Category: Allgemein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mancanza di controlli adeguati sulle materie prime provenienti da alcuni paesi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejoignez-nous et restez informé des derniers développements

Jeden Tag werden Tausende Tiere unter entsetzlichen Bedingungen durch die Europäische Union und darüber hinaus transportiert, um sie zu züchten, zu mästen oder zu schlachten. Die Transporte können mehrere Tage lang dauern. Tiere leiden oft unter Platzmangel und haben keinen ausreichenden Zugang zu sauberem Wasser oder angemessenem Futter. Im Untersuchungsausschuss für Tiertransporte des Europäischen Parlaments (ANIT) kämpfen die Grünen/EFA für ein Ende dieser grausamen Praktiken. Die Verhandlungen stehen nun vor dem Abschluss.

Der Tiertransport Untersuchungsausschuss hat seine Arbeit im September 2020 aufgenommen. Die Grünen/EFA-Fraktion im europäischen Parlament haben besonders prominente Rollen erhalten: Tilly Metz ist die Vorsitzende und Thomas Waitz ist unser Schattenberichterstatter und somit im Zentrum der Verhandlungen. Caroline Roose übernahm die Koordination der Gruppe zum Thema. In den letzten Monaten hat der Ausschuss an einem Bericht und an Empfehlungen für die Europäische Kommission gearbeitet. Dieser wird die Grundlage für eine neue EU Tiertransportverordnung bilden. 

Unsere wichtigsten Ziele ,um Tiere besser zu schützen, sind :

• Ein Verbot des Transports von nicht abgesetzten Tieren
• Eine Frist von 8 Stunden für den Transport lebender Tiere, unabhängig von der Art des Transports
• Bessere Bedingungen für den Transport von lebenden Tieren auf See

Wie kämpfen die Grünen/EFA für den Schutz von Tieren in der EU?

Am 2. Dezember wird der ANIT-Ausschuss über einen Bericht und seine Empfehlungen für eine neue EU-Tiertransportverordnung abstimmen. Darin werden neue Regeln für Tiertransporte in der EU vorgeschlagen , einschließlich spezifischer Standards für den Tierschutz. Die Europäische Kommission hat angekündigt, dass sie ihren Vorschlag für die neue Verordnung im Jahr 2023 veröffentlichen wird. Dies ist also eine wichtige Gelegenheit für das Europäische Parlament, Erwartungen an das neue Gesetz darzulegen.

Unsere Grünen/EFA Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments im ANIT-Ausschuss haben hart daran gearbeitet, die Formulierungen zum Tierschutz im Bericht zu stärken. Als unser Schattenberichterstatter vertrat Thomas Waitz die Position der Grünen/EFA zu Tiertransporten während der Verhandlungen zwischen den verschiedenen Fraktionen. Sein Ziel war es, eine Einigung zu finden, die die höchstmöglichen Tierschutzstandards gewährleistet. Es gab weit über tausend Änderungsanträge von Abgeordneten aus dem gesamten politischen Spektrum. Die Verhandlungen, um Kompromisse zu finden, auf die sich alle einigen konnten, waren nicht einfach und stehen nun vor dem Abschluss.

Sollten Jungtiere, die noch nicht abgesetzt sind, transportiert werden?

Jungtiere, die noch von der Milch ihrer Mutter abhängig sind, so genannte “nicht abgesetzte Tiere”, sind definitiv nicht transportfähig. Dies ist eine der wichtigsten Botschaften, die die Experten und Expertinnen im ANIT-Ausschuss vorgetragen haben. Nicht abgesetzte Tiere haben, vor allem in den ersten Wochen ihres Lebens, noch nicht das Immunsystem entwickelt, das erforderlich ist, um den widrigen Transportbedingungen standzuhalten. Ein weiteres Problem ist der Zugang zu Nahrung, da es technisch noch nicht möglich ist, nicht abgesetzte Tiere während des Transports zu füttern.

Die derzeitigen Rechtsvorschriften erlauben jedoch den Transport von Tieren, die erst 10 Tage alt sind. Sie erlauben sogar Langstreckentransporte ab einem Alter von 14 Tagen. Im Falle von Kälbern bedeutet dies zum Beispiel eine Transportdauer von bis zu 19 Stunden am Stück. Wir fordern ein Verbot von kommerziellen Transporten für nicht abgesetzte Tiere. 

Während der Verhandlungen im ANIT-Ausschuss stießen wir in dieser Frage auf großen Widerstand von Mitgliedern konservativer, liberaler und rechtsextremer Parteien. Diese fürchten finanzielle Verluste für große industrielle Betriebe.

Wie können wir die Bedingungen für den Transport von lebenden Tieren auf See verbessern?

Nach den geltenden Tiertransportgesetzen gibt es keine maximale Transportzeit für den Transport von Tieren auf dem Seeweg. Seetransporte können Tage oder sogar Monate dauern, ohne gegen die EU-Vorschriften für Tiertransporte zu verstoßen. Dies war allein im Jahr 2021 mehrfach der Fall, beispielsweise bei den Schiffen Karim Allah und Elbeik oder bei der Blockade des Suezkanals. 

Die Bedingungen auf den Schiffen sind für die Tiere oft grausam. Tausende von Tieren werden an Bord eingepfercht, ohne ausreichenden Zugang zu Futter und Wasser. Es ist auch nicht vorgeschrieben, dass ein Tierarzt oder eine Tierärztin an Bord sein muss, um kranke Tiere zu behandeln. 

Wir fordern eine maximale Transportzeit für Lebendtiertransporte unabhängig von der Transportart, also auch für Schiffstransporte. Darüber hinaus fordern wir, dass bei allen Seetransporten mindestens ein Tierarzt oder eine Tierärztin anwesend sein muss.

