Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?

The myth lives on

The Wolf has featured as the bad character in fairytales for generations, but what is the real problem between humans and wolves? How come people are so vocal about this specific animal that they will go to such lengths, even violating EU environmental law and pay millions in fines just to hunt it? Wolves have had a complicated relationship with humans. For much of history they have been persecuted as competitors, and out of fear and ignorance. Yet favourable legislation in the European Union have recently allowed this species to re-establish in parts of the continent, in which it's considered critically endangered by IUCN.
Gray Wolf. Photo: Gary Kramer - US fish and wildlife service

The EU is closely monitoring Swedish wolf hunting

Karmenu Vella, the commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, has sent a reply to a letter from WWF, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), and the Swedish Carnivore Association (SCA). In the letter, Vella describe how “The Commission in July 2014 launched an infringement case against Sweden for failure to ensure appropriate access to justice, including to judicial review of administrative decisions, such as hunting decisions” and he goes on to write “Please be assured that the Commission is closely monitoring this issue and that it will not hesitate, if needed, to take all measures necessary to ensure that European Union environmental law is complied with in Sweden’s management of wolves”.

Wolf hunting in Sweden

Last december experts warned that Swedish wolf hunting may result in a fine of SEK 100 million if the issue goes to the European Court of Justice (SVD, 20 dec 2013). Thus, wolf hunting may become an expensive policy for taxpayers. That the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) granted licenced hunt for 16 wolfs last year lead to heavy criticism from the EU and an appeal by WWF, SCA and SSNC which resulted in a hunting ban awaiting the administrative court's sentence. The NGOs won the case but the sentence was appealed by SEPA and the Swedish Association for Hunters (SAH). The administrative court of appeal did however side with the three NGOs and sentenced the decision of 16 hunting licenses as unlawful. SEPAs motivation that hunting would lead to a decreased level of inbreeding in the Scandinavian wolf population lack sufficient evidence, according the the court. Even if the sentence would be appealed again it is unclear whether the Supreme Administrative Court would accept a trial.

Failure to comply with EU law

But now the government has opened up for hunting of more wolves, despite the administrative court of appeals decision that hunting 16 wolves was illegal. The general parliamentary motion period shows that many of the right-wing parties are positive to licensed wolf hunting. During 2014, 23 cases regarding hunting was brought up. But there is no general agreement on the topic (SVD, 2014) and SEPA has now transferred the decision-making to the county administrative boards in middle Sweden, which opens up for hunting licenses of up to 100 wolves according to some sources (SVD, 2014). Others claim the number to be around 44 wolves (Jönsson, 2014).


Facts about the Scandinavian wolf population

The wolf population in Sweden and Norway consist of a common Scandinavian population with spread over territorial boundaries. Yearly inventories are conducted over the entire Scandinavian peninsula winter time in respective country and also in Finland. During the winter 2013-2014 the Scandinavian wolf population has been estimated at 400 wolves in total (Viltskadecenter, 2014). Around 320 wolves are located only in Sweden, while 50 wolves are transboundary and 30 wolves live in Norway. In total 43 family groups have been documented. Finland registered 22 family groups in total, of which 14 live only in Finland and the rest are transboundary with Russia.The Scandinavian wolf population continues to increase. The population shows no significant change in growth rate during the last 16 years, with a yearly average growth rate of 15%. During this period the population has increased from 10 to 66 family groups. 40 wolf litters born during the spring 2013 were documented.

Family groups in Sweden during the winter 2013-2014. Source: SLU (2014)

The estimated average inbreeding coefficient of pups born in 2013 was 0.25. This is the next lowest number since 1998. During the winter 4 finnish-russian wolves were documented in Sweden. One male is located in Gävleborg and has produced four wolf litters during 2008,2009,2010, 2012. The female that was identified for the first time during the winter of 2010-2011, and was re-located by SEPA at several occasions, was also documented this year. The two wolves that were re-located during 2012-2013 from reindeer terrain in Norrbotten to the border between Örebro and Västra Götaland stayed and had a litter.
Annual number of wolf litters confirmed in Norway (red ),
 cross-border Swedish-Norway (yellow), and Sweden (blue)
during a 16-year-period, 1998-2013. Source: SLU

During 2013-2014, 58 wolves were confirmed dead, 44 were found in Sweden. These numbers are included in the population estimate. In Sweden 26 (of 58) wolves were shot, 14 in self-defence and 12 in protective hunting. 9 died in traffic and another 9 died of unidentified causes.

Public opinion, nation wide

According to one public poll conducted by YouGov in 2012 (1009 respondents), commissioned by SSNC, the difference in opinions among city people and country side people is much lower than often claimed. The question posed was “The Swedish wolf population today consist of 260-330 individuals according to SEPA. Do you think the wolf population should be lowered through hunting?" The results showed that 59% answered No and 21% answered Yes across the country. Below is a chart showing the percentages divided by city size.

EU:s habitat directive

In order to ensure the survival of Europe’s most endangered and vulnerable species, EU governments adopted the Habitats Directive in 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It sets the standard for nature conservation across the EU and enables all 27 Member States to work together within the same strong legislative framework in order to protect the most vulnerable species and habitat types across their entire natural range within the EU. Through the EU:s habitat directive wolves have returned to unlikely places in Europe. The return of breeding wolves to Germany during the last 14 years, and the recent arrival of dispersing wolves in Denmark is a striking example of how adaptable wolves are. And it brings optimism to carnivore conservation.The most important threats for wolves in Europe are: low acceptance among the rural communities, illegal killings, habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure development, and poor wildlife management structures.
Read More

Time for Tax Justice

Tax Wars - A race to the bottom
Tax “competition” or more precisely tax wars is the process by which countries or even cities use tax breaks and subsidies to attract investment or hot money (TaxJusticeNetwork). States often cut taxes on wealthy individuals and/or corporations and then try to make up the difference by hiking taxes on poorer sections of society or by cutting public spending. At the global level, this process is a race to the bottom. Leading to a rise in inequality and erosion of democracy. At the national level all evidence shows that it is a mistake to try and create a “competitive” tax system for two major reasons. First, tax competition bears no economic relation to competition between firms in a market. Using the term competition obfuscates the reality of governments waging tax wars, to the detriment of labor. Second, tax is not a cost to an economy but a transfer within it. Tax cuts for corporations provides subsidies to them at the expense of public spending on roads, courts, education or health care etc. Even if cutting taxes does attract investment, the evidence being weak, it attract exactly the wrong kind of investment i.e. the flighty kind with few productive linkages to the rest of the economy. 
Tax Havens
The financial system, and many large corporations working within it, has since at least the 1980s total global reach. The international tax architecture has not adapted to this reality. Offshore financial centres and tax havens are fully integrated into the global financial system and large shares of trade and capital movements are channelled through them. Using tax havens is now “normal” business practice in most large firms and banks. According to the Financial Secrecy Index (FSI) an estimated $21 to $32 trillion of private financial wealth is located, untaxed, in tax havens around the world. The FSI reveals that the world’s most important providers of financial secrecy (= tax havens) are not small islands as many suppose, but some of the world’s biggest and wealthiest countries (see chart). In a press release about the latest United Nations Trade and Development report 2014 UN officials stated that: “A large proportion of illicit financial flows – which make use of all kinds of mechanisms for circumventing judicial and regulatory oversight – goes through offshore financial centres, based in “secrecy jurisdictions”. Approximately 8–15 per cent of the net financial wealth of households is held in tax havens, mostly unrecorded. The resulting loss of public revenue amounts to $190−$290 billion per year, of which $66−$84 billion is lost from developing countries, equivalent to two thirds of annual official development assistance". This statement have major implications for both tax and aid policy. 

Data: Tax Justice Network
Audit Firms
The world's four largest audit firms - PwC, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte - are central architects of corporate tax evasion and offshore financial secrecy according to a review of court cases, government records and secret offshore files uncovered by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalist (ICIJ). These four companies have worldwide operations and they employ more than 700,000 people and cash in revenues of more than $100 billion a year. Much of their top leadership is based in the United States and Britain. All of these companies have been involved in fraud but always gotten away with only paying penalties, i.e. no criminal charges, because of the new "too big to fail" philosophy among corporations and governments (ICIJ, November 5, 2014). There is no evidence of this being the case. In Luxembourg, internal company documents reviewed by ICIJ show that PwC has helped Pepsi, AIG, Apple, Amazon, HSBC, J.P Morgan, Lehman Brother, SEB, Cargill, Citygroup, Tele2 group, IKEA and other corporate giants from around the world to slash their tax bills by billions of dollars through secret deals (ICIJ database). These deals may be legal or not (TaxJusticeNetwork) but we won't know until they have been tried in court. Now commentators are speculating that Jean-Claude Juncker may lose his post as EU Commission President since he was prime minister in Luxembourg during the time the deals were struck. The EU commission has tried to downplay this new leak, but Danish MEPs are calling for an independent investigation (Euractiv)

Tax Justice Debate
In Europe
Governments should be able to finance public spending required by their citizens for a more secure and prosperous life. Taxing the wealthy and corporations is key to mobilizing domestic fiscal revenue. Without it governments run the risk of becoming dependent on aid or debt which restricts policy. The economic and financial crisis in Europe and elsewhere has raised awareness and frustration among leaders and the public on the issue of tax dodging and its cost to public goods and services. This awareness has, however, not yet led to changes to the underlying causes of the problems, including the lack of transparency and effective tax co-operation between governments. The debate about corporate taxation can be understood in light of statistics on tax collection in the EU-28 countries. The latest figures from Eurostat show that in all EU Member States, taxes on capital make up the smallest share of tax revenue compared to labour and consumption (see chart below). A recent report "Hidden profits: The EU's role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2014" from Eurodad showed that practices facilitating tax evasion by transnational corporations and rich individuals are widely used in the EU, in some cases so governments can claim to be "tax competitive". The study also showed that many European countries have a large number of tax treaties with developing countries that often push down the taxation levels on financial transfers out of developing countries, thus creating tax loopholes for transnational corporations. Spain, the UK and Sweden have negotiated the biggest reductions in developing country tax levels, despite several studies proving the negative effects these treaties can have on developing countries (Eurodad, 2014).
Sources of tax revenue in EU-28.
Source: Eurodad (2014) 
In Sweden
Corporate tax rates in Sweden are average compared with other countries in the EU. However, a proportionally higher part of the total tax revenue in Sweden comes from labour, while the part that comes from capital is much lower than the average. 13% of the total tax revenue comes from capital, while the average in the EU is 20.8% (Eurodad, 2014). Unlike most countries, Sweden neither taxes inheritance, gifts nor net wealth (SVT, 2014). In an effort to bring money hidden in tax havens back to Sweden, a special "tax amnesty" has meant that the number of people voluntarily reporting wealth hidden in foreign accounts has increased. During 2013 more than 2000 individuals chose to repatriate their wealth to Sweden from various tax havens. Although this amnesty is estimated to have given some SEK 1.7 billion to the state treasure since 2010 these measures are not uncontroversial. Many people object to rich individuals committing tax crimes and getting released from penalty while low-income people have to pay. The former Swedish government stated that countering tax dodging was a high political priority but in spite of this they were not supportive of obligatory regulations on the EU or international level. There is an ongoing debate in Sweden regarding tax avoidance in publicly financed companies in the welfare sector. An examination made in 2014 by the newspaper Dagens Nyheter showed that the five largest healthcare provider corporations, with joint profit of SEK 1.2 billion, only paid SEK 26 million in tax. The chart below rates Swedish policy in regards to tax treaties, and standards applied, with developing countries. The overall result shows a downward trend. 
GREEN= The government uses UN Model when negotiating tax treaties, YELLOW= The position is unclear, the government does not systematically apply one specific model (UN or OECD), and RED= The government applies the OECD Model that does not ensure effective anti-abuse clauses. Source: Eurodad, 2014
Read More

TTIP trade deal and it's impact on democracy

Trade agreement being negotiated behind the scenes

In my last post I had a critical look at the trans-pacific partnership (TTP). And so to be fair and also bring this issue closer to home I will in this post have a look at the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP is very similar to TTP, a proposed regional free-trade agreement, but between the European Union and the United States. Proponents of TTIP argue that it would result in multilateral economic growth, while critics argue that it would increase corporate power and make markets more difficult to regulate for public benefit. Like TPP this trade agreement has been delayed by leaked draft documents, due to it's secretive nature, but could be finalized by the end of 2014.

Corporate Control

Similar to the case of TTP a very controversial clause in the TTIP is the Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). The ISDS would allow corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. One example of how the ISDS clause in TTIP would impact countries can be found in the case of the Swedish, part state owned, energy company Vattenfall suing the German government over the issue of terminating nuclear power plants. Vattenfall demands payouts of 4,7 billion euros (Der Spiegel), and has caused outrage in Germany. Other examples includes tobacco companies suing the Australian government over health labeling of cigarettes, and fracking companies suing the Canadian government over environmental protection. The original justification for introducing ISDS in trade agreements was for trade deals with countries where the judicial system was weak in protecting foreign investors. But this is not the case with either the EU or the US. According to the latest UN report on the topic, ISDS cases has increased from 0 in 1992 to 514 in 2012.

Responses by civil society

There is now a growing civil society resistance to TTIP and ISDS inclusion in the TTIP negotiations. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states (The Greens Europe). The European NGO Finance Watch writes about ISDS that "the very principle of such a mechanism is anti-democratic, because it allows investors to challenge legitimate regulations and other rules that have been created and voted by democratic institutions with a view to protecting their citizens". Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has reported that of 560 lobby encounters that the European Commission trade department held to prepare the negotiations, 520 (92%) were with business lobbyists, while only 26 (4%) were with public interest groups (CEO). That must be considered corporate capture. A large number of European scientists have also voiced concern over ISDS legal nature, quote "there is little evidence linking the conclusion of the Treaties to increased flows of foreign direct investment, and there is little evidence that they contribute to other development goals, such as encouraging good governance" (University of Kent). And a recent study from Tufts University has concluded through modelling that TTIP could lead to: net loss in exports for the EU, a net loss in GDP, and a loss in employment of some 600 000 jobs, and the author conclude by stating that "In the current context of austerity, high unemployment and low growth, increasing the pressure on labor incomes would further harm economic activity" (Capaldo, 2014).

Impact on environment, health and food standards

Many environmental organisations fear that the TTIP will ignite a "race to the bottom" regarding environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the US far weaker regulatory system. Most likely the TTIP will accelerate the privatization of public goods and services such as National Health systems. This could have tremendous effects on public health. And many analysts agree that TTIP would allow big food corporations to avoid food safety regulations and undermine sustainable agricultural practices in the rush for profits and trade. For example, the US has much weaker standards on animal welfare, ecosystem protection and GMO labeling. These are serious citizen concerns that has not been sufficiently addressed by governments wishing to take part of the TTIP.


Conclusion

Trade unions, consumer groups, environmentalists and digital rights activists are opposed to increasing corporate rights over sovereign nations. Almost all (centre-)left groups in the European Parliament have voted against ISDS. So have the French Assemble and the Dutch Parliament. In Sweden, however, both the moderates (M) and social democrats (S) are positive to the TTIP (ETC, 2013). The current prime minister, Stefan Löfven, has stated that he welcomes the TTIP but that "social justice issues should be included" (ibid). This is a paradox since the (S) representative Mikael Damberg in a leaked document to Cecilia Malmström, the EU commissioner for trade, has signed a letter pushing for ISDS inclusion in TTIP (TTippen.se). The most troubling issue is perhaps how much of the negotiations have been kept secret from public and governmental scrutiny, similar to the TPP. Moreover it seems that countries have become so desperate for economic growth that they are willing to throw everything they worked for, in terms of environmental and health regulation, out the window. I am also surprised that conservatives don't seem to react to this issue as much as the left, one might think that they should be even more concerned with national sovereignty.   
Read More

UN Climate Summit - What's at stake?

Climate Summit

Today, representatives from around the world are meeting in New York to start a one year long process around negotiations for a new climate treaty. The treaty is due by the end of 2015. This is probably the last chance for a binding agreement to be implemented and have an actual impact on global emissions. We are already committed to 2-3 degrees warming according to most experts. The issue now is trying to avoid a 4 or 6 degrees warmer world by 2100. Which is critical of course since we don't even know if such a world could host 7-10 billion people. From the period during which humans first developed agriculture until now we have only experienced +/- 1 degree change. And think about this, if you have a child in Sweden today with a life expectancy of 86 years (average for men is 82 and women 84), that child will experience 2100.  

Source: Collage based on UN, NASA, Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA)

The main obstacle to a binding treaty is of course the division between richer and poorer nations on how to proceed, specifically which countries ought to bear most of the burden? This is fundamentally a international justice issue since most of the cumulative carbon emissions and massive resource use originates from the wealthiest people on the planet (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Historical cumulative carbon emissions by country
rich nations have largest emissions
Source: global carbon project
Trying to get governments, especially the US, EU and China, to commit to substantial carbon emission reductions will be very difficult as such action definitely will have a direct impact on the their economies i.e. initially costly but beneficial in the long-term. Professor in physics Chris Williams says "a solution to the climate crisis requires a restructuring of the global economy, but when the last opportunity to do so came after the 2008-09 financial crisis, wold leaders saved the banks instead" (The Real News)

Aware of the tension between economic growth and carbon emission reductions many organisations have this time around adapted their material to match the language of economics, making cost-benefit analyses of adopting "green" technologies etc. One example is the new report called "The new climate economy" of which the Swedish minster of Environment, Lena Ek, was an initiator. The key message of the report is basically that we can have economic growth and save the environment too. My guess is that it's a political attempt to get more nations aboard signing a binding treaty. So the intent is good and probably smart but it depends on what kind of growth western nations are asking for - material or knowledge based? Another example is a recent Oxfam report stating that climate-related disasters (e.g. droughts, extreme temperatures, wildfires, storms, floods) have cost the world almost 500 billion dollars since 2010. To put numbers on losses in natural and social capital have thus become a new standard practice. And will perhaps lead to more action from politicians. In any case, it will be interesting to see what 2014-2015 will bring in terms of climate debate, demonstrations, treaty and much more. I'm hoping that talks will go beyond arguments about carbon markets and blame games. Civil society organizations and businesses attending the conference play an important role in reminding government officials that what is good for the planet, is also good for the people and for business.
Read More

Election Special

The Swedish Election 14 September

This post will deal with the upcoming Swedish election. For those who are unaware there is an election in Sweden on Sunday. There are a few key things that make this election somewhat exciting and controversial:

1. the center left social democrats (S) and the green party (MP) may get more votes than the center right liberals (M), (C), (FP) which would mean a change in government and party coalitions.
2. the anti-immigration party (SD) is probably going to get around 10 % of votes from dissatisfied Swedes who seems to believe "everything was better in the good old days". 
3. a small upcoming left party called feministic initiative (Fi) will maybe get into the government since many young city dwellers vote for them as a way to give voice to gender questions and gay rights.

Although Swedes seem to panic about political correctness these days, especially if you read the two largest daily newspapers, many Swedes actually vote "with their wallet" when it comes to down to it. Meaning that taxation and job creation issues are still the two main topics people care most deeply about. That is also why the center right has now been in power for 8 years because they promised to improve the Swedish economy and lower taxation. However, people now seem ready for some change. Most Swedes belong to a wealthy middle class which prioritize education and health care just as much as one percent more or less in taxes.   
party sympathies
Source: DN

Internationally the Reinfeldt, Bildt and Borg (M) government has become known for mainly their economic policies and the fact that Sweden did not suffer as much as many other countries after the 2008 financial crisis. However, while (M) certainly increased the governments budget surplus during their time in government private indebtedness has soared, especially in relation to the housing market which is now severely overheated. So while ordinary people have gotten lower taxes and more shopping malls they also have larger private debts. Moreover the attempt to open up thousands of new private schools has led to a big difference in education levels noticed in international tests. So while the center right may have done a lot for businesses and government budget not everyone feel too happy about their school and health reforms. And in the case of environmental policies a recent report showed that the  government had failed to meet 14 of 16 of the environmental goals they had set. 

Its funny to read NY Times analysis of the upcoming election. It mostly focuses on the issue of the Swedish economy and  business climate but also a bit on immigration. While the reporter isn't totally wrong i find it sad that the same argumentation goes on in every country where a right wing party claims that "businesses will flee do to increased taxation if the center left wins" which of course is totally relative and in the case of Sweden most large companies such as IKEA and HM already have shell companies located in international tax havens. Also why is no reporter questioning the assumed belief that politics should serve businesses in larger extent than the people? Large companies always complain about taxation no matter what but that does not mean that lower taxation is better for the people in terms of getting more jobs. Most large companies have totally mechanized most of the work being done in factories anyway. Also in Sweden most people work in the public sector and in small and medium companies (SMC). Moreover, one does not have to lower taxes to make it easier for SMC to hire people, one could instead make a tax shift from labor to for example heavy, extractive and polluting industries. 

Voter sympathies from 1967 to 2014, parties (top) and coalitions (below). Source: SVD


Anyway, the election campaigns so far have been more confusing than reassuring to most Swedes and the national radio broadcasting network SR reported that as of today 1/3 of Swedes are still undecided. Neither prime minister candidates have much charisma and (M) and (S) are basically so alike that people cannot tell their policies apart any longer. The smaller parties evoke more excitement from the public but also gets scrutinized harder by the media since there are some nut jobs the parties tries to get rid of just before election day. Most of the frenzy is of course about the SD party members since some have shady backgrounds in xenophobic organizations. Due to recent wars and conflicts (e.g. Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan) Sweden is likely to accept an even larger number of immigrants in the future (Sweden has one of the highest immigration numbers in the whole EU) which the SD party uses to scare people to vote for them, promising "all problems will go away when immigration numbers go down". Which is of course nuts! But segregation is a real problem that neither party has handled very well so more and more voters seem to vote for SD out of general dissatisfaction. However, one should not be fooled just because the party has cleaned up their act somewhat, they are still against most sound democratic things such as immigration, gay rights and abortion rights. 


Many commentators believe the red (S) and greens (MP) will win the majority, but much indicates it will be a close call. No party has addressed the very important question of what to do with our nuclear power plants, which are now old (40 years or so), should we replace them or turn to more solar, wind, water? Also no party has made any real suggestions how to lower unemployment, maybe they want to have some unemployment to keep inflation down. Moreover many parties seem to promise reforms which they are not sure how to fund, poor math skills is something politicians are well known for unfortunately. And finally, Swedish politicians may talk green but we are starting to fall behind, for example in protecting biodiversity and establishing nature reserves.  
Read More
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)