European Union

The summer holiday season is over and everyone are back at work. Many people have taken a plane to somewhere nice, sunny and warm or driven to a faraway destination or been on a road trip. Yet this leisure travel, which we take for granted has a negative impact the environment. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t go on holiday, but how many stop up and consider the environmental impact of our leisure travel! Although, airlines will ask us if we want to offset our carbon emission, it does not prevent us from flying, indeed paying a few euros to offset our emission has the same feel good effect as buying dark organic fair trade chocolate. This clearly begs the question of how to adopt more sustainable transport behavior.

From a sustainable mobility perspective it is important to make a distinction between transport needs and wants. Basic transport needs are defined as transport to work, education, health facilities and food shopping[i], by comparison transport wants are defined as leisure travel, which include going to the gym/sport, socialising and visiting family. Crucially holidays and weekend breaks, where people might choose to fly, are clearly a transport want not a transport need. The distinction between transport needs and wants is tied into the principle of free movement, which most of us take for granted, and which is central to any democratic state. Indeed free movement (goods, persons, services and capital) is integral to the EU.

Our daily transport pattern is determined by the distance between home and work/education, our working hours, the opening hours and location of children’s daycare/school and availability of public transport or road network. Here the structure of our lives influence our mobility patterns, as such we have limited agency over our daily mobility compared to our leisure travel, where we have more agency to choice how we would like to spend our time. The choices we make in terms of our leisure travel, i.e. transport wants, is just as important as our choice of how to meet our transport needs as leisure travel contribute negatively towards the environment.

During the summer, there are queues on the German autobahn and on the motorways in France as people choose their car as the main mode of transport for their summer holiday, this not only puts pressure on the infrastructure but also impact the environment negatively. During the summer charter flights take people to their holiday destinations although, some people choose a staycation to explore their own country.

Crucially, we decide how we want to spend our leisure time this agency is not available in our daily lives. Yet how many make decisions about where to go on holiday based on how much their holiday will impact the environment? Most holiday decisions are made based on affordability and personal interests e.g. beach versus active, city versus country versus sea holidays.

In August I took the train to Munich from Roskilde (town near Copenhagen). My decision to take the train for this leisure travel was influenced by three factors. Firstly, it was a question of which transport mode pollutes the least here the train had clear benefits[ii] (see figure below). Second it was a question of avoiding taking 2 days off work for travelling, although the train journey is 11 hours compared to 1 hour and 40 minutes by plane, there is no security checks and waste time in the airport instead you get on the train in the morning and start working. I chose comfort over speed. Third, the economic cost of travelling by train and plane were the same.  The option of driving was not part of my decision-making, and as the figure shows cars, and road vehicles in general, are the most polluting modes of transport. Significantly, road transport account for around 83 percent of all passenger transport in EU28. Thus, how can we change our travel behaviour and what are the politicians doing to encourage more environmental conscious transport behaviour?

 

One idea would be to introduce an individual carbon footprint, similar to the existing EU Emission Trading System. Whilst the introduction of individual carbon footprint would be an effective method to help people quantify their emission[iii], it is not an idea supported at the political level on the contrary restricting personal mobility contradicts the EU principles of free movements. Significantly, the past 30 years of liberalization of transport modes have encouraged more travel, especially cheap air travel, which has increased our personal agency in terms of leisure travel. Several EU member states are currently planning to invest in new high speed railways and new road networks to facilitate the increased demand for travel. Importantly, new infrastructure investment will give us more choice and encourage more travel. Yes, some national policies attempts to regulate transport behaviour through pricing, e.g. making public transport cheap. The theme for the annual EU mobility week (18-22 September 2015) is multimodality, which encourages people to think about their patterns of mobility and explore new means of travelling but does not integrate the environmental dimension.

Overall, policies seem to encourage and support increased level of mobility due to demand, these policies do not solve the environmental crisis. Thus, there is a need for alternative ideas about a future more sustainable transport paradigm to emerge and challenge the current paradigm, here personal agency is important not only for changing transport behaviour but also for making sure alternative ideas are put to the fore of the political debate.

[i] Holden, E., K. Linnderud and D. Banister (2013) ”Sustainable Passenger Transport: Back to Brundtland” Transportation Research Part A  volume 54, pp. 67-77

[ii] http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?application=ECOLOGYINFO&start=1&dbkanal_007=L01_S01_D001_KIN0001_qf-umwelt_LZ003&S=M%FCnchen+Hbf&REQ0JourneyStopsSID=&Z=Hoeje+Taastrup+st&REQ0JourneyStopsZID=A%3D1%40O%3DHoeje+Taastrup+st%40X%3D12268801%40Y%3D55648621%40U%3D80%40L%3D008601031%40B%3D1%40p%3D1438767591%40&date=Mo%2C+10.08.15&time=09%3A00&timesel=depart&returnTimesel=depart&qf.mobil.button.umweltmobilcheck=1

[iii] For a discussion of individualisation of carbon offsetting see Paterson, M & j. Stripple (2010) “My Space: governing individuals’ carbon emissions” Environmental & Planning D: Society and Space vol 28, no 2 pp 341-362

The post Environmental impact of our leisure travel; a structure-agency perspective! appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Length of video : 210'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.9Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Parliament should not endorse spending by the European Council and the Council of the EU for 2013 because they have failed to provide the information and documents requested, the budgetary control committee said on Tuesday. Parliament has refused toclear the Council´s accounts every year since 2009.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Parliament should not endorse spending by the European Council and the Council of the EU for 2013 because they have failed to provide the information and documents requested, the budgetary control committee said on Tuesday. Parliament has refused toclear the Council´s accounts every year since 2009.
Committee on Budgetary Control

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Place:             LEX building - Rue de la Loi, 145, Brussels 
Chair:             Mr Jean Asselborn, Minister of Immigration and Asylum of Luxembourg

All times are approximate and subject to change

+/- 12.30         Arrivals (live streaming)

14.20              Doorstep by Minister Asselborn

+/- 14.30         Beginning of Council meeting
                         Adoption of the agenda
           
+/- 14.40         Follow-up to the Council of 14 September 2015
                       
                         Proposal for a Council Decision establishing provisional measures in the area
                         of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece.

                        Any other business

tbc                   Press conference (live streaming)

Length of video : 139'
You may manually download this video in WMV (1.3Gb) format

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Parliament, as one of the EU's two legislative bodies, is closely involved in shaping legislation in every field the EU is responsible for, from agriculture to banking. The debt crisis in Greece and scandals involving tax rulings that help multinationals ease their tax burden have thrust economic issues into the foreground. This week MEPs question five financial ministers as well as the president of the European Central Bank about the latest developments.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Parliament, as one of the EU's two legislative bodies, is closely involved in shaping legislation in every field the EU is responsible for, from agriculture to banking. The debt crisis in Greece and scandals involving tax rulings that help multinationals ease their tax burden have thrust economic issues into the foreground. This week MEPs question five financial ministers as well as the president of the European Central Bank about the latest developments.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

According to information provided by the Polish development aid programme Polish Aid, Moldova is the country with a low level of GDP growth and of the other development indicators. “It is one of the most impoverished countries in Europe, largely dependent on foreign aid. Despite good reforms, the economy is based on monoculture, which makes it prone to economic fluctuations and export limitations. A serious problem for the Moldovan economy is its dependence on Russian supplies of raw materials and the existence of the internationally unrecognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic/Transnistria[1].” Nevertheless, despite economic problems, Moldova has built its position among the Eastern Partnership (the EaP) countries as the country, which wants to follow EU’s good governance objectives and applies reforms within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy. However, situation in Moldova within its government and corruption scandal, where, according to the national Central Bank, three Moldovan financial institutions granted unknown loans for a total of around €1 billion, just before the parliamentary elections in November 2014, significantly have undermined the EU relation with Moldova.

The importance of Moldova’s current situation cannot be neglected by the EU because of several reasons, which do not only include economic and security issues, but point the stability and success of the Eastern Partnership policy. EU’s activity in Eastern region has been undermined in almost all countries belonging to the EaP and consequently, make this region a crucial area of its foreign policy. Whereas conducting policy coordination in Ukraine is strongly determined by the current political situation with Russia, in Armenia and Azerbaijan the situation mainly derived from their current political attitude. Armenia actively demonstrated willingness to cooperate with Brussels until September 2013 when President Serzh Sargsyan announced that closer ties with the EU was no longer on his agenda. In October 2014, Armenia became a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, thereby joining Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Azerbaijan negotiated an Association Agreement with the EU but then resigned from the idea and proposed an alternative strategic modernisation partnership[2]. In Belarus, almost no EU’s technical assistance projects are provided (except of TAIEX) due to the political situation of the country and a little desire in developing democracy rules. Thus, only Georgia remains still the partner country which cooperates with the EU without any major disruptions and follows to implement bilateral institution-building programmes designed to improve supporting internal institutional and economic reforms.

Moldova still is, along with Georgia and Ukraine, the country which integrates most of EU’s technical assistance programmes provided within the EaP policy, although it has proved that once established pro-EU approach may not last forever. After last parliamentary elections in November 2014, the most pro-European parties, the Democratic Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, established a minority government, which surprisingly supported the pro-Russia Communist Party. In return, the Democrats limited their reform plans. Clearly, no one wants to deny democratically selected representatives, but the new political landscape somehow has indicates changes which in the long-term perspective may be significant in terms of Moldovan society’s approach towards the EU. Elections constitute the most visible opinion about a political shape of state and should be treated as a relevant reflection of future possible social-political scenarios. Thus, despite the still existing majority of pro-European parties in the government, the strongest party in the parliament after last elections in 2014 became the pro-Russian Socialist Party (PSRM), which increased support among voters demonstrates some important shift in citizens’ thinking- rapprochement to the Eurasian Economic Union instead of the EU. This has to be a signal for EU officials to upgrade and reform its attitude towards Moldova and in particular, to its society. While the government’s pro-EU support is definitely a crucial thing to implement desired internal reforms, it is even more important first to express those interests to people and make them aware of common norms and values promoted through the EaP bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