Wie lange sollte die Transportdauer für lebende Tiere maximal sein?

Es gibt zwei Arten von Tiertransporten auf der Straße: Kurzstreckentransporte mit einer maximalen Transportzeit von acht Stunden und Langstreckentransporte von mehr als acht Stunden. 

Für Langstreckentransporte gibt es spezielle Vorschriften für verschiedene Tierarten. Bei einigen, wie Schweinen oder Hühnern, kann der Transport bis zu 24 Stunden dauern. Für andere, wie Fische, Hunde, Katzen oder Nerze, gibt es überhaupt keine zeitliche Begrenzung. 

Wir fordern klare art- und altersspezifische maximale Transportzeit für Tiertransporte. Unabhängig vom Transportmittel sollte eine maximale Transportdauer von 8 Stunden gelten. 

Was sind die nächsten Schritte auf dem Weg zu einem neuen europäischen Tiertransportgesetz?

Während der Verhandlungen gelang es den Grünen/EFA im Europäischen Parlament, einige Formulierungen des Abschlussberichts und der Empfehlungen an die Kommission zu verbessern. Leider waren die anderen Fraktionen immer noch nicht bereit, sich unserer Forderung nach maximalen Transportzeiten anzuschließen. 

Am 2. Dezember wird der ANIT-Ausschuss über den Bericht und die Empfehlungen an die Europäische Kommission abstimmen. Die Fraktion der Grünen/EFA wird Kompromisse vorlegen, die Folgendes für Tiertransporte fordern:

• Ein Verbot des Transports von Tieren unter 5 Wochen und eine maximale Transportzeit von 2 Stunden, solange das Tier nicht abgesetzt ist
• Eine Frist von 8 Stunden für den Transport von lebenden Tieren auf der Straße oder im Flugzeug
• Eine Frist von 24 Stunden für den Seetransport von lebenden Tieren

Wir hoffen, im Ausschuss eine Mehrheit für diese Kompromisse zu finden. Im Januar 2022 wird das Europäische Parlament im Plenum über diese Empfehlungen abstimmen. 

Schließt euch uns an und bleibt über die neuesten Entwicklungen zu Forderungen für ein Ende von grausamen Tiertransporten auf dem Laufenden!

Every day, thousands of animals are transported in horrific conditions across the European Union and beyond for breeding, fattening or slaughter. Journeys can last days, and animals can often suffer from a lack of space, clean water or proper food. In the European Parliament’s Animal Transport Committee (ANIT), the Greens/EFA are fighting for an end to these cruel practices. Negotiations on the Committee’s report are now coming to an end.

The Animal Transport Committee started its work in September 2020. The Greens/EFA Group gained two particularly prominent roles: Tilly Metz MEP is the President and Thomas Waitz MEP is our shadow rapporteur at the heart of the negotiations and Caroline Roose coordinated the group on the subject. For the past months, the committee has been working on a report and recommendations to the European Commission. This will be the basis for a new animal transport regulation for the EU. 

To better protect animals, our most important goals are:

• A ban on the transport of unweaned animals
• A time limit of 8 hours for transporting live animals regardless of the mode of transport
• Better conditions for the transport of live animals at sea

How are the Greens/EFA fighting to protect animals being transported in the EU?

On 2nd December, the ANIT Committee will vote on a report and its recommendations for a new EU Animal Transport Regulation. This will set out mandatory new rules for transporting animals in the EU, including laying out specific standards for animal welfare. The European Commission has announced that it will publish its proposal for the new regulation in 2023, so this is a crucial opportunity for the European Parliament to set out what improvements it expects to see in the new law.

Our Greens/EFA members in the ANIT committee have been working hard to strengthen the wording on animal welfare in the report. As our shadow rapporteur, Thomas Waitz MEP represented the Greens/EFA’s position on animal transport during the negotiations between the different political groups. His goal was to find an agreement that would ensure the highest possible animal welfare standards. There were well over a thousand amendments from MEPs across the political spectrum. Negotiations to find compromises that everyone could agree on have been fierce, and are now coming to an end.

Should young animals that are still not weaned be transported?

Young animals that are still dependent on the milk of their mother, so-called ‘unweaned animals’, are definitely not fit for transport. This is one of the main lessons stressed by experts during the ANIT Committee. Unweaned animals, especially in the first few weeks of their life, have not yet developed the immune system required to withstand cruel transport conditions. There is also a question of access to food, as it is still technically impossible to feed unweaned animals during transport.

Current legislation, however, allows the transport of animals that are only 10 days old. It even allows long distance transport from 14 days old (in the case of calves, this means being in transit for a maximum of 19 hours). 

We demand a ban on commercial transport for unweaned animals. During negotiations in the ANIT Committee, we faced a lot of resistance on this from members of conservative, liberal and far right parties who fear financial losses for big industrial farms.

How can we improve conditions for transporting live animals at sea?

According to current animal transport legislation, there is no maximum journey time for animals transported by sea. Sea journeys can last for days or even months without breaching EU legislation. This happened several times in 2021 alone for instance in the cases of the ships Karim Allah and Elbeik or during the blockage of the Suez Canal. The conditions on ships are often awful for those animals. Thousands of animals are crammed on board without proper food and water. There is also no requirement to have a vet on board to treat sick animals. 

We demand that the time limit for live animal transports must apply to all journeys regardless of the mode of transport. In addition, we demand that there has to be at least one veterinarian present during all sea journeys.

What should the maximum journey time for transporting live animals be?

