European Union

The failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference marked a shift in international climate governance. As the system of agreeing international emissions reductions targets and then negotiating individual country contribution towards that target proved increasingly unworkable, there has been a drive towards a much more bottom-up form of climate governance. In preparation for the Paris summit later this year, countries are submitting Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to the international community, hoping that together, these contributions will add up to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius. These national pledges are—at least in part—backed up by a range of decentralized activities by countries, regions, cities, as well as businesses, civil society and others, who have been taking their own initiatives to address climate change. But what do we know about this bottom-up approach to climate governance and can it work?

In a recent article published in Nature Climate Change[1], we seek to shed some light on the distribution, the origins and the consequences of these bottom-up approaches to addressing climate change. Past research highlights a proliferating number of initiatives at various levels and in various places. For example, studies have documented a great number of international initiatives, transnational approaches[2], as well as a significant growth in national legislation to address climate change with 500 laws and policies addressing climate change in 66 countries in 2013, up from only 40 in 1997. We also know that there is a range of motivations for politicians, business leaders and others to engage in mitigation of climate change – some financial, some non-financial incentives. However, while this body of knowledge has accumulated, we know comparatively little about the consequences, or effects, of these bottom-up approaches. A key question is does bottom-up climate governance add up to something significant? And does it deliver? And by which criteria should it be evaluated?

Evaluating the performance of these bottom-up forms of governance raises a range of technical and political challenges. The international climate regime has struggled to consistently evaluate performance, such that much depends on self-reporting by states and other actors. In these compliance exercises, the focus has often been on whole countries and sometimes whether certain country characteristics, such as institutions or democratic governance drive performance, but often not individual policies. For instance, while we know that the European Union has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, much less is known about the causal factors behind this – was it simply a renewal of old industries (e.g., after German reunification or the switch from coal to gas in the UK), the economic crisis, carbon leakage to countries not bound by emission reductions or policies that created incentives for renewable energy, legislation for energy efficiency, emissions trading, or a combination of all these factors? The ever-increasing number of bottom-up approaches, with some reaching beyond national borders, exacerbates these evaluation challenges.

There is very little comparative data on individual climate policies and initiatives, particularly on a range of intended or unintended (and often important) side effects beyond greenhouse gas emission reductions. In particular, while the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) focuses on ex-ante predictions of actual policy effects, there is currently a dearth of information on ex-post (i.e., retrospective) evaluations of policy effects. Technical difficulties and low resources may partly explain this lack of knowledge. But policy-makers may lack incentives to provide such information, because it could potentially highlight the ineffectiveness of ‘their’ policies.[3]

We know even less about the effects of transnational approaches, where an energetic debate is underway regarding the criteria to use for evaluation. Evaluation research has taught us that complex activities need to be evaluated using multiple criteria.[4] ‘Hard outcomes’ such as greenhouse gas emission reductions are the ultimate proof, but they may not materialize immediately, and ‘soft’ outcomes such as building trust and learning may be necessary to create conditions for significant reductions of emissions. But to learn more we need to investigate effects from multiple perspectives and with multiple tools, including an examination of some very simple features, for example whether new initiatives incorporate monitoring and evaluation that support learning from all the new efforts. Another important question to ask is whether these approaches last long enough to have enduring effects.

Taken together, we conclude that much remains to be learned on the effectiveness of bottom-up climate governance. The jury is still out on whether it can fill the gaps left by the Kyoto-based international climate regime. To make robust conclusions possible we need a concerted research effort on the merits of these new approaches to climate governance. Policy-makers would be well advised to support new approaches, but not to abandon the more traditional international negotiation processes before we know more about what actually can be achieved through bottom-up climate governance.

[1] Jordan, A.J.; Huitema, D.; Hildén, M.; van Asselt,H.; Rayner, T.J.; Schoenefeld, J.J.; Tosun, J.; Forster, J.;  Boasson, E.L. Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects Nature Climate Change. Available at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2725.html

[2] Bulkeley, H. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[3] Hildén, M., Jordan, A., & Rayner, T. (2014). Climate policy innovation: developing an evaluation perspective. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 884-905.

