisseurs immobiliers institutionnels, comme Blackstone et d’autres, ont gagné 40 milliards d’euros sur le dos de l’immobilier dans la ville. À Paris, quelques 43 transactions d’investissement résidentiel ont atteint un total de 14 milliards d’euros au cours de la dernière décennie (2011 -2021). À Amsterdam, Rotterdam et La Haye réunis, il y a eu environ 120 transactions d’une valeur de 13,82 milliards d’euros entre 2013 et 2021 (et il s’agit d’une estimation basse en raison de lacunes dans les données).
Les villes ont deux réalités: celle des investisseurs et celle du reste d’entre nous. Pour celles et ceux qui vivent et travaillent dans les villes, la hausse des loyers et des prix des logements nous mène à dépenser jusqu’à 40 % ou plus de leurs revenus pour se loger chaque mois. La hausse des prix de l’énergie augmente les coûts de chauffage. Beaucoup des habitant-e-s des villes sont sous pression. Pendant ce temps, les investisseurs institutionnels (dont les plus grands viennent de l’extérieur de l’UE) possèdent des logements dans lesquels ils ne vivent pas mais dont ils tirent profit.
Obtenir un changement : comment pouvons-nous garantir le droit à un logement abordable dans l’UE ?
Cet état des lieux peut donner un sentiment d’impuissance. Comment cela pourrait-il changer? Les villes et les gouvernements nationaux ont un grand rôle à jouer. Et l’Union européenne aussi. Nous avons tendance à considérer le logement comme une question qui n’est pas européenne, mais les réglementations européennes et les règles financières ont un impact sur la manière dont les pays sont autorisés à organiser leurs règles vis-à-vis des investisseurs.
Les décideur-se-s européens commencent à s’en apercevoir. Il existe de nombreuses façons dont ils pourraient aider à pousser au changement. Ce changement peut nous aider à créer des maisons et des villes plus abordables. Pour les gens, pas pour le profit financier. Voici ce que les décideur-se-s politiques européens peuvent faire pour aider à résoudre la crise du logement :
Organiser des réunions plus régulières des ministres européen-ne-s du logement et des finances, afin qu’ils puissent échanger des idées et travailler ensemble pour trouver des solutions.
Donner aux villes plus de contrôle sur les locations à court terme comme AirBnB.
Évaluer comment les règles relatives aux investissements au sein de l’UE (l’Union des marchés des capitaux), les règles bancaires et autres règles financières à l’échelle européenne facilitent l’achat de logements en tant qu’actifs financiers par les investisseurs institutionnels. Puis corriger ces règles.
Révéler à qui appartiennent vraiment nos villes. Nous avons besoin de plus de transparence sur la propriété institutionnelle des logements.
Demander des comptes aux investisseurs en matière d’environnement (s’agissant d’efficacité énergétique et de rénovations par exemple)
Demander des comptes aux investisseurs en matière sociale (s’agissant du plafonnement des loyers et la location à long terme) pour les immeubles qu’ils gèrent.
Voilà certains des changements que nous voulons obtenir de la part de l’Union européenne. La Commission européenne est chargée de proposer de nouvelles politiques. Elle peut contribuer au changement.
Le gouvernement français assure actuellement la présidence du Conseil européen. Il organise une réunion ministérielle sur le logement, à Nice, les 7 et 8 mars 2022. Cette réunion pourrait être une vraie opportunité pour les ministres de préciser leur engagement pour un logement décent et abordable.
Ma maison est une classe d’actifs : une nouvelle étude Verts/ALE sur la financiarisation du logement
Le groupe des Verts/ALE au Parlement européen a publié une étude (jeudi 27 janvier) explorant la financiarisation du logement en Europe et ce que l’UE peut faire à ce sujet.
Pour vous renseigner sur ce sujet, vous trouverez plus d’informations ici :
Posted on 27 February 2022 by Greens/EFA MEPs Kim van Sparrentak and Ernest Urtasun
Who also feels like rents are always going up? Why do house prices keep rising when wages are flat in many countries? How are cities building shiny new tower blocks that then sit empty? And what are corporate landlords?
Meanwhile, many people are struggling to find affordable housing and homelessness is on the rise. Greens/EFA MEPs, Kim van Sparrentak and Ernest Urtasun, throw open the doors on Europe’s housing crisis and find out who’s really in control of our homes.
The issue is known as the ‘financialisation’ of housing.
It means that large, institutional investors or ‘corporate landlords’ have a growing footprint in our cities. Investment firms seek to purchase housing – from apartment blocks to multi-family apartments – and then rent them out to make a profit. Houses become a way of making money. A stable investment instead of a home.
Corporate landlords are mostly concentrated in Europe’s large cities – from Paris to Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, Dublin, and Copenhagen. But the picture is diverse. Investors also have a footprint in smaller towns, in the Netherlands for instance. From these graphs and this map, you can get a picture of where investors are and an estimate of how much money is involved.
Rising rents and house prices: who really profits from Europe’s housing market?
In Spain, the biggest corporate landlord is a single company called Blackstone. Blackstone owns 40,000 housing units and 40% of all institutional investor-owned housing in Spain. When Spain’s new housing laws were being debated, Blackstone opposed a 30% target for social housing in institutional portfolios. They argued that the government should pay extra in subsidies for social housing rather than making sure companies provide it.
In Berlin, corporate landlords, like Blackstone and others, have made €40 billion from real estate in the city. Similarly, In Paris, around 43 residential investment deals amounted to at least €14 billion in the decade between 2011 and 2021. In Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague combined, there were approximately 120 deals amounting to €13,82 billion in value between 2013 and 2021 (and this is a low estimate due to data gaps).
This is a tale of two cities: one for corporate investors and one for the rest of us.
For those who live and work in cities, rising rents and house prices mean spending up to 40% or more of their income on accommodation each month. Rising energy prices are making the costs of heating homes higher. Many people are feeling the squeeze. Meanwhile, institutional investors (the biggest of which are from outside the EU) who don’t live in the homes they own, can mint a profit from them.
Pushing for change: how can we ensure affordable housing in the EU?
It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of this. It seems hard to imagine how it could change. Cities and national governments have a big role to play. But so does the European Union. We don’t tend to think of housing as being a European issue, but European regulations and financial rules do have an impact on how countries are allowed to organise their rules towards investors.
This is what European policymakers can do to help fix the housing crisis:
Organise more regular meetings of EU housing and finance ministers, so they can exchange ideas and work together to find solutions.
Give cities more control over short-term rentals like AirBnB.
Assess how the rules for investments within the EU (the Capital Markets Union), Europe-wide banking and other financial rules actually make it easier for institutional investors to buy up housing as an asset. And then fix these rules.
Reveal who really owns our cities. We need more transparency on institutional ownership of housing.
Hold investors and corporate landlords to account when it comes to the environment (things like energy efficiency and renovations)
Hold investors to account on social standards (like rent controls and long-term tenancy) of the buildings they run.
These are some of the changes we would like to see from the European Union. The European Commission is responsible for proposing new policies. They can help make this happen.
The French government has the Presidency of the European Council at the moment. They are organising a ministerial meeting on housing in Nice on 7th-8th March 2022. This could be a real chance for ministers to set out their commitment to decent and affordable homes at this meeting.
My home is an asset class: a new Greens/EFA study on the financialisation of housing
The Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament has published a study (Thursday, 27 January) exploring the financialisation of housing in Europe, and what the EU can do about it.
To dive deeper into the topic find more information here:
