D e m o c r a c y e q u a l i t y c u l t u r e b e y o n D t h e n a t i o n
PP. 4 - 5 Migration: euroPean Mirage
PP. 6 - 7 Media freedoM in euroPe
Migration policy must respect fundamental rights and the dignity of man the European Union claims to uphold
Media pluralism is coming under attack in an increasing number of countries - a common European response is necessary
F R E E , n . 1 , D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 - w w w. E U R o A LT E R . C o M
AuSterIty ANd euroPeAN ALterNAtIveS
t
he dishonest principle “there is no alternative” has made a come-back, used once again by the leaders of European states to excuse drastically cutting public expenditure and justifying shifting onto labour the costs of the banking crisis. But this is a farce because the “orthodox” economic principles upheld are none other than those that have led to the crisis in the first place. And it is a farce because alternatives do exist, if only we looked for them in the right place. Taken as a whole, the European Union finds itself in much better financial shape than leading global economies such as the United States of America or Japan, boasting lower deficit levels and lower public debt. And yet, to avoid financial turbulence Europe alone has had to embark on continent-wide austerity measures that will increase unemployment, decrease social protections, and prolong economic stagnation. Europe’s nonbinding macroeconomic “vision” - the unsuccessful Lisbon Agenda and now the new 2020 Agenda - both place great importance in making Europe the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. And yet in all member states funding to education and university is being cut, or the costs are being shifted directly onto students with hikes in fees and a financiarisation of education through loans. This paradox has a simple explanation. The nation-states of Europe find themselves at
the mercy of financial institutions and rating agencies all too ready to speculate on their weaknesses for short-term gain. At the same time, Europe’s nation states are looking only to their short-term interests in working competitively against each other, as if unaware that ultimately we are all in the same boat. In a common market, each member state depends on the other, and policy choices in one country constrain the possibilities of other countries, whether inside or outside the Eurozone. The European Union as it is currently constituted encourages countries to cash-in by becoming more welcoming to capital investment than other countries, and that often means cutting back on social spending, cutting back on taxes on the rich whilst keeping average salaries low. The austerity measures are justified by European leaders without mentioning the massive bail-out of European banks which has made deficits such a problem, nor the daylight robbery of the taxpayer that is taking place under the current arrangements for financing the debts of other European countries: at the moment the European Central Bank essentially pays the private banks for buying national debt of countries such as Greece. Europe’s leaders have shown themselves unable to re-establish the European Union on the basis of democracy, equality and solidarity against the brutal egoism of international markets. Moreover, the European left, de-
pressingly, is becoming increasingly insular and limited to defending what can be salvaged from the welfare models built in our nation states, instead of proposing radical alternatives at the transnational level where political decisions are now being decided again and again in favour of financial institutions, big business, and shareholders, instead of European citizens. Yet in a unified Europe political alternatives are available: a European Central Bank which could take on debt itself could step in with bond purchases reducing the dependency of European states on international investors, instead of having to pay private banks to do it. Better, Eurobonds, guaranteed by all EU states, could mobilise large capitals cheaply for a Europe-wide investment project in infrastructure, renewable energies, education and research. A financial transactions tax, a financial earnings’ cap, and a carbon tax could be introduced continent-wide to shift the burden on the sectors that have caused the crisis in the first place. Starting from this point very much more radical transformations of the current system of global capitalism could be proposed. As never before, Europe is paying an enormous price for its inability to act as a united political entity. A very tangible, economic price. But, above all, the intangible price of renouncing the chance of creating a more sustainable, fair, and democratic economic model model for all. Continued on page 2
F
About tHIS PubLICAtIoN TRANSEUROPA magazine is Europe’s first truly transnational publication, published in English, Italian, and French editions, and distributed free of charge in several European countries. The magazine is accompanied by an annual Festival, TRANSEUROPA festival, taking place in eight European cities simultaneously in the month of May. The magazine has a genuinely transeuropean editorial board, TRANSEUROPA network, responsible for the contents of the publication as well as ongoing local activities all over Europe.
The magazine is published by European Alternatives, organisation devoted to exploring the potential for transnational politics and culture. We believe that today the challenges of democratic participation, social equality, and cultural innovation cannot be effectively addressed at the nation state level. The organisation is unique in being at once a breeding ground for new ideas and proposals, and in being a political and cultural actor with a truly transeuropean activity, staff and support base.
Ashley Hunt “A World Map: In which we see ...” (2005, ongoing) The exhibition Another Country | Eine Andere Welt, curated by Övül Durmuşoğlu at the Ifa gallery Berlin, is the first of a series on the theme of Cultural Transfer; a programme that intends to explore other cultures’ roles and influences as well as forms of cultural hybridization taking place in Europe. Through the works of artists coming from the Middle East, Turkey, and North and South America, the multiculturalism of contemporary society is researched through an approach that tries to abandon and question the separation, and therefore the production, of cultural identities. Contemporary art is understood as a potential critical tool for the emergence of a ‘foucauldian’ heterotopia where, in the curator’s words, ‘the real is nothing other than the intersection of different interpretations’ and where ‘difference would not separate but liberate’. Through collaborative practice, the artist Ashley Hunt designs a world map of globalisation’s fluxes and new borders. Matilde Cassani maps and investigates the religious spaces of non-Christian migrants. Dubravka Sekulić looks at European Song Context as a strategy to approach the question European identity and the role of nation states, while Köken Ergun documents a Turkish wedding ceremony in Berlin as a ritual that goes beyond the identitarian connotation but emerge as a communitarian and social activity.
