BAHÁ’Í WORLD CENTRE — Violette Haake, a former member of the International Teaching Centre, passed away on 24 September 2020 in Melbourne, Australia. She was 92 years old.
The Universal House of Justice has sent the following message to all National Spiritual Assemblies.
*
Our hearts sorrow at the passing of dearly loved Violette Haake. Reared in a distinguished family tracing its roots to the early history of the Faith, she served the Cause of God with utter dedication over many decades, first in her native Iran, and later in the United States and Australia. Whether when pioneering, or during her time as an Auxiliary Board member, or as a Continental Counsellor in Australasia, and most especially in the ten years she served as a member of the International Teaching Centre, her intrepid spirit and radiant enthusiasm for teaching were ever in evidence as she rallied the friends, particularly the youth; poured out encouragement; and fanned the flame of love for Bahá’u’lláh in the hearts. Violette possessed a character that blended extraordinary resilience, steadfastness, and inner strength with unfailing kindness, a nurturing instinct, and true joy. To the last, hers was a life devoted to the service of the Lord.
To her husband, Roderic, and her daughter, Susanne, we extend our heartfelt condolences, with an assurance of our supplications at the Sacred Threshold for the progress of Violette’s luminous soul as it plunges into the sea of light in the world of mysteries. The believers in every land are asked to arrange memorials in her honour, including in all Houses of Worship, as circumstances permit.
NEW DELHI: A group of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) — Anna Bonfrisco, Matteo Adinolfi, Valentino Grant, Marco Dreosto, Luisa Regimenti, Alessandro Panza, Stefania Zambelli, Simona Baldassarre, Gianna Gancia and Francesca Donato of the Identity and Democracy Group have asked for reshaping the EU-China relations framework.
Back in February 2020, when China needed help the most, the EU sent tons of goods/equipment to China, spending millions of euros on the process. Germany, France and Italy were major contributors to the aid relief.
In return, when Europe faced the pandemic, the EU Member States received help from China, but China sold for a purchase and did not donate the PPE to Italy, and charged for the very PPE Italy had previously donated to China – Such practice is discouraging and alarming. Spain was forced to return faulty test kits to China, and the Netherlands had to recall 600 000 faulty coronavirus face masks imported from China.
In April, the Italian Identity and Democracy Group MEPs raised a parliamentary question to the European Commission asking that considering the EU-China investment agreement should be signed this year, is the Commission willing “to reshape the EU-China relations framework?” and “to launch a public consultation on the future of EU-China relations?”
In July, High Representative/Vice-President Borrell responded that “the European Commission is working with the Member States and international partners on all fronts to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak” and that “the first priority is to guarantee the health and safety of all EU citizens: protecting people from the spread of the virus, supporting the health systems and health workers while maintaining the flow of goods, mitigating the effects on the economy and helping people get back to their homes”.
High Representative/Vice-President Borrell confirmed that “the COVID-19 website was set up to keep all citizens updated about the evolution of the disease in the EU and informed of the comprehensive response by the Commission”. He further clarified that “following wide consultation, the EU adopted its China strategy in 2016, updated with the Strategic Outlook of March 2019” and that “both remain valid”. He said “as outlined in the Strategic Outlook, the European Union pursues a realist and multi-faceted and differentiated approach to the implementation of its strategic partnership with China”.
High Representative/Vice-President Borrell went on to emphasize that “China is simultaneously a partner with whom the EU has closely aligned objectives, a negotiating partner, with whom the EU needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance” and that “the EU will continue to engage with China on all aspects of the relationship — the opportunities and the challenges — on issues on which it agrees and on which it does not”.
In closing, the High Representative/Vice-President reported that “the EU will also continue to adapt to changing economic realities by strengthening its autonomy, reinforcing its industrial base and diversifying its supply chains” and that “the EU is working for a more balanced and reciprocal economic relationship with China, including through the negotiation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment and the Agenda 2025”. He also reassured the MEPs that “launching a public consultation on the future of EU-China relations is not currently in the plans of the Commission”.
The coronavirus pandemic has thrown up an interesting paradox in European countries that have banned the full-face veil.
In some French cities, for example, failure to cover your face and protect against COVID-19 can land you a €135 fine.
Yet, officially at least, you could also be fined as much as €150 for covering your face in public places if the covering is a full-face veil.
In 2011, France became the first European country to ban the full-face veil in public. Other European countries have followed by introducing total or partial bans of the burqa, including Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Latvia and Norway.