There are two types of animal transport by road: short distance with a maximum of 8 hours’ transport time, and long distance transport. For long distances, there are specific regulations for different types of animals. For some, like pigs or chickens, the journey can last up to 24 hours. For others, like fish, pets or mink, there is no time limit at all. 

We demand clear species and age-specific journey time limits for transporting animals. There should be a maximum journey time of 8 hours regardless of the means of transport. 

What are the next steps towards a new European Animal Transport law?

During the negotiations the Greens/EFA managed to improve some of the wording of the final report and recommendations to the Commission. Unfortunately, the other groups still were not willing to join us in our call for maximum journey times. On 2nd December, the ANIT Committee will vote on the report and recommendations to the European Commission. In January 2022, the European Parliament will vote on the recommendations in plenary. 

The European Commission has finally published its long-awaited proposal to reduce EU-driven deforestation, after years of pressure from the Greens/EFA and NGOs. Greens/EFA MEPs, Marie Toussaint (FR), Heidi Hautala (FIN), Tilly Metz (LUX), Ville Niinisto (FIN), Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (DE-FR), Rosa d’Amato (IT), Anna Cavazzini (DE) and Grace O’Sullivan (IRL) argue that this deforestation law is an important step, but big improvements are needed if the law is to effectively end the EU’s complicity in the global destruction of nature and violation of human rights.

At last, the Commission has published its long-awaited proposal to reduce the EU’s contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation. Europeans need to be sure that nothing they add to their shopping baskets will make them complicit in the destruction of natural forests. The new deforestation law is sorely needed. The EU is responsible for 16% of tropical deforestation linked to internationally traded commodities such as meat, palm oil or soy.

With this new law, the European Union will oblige businesses to check, through a process called “mandatory due diligence”, that whatever they sell in Europe does not come from land where forests have been degraded or cleared entirely to make room for agricultural production.

Unfortunately, the final proposal from the Commission has some major gaps that would, if written into law, severely undermine its effectiveness.

Loopholes in the deforestation law: important products and ecosystems left out

The European Commission wants to stick to six commodities that can pose a serious risk to forests: beef, palm oil, soy, coffee, cacao and wood. But scientists have warned that the EU should not exclude certain commodities “prematurely” from its legislation. The production of rubber and maize, for example, is also known to cause deforestation. 

The Commission wants the new deforestation law to protect forests but not other valuable ecosystems like savannahs, wetlands and peatlands. It says these can be added at a later point in time.

If these loopholes are not closed, there is a risk that the new deforestation law will trigger adverse effects. Companies could begin clearing forests for rubber instead of cocoa, or shifting destruction from forests to nature-rich ecosystems like the Pantanal wetlands or Cerrado savannah.

The EU deforestation law – a free pass for human rights abuses and for banks profiting from rainforest destruction

In the European Commission’s new deforestation proposal, companies do not have to check whether commodities are linked to human rights violations. This is an indefensible failure to defend human rights. The conversion of rainforests and other precious ecosystems to agricultural land is often linked to land-grabbing, violence, and adverse human rights impacts, particularly for Indigenous Peoples. The EU must not be complicit in human rights abuses just as it must not be complicit in tropical deforestation.

The proposal also turns a blind eye to financial organisations that prop up companies involved in the destruction of nature with investments, loans or other services. Between 2016 and 2020, banks and asset managers based in the EU generated €401 million in revenues on deals with companies accused of destroying tropical forests.

Lack of proper checks for commodities originating in certain countries

The European Commission wants to lower requirements for companies sourcing products and commodities from so-called “low risk countries”. This could create a loophole allowing operators to launder commodities produced in “high risk countries” by trading them through “low risk countries”.

Clearly, any law is only as good as its enforcement. If the EU adopts a ‘paper tiger’, with a deforestation law that looks fierce but is ineffectual in practice, it will continue to drive the destruction of fragile ecosystems around the world.

European Commission proposal to stop EU-driven deforestation: important improvements needed

There is a big task ahead of us. At the end of its legislative journey, we must pass a deforestation law that does two key things: firstly, the law must force companies to show that their supply chains are completely clean of nature destruction and human rights abuses. Secondly, the law must require banks operating in the EU to show that their investments are not contributing to these outcomes.

If we do not hold the companies that profit from these practices to account, the EU’s recent commitment to spend a billion euros to protect the world’s rainforests would be like throwing money into the wind. Neither would the EU be able to honour its COP26 pledge to do its part to “halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030”.

The EU should be leading the global fight to protect our forests. We cannot give a free pass to the companies responsible for destroying our precious ecosystems and gross violations of human rights. European consumers must be sure that our grocery shopping doesn’t accidentally bankroll rainforest destruction. The European Commission’s proposal makes some very good suggestions, but is lacking teeth. We need to make sure that our new deforestation law is not all bark and no bite.

Read more on this topic on our campaign page.

Today, for Gender Day at the COP26, we list five goals that all feminists should be keeping their eyes on at the UN climate conference taking place right now. 

Former Irish President, Mary Robinson, notoriously said, “Climate change is a manmade problem, that requires a feminist solution.”

The 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) is a massively important turning point for the future of gender equality, feminist policy and women’s human rights. Gender justice cannot be sidelined when debating the future of our planet. It’s time for governments and institutions to take note, and put gender equality at the heart of any viable strategies on climate and ecology. 

It’s time for a feminist, fierce and fossil free future. Here is why.

No climate justice without gender justice: we must reinforce leadership for women, girls and gender diverse people

Women, girls and gender diverse people are on the front line combatting the climate crisis in our communities. We need to ensure that women, girls and gender diverse people’s calls are heard and their needs addressed in the climate context. They need to be included throughout the whole decision-making process and at the negotiating table. 

