How to Switch from Jobless Growth to Growthless Jobs? A Citizen’s Controversy Debate.

Europe is struggling. Since 2008 the European Union and its twenty-seven Member State governments have been under ever-increasing pressure to pull the continent out of its economic slump. Alongside this there have been endless remedies for how exactly this can be done. However, with continued threats of a renewed credit crunch, ever increasing calls from some Member States for financial bailouts, and worryingly high unemployment rates, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Unemployment in the EU, for example, has risen from 7.1 per cent in 2008 to 9.6 per cent in 2011 while youth unemployment (those aged up to twenty-five) has increased by 5.7 per cent since 2007 to a high of 21.4 per cent in 2011 and there remains no clear answer as to how to reverse this trend. It was this rise in unemployment which brought together speakers and guests from all over Europe for a Citizen’s Controversy debate: How to Switch from Jobless Growth to Growthless Jobs? The debate was moderated by Pierre Defraigne, the Executive Director of the Madariaga College of Europe Foundation where the debate was held, and the two speakers were Joep Konings, Professor of Economics at the University of Leuven, and Stefano Scarpetta, Head of Employment and Policy Division at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Jobs CC BY photologue_np

The Unemployment Problem

Many interesting and contrasting views were expressed during the debate which will be published in a report by Madariaga. In this blog I will outline a few of the issues which arose. Firstly, it was stressed that the problem is not simply that more people, especially young people, are unemployed. The percentage of those people without a job who are long-term unemployed – that is for twelve months or longer – is increasing rapidly. This creates further problems as the labour market continues to adapt and move forward and the long-term unemployed require ever-increasing levels of training to re-enter the job market. It is not simply about creating new jobs but also ensuring that those in need of work have the right skills.

Secondly, as many Member States artificially solve the crisis by offering incentives to businesses to increase their workforce, other problems arise. Underemployment, those who are employed but do not earn enough to cover their living expenses; skills mismatch, where people are overqualified for their job; and lack of training, where the jobs created do not match the skills set of those seeking employment, are all at risk of increasing in this situation. Encouraging businesses to spur employment is a useful short-term solution but must be combined with other policies in order to make real improvements.

A third key point was made that the relationship between economic growth and employment is not as clear-cut as many assume. While the European economies are gradually recovering, unemployment rates are not following suit. For example, OECD statistics show that employment levels in Germany remained level in 2009 although the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 4.7 per cent, while in 2010 the Netherlands experienced a 1.8 per cent growth in GDP and a 0.5 per cent drop in employment. There is a correlation between GDP and employment figures, but, as was stressed at the debate, economic growth is not enough to create employment growth.

Finally, the subject of inequality was raised. There was certainly not enough time in a ninety minute debate to fully examine the effect that increased unemployment has on income inequality across Europe, nevertheless some important issues arose. An OECD report produced in 2011 shows that income inequality is increasing in the majority of countries; within the EU the Nordic countries showed the greatest increase in income inequality. Unemployment, and many of the measures used to tackle it, often increases this income gap, especially as welfare and education spending is cut.

The Solution?

With such multifaceted, interconnecting issues, what can be done? The challenge is to combine a number of policies which together can spur and stabilise economic and employment growth. The first step is to protect those who are unemployed from falling into poverty by providing adequate social services and benefits coupled with supporting job seekers through training tailored to the job market. Alongside this there is a need to provide and encourage life-long learning. Education and on-the-job training need to be widely available and must adapt to market needs so as to encourage businesses to grow and reduce the risk of long-term unemployment in the future.

At a wider level what is needed is growth which focuses on quality rather than quantity and tax systems which complement this. What this means is that governments cannot blindly strive for continued economic growth if this is not secured by growth in other areas like education and healthcare. Tax systems then need to reflect this. This requires new forms of taxation which offer companies incentives to look to long-term, stable expansion as well as increasing their workforce and which encourages the redistribution of wealth throughout society.

There is no single solution to the unemployment problem in Europe. No magic wand governments can wave to get people back into jobs. The problem is not just a lack of jobs, and therefore cannot be solved by focusing on economic growth alone. The Citizen’s Controversy debate has not provided all the answers; that was not its intention. What it has done is open up the issue to a wider audience and provoked an important discussion which we hope will encourage the EU and its Member States to consider new ways of producing growthless jobs.

To be continued…

While the debate certainly brought some important new insights to light, it is important also to mention some key issues which were not addressed. Firstly, the discussions on growth and why we need to move away from purely economic growth included no reference to the environment. Certainly we cannot continue to push for economic growth at the expense of wider social issues, but we must also consider how this growth affects our environment. As Member States attempt to reform their economic policies to ensure a more stable future and prevent future recession, now is the time to include resource efficiency, climate change, and environmental sustainability in these reforms. By moving the focus away from short-term economic goals towards long-term sustainable growth, Member States could make real, positive steps towards achieving the 20-20-20 goals of reduced energy consumption, greater use of renewable energy, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

As has been mentioned, high unemployment is not simply the result of a lack of jobs, and several explanations for this were put forward. What was missed, however, was the problem of job distribution. Alongside increasing unemployment there are many people who are either working very long hours or are expected to do far more work than they are capable of. A better redistribution of this work would help those who are unemployed as well as those who are overworked.