Now, with many Europeans told they must wear face masks to combat the spread of COVID-19, some are highlighting the apparent contradiction.
“What’s the difference when you cover your face for religious reasons or when you cover your face for health reasons?” said Moana Genevey, gender policy officer at Equinet. “And when is it acceptable?”
In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dismissed France’s arguments to ban the wearing of the full-face veil in public on the grounds of public security and protection of gender equality.
However, it upheld the ban by accepting it constitutes an infringement of the French principle of “living together” (‘le vivre ensemble’).
Three years later, two Belgian women also took their case to the ECHR, arguing the so-called burqa ban was breaching human-rights law. Samia Belcacemi had stopped wearing the veil in public, fearing jail or a fine, while Yamina Oussar chose to stay at home.
Likewise, the ECHR ruled that Belgium did not violate any right to freedom of religion or discrimination law as it had the right to impose restrictions to ensure the principle of “living together”.
In the French case, the violation of the concept of “le vivre ensemble” was defined as “a denial of fraternity, constituting the negation of contact with others”.
However, the pre-COVID “living together” has little to do with the current coexistence in European countries based on safety distance.
“The discourse has completely changed and people are asked to cover their faces to be able to live together in a democratic society,” said Dr Jone Elizondo Urrestarazu, legal and policy officer at Equinet. “Living together doesn’t mean what it used to, so maybe it’s time to rethink the volatility of this argument.”
Genevey said COVID has raised the issue: “Some women were asking whether or not the ban would apply to them in the context of the pandemic. Now the question is: will we go back to normal afterwards?”
COVID-19 and public safety
Belgium is one of the European countries where covering one’s face with a piece of cloth is banned, but wearing a face mask is now mandatory.
The so-called “burqa ban” was first implemented in Belgium in 2011, forbidding any face-covering clothing in public that could conceal someone’s identity.
One of the main justifications was that “people in public spaces should be ‘recognisable’ and ‘identifiable’ on the grounds of public security”. Exceptions are allowed for labour regulations or festivities, but not for health reasons.
But because of the health emergency, this public safety principle seems to have been put to one side.
“In the short term, we might experience an increase in common criminality, as they go unrecognised wearing face masks,” said Professor Kenneth Lasoen, an intelligence and security expert.
“To offset the situation, municipalities are investing in CCTV cameras to monitor those wearing a face mask in the streets.”
But, in the longer term, there are concerns the coronavirus pandemic has weakened the argument against banning full-face veils.
“We are very likely to face a constitutional challenge, as the current situation sets a precedent for people who want to wear any kind of face-covering in public,” added Prof Lasoen.
But on the streets of Brussels, some people question the link between the coronavirus pandemic and the ban on other types of face-covering, including the burqa.
“I see why some would say that, but we are talking about two different levels,” says Vanessa, a 21-year-old student. “Wearing a mask now has nothing to do with the fact that people could cover their faces with a burqa”.
Her friend Victoria, 20, agrees.
“It is different, we are experiencing a world health crisis and face masks are for everybody’s health, it’s not just about someone’s religion,” she said.
Stephanie, a 40-year-old teacher, thinks “some people might find it disturbing, or even scary if they do not see a face”.
”Back in Tunisia I used to feel a bit unsettled when I saw women wearing a burqa, as I couldn’t see their features,” said Samia, a Brussels expat.
“I also had a sense of guilt, because maybe they felt unsettled by the fact that I didn’t wear a veil at all.”
Samia doesn’t think the comparison between masks and full-face veils is fully valid, because “with a mask, you can still see the features, and whether the person is female or male”.
“The [main] principle should be not to repress people’s rights on [the] grounds of public security,” she said.
“European countries should find ways to minimise the security issues without stigmatising part of the population and prevent them from wearing whatever they want.”
A question of women’s rights?
“If the burqa ban is only justified on religious grounds, it is a discriminatory law,” said Genevey.
“And we cannot ignore that this is something that is affecting an intersectional group, which is women of a certain religion,” said Dr Elizondo.
The ban affects a minority in Europe: less than 1% of Muslim women wear a burqa or a niqab.
“It’s ironic how these measures were supposed to liberate and empower Muslim women who chose to wear a niqab yet it ended up limiting them,” said Dr Sanja Bilic, operations and policy manager at the European Forum of Muslim Women.
“Some women are still going out and paying fines. Others decided to stay home. Prior to the ban, they were active citizens, participating in the life of their community and they had to stop doing that after the niqab ban was implemented”.
For Dr Bilic, the issue is not the niqab or the hijab per se, but the fact that these bans “criminalise a piece of clothing and no other piece of clothing is criminalised in Europe. This is problematic and it leads to Islamophobia, a gendered Islamophobia because it only targets Muslim women”.
She also sees that the ban leads to the growing intolerance towards women wearing a hijab, as was the case of French MP Anne-Christine Lang who walked out of an inquiry meeting because a student union leader wore a hijab.
Some argue these women are pressured to wear a niqab or a burqa by their families or communities. And that the decision to stay at home because they cannot wear a burqa it’s not theirs.
“There is always a component of societal pressure, even if not driven by religion” argues Dr Bilic. “We would have to interview each woman to know their motives, but I believe that here in Europe if they were to be forced to wear a burqa or niqab, they have the tools and freedom to seek help”.
“In the European context, no other group of women, particularly those coming from the minority and non-Christian background, would be questioned on their ability and capacity to choose yet Muslim women’s choices are always treated as suspicious.”
Genevey argues the burqa ban is the opposite of feminism: “Pretending to free women by not allowing them access to the public space is a fundamental contradiction.”
Every weekday at 1900 CEST, Euronews brings you a European story that goes beyond the headlines. Download our app to get an alert for this and other breaking news. It’s available on Apple and Android devices.
New proposals to bring an end to overcrowded encampments of people living in desperate conditions on the fringes of Europe were unveiled in Brussels on Wednesday in a bid to break years of deadlock over how to manage migration into the EU.
<p class="no_name">The plans set out by the <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=European+Commission">European Commission</a> involve quickly sending home people whose claims for asylum are rejected, in a compromise package aimed at reducing irregular migration and reassuring eastern and northern countries that are fiercely opposed to accepting a quota of refugees.</p>
<p class="no_name">Plans to create a more coherent system of managing migration into the <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=European+Union">European Union</a> have stalled since 2016, to the frustration of border countries such as <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Italy">Italy</a> and <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Greece">Greece</a> who have long called for more help to deal with what they consider an outsize burden of arrivals that has caused a bottleneck on their shores.</p>
<p class="no_name">A fire that tore through the Moria encampment on the Greek island of Lesbos earlier this month turned thousands of people out on to the roads without food or shelter, adding fresh urgency to attempts to reach a deal.</p>
<p class="no_name">“Moria is a stark reminder that the clock has run out on how long we can live in a house half-built,” said Margaritis Schinas, European Commission vice-president charged with promoting “Europe’s way of life”.</p>
<p class="no_name">“The pact provides the missing pieces of the puzzle for a comprehensive approach to migration,” he said.</p>
<h4 class="crosshead">Fierce debate</h4><p class="no_name">National leaders have long acknowledged that the migration system needs reform but have struggled to agree on how to do it, and the new proposals are likely to be the subject of fierce debate, pitting border states looking for more help against hardline governments opposed to immigration, such as <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Hungary">Hungary</a> and <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_location=Poland">Poland</a>. </p>
<p class="no_name">Home affairs commissioner <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_person=Ylva+Johansson">Ylva Johansson</a> emphasised that the number of irregular arrivals into the EU had fallen to 140,000 last year – a small fraction of overall migration – and that the majority of those given residence permits were the spouses of European citizens.</p>
<p class="no_name">“Sometimes in a debate we try to make a link between migration and crisis. But most of the migrants that come to the European Union come here legally,” she said. “Migration is normal. Migration has always been here, migration will always be here.”</p>
<p class="no_name">Under the proposals, all irregular migrants who arrive in the EU would be subject to a screening process that would take a maximum of five days. Those who have arrived from countries with a low rate of successful asylum claims – below 20 per cent – would be fast-tracked and likely be quickly deported, the commission said.</p>
<p class="no_name">Countries that do not accept the return of their citizens could be penalised on visa applications into the EU, while those who accept deportees could be treated favourably.</p>
<h4 class="crosshead">Alternative options</h4><p class="no_name">All member states must agree to play a role in helping to manage migration under the plans, but there are alternative options for member states who refuse to take in a quota of refugees. Instead, those member states can take over responsibility for deporting failed asylum seekers to their home country.</p>
<p class="no_name">Rights groups criticised the plan as pandering too much to the wishes of member states with anti-immigration governments. </p>
<p class="no_name">The Catholic Church’s humanitarian network <a class="search" href="/topics/topics-7.1213540?article=true&tag_organisation=Caritas">Caritas</a> Europa expressed concerns that the plan’s “top priorities seem to be deterrence, preventing migration to the EU” and that the strengthening of asylum and return procedures could come “at the cost of asylum and human rights safeguards”.</p>
The pandemic is the first in history in which technology and social media are being used to both inform people and keep them connected, but also to undermine global response to the crisis and jeopardize measures to contain the disease, they explained.