euroalter.com
Page2
December2010
INtervIeW WItH PAWeł LeSzkoWICz Curator of Ars Homo Erotica National Museum Warsaw June 11 - September 5, 2010 Translated by Dominique Tuohy Can you tell us about the background to Ars Homo Erotica? What was your motivation to curate such an ambitious exhibition on homosexual art? The exhibition was commissioned and fought for by the new director of the National Museum in Warsaw – Prof. Piotr Piotrowski, a prominent Polish art historian with a social and political perspective on art. He invited me to curate the show and it was possible only because of his socially engaged vision of art. The exhibition was a first stage to reinvent the National Museum and to turn it into an active agent of cultural and political democratic debates in the region. My motivation was to create an exhibition that was immersed in the tradition of culture while touching on the current politics of sexual minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe. How was the exhibition received in Poland? It is a miracle that this kind of exhibition could have happened at the National Museum in Poland. What is more it coincided with the Euro Pride that was organised this year in Warsaw. Yes it was not easy to make it happen. When in Autumn 2009 the Museum announced its plans to stage a show on art and homosexuality, the conservative politicians and intellectuals protested ferociously. But the director of the museum was a fighter. The positive effect of those early debates was the excellent media attention and PR it stimulated for the show. The negative outcome of this early criticism was the resistance of commercial/corporate sponsors to support the project. When the exhibition opened as planned it was received peacefully, without protests or attacks. In the three months forty thousand people visited “Ars Homo Erotica”. In its entire history the Museum has never had such an international attention and hundreds of articles and mentions in the international media. The first question was always: how it is possible that an exhibition on homosexuality is at Poland’s main museum? It goes against all the stereotypes about the country. And this is the biggest impact of the show and the transformatory function not only of art but also of art institution. I would like to finish with a call. If it was possible to queer the National Museum in Warsaw, it is possibly to do so in other Central Eastern European Museums. Let’s just think about all the art works and artists that needs to be brought back to the light out of the closets of the museum archives and art historical taboos. Anastasia Mikhno, Analysis of beauty, photography, 2008
AuSterIty ANd euroPeAN ALterNAtIveS Continued from cover page A model that would become a new paradigm for a world desperately in need of new ideas. what is lacking is the political will to lead, and if the politicians are unwilling to take a lead then the citizens must. our national public spheres are caught by petty in-fighting whilst they attempt to take shelter from global storms: national medias are becoming ever more insular just at the moment when it is glaringly apparent that problems such as climate change, the shifting of global power to the East, and global currency and trade questions are becoming urgent and decisive for our futures. In this context, European citizens must find alternative means for shifting the focus of political attention to the transnational dimension. only in this way can citizens work together to establish the democratic control over their society that was never in any case fully assured to everyone by the nation states. This may all sound far-fetched and unrealizable, but it becomes possible as soon as citizens
themselves start to act in even the most modest of ways to construct a new society beyond their nation states. Europe is a laboratory for such experimentation, and this magazine, and the project associated with it, is an attempt to contribute to such a society. This is a magazine dedicated to transnational politics and culture, and the principles of democracy, equality and culture beyond the nation state. It appears throughout Europe, and is run by a transeuropean network of individual activists. In addition to making policy propositions and political recommendations, this magazine also recognises creative expression and exploration as a prerequisite for reimagining our political communities. This creative action is not some side-show to the main task of economic growth, nor a mere diversion from more serious affairs, but the basis of the possibility of us finding ways to live together which are more just, sustainable and democratic than what we currently experience. For a series of in-depth pamhplets visit: euroalter.com/socialeurope
blue Noses, kissing policemen
December2010
SéGoLèNe Pruvot
Page 3
Increasing the possibility for women to ‘exchange’ some of the time off-work with fathers would be the only way not to penalize women on the labour market and in their private life.
ALeSSANdro vALerA
on the 20th of october the European Parliament voted an extension of the maternity leave in Europe from 14 to 20 weeks, with a remuneration of 100% of salary. The text, based on legislation on health and security at work, is presented by its advocates as an improvement for women and as beneficial for the society as a whole. Its detractors however point out the costs of the new measures. The text is not going to enter into force until it is accepted by a majority of two thirds of EU member states. Its content will be subject to negotiations, and is still liable to change. Legislation on maternity, birth and family has a strong impact on the possibility for gender roles to evolve or not, and it is a matter European citizens should take a stand on.
With a reticent Commission afraid of upsetting member states, it is up to european citizens to fight to have same-sex unions recognised in all countries Gay rights have quickly moved from fringe political activism to mainstream politics. In only nine years,
WILL A MAterNIty LeAve oF 20 WeekS IMProve GeNder equALIty? National governments play the card of austerity Reactions of national governments to the European Parliament vote were almost instantaneous: mostly against. The most controversial element of the text is the imposed compensation rate of 100%. It is considered to induce too high a cost at a time of crisis. on the day of the vote, nadine Morano, French Secretary of State for Families, estimated the costs to 1.3 billion Euros. In Germany, the Minister of Labour, Dieter Hundt, counted an additional burden of 1.7 billion euros. In Great Britain, the outcry was even stronger: the news arrived at the exact time of the announcement of a very tough austerity plan. It is therefore unlikely that ministers of member states will adopt the text as such. They will more probably propose revisions, with a non-compulsory and reduced compensation rate and a reduced minimum length, and call for a second vote on a revised compromise text. Is a longer maternity leave the best option for society and individuals? Edite Estrela, rapporteur for the text, denounced the simple calculations presented by opponents to the text: “Motherhood cannot be considered a burden on social security systems; it is an investment in our future” she said. She added that an increase of women’s activity rate of only 1% would cover all additional costs. The Danish Britta Thomsen insisted that such a measure would encourage women to have more children, a desirable trend in the context of an aging population. These arguments insist on the advantages of such a text for society as a whole, but the
question of its advantages for women and for gender equality remains complex. The main issues raised in this context are those of the representation such a text gives of maternity and of its impact on gender roles. As long as staying out of work has an impact on opportunities at work, on future salaries and even on future pensions, encouraging a longer leave may very well not be the best for women. If mothers only are allowed to take time off work after a birth, they will always be the ones experiencing induced effects of long periods out of work. Since they spend more time with their children, their role as primary care giver may be reinforced. A very timid step for a more equal share of family tasks: a ‘recommended’ paternity leave of fifteen-days Increasing the possibility for women to ‘exchange’ some of the time offwork with fathers would be the only way not to penalize women on the labour market and in their private lives. The Parliament’s proposal to establish a paternity leave of two weeks, remunerated as well at 100% of the salary is therefore the most interesting part of the text. It is a possible new area for European legislation on a good work-life balance, but more importantly, even if too timid, this recommendation lays the ground for a longer term evolution. So far incentives have had little effects on national legislations. whether or not compulsory and well remunerated paternity leave is applied will then depend on how much women’s rights activists and people favourable to increased gender equality fight for it at a transeuropean level.
For / AGAINSt
INtervIeW WItH tWo euroPeAN MPS WHo HAve CoNtrAdICtory PoINtS oF vIeW oN tHe text
Elisabeth Morin Chartier Sylvie Guillaume Alliance of Liberals and Democrats. European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) She voted in favour of the text. She voted against the text. Why do you support this text? This text embodies what we expect Why are you opposed to this text? from Europe: to build up common This text seems irresponsible. The social norms. It shows that Europe main question is: who pays? The adcares about the health of women and ditional cost is 1.3 billion per year, men. The improvements proposed undertaken largely by industry, which are based on data produced by the is already suffering from the crisis. International Labour organisation, next question: Is it good for women? which prove that the time necessary The answer is no. I have seen it in for women to recover after a birth the context of the French observatory and necessary for the establishment for equality: the reluctance of comof lasting family ties is longer than panies to hire young women will inthe length of maternity leave currently crease. What do you recommend? in force. Many women cannot afford to take Is the measure too costly? A 2006 survey on the extension of 20 weeks off. what they need are maternity leave in France proves more nurseries and more flexibility that, in practice, the majority of in their working time. Flexible syswomen had extended their maternity tems should be set up and applied at leave, using a 2 weeks pathological all levels. working for equal opporleave, or even paid leave or unpaid tunities for recruitment and equal leave. only 12% of women stopped pay after birth of first child are the working for only 16 weeks. This absolute priorities. confirms that women mostly need a longer leave; it also proves that the costs of longer leaves already exist, it is the share of it that is distributed differently between businesses, governments and families.
european Alternatives is working on a pan-european series of consultations and actions on the question of civil liberties and gay rights. to know more visit: www.euroalter.com
AN ever CLoSer (CIvIL) uNIoN starting from 2001, when the netherlands became the first country to grant gay couples the right to marry and adopt, Europe has witnessed the rapid expansion of same-sex unions regulations across the continent. At the moment, in a majority of EU countries (17 out of 27) gay couples can celebrate their permanent unions or regulate their cohabitation. This takes different forms, including full marriage equality, civil partnerships, or regulation of cohabitation rights. Due to the economic interconnectedness of the EU countries, the phenomenon of same-sex couples needing to relocate to another country that does not recognise their union has become widespread. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights makes it clear that “the right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights”. This article has probably been included as a caveat against future attempts to get EU-wide same-sex unions
approved. But while a call for regulation of gay partnerships in the whole of the EU would be beyond its competences, there is plenty of room to demand at least a mutual recognition of existing marriages and partnerships. There are at least four articles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights that the current fragmentation of gay rights in Europe violates: • Article 9: everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life • Article 15: every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State • Article 24.3: every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents • Article 33: the family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection At the moment, the lives of many
couples and their children are not respected, if they cannot move within the EU while continuing to see their families recognized as such. while technically enjoying freedom of movement, many EU workers cannot practically opt for a job in another country in which their partner and children would not be legally recognized as such. As for children of same-sex families, often they can only be registered as offspring of one of their parents. This results in the other parent being denied legal rights over their own children. Achieving recognition for all samesex couples moving to another European state not recognising such partnerships may affect only a few Europeans in a union of 500 millions. However, EU history teaches us that integration in one policy area inevitably leads to further integration. As it happened in Canada, the legalisation of same-sex marriages in some provinces created a constitutional quagmire, as married couples would return to their provinces and demand recognition to their union.
There was no option left for the Supreme Court but to declare gay marriages legal throughout Canada. The moment all forms of marriages and partnerships will be recognised across the Union, we ill continue to see British couple getting married in Tuscany, but also an increasing number of Italian and Polish couples getting married in Madrid or Amsterdam. with a reticent Commission afraid of upsetting member states, it is up to European citizens to fight to have same-sex unions recognised in all countries. with a strong and organised transnational push from civil society it won’t be long before institutionally homophobic countries will have no option left but to recognize the family in every form it takes.
Page4
ALINA MuLLer
December2010
the suitability of Libya as a cooperation partner in eu migration and asylum policy has been widely questioned by international organisations and human rights groups. A new cooperation agreement signed by the European Union in october has given Libya, a country internationally criticized for its treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, a prominent role in the EU’s response to migration in the mediterranean region. According to the agreement, the EU will allocate 60 million Euros for the period 2011 -2013 to work together with Libya to manage migration flows in the region.
LIbyA - euroPeAN uNIoN LIke A MAN oN eArtH A dANGerouS PArtNerSHIP INtervIeW WItH dAGMAWI yMer Libya is one of the main transit countries for migrants and asylum seekers from Subsaharan Africa who try to cross the Mediterranean and enter the EU illegally. Migrants from Somalia, Eritrea, Darfur and western Africa, some of them fleeing conflicts, travel for weeks through the dessert in trucks and lorries to reach Libya. Upon arrival, the majority of them spend months in overcrowded Libyan detention centers before managing, with the help of smugglers, to get to the Libyan shores and from there attempt to cross the Mediterranean sea. The suitability of Libya as a cooperation partner in EU migration and asylum policy has been widely questioned by international organisations and human rights groups. Libya is not a signatory of the 1951 Convention on the protection of refugees and the country has no national asylum system in place. Furthermore, previous cooperations between the Libyan government and EU countries and international organisations have not been very successful when it comes to ensuring the protection of the rights of migrants and compliance with international conventions. The cooperation between Italy and Libya to manage the migration flows that are headed for Italy’s southern borders has been particularly controversial in this respect. The so called Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation signed by Italy and Libya in 2009 built on a 2007 agreement between the two countries on joint border patrolling. As an outcome of the Treaty, Italy and Libya have been jointly conducting land and sea border control operations. Migrants headed for Italy’s Southern border intercepted at sea are sent back to Libyan territory. The majority of migrants returned by Italian and Libyan vessels are arrested by Libyan authorities upon their arrival in Libya and detained for several months while awaiting
euroPeAN MIrAGe by Lorenzo di Pietro A broken down truck in the middle of the Sahara. This is sometimes the way in which a voyage and a life can be cut short for migrants headed for Libya, along with their European dream. People are transported together with all kinds of merchandise, from mattresses to cattle, from vegetables to contraband alcohol and drugs. Some migrants only travel to Libya for seasonal work, not seeking to cross the Mediterranean. The photo of the truck was taken by a young man from Mali; an astrologist who came to Libya to read the palms of this country's inhabitants, who are considered rich by African standards and who part with generous amounts of money for such beliefs and practices. The young man possesses an old camera with which he has documented his incredible journey, across the desert and in the hands of traffickers. He is not much older than thirty, and wears an AC
repatriation. Several human rights groups and returned migrants have testified of serious cases of abuse and ill-treatment in the detention centers [see interview in this spread]. The terms of the Italy-Libya cooperation treaty and their implementation have earned Italy extensive international criticism for violating the right of asylum as regulated under EU and domestic law and for exposing migrants to inhuman treatment and risk of torture in Libyan detention centers. The Un Refugee Agency, UnHCR, has also experienced great difficulties working with the Libyan authorities. The agency has often had problems getting access to the detention centers to assist asylum seekers and refugees and, in June this year, it was ordered by the Libyan government to close its offices and leave the country. The official reason given by the Libyan government for this expulsion was the fact that Libya is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention and thus does not recognise the Un agency’s office in its capital, which it closed down. In light of these well documented examples, the recent agreement between the EU and Libya puts into question not only the feasibility of the cooperation but also the commitment of the EU to honour the responsibilities it has assumed internationally to protect refugees and asylum seekers. It is undeniable that the EU has to dedicate resources to find an efficient way of responding to the continued flow of economic migrants and asylum seekers in the Mediterranean area. It is, however, very questionable if the new cooperation agreement with Libya is a step in the right direction.
