Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries.

AndreiC93 — Fri, 31 May 2024 06:57:53 +0000

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries. AndreiC93 Fri, 05/31/2024 - 09:57

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Andrei

Last Name

COPĂCEANU

Academic title

Other

Address

București. Sos. Mihai Bravu. nr. 3

E-mail

andrei.copaceanu10@gmail.com

Phone

0757.944.925

Institution/University

SNSPA

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

Title

We are promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries.

Summary

This article examines the critical role that Romania's ODA projects and programmes play in promoting environmental principles in recipient countries. A sustainable approach to development becomes imperative in the current context of increasing global concerns about climate change and environmental degradation. This study examines the strategies adopted by Romania in its ODA projects and their impact on promoting environmental principles in partner countries. The article highlights how Romania's ODA projects integrate environmental aspects such as natural resource management and marine geology. It will also consider the importance of local communities' awareness and involvement in conserving natural resources and marine ecosystems. This approach will highlight a perspective on sustainable development, integrating both ecological and social aspects.

Through case studies, it analyses the results of projects carried out by Romania in various beneficiary countries. The article also explores the challenges encountered in implementing these projects and offers suggestions for optimizing future strategies. The importance of international collaboration and sustainable partnerships in addressing global environmental issues is highlighted. This analysis of the variable related to natural resource management and marine geology brings into question the significant contributions of Romania's ODA projects in building a sustainable and resilient future for recipient states, which are achievable in the context of preserving natural resources, conserving marine habitats, protecting vulnerable species and promoting sustainable development. This study aims to contribute to understanding how ODA donors such as Romania can positively influence environmental policies and practices in partner countries, thereby strengthening the shared commitment to a more sustainable and equitable future.

Keywords:

Official development assistance; promoting environmental principles through official development assistance; ecology; international development cooperation; natural resource management;

Paper upload

ODA - WITH REVISION

Green Policies, Gray Areas: Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union

VladBT — Sun, 14 Apr 2024 23:45:02 +0000

Green Policies, Gray Areas: Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union VladBT Mon, 04/15/2024 - 02:45

Registration fee details

Non-student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Vlad

Last Name

Bujdei-Tebeica

Academic title

Dr.

Address

Calea Giulesti 131

E-mail

vlad.bujdei.14@politice.ro

Phone

0722402469

Institution/University

SNSPA

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

Green Policies, Gray Areas:

Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union

Vlad Bujdei-Tebeica

Abstract:

This paper presents a comparative analysis of farmer protests across seven European countries (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Romania) from late 2023 to early 2024, focusing on the intersection of anti-environmentalist discourse and Euroscepticism within these movements. Amidst growing tensions between agricultural practices and environmental policies, these protests highlight how civil society can pose a threat to the implementation of environmental policy across the European Union (EU). Utilizing discourse analysis and comparative methodology, the paper examines the platforms and public statements of the protesting groups to identify core themes of resistance against environmental regulations and EU agricultural policies. Furthermore, it incorporates a Euroscepticism lens to explore how anti-EU sentiments exacerbate the protests, reflecting broader issues of sovereignty, identity, and economic survival in the face of EU-wide policy directives. Our findings suggest that while environmental policy concerns are at the forefront, a significant undercurrent of Euroscepticism influences the discourse and demands of these protests, presenting a multifaceted challenge for EU policymakers. By analyzing these protests in a comparative context, this study contributes to the understanding of contemporary European social movements and the intricate balance between environmental sustainability and agricultural livelihoods within the EU policy framework.

Keywords: farmer protests, agriculture policy, Euroscepticism, anti-environmentalism

Author bio:

Vlad Bujdei-Tebeica was born in 1989, in Bucharest. He studied political science at the National University of Political Science and Public Administration (SNSPA) in Bucharest, where he earned his PhD, published under the title „In populism’s Shadow: The European Left after the 2008 Crisis”. He currently works as an assistant professor at SNSPA. He also has experience working in the public administration sector and elaborating regional development strategies.

Introduction

The beginning of 2024 marked a significant escalation in the intensity and frequency of farmer protests, underscoring a widespread discontent with the current agricultural policy frameworks, notably those influenced by the European Union’s environmental regulations. These protests, which spanned across various EU countries including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, and Romania, not only disrupted local and national economies but also brought to the fore critical debates around sustainable agriculture, food sovereignty, and national versus EU-level governance.

Farmer protests are not a new phenomenon in the European Union; they have been a significant aspect of European agricultural politics for decades. Historically, these protests have often erupted in response to falling prices, rising costs, or new EU regulations perceived as out of touch with on-the-ground realities. For instance, in the early 2000s, French farmers blockaded roads to protest against changes in EU agricultural policies that they claimed favored agribusiness over small-scale producers. Similarly, in 2009, dairy farmers across Europe staged numerous protests in response to plummeting milk prices due to EU quota changes. These historical protests set a precedent for current demonstrations, underscoring recurring themes of economic vulnerability and resistance to top-down regulatory changes that fail to account for local and regional farming contexts.

The 2024 farmers’ grievances, while diverse, shared common themes centered around the perceived overreach of EU policies—particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the European Green Deal—which are often seen as misaligned with the practical realities of farming. The protests were characterized by dramatic demonstrations and blockades, signifying a deep-seated resistance against what many farmers view as untenable environmental regulations that compromise their livelihoods without sufficient compensatory measures or support. This wave of dissent provides a poignant context to explore the intersection of environmental policy, national sovereignty, and the viability of traditional farming practices within the modern European political and economic landscape.

Over the years, while there have been notable advancements, the CAP has consistently been criticized for its failure to fully integrate environmental protection into agricultural practices effectively. Guy Pe’er et al. point out the significant mismatch between the CAP's financial distributions and its achievements in environmental and social spheres, arguing that the policy's heavy reliance on direct payments does not sufficiently tackle critical environmental challenges like biodiversity loss, climate change mitigation, and sustainable land use. Pe'er and his team suggest a radical overhaul of the CAP, advocating for a shift to a more targeted and performance-based system where funding is intricately linked to the achievement of environmental benefits and sustainability improvements.

The European Green Deal (EGD) is presented as much more than a climate initiative; it is a transformative economic and social agenda aiming to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 within the European Union. The comprehensive strategy outlined in the EGD suggests a significant shift towards a sustainable development model that could potentially redefine the European economic landscape. A study authored by Sarah Wolf, Jonas Teitge, Jahel Mielke, Franziska Schütze, and Carlo Jaeger, argues that the EGD is not only a climate strategy but also a significant socio-economic opportunity that could reshape the European economy into a sustainable development model.

On the other hand, however, Eckert and Kovalevska argue that the rhetoric used in the Green Deal not only serves to strengthen the European Commission's authority but also tends to obscure complex sustainability issues under layers of technical jargon. This obfuscation can alienate the general public and obscure the real challenges involved in transitioning to sustainable practices. The optimistic depiction of the EGD’s potential effects contrasts sharply with the more daunting, on-the-ground realities of enacting comprehensive environmental protection and genuine ecological sustainability.

Thus, this disenfranchising discourse of the EGD poses significant challenges by fueling the rise of right-wing politics within European agrarian movements is significantly influenced by the socio-economic changes wrought by neoliberal policies, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis. Natalia Mamonova and Jaume Franquesa argue that policies such as the CAP and EGD have deepened economic inequalities and fostered disenchantment among rural populations, creating a fertile environment for right-wing populist rhetoric. This rhetoric frequently taps into national identity and socio-economic insecurities, appealing to rural constituencies who feel left behind by mainstream political agendas and marginalized by the broader economic structures.

Caradaică’s examination of voluntary carbon markets, particularly those focused on forestry projects for carbon removal, serves as an example that illustrates a significant disconnect between European Union policymaking and the actual beneficiaries of such policies. This misalignment exemplifies the challenges in aligning broad environmental initiatives with local economic realities and stakeholder interests, highlighting a trend that often leads to the prevalence of anti-environmentalist and Eurosceptic discourse across the EU. Despite the well-intentioned design of these policies, they frequently encounter skepticism from local industries and member states. This skepticism often stems from the perceived economic and bureaucratic burdens these policies impose, which can severely impede their effectiveness and acceptance.

The central hypothesis of this study explores the relationship between anti-environmentalist and Eurosceptic discourses as they manifest in farmer protests across the European Union. This research aims to dissect and understand the nuances of these discourses across various member states, with a specific focus on agricultural policy debates driven by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the European Green Deal (EGD). While we anticipate that anti-environmentalist and Eurosceptic sentiments may frequently intersect within these protests, the hypothesis posits that the presence of one does not necessarily imply the presence of the other.

To investigate, we will employ discourse analysis on the manifestos and public statements of the main actors involved in the farmer protests of early 2024. Our study encompasses six European countries: Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Romania. This selection ensures representativity across different political contexts within Europe, covering Western Europe, Southern Europe, and Central-Eastern Europe. By choosing two countries from each region, we aim to facilitate comparability and draw more nuanced conclusions about the regional variations in how these discourses are shaped by local political, economic, and social contexts. This methodological approach will allow us to provide a detailed comparative analysis that contributes to a deeper understanding of the interplay between environmental policies and national sovereignty concerns within the EU.

Over the course of this paper, we will first look at the existing body of literature covering the topics of anti-environmentalism and Euroscepticism, in order to understand the state-of-the-art of these two phenomena. The second step is to look into each specific country case study, by shortly describing the farmers’ protests that took place in each country case study and by analyzing the manifestos and the demands of these protests. When analyzing these documents, special consideration to specific points that relate to either anti-environmentalism or Euroscepticism or both.

Anti-environmentalism

Anti-environmentalism, a phenomenon characterized by opposition to environmental policies and skepticism towards the scientific consensus on environmental issues, has gained traction in various global contexts over the past decade. This stance is typically marked by resistance to regulatory efforts aimed at protecting and preserving the environment, including policies on climate change, pollution control, and biodiversity conservation. The rise of anti-environmental sentiment is significant because it challenges the efforts to address some of the most pressing issues facing humanity today, such as climate change and environmental degradation.

To add to the complexity of the anti-environmentalist issue, Angela Turck, Lasse Schloemer, and Wiltrud Terlau, delve into the so-called "trilemma" of land use, which encompasses the intertwined goals of mitigating climate change, ensuring food security, and preserving biodiversity. This trilemma reflects the challenges farmers face in balancing these often-conflicting demands, with each goal seemingly at odds with the others when viewed from a traditional agricultural perspective (Turck et al., 2023).

Radical right parties strategically frame environmental issues as a way to mobilize voter support by tapping into broader socio-political anxieties. These parties frame environmental policies as threats to national sovereignty, economic growth, and cultural identity, effectively transforming what are traditionally seen as universal valence issues into contentious positional issues. This reframing aligns with their broader populist and nationalist agendas, appealing to voters who perceive environmental regulations as impositions by elite and external forces, such as the European Union or global governance frameworks (Gemenis et al., 2012).

In a study covering the farmers’ protests in the Netherlands that took place in 2019, Van der Ploeg examines the phenomenon in the context of deep-seated grievances against environmental regulations, perceived threats to farming practices, and the broader socio-political tensions manifesting as rural populism. The farmers, facing regulatory pressures to reduce nitrogen emissions and other environmental impacts, rallied against what they perceive as an unjust targeting of their livelihoods. This protest movement, however, is characterized by the author as a form of regressive populism, which, while mobilizing significant rural support, does not necessarily address the underlying challenges of sustainability and equity within agricultural policy (van der Ploeg, 2020).

In their seminal work, “The Handbook of Anti-Environmentalism”, Stoddart, Tindal and Dunlap explore the multifaceted nature of opposition to environmentalism, highlighting how resistance spans from overtly corporate-driven agendas to more subtle, internally critical perspectives within environmental movements themselves. They split the existing anti-environmentalist discourses into 'critical' or 'reflexive'.

They present a clear distinction between traditional anti-environmentalism, which is typically championed by corporate interests and conservative ideologies that favor market freedom over stringent environmental regulations (critical), and the emerging 'reflexive' anti-environmentalism. This latter form is particularly intriguing as it emerges from within environmentalist circles, pointing out the adverse consequences or exclusionary practices that can arise from environmental initiatives. This nuanced exploration helps illuminate the complex dynamics and diverse opposition that environmental policies face, reflecting broader societal debates about how best to achieve sustainable environmental outcomes (Tindal et al., 2022).

Euroscepticism

Euroscepticism in Europe has emerged as a significant and dynamic force shaping the continent's political landscape over the last 20 years. This phenomenon, characterized by a critical or outright negative stance toward the European Union and its institutions, has roots in a diverse array of socio-economic and political anxieties. The term itself encompasses a broad spectrum of attitudes, from reformist skepticism, which advocates for specific changes to the Union’s policies or structures, to rejectionist skepticism, which argues for a country's withdrawal from the EU.

Several crises have acted as catalysts for Eurosceptic sentiments. The sovereign debt crisis in the early 2010s exposed economic vulnerabilities and led to severe austerity measures in several EU countries, which, in turn, fueled disillusionment with EU governance. The 2015 migration crisis further compounded this issue, as the influx of refugees challenged the Union's border policies and sparked debates over national security and cultural integration. Perhaps the most significant manifestation of Euroscepticism was the United Kingdom's 2016 referendum on EU membership, which resulted in a decision to leave the Union, marking the first instance of a member state choosing to exit. This event, known as Brexit, not only underscored the feasibility of withdrawal but also emboldened Eurosceptic groups across the continent, advocating for similar referenda in their own countries.

Theoretical approaches to studying Euroscepticism are varied and multidimensional, reflecting the complexity of the phenomenon itself. Authors, such as Paul Taggart, have emphasized the importance of understanding Euroscepticism as not only a response to political and economic developments but also as a deeper expression of political alienation and disenchantment with mainstream political options. Catherine de Vries, on the other hand, has contributed to the economic explanations by exploring how perceived economic disadvantages or disparities due to EU policies catalyze Eurosceptic sentiments among citizens. Furthermore, Catherine Sorensen's work has delved into the identity-based theories of Euroscepticism, suggesting that it often arises from fears that EU membership erodes distinct national cultures and identities.

When it comes to the relationship between Euroscepticism and environmentalism, the European Green Deal has been a particularly easy target for Eurosceptic criticism. In a study done for the European Commission, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Federico Bartalucci provide a comprehensive examination of the disparate regional impacts of the green transition within the European Union. The authors develop a Regional Green Transition Vulnerability Index to measure the varying susceptibilities of EU regions to socio-economic upheavals triggered by the shift towards low-carbon standards (Rodriguez-Pose & Bartalucci, 2023).

Rodríguez-Pose and Bartalucci illustrate that less-developed, peri-urban, and rural regions, particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, are more vulnerable to negative repercussions from the green transition. The paper highlights that these regions are already economically fragile and could experience intensified hardship due to policy shifts aimed at mitigating climate change. The authors argue that if these transitions are not managed carefully, they could exacerbate social discontent and potentially increase support for climate-change-skeptic political movements, particularly from the radical right.

Country profiles

France

The French farmers’ protests are perhaps the longest in Europe, starting back in October 2023. The farmer protests in France that began in late October 2023, spearheaded by the National Federation of Agricultural Holders' Unions (FNSEA) and Young Farmers (JA), have intensified significantly by January 2024. These protests, originating in Occitanie, involved peaceful actions such as flipping road signs at town entrances, a movement sometimes called "On marche sur la tête" (We're walking on our heads), which then spread to other regions of France.

The intensification of the movement coincided with the upcoming European elections, starting with an unauthorized blockade of the Toulouse-Tarbes highway (A64) by farmers in Occitanie on January 18, 2024. The escalation included an explosion at the regional environmental agency's building in Carcassonne on the night of January 18-19, claimed by the Comité d’Action Viticole, though no injuries occurred as the building was empty at the time.

The manifesto from the FNSEA does not overtly express anti-environmentalist sentiments or a general Eurosceptic stance. Instead, it focuses more on specific grievances related to agricultural policy and its effects on farmers, without outright rejecting environmental concerns or the European Union as a whole. In the manifesto, the term "food sovereignty" appears twice, underscoring its significance to the authors' agenda. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is discussed on multiple occasions, with four negative mentions highlighting dissatisfaction and criticism from the authors. However, it also receives three positive mentions, suggesting a recognition of its potential benefits or roles in supporting agriculture. Additionally, the European Union itself is criticized three times, indicating a clear stance of discontent or opposition towards EU policies and actions as they pertain to agricultural practices[1].

While there are criticisms regarding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and mentions of EU-related challenges, these are contextually targeted at how these policies impact the agricultural sector rather than indicative of a broader ideological opposition to the EU or environmental regulations per se. The references to CAP, both positive and negative, highlight concerns about policy effectiveness and equity, rather than a fundamental opposition to the EU’s environmental goals.

Given the specific agricultural focus and the nature of the criticisms, the manifesto seems to advocate for reforms and better consideration of farmers' needs within the existing frameworks rather than opposing them on a foundational level. Therefore, it would be more accurate to describe the manifesto as expressing a reflexive anti-environmentalism combined with a soft Euroscepticism aimed at specific policy reform.

Germany

Germany also has a long-standing tradition of farmers' protests and dissatisfaction with the CAP. Wiebke Nowack and Harry Hoffmann provides an in-depth look at the grassroots movement in Germany, which has been advocating for significant changes in agricultural practices and policies since 2011 through the "We are fed up" (Wir haben es satt, WHES) demonstrations in Berlin (Nowak & Hoffmann, 2019). These protests, drawing substantial participation, have spotlighted various issues in Germany's agricultural sector, emphasizing the need for a shift from large-scale industrial farming to more sustainable, small-scale practices. Highlighting the dissatisfaction with the Common Agricultural Policy, the protestors have called for a reallocation of its budget to better serve public and ecological interests.

On December 18, 2023, the German Farmers' Association initiated a nationwide protest under the rallying cry "Too much is too much! Now it's over!" in Berlin. Approximately 6,600 demonstrators, including many farmers, converged at the Brandenburg Gate, echoing the Farmers' President Joachim Rukwied's demands to maintain agricultural subsidies. Concurrently, similar demonstrations unfolded in other German cities including Freiburg, Leipzig, and Chemnitz, signaling a widespread discontent across the country.

The protests captured heightened public attention on January 4, 2024, when a contingent of 100 farmers, along with other protestors, blocked the Hilligenlei ferry at Schlüttsiel port in North Frisia. This action notably delayed Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck and his wife, who were returning from a day trip. The situation escalated when the protestors refused Habeck's proposal to send a delegation onto the ferry, and he in turn declined to address the crowd directly, citing privacy concerns, leading to the ferry departing without further engagement.

Throughout early January, individual protests persisted, culminating in a coordinated week of action starting January 8. This included blockades of several highway access points across Germany, significantly disrupting traffic and impacting services such as the AWO hospital in Jerichow, which faced delays in receiving employees, patients, and supplies.

The demands articulated by German farmers reflect a deep-seated frustration with both national and European agricultural policies, characterized by concerns over taxation, regulatory pressures, competitive disadvantages, and media portrayal. The German Farmers' Association, along with Agriculture Connects Germany (LsV Germany), has been vocal about opposing the planned tax increases that directly impact the economic viability of farming operations. Specifically, they have targeted the imposition of an agricultural vehicle tax and the withdrawal of subsidies for agricultural diesel, seeing these fiscal policies as serious threats to the competitiveness of German agriculture[2]. Despite the federal government's offer to cancel the introduction of the vehicle tax and phase out the diesel subsidy over three years, these concessions were deemed insufficient by the farming community, which demands a complete withdrawal of these and other perceived fiscal burdens.

Additionally, the protests have highlighted perceived discrepancies in how the agricultural sector is portrayed in the media. Farmers have expressed dissatisfaction with what they consider a biased and one-sided media portrayal of their protests and general situation. This culminated in direct actions such as blockading broadcaster buildings and disrupting newspaper deliveries, underscoring their frustration with public representation. The German Farmers' Association has criticized these actions against the media, emphasizing the importance of press freedom but also indicating a need for more balanced and comprehensive reporting on agricultural issues[3].

Spain

The agricultural protests in Spain in 2024 are part of the broader wave of demonstrations across Europe. These protests have been primarily supported by major agricultural associations such as Unión de Uniones, ASAJA, COAG, and UPA, along with independent groups of farmers and livestock producers. The primary grievances focus on restrictive agricultural policies implemented by both the European Union and the Spanish government. Notably, the protesters are challenging the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the European Green Deal, and the national Law of the Food Chain, which are seen as detrimental to traditional farming practices. These policies advocate for a shift towards sustainable agriculture, including banning certain pesticides and fertilizers, which has sparked concerns among farmers about increased costs and reduced competitiveness[4]. The protests have also been marked by significant incidents, such as attacks on Spanish trucks in France[5], leading to substantial economic losses. In response, the Spanish government, including figures like the Minister of Agriculture, Luis Planas, has engaged with agricultural unions to negotiate measures that would grant more freedoms and reduce taxes for rural workers, reflecting a critical national dialogue about the future of agriculture in Spain and its alignment with broader EU policies[6].

In terms of demands[7], Spanish farmers are focused on reforms within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), seeking significant reductions in bureaucracy and the environmental costs imposed by current regulations. These demands highlight a deep-seated belief that the CAP, in its present form, stifles the efficiency and profitability of farming operations, making it unsustainable[8]. Alongside CAP reforms, there is a strong push for fair trade practices, with farmers advocating for the establishment of mirror clauses in trade agreements. These clauses would ensure that agricultural imports meet the same environmental and safety standards as domestic products, thereby protecting local farmers from unfair competition and aligning international trade with domestic agricultural standards.

The demands reveal a strain of anti-environmentalism, particularly in the criticism of the environmental costs associated with the Common Agricultural Policy. Spanish farmers argue that these environmental regulations are impractical and add undue financial and administrative burdens that hinder their operations. This sentiment underscores a broader discontent with environmental policies that are perceived as out of touch with the practical realities of farming, suggesting that current regulations may need recalibration to better align with the operational capacities and economic realities of farmers.

Euroscepticism is evident in the Spanish protesters' demands regarding trade agreements and the negotiation of mirror clauses. The call to halt negotiations with major trade partners and to implement stricter controls on imports reflects a desire for greater national control over agricultural policies and trade practices. This stance indicates a skepticism toward the European Union's handling of trade agreements, which are viewed as favoring external interests over local farmers' needs. The demand for flexibility in the CAP further illustrates a pushback against EU-wide policies, advocating for reforms that prioritize national interests and the specific needs of local agricultural communities.

Italy

The Italian farmers' protests, predominantly driven by dissatisfaction with European agricultural policies, highlight a range of economic and regulatory challenges that have sparked significant unrest among agricultural communities. Central to these grievances are the EU mandates requiring that 4% of fields remain uncultivated and the controversial bans on pesticides deemed essential by farmers. These regulations are viewed as severe impediments to farming operations, prompting calls for the renewal of an exemption from the IRPEF (personal income tax) on agricultural income, initially introduced in 2017. Additional demands aim to improve the income conditions for those within the sector[9].

The protests escalated from January 31, with tractor-driving farmers initiating blockades at motorway toll booths to press for the elimination of anti-pesticide laws. This movement peaked on February 4, when farmers and ranchers orchestrated extensive blockades along key exits on the Autostrada Adriatica (A14), affecting locations like Castel San Pietro, Pesaro, and Porto San Giorgio[10]. The disruptions continued with significant blockades on major communication routes such as the Strada Statale 2 Cassia. On February 9, over 200 tractors converged on the Grande Raccordo Anulare, Rome's major ring road, in a partly authorized demonstration, though unauthorized blockades also occurred[11]. The protests, which primarily took place in Northern and Central Italy, saw further escalation on February 19, with tractors occupying major thoroughfares in Rome, such as Via Nomentana, effectively paralyzing significant parts of the city[12].

The protests in Italy encapsulate a deep-seated dissatisfaction with current EU agricultural policies, which they argue place undue burdens on their traditional ways of farming under the guise of environmental sustainability[13]. Central to their concerns is the EU Green Deal, which they critically refer to as "environmentalist extremism." The farmers contend that the Green Deal's stringent regulations threaten the economic viability of traditional farming by imposing unsustainable practices that are not aligned with their operational realities.

Italian protests have been marked by a strong anti-environmentalist sentiment, particularly evident in their opposition to the EU Green Deal and novel food products like lab-grown meat and insect flour. The farmers express fears that these innovations, along with stringent environmental regulations, threaten their traditional ways of life and farming practices. This stance highlights a broader skepticism towards environmental policies that are perceived as being imposed without sufficient consideration of their practical and economic impacts on traditional agriculture.

Euroscepticism is another prominent theme in the protests in Italy. The farmers' critique of the EU's influence over national agricultural policies, exemplified by their rejection of the Green Deal and disdain for Brussels' perceived interference in Italian farming, underscores a broader distrust of EU governance. The call for a rewrite of EU policies and the demand for protective measures against imports resonate with a desire for greater national sovereignty over agricultural decisions and policies. This sentiment is further amplified by the government’s own rhetoric, which positions Italian farmers as defenders of national tradition against external influences.

Poland

In March 2024, the EU's decision to renew duty-free Ukrainian agricultural imports while increasing protections for sensitive EU products sparked significant unrest among Polish farmers[14]. The easing of import restrictions led to an influx of Ukrainian agricultural goods, such as grain and produce, into the Polish market[15]. This glut caused a substantial decrease in demand and prices for local Polish products, as the market became saturated with Ukrainian imports that were perceived as lower quality[16]. The situation escalated as Polish farmers, supported by nearly all national farmers' unions, launched widespread protests, blocking major roads to express their discontent with the EU policies, which they argued were detrimental to local agriculture. These protests also included grievances about the broader implications of the European Green Deal, such as stricter greenhouse emissions regulations and animal welfare laws. The situation was further complicated by geopolitical tensions, as some protest elements displayed pro-Putin and anti-Ukrainian sentiments, which the Polish foreign ministry speculated might be influenced by external forces aiming to destabilize the region.

The opposition of NSZZ RI "Solidarność" to the EU Green Deal reflects a confluence of anti-environmentalist and Eurosceptic sentiments prevalent among certain sectors within Poland. The union argues that the Green Deal, with its stringent environmental mandates, would disproportionately harm Polish farmers by escalating costs and restricting traditional farming practices, thereby threatening the viability of family farms. This resistance is also rooted in a broader Eurosceptic viewpoint, which critiques the European Union's influence over national policies, asserting that such EU-driven initiatives do not sufficiently consider the unique economic and social contexts of member states like Poland. This opposition highlights a clash between environmental goals set at the EU level and national economic interests, encapsulated in the union's pushback against perceived overreach.

Despite being major beneficiaries of CAP funds, as Bilewicz argues, polish farmers exhibit strong dissatisfaction (Bilewicz et al., 2022). The discontent with CAP is partly attributed to its environmental implications, which align with broader themes of anti-environmentalism. The policy has inadvertently encouraged practices that contribute to environmental degradation, such as promoting large-scale, intensive agricultural methods that are less sustainable and more damaging to ecosystems. The farmers’ resistance to such regulations stems not only from economic concerns but also from a perception that these policies are misaligned with the practical realities of farming. This reflects an anti-environmental sentiment, where environmental regulations are viewed as impractical impositions that threaten their traditional way of farming and livelihood.

Bilewicz also underscores a strong Eurosceptic sentiment among these farmers, which emerges from their perception that EU policies, particularly CAP, fail to adequately reflect the unique agricultural context of post-socialist states like Poland. The dissatisfaction is rooted in the belief that EU policies are designed with a Western European bias, disregarding the historical and socio-economic backgrounds of Eastern European nations. This sentiment is compounded by the farmers' experiences of inequality and inefficiency in subsidy distribution, which reinforce their skepticism towards EU governance and its impact on their agricultural and economic independence.

Romania

The farmers’ protests in Romania took place in January and February 2024. Although not as extensive as their western counterparts, these protests are nonetheless just as important to analyze. The scale of the protests was pretty similar, however. Some estimates put the total number of vehicles used to block access in the largest cities at about 4500[17]. The main Eurosceptic party, AUR, also tried to capitalize on these protests. Having previously criticized the Romanian authorities’ support for Ukraine in the conflict against Russia (Bujdei-Tebeica, 2023), AUR tried to support the criticism that Romanian farmers against Ukrainian grain imports. However, this attempt did not amount to much, the protesters opting to not politicize their grievances.

Overall, the manifesto from Romanian transporters and farmers highlights significant discontent with current policies, both national and EU, reflecting broader tensions within sectors that feel overlooked or disadvantaged by these policies. The document underscores a critical intersection of economic, environmental, and political issues facing the agricultural sector in Romania today[18].

The manifesto shows signs of anti-environmentalist sentiment, particularly in its opposition to environmental regulations that affect farming practices. For example, the demand for the elimination of diesel excise taxes and the opposition to certain EU environmental mandates reflect a preference for economic benefits over environmental protections. This stance suggests a conflict between immediate economic interests of the agricultural sector and long-term environmental sustainability goals promoted by the EU.

The call for reintroduction of customs duties on Ukrainian products and the clear emphasis on national over EU-wide agricultural strategies reflect a Eurosceptic stance. This is evident in the demands for state-level interventions and legislative adjustments that prioritize Romanian agricultural interests over broader EU regulations and market dynamics. Such demands highlight a desire for greater national control over agricultural policies, indicating a pushback against perceived EU overreach in local agricultural matters.

Overall, the AAC's demands are reflective of a sector under strain from both external economic forces and internal regulatory challenges. They underscore a critical balancing act between maintaining agricultural productivity and navigating the complex terrain of EU regulations and international market dynamics[19].

Conclusions

The conclusion of our analysis shows that farmer protest discourses can be distinguished along two main axes: critically anti-environmentalist and reflexively anti-environmentalist, as well as sovereignty-based Euroscepticism and social Euroscepticism, following Sorensen's taxonomy. Reflexive anti-environmentalist and socially Eurosceptic discourses are more prevalent in France, Germany, and Spain, indicating a response to environmental policies that is more reflective of concerns about practical impacts rather than outright opposition. On the other hand, critical anti-environmentalist and sovereignty-based Euroscepticism are found more prominently in Italy, Poland, and Romania, where there is a stronger direct opposition to EU policies perceived as imposing unnecessary burdens.

This delineation suggests that while anti-environmentalism does not necessarily imply Euroscepticism, these discourses often coexist within the protests across all studied cases. The interaction between these discourses highlights a complex landscape of agricultural discontent within the EU, where economic, social, and national sovereignty concerns intersect with environmental regulations. The study’s findings underscore the need for EU policymakers to consider these nuances in farmer perceptions and responses, aiming for more tailored and inclusive policy frameworks that address both environmental goals and the socio-economic realities of European farmers.

Literature

Anke Bosma and Esther Peeren (2021): #Proudofthefarmer: Authenticity, populism and rural masculinity in the 2019 Dutch farmers’ protests. IN Pavel Pospěch, Eirik Magnus Fuglestad and Elisabete Figueiredo: Politics and Policies of Rural Authenticity. London, Routledge
Aleksandra Bilewicz, Natalia Mamonova & Konrad Burdyka (2022): “Paradoxical” Dissatisfaction among Post-Socialist Farmers with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: A Study of Farmers’ Subjectivities in Rural Poland. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 36 (3): 892-912
Caradaicã, M. (2023). Changing the Path of Climate Change. Voluntary Certification for Carbon Removals in European Union: The Case of Forestry Projects. Perspective Politice. Special Issue. 67-75[08].
Mark C.J. Stoddart, David Tindall & Riley E. Dunlap (2022): The contours of anti-environmentalism: an introduction to the Handbook of Anti-Environmentalism. IN David Tindall, Mark C.J. Stoddart, & Riley E. Dunlap: Handbook of Anti-Environmentalism. Edward Elgar Publishing
Wiebke Nowack & Harry Hoffmann (2019): ‘We are fed up’ – encountering the complex German call for sustainable, small-scale agriculture, The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2019.1628019
Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2020) Farmers’ upheaval, climate crisis and populism, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47:3, 589-605, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.1725490
Guy Pe’er (2019): A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science, 365(6452): 449-451)
Angela Turck, Lasse Schloemer, Wiltrud Terlau (2023): Farmers are caught in Tri-Dilemma - Objectives and Challenges for Biodiversity in German Nature-Protected Areas. Int. J. Food System Dynamics 14 (2), 237-250
Natalia Mamonova & Jaume Franquesa (2020): Populism, Neoliberalism and Agrarian Movements in Europe. Understanding Rural Support for Right-Wing Politics and Looking for Progressive Solutions. European Society for Rural Sociology, 60(4): 710-731
Eckert, Eva, & Oleksandra Kovalevska (2021): Sustainability in the European Union: Analyzing the Discourse of the European Green Deal. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020080
Sarah Wolf, Jonas Teitge, Jahel Mielke, Franziska Schütze and Carlo Jaeger (2021): The European Green Deal – More Than Climate Neutrality. Environmental Policy, DOI: 10.1007/s10272-021-0963-z
Kostas Gemenis, Alexia Katsanidou, Sofia Vasilopoulou (2012): The politics of anti-environmentalism: positional issue framing by the European radical right. Environmental Science, Political Science
Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Federico Bartalucci (2023): Regional vulnerability to the green transition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
Bujdei-Tebeica, V. (2023). European Populism and the War in Ukraine: Populist Narratives in Support of Vladimir Putin. Perspective Politice. Vol. XVI (1-2), 5-18.

Websites

[1] https://www.fnsea.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Manifeste-final-FNSEA_Sortie-de-crise-Covid-19.pdf

[2] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/landwirte-subvention-ampel-100.html

[3] https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article250137260/Bauernproteste-Achte-genau-darauf-was-die-so-senden-wenn-es-nicht-stimmt-steh-ich-sofort-auf-der-Matte.html

[4] https://www.eldiario.es/economia/planas-guino-agricultores-plenas-protestas-razon-hay-problema-competencia-desleal_1_10947140.html

[5] https://www.diariodesevilla.es/economia/agricultores-franceses-frontera-camiones-espanoles_0_1870014589.html

[6] https://www.elperiodico.com/es/economia/20240305/agricultores-pleno-parlament-cataluna-directo-ultima-hora-debate-propuestas-97771490

[7] https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5221530/0/las-diez-medidas-que-reclama-campo-ue-gobierno-las-comunidades-autonomas/

[8] https://www.eldiario.es/economia/planas-guino-agricultores-plenas-protestas-razon-hay-problema-competencia-desleal_1_10947140.html

[9] https://www.ilpost.it/2024/02/02/proteste-agricoltori-italia-richieste/

[10] https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/cronaca/dove-protesta-trattori-oggi-afftnn6q

[11] https://tg24.sky.it/cronaca/2024/02/10/protesta-trattori-raccordo-roma

[12] https://www.romatoday.it/attualita/trattori-roma-20-febbraio-2024.html

[13] https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-rome-giorgia-meloni-farmers-to-cross-the-rubicon-with-rome-blockade/

[14] https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/kraj/artykuly/9474436,kolejne-protesty-rolnikow-4-kwietnia-co-zaplanowali-organizatorzy.html

[15] https://www.dw.com/pl/prasa-polscy-i-czescy-rolnicy-blokuj%C4%85-zbo%C5%BCe-z-ukrainy/a-68297725

[16] https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/rolnicy-protestuja-to-nie-unia-i-ukraina-sa-ich-najwiekszym-problemem-6998103587711488a.html#:~:text=Rolnicy%20protestuj%C4%85%20na%20granicy%20z,kt%C3%B3ra%20zalewa%20%C5%9Bwiat%20tanim%20zbo%C5%BCem.

[17] https://newsweek.ro/actualitate/video-george-simion-pus-pe-fuga-de-un-protestatar-nu-ai-ce-cauta-aici-intinde-o

[18] https://www.euronews.ro/articole/lista-celor-76-de-revendicari-ale-agricultorilor-si-transportatorilor-ieftinirea

[19] https://www.zf.ro/zf-24/care-sunt-cele-15-puncte-de-pe-lista-de-solicitari-cu-care-merg-22231805

Paper upload

Bujdei-Tebeica - Green Policies, Gray Areas - Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union.docx

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries.

AndreiC93 — Sun, 14 Apr 2024 19:58:21 +0000

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries. AndreiC93 Sun, 04/14/2024 - 22:58

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Andrei

Last Name

COPACEANU

Academic title

Other

Address

Bucuresti, sos. M Bravu, nr.3

E-mail

andrei.copaceanu10@gmail.com

Phone

+40757944925

Institution/University

National School of Political and Administrative Studies Multidisciplinary Doctoral School

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

The article highlights how Romania's ODA projects integrate environmental aspects such as natural resource management and marine geology. It will also consider the importance of local communities' awareness and involvement in conserving natural resources and marine ecosystems. This approach will highlight a perspective on sustainable development, integrating both ecological and social aspects.

Through case studies, it analyses the results of projects carried out by Romania in various beneficiary countries.

The article also explores the challenges encountered in implementing these projects and offers suggestions for optimizing future strategies. The importance of international collaboration and sustainable partnerships in addressing global environmental issues is highlighted.

This analysis of the variable related to natural resource management and marine geology brings into question the significant contributions of Romania's ODA projects in building a sustainable and resilient future for recipient states, which are achievable in the context of preserving natural resources, conserving marine habitats, protecting vulnerable species and promoting sustainable development.

This study aims to contribute to understanding how ODA donors such as Romania can positively influence environmental policies and practices in partner countries, thereby strengthening the shared commitment to a more sustainable and equitable future.

Keywords:

Official development assistance; promoting environmental principles through official development assistance; ecology; international development cooperation; natural resource management;

Paper upload

ODA

How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world? The crucial role of civil society in keeping the public attention on the green agenda

Nicoleta Nicolae-Ioana — Sun, 14 Apr 2024 18:17:56 +0000

How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world? The crucial role of civil society in keeping the public attention on the green agenda Nicoleta Nicol… Sun, 04/14/2024 - 21:17

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mrs.

First Name

Nicoleta

Last Name

Nicolae-Ioana

Academic title

Other

Address

Polonă Street, No.3-5, District 1, Bucharest, postal code 010491, Romania

E-mail

nicoleta.nicolae-ioana.20@politice.ro

Phone

0732 435 206

Institution/University

National University of Political and Administrative Studies

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world? The crucial role of civil society in keeping the public attention on the green agenda

Nicoleta Nicolae-Ioana PhD student

Abstract

The United Nations’ target for halving Food Waste (FW) and the related actions required by The 2030 Agenda should be achieved in just six years, and there is a lot to be done. Considering that FW worldwide is causing 8% to 10% of GHG, the phenomenon has become a preoccupation for the European Union (EU). As a member state, Romania is aligned with the EU policy lines regarding environment and sustainable development. Bearing in mind the consumption-based economic model, the governmental approaches and challenges regarding environmental and sustainable development issues, a robust civil society is needed to influence the adoption of efficacious and improved public policies regarding FW and to contribute to maintaining green topics on the public agenda. This paper aims to identify the factors that explain civil society's ability to influence public policies on FW and keep these green topics on the governmental agenda. In this sense, I have carried out a literature review to identify the current situation and the levers available to Romanian civil society and data analysis. Data was gathered via 11 semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of central public authorities, HoReCa, civil society, and Romanian consumers conducted in the spring of 2022 for my dissertation paper. The interviews revealed that civil society as a soft power can influence Romanian public policies regarding FW and has a crucial role in covering the critical areas of education, communication, awareness, and changing consumer behaviour. Moreover, the data underlines that, second to the central authorities, civil society is the next stakeholder responsible for taking action to reduce FW. The development and evolution of a solid and vigilant civil society is essential for influencing the adoption of effective and improved public policies regarding FW and contributes to maintaining green topics on the public agenda in order to achieve the ambitious goals set by the international community, which aim at the well-being of people, and the Planet, but also of the future generations.

Keywords: green agenda; food waste; civil society; public policies; governmental agenda

Current debates and Policy evolutions in the field

Food Waste is a recent concern for world leaders and scholars, although it has existed for decades and is causing pollution and other side effects. The issue of food waste effects on the environment has been on international forums’ agenda since 1979 along with the World Climate Conference, which called nations “to halt preventable environmental damage”, and afterwards with the creation of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 (Smith 2020: 41). However, the awareness of food waste as a global phenomenon came much later. After more than 30 years, in 2011, a few concrete initiatives emerged: “Save Food”, which advanced the subject of global food losses onto the political and economic agenda in Germany and the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Communication informing that around 1/3 of the world’s food was lost or wasted every year. Two years later, FAO launched the first study on FW’s environmental impact. Following this study, the topic of food waste is gaining global attention.

In September 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets to mitigate and stop food loss and waste. All world leaders have been committed to achieving the targets of this “ambitious vision for sustainable development’. In this context, the European Union claims that it is “taking the issue of tackling food waste very seriously” (The European Commission 2024). In this context, the EU launched in 2020 the Circular Economy’s Action Plan and the Farm to Fork Strategy as an essential part of the well-known European Green Deal. Moreover, after four years, these EU policies caused large protests from European farmers at the beginning of February 2024 across important Member States such as France, Italy and Belgium.

Food waste is included in Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the 2030 Agenda - Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, the target 12.3 for halving food waste per capita at the retail and consumer level and reducing food losses during production and supply chains by the end of this decade. FW is also related to Sustainable Development Goal 2 - Zero hunger (UN 2015). Empirical data reveals that, in 2022, 1.05 billion tonnes of food were wasted in households, food service and retail, compared to 931 million tonnes in 2019 (Food Index Report UNEP, 2024: 46), causing 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Food Index Report UNEP, 2021: 20). Households produce over 60% (i.e. 631 million tonnes), food service 28% and retail 12%. According to the Food Waste Index 2024, released at the end of March 2024 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), this amounts to 132 kilogrammes of food wasted per capita per year, compared to 121 kilograms per capita per year in 2019. Related to these data, FAO (2023: 7-8) estimates that in 2022, between 691 and 783 million people worldwide faced hunger, representing up to 122 million more than in 2019. On the other hand, the World Bank estimated in 2020 that the food wasted globally is worth more than US$1 trillion (Food Index Report UNEP, 2024: 2).

At the European Union’s level, data indicate that in 2021, there were more than 58 million tonnes of fresh mass of food waste, from which 54% of the total FW (i.e. 31 million tonnes of fresh mass) were produced by households, which has a 132 billion euro market value calculated for the underlying asset (The European Commission 2023: 42). During the second year of the COVID-19 epidemic, in 2021, the EU generated approximately 131 kilogrammes of food waste per inhabitant, from which 70 kg per inhabitant was provided at household level (Eurostat 2023). As a member of the EU, Romania is aligned and committed to the European Union’s green policies regarding food waste and all other environmental problems. According to the Study of Food Waste (SFWR) in Romania (SFWR, 2021: 6), Romania started this process by preparing the accession to the EU. With “low confidence” regarding the reported data, Romania produces over 1.32 million tonnes in households, representing 67 kilogrammes of FW per inhabitant per year, with no data regarding food services and retail (Food Index Report UNEP, 2024: 166).

The Romanian authorities claim that they are concerned about the food waste problem. Therefore, Romania adopted the National Action Plan on Combating Food Waste in 2014, the Law No. 217 on reducing food waste, the so-called “Anti-Food Waste Law”, adopted in 2016, the Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 in 2018, and modified the Anti-Food Waste Law in 2024. Few national campaigns, debates and conferences were initiated[1] and conducted in partnership with academic and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

Considering the purpose of public policies and active Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) but also approaches and challenges regarding environmental and sustainable development issues, this article hypothesises that a robust civil society influences the adoption of efficacious and improved public policies regarding FW and contributes to maintaining green topics on the public agenda. This paper aims to identify the factors that explain civil society's ability to influence public policies on FW and keep these green topics on the governmental agenda. In this sense, I have carried out a literature review to identify the current situation and the levers available to Romanian civil society and data analysis. Data was gathered via 11 semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of central public authorities, HoReCa, civil society, and Romanian consumers conducted in the spring of 2022. The interviews revealed that second to the central authorities, civil society is the next stakeholder responsible for taking action to reduce FW. Moreover, the data underlines that civil society, as an essential stakeholder, can influence Romanian public policies regarding FW and has a crucial role in covering the critical areas of education, communication, awareness, and changing consumer behaviour, as identified through the interviews.

The state of Civil Society

Scholars highlight that, nowadays, civil society is in the attention of democratic governments, holding a pivotal role in maintaining the health of democracies, fulfilling international goals regarding the management of environmental problems and achieving goals related to sustainable development[2].

Civil society is a polysemantic concept with “variable geometry”, depending on the specific context in which it is used, on the era and society, and also on the lexical or ideological evolution, being in a “continuous redefinition” (Pirvulescu 2016: 22). For Dinham (2009: 50), civil society is “understood as that intermediate realm somewhere between the nation state and the individual”, but the most popular definition is that of civil society as a collection of institutions functioning as intermediaries between the government, the family (e.g. individuals, households), and the economic production/the market (Kopecký and Mudde 2003:5).

Moreover, Chandhoke (2007: 607) underlines that civil society was rediscovered and given prominence in political practices after causing the fall of some mighty nations, such as the Stalinist states of Eastern and Central Europe and Latin American military regimes. Afterwards, in the 1990s, civil society became “a mantra for everyone from presidents to political scientists”, and civil society became a “key element of the post-cold-war zeitgeist” (Carothers 2000: 19). In his turn, Gramsci stated that “states that do not possess civil societies are more vulnerable than those that do possess” (apud Chandhoke 2007: 611). Furthermore, Fukuyama (1995: 4-12) underlines that “liberal political and economic institutions depend upon a healthy and dynamic civil society for their vitality”, explaining the crucial role of social capital and the trust level within society. In his turn, Chandhoke (2007: 609) underlines that civil society is considered nowadays an “answer to the malaise of the contemporary world”.

In addition, Pirvulescu (2016: 19) underlines that, for many contemporary scholars, civil society refers to a type of soft power, expressing “the different ways of actively representing the interest groups and the game of influence”. The scholar explains that civil society is contained in three explanatory models generated by the liberal paradigm: 1) the organic-communitarian model; 2) the deliberative model; and 3) the cognitive model[3] (Pirvulescu 2016: 19-21).

` Furthermore, Anheier (2017: 4-5) considers that civil society is part of the New Public Management model, defined as “an arena of self-organization of citizens and established interests seeking voice and influence” and facing inevitable weaknesses such as resource inadequacy, paternalism, free-riders, and particularism. Furthermore, Smismans (2006: 4-5) underlines that the concept is a “recent entrant at the European level”, being launched into policy rhetoric alongside the Prodi Commission’ White Paper on European Governance (July 2001) “as a way to improve both the efficiency and legitimacy of European governance”.

On the other hand, scholars consider the growing involvement of civil society in policy-making over the past few decades to be one of the most significant trends (Wuthnow 2004; Pirvulescu 2016; Anheier 2017). Dinham underlines that “the public policy matrix” is closely related to the members of civil society who “inform and influence it” (Dinham 2009: 50). Furthermore, Wuthnow (2004: 286) argues that when scholars research the relationship between public policies and NGOs, “they usually emphasise how civil society can shape public policy”.

In this light, Anheier (2017: 6) invokes that CSOs-state relation is “complex and multifaceted”, governments seeing differently the roles that civil society can play in the future: 1) CSOs primarily as service providers and disregard their advocacy capabilities: 2) sources of new ideas and innovations; and 3) organizations that interfere with the policy-making process, attempting to exert influence or even dictate governmental agendas.

In addition, scholars consider that civil society is one of the most important stakeholders, even though the latter is contested as a concept in the academic area (Bryson, Patton and Bowman 2010; Caniato et al. 2014; Miles 2015; Morone and Imbert 2020; Archip et al. 2023). Bryson, Patton and Bowman (2010: 1) define stakeholders as “individuals, groups, or organizations that can affect or are affected by an evaluation process and/or its ﬁndings[4]”, but Miles argues that the concept is “an essentially contested one” (Miles 2015: 437-459). Caniato and colleagues argue that, forth to the governmental authorities, the private sector, and academia, civil society is a broad stakeholder which covers public awareness, health, and environmental protection, along with the local community and media (2014: 941-942).

In a highly complex world, civil society faces numerous challenges and obstacles, which prevent them from developing and evolving to make a better world, at least for bona fide NGOs that have the good of society at the centre of their vision and mission. In this light, Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu point out (2002: 88) that also the “funding matters”, aiming at the funding co-dependency, which is unlikely to change but does raise some questions regarding the independence of NGO research and analysis, calling for transparency and accountability. Furthermore, Heemeryck (2018: 257) states that “financially, the NGOs are fully dependent on their funders”. In addition, Nastase and colleagues (2019: 852- 853) argue that the lack of civic culture is associated with both the dearth or fragility of independent civil society organisations and the non-participatory method of local administration.

The Civil Society and the Green agenda

Over the past years, there has been a noticeable shift in the public and academic spheres towards environmental issues. This shift can be traced back to the intensified efforts of the UN and the EU in combating climate change and other environmental problems since 2015, as well as to the increased involvement of the political sphere. Smismans (2006: 174) argues that environmental policy, which initially emerged due to public pressure and environmental movements, has now expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, including tourism, agriculture, and transportation, as well as new problem areas like climate change.

In this light, scholars prefer to approach civil society involvement in relation to global environmental governance (Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002; Robert et al. 2004; Bernauer 2023), but they also approach the national and local dimensions (O'Brien 2009; Böhmelt 2013). Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu (2002: 77-78) identify five key roles of civil society regarding global environmental governance, which I also consider valid for domestic activities: a) information collection and dissemination; b) policy development consultation; c) policy implementation; d) assessment and monitoring; and e) advocacy for environmental justice. The authors explain that a wide range of local, national, regional, and worldwide NGOs with a variety of missions devoted to environmental protection, sustainable development, poverty reduction, animal welfare, and other issues are among the non-governmental organizations participating in environmental governance (Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002: 77-78).

Considering the levers used by civil society to maintain or change the green agenda, Dodge (2014: 161) explains that CSOs[5] are using storylines to influence the dynamics of the deliberative process and to promote their perspectives on environmental issues and the formulation of public policy, regardless of existing barriers or challenges. The scholar underlines that civil society specifically uses storylines to: a) “set the agenda for environmental hazards”; b) create the structure of public discourse by altering the rules; c) create the content of public discourse by forming meanings around environmental policy; and d) couple/align forums, arenas, and courts throughout the system (Dodge 2014: 161).

In his turn, O’Brien (2009: 145-146) argues that the status of ENGOs has evolved over time, moving towards professionalism and collaborative efforts with administrative establishments. This shift signifies a departure from non-conventional social actions. The scholar further emphasises that NGOs recognise the importance of increasing public involvement in shaping government actions and note that believing in the government’s ability to provide solutions can hinder change in this area (O’Brien 2009: 151).

Moreover, UNEP considers civil society (i.e. NGOs, trade associations and research organizations) as a third party often playing a pivotal role in public-private partnerships (PPP), not just for their involvement but also for the credibility they bring to PPP through negotiations, execution, and management. Their impartiality, honesty, and ability to provide unbiased, private counsel free from conflicting interests make them a trusted partner in these partnerships (Food Index Report 2024: 90).

In addition, Smismans (2006: 174-202) points out that scholars like Wilson mentioned that, at the EU level, in the late 1980s, environmentalists, consumer and tax-payer groups were excluded from the policy process, which is no longer the case taking into account that civil society players have “a crucial role in providing the Commission with information, expertise and strategies”, and validation. The author reveals that civil society actors have proven their capacity to impact EU consumer and environmental protection laws, being significant players in applying environmental laws but also in overseeing their implementation (Smismans 2006: 204-205). Smismans (2006: 205) concludes that, in this way, ENGOs are acting as “watchdogs” for how EU policies are implemented at the national level and as monitoring agencies in general.

On the other hand, moving towards the domestic dimension, Böhmelt (2013: 702) explains that if governments are unable to gather data regarding climate change, they can turn to ENGOs, who invest significant resources in policy research and provide data, analysis, and knowledge. The scholar highlights that, given the history of civil society advocacy through participation in UNFCCC negotiation delegations, ENGOs will not be able to influence or alter state policy regarding climate change, compared to the corporate organisations' lobbying success (Böhmelt 2013: 710), and O'Brien (2009: 153) adds that ENGOs participation is somewhat tolerated than being sincerely welcomed.

Furthermore, related to nations’ international cooperative behaviour, Robert and colleagues (2004:39) invoke the importance of the number of ENGOs registered in a state as one of the most significant indicators. The scholars emphasise that “the number of [E]NGOs in a nation appears virtually synonymous with its likelihood to participate in environmental treaties” (Robert et al. 2004:39). Extrapolating from this argument, one might consider that the number of ENGOs might be a crucial indicator for efficient environmental public policies and maintaining the green agenda at public and governmental attention. Therefore, the development and evolution of a solid and vigilant civil society are essential for influencing the adoption of efficacious and improved public policies regarding FW. It also contributes to maintaining green topics on the public agenda to achieve the ambitious goals set by the international community, which aim at the well-being of people and the Planet, as well as future generations.

The state of Civil Society in Romania

The Communist regime in Romania played an essential role in shaping the development of civil society. It hindered the establishment of inclusive and participatory modes of governance by replacing grassroots civil society organisations with top-down, centralised structures for control (Kluvánková-Oravská et al. 2009; Stringer and Paavola 2013). The NGO sector, however, emerged swiftly following the fall of the Ceausescu regime in 1989, advocating for the preservation of the environment, cultural heritage, and democratic ideals (Parau 2009: 121). Despite the challenges it faced, such as the Romanians’ distrust in formal organisations and a preference for private/informal networking, the sector stabilised over time[6] with the passage of the 2000 Government Ordinance on Associations and Foundations and other dedicated laws, and the growth of a more qualified labour force (O'Brien 2009: 150).

Furthermore, Parau (2009: 137) argues that the level of empowerment of civil society depends on the stage of accession the state is going through, underlining that when the Executive is hostile, it tends to limit itself during the final stages of accession negotiations. The scholar explains that, in Romania’s case, the empowerment of NGOs resulted from the Executive's overriding desire for EU membership and its acceptance into the global community, giving rise to an advocacy network that has been trying to impede it. In addition, Heemeryck (2018: 257) considers that the most influential NGOs in Romania work in democratisation and the development of civil society, most of them becoming solid due to the significant involvement of US and European organisations. The scholar observes that the 2007 financial crisis has had little effect on the Romanian NGO’s public standing, defying all predictions and appearing extraordinarily resilient, much like multinational enterprises (Heemeryck 2018: 259).

On the other hand, Margarit (2018: 219) underlines that Romania's public sphere had one of the most turbulent and persistent periods of popular mobilisation and civil unrest in its recent post-communist history between 2013 and 2015, beginning with the anti-fracking campaign and the protests against mining exploitation in Rosia Montana and culminating in the Colectiv Revolution. “In a country where the communist past left deep scars, the social movements of the past four years could not pass unnoticed. Moreover, these events marked the rise of an authentic civil society, willing to prove its opposition toward the political actors and decisions and, simultaneously, to demand them to act accountably and legitimately”, argues the scholar (Margarit 2018: 219).

The evolution of the Romanian ENGOs

Romania's environmental preoccupations began to take shape with a conservation attitude emerging spontaneously after the fall of Communism in 1990, despite the initial governmental indifference to the environment (Stringer and Paavola 2013: 141). Furthermore, Stringer and Paavola (2013: 141) highlight that the political party that assumed control of Romania after the 1990 elections harboured mistrust towards civil society, hindering the development of Romanian ENGOs. These ENGOs represented only 5% of the total number of NGOs, and most of them were local or regional players with limited influence or awareness on a national scale. Moreover, the scholars resumed the idea that the interest of the government and the nation's scientific community in environmental policies increased once the EU accession, which required and expected the Romanian authorities to address ecological issues, such as biodiversity conservation and environmental degradation (Stringer and Paavola 2013: 141).

With the advent of Europeanization in Romania, the environmental sector, though weaker, presented more opportunities for social players, albeit with limited capacity to utilize them (O’Brien 2009:150-153). In contrast to Hungary and Poland, Romania was considered an “environmental laggard”, and therefore, Europeanization[7] had a profound influence on environmental action there (Börzel and Buzogány, 2010: 718). Stringer and Paavola (2013: 144) also underline that Romania’s transition towards more inclusive environmental governance methods has been significantly bolstered by its EU membership, but “the lack of civil society remains a barrier to the more widespread internalization of conservation”.

In addition, Jiglau (2016: 221) invokes that the collaborative efforts of Romanian ENGOs with European associations or networks of associations, their participation in international conferences and events, and their experience exchanges with other NGOs have played a pivotal role in the professionalization of environmental organizations. The scholar highlights that this cooperation has led to the emergence of the first think tanks or advocacy-focused organizations, which have been instrumental in implementing Community legislation, showcasing successful case studies from European nations, and creating pilot initiatives, mainly locally (Jiglau 2016: 221).

Furthermore, O'Brien (2009: 155) underlines that although Romania has a shorter history of transparency, it has made progress in this area with the establishment of laws creating rights of participation and access to information, but environmental issues are still low on the political agenda, and participation is seen more as a duty than a necessity[8]. The author concludes that, although Romanian ENGOs participate in decisions that are peripheral to themselves, and environmental issues continue to be side-lined in favour of economic development, there are indications that they are starting to take a more active part in influencing policy and decision-making processes (O’Brien 2009: 155).

Nevertheless, following “two big scandals” which sparked environmental protests and made authorities aware of the influence of NGOs[9], the investment projects with a significant impact on the environment, the Dracula Land in Sighisoara in 2001 and the Rosia Montana mining operation in 2002, Romania's environmental status changed (O'Brien 2009: 152). Along with initiating these two projects, new local organizations that opposed them also appeared, such as the Sustainable Sighisoara Association and the Alburnus Maior Association (Jiglau 2016: 221).

Hitherto, the most famous example of an environmental social movement in Romania was the one caused by the Rosia Montana mining project that generated the Salvati Rosia Montana (SRM) movement[10], also known as “the Romanian Autumn”. Margarit (2018: 220) considers that this movement is the most complex of all the Romanian protests because of demonstrated cooperation on local, national, and international levels, serving as the impetus for future Romanian civic movements and undoubtedly had an impact on how they developed and were implemented. The non-heterogeneous environmental mobilization brought together residents of Rosia Montana and its environs, NGOs[11] operating locally, nationally, and internationally, coalitions of NGOs, unofficial organisations, trade unions, professional associations, universities, and other academic bodies, student organisations, churches, sports fans, artists, public intellectuals, and private citizens (Branea 2015: 266).

Regarding the FW agenda, Archip and colleagues (2023: 6) included civil society as a critical sector involved in food waste reduction, along with public administration, food waste business, and consumers, which have a significant influence on the formulation and application of plans and directives. The scholars conclude that there are still significant issues to tackle when approaching waste management in Romania, including path-dependency, fragmented and ineffective decision-making, and the lack of proper communication and engagement between various stakeholders (Archip et al. 2023: 16).

Besides all this, in Romania, food waste is not seen nowadays as a subject with major environmental consequences, such as mining and deforesting projects, which is why a few NGOs manage it. At the governmental level, the FW dimension is regulated in Romania by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), which has a limited partnership with non-governmental organizations active in the food waste sector.

Qualitative research on food waste and civil society implications

In 2022, I researched food waste management at the household level. I gathered qualitative data via 11 semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of central public authorities, HoReCa, civil society, and Romanian consumers. From the beginning, civil society was considered one of the stakeholders responsible for managing food waste in Romania, third after the state and the business environment.

When I started the qualitative research process in February 2022, I established a list of stakeholders potential interviewees comprising institutions of the central public administration in Romania, such as the MARD, the Department of Sustainable Development of the Romanian Government or the Romanian Parliament, NGOs running programs to combat FW, the Federation of Food Banks in Romania, social shops, retailers, chefs and restaurants that promote the concept of zero food waste, young people who develop applications to combat FW and also consumers. Because the process of reaching all the representatives of the stakeholders taken into account initially was difficult and time-consuming, although I reached some contact data, primarily such as e-mail addresses or profiles on online services such as LinkedIn or social media, the list was permanently changing.

Therefore, at the end of the allocated period for collecting qualitative data, February-June 2022, I conducted 11 in-depth interviews with important actors within the FW process. One of the missing stakeholders was the retailers, who were reticent about having an interview or avoided answering the e-mails or the messages. Ten interviewees are activating in Bucharest, and one in the Romanian city of Sfantu Gheorghe, from Covasna County. Moreover, ten interviewees are Romanians, and one is an Austrian established in Romania. The interviews were held in three different ways as follows: five using GoogleMeet online meetings, five on the phone, and one using e-mail. I prepared a set of 14 questions, which were not applied entirely to all the interviewees, and during the discussions, there were some other supplementary ones. One of the 14 questions asked regarding the current situation of the FW, the 10th,, was related to the responsibility for tackling FW. It was formulated as follows: “Who has the responsibility to take action to combat food waste: the state, the business community, civil society or citizens? Argue, please!”. The interviews were held between May 13 and June 07, 2022.

Discussion and findings

The interviews revealed that civil society as a soft power could influence Romanian public policies regarding FW and has a crucial role in covering the key areas of education, communication, awareness, and changing consumer behaviour, as identified through the interviews. Moreover, the data underlines that, after the central authorities, civil society is the next stakeholder that has the responsibility for taking action to reduce FW. Regarding the responsibility to action for reducing FW, five interviewees (more than 45% of the participants in the research) consider that everybody/all the stakeholders have such responsibility. Almost 73% of the interviewees (eight of the participants) identified the state as being responsible, seven (more than 63%) of them pointed out the civil society, six opted for the business and another six for the citizens (counting each more than 54% of the respondents). In addition, the interviewees identified other responsible stakeholders such as the mass media (more than 45%), the Church with all its cults (10%) and also the influencers and food bloggers (10%), and more than 70% of the interviewees (eight stakeholders) identified consumerism as being a driver of FW, from which five participants consider it one of the leading causes. Furthermore, the research underlines that ENGOs should cover education, communication, awareness, and changing consumer behaviour by “implementing as many projects as possible by Chefs and NGOs”, “educating citizens from a financial perspective - FW means money thrown in the trash bean”, and “social movements such as the one created by the Eat Foundation”.

On the one hand, the data reveals that interviewees consider civil society more as a “doer” which takes action, rather than as a party that influences the policies and maintains the green agenda on the public and governmental attention. On the other hand, the identification of civil society as a stakeholder responsible for taking action to combat FW involves also the action to influence public policies regarding reducing food waste, as it results from the broader discussions with the interviewees. Moreover, it should be noted that the Anti-Food Waste Law in Romania as a public policy was only possible with the contribution and influence of a few Romanian ENGOs, as noted by one interviewee. Thus, the adoption of the first Anti-Food Waste Law is an excellent example of the influence of public policy regarding FW in Romania.

The initiator of the Anti-Food Waste Law, a young liberal deputy, explained, in the interview we had in May 2022, that the law was based on a wide consultation and furthermore improved at the initiative and argumentation of an NGO:

The first legislative initiative [on FW] was in 2013, and it took a long time because it involved a broad consultation. Romania was unprepared and did not have the institutions and NGOs ready. There had to be debate and preparation of the market and the actors involved. Then, when the law was in the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies and it was on the final vote, an NGO appeared and told us that the law is very good, but, practically, through it, we were closing the possibility of thrift stores, of those who sell at low prices for the population with low income. Expressly, the law stipulated that goods approaching their expiration date should be donated 100% free of charge and should not be sold at a reduced price, precisely to avoid a black market. However, there were civil society representatives who said that this possibility exists in France, Denmark, Austria, and Germany. It also exists in Romania through two stores, one in Bucharest and another in Sibiu, that sell at a reduced price on a list of people with low incomes, who with 10 RON could buy a shopping basket. Therefore, they do not feel like they are getting alms; they buy a few affordable products. So I had to close and stop the law that was on the final vote and come back after a year or so of debate to find an appropriate form that would also allow this form of social economy, these social stores, to be able to develop in Romania and exist” (Initiator of the Anti-Food Waste Law interview, May 26, 2022).

Furthermore, as one of the young people who developed applications to combat FW in Romania stated in her interview, civil society actions and collaborations bring hope for changing the food waste situation:

Associations and NGOs have started to move a lot in Romania. I am delighted that this mentality - “This is not done here and no one shows interest”, “That the authorities do not show interest here”, has changed. Now, there have started to be smaller groups and all kinds of civic workshops that have started to move a lot, some concentrated hubs that at a given moment meet and say: “Let us collaborate”. We are all optimistic that change will come from there and opportunities will open up (BonApp Developer interview, May 27, 2022).

The Romanian FW public policies

One could say that the public policies on food waste in Romania could be easily reduced to the Anti-Food Waste Law No. 217 adopted in 2016, and entered into force after two years of blockade and a substantial change in the provisions, and another amending and supplementing Low promulgated in March 2024. The analysis of public policy regarding FW in Romania, which I also carried out in 2022, establishes that food donation NGOs and NGOs dealing with the social economy shops, the so-called economats, are among the competition items and the target audiences.

It is noteworthy that the Anti-Food Waste Law in Romania, before its drafting, was not a subject of genuine public interest or debate. However, a small segment of Romanian civil society, particularly the non-governmental sector through organizations like SOMARO - Social Store, More Green, Workshops without Borders, Carousel, Resource Centre for Public Participation, Terra Millennium III, Food Bank, and Romanian Food Consumers Association Optimum Cibum, played a pivotal role in formulating this law (Gheorghica 2019).

Moreover, at the initiative of the MoreGreen Association and the Resource Centre for Public Participation, 34 other ENGOs asked the Romanian parliamentarians to adopt the law and to participate in the plenary session of the Chamber of Deputies dedicated to this vote on October 18, 2016 (Horeca Romania 2016; Green Report 2016). After the vote, many NGOs claimed that the more ambitious the law project was, which they consider to have an outstanding contribution, the less ambiguous the version of the voted law (Gheorghica 2019). In addition, the Romanian civil society representatives highlighted in online statements that the most significant initiatives[12] undertaken in Romania to address food waste in a direct/practical way belong to the private sector, especially the non-profit and non-governmental sectors (Gheorghica 2019).

Conclusions

Food Waste is a recent concern for world leaders and scholars, although it has existed for decades and is causing pollution and other side effects, gaining global attention since 2013. The United Nations’ target for halving FW and the related actions required by The 2030 Agenda should be achieved in just six years, and there is a lot to be done. Scholars consider civil society an essential stakeholder in public environmental policies, the so-called green agenda, although it faces many challenges, limitations, and blockages.

Despite these challenges, academic literature confirms the hypothesis that a robust civil society influences the adoption of efficacious and improved public policies regarding FW and contributes to maintaining green topics on the public agenda[13]. In recent years, both the public and academic spheres seem to pay much more attention to environmental issues, starting on one hand with the intensification of actions regarding combating climate change and other environmental problems by the UN and the EU since 2015 and, on the other, through a more visible involvement of the political sphere. Taking into account academic writing, the development and evolution of a solid and vigilant civil society, considered as part of the New Public Management model (Anheier 2017: 4-5), is not just essential but powerful in influencing the fulfilment of the ambitious goals set by the international community, which aim at the well-being of people and the Planet but also of future generations.

At the EU accession moment, Romania was seen as an “environmental laggard”(Börzel and Buzogány, 2010: 718), and scholars pointed out, besides the negative aspects related to funding, state authorities’ ignorance and societal challenges, the significant influence of Europeanization, and progresses registered after the EU membership (O'Brien 2009; Parau 2009; Börzel and Buzogány 2010; Stringer and Paavola 2013; Jiglau 2016; Heemeryck 2018). Some might consider that Romania is still a “laggard” on some specific issues, and food waste seems to be among them.

This paper aimed to identify the factors that explain Romanian civil society's ability to influence public policies on FW and keep these green topics on the governmental agenda. In this sense, I have conducted a literature review to identify the current situation and the levers available to Romanian civil society and data analysis. Thus, I sought to map the situation of civil society in Romania in the context of the worldwide green agenda launched in 2015, with attention to the environment and focusing on the food waste area. As can be seen from the previous sections, scholars have approached relatively limited the subject of environmental civil society in Romania (O’Brien 2009; Parau 2009; Börzel and Buzogány 2010; Stringer and Paavola 2013; Branea 2015; Jiglau 2016; Margarit 2018). It is worth mentioning that their focus is on the social movement Salvati Rosia Montana and the prevention of the deforestation project in the area of Sighisoara - Dracula Park (O'Brien 2009; Parau 2009; Branea 2015; Jiglau 2016; Heemeryck 2018; Margarit 2018), other environmental issues or green public policies than food waste. I have yet to identify any academic article or book dedicated to FW and civil society’s implications in this field in Romania. Therefore, my analysis brings attention to this topic, provides input, and opens the opportunity for further, more comprehensive analysis or research on this topic, which does not seem to be a national priority nor to be framed in emergencies or phenomena with devastating environmental consequences.

Moreover, the 11 semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of central public authorities, HoReCa, civil society, and Romanian consumers, which I conducted in the spring of 2022, revealed that civil society as a soft power can influence Romanian public policies regarding FW and has a crucial role in covering the key areas of education, communication, awareness, and changing consumer behaviour. Furthermore, the interviewees underlined that, after the state, civil society is the next stakeholder that has the responsibility for taking action to reduce FW. On the one hand, the data reveals that interviewees consider civil society more as a “doer” that takes action rather than as a party that influences the policies and maintains the green agenda on the public and governmental attention. On the other hand, the identification of civil society as a stakeholder responsible for taking action to combat FW involves also the action to influence public policies regarding reducing food waste, as it results from the broader discussions with the interviewees. Thus, it should be noted that the Anti-Food Waste Law in Romania as a public policy was only possible with the contribution and influence of a few Romanian ENGOs, as noted by one interviewee.

My research confirms the conclusions of Archip and colleagues (2023: 6), who included civil society as a critical sector involved in FW reduction, significantly influencing the formulation and application of plans and directives. Moreover, my findings contribute to several scholarly conclusions regarding the growing involvement of civil society in policy-making over the past few decades as one of the most significant trends (Wuthnow 2004; Pirvulescu 2016; Anheier 2017). Furthermore, the second part of my hypothesis is also confirmed by Anheier’s (2017: 6) consideration that the CSOs interfering with the policy-making process are attempting to exert influence or even dictate governmental agendas, and also by Dodge’s (2014: 161) idea that civil society uses storylines to “set the agenda for environmental hazards”.

Nevertheless, my research can be considered refuted by that of Böhmelt' (2013: 710), who concluded that ENGOs would not be able to influence or alter state policy regarding climate change (at the global level), compared to the corporate organisations' lobbying success. However, one might say that Böhmelt’s outcome is invalidated by the Romanian Anti-Food Waste Law case, which demonstrated the power of civil society to influence public policy-making in an EU member state.

Recalling that, in Romania, environmental issues are low on the political agenda (O'Brien 2009: 155), the development and evolution of a strong and vigilant Romanian civil society is vital for the fulfilment of the ambitious goals set by the international community, which aim at the well-being of people, the Planet, and future generations. In this light, broader research is needed for analysing the number of active Romanian ENGOs in the food waste sector and also for mapping their implication and outcomes in FW public policies as an essential topic on the international green agenda.

Literature:

1. Anheier Helmut K. (2017): Civil society challenged: Towards an enabling policy environment. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 11 (2017-29), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-29.

2. Archip Bianca Cezara, Ioan Banatean-Dunea, Dacinia Crina Petrescu and Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag (2023): Determinants of Food Waste in Cluj-Napoca (Romania): A Community-Based System Dynamics Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2140: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032140.

3. Bernauer Thomas, Böhmelt Tobias and Vally Koubi (2013): Is There a Democracy-Civil Society Paradox in Global Environmental Governance? Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 13 (1): 88-107.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gep/summary/v013/13.1.bernauer.html.

4. Böhmelt Tobias (2013): Civil society lobbying and countries’ climate change policies: A matching approach. Climate Policy, 13(6): 698–717.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.788870.