“WHO & partners are calling on: -all countries to put in place natl. action plans to promote science-based health information & to combat misinformation -media, tech companies, civil society, researchers & people everywhere to keep the infodemic from spreading”-@DrTedros#UNGA
“Misinformation costs lives. Without the appropriate trust and correct information, diagnostic tests go unused, immunization campaigns (or campaigns to promote effective vaccines) will not meet their targets, and the virus will continue to thrive”, the partners said in a statement issued on Wednesday.
“We call on Member States to develop and implement action plans to manage the infodemic by promoting the timely dissemination of accurate information, based on science and evidence, to all communities, and in particular high-risk groups; and preventing the spread, and combating, mis- and disinformation while respecting freedom of expression.”
Authorities also were urged to empower communities to develop solutions and resilience against the infodemic.
Stakeholders such as the media and social media platforms were called on to collaborate with the UN system, and each other, “to further strengthen their actions to disseminate accurate information and prevent the spread of mis- and disinformation.”
The statement signed by the United Nations, eight of its entities, and the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC), followed a virtual meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
“As soon as the virus spread across the globe, inaccurate and even dangerous messages proliferated wildly over social media, leaving people confused, misled and ill-advised”, he recalled.
“The antidote lies in making sure that science-backed facts and health guidance circulate even faster, and reach people wherever they access information.”
Science, solutions, solidarity
Throughout the pandemic, the UN chief has highlighted the need to fight the tide of harmful health advice, hate speech and wild conspiracy theories that has surfaced alongside COVID-19.
In May, the UN launched the Verified initiative, encouraging people everywhere to serve as “digital first responders”, who share trusted, accurate information on their social media platforms.
“Working with media partners, individuals, influencers and social media platforms, the content we spread promotes science, offers solutions and inspires solidarity,” he said.
As Mr. Guterres told the meeting, fighting misinformation will be critical as the UN and partners work to build public confidence in the safety and efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccines being developed.
Catching up on routine vaccinations
That message was echoed later on Wednesday at another WHO virtual meeting to galvanize governments and humanitarians to safeguard immunization campaigns during the pandemic, and to ensure infrastructure is in place for the future equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
Although the UN estimates some 80 million children worldwide have not received routine immunizations due to the pandemic, services are resuming with the goal of “catching up to build better”, according to Kate O’Brien, Director of WHO’s Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals.
She said partners are also working “closer than ever”, and with greater integration; principles that will be applicable for the future delivery of any COVID-19 vaccines.
“Our goal is to ensure fair and equitable access to vaccines against COVID-19 for all countries, harnessing the partnerships to work together to bring safe and effective and affordable vaccines…and do it because nobody is safe until everybody is safe”, said Ms. O’Brien.
A ‘global insurance policy’
WHO along with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) spearhead a global initiative that has pledged to put COVID-19 vaccines in the hands of anyone, anywhere who needs them.
GAVI chief Dr. Seth Berkley described the COVAX Global Vaccines Facility as a “global insurance policy”, committed to ensuring no one is left behind. The goal is to produce two billion vaccine doses by the end of 2021.
Dr. Berkley reported that more than 160 countries either have committed to the Facility, or are eligible to receive vaccines, with others expected to join this week.
“Gavi right now helps vaccinate half the world’s children. But the global delivery of COVID vaccines will be the single largest and most rapid deployment the world has ever seen”, he said.
“Also, with the levels of rumours and false information, we will need to work with communities everywhere to provide accurate information.”
The COVAX Facility is part of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator which aims to speed up the development and production of tests, medicines and vaccines that will be available to all countries.
The ACT Accelerator was launched in April and has so far received around $2.7 billion. The UN Secretary-General recently appealed for a “quantum leap in funding” to meet the $35 billion still needed.
