Monday 26 October 2015

Gas pipeline deal: Towards an Energy Union?

Article published in Cafebabel


Semi-submersible pipe-laying vessel operating in the Baltic sea © Philfaebuckie


For the first time, Poland and the Baltic states signed a historic deal to build a gas pipeline as part of an effort to halt Russia’s energetic dominance in the region. This was celebrated as a major step towards the Energy Union proclaimed by Juncker when assuming the Commission’s leadership. 

President of the Commission Jean-Claude Juncker witnessed the adoption of the grant agreement on the GIPL (Gas Interconnector Poland – Lithuania) between the leaders of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. 

“Today we have done much more than bringing the energy isolation of the Baltic States to an end. We have brought the region further together. Today we have agreed on European infrastructure that will unite us, instead of dividing us." said Juncker

As for Poland’s Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, “I do not exaggerate when I say that this is a historic moment. Poland has achieved a strategic and very important goal. We have gas independence,” she said. 

However, the scenery does not seem so bright to Poland as it may seem. According to the South Front, the so far only supplier, Qatar, is part of the contract in which the price Poland will pay is a lot higher than the price previously paid to Russia. “The price of Qatar gas is 2.5 times higher than the one offered by Russia – 700 and 265 dollars per one thousand cubic meters correspondingly, as the analyst of “Alpari” Anna Kokoreva told us,” reported the South Front. 

Nevertheless, Moscow will see its sphere of influence significantly reduced in Eastern Europe regions, as its ability to use its natural gas as a political tool will be dismissed. 

According to the Financial Times, in practical terms, the work on the infrastructure will begin next year and its conclusion is expected by 2019. The 534km GIPL pipeline will run from Rembelszczyzna, in Poland, to Jauniunai, in Lithuania. The annual capacity of the pipeline is estimated to be 2.5bn cubic meters, possibly growing to 4bn. Its over-all cost is €558 million, which will be funded by the Baltic States and private investment along with the Commission’s contribution, under the Connecting Europe Facility


Path of the new GIPL pipeline (in red) Path of the new GIPL pipeline (in red) | ©New Europe Investor 

Political Background 


A crucial element of the EU's Energy Union plan is reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, uncoordinated national policies remain a hurdle for real market integration. Established under the 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy, the Energy Union is based on three main pillars: security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness.

The EU imports 53% of the energy it consumes, which raises concerns regarding supply security. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the EU imposed sanctions on Moscow, with the latter intimidating smaller Central European countries by using its gas reserves as a trump. 

Back in May, Energy EU leaders and representatives went on the pursuit of possible new suppliers, exploring new supply regions for fuels, but until the present moment, no deal was agreed. In late September, MEP Gianluca Buonanno presented a motion for a resolution following the agreement between Ukraine and Russia on supply gas. On the official statement, Buonanno calls on the EU to withdraw Russia’s sanctions, calling it a “strategic mistake”, considering Russia’s quasi-monopoly of energy reserves. 

Moscow, in turn, has allegedly signed a gas deal with Pakistan, a 1,100 kilometer gas pipeline with an annual capacity of 12.4 billion cubic meters, to connect liquefied natural gas (LNG) stations in the Pakistani city of Karachi. "The construction of the North-South gas pipeline is bringing economic cooperation between Russia and Pakistan to a new level,” said Russia’s Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. However, bad news for consumers is on the loom, with the IMF assuring a raise in gas tariffs

The LNG is one of the primary alternatives to Russian pipeline imports, and according to POLITICO, most of Europe’s LNG imports come from Qatar, Algeria and Nigeria. However new opportunities might be on the horizon, after ENI, the oil and gas multinational, had discovered a supergiant gas field in the Egyptian offshore, in what seems to be the largest reserve ever found in the Mediterranean. 

A bright but uncertain future? 