by Flore Murard-Yovanovitch
Dagmawi Ymer was studying Law in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia but due to political reasons he was forced to emigrate. After months of oppression, violence and detention in Libyan prisons, he finally landed on the shores of Lampedusa, Italy. Dagmawi became a documentary filmmaker in order to denounce the illegal incarceration of other African migrants, making numerous films about migrants and Italian detention centres. He is co-director, with Andrea Segre, of Like a Man on Earth, a documentary film illustrating the violation of human rights experienced by migrants in Libya. Did you have any experience of the illegal detention camps in Libya before you arrived in Italy? I was lucky to get to Italy alive. Many of my travel companions were not so fortunate. After I had made my way clandestinely out of Ethiopia and into Libya, I was arrested by Libyan police and moved around the deserts from camp to camp. we were kept like animals crammed together in iron containers under the blazing sun for days on end without any water. Some died of thirst while others collapsed and were abandoned in the desert. Exploiting illegal emigration is a real “business” for smugglers, police, and the corrupt military. Human beings are bought and sold like commodities. However this experience was nothing compared to what happens in the detention camps. What were the conditions like in the Libyan prisons and where were you detained? It was terribly inhumane. At Kufrah there were twenty people packed into a cell with only one toilet in the middle of the floor. There was a constant foul odour and we were repeatedly beaten by the guards. You could hear the screams from the beatings and the rapes. The women experienced the most suffering. They were repeatedly raped and if they wanted an abortion
they were not allowed. Some were “bought” by strangers and it was not uncommon for some to marry in order to escape that hell. Yet how is it that members of the Italian and European governments continue to claim that it is possible to request political asylum in Libya? This is a blatant lie! Everyone knows that it is impossible to ask for asylum in a country which has not signed the Geneva Convention. A refugee without any documents cannot identify himself at his own embassy in Libya without risking imprisonment or forced repatriation to his country of origin; that same country from which he fled in order to escape racial discrimination, religious intolerance or fear of oppression. He is unable to escape to Europe or Italy. He is stuck in limbo.
What do you think of the EU-Libya Migration Cooperation Agreement? This agreement does not have any constraint for refugee protection. Is Europe worried about its own fate? Europe is violating the human rights conventions that it has promoted for decades and it is exposing itself as a hypocrite. It would be better to abolish the right to asylum rather than delegating the decision-making to countries such as Libya. It would be more honest and more “civilised”. Why do you think European citizens want to ignore the problem? My Italian friends believe that by acting in this way they don't risk having grandchildren that will one day ask “where were you, Granddad, at the time of the rejections?” The same way you asked your parents about what they did during the nazi era. The Europeans of today are blind to what is happening. Europeans need to think about the reasons why these people choose to risk their lives and sail across the sea. They need to understand that the economic and political motives for this migration are extremely complex and that we cannot just put a stop to it like shutting a door.
December2010
dAPHNe bueLLeSbACH
Page 5
the conditions for migrants in North African countries with which the european Commission is negotiating readmission agreements are unacceptable and disrespectful of the very human rights europe is claiming to hold up “Under a readmission agreement, no-one shall be returned if this would entail the risk that the person concerned would be subject to persecution, torture or inhumane or degrading punishment. Should that happen, this is not a consequence of the readmission agreement, but of an illegal decision taken by the Member State concerned, which should be subject to judicial review by the national courts.” Dear, Ms. Malmstroem, Commissioner for Home Affairs in the EU, these were your words in a recent
No oNe SHALL be returNed? parliamentary debate (20.09.2010), where has the European Commission been in recent years when Italy has forcibly returned migrant boats to Libya? The cooperation with the Libyan regime is one of the most appalling chapters of the EU's refugee policy. For years the EU and its Member States have been courting Muammar al-Gaddafi to block the escape routes to Europe. The EU institutions look away when Italy violates international and EU law and returns boat people forcibly to Libya. Human Rights organizations have already called upon the European Commission (EC) under former Commissioner Jacques Barrot to end theses unlawful practices. The EC has done nothing against it and on the contrary is now set to conclude by the end of 2010 a readmission agreement with Libya, a country with a long standing track record of torture. The EC is seriously undermining its credibility on the question of human rights, the more so after it sticks to its readmission plans with Libya even after the latter has closed down the offices of the Un Refugee Agency (UnHCR) in June this year. Italian coast guards have returned more than 2000 boat migrants back to Libya since May 2009, where upon arrival most of them are put into detention camps. Torture, exploitation and rape are not uncommon incidences in these camps [see interview below]. The Europeanisation of the border regime we have seen mass deportations of foreigners from Libya already in the 80s when the question of transit migration between Libya and Italy, and less so between Libya and the EU, has not even been on the agenda yet. In fact Europe deemed it to be incorrect to cooperate with Libya, a “rogue nation” and had economic sanctions and an arms embargo in place until 2004. Deportation meas-
ures had been taken autonomously by the Libyan regime, without pressure from outside European actors. In the past few years, however, the situation has changed. Deportations from Libya are now assumed on a regular basis: since 2003 Libya expels around 50.000 people a year from its territory. This can certainly be put in connection with pressures from Europe, which have mainly been exerted by Italy but now increasingly by Brussels as well. The EU invests into border management in Libya, in capacity building of border guards as well as the “voluntary return programmes”. Libya has thereby been included upon EUItalian pressure into a regional, transcontinental migration regime. The effect of this development is twofold: first a “delocalization” is taking place, meaning a spatial shifting of borders and border control onto the territory of other countries. Secondly, a process of externalization can be observed, a partial handover of responsibility for control and “management” of the migration flows to other countries. The EU is investing heavily into a border control system at Libya’s Southern border with Chad to enable Libya to intensify its border control capacities, stopping migration flows further away from Europe. Morocco, another (previously) traditional transit country has recently been given the promise of investments of around €60 million in return for stepping up Moroccan border police and control mechanisms. we can observe the same processes as in Libya: a strong capacity building element in the border control cooperation and a further delocalization of EU border controls onto Moroccan territory. As a matter of fact, Morocco has turned into a country of immigration: thousands of Sub-Saharan migrants are stranded on its northern shores with hardly anywhere to turn to. Moroccan police is running a Sisyphus game with