In a pre-recorded video address, Mr. Džaferović thanked those who came to the aid of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the crisis, and expressed his appreciation for the EU’s decision to include the country in its public procurement programme, which means that it has been able to purchase material needed to combat COVID-19, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) in a cost-effective way.
“Just like any other great misfortune”, he said “this one has also reminded us how important it is to have friends.” At a time when multilateralism and international organizations, including the UN, are coming under attack, the pandemic, he added, has shown that major challenges can only be tackled at a transnational, multilateral level, based on dialogue and cooperation of as many states as possible.
The unity shown by the European Union in agreeing a historic package for economic recovery, declared the Bosnian leader, is an example to the rest of the world. The fact that the EU has not just supported its members, but other countries as well, is a sign of its strength. Bosnia and Herzegovina, he added, has benefited from strong support for its economy and health system, which increases the prospects for continued stability in the country.
25 years of peace
The end of 2020 marks 25 years of the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord, which ended the brutal conflict in the former Yugoslavia but, said Mr. Džaferović, the Accord now requires an update. This will only be possible, he said, through a wide political consensus, adding that there is a consensus in the country about the “irreplaceable significance of preserving peace and, thus, the Peace Accord on which it is based”.
Mr. Džaferović described the country as having made a “complete turn”, from being one that required international assistance, to providing soldiers and police officers to take part in peace missions around the world.
Illegal migration support needed
However, he said that more support is needed to help Bosnia to cope with illegal migration: due to the closure of other routes, most migrants attempting to enter the EU are now passing through Bosnia and Herzegovina. “They pose an enormous security and humanitarian problem, and our county does not have enough resources to solve it.”
The Bosnian leader called on nations whose citizens are in Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign up to agreements that will enable these citizens to be returned to their home countries.
Building a stable society
The emigration of young, and educated, Bosnians to the EU, where they have greater job prospects, is also a problem for the country, according to Mr. Džaferović, who said that this can only be overcome by building a “a society which will be based on the principles of equal opportunities, political stability and legal security, where it is possible for young people to plan their future”. Eventually achieving EU membership, he said, is the way to achieve this goal.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, concluded Mr. Džaferović, is slowly making progress, and is committed to building a safe, stable and prosperous State.
The bleak news from ILO Director-General Guy Ryder coincided with an updated mid-year forecast from the UN body.
Lower and middle-income countries have suffered most, with an estimated 23.3 per cent drop in working hours – equivalent to 240 million jobs – in the second quarter.
Previously, the ILO had suggested a 14 per cent average drop in global working time, equivalent to the loss of 400 million jobs, relative to the fourth quarter of 2019.
Workers in developing nations had also seen their income drop more than 15 per cent, ILO Director-General Guy Ryder told journalists in Geneva.
“On top of this, these are the places where there are the weakest social protection systems, so there are very few resources or protections for working people to fall back upon”, he said. “If you look at it regionally, the Americas were worst-affected, with losses of 12.1 per cent.”
Mr. Ryder highlighted that while the Governments of richer countries had shored up their economies with hundreds of billions of dollars, poorer nations had been unable to do the same.
Without such fiscal stimulus, working hours losses would have been 28 per cent between April and June, instead of 17.3 per cent, he insisted.
Our latest estimates of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic paint a bleak picture for job markets, says @GuyRyder. But effective fiscal stimulus plans have offered some signs of hope. pic.twitter.com/bQjdHrZQMV
Nonetheless, State financial support has led to the emergence of an extremely worrying “fiscal stimulus gap” between wealthy economies and the developing world, amounting to $982 billion, Mr. Ryder warned.
“It runs a risk of leading us to post-COVID world with greater inequalities between regions, countries, sectors and social groups,” he said. “It’s a polar opposite to the better world that we want to build back, and it reminds us all, that unless we are all able to overcome and get out of this pandemic, none of us will.”
Although the $982 billion global stimulus package was a staggering sum, the ILO Director-General noted that low-income countries needed a fraction of this figure – $45 billion – to support workers in the same way as wealthier nations had done, while lower-middle-income countries required the remaining $937 billion.
Other data from the ILO Monitor indicates that for the third fiscal quarter covering July to September, 12.1 per cent of global working time will be lost, which is equivalent to 345 million full-time jobs.
Final quarter challenges
The final quarter of the year envisages a significant worsening of the situation for workers since the UN agency’s last assessment in June, with a minimum 8.6 per cent drop in global working time – up from up from 4.9 per cent mid-year – corresponding to 245 million full-time jobs.