5. Börzel Tanja and Buzogány Aron (2010): Environmental organisations and the Europeanisation of public policy in central and eastern Europe: The case of biodiversity governance. Environmental Politics, 19(5): 708–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2010.508302.

6. Branea Cristian (2015): Models of contention and participation of civil society in Roșia Montană environmental conflict. In Vlad Ioana and Katalin E. Fábián (eds.): Democratization Through Social Activism: Gender and Environmental Issues in Post-Communist Societies. Romania: Tritonic, 265-306.

7. Bryson John M., Patton Michael Quinn and Ruth A. Bowman (2010): Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and program planning, 34 (1): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.07.001.

8. Caniato Marco, Vaccari Mentore, Visvanathan Chettiyappan, and Zurbrügg Christian (2014): Using social network and stakeholder analysis to help evaluate infectious waste management: A step towards a holistic assessment. Waste Management, 34(5), 938–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.011.

9. Cantaragiu Ramona (2019): Corporate social entrepreneurship initiatives against food waste – The case of Lidl in Romania. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 13(1), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0044.

10. Carothers Thomas (2000): Civil Society. Foreign Policy, No. 117 (Winter, 1999-2000): 18-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149558.

11. Chandhoke Neera (2007): Civil society. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469658.

12. Dinham Adam (2009): Faiths, Public Policy and Civil Society: Problems, Policies, Controversies. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan.

13. Dodge Jennifer (2014): Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system. Policy Sciences, 47(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9200-y.

14. Epure Carmen, Tiganescu Oana and Vamesu Ancuta (2001): Romanian Civil Society: An Agenda for Progress. A Preliminary Report on the Civicus Index on Civil Society Project. Romania Civicus Index on Civil Society Occasional Paper Series, Vol. 1 (9): 1-36.

15. Fukuyama Francis (1995): Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York: The Free Press.

16. Gemmill Barbara and Bamidele-Izu Abimbola (2002): The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Global Environmental Governance. In Esty Daniel C. and Ivanova Maria H.: Global Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities.Forestry & Environmental Studies Publications Series. 8: 77-100. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/fes-pubs/8.

17. Heemeryck Antoine (2018) Social Movement and Civil Society in Post-communist Romania: Local Evolution, Global Comparison. Anthropological Researches and Studies, 8(1):254-267. https://doi.org/10.26758/8.1.25.

18. Jiglau George (2016): Provocări şi oportunităţi pentru societatea civilă în actualul context sociopolitic. In Nimu Andrada; Pîrvulescu Cristian and Todor, Arpad (eds.): Societate civilă, democraţie şi construcţie instituţională: transparenţă şi participare publică în România contemporană. Iasi: Polirom, 213-223.

19. Kluvánková-Oravská Tatiana, Chobotová Veronika, Banaszak Ilona, Slavikova Lenka and Trifunovova Sonja (2009): From government to governance for biodiversity: The perspective of Central and Eastern European transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.508.

20. Kopecký Petr and Mudde Cas (2003): Rethinking civil society. Democratization, 10(3), 1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340312331293907.

21. Margarit Diana (2018): Cooperation, struggles, and rebounds Civil society vs. political authorities in Romania. In Marchetti Raffaele (ed.): Government-NGO Relationships in Africa, Asia, Europe and MENA. New York: Routledge, 219-241.

22. Morone Piergiuseppe and Imbert Enrica (2020): Food waste and social acceptance of a circular bioeconomy: the role of stakeholders. Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry (Vol. 23), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2020.02.006.

23. Miles Samantha (2015): Stakeholder Theory Classiﬁcation: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Deﬁnitions. J Bus Ethics 142, 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y.

24. Nastase Carmen, Chasovschi Carmen Emilia, State Mihaela and Scutariu Adrian-Liviu (2019): Municipal waste management in Romania in the context of the EU. A stakeholders’ perspective. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(5): 850–876. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2019.10295.

25. O’Brien Thomas (2009): Shifting views of environmental NGOs in Spain and Romania. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9(1–2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683850902723462.

26. Parau Cristina Elena (2009). Impaling Dracula: How EU Accession Empowered Civil Society in Romania. West European Politics, 32(1), 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380802509917.

27. Pirvulescu Cristian (2016): Un concept cu geometrie variabilă: societatea civilă. In Nimu Andrada; Pîrvulescu Cristian and Todor, Arpad (eds.): Societate civilă, democraţie şi construcţie instituţională: transparenţă şi participare publică în România contemporană. Iasi: Polirom, 15-35.

28. Roberts J. Timmons, Parks Bradley C. and Vásquez Alexis A. (2004): Who Ratifies Environmental Treaties and Why? Institutionalism, Structuralism and Participation by 192 Nations in 22 Treaties. Global Environmental Politics 4:3, 22-64.

29. Smismans Stijn (2006): Civil society and European governance: from concepts to research. In Smismans Stijn (ed.): Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 4-5.

30. Smith Andrew F. (2020): The perfect storm: a history of food waste. In Reynolds Christian, Soma Tammara, Spring Charlotte, and Lazell Jordon (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Food Waste. 1st ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 37-54. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429462795.

31. Stringer Lindsay and Paavola Jouni (2013): Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies. Environmental Conservation, 40(2), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000039.

32. Wuthnow Robert (2004), Saving America? Faith-Based Services and the Future of Civil Society. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Web Links:

33. Breniuc Irina (2016): 36 de ONG-uri cer deputaților să adopte legea privind combaterea risipei alimentare. Green Report. Retrieved April 01, 2024, from https://green-report.ro/risipa-alimentara-deputati/.

34. Eurostat (2023): Food waste and food waste prevention. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Food_waste_and_food_waste_prevention_-_estimates.

35. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (2013): Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary Report. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf.

36. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023): Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural-urban continuum. In The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Rome. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en.

37. Gheorghica, Anca (2019): Impactul multidimensional al risipei alimentare. Retrieved April 01, 2024, from https://www.traieste.maibine.org/impactul-multidimensional-al-risipei-alimentare/.

38. Horeca Romania (2016): Mobilizare generală pentru combaterea risipei de hrană în România. Retrieved April 01, 2024, from https://www.horeca.ro/food-beverage/mobilizare-generala-pentru-combaterea-risipei-de-hrana-in-romania/

39. Ilie Luiza (2024): Canada's Gabriel Resources loses damage claim against Romania for failed gold mine project. Reuters. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-gabriel-resources-loses-damage-claim-against-romania-failed-gold-mine-2024-03-08/.

40. Institute for Research in Circular Economy and Environment “Ernest Lupan” (2021): Study of Food Waste in Romania. Retrieved March 11, 2024, from https://zenodo.org/record/5913440#.YrH7XHZBxPY.

41. The European Commission (2023): Impact Assessment Report Accompanying the document Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. Eur-lex. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:1fefebb0-1b4e-11ee-806b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_5&format=PDF.

42. The European Commission (2024): EU actions against food waste. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food-waste/eu-actions-against-food-waste_en.

43. The Legislative Portal (2019): LEGEA nr. 217 din 17 noiembrie 2016 privind diminuarea risipei alimentare. Retrieved April 01, 2024, from http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/183792.

44. The Legislative Portal (2024): LEGE nr. 49 din 15 martie 2024 pentru modificarea și completarea Legii nr. 217/2016 privind diminuarea risipei alimentare. Retrieved April 01, 2024, from https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/280058

45. United Nations - Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development (2015): SDG12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12.

46. United Nations Environment Programme (2021): Food Waste Index Report 2021. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://www.ahgingos.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FoodWaste.pdf.

47. United Nations Environment Programme (2024): Food Waste Index Report 2024: Think Eat Save. Tracking Progress to Halve Global Food Waste. Retrieved March 10, 2024, from https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/food-waste-index-report-2024.

[1] The Romanian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development initiated in 2020 an educational and awareness campaign entitled: “You Can Protect the Planet Too! Together, Let’s Start Reducing Food Waste!”. The Department of Sustainable Development of the Romanian Government also initiated in 2020 a study, the “Food Waste Questionnaire”, aiming to assess and raise awareness about food waste. In 2021, the Governmental Department organized two international conferences: “The International Year of Fruits and Vegetables”, dedicated to sustainable agriculture and healthy eating, and “Together We Fight Food Waste”, to discuss and find solutions for reducing food.

[2] Fukuyama 1995; Carothers 2000; Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002; Wuthnow 2004; Smismans 2006; Chandhoke 2007; Dinham 2009; Bryson, Patton and Bowman 2010; Böhmelt 2013; Dodge 2014; Caniato et al. 2014; Miles 2015; Anheier 2017; Morone and Imbert 2020; Archip et al. 2023; Bernauer 2023.

[3]The scholar explains that the organic-communitarian model regards civil society as an “intermediate and concerted structure of the interests of relatively coherent social or professional groups, somewhat re-evaluating the tradition of studying the tripartite organization of society researched since the first half of the 20th century by the School of the Annales”. The deliberative model focuses on how “civic actors manifest themselves in relation to the public space, producing through their actions a political reality” (e.g. civic dialogue, lobbying, advocacy, indignados or occupy types of protests, Etc.). Moreover the cognitive model highlights the role of civil society as “a specific form of knowledge” (e.g. studies and research of NGOs to influence public policies) (Pirvulescu 2016: 20-21).

[4] The scholars suggest that stakeholders can be classified into four broad groups as follows: 1) players = key stakeholders because they “have both an interest and signiﬁcant power”; 2) subjects, which “have an interest but little power”; 3) context setters, which “have power but little direct interest”; and 4) crowd, having neither interest nor power (Bryson, Patton and Bowman 2010: 1).

[5] It is essential to distinguish between COSs and NGOs, as Non-Governmental Organisations is the term used for associations and foundations, which are considered a fundamental expression of civil society, and Civil Society Organizations, which include a broad range of representation associations (Epure, Tiganescu and Vamesu, 2001: 1-2).

[6] Nevertheless, after a decade, Romanian NGOs needed more financial and human resources in most areas, including internal organisation management and fundraising. Few were involved at the regional, national, or international levels; most of them worked on small-scale projects that provided social services (e.g. child protection or health care), or they educated the public about new topics like environmentalism, human rights for minorities, the rule of law, and government accountability (Epure, Tiganescu and Vamesu 2001: 8-33). Moreover, closer to the accession moment, Romania had only a few influential NGOs, while the rest of civil society remained “generally weak and etiolated, partly due to overdependence on donor funds” (Nicholson of Winterbourne 2006: 64, cited by Parau 2009: 121).

[7] The scholars pointed out that environmental NGOs in CEE nations like Poland, Hungary, and Romania have grown in professionalism and strength due to the Europeanization of environmental policy. However, state-civil society interaction has remained relatively poor (Börzel and Buzogány, 2010: 717-728).

[8] O'Brien observes that this is more a result of the upkeep of closed political institutions and processes derived from the legacy of non-democratic governance. According to the scholar (O'Brien 2009: 155), ENGOs are still perceived as agitators who impose limitations on government actions rather than partners whose voices validate issues that should be discussed and resolved.

[9] Related to these two cases mapped in this paper, Parau (2009: 136-137) points out that the Nastase government was less willing to compromise over its initiated project Dracula Park, considering that the negotiation occurred at the beginning of the process, compared to Rosia Montana, which took place at the end and saw more willingness to compromise. The author recalls that, initially, the Nastase Executive was reluctant to constrain itself in the case of Dracula, a project they had initiated, but constrained itself much more quickly in Rosia Montana, as it was not ‘their’ project and oﬀered uncertain beneﬁts. As far as identity was concerned, the local founders of Alburnus Maior were so constrained that they did not even think of lobbying Europe at first (Parau 2009: 136-137).

[10] The SRM movement is the most significant environmental movement in post-communist Romania, which opposed in 2002 the most prominent open pit in Europe, a cyanide-leaching gold and silver extraction project proposed by Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (RMGC), a subsidiary of a Canadian multinational mining company Gabriel Resources Ltd. (Branea 2015; Heemeryck 2018). Branea (2015: 266) explains that the case developed into Romania’s most significant and intricate environmental dispute, with a large cross-border and international component. Moreover, the case was closed earlier in March this year, after Canada's Gabriel Resources, which sought compensation after its plan to construct Europe's largest open-pit gold mine in the western Romanian town of Rosia Montana failed, lost an arbitrage trial against Romania carried out by the International Court of Arbitration of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Reuters 2024).