[4] Mickwitz, P. (2013). Policy evaluation. In A. Jordan, & C. Adelle (Eds.), Environmental policy in the EU: Actors, institutions and processes (pp. 267-286). London; New York: Routledge.

The post How Well Does Bottom-Up Climate Governance Work? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

• Inaccurate and misleading: The Daily Mail’s reporting of Calais asylum seekers

Last week two front page stories by The Mail displayed shocking disregard for accurate reporting or any care for the plight of desperate asylum seekers trying to reach the UK from Calais.

Setting the tone for the week, the ‘Mail on Sunday’ in their front-page report expressed outrage that hundreds of ‘illegal’ migrants arriving in Britain from Calais are being put up in hotels at tax payers’ expense. The problem?  There were not ‘hundreds’ but at most one-hundred being temporarily accommodated in hotels, and these people were not ‘illegal migrants’ but asylum seekers fleeing war and terror.

The next day the Mail continued its onslaught against the Calais refugees with another front page claiming that, ’70% of the thousands of migrants massing at Calais are making it to Britain.’  The problem?  The Mail had misquoted the Chief Constable of Kent’s evidence to Parliament.  He said that 70% of the migrants in Calais leave within four months but it wasn’t known how many of them go elsewhere in France or reach Britain.

As the independent fact checking organisation, Full Fact, pointed out:

‘There’s no evidence that 7 in 10 Calais migrants are entering the UK’.

This the Mail did report in their story, but much lower down on the inside pages, when they accurately quoted Kent’s Chief Constable, Alan Pughsley, as telling Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee that it could not be ascertained, ‘whether these migrants leave to go elsewhere in France, or whether they enter the UK.’

But this little half-hidden full-truth in the story didn’t stop the Mail calculating all their statistics on the false premise that Mr Pughsley had instead said, as their opening story claimed, that 70% do make it to Britain (even though Mr Pughsley never said that).

On that basis then, since there are estimated to be 5,000 migrants now ‘amassed’ in Calais, according to The Mail statistics department it must mean that around 3,500 (i.e. 70% of 5,000) were making it to Britain.  Oh and that of course must surely mean that 900 of these ‘illegal’ migrants are arriving from Calais to Britain every month.

It’s nonsense of course, but this is the world as The Mail sees it; or rather as they want their readers to see it, because this misinformation (rather than the truth) reinforces their readers prejudices against asylum seekers.  And that, of course, is how the Mail sells their newspapers to their ‘market’.

Having reported the mistruth as an established fact, with the unwitting source being the Chief Constable of Kent (without his knowledge or consent), the Mail could then refer to this as a ‘fact’ in future stories and editorials.  So, last Friday, in their leading editorial comment, the Daily Mail felt confident to repeat their ‘fact’ and pontificate:

‘As we learned this week, 70 per cent of those who reach Calais eventually make it to England.’

Voila, the Mail’s mistruth was now an established truth: 70% of Calais migrants were making it to Britain.  The Mail could now unashamedly quote this as a fact, without even bothering to refer to their maligned original source (after all, why would the Mail want to alert the Chief Constable of Kent that what he had told a prominent Parliamentary Committee was being grievously misquoted by the newspaper?)

Since this was now being repeatedly circulated by The Mail as the truth, other media and politicians could quote from it, reinforcing that yes, the Mail must be right, others are saying it too. If anyone asked the Mail where this so-called ‘fact’ came from, the Mail could vaguely answer oh, it was the Chief Constable of Kent who said this, and he must surely know!

The same technique was employed in the ‘Mail on Sunday’ story claiming that ‘hundreds’ of migrants illegally arriving from Calais were being put-up in hotels at tax payers’ expense. That’s at least what the story reported on the front page and first paragraphs.