The wisdom, leadership and experiences of indigenous people, people from the Global South and people already suffering from the climate crises must be seen as agents of change. They must be at the centre when negotiating climate policies. This Australian study is only one of many research projects to prove that diversity in leadership has a massive positive impact.

Gender equality and women’s human rights are fundamental and undisputable in combating climate change. Recognising the important contributions of women and gender diverse people as decision-makers, stakeholders, educators, carers and experts across sectors and at all levels is the only way to achieve successful, long-term solutions to climate change. Fighting climate change must mean fighting for gender equality.

Nothing neutral about the crisis: states must recognize how the climate crisis affects us differently 

Climate change deepens already existing inequalities. The poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are the hardest hit by the impacts of climate change. Food and water insecurity – and extreme weather events such as droughts, heat waves and floods – have a greater impact on the poor and most vulnerable. 70% of the world’s poor are women.

Climate change has damaging effects, and can endanger mental health as much as physical health.

Attempts to adapt to climate change, particularly in poorer countries, are failing. Resources are being wasted because they do not take gender inequality and the effects on women and girls into account. It is essential to assess, disseminate and raise awareness about the impacts of environmental policies on women, both by public policies, and public and private industries.

The principles of gender equality must be enshrined in all climate-related texts and mechanisms: 

• mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions)
• adaptation to the effects of climate change
• loss and damage
• technologies, and so on. 

We must ensure coherence between commitments on climate and those of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, and the United Nations resolutions on Women, Peace and Security.

End the vicious cycle of gender roles and climate change: the climate crisis increases gender-based violence

The climate crisis and environmental degradation are increasing violence against women and girls. Gender-based exploitation is hampering our ability to tackle the crisis.

According to a study conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), there is clear evidence to suggest that climate change is increasing gender-based violence. 

As our environment degrades and stress is put on our ecosystems, it stands to reason that this creates scarcity and stress for people. The evidence shows that where environmental pressures increase, acts of gender-based violence increase.

Ultimately, efforts towards gender justice in climate policy need to address the root causes of the high carbon emissions of our societies, as well as gender inequality. To do this, we will need to challenge our society’s own deeply embedded gender norms and power relations that influence perceptions and attitudes. 

More attention and recognition must be given to dismantling the harmful, outdated norms around masculinities, which force men into a very limiting role. This can have severe consequences, such as triggering violence and assault against women and gender diverse people, and steering away from sustainable choices in their everyday lives.

Fulfil the strong commitment to human rights: uphold the Paris Agreement!  

Climate change and its impacts erode human freedoms, limit choice and threaten the full enjoyment of human rights – both directly and indirectly. 

By upholding the commitment to the Paris Agreement, parties have agreed to respect, promote and consider the human rights of all when taking action to address climate change. This commitment must be translated into actions.   

The science is clear about the impact of failing to fulfill the most fundamental promise of the Paris Agreement: the target of keeping global warming below 1.5°C. A world of increasing climate disaster will deepen and exacerbate existing structural inequalities. 

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), climate-induced displacement forces nearly 20 million people to leave their homes every year. Scientists fear that these numbers will increase as the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events escalates. We must recognize how climate change and natural disasters interact with drivers of migration.We must address the specific needs, vulnerabilities and human rights of people who are forced to leave their homes because of the climate crisis. 

Without the full recognition of human rights, including a full and inclusive voice and decision-making in all aspects of climate change policy-making at national level, we will fail to achieve a fair and just transition to a greener world. Women and gender diverse people will be left behind. 

Make gender justice reality: build on the Gender Action Plan (GAP) 

A key area of progress at COP25 2019 in Madrid was the adoption of the renewed Lima Work Programme and its 5-year Gender Action Plan (GAP). 

It is about time that all parties, including the European Union, deliver on these renewed commitments and truly make equality a top priority.

The historical gender action plan sets out objectives, and concrete activities, to advance gender-responsive climate actions worldwide. For the first time in history, there are national gender and climate change focal points, responsible for transforming these commitments into change.   

This is an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen the evidence and understanding of the gendered dimension of climate change, and share experiences and best practices on how to find truly sustainable solutions.

But we are in a hurry.  

Two years on, COP26 must deliver a strong decision or set of conclusions on pushing forward progress under the Gender Action Plan – to fulfil the ambition set out in Madrid. 

What can you do to work towards gender justice at COP26? 

Gender Day at the COP26 will be held today, Tuesday 9th November, to recognise and celebrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in climate policy and action.

The Greens/EFA Group is proud to organise a session on gender equality at the Green Hub in Glasgow on 9th November. Participants will meet people working to end gender-based violence (GBV) in the European Parliament, learn about the upcoming European GBV Directive proposal, find out what they can do to put pressure on their own MEPs/policy-makers, and build their network by strengthening their voice in the green feminist movement at national and international level. 

Help us spread the word on the important link between gender equality and climate by sharing this blog with your network! 

The climate crisis is affecting some parts of the planet more than others. But especially those most affected people and areas are not represented adequately at the COP in Glasgow. Continue reading to find out why climate justice at COP26 matters.

Our life on earth was made possible by a series of delicate balances and intricate systems. We all have a common responsibility to keep this equilibrium intact and to leave this amazing place like we found it. And we depend on each other to do it. However, the wealthiest people on this planet  have increasingly altered our planet and have overcome a series of fundamental boundaries. MAPA: the only acronym you need to fight the climate crisis.

MAPA – Who are the people and areas most affected by climate change?

