Achieving SDGs in Europe: Poverty eradication and environmental actions go hand in hand
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•341 views
Presentation to the Europe parliament, 19th February 2019 Celine Charveriat, Executive director, IEEP
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Achieving SDGs in Europe: Poverty eradication and environmental actions go hand in hand
Similar to Achieving SDGs in Europe: Poverty eradication and environmental actions go hand in hand (20)
More from Céline Charveriat
More from Céline Charveriat (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Achieving SDGs in Europe: Poverty eradication and environmental actions go hand in hand
- 1. Achieving SDGs in Europe: Poverty eradication and environmental actions go hand in hand Presentation to the Europe parliament, 19th February 2019 Celine Charveriat, Executive director, IEEP
- 2. • Largely an undiscussed issue within Europe until the Gilets Jaunes • Siloed policy frameworks, except for energy poverty • Major gaps in research • Just transition discussion still too limited and possibly counter productive Paramount to discuss interlinkages between different dimensions of sustainability to achieve SDGs and the Paris agreement Discussions ahead of next EC and EP on Europe’s post 2020 agenda (e.g reflection paper) Very opportune moment to debate interlinkages between social and environmental policies
- 3. Problem analysis: what relationships between people in poverty and the state of the natural environment?
- 4. Problem analysis: what relationships between people in poverty and the state of the natural environment? What exposure to pollution and other environmental hazards (degree of exposure and multiplicity of hazards)? What access to and reliance on natural resources/ecosystems services for livelihoods, access to essential goods and well-being? Are there specific behaviours and cultures vis- à-vis the natural environment? Key socioeconomic variables • Degree of poverty • Household composition • Rural/urban • Age • Country and region (incl. Outermost regions) • Sector of occupation • Minorities/indigenous peoples What capacity to cope with environmental shocks (information, income, coping networks and mechanisms)? What relationship with other vulnerabilities and constraints (access to quality housing, health services)? • 118 million people at risk of poverty (ranging between 13% and 40% among member states • 37.8 million people affected by severe material deprivation (none in some MS, up to 1/3 in others) • 15.4% of Europeans in poor dwelling conditions • 8.7% of Europeans unable to keep their houses warm • Single parents with dependents: 48% greater likelihood of being at risk of poverty • 18-24 most at risk as age group (Eurostat, 2018) What scale and scope of future risks with BAU (climate change, biodiversity)?
- 5. • Pricing and availability of essential goods and services (food, energy, mobility, lifestyles)? • Impact on income opportunities (employment, wages and livelihoods)? • Pricing of assets (e.g. car, housing)? • Impact on well-being and health? • Transitory or permanent effects? Environmental policies Risk/opportunity from side effects (positive/ negative, temporary/ permanent) vs. BAU Risk of exclusion from benefits (unequal access and lack of targeting) People in poverty Problem analysis: what relationships between poverty and environmental policies? Key policy variables • Social policies (health, education, social protection, etc…) • Economic policies (macropolicies, taxation, investment, etc…)
- 6. Multidimensional inequality • Income and wealth • Gender • Minorities • Intergenerational • Geographical Environmental status and environmental policies Problem analysis: what relationships between multidimensional inequality and the environment? Source: Oxfam, 2015
- 7. Towards solutions: time for a paradigm shift?
- 8. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Leaving no one behind (1) • Close the knowledge gap regarding interlinkages between poverty, multidimensional inequality and sustainability • Systematic assessment of the potential negative/positive side effects of the transition on Europe’s poor population; • Better understanding of intergenerational drivers of inequality: energy costs for older households, impact of environmental degradation on future options for the young. • Air pollution: agree plans to reduce pollution (indoor as well as outdoor) with all Member States individually, prioritising places with the most severe levels using poverty maps to understand interlinkages
- 9. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Leaving no one behind (2) • Ambitious, green social housing policies (access to energy, energy efficiency, quality housing, access to nature) • Promoting the social economy within the sustainability transition (e.g. circular economy, energy transition). • Moving away from cheap food policies in lieu of social policies, with new approaches to rebalance the cost of food where healthy and sustainable products become cheaper and more accessible to lower income consumers • Role for cohesion policy: how to not leave Eastern and Central Europe behind (multi-speed Europe, MFF)
- 10. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Towards ‘a good life’ in Europe? • Having a much wider understanding of “Just transition” (beyond coal) and building an effective European Social Pillar in support of Just Transition • Identify policy win-wins: policies which reduce poverty, inequality and enhance sustainability • Sustainability considerations within reforms of redistributive systems (tax and social protection) • Adopt a comprehensive EU environmental health approach within health policies • Establishing an EU Guardian for future generations • Design a strategy to ensure not only cities but also rural communities become more inclusive, resilient and sustainable.
- 11. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Within a context marked by unparalleled challenges….. • Building a new growth model truly decoupled from the use of natural resources, e.g • How to move away from mass consumption societies (efficiency and sufficiency policies)? • Social impacts of the circular economy (e.g. employments effects of transforming products into services) • Interlinkages with innovation, digitalisation and AI, incl. a sharing economy? • Aging Europe: what impact on growth, public revenues and expenditures, poverty and sustainability?
- 12. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Key references: Mutafoglu, K. & Schweitzer, J. P.(2017). Nature for Health and Equity. Briefing produced by IEEP for Friends of the Earth Europe. Andrew Farmer, IEEP (2018).Tackling pollution is essential for meeting SDG poverty objectives, Published by UNEP, perspectives, issue n.27. IEEP (2018). 30X30 actions for a sustainable Europe, #think2030 paper. E3G (2018). Ensuring a just and fast transition to a competitive low-carbon economy for the EU? #Think2030 paper. EEA (2018) Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe. EC (2018) Reflection paper towards a sustainable Europe by 2030. IPES (2019) Towards a Common Food Policy for the EU. Oxfam (2015) Extreme carbon inequality. Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel (2015) Carbon and inequality: from Kyoto to Paris Danny Dorling. July 4th, 2017. Is inequality bad for the environment? The Guardian. ccharveriat@ieep.eu
Editor's Notes
- New research by EEA, exposure to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures: groups of power socioeconomic status tend to be more affected by natural hazards due to greater exposure and vulnerability. This is due to occupational exposure (manual outdoors work), living in areas where is closer access to jobs and cheaper housing (which correlates with more traffic intensity, fewer green areas worsening urban heat islands effects. Access to nature such as recreational facilities : there is growing evidence that the lack of access to nature is a contributing factor in poor mental health and obesity among low-income groups. Mutafoglu, K. & Schweitzer, J. P.(2017). Nature for Health and Equity. Briefing produced by IEEP for Friends of the Earth Europe: Role of nature for children and adolescents. CPRE (UK) research on landscape access – see https://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/5051-new-maps-show-more-than-a-third-of-people-can-t-easily-enjoy-england-s-most-beautiful-countryside In countries such as Bulgaria, Romania or Slovenia, agricultural employment has been rising as a consequence of the increase in semi-subsistence farming, acting as a social buffer for households with few other assets and other income sources. In these Member States, this type of farming can contribute between 20% and 50%ofthe income of households facing the risk of poverty. Its welfare role has also been observed in Greece, Italy and Portugal where it canalleviate the effects of the economic recession. (2017, EPRS)
- Statistics show that the average poverty rate is slightly higher in rural areas, this associated with a lack of basic services such as healthcare and social services, and with increased costs for inhabitants on account of travel distances. 12.2% of the population faces difficulties in accessing public transport in rural areas, in contrast to5.7% in intermediate areas and 2.3 % in cities.
- There seems to be a correlation between high inequality within countries and lower achievements in environmental sustainability: meat consumption, wasteful consumption, higher carbon energy systems. Why? There are complex interactions between income levels and carbon footprint. Around 50% of CONSUMPTION RELATED emissions meanwhile can be attributed to the richest 10% of people around the world, who have average carbon footprints 11 times as high as the poorest half of the population, and 60 times as high as the poorest 10%. The average footprint of the richest 1% of people globally could be 175 times that of the poorest 10%. Engels curve (inferior goods). This is a positive correlation between age and carbon footprint, not only because many older people simply have more money to spend, but also tend to use less energy efficient products. Moreover, environmental degradation, depletion of resources and climate change will also have disproportionate impacts on those who will live through to 2100. Not all citizens place the same burden on the environment and policy development needs to reflect this in appropriate ways. A report by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) found per capita greenhouse gas emissions for a Londoner in 2004 were the equivalent of 6.2 tonnes of CO2, compared with 11.19 for the UK average. The rural northeast of England, Yorkshire and the Humber, were singled out for having the highest footprints per capita in the UK.
- Good start of 7th EAP, however the scope is quite limited, it is not asking the fundamental question : how to achieve greater social justice while remaining within planetary boundaries—need for a donut analysis instead Likewise on European Pillar of social rights, e.g. ESF failed to reach its target in terms of climate mainstreaming, with only an estimated 7% allocated towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy through reform of education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, upskilling of the labour force, and the creation of new jobs.
- Lack of knowledge: Lack of available sociodemographic data of appropriate geographical coverage, granularity and timeliness. Difficult policy dilemmas: Poverty and social exclusion undermine access to healthy diets via long working hours, poor physical access to health diets, loss of cooking skills and well as affordability of healthier and more sustainable foods. Use of food banks and “cheap” food policies (therefore requiring waste) as antipoverty policies in Europe. 19.9% of adults with education level are affected by obesity versus 15.9% for the general population.
- Lack of knowledge: Lack of available sociodemographic data of appropriate geographical coverage, granularity and timeliness. Difficult policy dilemmas: Poverty and social exclusion undermine access to healthy diets via long working hours, poor physical access to health diets, loss of cooking skills and well as affordability of healthier and more sustainable foods. Use of food banks and “cheap” food policies (therefore requiring waste) as antipoverty policies in Europe. 19.9% of adults with education level are affected by obesity versus 15.9% for the general population.
- Environmental taxes have to be designed to ensure behavioural change amongst the top income group as well as to minimise impacts on income and asset inequality. Conversely, tax reform as a key policy instrument for redressing social inequalities48 needs to factor in the environmental considerations, not least because of the links between the exploitation of natural resources and fiscal evasion, money laundering and corruption. Social transfers also need to be taken into account. The changing nature of work due to technological change as well as ageing and the crisis of classic retirement models will make the issue of the new entitlements, such as the universal basic income, a key debate for the next period. Ensuring their design contributes, rather than hinders, sustainability will be important. Compared to the coal industry, the scale of the transition required for a decarbonisation of the transport sector and its impacts on the automobile industry are very different as a much higher number of jobs are involved. 13 million Europeans work in the automobile sector in manufacturing, services and construction, representing 6.1% of total EU employment. Agriculture is another sector that will undergo massive transformation. Some subsectors might be hit particularly hard. Various studies that have looked into the climate impact of farming and livestock have concluded that a 50% reduction in livestock capacities will be necessary for farming to help achieve existing climate goals for 2030 and 2050. In fact, the RISE foundation identified a safe operating space for livestock and found that in order to reach EU climate targets, livestock in the EU needs to be reduced by 74% in 2050