Refreshed two-sided approach towards Moldova, namely towards its high government officials and citizens should have the same high priority within the EU agenda as other initiatives within the framework of the Eastern Partnership policy. Although, the financial aspect constitutes a difficult part to re-negotiate in any of agreed EU policies, the additional activities within the society should be strongly encouraged in Moldovan government by the EU. “For many in Moldova, the Russian civilizational model is the only one they are accustomed to; relatively few appreciate and take advantage of visa-free travel to Europe. The EU needs to address its failure in communicating with populations in the Eastern neighborhood, and more effectively promote its intentions and values[3]”. Thus, as Moldova still represents pro-EU attitude in its parliament, the joint cooperation should first of all improves country’s bottom-up approach. Every single technical assistance project promoted by the EU in Eastern countries has its crucial implementation phase at the subordinate levels, which includes individuals responsible for managing accepted reforms and requires their active role in applying new norms and rules. Their attitude may prevail over the policy outcome.

According to Aline Robert (2015), “the official differentiation between the two groups (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus) is a logical step in the evolution of relations since the Vilnius summit. During this period, the EU has provided massive financial support to Ukraine, and to a lesser extent to Moldova and Georgia. The three other countries do not have access to the same levels of financial aid, which is mainly used to support the education and judicial systems, as well as for economic development”[4]. Thus, the alternative solution proposed by Russia in the form of the Eurasian Union, established in January 2015, should be seen as a sign for the EU to strengthen its relations with Eastern partners through more individualistic approach which responds to the actual political position of each country. Although, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia have been offered by the Eurasian Economic Union a membership, all three countries opted for the European Union[5]. Hopefully, this will remain Moldova’s the most important goal in its foreign policy.

Some parts of this post come from my master thesis on: “Technical Assistance” in EU foreign policy: to support good governance in the European Neighbourhood Policy. Polish aid in the preparation and implementation of the EU’s Eastern Partnership policy.

[1] https://www.polskapomoc.gov.pl/Moldova,187.html

[2] Azerbaijan is not a member of Eurasian Custom Union, but it is possible that it may happen despite the cooperation with the EU, which currently is rather limited. The economic situation of this partner country to the EU situates its position between those two integration organisations.

[3] Inayeh, A. and Panainte, S. 2015. “The EU and Moldova: How to Liberate a Captured State”, http://www.gmfus.org/blog/2015/06/16/eu-and-moldova-how-liberate-captured-state#sthash.X2z4LGjQ.dpuf

[4] Robert, A. 2015. “Two tier Eastern Partnership on the table at Riga summit.” EurActiv.com, http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/two-tier-eastern-partnership-table-riga-summit-314726

[5] However, break-away regions, so-called “frozen conflicts” with Russia, of Moldova (Transnistria), Ukraine (Donetsk and Lugansk) and Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) have expressed a desire to join the Eurasian Customs Union and integrate into the Eurasian Economic Union.

The post Moldova at the crossroads? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/991e6e28-604c-11e5-a261-bc764e084e2e_30.61_thumb_169_1442833153_1442833152_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Heads of State or Government meet on 23 September 2015 in Brussels to discuss and decide how to deal with the refugee crisis and its root causes.

Download this video here.

The civil liberties committee discusses on Tuesday 22 September new proposals by the European Commission to tackle the refugee crisis. Proposed measures include a permanent relocation mechanism, a common EU list of safe countries of origin and an effective return policy. Ahead of the debate, we asked Parliament’s political groups for their views on the crisis. Watch the debate live on our website on Tuesday from 9.00 CET and check out the main migration routes in the infographic.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The civil liberties committee discusses on Tuesday 22 September new proposals by the European Commission to tackle the refugee crisis. Proposed measures include a permanent relocation mechanism, a common EU list of safe countries of origin and an effective return policy. Ahead of the debate, we asked Parliament’s political groups for their views on the crisis. Watch the debate live on our website on Tuesday from 9.00 CET and check out the main migration routes in the infographic.
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Alexis Tsipras's Syriza party has emerged victorious from Sunday's snap elections in Greece, but what does the road ahead look like for the country? MEPs Danuta Maria Hübner (EPP, Poland), Maria Arena (S&D, Belgium) and Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, Germany) share their views.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : Alexis Tsipras's Syriza party has emerged victorious from Sunday's snap elections in Greece, but what does the road ahead look like for the country? MEPs Danuta Maria Hübner (EPP, Poland), Maria Arena (S&D, Belgium) and Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL, Germany) share their views.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP