The road to the EU, or the road away from it 

by Alena Harciníková, Linnéa Strömberg and Kyeonghwa Kara Yang

The EU and Hungary have become pen pals. This week, the European Commission sent an official letter to Budapest, and gave them two months to answer it. But, it’s not quite a love letter. Rather, it’s the next step in an over a year long process to be able to target countries that breach the rule of law and be able to cut the funding they usually get from the EU. 

Hungary is one of the countries that receive the most money from the European Union, in comparison to how much they give. Around 2-3 percent of the country’s whole GDP is made up of their EU support money. And it’s been part of helping the economy bloom during recent years. 

This new letter sent by the EU on 27^th of April does not mean that the EU has started to prosecute Hungary. So far, it’s just raising concern. It will take months before Hungary answers, and even longer before they come to some sort of agreement. But many voices say that this doesn’t matter. 

According to Tomáš Zdechovský, a member of the European Parliament, the idea that Hungary would actually lose the funding is completely unrealistic. “All states, including Hungary, have to decide on it, and they will never do that,” said Zdechovský. According to him, such steps will never change Hungary’s leadership. “Knowing Hungarians and their mentality, this is what would make them even more angry with the EU. You can scold the Hungarians, threaten them, but they will not change,” he added.

This is partly supported by the journalist Halmai, who thinks that Orbán will find his own way not to lose the foundation in the end. “I think the Orbán government will do everything it can to prevent the commission from withholding the money. I think he will agree with the commission to return the money, sooner or later,” she said. 

On the other hand, according to Hungarian Euro-politician Klára Dobrev, the cutting of the founding is necessary. “Orbán could never have created his regime without European money.  The EU founding was the basis on which Orbán built his regime, it was the basis on which he could support his oligarchs – and these oligarchs then bought the media, the banking sector, the energy sector and so on. And that would never have happened without the money from the European Union,” she told us. 

Who is Viktor Orbán? 

Many things have been said about Victor Orbán, journalist Katalin Halmai would call him a very skillful manipulator, and his political opponent Klára Dobrev would call him talented, but reckless. On the other hand, some politicians called him “a good friend” for a long time –  for example, MEP Tomáš Zdechovský.

He came to power in 2010 after a scandal in which a leaked speech in which the previous prime minister talked about how he had lied to his people. Orbán became popular for his attitudes and approaches. Zdechovský added to this theme: “It is not mistaken. Viktor Orbán is the star of Hungary’s Velvet Revolution, he is a man who was very educated, who tried to build democracy in some way.” Yet he has also since received a lot of backlash and protests from his own citizens. “The problem with Viktor Orbán is that he always says something different in Hungary, thinks something different and does something different here in Brussels,” added Zdechovský, who knew Viktor Orbán not only through the Fidesz party but also personally. 

Domestically, Orbán also has both friends and enemies, and one who was up in the race to be his political opponent for this previous election is Klára Dobrev, from Democratic Coalition, who also sits in the European Parliament. She thinks his rule has set the country back in terms of important things like healthcare and democracy, and sees it as her mission to be his opponent. 

“Every regime will collapse sooner or later,’ she said, ‘and our task, my task as Democratic Coalition, is to make sure it happens as soon as possible.’ Because that’s the interest of the Hungarian people,” she added.

Is Hungary’s Brexit coming? 

Apart from questions about the whole funding situation for Hungary, there is also the question of whether the country will remain in the European Union. 

According to MEP Tomáš Zdechovský, Hungary’s staying in the EU after the founding would be worthless. “I think Hungary would leave the EU. For them, the free trade area is great, but I think it’s a connected vessel with other things. But it’s really a very theoretical question, I really don’t think they would lose those funds,” he said. 

Journalist Katalin Halmai, on the other hand, disagreed: ‘We definitely need to stay in the EU. And I don’t think Orbán would want it any other way. Whatever he says, and whatever progopanda tries to tell people, I think at the moment he wants to stay in the EU.”