To protect workers and economies everywhere, Mr. Ryder warned against any premature loosening of support for health measures aimed at combating the pandemic, in view of increasing infection rates in many countries.
Support for jobs and incomes should be sustained into next year, he insisted, while also calling for finding ways to increase technical help and official develop assistance to emerging economies.
It was also important to prioritise income support for the hardest-hit groups, namely women, young people and informal workers, he added.
Guitarist Li Jianhong is fairly unknown in the U.S., but he’s one of the most important experimental musicians in China. Like Sonic Youth and Japanese rock collective Ghost, he straddles and/or blasts his way across the line between psychedelic rock and exploratory noise; he also frequently incorporates a spiritual component inspired by Buddhism and traditional Chinese art. The tracks on his latest album, Father, and a Wild Trail Zigzagging Down, were recorded in 2018 at various venues on his first European tour, and together they make for a lovely summation of his range and focus. The track “At Dusk, Man at the Stream” sounds like Li is slicing his guitar apart with pieces of scrap metal—it’s as though an unaccompanied rock musician wandered into an ambush and came out with an instrument stripped of its parts. “At Dusk, Daffodils at the Stream” spins its ominous ambience from feedback, drones, clicks, and warbles, and the 27-minute title track also starts out diffuse and quiet—before building into an ecstatic wah-wah drone. Its thick, harsh, sustained blast of grimy lyricism is equal parts Jimi Hendrix and Iannis Xenakis. Listeners won over by this excellent set of songs are advised to move on to Li’s 2008 magnum opus, the 51-minute, one-track San Sheng Shi—or, for something completely different, D!O!D!O!D!, his early, Ruins-esque punk duo with drummer Huang Jin. v
While recognising the positive role of forests in mitigating global warming, the European Commission has riled the agroforestry and biomass industries by stating its intention of limiting growth in the sector.
Will the EU impose a cap on the number of trees that can be felled in Europe each year? Judging by the Commission’s 2030 climate plan, presented last week, this is now looking like a distinct possibility.
The capacity of forests to act as a “carbon sink” – absorbing more CO2 than they emit – is decreasing and needs to be reversed, the Commission said in its new climate plan for 2030.
The EU executive argues that “we need a growing sink in order for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050” and calls for improved forest management as well as “re- and afforestation” initiatives to restore degraded land and preserve biodiversity.
“We really have to take care of our forests,” said Frans Timmermans, the EU executive vice-president in charge of climate action. “We need to make sure our forests stay healthy and this is going to be a momentous task,” he told journalists.
Forest owners wouldn’t contradict the Commission on this point. Time and again, they have highlighted the role of “sustainable forest management practices” in environmental conservation and how those can support the EU’s biodiversity and climate objectives.
However, they say the Commission’s 2030 climate plan places too much emphasis on the role of forests as carbon sinks.
“This approach is rather unfortunate as it omits two other major climate benefits provided by forests: carbon storage in EU forests and wood products and carbon substitution with wood replacing fossil-based products and energy,” said Fanny-Pomme Langue, secretary-general of the Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF).
For forest owners, the key is to maintain forests as “productive” economic tools providing them with the revenues necessary to take care of their land. And that implies thinning, harvesting and replanting trees as part of “active” forest management practices.
“Forest owners are custodians of forests’ future and their focus is to maintain productive, healthy and vital ecosystems,” said Sven-Erik Hammar, board member of CEPF.
This was the view espoused by the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, which backed a report earlier this month charting “the way forward” for the EU’s upcoming forest strategy, expected to be published in the coming months.
Carbon sink and carbon stock
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, seemed to acknowledge the role forests can play for the climate. In her state of the union speech last week, she said Europe’s buildings could be turned “from a carbon source into a carbon sink if organic materials like wood” are being used.
Because trees absorb CO2 as they grow, harvesting them to make wood products is indeed considered as a “climate positive” economic activity which sequesters carbon in the form of furniture or building materials.
More controversial however is when wood is burned in biomass plants to produce electricity, or as a way of heating people’s homes.
Critics say burning wood immediately releases CO2 which took years or even decades to accumulate during the tree’s growth phase. This, they argue, creates a “carbon debt” for future generations until new trees can grow back and suck an equivalent amount of CO2.
And since time is running out to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 2°C, they argue urgent action must be taken now to prevent a further increase in biomass burning for energy generation.
The European Commission seemed to pay heed to those concerns when it placed the emphasis on the need to restore carbon sinks in Europe.