them: every migrant “illegally” residing in the country and picked up by police is deported into the noman’s land between Morocco and Algeria and everyone of them will walk back after nightfall into the nearest town in Morocco. The humanitarian situation outside EU walls Speaking to a Doctors without Borders representative in oujda, a town close to the Algerian border in northern Morocco, the picture drawn about the humanitarian situation of migrants in transit here is devastating. “women are worst off, in addition to the suffering of disorientation, hopelessness and hunger an extremely high percentage of them are being sexually abused.” Doctors without Borders has conducted a study on violence against sub-Saharan migrant women in northern Morocco earlier this year: of the women questioned, 29% said they were raped in their country of origin, 45% during the journey and 59% in the no man’s land between Morocco and Algeria. A third of these women became pregnant as a consequence. In the no man's land the Mafia of human smugglers and drug lords has taken over control. The Moroccan police knows exactly about the situation in this lawless zone, but the area seems to be used as a deterrent against migrants. Delegates of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CTP) visited Libya in July 2009 and confirmed the concerns put forward by human rights organisations about the situation in Libya. In their report published in April 2010 the CPT “urges the Italian authorities to substantially review forthwith the current practice of intercepting migrants at sea, so as to ensure that all persons within Italy’s jurisdiction – including those intercepted at sea outside Italian
territorial waters by Italian-controlled vessels – receive the necessary humanitarian and medical care that their condition requires and that they have effective access to procedures and safeguards capable of guaranteeing respect for the principle of non-refoulement.” It is telling that not a single EU member state leveled overt criticism at Italy. Is this what we want? “If we want migration and asylum policy to be credible to European citizens, it must be based on the principle that those who do not have a legal right to remain in the territory are returned. This is where readmission agreements come in. They facilitate the return of persons staying irregularly in the country of origin or transit and they are agreements between administrations stipulating the procedures to be followed.” (Cecilia Malmstroem in the same debate, 20.09.2010) Is this what we want? Do European citizens want people to be returned to countries where their rights are violated and where they face unacceptable, inhumane treatment? Could we suggest instead that the EU first fulfills its guarantee of access to procedures and safeguards the right to making an asylum claim? Let us take you by your own words: “The EU’s asylum instrument requires that Member States assess each application for asylum individually, guaranteeing that the applicant remain on the territory until the authorities have taken a decision on the said application, and then they must provide for an effective remedy before a court or a tribunal” (ibid). Please do the reality check Ms. Malmstroem - on a daily basis fundamental rights are being drowned somewhere into the Mediterranean Sea.
Milan football jersey. An uncanny coincidence since it is the owner of that very team who has made his journey a nightmare. Following on from the 2009 agreements reached between Italy and Libya, migrants are now arrested and imprisoned in the middle of the desert, and housed in nightmarish detention camps made possible by Italian financial contributions. Following imprisonment they are returned to the same traffickers who first took advantage of them, and who often abandon them in the middle of the desert. The photographer has experienced this, and speaks of the cruelty of both the traffickers and the Libyans. As we reach the Libyan border the photographer, worried of being caught taking photos, gives me his film.
This photo is housed in the exhibition 'European Mirage'. The author met with migrants along the transSaharan route, in the ghettos where they wait to begin their journey and where they meet the traffickers who control the route. To contact the author: www.lorenzodipietro.it
Page6
December2010
A euroPeAN INItIAtIve For MedIA PLurALISM? yeS We CAN! by GIovANNI MeLoGLI (ALLIANCe INterNAtIoNAL de JourNALIStS) ANd LoreNzo MArSILI (euroPeAN ALterNAtIveS) These were the words that rang out from MEPs at the most recent meeting of the European Parliament’s media intergroup. The tone was rather more muted than that of Gene wilder in the famous film Young Frankenstein, but the conviction appeared nevertheless to be the same. The subject discussed has been a thorny one in the European Union for the past sixteen years, ever since a media mogul first became head of government of a member state. Since than the number of appeals that have been made to the European institutions to guarantee the independence and pluralism of the media have been numerous. Italy has not been the only country implicated, and on this page we present a brief overview of threats to media independence in four different member states. To the overviews presented we could add countries as different as Romania - ranked “partly free” by the latest media report of Freedom House, - or France, where two comedians were recently fired from Radio France International after of-
fending president Sarkozy, and where a new law allows the president to nominate the director of the public broadcaster. And the list goes on. The European Commission, as custodian of the treaties, has consistently hidden behind the weak formula: the Union does not have any competences in this field. Again on the occasion of the last media intergroup meeting, this refrain was repeated. Adam watson Brown, director of the European Commission’s media task-force, registered his regret and frustration but declared himself powerless. Krzysztof Kuik, head of unit in the area of media antitrust, essentially said: no special treatment for the media, we consider them to be like car manufacturers, commercially driven and not playing any crucial role in the social and cultural development of countries. Professor Peggy Valcke was able to lift the mood somewhat when she presented a sophisticated instrument for measuring and monitoring the level of media pluralism in individual countries, the Media Pluralism Mon-