Those who are the least responsible are those who are already paying the worst consequences of the climate and ecological breakdown. Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion call these populations “MAPA”: Most Affected People and Areas. This definition does not create ideological barriers and is not merely a geographic term, but considers all the different talks of life of various people. However, often the term refers to people most affected by climate change in the Global South. In the words of Fridays For Future MAPA, “The factors making us the most impacted by the climate crisis are not just limited to geographical aspects but also socio-economic aspects that systematically make it difficult for us to adapt.”

The climate injustice towards MAPA is more than the impacts of a crisis that they have not caused. It’s about how systemic exploitation and neocolonialism intersect and amplify the climate crisis for the majority of the world population. This is why we need an intersectional approach to face the climate emergency.

Intersectional climate activism – what does it look like? 

“Intersectionality” is another fundamental concept in climate action. We cannot understand this definition without recalling the work of Kimberle Crenshaw, a leading scholar of critical race theory and the creator of intersectional theory. According to Crenshaw, “Intersectionality is an analytic sensibility, a way of thinking about identity and its relationship to power.” 

Looking at the climate crisis intersectionality means recognizing different patterns, including:

• racism
• sexism
• ableism
• classism
• and other inequalities that exacerbate the consequences of the crisis

So while the place in which you were born largely influences your situation, it is not the only element in place: some of the most affected people live in the world’s richest countries.

So what should countries do at the COP26 to push for climate justice?

Each country needs to shift its narrative on climate. Intersectional climate policies have been acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, the United Nation body assessing climate science findings), which made the MAPA issue clear in the Special Report on 1.5°C. 

And here lies the big problem of the COP. Climate justice is not taken into account.

Climate inequality – what needs to change?

Without taking into account the voices of those most affected, climate solutions will turn into climate segregation as stated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. On the one hand the heads of state know exactly where to park their jet in Glasgow. On the other hand, they are not even trying to bring those who are already experiencing the worst consequences of the climate crisis. 

This is also reflected in the management of the Covid-19 restrictions for delegates by the COP Presidency, as the lack of vaccines and tests will prevent many delegates from MAPA countries from taking part in the negotiations. Realising climate justice would mean prioritising that those countries are represented adequately.

Even if polluters will have no official role at COP26, the lack of MAPA voices is highly problematic and undermines the efficacy and fairness of the negotiations. What’s even worse is that this COP is supposed to be the make-or-break on climate finance and on the 100 billions fund promised in 2009.

In theory the fund should be mostly aimed at reparations of loss and damages for those who are already suffering the devastation connected to the climate crisis. In practice, the fund will be discussed in a conference whose presidency did little to nothing to bring the most important voices to the table. As of today, rich countries have already broken their pledge as they missed their $100 promise in the 2020-2025 period. Moreover, right now 71 percent of this climate money comes as loans. These funds were supposed to work as reparation to the historic injustices but they showed to be no more than a financial trick and fake gesture of kindness.

The IPCC had foreseen a fourth asymmetry in future response capacity. It states that some countries may be “left behind as the world progresses to a low-carbon economy”. From what we are observing in the development of COP26, this is already true.

What should the people less affected by climate change do?

While the climate movement in western countries has been largely driven by the narrative of teenagers fighting for their future. For the majority of the world’s teenage population the climate breakdown is already a reality. They are not simply fighting for their future, but for their present. For this reason, every group, movement, or association that is trying to do something about the climate emergency should prioritize the demands of MAPA, listen to their stories, and pass on the microphone. We need to  put their voices at the center of the debate on climate. As MAPA activist Mitzi Jonelle Tan said, MAPA are unheard, not voiceless.

This means that we need to check our privilege as white activists from the global north and decolonize our own activism. As a matter of fact, eurocentrism and white saviorism are extremely problematic in the climate movement. White saviorism undermines the independence, strength, and agency of MAPA by framing white outsiders as heroes. It’s a tale of generosity and life lessons that embodies white supremacy and hides a colonial mindset. The fact that this blog post is written by two white activists from Europe demonstrates this problem. 

Acting to face the climate emergency in a just way means that we must recognise these patterns and accept that we won’t solve the climate emergency without uprooting the system that reiterates supremacy, exploitation, and climate injustice.

People most affected by climate change – not voiceless, but unheard

MAPA are not voiceless, but unheard. They are actively resisting and if we continue with the logic that we need to help them, we will not get out of the saviorism logic of the white man’s burden. We should not “help” them, but support, stand-aside, give space, and express solidarity.  

There is nothing wrong with being privileged. As those without privilege, nobody chose where to be born. The wrong thing is not to acknowledge it and not use that privilege in a meaningful way. 

We are just at the beginning – Join the discussion!

Remember that this post is just a starting point to discuss MAPA issues and representation at the COP26. It summarises what we have read and studied over our years of protesting and raising awareness for climate justice. 

On 30th September, the court in Locri, Italy, sentenced Domenico “Mimmo” Lucano, the former mayor of Riace, to 13 years and 2 months in prison for “criminal conspiracy to assist illegal immigration, fraud, embezzlement and abuse of office“.

The Prosecutor, who made no secret of the fact that he wanted to set an example with this punishment, had requested a sentence of 7 years. Mimmo Lucano got double that! An extremely heavy sentence, worthy of the worst criminals.

Although there were indeed some administrative errors, which Mimmo Lucano acknowledges, the sentence is disproportionate. It is difficult not to interpret it as a political sanction against someone who showed that another model of receiving migrants was possible in Europe: a model based on humanity, sharing and inclusion, when populists all over Europe compete with hatred and inhumanity.

It is neither a coincidence nor a mistake that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has praised the “Riace model”. By welcoming them unconditionally, Mimmo Lucano reminded us that exiles are neither a danger nor a threat, but rather a source of openness, exchange, knowledge and solutions. Riace, a stagnating village, emptied of its population that had left for more prosperous lands, was revitalized by the arrival of these new inhabitants: local craft industry and olive oil production were revived and the school reopened. In the face of the disgraceful and austere living conditions of Europe’s refugee camps, Lucano has offered up an alternative – a welcoming, human and supportive village – with the support of his fellow citizens who have re-elected him twice.

Italy, like other countries in the south of the European Union, is bearing the brunt of the lack of solidarity from other Member States of the European Union, and must assume a significant part of the European refugee reception crisis. By imposing such a heavy sanction on Mimmo Lucano, the Italian justice system is making a thinly veiled trial of citizen solidarity. This is not the way to solve the reception crisis: it is rather by adopting a new European asylum policy as soon as possible, with greater solidarity and fairness. It is up to the European Council to assume its responsibilities.

We, Members of the European Parliament from several EU Member States, who are more than ever committed to a European reception policy based on solidarity and humanity, give our support to Mimmo Lucano. We salute his noble fight for a dignified reception of those seeking refuge.

Mimmo Lucano has dedicated his mandates as mayor to his constituents and to those seeking refuge. Each of his actions, even his administrative mistakes, have been guided only by his desire to welcome with dignity. Showing humanity in an increasingly harsh society should not be a source of punishment.

In Italy, in France and everywhere in the European Union, solidarity must no longer be criminalized. While the European reception crisis is dragging on dramatically, people who have helped and welcomed should no longer be subject to legal proceedings or convictions; local authorities who volunteer to welcome people in vulnerable situations should be able to do so freely and with dignity.

We, the undersigned MEPs, commit ourselves to defending solidarity and to bringing the end of its criminalization to the attention of the European institutions. Like Mimmo Lucano, many Europeans have been or are about to be sentenced for “simply” showing humanity and solidarity: Pierre Mannoni (France), Dragan Umičević (Croatia) Fredrik Önnevall (Sweden), Anouk Van Gestel (Belgium), Seán Binder and Sarah Mardini (Greece). 

This situation is unacceptable and we will fight alongside them so that solidarity is no longer considered a crime.

CAREME Damien Greens/EFA Francia

ALEMANNI Francesco Europa Verde Italia

ALFONSI François Greens/EFA Francia

AUBRY Manon The Left group Francia

BARRENA Pernando The Left group Spagna

BARTOLO Pietro S&D Italia

BITEAU Benoit Greens/EFA Francia

BJÖRK Malin The Left group Svezia

BLOSS Michael Greens/EFA Germania

BOATO Marco Europa Verde Italia

BOCCOLI Luca Europa Verde Italia

BOESELAGER Damian Greens/EFA Germania

BONELLI Angelo Europa Verde Italia

BRICMONT Saskia Greens/EFA Belgio

CHAIBI Leila The Left group Francia

CORMAND David Greens/EFA Francia

CORRAO Ignacio Greens/EFA Italia

CUCCHIARA Francesca Europa Verde Italia

DALUNDE Jakop Greens/EFA Svezia

DALY Clare The Left group Irlanda

D’AMATO Rosa Greens/EFA Italia

DELBOS-CORFIELD Gwendoline Greens/EFA Francia

DELLI Karima Greens/EFA Francia

DEVESA Ruiz S&D Spagna

DURAND Pascal RENEW Francia

ERNST Cornelia The Left group Germania

EVI Eleonora Greens/EFA Italia Coportavoce nazionale di Europa Verde

GLUCKSMANN Raphaël S&D Francia

GRAVAME Fulvia Europa Verde Italia

GRUFFAT Claude Greens/EFA Francia

GUILLAUME Sylvie S&D Francia

JADOT Yannick Greens/EFA Francia

KOSTER Dietmar S&D Germania

KOULOGLOU Stelios The Left group Grecia

KUHNKE Alice Greens/EFA Svezia

LALUCQ Aurore S&D Francia

LAMBERTS Philippe Greens/EFA Belgio

LARROUTUROU Pierre S&D Francia

LETTIERI Donato Europa Verde Italia

LOPEZ AGUILAR Juan Fernando S&D Spagna

MARQUARDT Erik Greens/EFA Germania

NEUMANN Hannah Greens/EFA Germania

NIENASS Niklas Greens/EFA Germania

O’SULLIVAN Grace Greens/EFA Irlanda

PEDICINI Piernicola Greens/EFA Italia

PELLETIER Anne-Sophie The Left group Francia

PEREIRA Sandra The left group Portogallo

PINEDA Manu The Left group Spagna

PUNGINELLI Maurizia Europa Verde Italia

REGO Sira The Left group Spagna

RIBA Diana Greens/EFA Spagna

RIVASI Michèle Greens/EFA Francia

ROMANO Elisa Europa Verde Italia

RONCHI Alessandro Europa Verde Italia

ROOSE Caroline Greens/EFA Francia

SATOURI Mounir Greens/EFA Francia

STRIK Tineke Greens/EFA Paesi Bassi

THUN UND HOHENSTEIN Róża  EPP Polonia

TOUSSAINT Marie Greens/EFA Francia

URTASUN Ernest Greens/EFA Spagna

VILLANUEVA Idoia The Left group Spagna

WALLACE Mick The Left group Irlanda

YENBOU Salima Greens/EFA Francia

ZANELLA Luana Europa Verde Italia

Le 30 septembre, le tribunal de Locri a condamné en première instance Domenico Lucano, l’ancien maire de Riace, à 13 ans et 2 mois d’emprisonnement pour « association de malfaiteurs visant à aider à l’immigration clandestine, d’escroquerie, de détournement de fonds et d’abus de fonction ».

