European Union

http://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/uploads/council-images/thumbs/uploads/council-images/remote/http_7e18a1c646f5450b9d6d-a75424f262e53e74f9539145894f4378.r8.cf3.rackcdn.com/3_7_2014-101767-athens-greece-16-9-preview_5.81_thumb_169_1439393039_1439393039_129_97shar_c1.jpg

EU Ministers of Finance of the Eurozone meet in Brussels on 14 August 2015 to discuss a financial deal with Greece.

Download this video here.

On paper, gender equality is high on the current EU agenda. In his 10 ‘Commandments’, President Juncker has committed to a more gender-balanced Commission; the European Parliament has maintained continued pressure on other institutions to present and adopt regulatory measures; and, just last week, Commissioner Jourova pledged to present a comprehensive legislative package on gender equality in 2016.

Source: Greens/European Free Alliance Group

This focus on gender equality shouldn’t come as a surprise; women can be the edge Europe needs to stay ahead in a competitive global setting.

There is a clear business case for more gender equality in the EU, with numerous studies showing the economic benefits for businesses in fostering diversity in senior positions – investors also care more and more about companies’ corporate and social responsibility performance. In addition, to keep its position as a global agenda-setter, the EU can only benefit from adapting to social changes and acknowledging the powerful voice of a growing number of female thought leaders. After all, we’re in the age of Malala, Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, Taylor Swift and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg.

However, recently the EU seems to have a limited impact when it comes to pushing gender equality forward, and progress has been stalling in the last ten years:

• Gender-related law passed in the last two Council Presidencies is almost non-existent, and some measures such as the Maternity Leave Directive have been withdrawn, while ongoing files like the Women on Boards Directive are stalled, and adopted measures such as recommendations on gender mainstreaming face implementation issues.
• Statistics paint a bleak picture: persisting pay (16.4%) and pension (39%) gaps[1], continued gender imbalance in decision-making (see graph below), and prevalence of gender-based violence.
• Progress amongst Member States is uneven, and at the current pace equal pay will have to wait 70 years (that’s something to make former Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding furious!)

Source: European Institute for Gender Equality

Will Commissioner Jourova’s upcoming legislative package bring some new energy to the gender equality project? Despite the EU’s ability to set political agendas, legislating gender equality faces many obstacles within the institutions, while cultural and subsidiarity issues can delay progress in Member States. Overall, it seems that what’s needed for concrete progress is a comprehensive push where the EU, Member States and the industry alike focus on what they do best, be it agenda-setting or legislating, to strive for a more equal Europe.

Institutional hurdles at EU-level       

Within the EU institutions, it seems that gender as a policy issue is not currently being prioritised. While gender equality is a third of Commissioner Jourova’s mandate, only 8 policy officers in one dedicated Unit are currently focusing on gender equality in the Commission. In the European Parliament, the formal impact of the gender equality Committee seems equally limited – despite continuous work to pressure other institutions to adopt legislative measures, most recent projects have been dedicated to progress reports or non-binding resolutions. Finally, there’s no Council formation dedicated to gender equality.

As for the role of dynamics between institutions, they often stall the legislation that manages to make its way through to negotiations. The Maternity Leave Directive proposal, which seeked to extend the minimum leave period from 14 to 18 weeks, was recently withdrawn by the Commission due to being blocked in the Council and despite the efforts of the Parliament – the same situation that stalls the Women on Boards proposal aiming to improve gender balance in corporate governance; showing the difficulties of transitioning such proposals from a more ambitious Parliament to a more conservative Council.

Source: AFP/Getty Images
MEP Licia Ronzulli votes for the extension of paid maternity leave

Member States’ role: How important is the subsidiarity issue?

Several Member State-level issues keep gender equality from progressing faster. Gender at a national level is increasingly bundled with other discrimination issues in administration and is often justified solely through economic goals such as labour efficiency, rather than claimed as an objective in itself. Public servants working on gender mainstreaming within other policy issues are often too strained working across multiple files to make a difference, while the EU-recommended gender impact assessments are almost non-existent – the soft nature of most recent EU law on gender issues makes for weak regulatory pressure on Member States.

On a more political level, some Member States have shown not to appreciate being told how to manage gender relations – due partly to the politically sensitive nature of the subsidiarity debate. Indeed, although most Member States proactively recognise the importance of gender equality, the issue is so embedded in national culture that trying to introduce EU law on the topic can lead them to adopt a defensive position – partly explaining Germany’s stalling of the Women on Boards Directive in Council, despite recently passing legislation at national level to improve gender quotas on company boards. This is coupled with a resurgence of ultra-conservative parties associated with traditional gender roles preferences in several Member States – while Sweden maintains the only self-proclaimed feminist government and diplomacy in the EU.

The future of gender equality: Much more than economic performance

Commissioner Jourova’s forthcoming proposals could bring a comprehensive policy package to the table – but they’re unlikely to succeed in bringing genuine gender equality to the EU without a much stronger and committed support from the EU, Member States and the industry.