Finally, any discussion of employment should include mention of exploitation. As people become increasingly desperate for work, some employers use this desperation to offer internships and work experience – especially to young people who are both less experienced and more likely to be unemployed – without paying them for their work. While many employees gain valuable experience from this type of work, others are simply used as a money saving tool by employers.

The inclusion of income inequality in this debate was welcomed; indeed the point was made that, considering what a huge issue inequality is, it is so often disregarded by governments in the EU. The reason for this is that there is simply not enough awareness of the enormous negative impact that an increasing income gap has on all areas of society. In their book The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett offer some hugely compelling arguments, backed up by extensive research, which show exactly how far-reaching the effects are.

What is not widely understood is that quality of life is not simply about how much money you and your loved ones may have. In a society with high levels of income inequality it is not simply those who are poorer who suffer; the quality of life for the whole society is reduced. The book, and the website which accompanies it, provides data showing the detrimental effects inequality has on mental and physical health, social relations, crime rates, violence, criminal justice, education, drug use and many other areas of society. Clearly all of these factors put a huge burden on public finances which Member States are urgently trying to keep under control. Allowing economies to grow without attempting to reduce income inequality will result in further social problems across all levels of society. By addressing the issue now, however, governments can reduce this burden on public finances and, more importantly, improve the lives of those on every rung of the social ladder.

The Occupation Has an Environmental Cost Too

Recently the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that Israeli companies are entitled to profit from the natural resources of the West Bank. This follows a petition by Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din that mining activities in the West Bank, worth $900 to Israeli companies, is illegal under Articles 43 and 55 of the Fourth Hague Convention which require an Occupying Power to administer occupied territories to ensure public order, safety and the rule of law and to do so accordance with the long-standing principle of usufruct.

The usufruct rule of international law says that “The Occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”[1]

Israel’s Supreme Court asserted that:

a. “the article requires the occupying power to ‘safeguard the capital’ of the occupied party’s natural resources” but “that Israel’s use of the quarries is limited and does not amount to destroying their ‘capital.’”[2]

b. “it is necessary to take account of the fact that the West Bank has been under a prolonged and continuing occupation, so the territory’s economic development cannot be put on ice until the occupation ends.”[3]

The Supreme Court has decided that the long-term nature of the occupation means that international law does not apply. Specifically in this case, the rules of usufruct as noted in the Fourth Hague Convention are considered obsolete. Not only is Israel ignoring international law but this ruling exposes how Israel already views the West Bank and its natural resources as its own to exploit. It is in situations such as this, where the nature of occupation is long-standing and therefore most open to abuse, that international law should be considered of the utmost importance.

This ruling is but one recent, glaring example of the impact of the occupation on the Palestinian environment. Over the past five decades, Israeli policies have had a huge impact on the Palestinian environment, depleting its natural resources and degrading the land, air and water. It’s a crisis which is often overlooked in the complex Middle East Peace Process despite its intimate connection to the problems in the region.

The environmental crisis both causes and perpetuates the humanitarian crisis in the West Bank inGazaby affecting the livelihoods and quality of life of the Palestinian people:

• The poor management, over-use and pollution of the coastal aquifer now mean that 90-95 per cent of water in Gaza is unfit for human consumption.[4] This environmental disaster has become a humanitarian emergency.
• Widespread attacks by Israeli settlers on ancient olive trees in theWest Bankare not only deforestation but also destroy the livelihoods of Palestinian farmers and families.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) says that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” International humanitarian law prohibits many of the Israeli actions (see tables below) which are harming the environment and Palestinian life which depends on it.

The environmental impact of the occupation should not be overlooked because of this intimate nexus, which means that not only are environmental and human problems linked but so are the solutions. For example, joint cooperative water or energy initiatives could build trust between the parties and enable effective and equitable resource management. Tackling settler violence will not only save olive trees but also defuse high tensions between Israeli and Palestinian communities in theWest Bank.

The tables below looks at five environmental issues in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; energy and water, fisheries, olive tree destruction, quarrying, and pollution and toxic waste. It outlines the problem, cites the relevant international law, and notes projects and actors who are working on these areas.

Energy and Water
Problems	International Law
Water and energy are interconnected problems as energy is required for water treatment and desalinization plants. The aquifers and water sources whichIsraelandPalestineshare are being depleted by over-use, pollution and poor management. The Joint Water Committee  (JWC) was set up after the Oslo Accords but there is much criticism that the JWC reflects existing Israeli-Palestinian asymmetries rather than encouraging cooperation. There is a lack of energy and water infrastructure, particularly in Gaza and Area C of the West Bank. Building permits for Palestinians are almost always turned down by the Israeli Civil Administration and structures built without permits are frequently demolished. Water and energy consumption is highly asymmetrical between Israelis and Palestinians. Gaza residents are restricted to an average of 91 litres of water per day compared to 280 litres used by Israelis.[5]	Article 25 of the UDHR says that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.” General Comment No. 15 (2002) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights declares  that a “human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses.” As the Occupying Power in the West Bank, Israelis responsible for the welfare of the civilian population under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, including maintaining health and hygiene standards, such as access to clean drinking water, sanitation and medical facilities (Article 56).
Actors and Projects
The European Commission proposed trilateral energy cooperation in 2007 but developments stalled after the Gaza War/Operation Cast Lead. Reports by Friends of the Earth Middle East (2010, p.14), The World Bank (2009, p.47-53) and the Strategic Foresight Group (2011, p.34-35) criticise the JWC and advocate new cross-border cooperation. Groups such as Ewash and Good Water Neighbours promote grassroots cooperation on water issues between Israeli and Palestinian neighbours. There is much scope for sustainable energy and water projects in the OPT as they provide reliable, sustainable resources. Recently EU Member States have funded solar plants in the West Bankbut these are under threat of demolition.

