, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20201127STO92607/
Making your voice heard in the EU | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20201127STO92609/
Article – What is the EU’s Covid-19 recovery plan? (video)
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20201127STO92608/
Climate change: the EU needs to be better prepared so it can better adapt
Climate change: the EU needs to be better prepared so it can better adapt
- More funding needs to be channelled into adaptation; cost of inaction far greater
- EU funds should only go to climate-proofed infrastructure
- Climate-related extremes have caused damage costing EUR 426 billion 1980-2017
The upcoming EU adaptation strategy must give impetus to building climate-resilient societies, say Environment MEPs in a new resolution on adapting to climate change.
On Tuesday, the Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety approved a resolution on adaptation to climate change, with 64 votes to 9 and 7 abstentions, providing input on the upcoming EU Strategy on adaptation to Climate Change.
The resolution calls for a renewed and improved focus on adaptation, as it is crucial to prepare for a changing climate by building resilient societies that are able to minimise the adverse impact of climate change.
The EU Strategy on adaptation should be an opportunity to ensure EU countries are on track to meet the adaptation goal under the Paris Agreement, show EU global leadership in building global climate resilience through increased financing and promote EU science, services, technologies and practices for adaptation, MEPs say.
How to help the EU adapt to climate change
MEPs call for increased funding at EU, national and regional levels, and for public and private investments in adaptation. The EU’s climate-related spending target should contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation, they say, recalling that the cost of inaction would be far greater.
The Commission should ensure that costs arising from a failure to take adaptation measures are not passed on to citizens and enforce the “polluter pays” principle, making the polluter take responsibility for adaptation, MEPs agreed.
They also want to ensure that EU funding only goes to climate-proofed infrastructure by making an ex-ante examination to assess the capacity of EU projects to cope with medium-to-long term climate impacts in different global temperature rise scenarios an obligatory condition of receiving EU funding.
Next steps
The resolution is scheduled to be voted on during the 14 – 17 December Plenary session, where a related question will also be presented to the Commission for oral answer.
Background
The European Environment Agency (EEA) has estimated that weather and climate-related extremes have accounted for EUR 426 billion in monetary losses in the period 1980-2017 in EU-28.
Adaptation means anticipating the adverse effects of climate change and taking appropriate action to prevent or minimise the damage. Well planned, early adaptation action is proven to save money and lives later.
The ability to adapt differs across populations, economic sectors and regions within Europe. The EU can ensure that disadvantaged regions and those most affected by climate change are capable of taking the necessary measures to adapt, and when the impact of climate change transcends borders of individual states, e.g. rivers.
As part of the European Green Deal, a new Adaptation Strategy is expected to be adopted by the Commission in early 2021.
New EU rules: digitalisation to improve access to justice | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20201126STO92502/
MEPs approve deal on tap water and demand that EU water legislation be respected | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201126IPR92513/
Press Conference by EP President Sassoli and Portugal’s Prime Minister Costa | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201130IPR92737/
FAO and the European Union support the recovery of agricultural livelihoods in Northern Iraq [EN/AR]
Mosul 30 November 2020: Dr. Salah El Hajj Hassan, Representative of the Food and Agriculture (FAO) Organization of the United Nations in Iraq accompanied by FAO lead technical team, met on Monday with Mr. Najm Al-Jubouri – Governor of Nineveh.
The discussion focused on FAO activities and programs in the Governorate, as well as the challenges faced by the agriculture sector and availability of water resources. Dr. Elhajj Hassan presented to the Governor FAO’s EU funded projects to support the recovery of agricultural livelihoods through revitalization of food production, value chains, income generation and secure irrigation water through the rehabilitation of Al-Jazeera Irrigation system in Nineveh. Dr. El Hajj Hassan thanked the European Union for their support to the agriculture sector in Iraq and convey the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, Ms. Irena Vojáčkova’s greetings to Mr. Al-Jubouri; he also stated, “Through these projects, FAO will provide the necessary support to improve the agriculture sector that will positively impact all of Iraq.”
H.E. Mr. Al-Jubouri discussed ways of enhancing and strengthening cooperation and coordination with FAO. He praised FAO’s role in advancing the agricultural sector in Nineveh Governorate and called on the organization to provide more support to the governorate. At the end of the meeting, the Governor thanked the EU for their generous support to develop the agriculture sector in Nineveh and FAO in Iraq. He expressed his willingness and readiness for full cooperation for the development of the agricultural sector in Nineveh Governorate.
The visit marks the distribution of wheat seeds in support of farmers in Nineveh under this EU funded project, with support from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Governorate of Nineveh. This distribution is planned to empower the farming community in the governorate and increase availability of food staples, especially following the severe damage caused by the latest military operations.
“I am delighted to see that, thanks to the strong collaboration between FAO and the national and local authorities, distribution of inputs to farmers is starting in Nineveh under this EU funded intervention”, said Mr. Martin Huth, the EU Ambassador to Iraq. “I strongly believe that the agriculture and the agri-food sectors have a great potential for the diversification of the economy in Iraq, and restoring the historical agricultural capacities of the Nineveh region is key to such development. In a time where the country has been badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic, livelihoods have been affected and many families have seen increased needs in food security in a region already struggling from past years insecurity. I do hope that the roll out of these activities can quickly help farmers in the long-awaited recovery.”