In addition, depending on the content of the policy package, and in reaction to Commissioner Jourova’s statement that it will mostly focus on ‘economic prosperity, not social change’[2], perhaps it is necessary to acknowledge that long lasting change will only be achieved when gender equality is decoupled from economic performance and progresses at all levels of societal activity: while women are a formidable workforce that is currently underutilised, gender equality goes far beyond labour efficiency, which is just a tree in the forest of women’s rights.

Lucie Martin

[1] Statistics sourced from the Report of the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality adopted on 13 May 15, on the EU Strategy for equality between women and men post 2015.

[2] Heath, R. ‘Maternity leave’s pregnant pause’ in Politico, 4th August 2015 (online edition) – article available here : http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-bailout-women-jourova-employment-equality/

Today, in a post Kyoto Protocol period, the world faces the same challenge as back in 1997 – We are again facing the need to reach an international agreement to set the scene for effective action against climate change. There is however a considerable difference between today and 1997 – climate discussion has been elevated to a different level, where it has become a great concern of the majority of governments, corporations, NGOs and citizens.

Governments and climate change

Despite many disbelievers, governments have become more concerned. The emotional speech of the Philippines Delegate at the opening of COP-19 demonstrates the effects climate change could have on those most vulnerable countries. The fact that to date 25 countries[1], representing almost all continents have already submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to a new Climate Change Agreement is also a good step towards reaching an agreement. In November 2014, the US and China agreed to cap and reduce emissions, and to work together to forge an international climate agreement in 2015 – yet another major step forward. Last but not least, the EU agreed on a binding target of at least a 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. Clearly, governments are concerned.

What is the role of business?

Now, let’s turn to the businesses. Have they become more concerned about climate change? I do believe so. At the end of July 2015, the White House launched the American Business Act on Climate Change. Under this scheme, each participating company has announced new pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase low-carbon investments, deploy clean energy and take actions to build a more sustainable business. As part of the American Business Act, Alcoa pledged 50% less GHG emissions in the US by 2025 (in comparison to 2005 levels), while Coca-Cola has pledged to reduce carbon footprint by 25% by 2020. Other companies, such as Apple, Golden Sachs, Google and Microsoft have pledged to use 100% renewable energy.

Furthermore, the statistics about the investments in clean energy and low carbon development speak for themselves. Out of the $359 billion invested in 2012, 62% came from private investments ($224 billion) versus 38% ($135 billion) from public investments.

Having business on board is therefore key, both in terms of changing corporate behaviour as well as in terms of securing future investments in low carbon economy.

You, me… us, the citizens

Source: Yale

According to a Yale-led survey of 119 countries, a staggering 40% of the globe’s population has never heard of climate change, or its effects. This rises to more than 65% in some developing countries, like Egypt, Bangladesh, and India, according to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Interestingly, the research showed that in the U.S. views on climate change were strongly linked to their politics.

Especially in developed countries, the awareness of climate change is high. For instance, in September 2014, an estimated 400,000 people marched through midtown Manhattan as part of the People’s Climate March. With more than a million of activists around the globe, the role of civil society pressuring governments, pushing for new laws, policies or strategies on climate change is increasing. “Many of even the world’s poorest countries now have active civil society coalitions that work on climate change, and they are increasingly influential,” according to Dr Hannah Reid of IIED, an editor of a report Southern voices on climate policy choices:  civil society advocacy on climate change. Civil society is becoming better organised, cooperates more with governments and is better trained in communicating with the media.

New voices…

Air pollution in Paris, Photo: Reuters

With 4,416 cities in the world with a population of over 150,000, cities are becoming an important voice in the climate change discussion. There are several initiatives aimed at mayors which particularly tackle climate change: the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Mayors Adapt and many others. At the end of July 2015, dozens of environmentally friendly mayors met with Pope Francis in Vatican to commit to reducing global warming and helping the urban poor deal with its effects. It is perhaps one of the most important initiatives of Vatican, following the release of the landmark environment encyclical ahead of the climate negotiations in Paris.

 What next?

As Nobel Laureate Al Gore stated during his last Davos speech, in order to reach an agreement in Paris in 2015 there needs to be political will across the globe, and this political will is a “renewable resource”. There is therefore an obvious need for this political will to be “backed” by the support from the industry, civil society and ordinary citizens.

With the Paris COP21 climate change negotiations in December 2015 approaching, we will see more voices present in the discussion. Whether we will be able to reach an agreement or not, climate change has become a concern for many. The feeling of concern for the future, as well as a more positive feeling of the fact that we are building a cleaner world, will be a major stimulus behind the negotiations.

12 August 2015

Ewa Abramiuk Lété is a public affairs and communications specialist who supports clients in the energy, transport and utilities sector. All above stated opinions are hers.