Le Procureur, qui ne s’est pas caché de vouloir faire de cette sanction un exemple, avait requis 7 ans. Mimmo Lucano a écopé du double ! Une peine extrêmement lourde, digne des pires criminels.

S’il y a bien eu quelques erreurs administratives, que Mimmo Lucano reconnait, la sentence est démesurée. Difficile de ne pas l’interpréter comme une sanction politique contre celui qui a montré qu’un autre modèle de l’accueil était possible en Europe. Un modèle tourné vers la fraternité, l’échange, l’inclusion quand les populistes, partout en Europe, rivalisent de haine et d’inhumanité.

Ce n’est ni un hasard ni une erreur si le Haut-Commissariat aux Réfugiés de l’ONU a salué le « modèle de Riace ». En accueillant de manière inconditionnelle, Domenico Lucano a rappelé que les exilés ne sont ni un danger, ni une menace mais qu’ils sont bien au contraire source d’ouverture, d’échanges, de savoirs et porteurs de solutions. Riace, village moribond, vidé de sa population partie vers des contrées plus prospères, a été redynamisé par l’accueil de ces nouveaux habitants : relance de l’artisanat local et de la production d’huile d’olives, réouverture de l’école. Aux conditions d’accueil parfois indignes et austères des camps, Lucano a opposé un village accueillant, humain et solidaire, soutenu par ses concitoyens qui l’ont réélu à 2 reprises.

L’Italie, comme d’autres pays du sud de l’Union européenne, subit de plein fouet le manque de solidarité des autres états membres de l’Union européenne, et doit assumer une part importante de la crise européenne de l’accueil. Mais en infligeant une sanction aussi lourde à Domenico Lucano, elle fait le procès à peine voilé de la solidarité citoyenne quand elle devrait bien plutôt élever la voix auprès de ses homologues au Conseil.

Nous, députés au Parlement européens issus de plusieurs Etats membres de l’UE, attachés plus que jamais à une politique européenne d’accueil solidaire et humaine, apportons notre soutien à Mimmo Lucano. Nous saluons son noble combat pour un accueil digne des chercheurs de refuge.

Domenico Lucano a voué ses mandats de maire à ses administrés et aux chercheurs de refuge. Chacune de ses actions, et même ses erreurs administratives, n’ont été guidées que par sa volonté d’accueillir dignement. Faire preuve d’humanité dans une société toujours plus dure ne devrait pas être source de sanctions.

En Italie, en France et ailleurs, la solidarité ne doit plus être criminalisée. Alors que la crise européenne de l’accueil s’éternise dramatiquement, les personnes ayant aidé et accueilli ne devraient plus faire l’objet de poursuites judiciaires, ni de condamnations ; les collectivités territoriales qui se portent volontaires devraient pouvoir accueillir librement et dignement les personnes en situation de vulnérabilité.

Nous, députés européens, nous engageons à défendre la solidarité et à porter auprès des institutions européennes la fin de sa criminalisation. Comme Mimmo Lucano, de nombreux·ses européen·ne·s ont été ou sont sur le point d’être condamné·e·s pour avoir « simplement » fait preuve d’humanité et de solidarité : Pierre Mannoni (France), Dragan Umičević (Croatie) Fredrik Önnevall (Suède), Anouk Van Gestel (Belgique), Seán Binder et Sarah Mardini (Grèce).

Cette situation est inacceptable et nous lutterons à leurs côtés pour que la solidarité ne soit plus considérée comme un crime. Nous réclamons pour cela, la modification rapide de la Directive 2002/90/CE afin qu’elle rende obligatoire l’exemption de condamnation pour les hommes et les femmes solidaires.