However, the European Union is a group of countries where decisions are made by compromise and, so to speak, by unanimity, Klára Dobrev thinks Hungary’s behaviour will have far-reaching consequences. “No one was prepared for such an aggressive policy as Orbán. And as a Hungarian politician like me, I’m ashamed that it was because of Hungary that we had to introduce the rule of law regulation.” Klára said. She has been pondering the question of whether there is a possibility that Hungary would actually leave the European Union for a long time. “Every action has a reaction, so it is possible that, although we do not want to, our behaviour will lead us to leave the European Union,” she finally said.

How to be a journalist in Viktor Orbán’s world?

One day you have a job and the next day you don’t. Is it difficult to be a journalist in a country that is ranked ninety-second out of one hundred and eighty by Reporters Without Borders? Not if you write for Orbán, says Hungarian journalist Katalin Halmai.

Katalin Halmai worked for Nepszabadsag for several years. However, on October 8, 2016, the country’s largest opposition newspaper, which had been in circulation since 1956, was suddenly shut down. From one day to the next. “It was Saturday morning; I was listening to the radio. And in the news at nine o’clock I’ve heard that the online version of Nepszabadsag is not accessible anymore,” Halmai remembered. Then she started getting messages from her colleagues and by the evening, or maybe the day after, it was clear what had happened: “The paper was closed, no future,” she said. 

Although the official explanation for closing the newspaper was a “business decision”, there were many counter-claims – both from the employees themselves and from the political opposition. Their point was clear: Orbán’s Fidesz party is acting behind the scenes. “We were moving into a new building, so all the journalists packed up all their stuff on Friday, turned in their stories and went home. And on Sunday, we all got our quit notices in the mail,” Halmai said. All journalists were also banned from the new building. “I think it was dirty and prepared in advance,” she added.

All this happened in 2016. Since then, the situation has worsened. As documented by Reporters Without Borders as well as CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists), Orbán’s attacks on press freedom include not only the violent closure or government takeover of once-independent media outlets, but also the use of the COVID-19 epidemic to further restrict access to information, verbal attacks, lawsuits, police interrogations and even secret surveillance to intimidate journalists.

And it is precisely the large media space, caused by the influence on journalists’ freedom, that is cited as one of the reasons for Orbán’s victory in this year’s elections. “It’s not by chance that every big dictator’s first step is to take away the media,” claimed Klára Dobrev, a Hungarian opposition politician and MEP member. “If 24/7 you just receive one political information, as it is happening in Hungary, the opposition has no change,” she said. 

Katalin Halmai has experienced that more people feel hopeless about change after the recent election. But she also sees no other choice than to just keep doing what she’s doing. “I’m focusing on the Hungarian issues, and since I’m focusing on that, of course, I’m involved in politics,” she said. “And I try to write the truth. So, that is my job, and I would like to continue my job. To give it up is not an option for me.”

The Ukrainian Agriculture industry is plowing on despite the Russian invasion

By Greg Kennedy + Kyran Berlin

It’s no surprise that the Ukrainian agriculture industry has taken a huge hit since the Russian invasion – however despite the setbacks from Russian invaders, Ukrainian farmers are plowing on. The main problem now for the industry is moving the goods to war-torn areas and other countries, as seaports are blocked by Russian troops and many methods of transport are no longer viable.

Agricultural workers of Ukraine are currently utilizing 72% of the farmland used pre-invasion, about 13.8 million hectares. The rest is occupied by the Russians, according to Ukrainian Agribusiness Club (UCAB) Analyst Svitlana Lytvyn.

Before the war, Ukraine’s main method of exporting goods was through their seaports, one of their biggest being in Odessa. However, the Russians continue to occupy these, blocking exports. 

“Farmers have left products, the volumes of which exceed the internal needs of Ukraine and were intended for export and export earnings. Now there is practically no opportunity to sell these products,” said Lytvyn.

Anne Poulsen, director of the UN World Food Programme’s Nordic Office thinks that this blockage of exports is going to have a devastating impact in the poorest parts of the world. 