itor. The paradox lies in the fact are increasingly related terms, as a itoring levels of media pluralism in that this instrument has been ready functioning and responsible political European countries and sounding for use since 2009, but the Com- community cannot exist without alarm bells when potential threats mission, who funded its development guaranteeing the quality, plurality, are isolated. The reticence of the in the first place, does not currently and representativity of the media. European Commission will be won seem disposed to applying it to Furthermore, lack of a European over only by a meaningful mobilimember states. response to the intimidation of the sation of European citizens and meThe positions taken by the attending press in member states poses a direct dia organisations. In the coming MEPs, in particumonths we will lar the intergroup’s be working to european Alternatives is working on a pan-european build a genuinepresident and vice president, Jeanly trans-Euroinitiative on media pluralism. Marie Cavada and pean initiative Jorgo Chatzifor media plumarkakis respecwilling ralism to know more visit euroalter.com/media tively, have reand able to vealed both the inpressure Euroconsistency of the Commission, and threat to the right of liberty of ex- pean institutions to live up to their the importance of pluralism moni- pression throughout the European role and to their commitments to toring, which is a pre-requisite for Union, puts in jeopardy progress in democracy and fundamental rights, the European institutions to take an former Soviet countries admitted even and especially when these are active role in defending the right to into the Union, and limits the au- disrespected at the national level. media pluralism and independence, thority of any European condemsomething enshrined in the European nation of censorship in the rest of Union’s Charter of Fundamental the world. Rights (Article 11). The European Union can and should European Alternatives and the Al- demand that all member states reliance International de Journalists spect the right to a free and indebelieve that media and democracy pendent information, actively mon-
uk The unsuspected villain. Interview with Granville Williams, representative of The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, which is fighting against Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to take over private news channel BskyB. Why does Murdoch’s bid for BskyB threaten press freedom and plurality in Britain? Plurality in media requires a wide range of broadcasters and newspapers designed to appeal to a diversity of tastes, interests and viewpoints. Murdoch’s news Corportion already owns more media in the UK than it is permitted to own in the US and Australia (the other two main markets where the global media group has a strong presence). If news Corp was to acquire the remaining 60.9% of BSkyB it would move from a minority shareholder to full ownership and gain important financial advantages which would allow it to destabilise other UK media groups. BSkyB already has a dominant role in subscription payTV services (80% of pay-TV revenues). on 8 november 2010 it announced that it had reached ten million subscribers. Rupert Murdoch plays an active role as a media proprietor, exercising editorial control over the coverage of key policy debates or political events. The loss of the independent BSkyB sharehoders will give news Corp greater opportunity to influence the editorial coverage of Sky news and other BSkyB channels. Rupert Murdoch views the current output of Sky news (which is required under UK law to be impartial) as ‘BBC lite’ and would like to develop a UK variant of Fox news. Secondly, products currently offered separately by BSkyB and news International, Murdoch’s UK newsaper group which owns The Times, Sunday Times, The Sun and The news of the world, could be bundled, discounted or provided without charge. other media groups without the revenue and global resources which news Corp can deploy would find it extremely
difficult to compete. The market share of news International titles would increase. Finally, the vital issue of press freedom. The planned acquisition of BSkyB coincided with the renewed reports of phone hacking by news of the world reporters of politicians, footballers and celebrities. It exposed an ugly aspect of tabloid journalism, but the most disturbing aspect was that politicians were fearful of pursuing enquiries because of the implied threat that news International journalists would start digging into the private lives of the politicians. What can concerned citizens do about the situation concerning press freedom and plurality in Britain? one of the most striking aspects about the BSkyB issue is the important role mobilising public opinion has played. when news Corporation announced its plan to take control of BSkyB in June 2010 there was very little reaction. Indeed commentators thought it wouldn’t make much difference as he already had a dominant influence within BSkyB through his existing stake. It was, they suggested, a ‘done deal’. But articles by will Hutton, Henry Porter and Lord Putnam appeared in The observer alerting readers to some of the dangerous implications if the takeover went unchallenged. Hutton warned of the ‘Berlusconisation’ of Britain. The media reform group, The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, linked up with 38 degrees, an online activist network, and the national Union of Journalists, to organise a petition demanding that the Industry Secretary, Vince Cable, use his powers to initiate a public interest test. Tens of thousands of people signed. Again people thought it wouldn’t happen - but it has. And now individuals, civil society groups and media unions at a UK and European level are backing the case. Also a number of media groups have woken up to threat that a potential behemoth will dominate UK media unless the BSkyB takeover is blocked. The key lesson is that we
need to sustain a strong, vigilant coalition which cares about media ownership, journalistic standards and the defence of public service broadcasting at a UK and European level. It seems that press freedom and plurality is coming under increased threat throughout Europe at the moment. How do you explain this, and what should be done at European level? Manuel Castells identifies in Communication Power the emergence of ‘infocapitalists’ who build self-reinforcing networks of business and political power by owning the production of information and knowledge. This is done through the expansion of powerful cross-media empires, epitomised by Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi. Attempts to raise issues to do with media ownership at a European level have been fiercely resisted over the years by the big media groups like Bertelsmann and news Corporation. Lobby groups like the European Publishers Council and the Association of Commercial Television were created to focus on the interests of the big newspaper publishers and commercial television groups and to ensure their interests prevailed. US-based global media groups also maintain an active presence in Brussels with the same intent. The Commission’s response, when issues like the threat to media pluralism and democracy posed by Berlusconi in Italy is raised in the European Parliament, is that this is matter for national governments. But a number of factors (technological change, deregulation, globalisation) are pushing media groups to merge and grow bigger and the issue is going to become more and more important. There is also a direct impact on the range and quality of journalism, with commercial imperatives overriding journalistic concerns. we need to mobilise and channel public concern into a determined campaign to raise the issue of media concentration and pluralism at a European level.