Lower down the story on the inside pages, however, the Mail added, as an aside to the main thrust of their article, that only 100 were being accommodated in hotels by Serco, the private firm contracted by the government. Did the Mail hope that readers wouldn’t spot the difference between ‘hundreds’ and ‘one hundred’?

And only lower down the story did The Mail stop referring to ‘illegal’ migrants and instead correctly describe them as ‘asylum seekers’.

So when I complained to the Managing Editor of the Mail on Sunday, Mr John Wellington, that the Mail’s story had incorrectly reported that ‘hundreds’ of asylum seekers were being temporarily accommodated in hotels, whereas in fact there were just one hundred, he was able to respond to me, “The figure was clearly presented as an estimate and explained lower down in the story when we said that Serco admitted 100 recent arrivals were staying in hotels.”

It seems that at the Mail’s highest management not an eyebrow is raised nor a forehead furrowed when it’s pointed out that so-called ‘facts’ presented in the opening headlines and paragraphs of an article don’t match what’s presented “lower down in the story”.

Those who have studied the Daily Mail method of  journalism might agree with me that this is a well known technique.

In my view, these two Daily Mail stories misreported the truth to enable a sensational front page headline and opening paragraphs, which were then ‘balanced’ by more accurate information albeit subtly hidden ‘lower down’ the story.  That way the Mail, if challenged (as indeed I have challenged them) can respond that that their story, after all, was accurate, because look, there it is ‘lower down’ in the story.  (Even though the front page headline and opening sentences didn’t match what was presented ‘lower down’).

This is surely too clever by far to be considered a mistake? Could this be a purposeful technique employed by the Mail to enable them to fashion their headlines and stories to match a view of the world which they know will appeal and therefore sell to their market (readership)?

I wonder how many Mail readers actually spotted that the headlines and opening paragraphs in these two stories bore little resemblance to the more accurate but less noticeable reporting that inconspicuously took place ‘lower down’?  In fact, how many readers just glanced at the front page headlines and never actually read the rest of the story on page 5 or 10 or wherever?

Some might consider that presenting seemingly incorrect or misleading information in the headline of a story and then subtly balancing it with more accurate information ‘lower down’ to be the work of geniuses, worthy of a post-graduate thesis on effective propaganda techniques.

But I consider this to be the lowest form of journalism, that does not serve the interests of this country or its citizens well, or that of refugees who are fleeing horrible wars and terror.

Click here to view the embedded video.

• Click arrow to hear 11 minute interview with Jon Danzig about the Calais migrants

 

Related stories by Jon Danzig:

• Daily Express business model: selling prejudice and bigotry?
• Mail outrage: Asylum seekers are given food and board
• Daily Mail and Calais: Making it up as they go along?
• Calais: Questions the Mail must answer
• Calais: Mail inaccuracies not significant, says Editor

To receive regular updates on this and other ongoing stories, please click the ‘Like’ button on my new Facebook page: Jon Danzig Writes

• New Facebook page:  Jon Danzig Writes. On Facebook, click the ‘Like’ button to get updates

Please retweet:

#DailyMail coverage of #Calais #refugees crisis is a disgrace. Read and share my latest blog: http://t.co/mnXOT3rCNd pic.twitter.com/EcoGOch8Ps

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) August 10, 2015

I report #DailyMail’s #Calais misquote to @kent_police and @UKParliament Read latest update http://t.co/j93Lrrrx1R pic.twitter.com/7GhCdFZ5TR

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) August 10, 2015

8 Steps Towards #Genocide – and how the #DailyMail portrays #immigrants and #refugees See: http://t.co/ohg4Z83TTh pic.twitter.com/r8VuI6Ibrm

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) August 16, 2015

There are 8 steps to #Genocide says @genocide_watch. Is the #DailyMail stepping closer? Read http://t.co/oO2t3hoaL0 pic.twitter.com/otvydSUucH

— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) August 17, 2015

The post How The Mail degrades journalism and refugees appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

 While we celebrate today the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, we take stock of the progress achieved towards ending all forms of discrimination and in ensuring that indigenous peoples' rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. 