CAREME Damien Greens/EFA Francia

ALEMANNI Francesco Europa Verde Italia

ALFONSI François Greens/EFA Francia

AUBRY Manon The Left group Francia

BARRENA Pernando The Left group Spagna

BARTOLO Pietro S&D Italia

BITEAU Benoit Greens/EFA Francia

BJÖRK Malin The Left group Svezia

BLOSS Michael Greens/EFA Germania

BOATO Marco Europa Verde Italia

BOCCOLI Luca Europa Verde Italia

BOESELAGER Damian Greens/EFA Germania

BONELLI Angelo Europa Verde Italia

BRICMONT Saskia Greens/EFA Belgio

CHAIBI Leila The Left group Francia

CORMAND David Greens/EFA Francia

CORRAO Ignacio Greens/EFA Italia

CUCCHIARA Francesca Europa Verde Italia

DALUNDE Jakop Greens/EFA Svezia

DALY Clare The Left group Irlanda

D’AMATO Rosa Greens/EFA Italia

DELBOS-CORFIELD Gwendoline Greens/EFA Francia

DELLI Karima Greens/EFA Francia

DEVESA Ruiz S&D Spagna

DURAND Pascal RENEW Francia

ERNST Cornelia The Left group Germania

EVI Eleonora Greens/EFA Italia Coportavoce nazionale di Europa Verde

GLUCKSMANN Raphaël S&D Francia

GRAVAME Fulvia Europa Verde Italia

GRUFFAT Claude Greens/EFA Francia

GUILLAUME Sylvie S&D Francia

JADOT Yannick Greens/EFA Francia

KOSTER Dietmar S&D Germania

KOULOGLOU Stelios The Left group Grecia

KUHNKE Alice Greens/EFA Svezia

LALUCQ Aurore S&D Francia

LAMBERTS Philippe Greens/EFA Belgio

LARROUTUROU Pierre S&D Francia

LETTIERI Donato Europa Verde Italia

LOPEZ AGUILAR Juan Fernando S&D Spagna

MARQUARDT Erik Greens/EFA Germania

NEUMANN Hannah Greens/EFA Germania

NIENASS Niklas Greens/EFA Germania

O’SULLIVAN Grace Greens/EFA Irlanda

PEDICINI Piernicola Greens/EFA Italia

PELLETIER Anne-Sophie The Left group Francia

PEREIRA Sandra The left group Portogallo

PINEDA Manu The Left group Spagna

PUNGINELLI Maurizia Europa Verde Italia

REGO Sira The Left group Spagna

RIBA Diana Greens/EFA Spagna

RIVASI Michèle Greens/EFA Francia

ROMANO Elisa Europa Verde Italia

RONCHI Alessandro Europa Verde Italia

ROOSE Caroline Greens/EFA Francia

SATOURI Mounir Greens/EFA Francia

STRIK Tineke Greens/EFA Paesi Bassi

THUN UND HOHENSTEIN Róża  EPP Polonia

TOUSSAINT Marie Greens/EFA Francia

URTASUN Ernest Greens/EFA Spagna

VILLANUEVA Idoia The Left group Spagna

WALLACE Mick The Left group Irlanda

YENBOU Salima Greens/EFA Francia

ZANELLA Luana Europa Verde Italia

Within the next few years, the European Union will see a substantial acceleration in renewable energy projects being deployed. A large-scale implementation of wind turbines, solar panels and other technologies is not only crucial to meet the climate targets of the Paris Agreement and the European Climate Law, but can also spark a variety of positive impacts on people’s lives. Research shows that a growing renewable energy sector — empowered by policy programmes such as the European Green Deal — will create jobs, increase GDP and raise household income on a global scale. 

However, while climate change is definitely a topic of global concern, when we talk about how renewables and the energy transition will benefit people, we need to think on a much more local level. Renewables create employment and economic activity in a more geographically dispersed way than conventional energy industries. Think of a single gigantic power plant versus a multitude of wind turbines! 

The local impact of renewable energy projects

We should not underestimate the profound social, economic and political implications of a  deconcentrated energy sector. A recent study, commissioned by the Greens/EFA Group, shows that the socio-economic impact of renewable energy projects can indeed look very different whether you live in the Severozápad region of Czech Republic or Spain’s Castile and Leon.

In the former, 10,000 jobs in the coal industry today will be compensated by only an estimated 2,300 future jobs in the renewable sector. One of the main reasons being low national interest in stimulating green growth. However, Castile and Leon is the region with the highest potential for job creation among the coal transition regions in the EU. Although it has lost jobs through the closure of coal mines as well as nuclear and coal power plants in recent years, researchers estimate a net improvement of socio-economic conditions as a result of the energy transition. More than 21,000 jobs could be created, most of them in the wind energy sector.

The study compares five different EU regions, and finds that, despite many differences, the socio-economic impacts of renewable energies are generally positive. However, the study is very clear that the full socio-economic potential can only be realised if flanked by adequate policy measures. Mere technology is not enough, and the study states: 

“Based on the regulatory signal given by the European Climate Law and the rapidly falling costs of renewable energy sources, the EU energy transition is now inevitable and irreversible, but the extent to which it achieves socio-economic benefits for local communities is not.”

Power to the regions – why a just transition has to happen locally

In other words, we’re standing in front of the next big challenge for a just transition. In over 30 years of political action, we have always addressed where our energy comes from. It’s clear that we also need to address the question of where the profits go. After resources, we need to talk about revenues. And we need to ensure that they land in the hands of the people — and not some offshore accounts of Big Corp. 

For both challenges — regional disparities, as well as power asymmetries between local communities and big business — there is a simple and yet powerful solution. For a just transition, we need to empower local people. Beginning with active participation in planning processes and expanding to local ownership models. 

Participation in the planning process goes far beyond those corporate info events that very rarely offer anything but a caricature of democratic discourse. For example, the study stresses that local stakeholders such as landowners often “have much less knowledge of regulations, the business environment and production data” leading to “relatively low levels of income even when there are benefit sharing arrangements”.  Fostering participation means first and foremost establishing a level playing field for developers and local stakeholders.

Including regional and local stakeholders brings its own challenges. Communities typically lack access to capital, professional advice and strategic services. Depending on the governance structure of the country, regional and local governments may have a very important role to play in the deployment of renewable energy, but their priorities and capacities may not be aligned with national policy. Thus, the study finds, national planning often tends to favour corporate and institutional developments. 

The EU must encourage regional policy for renewable energy – here is how

In this dynamic, the European Union can be the partner of regional and local structures. The EU can bring together different regions and involve them directly in decarbonisation strategies. On the ground, EU funding can be a powerful tool to enable regional groups and local people to realise projects on their own. Even today, with structural and investment funds such as the European Regional Development Fund, renewable energy projects are created with local ownership. In the past funding period (2014-2020), an additional capacity of renewable energy production of over 2 megawatts was implemented, and projects for over 7 megawatts were planned. That’s the capacity of seven standard nuclear power plants.

For the new funding period, we have achieved a strengthening of so-called Community-led Local Development (CLLD). Projects including local stakeholders with bottom-up approaches can now receive up to 10% more funding. Renewable energy projects using CLLD could be a major asset for a just transition. 

Enabling regional and local stakeholders by giving them access to training, capital and participatory ownership models will help maximise the immense socio-economic potential of renewables. Let’s help foster a just transition with clever regional policy!