“When the price of food and fuel prices increase in countries like Somalia or Sudan or Yemen or Afghanistan, I mean, this is really devastating. This is alarming for people… So ultimately, this will be a matter of life and death.” Poulsen said.

Ukraine produces enough food to feed 400 million people across the world, while they themselves are only a country of 14 million. Ukraine and Russia are often referred to as the world’s ‘Breadbasket’.

Lytvyn said that, “Foreign trade did not stop during the war,” however there are major issues with transporting the excess goods that the Ukrainian farmers have produced. The seaports are not the only problem, the only other trade routes are via the Danube river to ports in Romania or via rail through western Ukraine.”

Both methods have a myriad of complications – for example to go by rail requires negotiating with un-willing EU railway operators and changing wheels to fit a different width of tracks between the EU and Ukraine.

Much like the rest of Ukraine, the agriculture industry is stubborn, strong and continues to fight despite the obvious threats. “The main task now is to find alternative supply channels,” says Lytvyn.

To hear more about food supply in Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine, listen to the Ukraine DMJX EU Pod here.

---

The DMJX EU Pod: Will Russia’s invasion lead to a global food shortage?

[TRANSCRIPT]

INTRO

GREG:

Hello and welcome to the DMJX EU Report. 

Presenting is myself, Greg Kennedy…

KYRAN:

And I’m Kyran Berlin.

GREG:

Today we dive into the story of Ukrainian farmers still working despite the war-time conditions and how Russia’s invasion has changed Ukraine’s food landscape. 

But first, a roundup of the most recent news out of Ukraine.

KYRAN:

It’s Tuesday afternoon.

A Safe Passage Operation is underway in Ukraine to evacuate people from the Azovstal steel plant, where Ukrainians were forced to take refuge some weeks ago to escape Russian advances. NPR reports that 100 people have been evacuated from the plant, but more remain inside, including at least 20 children.

“Powerful explosions” were heard in the Russian city of Belgorod this morning, raising global concern that fighting in Ukraine may have spilled over the borders of both Russia and Moldova.

Finally, the US warned that Moscow may be planning on annexing parts of Ukraine by creating a sham referenda in mid-May and fabricating votes, according to the latest report from the US Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Now on to our main story.

MAIN STORY

GREG:

Earlier this week Russian troops raided approximately $5 million worth of tractors and farming equipment from a John Deere dealership in Melitopol, according to CNN.

However, after hauling the heavy machinery 700 miles to Chechnya, the plunderers found that the equipment had already been remotely disabled and were unusable.

This heist was part of a continued saga on the second war raging in Ukraine – that of the nation’s food and agricultural security, which Russia has pressured with port shutoffs, strategic targeting of agricultural areas and denial of humanitarian aid for Ukranians sheltered in hard-hit areas like Kyiv and Mariupol.

The UN warned that millions of Ukranians may be facing acute food insecurity in the coming months due to the ongoing conflict.

KYRAN: 

In response, the World Food Programme has deployed staff on the ground to help with distributing rations and aid, but not without some difficulties posed by Russian troops. We spoke with Anne Poulsen, Director of WFP’s Nordic Branch, in mid April about the org’s current operations in Ukraine:

Some 50 days before we spoke the WFP had absolutely nothing in Ukraine…And bear in mind that this is the fastest growing humanitarian crisis in recent history… at this point we have 300 staff on the ground.”

“Right now, the WFP is providing food for one or food assistance for 1.4 million people, and are scaling up to reach a total of 6 million people inside of Ukraine. In addition to those 6 million people, they’re assisting people who have fled the country war in the border countries to Ukraine. So that’s another 300,000 people that the WFP is assisting outside of the borders of Ukraine”

However, while many Ukranians face a denial of access to food, others in the agricultural sector have harvested a surplus of it, but without safe routes to transport it for sale.

This adds to a global pinch on food supplies and other goods provided by Russia and Ukraine, which together provide about 40% of the world’s grains. 

GREG:

Beyond the besieged cities, many farms across Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine have also faced shellings, threats and limits to their operation because of Russian presence, says Svitlana Lytvyn, an analyst with Ukrainian AgriBusiness Club.

“There is unused farmland in the zone of active hostilities (parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Kharkiv regions for example). And some areas have already been liberated from occupation, but it is impossible to carry out sowing on their territories due to the mining of fields and the destroyed material and technical base.” 

Lytvyn (LYTVIN)  added that “in addition, up to 10-15% of the fields in the combat areas are contaminated with the remains of shells and mines, there are fields blocked due to road mines. Mined fields are one of the factors that do not allow timely sowing… Work has already begun on demining these territories by the relevant services, but this process is quite lengthy and it is very unlikely that they will have time to carry out a sowing campaign in these territories” 

KYRAN:

Copa-Cogeca, an organization of farmers and agri-cooperatives in the EU, have pledged to maintain reliable food supplies to Europe as the conflict continues, and many Member States are assisting in supplying food donations, logistical support and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

The WFP has purchased roughly 12,000 metric tonnes of wheat from Ukraine with the goal of supporting the nation’s local economy, in addition to providing rations and cash stipends in heavily impacted areas.

GREG:

As for the 72% of Ukrainian farmers who can continue their work, they still face uncertainty over where and how their harvest can be sold.

“Foreign trade did not stop during the war. Ukraine produces much more agricultural products than its own needs, and therefore can export a considerable amount of food without threatening its food security. There are practically no significant administrative restrictions on the export of grain, vegetable oils and most other agricultural products from Ukraine. The main task is to find alternative supply channels.”

Lytvyn summarized the situation by saying, “There will be no famine in Ukraine, but the world will be facing a global food shortage.”

Thanks for joining us here at DMJX EU Report.

(Exit).

by Olivia Wynkoop and Maren Krämer

The European Commission Charlemagne building in Brussels – one of the main decision-making settings © Maren Krämer

Storing CO2 under the Earth instead of polluting the air we breathe – this is the concept of the Kairos@C project in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium. Developed by chemical companies Air Liquide and BASF, the project recently recieved €360 billion of the €1.1 billion EU Innovation Fund grants handed to seven large-scale climate projects across Europe. 

It aims to create the first and largest cross-border carbon capture and storage (CCS) value chain to capture, liquify, ship, and permanently store CO2. 

Out of seven large-scale projects that received funding, four are dealing with carbon management technologies. CCS is considered to play a big role in the EU’s ambitious goal to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. 

According to David Yormesor from the European Investment Bank, the Innovation Fund is implemented by the European Commission with the assistance of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA), who selected the projects out of 300 applicants. Criteria include the project’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the degree of innovation and the project maturity. Potential for Scalability and cost-effectiveness are also considered

EU officials aren’t the only ones included in decisions regarding climate policy, says the EU Watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). One report states that lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry regularly meet with decision-makers. CEO further states that “like the tobacco industry was excluded from lobbying on health policy, the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying on climate and energy policy must be curbed.”

In the Commission headquarters in Brussels, countries come together to make EU related decisions. Watchdogs like the Corporate Europe Observatory investigate how much influence industrial lobbies have on the decision-making © Maren Krämer

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is dealing with the implementation and regulation of CCS. While they agree that the industry should not have free reign to set the agenda, they also underline that the companies play a significant role in the process. “Companies likely to deploy this are gonna be companies that have been traditionally engaged in the production of energy or in industrial products”, explains Karl Hausker, Senior Fellow in WRI’s Climate Program. “It’s not necessarily a bad thing that those companies continue to be involved more; it is more likely that they have the expertise that will be needed.”

Nevertheless, other stakeholders can not be forgotten. According to Zachary Byrum, WRI Research Analyst for Climate, there is a risk of perpetuating existing harms if you put carbon capture on old coal plants that are near marginalized or distressed communities. “One thing that we strongly advocate for – and we don’t have all the answers for yet – is how to engage communities and bring them into the decision making process early and often; to see if this technology is appropriate for that facility and if it’s something they want, something that can bring economic benefits.”

The Spokesperson of the Directorate-General Climate Action and other EU officials did not respond to interview requests before publication. 

Read more

by Olivia Wynkoop and Maren Krämer

The BASF site in the port of Antwerp is where the carbon will be captured before it is shipped off and permanently stored under the earth in different parts of Europe. © BASF Antwerpen NV

One way for the European Union to reach climate neutrality by 2050? Capturing CO2 emissions from factories, turning them to liquid and storing them deep in the Earth. No, this isn’t from some sci-fi comic book: it’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology, and it’s being developed by the industry giants who know harmful pollutants best.

Four leading forces in steel, cement, biomass and chemical production recently received their share of €1.1 billion from the EU Commission’s Innovation Fund, a grant only awarded to seven out of 300 applicants developing low-carbon technology. “This is a smart investment into the decarbonisation and resilience of our economy; it boosts European industry’s position as global leaders in clean tech, creates local jobs, and helps to accelerate our green transition,” Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, Frans Timmermans said in a statement.

Kairos@C

Placed in Belgium’s Port of Antwerp sits Kairos@C, the project that received €360 million, or roughly one-third, of Innovation Fund money. It’s the first (and largest) cross-border carbon capture and storage value chain that will permanently store CO2 emissions from industrial factories located at the site. It has the potential to cut out 14 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere in its first ten years of operation, which will kickstart in 2025. The whole BASF site in Antwerp emits 3.8 million tons per year, and Kairos@C will reduce 25 percents of it.

Leading chemical producers BASF and Air Liquide are pairing their patented technology together for the project. Frederik Pieters, staff site manager at BASF Antwerp, said the project is a part of the port’s larger initiative to cut their emissions in half by 2030, labeled Antwerp@C. 

“Which means that all other companies in the port, if they would be willing, could actually use this infrastructure. It would also be a scalable infrastructure so that it could be expanded to accommodate additional quantities from additional participants,” Pieters said.

Frederik Pieters, Staff site manager at BASF Antwerp NV © Maren Krämer

Here’s how it will work:

Find out more about the three main approaches for pulling the CO2 out of the gas mixture in this article in the Cosmos Magazine.

‘Decarbonize or perish’

There’s great talk on the rise and fall in emission allowances prices in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), but little on the ways industries can successfully decarbonise. According to the International Energy Agency, nearly half of the reduced emissions that Europe is aiming for by 2050 will have to come from technologies that have yet to expand full-scale. Emission-heavy companies need incentive to give these technologies a chance, said former European Commissioner for Energy Andris Piebalgs and Alessia Virone of the Clean Air Task Force in a joint column. Otherwise, companies will continue to overlook carbon prices and cash in on “free allowances.” 

“Under current market conditions, the problem is that if [companies] choose to decarbonise, they are likely to perish due to increased costs. Policymakers must step in and ensure the availability of the required innovative technologies to decarbonise,” reads their article.

BASF’s Frederik Pieters pointed to the Paris Climate Agreement target to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said reducing emissions is not enough to reach these goals – carbon removal strategies need to be invested alongside an overall emission reduction.

“If you look at industry, what are the other short term alternatives?” Pieters said. “There are none. So you have to go this route.” Pieters also added that not acting now could put a company in a “very disagreeable situation” that could detriment their competitive position, even to an existential degree. “That’s why all the big companies are actually working and preparing and doing things to have alternatives,” Pieters said.

The European Commission Charlemagne building in Brussels – one of the main decision-making settings © Maren Krämer

‘Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater’

Supplying taxpayer’s money to historically harmful companies stir mixed reactions within the climate sector, however. As a note, BASF and a handful of other industrial companies are accountable for 44 percent of Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Watchdog groups like the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) have numerous reports on gas and oil lobby groups pressing for blue hydrogen and CCS technique investments in the EU. Greenpeace states that money spent on CCS only deters investments that could be used for green power sources.