In September of last year, the EU contributed to the success of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples and promoted equal participation of indigenous peoples in preparation of this meeting. We supported the Outcome Document of the conference which serves as a blueprint for actions at international and national level, bringing positive changes to the lives of indigenous peoples. 

As follow up to the World Conference, the EU is further developing its policy in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in close consultation with their representatives. 

Despite the many positive examples of progress achieved around the world, indigenous peoples, particularly women and girls, continue to experience multiple forms of discrimination, vulnerability and marginalisation in their lives. We are therefore committed to their empowerment. 

By reaffirming its support to the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the EU restates its determination to work closely with indigenous peoples, along with other partners and stakeholders in its endeavour to promote the recognition that human rights are equally guaranteed to all men and women. 

In a press release of 1st July 2015, the German electrolyser plant construction company ETOGAS, reported how it delivered an electrolyser system to a site used by the Austrian energy company RAG Rohöl Aufsuchungs Aktiengeselleschaft in the town of Unterpilsbach in Austria. According to the press release, the equipment consisted of a 40 foot electrolysis container and a 20 foot transformer/ rectifier container.

The statement went on to say: “It will supply hydrogen for the flagship project ‘Underground Sun Storage’, which is managed by RAG. This project is the first to explore the option of storing wind and solar energy in a former natural gas reservoir.”

Electrolyser manufacturers such as ETOGAS and ITM Power, are showing energy companies how solar and wind power generation can become more efficient with the help of energy storage. The key to this process is the electrolyser, which uses the electricity generated from renewable energy sources of solar and wind power to produce hydrogen gas. The gas can either be injected directly into the gas supply network – as is happening at the Thüga Group’s power-to-gas plant at Frankfurt-am-Main, which uses ITM Power’s PEM electrolyser to produce hydrogen – or in the case with RAG’s Underground Sun Storage project, the gas can be stored in an underground storage facility until it is needed at times of peak demand.

These recent developments show how gas from sustainable sources may one day supersede the supply of natural gas and oil from fossil sources. The old argument that wind turbines and solar panels are unreliable as they only produce electricity when it is windy or when the sun is shining has become outdated, because with the conversion and storage of electrical energy as gas, the gas can be turned back into electricity at other times such as on a still day or at night or when there is greater consumer demand. In doing so it will help to cut greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

Sources

http://www.etogas.com/news/aktuelles-news/

http://www.underground-sun-storage.at

©Jolyon Gumbrell 2015

The post Austrian energy company will store gas from renewable energy underground appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

General : In Brussels this summer and curious about the EU? Why not pay a visit to the European Parliament's visitors centre in Brussels and get a unique insight into the work of MEPs and how it touches your daily life? Rated one of the top things to do in Brussels by travel website Tripadvisor, the award-winning centre has already welcomed more than one million visitors since opening its doors in October 2011.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : In Brussels this summer and curious about the EU? Why not pay a visit to the European Parliament's visitors centre in Brussels and get a unique insight into the work of MEPs and how it touches your daily life? Rated one of the top things to do in Brussels by travel website Tripadvisor, the award-winning centre has already welcomed more than one million visitors since opening its doors in October 2011.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

On 4 August 2015, the Council approved a regulation amending the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) in order to protect non-euro area member states from any risk arising from financial assistance given to a euro area country. 

This principle was endorsed on 17 July 2015 by a joint statement of the Commission and the Council. It was agreed along with a decision to grant €7.16bn in short term financial assistance to Greece under the EFSM. 

Specifically, the regulation ensures that financial assistance from the EFSM to a euro area member state will only be granted if legally binding provisions are in place guaranteeing that non-euro area member states are immediately and fully compensated for any liability they may incur as a result of a failure by the beneficiary to repay the financial assistance in accordance with its terms. 

The regulation was adopted by written procedure. 

EFSM 

The EFSM provides financial assistance to EU member states in financial difficulties. It relies on funds raised by the Commission on the financial markets under an implicit EU budget guarantee.