 

Fisheries
Problems	International Law
Overfishing in the shallow and pollutedGazashore waters has led to a sharp reduction of the fish population and harm to the habitat of young fish, endangering the future fish population. Under the Oslo Accords, Palestinian fishermen were allowed to fish up to 20 nautical miles out to sea. This limited has consistently been reduced and now the Israeli Navy prevent fishermen from going beyond 3 miles from the shore. The fishing sector in Gaza has suffered a sharp decline, affecting over 20,000 people dependent on the fishing industry. Prices for fish have risen dramatically; sardine prices increased 100% between 2008 and 2009.[6] There are documented cases[7] of Palestinian fisherman being fired at by the Israeli Navy, being forced to strip naked and swim to be detained, and the confiscation of boats and fishing equipment. Israelis not respecting the Oslo Accords to which they are a party and which gives Palestinian fishermen a 20 nautical mile fishing limit.	Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 50 of the Fourth Hague Convention ban collective punishment, which is effectively in operation with regards to the closure of Gaza. Article 5 of the UDHR protects against  degrading treatment, while article 9  says that no-one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. Article 46 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 protects private property, such as fishing vessels, from confiscation.
Actors and Projects
CPS Gaza (Civil Peace Service Gaza) is a coalition of NGOs that run an international observation boat called the Olivia which accompanies fishermen and monitors and documents human rights and legal violations.

 

Olive Tree Destruction
Problems	International Law
Burning trees destroys the top soil and the deforestation of olive trees contributes to soil degradation and harms the delicate ecological balance of the land which has been used for olive farming for centuries. In 2011, 10,000 Palestinian olive trees were destroyed by Israeli settlers. Centuries-old trees are chopped and burnt, or Palestinians prevented from reaching the trees during harvest causing the crop to spoil. Produce from olives make up 25% of the Palestinian agricultural economy and the destruction of olive trees significantly harms the sector. Settlers act with impunity in destroying olive trees. Whilst criminal complaints are filed, settlers are almost never charged.	According to the World Bank, the uprooting of olive trees violates the trade policies of the Paris Protocols of 1954 which calls for “free access for Palestinian goods to the Israeli market and vice versa.” Article 23 of the Fourth Hague Convention and Article 53 of the Geneva Convention says that it is illegal to seize or destroy property, as is the case with the destruction of the olive trees. Olive tree destruction violates Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which states that “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
Actors and Projects
Keep Hope Alive! is a project which has replanted 70,000 olive trees inPalestine. and it raises awareness of the issue through sponsorship of olive trees. Israeli human rights organisation Yesh Din documents olive tree destruction and files criminal complaints.

 

Quarrying
Problems	International Law
Israeli companies mine stone from quarries in theWest Bank. The stone is used for building and three quarters of it is taken toIsrael. The potential value of production fromWest Bankquarrying by Israeli companies is $900m. Profits from Palestinian natural resources are being used to finance their own occupation through taxes paid to the Israeli Government by mining companies. The “dynamic” 2011 ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court regarding mining companies in theWest Banksays that the “usufruct” principle of international law does not apply due to the long-standing nature of the occupation. Not only does this set a disturbing precedent thatIsraelis entitled to profit from any West Bank resources, but it also exposes the de facto annexation of theWest Bankand shows how Israeli corporations are benefiting from the occupation.	Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention also notes the Occupying Party’s obligation “to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety”, including the maintenance of normal life in the occupied territory for the benefit of the local population, which requires that the economic activities of the occupied territory be developed on the basis of the will of the local population and for their benefit.[8] Article 55 of the Fourth Hague Convention or the ‘usufruct rule’ says that an Occupying Power acts as administrator and safeguard of the real estate and natural resources in an occupied land. The occupier is prohibited from taking action which will make permanent changes to the occupied territory or from actions which are to the detriment of the local population.
Actors and Projects
Human rights organisation Yesh Din is appealing against the Supreme Court’s decision.

 

Pollution and Toxic Waste
Problems	International Law
Israel exports waste to landfills in the West Bank, while the Palestinian territories are unable to deal with their own waste due to a lack of proper infrastructure. Soil and water is contaminated by weapons such as white phosphorus and depleted uranium which were used during the Gaza War and continue to pollute the environment and affect the health of the population.[9]	Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says that civilians should not be targeted in war. Article 55 of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention 1977 protects the natural environment against “widespread, long-term and severe damage, ”including through toxic weaponry. Article 55 of the IV Hague Convention says that an Occupying Power must safeguard the real estate and natural resources in an occupied land.
Actors and Projects
Human Rights organisation Al-Dameer published a position paper in 2009 looking at the health and environmental risks in the Gaza strip, based on the number of birth defects, abortion and cancer rates following the Gaza War. The New Weapons Research Group (NWRG) have carried out several studies which indicate that toxic and carcinogenic mutations able to produce genetic mutations have been found in the tissues of people wounded in Gaza after the Gaza War.[10] The Goldstone Commission reported that toxic weapons may have been used in Gaza, butIsrael has not been held to account by the international community for war crimes committed in the Gaza War.

It is clear that the Israeli occupation has had a significant environmental cost to the Palestinian land. Amongst both international institutions and NGOs there is a tendency to overlook the environmental problems or see them as separate to the humanitarian crisis in the OPT and the Middle East Peace Process. But by tackling environmental issues inPalestine, improvements can be made in the human situation and vice versa.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the rules of usufruct no longer apply sets a dangerous precedent. Not only does it indicate thatIsraelalready views theWest Bankas de facto its own territory, but it also allows Israeli companies and the Israeli Government to continue to exploit and destroy the Palestinian environment that international law asserts it must hold in trust.

As part of the Quartet, the EU must speak out against the environmental cost of the occupation and it must take action to ensure thatIsrael complies with international law to protect both people and planet.

Recommendations to the EU:

• High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton should issue a statement condemning the decision of the Supreme Court and demanding thatIsraelrespects international law. This issue should be taken up with the Israeli Government at the highest levels.
• Ban the import of any stone quarried in theWest Bankby Israeli mining companies.
• Fund projects for sustainable energy production and water management infrastructure, especially inGazaand Area C of theWest Bank.
• Encourage the establishment of a new joint water management board, with equal representation and control for Israelis and Palestinians, to replace the JWC.
• High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton and the European Parliament should speak out against the Israeli policy of preventing fishing beyond 3 nautical miles off the coast ofGaza.
• The EU must demand that the destruction of olive trees and all other forms of settler violence should stop and that the settlers involved in such acts are brought to justice byIsrael.
• The EU should invest in Palestinian olive oil production and encourage olive-tree replanting schemes.
• The EU, in partnership with the international community, should holdIsraelaccountable for the use of toxic weapons inGaza.

---

[1] Article 55 of the IV Hague Convention 1907 and Article 55, Fourth Geneva Convention 1949

[2] Haaretz (28.12.2011) High Court says Israel can take advantage of West Bank resources. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/high-court-says-israel-can-take-advantage-of-west-bank-resources-1.403978 [21.02.12]

[3] ibid.

[4] United Nations Enivronment Programme (September 2009) ‘Enivronmental Assessment of theGaza Strip’

[5] Ewash/Thirsting for Justice (2011) Palestinian Rights to Water and Sanitation: An Activist’s Guide’

[6] B’Tselem (2012) ‘Restrictions on Fishing’ http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/restrictions_on_fishing [21.02.12]

[7] See B’Tselem website http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/restrictions_on_fishing and Palestinian Centre for Human Rights’ website http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/

[8] http://www.ejiltalk.org/exploiting-a-dynamic-interpretation-the-israeli-high-court-of-justice-accepts-the-legality-of-israels-quarrying-activities-in-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/

[9] Al Dameer (December 2009) Position Paper on Environmental and Health Risks in theGazaStrip http://englishweb.aldameer.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/position-paper.pdf [

[10] New Weapons Committee (2010) Press Release: ‘New weapons experimented in Gaza: Population risks genetic mutations’ http://newweapons.org/?q=node/113 [21.2.1]

Social Protection in EU Development Cooperation

In December 2011, the European Commission launched a public consultation under the title: Consultation for the preparation of a Commission Communication on Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation. The consultation period is just about to expire and QCEA made a submission to the consultation.

The consultation is based on an ‘Issues Paper’, some 19 pages of considerations which might go to developing such a Communication and some 21 Questions which contributors are asked to address.

It is encouraging to see that the Issues Paper says:

‘A key premise of this approach is that social protection supports inclusive growth by enabling people to participate in the economy (p.1).’ This rightly reflects the importance of social protection (that is: welfare benefits, pensions, access to health and social services for those who need them) for inclusive and just societies: indeed, it is one of the key requirements for social and economic justice.

It might be a little ironic that this discussion is ongoing at a time when the very social protection programmes which have characterized the European Social Model since the end of the second World War are coming under increasing pressure in the face of the global financial crisis.

The paper goes on, in the same paragraph to say: ‘that (social protection) enables people to consume, to acquire assets and to make investments’; in other words, social protection contributes to the economic functioning of society. We would not agree that consumption, the acquisition of assets and making investments is the be-all and end-all of a well functioning economy – not at all – but what is meant by this is essentially: it enables participation in the economy by people who would otherwise be excluded from this. It is this ability to participate that goes some way towards economic justice.

It is also important that the European Commission is engaging in this discussion at this point because as social protection comes under pressure in developed countries, there is evidence, again referred to in the Issues Paper (p. 7) that development, growth and increasing wealth in what are referred to as ‘middle income countries’ go hand in hand with ‘persistently high levels of inequality’ and that ‘there are up to a billion poor people, or a ‘new bottom billion’, living not in the world’s poorest countries but in MICs (Middle Income Countries)’ (quoting here from Glassman and Sumner: Global Health and the New Bottom Billion).

Why did QCEA feel it right to make a contribution to this consultation? We were greatly helped by a Quaker from theNetherlands who alerted us to the consultation and assisted in producing an initial draft of the response. We felt that this was an important topic for us to contribute to because:

• It builds on the work we did in recent years on the Mainstreaming of Conflict Prevention in Development Assistance and in particular the report we published in 2009 under the same title and our concerns raised in that report about the potential for budget support (a form of support relevant to social protection programmes) to exacerbate conflict
• It is an issue which requires the EU to address the question of the extent to which its other policies (trade, agriculture, fisheries, energy, etc) potentially or actually undermine the viability of economies in third countries and therefore the contribution to poverty that EU policies make
• It provides us with the opportunity to raise in the context of this consultation the important work done by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in their groundbreaking research published under the title of The Spirit Level. This shows now inequality in societies also leads to a whole range of other negative social outcomes and how the more equal a society is the better it works for all.

And whilst the consultation questions were not all framed in a way that immediately allowed us to focus on these three very important issues, we have used our response to raise them where this was possible within the constraints of the questionnaire.

QCEA believes that social protection is an important aspect of economic justice; this is true in the EU and elsewhere. And even if social protection here is under increasing pressure, it is right and important that the EU considers its possible contribution to social protection in developing countries because economic justice is indivisible. If there is economic injustice anywhere, there is economic injustice everywhere and we are all implicated.

Can We Trust Our Neighbours? Mutual Trust in the European Judicial Area

The European Union relies on the idea of mutual trust between Member States. In areas where national laws and practices differ widely across the EU, this mutual trust becomes harder to foster. This was the issue at the heart of a Green Paper released by the European Commission in June 2011: Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention. The main judicial instruments affected by a lack of mutual recognition are the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which requires the surrender of people wanted for trial in another Member State, and the European Supervision Order (ESO), which is a discretionary order due to be implemented in December 2012 and will enable people facing trial to serve a supervision order in their country of residence regardless of where the suspected crime was committed. Both of these measures require a high degree of trust between Member States in order to function properly.

Seventy-nine responses were submitted by Member State governments, prison administrations, and a wide range of NGOs and Civil Society groups interested in criminal justice, including QCEA. It is disappointing to note that only seventeen of the twenty-seven Member State governments responded to the Green Paper. They answered questions on pre- and post-trial alternatives to custodial sentences; how Member States differ in relation to detention conditions and practices and how these could be better monitored; how mutual trust could be strengthened between Member States; and what role the EU could play in this area. There was also a specific question on the detention of children. The questions produced a range of varied and valuable responses. However, three key issues stand-out as most important for an assessment of mutual trust in criminal justice.

The first issue – and one which invited a range of reactions – was whether there would be benefit in setting minimum detention standards and maximum time limits on pre-trial detention. With detention conditions and pre-trial practices varying so much across the EU, on the surface of it there would certainly appear to be merit in EU-wide regulation. Indeed, when asked whether Member States would benefit from binding maximum pre-trial detention periods it was described by two respondents – an NGO working on drug addiction and a law society – as ‘a matter of the utmost importance’ and ‘necessary and even urgent’. The Belgian Ministry of Justice illuminates this problem: they write that the number of people held in pre-trial detention in 2010 was at thirty-three per cent of the total number imprisoned.

The solution, however, is not so straightforward. Many Member State governments argued that this was outside of the EU remit. The Polish Ministry of Justice, for example, write that such measures would ‘require an extensive unification’ of criminal proceedings in Member States ‘which does not seem feasible at the moment in the context of the powers of the European Union’. Similarly, with international regulations and guidelines in this area already in existence in the Council of Europe and the United Nations, it is not simply a case of creating new regulation at EU level. What is needed is for Member States to be encouraged and assisted in implementing these regulations nationally. Similarly, some countries, such as Finland, have no maximum time limit on pre-trial detention and yet it boasts among the shortest average time spent in custody pre-trial at 3.5 months. There is also a fear that EU-wide maximum time limits may create a situation where the maximum time becomes the norm, with little incentive to reduce this.

The issue of alternatives to detention, both pre- and post-trial, also attracted very varied responses. Member State governments were keen to list the variety of alternatives in place in their countries and how effective they are. It was also highlighted that pre-trial detention cost Europe €5.2 billion in 2006 while alternatives cost far less. Electronic Monitoring, or tagging, was frequently cited as an alternative in many Member States. France, for example, currently has 8,140 convicted persons who were electronically tagged out of 71,742 in total. Successful electronic monitoring systems, combined with other programmes such as drug rehabilitation or community service, offer a cheaper and more rehabilitative option to a prison sentence.

However, many of the other responses were less enthusiastic about the current use of alternatives across the EU. First, there are problems with implementation which limit their success. The initial costs of applying electronic monitoring can prove too high for many Member States and often the technology involved is not adequate. For instance in Belgium the system is in place but the tags can only signal that a person is out of range of their transmitter and not where they have been. There are also serious questions about the very damaging effects of electronic tagging as an alternative to detention. Ban Public, an association facilitating communication on incarceration, writes that wearing an electronic bracelet for more than a year can lead to clinical depression for the wearer. Similarly, Caritas France, states that this distress can become so bad that the sufferers ask to be returned to prison. As with conditions and time limits, what is needed with alternatives to detention is not more legislation but more research into the proper use of existing legislation.