“Letting CCS be used as a smokescreen for building new coal-fired power stations is unacceptable and irresponsible. ‘Capture ready’ coal plants pose a significant threat to the climate,” Greenpeace stated in a 2018 report, which spokesperson Paul Musiol confirmed is still the stance of the organization today.

But World Resources Institute research analyst Zachary Byrum and senior fellow Karl Hausker said having an all-or-nothing approach will only hinder progress. It’s more relevant to focus on the kinds of CO2 emissions that CCS strategies could be used for, they said. Process emissions, like the CO2 released during the chemical reactions to produce ethylene oxides in BASF for example, are inevitable. This is something you cannot “renewable your way out of,” Byrum said.

“You can’t just dismantle these institutions. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, essentially,” Byrum said. “If you can find a way to really utilize their existing capabilities and infrastructure and turn them into entities that can provide some public good, in addition to renewable power.”

Hausker added that the participation of companies that specialize in gas, oil and chemicals is not inherently a bad thing, since they have the infrastructure, the human capital and technical experience to do most of this work.

“The companies likely to deploy this are going to be companies that have been traditionally engaged in the production of energy or in or industrial products. So they are likely to be the ones investing in either the retrofit of facilities or the investment of new facilities,” Hausker said.

Serving safely and in time

The European Parliament appears to have wavering confidence in CCS techniques’ abilities to bring them closer to climate neutrality in a safe, timely and cost-efficient manner. One justification on the ETS amendments in Feburary seems to be in favor: “Even though some emissions of industry are hard to abate, these industries can use solutions like CCS to reach close to climate neutrality by 2045.” And in March, another justification stated that despite the considerable funding towards CCS, “there are still no existing cost-efficient projects on industrial scale that shows the viability of those technologies.”

Both the Parliament and the Council have to agree to the amendments. Members of Parliament recently agreed that EU funds should support the development of carbon capture and storage. © Maren Krämer

Regarding the safety of the methods, all kinds of stakeholders emphasize that CCS has been done for years and is only using techniques that were safely used for decades. Alfred Michael Sporman, Executive Director at Novo Nordisk Foundation C02 Research Center, confirms: “There are no data that carbon capture itself is unsafe.” But he adds: “CO2
storage, in particular of liquid CO2 in the subsurface, is a different issue though.” Frederik Pieters puts the possible risks in perspective to the benefits: “If this would be done on a gigantic scale, you can never exclude that maybe somewhere, someday, there might be an incident with a certain storage facility. But nevertheless, then it would be probably more an isolated incident. If you look at the potential for CCS, and also the needs to achieve the climate goals, we do still think it’s a very good way to go.”

On an international scale

Though agreeable in the EU sector, CCS could potentially pose a significant risk to international competitiveness, as not every part of the world follows the same guidelines. BASF is also evaluating CCS techniques for some plants in the U.S., but Pieters admitted that the CCS-projects in Europe are already diminishing their competitiveness on worldwide markets. “That’s an issue that is not being tackled by carbon border adjustment measures. The only real way for it is that you would have parallel measures, worldwide. That’s a very difficult seller with the US, China, Asia, but that’s the only thing that makes sense,” Pieters from BASF said.

Though there are geographic and economic barriers to developing countries having access to CCS technology in their production facilities, leading economies the EU and the U.S. may have a chance to pave the way to bring down costs and establish an ecofriendly governance paradigm for others to follow in suit. “Does that mean that they will, who knows? We can’t tell them to adopt the laws that we make, for better or for worse. But if we do it right and we show how the regulations create robust monitoring, reporting and verification plans for sequestered CO2, and how to
establish CO2 pipeline networks that don’t harm communities or don’t harm sensitive ecosystems, we can only hope that others will see the success of those and model it as well,” WRI analyst Byrum said.

Read more