[1] status 11 August

General : The European Youth Event (EYE) will return next year and you could be a part of it! #EYE2016 organisers are looking for enthusiastic young people and organisations that want to help shape the event's programme. Check out the Facebook page for the latest news, including all the information about the previous edition in 2014 and its follow-up phase.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

General : The European Youth Event (EYE) will return next year and you could be a part of it! #EYE2016 organisers are looking for enthusiastic young people and organisations that want to help shape the event's programme. Check out the Facebook page for the latest news, including all the information about the previous edition in 2014 and its follow-up phase.

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

The car is important for our personal mobility; it gives you freedom and independence. In rural areas and small towns a car is necessary to be able to get around, whereas people living in cities often do not own a car as their mobility is orientated towards walking, biking or public transport within the urban environment. The following blog post explores how our choice of place to live influences our personal mobility, especially the difference between car owners and users of public transport, and our orientation towards the urban or rural.  Many of the observations are based on my personal experience as a non-car owner, which are linked to my research interests in mobility and politics of sustainable mobility.

Currently, new students across Europe are moving away from home and looking for accommodation near their universities. Roskilde University (RUC) is located 24 min by train from Copenhagen central station, although there are halls of residence available next to RUC most students prefer to live in Copenhagen because the capital offers lots of opportunities e.g. cafes, bars and shops. Some students even think the train journey from Copenhagen to RUC is too long or too expensive instead their personal mobility is orientated towards their local neighbourhood instead of their place of education.  (Please note most RUC students do come to university, my comments refer to a small minority). After graduation, some RUC students move to Roskilde[i] to live with their families because the town gives them a better quality of life compared to central Copenhagen. Throughout our lives we have different life style preferences, different use of infrastructure changes together with these stages and the choices we make about which life style we want.

Living in Roskilde; I have always seen myself as having a broad mobility horizon, yet not owning a car does limit my mobility.  I often take the train to Copenhagen to use cultural opportunities available in the capital and to visit friends. Crucially the public infrastructure mainly feed traffic between the capital and surrounding towns instead of connecting urban and rural areas. Consequently, I have neglected exploring the rural area west of Roskilde[ii], partly because it is not well connected by public transport – typical 1 bus per hour or 1 bus every 2 hour. Interestingly, when I was living in Leeds (the UK) I would often take the bus to Ilkley and go hiking in the Ilkley moors[iii], something I have missed whilst living in Roskilde for the past 3 years.  Thus I have certain mobility biases, which are shaped by my interests, social network and lack of car-ownership!

This spring a friend invited me to a fruit wine festival in Falster, which is a 2 hour drive from Roskilde. The farm can only be reached by car. In Australia, the USA or Germany people travel for several hours to watch a football match or visit friends/family. The size of Denmark makes it possible to reach most corners within a 5 hour drive, but in most countries non-car owners are restricted by availability of public transport, which mainly connects the territorial core and urban areas because it is not economic sustainable to run public transport is rural areas. Hence, due to my non-car ownership I had missed out tasting some amazing apple ciders!

It can be challenging to visit a friend if you do not have a car, unless the friend lives in an urban area with good access to public transport. It takes 24 min by car from Roskilde to visit a friend, who lives 26 km away in a small town in the rural area of Zealand (the same distance to Copenhagen city centre) yet by public transport it takes either 45 min or 1h 14 min depending on which route you take, just as there is only one connection an hour and only during the day.  It can take just as long to reach friends living in suburbs near Copenhagen, yet there are more connections, which makes it more accessible. Interestingly, the main climbing wall in Copenhagen is located on Refshaleøen, which is an island in central Copenhagen, yet there is limited public transport after 6pm. By comparison the climbing club in Hvalsø, south west of Roskilde, is accessible by hourly train from Roskilde. Thus, urban areas have pockets which are inaccessible by public transport.

The above three examples tie into the ongoing Danish political debate about rural versus urban (udkantsdanmark), which essentially is about the economic core versus economic periphery. The debate has mainly focused on housing market and investment in transport infrastructure. Our choice of living is structured by our work place, income, social network, children’s day care facilities and accessible infrastructure. Yet we have agency to choose where we live, our preference for a rural, village, town, suburban or city life style influence our choice of place to call home. Importantly, an urban/city dweller can still enjoy nature and a rural dweller still enjoys the cultural attractions of the city. Life is not static, as a student you have different preferences compared to a family, a single person or a pensioner, so it is natural to move between city, suburban and rural living. Indeed I know several people who have made the transition between city and rural lives successfully. Each type of life style and stage in your life require access to infrastructure, and our patterns of mobility will be affected by our choice of place to live. Here the question of car ownership and availability of public transport is important for us as individuals, yet our personal mobility is also influenced by political priorities in relation to investment in road infrastructure versus public transport.

(I would like to thank fellow kayaking enthusiast E.B. for inspiration and challenging my urban non-car ownership life style)

[i] http://www.visitroskilde.dk/roskilde-lejre/turist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskilde

[ii] Skjoldungelandet (Sagnlandet, Boserup skov og Bognæs), several local microbreweries

[iii] http://www.ilkleymoor.org/

The post Personal mobility – life without a car appeared first on Ideas on Europe.