Former Soviet republics until the early 90s, the Baltic countries are very vulnerable to supply disruptions, therefore, diversifying energy sources away from Russia has become a vital element of each of these countries' national security plans. With the deal sealed, the EU leaders believe an integrated energy market is a step closer, hoping to lead to greater market efficiency and to producing affordable prices for consumers. Even though some reactions remain skeptical about this political and economical venture, the construction of several interconnector pipelines between Poland and the Baltic states will further advance their leverage over Russia, yet we can’t foreseen what long-term consequences of this investment will mean to Poland and the Baltic states. 

Saturday 24 October 2015

Antwerp, the city of diamonds

Grote Markt in Antwerp, October © Marta Pacheco

Across the Scheldt river the Cathedral of Our Lady, Antwerp

Antwerp by night 

Building with red door, Antwerp

Monday 19 October 2015

Parliament Rejects Commission's Proposal on GMOs: Business Before Health?

Article published in Katoikos

Protests against the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). M Shields Photography © Flickr

The European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has rejected a proposal by the Commission which gives Member States the power to restrict or prohibit imported genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and asked the Commission to drop the plan altogether. For the time being, the plan already enjoys the support of several EU member states and regions which have rejected GMOs – Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Latvia, Italy, Germany, Scotland, Wales, Lithuania, Austria, Ireland, France and Greece. A plenary vote will take place on the 28th of October, but another refusal is likely to happen, reported the EUobserver

“A clear majority in the committee does not want to jeopardise the internal market. For us, the existing legislation should remain in place, and Member States should shoulder their responsibilities and take a decision together at EU level, instead of introducing national bans” said Environment Committee EPP Chairman Giovanni La Via

EU Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis claimed the proposal would “grant member states a greater say as regards the use of EU-authorized GMOs in food and feed on their respective territories.” The German Agriculture Ministry has informed the Commission that the country will not consent to the cultivation of GMO crops on its territory. “The cultivation of GM corn is incompatible with the use of arable land in Germany,” said Christian Schmidt, German Agriculture Minister, in a letter he submitted to the EU Commission, according to Die Zeit newspaper. 

 The EU’s citizens’ voice—how much is it worth? 


According to a Special Eurobarometer released by the Commission in October 2010, evidence from opinion surveys shows that the majority of the EU population opposes the cultivation of GMOs. Curiously, amongst the less-informed countries about the existence of GMOs – Malta (44%), Portugal (59%), Turkey (included in the survey despite not being member of the EU) and Austria (68%), Slovakia (69%), Romania (70%), Spain (74%)— the cultivation of GMOs is currently authorized in four of these Member States (Spain, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia—as well as in Czech Republic). 

Overall, at the EU level, 84% of Europeans have heard of GM food; only 16% have no knowledge of such practices. Norway ranks at the top of most-informed countries in regards to GMOs with 96% of the respondents aware of this practice, followed by Germany with 95% and Finland and the Netherlands both with 93%. Over half of the respondents consider GM food to be fundamentally unnatural (70%) while 61% believe GM food to give a general “uneasy feeling.” 57% consider GM food to benefit some people but to put others at risk whilst 54% believe that GM food is not good for them or their families. The citizen discontentment has been increasing since 2010, however, with many people fearing the nefarious health and environmental consequences likely provoked by GM food. 

More and more people claim GMOs can be harmful to human health. Liam Wilde © Flickr


Organic Food 


On the biological/organic food side, Green MEP Martin Haüsling is responsible for a reform measure in Parliament which guarantees EU citizens “almost 100%” safety of labeled organic food in European markets. He noted, however, that, as the market grows, fraud is likely to increase. Consequently, pressure is coming from the US, which claims that this proposal is not “constructive”, according to US Trade Representative Michael Froman. The US delegate declared that the move seems to divide the EU into 28 separate markets, a viewpoint confined strictly by commerciality, as the US is currently in negotiations with the EU over a trade deal, which will weaken EU’s rules over GMOs. Green MEP Ska Keller is a great defender of the GMOs’ ban throughout the EU and is particularly concerned about US companies challenging European environmental laws. 


Legal Framework on GMOs 


According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has more powers than national ones, but national parliaments would gain the right to object to a proposal if they felt that a given result could be better reached at national rather than EU level. However, the GMO debate is living proof of how national sovereignty (as well as citizen’s choices) can be endangered under the Lisbon Treaty. The Parliament, in which the citizens directly elect MEPs to represent their interests, is now strongly opposing the people’s voice and placing commercial interests in the foreground. Nathalie Moll, EuropaBio secretary-general, said, “it is very concerning to see that a number of Member States continue to regularly vote against EFSA’s positive opinions on GMO approvals given that this leads to confusion in the general public as to the safety of products and the reliability of the European approval system to ensure that safety.” 

In 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal to amend the GMO legislation to extend the grounds on which Member States could restrict or ban the cultivation of EU-authorised GMOs on their territory. In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal, the Commission explained, “national, regional or local levels of decision-making are considered to be the most appropriate frameworks to address the particularities linked to GMO cultivation”. In April 2015, the EU gave the green light for the importation of 10 new types of GM crops for the first time since 2013. The crops, which include maize, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed, would be legal for human and animal food and feed over the next 10 years, the Commission announced. The opposition to GMO cultivation has increased in recent years, with many Member States opposing the authorisation of maize 1507 in the Council in February 2014. 

Conclusions 


A GMO is the result of science applied on nature, meaning that a biological organism is altered via genetic engineering practices. GMOs are often used in biological and medical research, experimental medicine and agriculture. However, several harmful consequences are associated to the use of GMOs and that is the reason why a number of protests against the use of these organisms has recently grown in the West. According to Slow Food, with the contribution of Friends of the Earth and other stakeholders, GMOs monoculture will jeopardise the biodiversity of our planet, turning our lands toxic and contributing to worldwide corporate control, such as by the controversial companies Monsanto and Syngenta, amongst others. 

Furthermore, it seems clear that the agricultural system in the EU must be reformed, as small farmers are being victims of the supersonic pace of globalisation. By introducing GMOs in the EU farming system, the continent is threatening small-scale farmers, who heavily depend on the fruit of their work. Lastly, and of ultimate importance, is the safety level of GMOs and the threat they pose to human health. Time is moving on and negotiations are being held. If the European Parliament won’t defend our interests, then who will?

Thursday 8 October 2015

Public Health in Europe: Where are We?

During the European People’s Party (EPP) public hearing at the Parliament, Director from DG RTD, Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, MEP Françoise Grossetête and Sanofi representative Stefan Oelrich debated public health in the EU. © Photo: EPP

The EU runs a number of tangible programs and policies aiming to secure health in Europe. With the fast pace of ageing population, Europe is prioritising public health concerns. Several programs have been put in place aiming to improve European’s health life standards as well as to boost Europe’s economy. 

To celebrate 50 years of EU Pharmaceutical legislation, the Commission organised a conference in Brussels, convening high representatives from the health sector. During the session, the main topic on the table was one of Juncker’s priorities following his ascension to power – better regulation. 

On May 2015, the Commission set up the REFIT Platform with the purpose of managing a dialogue with Member States (MS) and stakeholders on refining EU legislation. When it comes to the health sector, patients want a faster access to medicines and regulators want safer medicines. Also of greatest importance was the approached topic of how to better communicate science to a lay audience. 

Public health governors and delegates believe that communicating current issues is a growing priority for researchers worldwide. The final session ended with the debate about pharmaceutical developments in the 21st century focused on perspectives, challenges and innovation. Moreover, an evolutionary step from the pharma industry is the upcoming disclosure of payments from the industry to healthcare professionals. Very often with a negative connotation, the pharma industry has made a bold move by announcing this future measure. 

 EPP Public Hearing on the Pharma Sector 


In July, the EPP group organised a public hearing, EU Cohesion Policy, which helps Member States investing in health system reform, health for employability, and reducing health inequalities. Member States have allocated €5 billion to health infrastructure between 2007-13. 

Recently in September, the EPP group hearing “The Future of Medicine” convened speakers from the healthcare sector with the biggest aim to launch the pharmaceutical debate back to the public arena. Moderated by MEP Françoise Grossetêtê, the hearings embraced areas such as therapeutic innovation, patient access and competitiveness in the EU. 

Director from DG RTD Dr Ruxandra Draghia-Akli admitted, “Research and innovation, a very highly innovative pharmaceutical industry, is represented by the industry but few small enterprises,” acknowledging the need of using other new financial instruments to leverage SME. “The aim of the European Health Horizon 202O – the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme - is to contribute to better health for all, aiming to support the competitiveness of the health sector with its ageing population and increased disease burden,” added Ruxandra. 

Dr Draghia-Akli numbered a few aims to achieve in the future, ranging from innovative approaches for health ageing populations, exploiting technology and entrepreneurship and opening innovation systems where the strategic research agenda is based on the WHO report, meaning priority medicines and vaccines for the EU and the world. “We need to use money very wisely. Money would allow for some synergies,” she went on. 

EU health policy was debated between experts from the healthcare sector at the European Parliament on September 30th. © EPP


Innovative Medicines 


With the involvement of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), another stakeholder that contributes to the development of medicines, drugs for anti-microbial resistance, neurodegenerative diseases and investing in personalised medicines - to be able to reduce the incidence of diabetes and cancer - are already a reality under construction in the EU. Moreover, the IMI II, based on the success of the IMI I, is working on a project, aiming to faster delivery of medicines while securing the sustainability of healthcare systems across the EU. 

According to EFPIA, innovative medicines offer a large range of value including improved outcomes for patients, health system value and broader collective value. All of these elements should be considered in pricing and reimbursement decisions, however, “each MS has its own priorities and places different emphasis on each area of value.” When it comes to medicines pricing – a current hot topic in the public health debate – prices in different countries differ according to differences in the burden of diseases, health system preferences, market structures and supply chain, amongst other factors. EFPIA believes that “MS should take reasonable measures to facilitate the introduction of effective differentiated pricing policies that reflect variations in ability to pay at national level.“ 

 Priority Medicines 


Stefan Oelrich, Sanofi’s general manager, gave some lights on a EU integrated policy approach by introducing the PRIME. The PRIME (“PRIority MEDicines”) scheme aims to support development of innovative medicines for unmet medical needs, accelerating assessment by reducing development time. Already presented at the EMA Management Board, it will soon be presented at the Commission and STAMP, still reliant on the CHMP for final review and endorsement. 

It is expected to be launched on early 2016 and will come along with a guidance package. Oelrich said “for some years the Parliament has been silent regarding the pharma sector,” and pointed out the importance of the pharma industry to EU’s economy. The Sanofi’s delegate proposed a new European strategic dialogue. “Angela Merkel has put in her government programming to start the dialogue, this dialogue will produce outcome but more than anything it helps to create trust amongst the stakeholders,” he added.

After General Elections, Portuguese Left defies minority government

Article published in Cafebabel

PM Passos remains in position after elections. European People's Party © Flickr

After four years of unbridled austerity, on October 4th, Portugal went to the polls on its first post-bailout government. With a national total of 43% abstaining, the Portuguese people elected the very same right-wing government – the coalition between PSD and CDS-PP, though with a relative majority. 

The right-wing coalition won the elections with 38.5% of the electorate, losing the legitimacy to unilaterally ensure its policies, due to an arithmetic majority from the left. As a consequence, Prime Minister Passos Coelho will be reliant on the opposition to be able to pass spending cuts, privatisation measures and raising taxes demanded by international creditors. Even though the "troika" has left Portugal almost two years ago, by sticking with the same government, the Portuguese people are set to see more belt-tightening, to pay back its €78 billion rescue to creditors in Brussels and the IMF. “The result shows that a policy of success can have a good chance of being accepted by much of the population, that’s encouraging,” said German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. “It won’t be easy to form a government,” he pointed out. 

The overall picture of the electoral night reflected a weak victory of the right-wing coalition, a defeated Socialist Party and a victorious Left Bloc – reaching the highest results ever (10.2%) and more than doubling the number of deputies (19). The Communists/Greens summed up a total of 8.3% of the votes. As for the Party of Animals and Nature (PAN), for the first time they were able to elect a deputy, with 1.4% of the electorate. A sad fact that can’t go unnoticed is the highest level of abstention in the country, at 43.07%, raising the question of whether we are living in a representative democracy or not. Paul Ames wrote in POLITICO that Passos Coelho’s victory was “hailed [in Berlin] as a sign that adopting German-prescribed austerity doesn’t have to mean alienating voters.” 

A fragmented Result 


However, this aftermath sends a strong message to the Portuguese government. The relative majority is the reflection of the remaining discontent of the people, who decided to disperse the votes throughout the left – Left Bloc, Communist Party/Greens and Livre/TDA – hence contributing to the defeat of the main opposition, the Socialist Party. This could have a positive impact on Portuguese political representation, if the left decided to sit at the table and reach a consensus. But this scenario seems very unlikely, as the Left Bloc and the Communist Party have openly invited the Socialist Party to hold talks, envisaging a possible alliance, though with no apparent signal of reciprocity. Catarina Martins, Bloc Left leader, said that in order to prevent the right from staying in power, António Costa should make the right decision and join the Left Bloc and the Communist Party. 

Also, former MEP and current Livre/TDA leader Rui Tavares urged an end of the so-called “governance arc”. Likewise, the feeble coalition headed by Passos Coelho has manifested its interest to holding talks with the Socialist Party, while President Cavaco Silva addressed the Nation on Tuesday evening, expressing his support for PM Pedro Passos Coelho to form a government. This was a very criticised move from the President, condemned as “hastiness and institutional disrespect” for calling upon Passos Coelho while the results of the Portuguese emigrants throughout the world are still unknown. 


      The Portuguese President expressed his support for PM Passos, a criticised move. ©European Parliament/Flickr 

Compromise, Compromise 


Cognizant of his party’s fragility, the PM opened up to “indispensable compromises” should the Socialist Party support the coalition in a minority government. As for António Costa, he is between a rock and a hard place; also defeated in the elections, he faces now an insistent decision-making from both left and right that might jeopardise his integrity. Nevertheless, there is no time to lose in order to reach an agreement regarding the budget treaty for 2016, which must be a priority to guarantee stability in the country. However, during the campaigning period, António Costa admittedly refused to vote on the budget along with the coalition. 

Wednesday morning, after convening with the National Political Commission for the Socialist Party, Costa has revealed more information about the future government. “The mandate we have is to talk with all the political forces. This parliamentary framework is new and it requires of all of us a great sense of responsibility for the country. We will evaluate and try to find good programmatic solutions for the country” said the PS secretary-general, noting that he does not intend to leave out positions of the Communist Party and the Left Bloc. But agreements won’t be easy as all three Socialist Party, Communist Party and Left Bloc have proposed themselves to seek to accomplish quite different goals. Questions like the permanence in the EU and NATO are objects of great divergences amongst the left forces. Costa has, however, called for an easy consent of the minority government in social questions measures to be taken in the future. 

According to the Portuguese National Institute of Statistics, the unemployment rate estimated for August 2015 was 12.4%. Issues like the increased retirement age, cutting of social benefits such as pensions and unemployment subsidies, and privatising national patrimony are major topics to debate in the near future. The secretary general of the General Union of Workers, Carlos Silva, has already demanded the restitution of all the extra taxes created by the government, following the Troika’s impositions on Portugal.