“Projected increases in bioenergy use by 2030 are limited compared to today,” the Commission pointed out in its 2030 climate plan, guarding against any “further increases in harvesting” that could see the EU’s carbon sink decline further.
“Any unsustainable intensification of forest harvesting for bioenergy purposes should be avoided,” the EU executive warned, saying “the use of whole trees and food and feed crops for energy production – produced in the EU or imported – should be minimised” in order to limit the impact on climate and biodiversity.
Bioenergy producers dispute this, saying “active forest management” practices “will optimise the carbon flow” and promote carbon sinks in addition to providing much-needed jobs and economic activity for rural areas.
“It is important to stress that bioenergy is not a driving force of forest harvesting,” said Bioenergy Europe, a trade association. In fact, forest cover in the EU increased by 5.8% in 1995-2015 while bioenergy consumption “more than doubled” during the same period, it points out.
“The increase in bioenergy has been possible thanks to a better use of residues from the forest-based industries and increased synergies with the wood-based industry,” said Jean-Marc Jossart, secretary-general of Bioenergy Europe.
Importantly, Jossart said a distinction should be made between “carbon sinks” – the capacity of forests to capture carbon – and the “carbon stock”, which is the total amount of carbon stored in the forest at a certain moment in time.
“A forest management based on maximising the carbon stock will not deliver efficiently against climate change because of maturation of trees and carbon losses” due to fires and insects, which are becoming more frequent because of climate change, he argued.
In reality, “a better managed forest reduces the risks of forest fires as there will be less dead wood on the ground helping the propagation of fire,” Jossart told EURACTIV in emailed comments, saying landowners need to be incentivised to take care of their land.
“Planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting are part of virtuous operations of climate-friendly forests, as well as taking infected trees out of the forests,” he said.
Incentives for ‘sustainable’ biomass
The Commission doesn’t deny this, saying “the promotion of sustainable forest management” combined with strict enforcement of EU green criteria for biomass will help make the sector more sustainable.
But it wants guarantees that biomass used in Europe is genuinely sustainable. Although it keeps the door open to bioenergies in general, the Commission’s 2030 climate plan says “a shift towards growing woody biomass,” and “advanced biogas and biofuels could alleviate the situation” and help restore healthy forests.
“Bioenergy production should come from better use of biomass wastes and residues and sustainable cultivation of energy crops, rather replacing the production of first-generation food-crop-based biofuels,” the EU executive says.
If those solutions are implemented swiftly in the coming years, “this could already reverse the current trend of a diminishing EU land carbon sink by 2030, increasing it again to levels above 300 million tons CO2eq,” it adds.
The European Commission intends to push a “transformative approach” to all forms of bioenergy – including biofuels and woody biomass – as part of a biodiversity strategy due to be unveiled on Wednesday (20 May).
By the end of the year, the Commission is expected to publish an extensive review of biomass policies. And much of the debate from now on is expected to focus on the incentives that are needed to support sustainable forestry practices and carbon removals.
“Definitely, we want to recognise the removals that are being done in agriculture and forestry more strongly than what we did in the past,” said a senior EU official who was briefing journalists after the Commission presented its 2030 climate plan last week.
“That will require incentives for those who are responsible – and that’s the farmers and the foresters,” the official said.
In Germany, the government is currently debating a “tree premium” of €125 per hectare as a way to reward forest owners for reducing carbon emissions. The premiums would be linked to the EU carbon market, meaning that if CO2 prices rise, the tree premium would also increase.
Another option is to bring agriculture under an EU regulation dealing with land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF).
“For somebody who is responsible for agriculture and forestry, it’s probably much easier to handle that as a policy field and to make the right trade-offs within the sector,” the official explained, saying any EU proposal on the matter would need to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis and fall in line with the Common Agricultural Policy.
For the bioenergy sector, incentives are fine as long as they allow foresters to “actively manage their forests through planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting”.
“If conversely, these subsidies are there to leave the forests untouched, this will have the adverse effects of reducing their resilience,” it argues.
At the next European summit, Austria wants to speak openly about sanctions against Ankara, including the possibility to break off accession talks with Turkey, the country’s EU Minister Karoline Edtstadler told EURACTIV Germany.
Karoline Edtstadler has been Austria’s Federal Minister for EU and Constitution since January 2020. In the last government, she was a state secretary in the interior ministry. In the 2019 EU elections, she moved into the European Parliament until she was sworn in as minister.