Finally to what can be done at EU level. The government responses were divided on the issue of whether it was necessary or even appropriate to have further EU control over Member States’ judicial legislation. By focusing on the possibility of more legislation at European level, the Green Paper is missing more basic issues, and this was highlighted by many of the non-governmental responses. The Council of Europe already has guidelines in place, not only with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also through the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) which carries out visits to prisons across Europe, helping protect citizens and monitor prison conditions. The UN has a similar optional protocol called Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). States which ratify the OPCAT are required to implement National Preventive Mechanisms within thirteen months of ratification which are designed to monitor conditions in all places of detention. Four EU Member States have still not signed the OPCAT, while seven more have signed but not yet ratified it.

The focus therefore needs to shift from creating new guidelines towards ensuring those already existing are complied with, and three suggestions from the responses stand out here. The first is that, instead of creating new laws, the EU could support Member States financially and practically in their judicial procedures to help them instigate effective alternatives to imprisonment, speed up trial processes to reduce pre-trial detention periods and improve prison conditions. One response also suggests that EU institutions could ‘engage in mass campaigns to disseminate data on the effectiveness of alternative measures’ to increase public support for alternatives which often receive negative press. Change also needs to occur from the bottom up. Legislation is only as effective as those who implement it. This means judges, prison administrators, and all those involved in the judiciary are helped with training, exchange of best practice, and given the tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Finally, the scope for change must widen if real improvements in mutual trust are to be made. As the Irish Ministry of Justice highlights, ‘prison detention conditions cannot be dealt with in isolation from other challenges facing the country’.  Mutual trust cannot be strengthened simply through EU legislation; real change has to be made at all levels, and it is hoped that the European Commission will consider this when shaping the future of EU criminal justice.

Water Policy within resource efficiency: To be or not to be like the Danes?

The Danish Presidency of the European Union has begun. With it, it brings fresh ideas and approaches to push forward a green growth economy for Europe. Denmark itself already has a head start on the majority of EU countries, as it has been working towards a green energy sector since the oil crisis of 1979 and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster in 1988. This commitment has stood it in good stead as climate change has become an increasingly important issue.

Denmark is as different a European country as is possible from Poland, who has just completed its six month rotation. Poland’s reliance on coal fired power plants, its increasing exploration for shale gas, and its opposition to stronger emission cuts was to the detriment of Europe’s environmental interests and it is hoped that Denmark can set the EU back on track with binding targets on resource efficiency and emissions reductions.

Danish Environment Minister Ida Auken (who spoke at the European Parliament Water Group meeting) and Energy and European Affairs Ministers Martin Lindegaard and Nikolai Wammen (who spoke at European Policy Centre (EPC) events), have been busy promoting the greening of the economy to support renewables and energy efficiency. The ministers emphasised resource efficiency as an inclusive concept, including water, steel and land along with energy to create a more comprehensive idea of efficiency which they called “eco-efficiency”.

Eco Efficiency:

Through combining resource efficiency and water efficiency with energy efficiency, the Ministers looked at ways of combating the ‘three crises: economic, resource, and energy.’ The three can be worked out together so long as one is not separated out from the other, they insisted. “We need growth, so why not make it green?” Lindegaard, speaking at an EPC Breakfast Policy Briefing, highlighted that, “failure to take the right decisions now will prove very costly in the long term.”

Another theme of the Danish Ministers was innovation. Lindegaard highlighted that this was simply not possible if only advocated by the public sector, stating that a considerably larger proportion of the money circulating in the world was private, not public. Wammen, speaking at another EPC Conference on a recent publication – ‘Green Revolution: making eco-efficiency a driver for growth’, said that if investment came from Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) ‘dreams can become a reality’. Wammen also highlighted the need to create and keep jobs and innovation in Europe and help combat the currently overwhelming Chinese market, which has recently overtaken Germany to become the biggest global supplier of solar panels worldwide. An incredible 1.5 million jobs could be created through the 2050 Energy Roadmap, and another 2 million through the Energy Efficiency Directive, said Wammen. What possible excuse does the EU have not to follow these employment opportunities through?

Simply following the initiatives already laid out by the Commission may not be enough to cement a resource efficient, high employment future. The Chair of the Parliament’s Environment Committee, Jo Leinen, MEP, urged the Commission to draw up legislation on resource efficiency, stating that “… it won’t be done without targets.”

CC-BYSA Jens Schott Knudsen, Flag in the Water

Support for water:Ida Auken, Danish Minster for the Environment, began her speech saying that ‘Water may be the new oil.’ It may well be, but unlike oil, we cannot exist without it. Continuing the theme of innovation, Auken emphasised that a 40 per cent reduction in wasted water can be achieved through the use of new technology alone. Of the same mind was Henry Saint Bris, Senior Vice President of Strategy at Suez Environment, who focused attention on water’s role within efficiency. Both stressed that this precious resource was running out; in 2030, global water requirements will be 40 per cent greater than current supply.

Auken spoke of the external factors impacting water security, as well as the internal EU partnerships to help drive technology and innovation. For example, water conservation is a key determinant of economic success and human well-being within the EU, and is integral to Europe’s sustainability strategy. Given its obvious importance, it is not surprising that water is also part of China’s next five year plan, and Auken stated that the EU was looking towards China with the EU Water Initiative to provide a boost to existing technology.