ItALy Freedom of information and precarity of labour By Graziella Durante and Federico Guerrieri, translated by: olga Vukovic Italy is the only western democracy where the prime minister has direct control over three private television channels, exercises indirect control over three public channels, as well as owning several newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and the largest publishing house in the country. Ambeyi Ligabo, the Un expert on press freedom, explains that “the prime minister's direct control of the three private channels Mediaset, of the publishing house Mondadori, of the advertising company Publitalia, and of the cinema distribution house Medusa Film, on top of indirect control of state television channels through political appointments, places the Italian prime minister in an anomalous position of control over nearly 90% of Italy’s television market, a fact that has seriously affected freedom of opinion and expression in Italy”. while we hope the time in power for Silvio Berlusconi is drawing to an end, structural imbalances in the circulation of information in Italy remain, and the state television RAI has been under the indirect control of political power since its foundation. You can find a detailed analysis of these facts on a dedicated page of our website, euroalter.com/meida. Here, we have chosen to focus on a lesser known fact: the relation between the precarity of working conditions for journalists in Italy and their capacity to stand up to political and economic pressure. Behind Berlusconi’s media empire lies hidden a situation which is by no
means anomalous in Europe, but rather reflects a general tendency towards fierce precariousness of those who produce information and the proletarisation of intellectual activity. we call them “the invisibles”, but they make up an army of forty thousand freelancers, trainees and employees of radio and television, of newspapers and of the web. This is the low-cost labour of the big “Italian factory of information”; without any leverage in negotiations, ignored by labour unions and excluded from collective agreements. This seems an irreversible metamorphosis that is changing the face of journalism. It is not a simple waiting room to temporary contracts; rather it is the production of a stable and lasting precariousness. If individual stories often remain in the shadows, the “shameful data” emerge from a recent inquiry conducted by the national Council of the order of Journalists. The compensation offered by key national and local newspapers varies from 0,50 euro, gross, per line at Il Sole 24 ore, to 2,50 euro for 855 characters at Il Resto del Carlino, to 21 euro at Il Mattino. The time required to receive payment varies from a minimum of 60 to a maximum of 180 days. The inquiry has highlighted a tendency to cease any type of payment beyond the twentieth article produced for a single news company. when the compensation is on a monthly basis, it never exceeds €1000 gross. The national news agency AnSA pays €5 for every text, independently of length, argument, or dedicated time. needless to say, pauperised and precarious journalists will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their independence and impartiality when confronted with political or economic pressure.
Page 7
December2010
uk
HuNGAry ItALy buLGArIA
buLGArIA HuNGAry A return to a less than democratic past As part of a new media reform package, Hungary’s parliament has recently appointed the head and members of the Media Council, a powerful five-member body with the responsibility of overseeing the new national Media and Telecommunications Authority (nMHH), which will be the new licensing body supervising both private and public broadcasting, as well as carrying out a number of key appointments in public television and radio. The Hungarian Parliament endorsed Annamaria Szalai as the chairwoman of the Council along with four other members, all nominated by the governing Fidesz party. Ms Szalai secured her place for the next nine years, meaning over two legislative periods. Dunja Mijatovic, the oSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, appealed to the Hungarian Government to halt the media legislation sustaining that “its adoption could lead to all broadcasting being subordinated to political decisions.” nevertheless, in another vote the parliament elected six out of a total of eight members of the Public-Service Foundation’s board. The board will oversee Hungary’s public-service media as well as governing the Foundation’s assets. Half of the elected members
were nominated by governing Fidesz party, while the other half were nominated by each of the three opposition parties. The remaining two members, including the chair, will be delegated by the Media Council (controlled by the Fidesz), thereby guaranteeing the current government a direct majority. Another controversial element of the media reform package will force journalists to identify their sources in stories involving national security and public safety. IPI Press Freedom Manager Anthony Mills commented: “An essential pillar of investigative journalism is the confidentiality of sources. This latest move by Hungary’s parliament is another negative benchmark in the downward slide of Hungary’s press freedom environment.” Dr. Ivan Lipovecz, an IPI board member, added: “The law is against the normal democratic thinking of people and has just made public broadcasting dependent on the government.” Enjoying a two-thirds majority in Hungary’s parliament, the centre-right Fidesz party seems to be abusing its power, with several party members having been appointed to vital positions in the country’s media and programming in the last months. Hungary sadly represents another step towards the “Berlusconisation” of the mass media in Eastern Europe.
Unfinished transition to democracy, interference of organised crime After the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, Bulgaria introduced political pluralism and democratic institutions were set up. The transformations after the communist era, profoundly changed the media situation in the country. The liberalisation of the market and the free competition rapidly arrived in the media sphere. However, in recent years, several criticisms have been raised against the limitations to media pluralism and freedom of speech. Bulgaria is, together with Romania and Italy, amongst the three EU member states which are listed as “partly free” by Freedom House, mainly because “the country’s reporters continue to face pressure and intimidation aimed at protecting economic, political, and criminal interests with the perpetrators that often operate with impunity, leading to some self-censorship among journalists”. Journalists also suffer physical aggressions: a few months ago, Georgy Stoev, a reporter with expertise on organised crime, was shot and killed in Sofia. Moreover, in September the State Agency for national Security (DAnS) had tapped the phones of
several lawmakers pushing journalists to self-censorship. According to Reporters without Borders, Bulgaria is in fact Europe’s most repressive country towards journalists at a time when the press freedom situation in the EU is deteriorating. “Instead of improving the situation, politicians in Bulgaria, regardless of their party allegiance, want to control the media. They continue to regard the press as a mouthpiece of the state and the government. Following Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union, it was expected that the country will raise its standards in this respect in line with the other member states, but it didn’t”, said President of RSF Belgium, olivier Basille. Another main problem in the country is the information on private investments, which raises many questions about the real owners of the media. “It seems that officially this information is available, but it is also true that many people come from the gray or black economy and they can influence the media through the advertising market. This market is very small and the share held by private hands is very often connected with the organized crime” concluded Mr. Basille.