For more information, please contact:
Mrs. Lubna AlTarabishi, +964 7740804002
Email: [email protected]
Don’t read too much into Supreme Court religion ruling
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision on Wednesday night, striking down New York State restrictions on the number of people who can attend religious services during the coronavirus pandemic, is being taken as a signal of the emergence of a newly aggressive conservative majority.
It’s easy to see why. The majority in the religion case included the court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, alongside the most conservative of her colleagues: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
The dissenters included Chief Justice John Roberts, also conservative but more moderate in his voting patterns — who has been the swing vote in divided decisions for the last year.
Notwithstanding the public reaction, the decision is hardly pathbreaking, and it doesn’t signal much at all. As a technical matter, it’s close to a yawner. If it is to be taken a signal, it should be of something more specific: the existence of a majority that will be highly protective of the rights of religious believers.
The core of the case was a claim of discrimination against churches and synagogues. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had issued an order stating that in certain pandemic-infected areas, deemed “red zones,” only 10 people could attend religious services. In less dangerous areas, deemed “orange zones,” the cap was 25.
In the majority’s unsigned opinion, the court did not say that these restrictions would be unacceptable if they had been imposed on all gathering places. It said that the problem was that they singled out houses of worship “for especially harsh treatment.”
To justify that claim, the court emphasized that “essential” businesses could allow as many people as they wished, even in red zones. Those essential businesses included grocery stores, banks, acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages and transportation facilities. And in orange zones, even nonessential businesses could do as they wished, and so had a lot more flexibility than houses of worship.
In a separate concurring opinion, Gorsuch put the point vividly: “While the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues and mosques.”
In a dissenting opinion, Roberts didn’t reject Gorsuch’s argument. Instead he made a narrow procedural point: It was not the right time for the court to intervene. His reasoning was that it wasn’t necessary for the court to act because Cuomo had loosened the restrictions after the case was filed, eliminating the numerical limits previously faced by houses of worship.
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, agreed with that point. He added that the technical question before the court was whether to give a “preliminary injunction” blocking enforcement of the state’s order, or instead to wait for a full hearing where all the facts could be compiled.
If we take the court’s ruling on its own terms, it’s small potatoes. Everyone on the court agreed that if New York discriminated against houses of worship, its action would have to be struck down, pandemic or no pandemic. That idea breaks no new ground.
For officials who are seeking to control the pandemic, the court’s decision is also no big deal. Nothing in it would forbid stringent restrictions on churches and synagogues, so long as those restrictions are imposed on other, similar institutions as well. What’s required is neutrality.
For these reasons, it’s wrong to say that the decision shows the sudden ascendency of a new conservative majority. If the ruling has broader importance, it’s because it’s part of a tendency, to which Barrett can be expected to contribute, to be highly protective of religion and religious organizations — and to their claims of discrimination and excessive intrusion by state and federal governments.
For the new administration of President-elect Joe Biden and for state and local officials, there’s a warning sign: Anything that smacks of discrimination against religious organizations will run into trouble, pandemic or no pandemic. The requirement of neutrality, not the ascendency of an emboldened conservative majority, is the real lesson of Wednesday’s decision.
Cass R. Sunstein is a syndicated columnist.
UN urges ‘global solidarity, shared responsibility’ against pandemics, marking World AIDS Day
In a message, Secretary-General António Guterres urged the world to not lose sight of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis.
“Despite significant successes, the AIDS emergency is not over. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) still infects 1.7 million people each year and kills some 690,000,” he said.
Mr. Guterres highlighted the impact of inequalities, leaving the vulnerable most affected, a fact evidenced by the coronavirus pandemic.
“COVID-19 has been a wake-up call to the world. Inequalities in health affect all of us. No one is safe unless we all are safe,” he added, stressing:
“Wealth should not determine whether people get the health care they need. We need a COVID-19 vaccine and HIV treatments and care that are affordable and available to everyone, everywhere.”
‘Health is a human right’
The UN chief reiterated that health must be a top investment priority to achieve universal health coverage. He called for an end stigma and discrimination, putting people at the centre and grounding AIDS and COVID-19 responses in human rights and gender-responsive approaches.
“On this World AIDS Day let us recognize that, to overcome COVID-19 and end AIDS, the world must stand in solidarity and share responsibility,” said Mr. Guterres.
‘Strength within communities’
In a separate message, Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), highlighted that people within communities working together “inspired by a shared responsibility to each other” helped achieve several victories against HIV.
That strength is needed “more than ever” in the fight against HIV and COVID-19, she added.
“In responding to COVID-19, the world cannot make the same mistakes it made in the fight against HIV, when millions in developing countries died waiting for treatment,” stressed Ms. Byanyima
Equitable access to vaccines against COVID-19 must be ensured, she continued, calling on companies to “openly share their technology and know-how” and to waive their intellectual property rights for vaccines to be produced at the scale and speed needed “to protect everyone” and get the global economy back on track.
Commemorated every year on 1 December, World AIDS Day brings together people from around the world to raise awareness, remember those who have passed on, and celebrate victories, such as increased access to treatment and prevention services.