The water sector is the fastest growing sector in the world, according to a Danish water company representative, when asked where the money should come from to promote innovation. Saint Bris informed us that the smart water sector is growing by 10 per cent each year, surely something Europe’s leaders need to embrace.

Water has been overlooked for a long time, but perhaps the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune might in fact turn out to be the Danish Presidency, and unlike for Hamlet, bring us good luck. If the Danes manage to promote green growth as a way out of the crises, and include the promotion of a sustainable water policy at the same time, we will all reap the benefits. As the Danes know only too well, this needs to be accomplished now, and these initiatives need to have strong, binding targets that ensure action by Member States. Let us hope that the Danish influence triumphs.

Democracy at Work – Watching the Debate on the EU Budget

We often hear thatBrusselsis imposing its will on Member States and ‘telling us what to do’. Well, let’s have a look at this in relation to an important discussion which is at the heart of EU decision-making this year.

Yes, we are talking about money; what else; but not the Eurozone crisis or even the financial crisis. What we are talking about is the EU budget.

QCEA has written about the way the EU budget is formulated in seven year Multiannual Financial Frameworks elsewhere. Just to recap: although the EU has annual budgets, they are set within these Multiannual Financial Frameworks which are not developed on a rolling basis but rather renegotiated every seven years. Generally the process takes 18 months or so, although on the last occasion this happened, it took nearly two years. And on that occasion, the only way in which the negotiations could be concluded was to agree a thorough review both of the EU budget and separately and specifically, the Common Agricultural Policy.

That review took place between 2007 and 2010 and culminated in a Communication from the European Commission in October 2011. This was the basis on which the European Commission then made proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014 to 2020.

So what happens when the Commission puts forward such a proposal? This is a legislative proposal. That means that the European Union needs to make legislation to implement the proposal in the form in which it is proposed or in an amended form. The process involves both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

Here, we will talk about the Council of the European Union and its work on this issue.

The Council of the European Union is basically the Institution where Member States’ governments work together. It operates in different so-called ‘configurations’ which bring together the relevant Ministers of the Member States’ governments.

The Multiannual Financial Framework affects all aspects of the European Union and therefore all the different configurations of the Council will deal with different elements of it. However, and because of its overarching importance, the General Affairs Council, which brings together theMemberStates’ Foreign and/or Europe Ministers, takes overall responsibility for this process.

Their meetings, when they discuss legislative matters, are open to the public. Attending in person may not be practical for many citizens. Even as someone based inBrussels, not five minutes away from their meeting place, I have not personally attended any of these meetings. But there is another way of hearing first hand, from the horses’ mouths as it were, what they are saying. Their discussions are webstreamed.

The General Affairs Council has so far had two meetings which have dealt with the Commission Proposals.

The first, still under the Polish Presidency, took place on 15 November 2011. As you can see on the picture, the webcast  opens in an ordinary webcast window with the normal controls. The one you may not be familiar with is the bit that says ‘ori’ and has a little upward arrow. If you click on that arrow, you can then choose your language to get interpretation for the contributions made by the speakers who can speak in any of the official languages of the EU.

For each of the discussions, the Presidency prepares an introductory document which frames the discussion. For the discussion on 15 November 2011, the questions put by the Presidency were related to the cohesion policy, the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’, the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy. A background document is also provided.

The second discussion took place on 27 January 2012. This one was chaired by the Danish Presidency which began on 1 January 2012. The background document to this debate sets out only two questions: what are the main priorities and what are Member States’ views on the overall amount proposed for the 7-year budget by the European Commission.

In his conclusions to the debate, the Danish Minister for European Affairs, Nicolai Wammen, indicated that the discussions would not be easy.

The first thing to note is that every single Member State stated that the discussions around this Multiannual Financial Framework has to be seen in the context of the current economic crisis; the words austerity, fiscal constraints, and reductions in spending were mentioned over and over again. Whilst this is understandable – the meeting did, after all, take place just days before a European Council meeting which was aimed at bringing the Eurozone crisis under control – it is also important to remember that the Framework being discussed will determine EU spending from 2014 to 2020 and that immediate constraints therefore need to be put in relation to that time frame. The other concern with this approach from Member States is that the austerity response to the financial crisis is not necessarily the best response and this view is gaining ground.

There are several conflicting and contradictory positions emerging amongst Member States – none of them really surprising – but which will make agreement in a context where ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ – a principle which was reiterated by several Ministers – even more difficult.

Several Member States, referring to a joint letter sent in December 2010 by a number of Member States including theUK,Germany andFrance, stated that they would require a significant cut in the proposed budget framework. Over and over, Member States said that this budget is at least € 100 billion too high.

On the other hand, other Member States were clearly indicating that they felt the budget proposal put forward by the European Commission was about right, well balanced, and had already taken an approach that reflected the constraints that would have to be imposed on public spending.

There was some discussion about whether the budget should be agreed on a ‘top-down’ basis (i.e. first we decide how much money there is and then we decide what we do with it, or how we divide up the pie) or on a ‘bottom-up’ basis (i.e. first we decide what we need to/want to do and then we decide how much money this requires). The Member States who feel the proposal is too high were all supporting the top-down approach.