[11] The SRM movement had at its core a small non-governmental organization organized by locals against the mining project, Alburnus Maior, helped by a Swiss-French environmental activist, and only a few NGOs which worked closely: Greenpeace Romania, ReGeneration, the Independent Centre for the Development of Environmental Resources, Rosia Montana Cultural Foundation, Terra Millennium III, and Architecture. Restoration. Archeology Association (Branea 2015: 268). The scholar revealed that the civic movement was possible only with the involvement of a Swiss-French environmental activist, who assisted Alburnus Maior’s local organization in formulating a plan of action that mostly involved contesting any papers released by government agencies at Gabriel Resources’ request (Branea 2015: 267). Moreover, the scholar points out that the SRM movement was also instrumental in pressuring the European Parliament to adopt a resolution urging the European Commission to ban cyanide gold mining across the continent (Branea 2015: 286).

[12] Among the notable initiatives of Romanian ENGOs in addressing food waste are: the Bio & Co project - a food solidarity program by the Workshops without Borders Association; the Romania against Food Waste project by the MoreGreen Association, in partnership with www.foodwaste.ch and the Resource Centre for Public Participation; the Too good to be wasted educational project for students; and the Romanian values food project by Terra Millennium III. These initiatives, along with the efforts of social NGOs like SOMARO - Social Store and the network of food banks in Romania, have significantly contributed to the Fight against food waste.

Another known project is launching the first Food Bank at the initiative of a German international discount retailer (i.e. Lidl) and Junior Chamber International (JCI). The first Food Bank opened its doors in Cluj in 2016, and the second opened in Bucharest in 2018 (Cantaragiu 2019: 511). The scholar underlined that since the retailer lacked expertise in collaborating with the civil sector and credibility as a partner for this sector, JCI's assistance was crucial since it helped Lidl connect with the network of regional non-governmental organisations that would receive food donations (Cantaragiu 2019: 511). Another JCI with Lidl's support is Food Waste Combat, launched in 2021 (Gheorghica 2019).

[13]Fukuyama 1995; Carothers 2000; Gemmill and Bamidele-Izu 2002; Wuthnow 2004; Smismans 2006; Chandhoke 2007; Dinham 2009; Bryson, Patton and Bowman 2010; Böhmelt 2013; Dodge 2014; Caniato et al. 2014; Miles 2015; Anheier 2017; Morone and Imbert 2020; Archip et al. 2023; Bernauer 2023.

Paper upload

Nicolae-Ioana Article for the 10th ACADEMOS Conference: How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world?

Current Trends in Combating the Fake News Phenomenon

Gabriela — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 21:06:22 +0000

Current Trends in Combating the Fake News Phenomenon Gabriela Sun, 02/25/2024 - 23:06

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Ms.

First Name

Gabriela

Last Name

Guiu

Academic title

Other

Address

Bd. Expozitiei, No.30A, Bucharest, Romania

E-mail

gabriela.guiu@comunicare.ro

Phone

0765282780

Institution/University

College of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration

Co-authors

Alexandra Neidoni, West University of Timișoara

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

In the new information ecosystem, fake news has become a keyword used to describe the term disinformation, especially in the digital environment. The digital world is becoming an increasingly important reality, as a result of the emergence and proliferation of social platforms. They have an important role because through them, fake materials are propagated, being shared and reshared by the public, taken ad literam and unverified, often creating feelings of panic and revolt. Although the debate on this phenomenon has become multidisciplinary (a topical subject for researchers in different fields, such as anthropologists, sociologists or political scientists), the current literature does not exhaust the complexity regarding the fake news issues. In this context, questions such as: “What are the most important effects of fake news”, “How can we efficiently combat fake news phenomenon?” remain open and require further clarification.

Thus, these questions can be seen as a starting point for the present paper whose purpose is to analyze current trends regarding ways to combat the phenomenon. The first section, will briefly present the most common theoretical directions in the current research on fake news. Then, it will highlight the various competing claims regarding the effects of fake news, focusing on the most recent findings in the literature that discuss about communicational pathologies in the online sphere. The last part of the paper will approache the way people process and deal with the information they encounter, regardless of whether that information is true or false.

This endeavor is premised on the belief that only by providing a deeper understanding of the fake news phenomenon we will be able to find relevant solutions for shaping the public policies into helping people to distinguish between true, documented news and news that presents false facts or events taken out of context, or presented in an angle that generates a totally or at least partially false image of reality.

Key words: fake news, veracity assessment, social media, sharing behavior

Paper upload

Abstract Guiu&Neidoni, Current Trends in Combating the Fake News Phenomenon_0.docx

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries.

AndreiC93 — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 19:00:01 +0000

Promoting environmental principles through Romanian ODA projects and programmes in beneficiary countries. AndreiC93 Sun, 02/25/2024 - 21:00

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Andrei

Last Name

Copăceanu

Academic title

Other

Address

Bucharest, Sos. Mihai Bravu, nr.3

E-mail

andrei.copaceanu10@gmail.com

Phone

+40757944925

Institution/University

National School of Political and Administrative Studies Multidisciplinary Doctoral School

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

This article examines the key role that Romania's ODA projects and programmes play in promoting environmental principles in recipient countries. In the current context of increasing global concerns about climate change and environmental degradation, a sustainable approach to development becomes imperative. This study examines the strategies adopted by Romania in its ODA projects and their impact on the promotion of environmental principles in partner countries.

The article aims to highlight how Romania's ODA projects integrate environmental aspects in areas such as natural resource management and marine geology. Last but not least the article will consider the importance of local communities' awareness and involvement in the conservation of natural resources and marine ecosystems. Through this approach, it will highlight an perspective on sustainable development is proposed, integrating both ecological and social aspects.

Through case studies, it analyses the results of projects carried out by Romania in various beneficiary countries.

The article also explores the challenges encountered in implementing these projects and offers suggestions for optimising future strategies. The importance of international collaboration and sustainable partnerships in addressing global environmental issues is highlighted.

This study aims to contribute to the understanding of how ODA donors such as Romania can positively influence environmental policies and practices in partner countries, thereby strengthening the shared commitment to a more sustainable and equitable future.

Paper upload

ODA

Civil society as the arena of the new European climate hegemony. A neo-Gramscian approach to European green transition.

mihaicaradaica — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:46:29 +0000

Civil society as the arena of the new European climate hegemony. A neo-Gramscian approach to European green transition. mihaicaradaica Sun, 02/25/2024 - 20:46

Registration fee details

Non-student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Mihail

Last Name

Caradaica

Academic title

Dr.

Address

Bulevadul Expoziției 30a, București, România

E-mail

mihai.caradaica@dri.snspa.ro

Phone

0720906425

Institution/University

National University of Political Studies and Public Administration

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

Using a neo-Gramscian approach, this paper explores the concept of civil society as an arena where European climate hegemony is built. The EU’s green transition, which involves deep social and economic transformations, needs extensive popular support to avoid social instability and the rise of populist parties. To achieve this, the European Commission is trying to construct a counter-hegemonic discourse that challenges the traditional modes of a fossil fuel-based economy by creating an alliance of actors around the ideology of just transition. Therefore, the study addresses the following research question: who are the change agents within European civil society that have aligned with the alliance and how fostering a counter-hegemonic discourse against the traditional economic model? By employing a qualitative methodological approach, the study explores the crucial function of civil society in the European green transition, exposing how these agents facilitate the formation of a new climate hegemony.

Paper upload

Civil society & new European climate hegemony_Caradaica.docx

LEARNING IN THE EU JUST TRANSITION INITIATIVES

eugen.gabor — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 18:09:57 +0000

LEARNING IN THE EU JUST TRANSITION INITIATIVES eugen.gabor Sun, 02/25/2024 - 20:09

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Mihai

Last Name

Dănilă

Academic title

Other

Address

Bucharest

E-mail

mihai.danila.21@drd.snspa.ro

Phone

Institution/University

SNSPA

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

A fundamental transformation to a sustainable economy and society requires substantial financial resources to be delivered and internalizing lessons learned from previous stages. Programs aiming to provide decarbonization and just transition are not new in the European Union. There is a valuable learning experience that may contribute to achieving decarbonization goals for 2050. How is this heritage being used? Are the lessons learned from past experiences integrated into the new policies that address the same issues? The Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition (ICRT) and now the Just Transition Fund (JTF) are two subsequent instruments designed to deliver a just transition for the regions most affected by the transition. Just Transition Fund (JTF) is a Cohesion Policy instrument that addresses regional disparities and delivers a structural change. Given its scale and financial resources, it might be considered the EU’s most advanced tool to build a fair and just transition. The Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition (ICRT), the precursor and, at the same time, JTF “sister” program, was established in 2017 under the “Clean Energy for all Europeans” package to assist EU coal, peat, lignite, and oil shale regions to become sustainable, supporting their efforts to have a fair transition.
This paper will explore the European Union’s capacity to learn from its experience by looking at a financial instrument designed to make green transition fair, the Just Transition Fund. Based on the available literature public reports, JTF will first be described and compared with the Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition. Then, in the second part, to gain a deeper understanding of these two policies’ implementation, I will analyze how they are implemented in Romania by conducting a series of interviews with experts and officials in the transition of carbon-intense regions.

Keywords: just transition, carbon and coal intense regions, learning in public policies, Just
Transition Fund, The Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition.

Green Policies, Gray Areas: Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union

VladBT — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:08:48 +0000

Green Policies, Gray Areas: Farmers' Protests and the Environmental Policy Dilemma in the European Union VladBT Sun, 02/25/2024 - 17:08

Registration fee details

Non-student author

Author addressing title

Mr.

First Name

Vlad

Last Name

Bujdei-Tebeica

Academic title

Dr.

Address

Calea Giulesti, nr. 131, Bucharest, Romania

E-mail

vlad.bujdei.14@politice.ro

Phone

0722402469

Institution/University

National University of Political Science and Public Administration

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

This paper presents a comparative analysis of farmer protests across seven European countries (France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland, and Romania) from late 2023 to early 2024, focusing on the intersection of anti-environmentalist discourse and Euroscepticism within these movements. Amidst growing tensions between agricultural practices and environmental policies, these protests highlight how civil society can pose a threat to the implementation of environmental policy across the European Union (EU). Utilizing discourse analysis and comparative methodology, the paper examines the platforms and public statements of the protesting groups to identify core themes of resistance against environmental regulations and EU agricultural policies. Furthermore, it incorporates a Euroscepticism lens to explore how anti-EU sentiments exacerbate the protests, reflecting broader issues of sovereignty, identity, and economic survival in the face of EU-wide policy directives. Our findings suggest that while environmental policy concerns are at the forefront, a significant undercurrent of Euroscepticism influences the discourse and demands of these protests, presenting a multifaceted challenge for EU policymakers. By analyzing these protests in a comparative context, this study contributes to the understanding of contemporary European social movements and the intricate balance between environmental sustainability and agricultural livelihoods within the EU policy framework.

Paper upload

Bujdei-Tebeica Vlad - Abstract

Abstract: How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world? The crucial role of civil society in keeping the public attention on the green agenda

Nicoleta Nicolae-Ioana — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 07:35:39 +0000

Abstract: How can we halve food waste by 2030 in a consumerist world? The crucial role of civil society in keeping the public attention on the green agenda Nicoleta Nicol… Sun, 02/25/2024 - 09:35

Registration fee details

Student author

Author addressing title

Mrs.

First Name

Nicoleta

Last Name

Nicolae-Ioana

Academic title

Other

Address

Polonă Street, no 3-5, District 1, Bucharest, postal code 010491, Romania

E-mail

nicoleta.nicolae-ioana.20@politice.ro

Phone

0732 435 206

Institution/University

National University of Political and Administrative Studies

Conference Panels

Civil society in the endeavour of protecting the environment

Paper/Abstract submission

Keywords: green agenda; food waste; civil society; public policies; governmental agenda

Paper upload

Nicolae-Ioana Abstract Submission the10th ACADEMOS Conference "Reshaping Political and Social Systems for a Sustainable Future"