Page8
FrANCeSCo MArtoNe
December2010
battleground for climate change and the future of multilateralism At the end of november the sixteenth conference on climate change, CoP16, will take place in Cancun, with the arduous task of resuming a dialogue that was interrupted in Copenhagen and hasn’t since been effectively placed back on track. Few are prepared to bet on a high profile result from Cancun. The implication is that the only possible result will be the adoption of a series of concrete measures for action. The hope is that a legally binding agreement on emissions reduction and expenditure commitments to assist developing countries will be reached one year later at CoP17 in Durban. Cancun is therefore another step towards 2012 and the closure of the first phase of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol; the 2012 deadline will be crucial in determining both the durability of the protocol and the degree of commitment
toWArdS CANCuN of the international community. The key battleground area for the United States and a number of its allies is that of emissions reduction; these countries advocate a non-binding framework where periodical reviews take place and significant emissions reductions is expected from China and other countries undergoing rapid industrialisation. China and the G77 have a different view, making an appeal for the historical responsibility of industrialised countries and calling for funds, technological transfer, and support for adaptation and mitigation programmes. There is little money to go around: of the 100 billion dollars promised for developing countries at Copenhagen little has so far materialised, with funding often recycled from cooperation funds. Another contentious area is that of the monitoring and verification of the deployment of funding in recipient countries. This is considered by the G77 as an unacceptable imposition by rich countries. In this power struggle, where negotiation becomes the site in which the new winners and losers in the sphere of global governance are defined, poorer countries, who are by definition more heavily impacted and more vulnerable, are relegated to the sidelines. The Un working group on climate change financing advocates carbon markets as a principal source of capital, and the world Bank as primary manager of funds. But this is like asking a pyromaniac to put out a fire, and creates the conditions for further damage, with the potential bursting of the speculative bubble that would form around the uncontrolled expansion of
subprime carbon. Even the area of negotiation on forestation and the reduction of emissions due to deforestation, which seemed to be on a positive track, has reached an impasse. The United States is determined to support a complicated outcome at Cancun; either ‘balanced’ decisions are reached on financing, mitigation, forests, technological transfer etc, or nothing at all. In light of these issues, it is misguided to think that Cancun 2010 represents an opportunity to repeat the result of Cancun 2003, when the world Trade organisation fell into a crisis it has still been unable to emerge from. In 2003 it was legitimate to bring to a halt the expansion of an organisation exclusively dedicated to trade liberalisation. This time in Cancun what is at risk is rather the future of multilateralism itself, and of the United nations system. Such a risk was evidenced when the head of the US delegation suggested the possibility that separate accords and partnerships could be reached outside the remit of the Un. while the calls of the poorer countries, the island states, and those like Bolivia who advocate recognition of ecological debt and the rights of the Mother Earth go unheeded, those heading to Cancun will find themselves confronted with two difficult compromises: asking for the impossible but the necessary, with the risk of causing the multilateral system to collapse, or accepting what is at hand, with the risk of indefinitely delaying the undeniable obligation to reduce emissions and break our addiction to fossil fuels.
A systemic interpretation on climate challenge by kelvy bird of the valueWeb This issue has received part-financing from the Active Citizenship Programme
Editorial Board Transeuropa Network transeuropanetwork.com Distribution Enquiries Dominique Tuohy d.tuothy@euroalter.com Art Direction & Design Giovanni Binel and Emanuele Ragnisco mekkanografici.com
euroalter.com
the view from civil society
the view from the institutions
Interview by Séverine Lenglet
Interview by Federico Gurrieri
nGos such as Greenpeace international, wwF, Action against Hunger, Friends of the earth international will attend the Un climate conference in Cancún. But everywhere in the world, civil society protests will also take place to urge concrete actions on climate change. David Heller works with Friends of the Earth Europe where he coordinates the Climate Justice and energy work. For the past few weeks, he has been helping to organize the European Assembly for Climate Justice. What is the European Assembly for Climate Justice? The European Assembly for Climate Justice is a 4-day event taking place from 26th to 29th november in Brussels. It is timed to coincide with the start of the Un climate conference in Cancun, Mexico. our event will have discussions, debates, actions, cultural and social events, and a chance for networking. we hope that people from various social and environmental movements from across Europe will join us for the event. our main message is that the climate crisis is affecting the people in Europe - and around the world - who have done the least to cause the problem. we have to take into account the social impacts of the solutions to this crisis, to make sure we’re not adding to these problems through false solutions. What do you think about the UN climate conference “COP16″? we’re not opposed to the summit in Cancun, but we do think that the direction of international negotiations has to change. At the moment, there is a real risk that the Un conference will be used by rich countries, multinational businesses and international financial institutions such as the
world Bank, to divide up and privatise what is left of our atmosphere, and impose their false solutions such as agrofuels, nuclear power, GM, carbon offsetting and the inclusion of forests in carbon markets. Which problems do we face across Europe regarding climate and social justice? we can already feel the impact of climate change across Europe, from melting glaciers affecting tourism in the Alps, to changing weather patterns affecting farmers right across the continent. There are also huge social impacts, as bills for heating and cooling homes are increasing - hitting the poorest hardest. More than this, Europe is in danger of missing a massive opportunity to invest in sustainable forms of employment, and take us away from the dangerous, dirty, fossilfuel driven economy. What is your view on carbon offsetting? The theory was that offsetting would allow developed countries to meet part of their targets by paying developing countries to deliver greenhouse gas reduction projects. Since then offsetting has grown quickly, in particular in the form of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). But whereas offsetting counts action in developing countries as part of the cuts promised in developed countries, the science is clear that action is needed in both developed and developing countries. offsetting does not ensure positive sustainable development in, or appropriate financial transfers to, developing countries, and is causing major delays to urgently needed economic transformations in developed countries.
An interview with Timo Makela, Director of International Affairs at DG Environment, European Commission How do you judge the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit? The EU played an important role and was also a driving force in Copenhagen Climate Summit. In fact, the EU was the only major economic region who came to Copenhagen with a clear and binding climate change mitigation programme. The EU told upfront to our global partners that we will cut our emission by 20% by 2020. And this will be done whatever the outcome of future global negotiations. In Copenhagen, others, both developed and developing regions were not yet ready to follow the EU's lead. And this led to a situation in which the results fell short of expectations and the final outcome was set by others. How would you judge the preparatory talks and conferences leading up to Cancun? The Cancun Climate Summit will be a next step in climate negotiations. Progress can be expected in areas such as the financing of climate mitigation and adaptation, the reduction of emission from desertification and forest degradation and the system of monitoring and verifying emissions. However, it will be difficult to reach an agreement on legally binding reductions targets. we might have to wait for that for another year. Is the European Union ready to assist developing nations? The EU is the biggest donor of developing aid globally. About half of all aid comes from the EU. And much of this aid assists developing countries to protect their environment while pro-
moting at the same time economic development and job creation. The EU is already investing in global biodiversity programmes some €1 billion annually and has committed some €7 billion additional support for the next 3 years. Is a carbon tax preferable to carbon trading schemes? Economic instruments are essential to move towards a low carbon economy. And they complement regulatory means which are also essential. Markets need to work for low carbon and resource efficient economy, not against it. And in this both trading schemes and taxes play their role. The EU has opted for emission trading scheme as a major tool for reducing emissions from major energy and industrial installations. But national and also EU wide taxes complement this. Environmental tax reforms are being implemented across the EU and carbon taxes for instance for cars and energy production are becoming increasingly common. What is your view on carbon offsetting and the clean development mechanism? Clean development mechanisms offer a possibility to combine development goals with our climate objectives. They have resulted in additional investment in developing countries for renewable energy and modern production technologies. As long as they really reduce emissions and enhance investments in renewable energy production they are a good tool for global climate action. of course, this is not enough and national plans, policies and measures are more important.