The priorities set out by Member States are even more predictable. TheUKwon’t see its rebate cut;France(andSpainand several of the newer Member States) won’t see the Common Agricultural Policy reduced; newer Member States want adjustments in the Common Agricultural Policy which will end the higher direct payments available to farmers in the old Member States. All agree that the priority has to be growth and jobs but how quite how you get there is a disputed point.

Some Member States argued that agricultural subsidies would not create new jobs; other argued that the cohesion policy does (or does not, depending on where you are from) contributes significantly to growth and jobs.

It is a little surprising, maybe, that the emphasis on research which has been in much of the discussion during the budget review and which has been in public debate was not echoed in this debate; but it was mentioned and it may be that Ministers take this as read.

Reference to the green agenda, climate action and related issues was noticeable by its absence from the discussion.

But the underlying theme from the perspective of a citizen still has to be: everyone is defending ‘their’ corner – maybe with the notable exceptions of Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Bulgaria who had more of a European theme in their contributions – as if it is all about ‘how much do I get out’ rather than how do we achieve solidarity across the EU as a whole.

There will be many more debates in the coming months about this issue in the General Affairs Council and elsewhere in the Council Structures. It is a debate that is worth following, because in the end, it will be the Member States who will drive the decision on this.

The European Parliament has a role in the process, but it is not as powerful as the Council of the European Union. So the Council is where our attention should be focused. So I recommend that you watch these debates to see how decisions are really made inBrussels. And then you can hold your government to account for what they contribute to the decision-making or the decision-blocking.

Peace House in the West Bank demolished for the 5th time

Beit Arabiya - The Peace House cc Martina Weitsch

Israeli authorities demolished Beit Arabiya (“Arabiya’s House”) last night (Monday, January 23^rd) for the fifth time, along with structures in the East Anata Bedouin compound.  Beit Arabiya, Located in the West Bank town of Anata (Area C) just to the northeast of Jerusalem, is a living symbol of resistance to Occupation and the desire for justice and peace.

Thus reads the beginning of a news report from the International Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), an Israeli NGO.

When QCEA’s Council sent a delegation of 10 Council Members and the two Joint

Members of the QCEA Group June 2009 at Beit Arabiya cc Martina Weitsch

Representatives on a study visit to Israel and Palestine in June 2009, we met with Director of ICHAD, Dr. Jeff Halper. He took us on a tour of the area around East Jerusalem and we visited Beit Arabiya. We were welcomed by the family who told us of the four demolitions of their home and their decision to make it a house for peace, to welcome those who want to work for peace and to engage in dialogue. We heard even then that the house was under threat of a further demolition.

Salim Shawamreh who lives there with his wife Arabiya and their children told us that:

• He is in favour of planning regulations and building permits in principle.
• He had grown up in a refugee camp in Jerusalem, had moved to Saudi Arabia to work for some years and when he came back, wanted to build a house for himself and his family. He bought a plot of land on the edge of East Jerusalem just in Area C.
• He applied for permission to build; each application costs $ 5000; he was refused; he applied again, and again, and in the end, he realised that he would not get permission. Different reasons were given each time.
• He built the house; it had (at the time of our visit) been demolished 4 times; it had been rebuilt each time. The price paid by his family, both in actual money (the owners have to pay for the demolition and a fine) and in trauma to the whole family is unimaginable.

The reasons given for refusing permission to build included: the house would be built on agricultural land and that the house would be built on a hill; we saw the house and the land it is built on and the landscape around it. This is a rocky desert, not agricultural land. And yes, it is a hill side; but I guess the world is full of buildings on hill sides. So how is that a reason for withholding planning consent?

The Peace House with rocky hills behind cc Penny Heymans

Another reason given was that there are two signatures missing on a document. But the authorities could not say whose signatures were missing. When Salim provided the signatures of all the people in the village giving their consent to the building of the house, the document was lost.

We were very concerned that the fifth demolition would happen and immediately on our return wrote to decision-makers in the European Union Institutions to ask them to use their good offices to prevent a further demolition.

Now, the demolition has happened again. But of course, this is not an isolated case. UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees publishes statistics of house demolitions regularly. Their most up to date report for last year (2011) shows that in total 493 structures (including houses) were demolished in Area C of the West Bank and 22 were demolished in East Jerusalem. In total this led to the displacement of 923 people in Area C and 67 in East Jerusalem. Of these, 507 and 41 respectively were children.

Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention prohibits  ’any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations’ ‘except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations’.

Of course, in the case of Area C the Israeli Authorities are using planning law to justify the demolitions. But as they are not giving planning permits to Palestinians they are forcing Palestinians to break planning law or move away. A very detailed account of these issues can be found in several reports by ICAHD all available on their website.

The renewed demolition of Beit Arabiya must be the trigger for public protest the world over against the occupation and the against the suffering imposed on Palestinian people, not only because imposing this suffering is wrong, not only because it is illegal but maybe even more importantly because the ongoing suffering is a major obstacle to peace.

Change is necessary,  in the policy of the Israeli government with regard to house demolition and in the approach the European Union and its Member States take to the ongoing demolitions. We must tell decision-makers that we expect that change. We must write to our Members of Parliament and ask them to demand explanations from our Foreign Ministries about the response they are making to these demolitions; we must write to our Members of the European Parliament and ask them to demand explanations from the European External Action Service.  If we do nothing, the demolitions and the suffering will go on.