A wide range of topics will be discussed at the EU summit this week: The EU budget, the internal market, Brexit and the situation in the Mediterranean are just some of them. What are Austria’s priorities?
This broad agenda shows that some decisions are now pending. It is important that we are now informed about the state of negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) {EU’s long-term budget] and on Brexit.
Furthermore, we must strengthen the European internal market and competitiveness by presenting a new industrial strategy and adjusting state aid regulations, because Europe must become independent. The resources of the Recovery Fund should be used primarily for digitalisation and climate protection.
We must also clarify how we as the EU will continue to deal with China and Turkey. Austria advocates discussing all options and breaking off the accession talks with Turkey.
On the positive side, the rule of law proceedings against Poland and Hungary are back on the agenda for tomorrow’s General Affairs Council. The German Presidency plans to hold a hearing with the two countries in November and December.
Belarus opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya on Monday (21 September) urged the EU to show courage and impose sanctions on Alexander Lukashenko’s government, as the bloc continues to face internal squabbles about sanctions ahead of a crucial foreign policy summit later this week.
How can these consultations help make Article 7 procedures more effective?
As Hungary’s neighbour, we know that these procedures are an emotional issue, but we must not make any concessions here. That is why I am strongly in favour of linking EU funds and the rule of law. But of course, all parties involved must be given the opportunity to get out of these proceedings. To find such an exit strategy, you have to listen to all positions.
In fact, the states agreed in July to link EU funds to the rule of law, albeit in a weakened form. Is Austria nevertheless satisfied with this?
I am glad that conditionality is anchored. It could have been stronger, but the important thing is that it is inside. Now it’s a question of whether the European Parliament approves the budget.
The European Parliament is linking its approval to a stricter rule of law mechanism. Do you think it will succeed with this?
This is a point of discussion. There have now been four trilateral meetings, in which the Council and the Commission demand concrete proposals from Parliament. It is important to hear the Parliament’s position and there may be smaller movements.
However, it has been signalled that they do not want to undo the budget again and thus jeopardise the agreement. EU leaders negotiated for five days and four nights in July to reach this result. After that, it is a good tradition to exchange views in negotiation rounds. I appeal to Parliament to approve this huge budget.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has held a series of contacts with EU leaders in recent days, aiming to find allies who would block potential sanctions against Turkey at the 24-25 September EU summit over its illegal drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.
One point of contention during these budget negotiations in July was the EU’s own resources. There is a precise timetable for the plastics tax, while only vague approval has been given for the digital tax and CO2 tax, which is to come in 2022. Wasn’t that a bit optimistic?
In politics, optimism and drive are needed. We will do everything we can to ensure that this comes about.
So Austria is in favour of these taxes?
Austria is doing everything it can to contribute to solutions that secure our future cooperation.
Turkey: Can Ankara’s actions in the Mediterranean remain unpunished?
Of course, it is not acceptable for a neighbouring state to break international law and raise warships. It is the unanimous opinion of all member states to rely on de-escalation in this case. But it will be necessary to discuss all possibilities, including sanctions.
Also, we have been in favour of breaking off the accession talks since 2016, because Turkey was already distancing itself from European values back then.
High Representative Josep Borrell said at the end of August that sanctions were in the works if there was no progress in dealing with Turkey. So there has not been any?
It is necessary to openly discuss the whole range of reactions.
Brexit also belongs to the wide range of topics for the special summit. The UK is now threatening not to adhere to the divorce agreement of spring. Did that surprise you?
In fact, I expected Britain to abide by international law. Of course we want an agreement, but we only have six weeks to settle future relations. It is a tense situation.
We are counting on the British to recognise the gravity of the situation. The EU will not be brought to its knees by blackmail.
This Wednesday (23 September), the Commission will also present its plans for a common European asylum system. What are your expectations?
It is time for a pan-European system. From the Austrian point of view, three components must be included: external border protection, cooperation with third countries and flexible solidarity.
“Flexible solidarity” means: No mandatory quota for the admission of refugees?
Exactly, we are against forced admissions. That has always been our red line, which we defend with all our strength.
Since 2015, Austria has taken in the second most refugees of all EU countries. One thing is clear: every country must make a contribution. Either by accepting people, sending officials to support the asylum authorities or by helping on the spot. In doing so, what has been achieved so far must always be taken into account. In the case of Austria, therefore, this cannot mean accepting more refugees.
