The 2023 Green Growth Summit will bring together high-level Member State representatives from the Green Growth Group, the EU institutions, and business. The Summit will mark the celebration of the

The 2023 Green Growth Summit will bring together high-level Member State representatives from the Green Growth Group, the EU institutions, and business. The Summit will mark the celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the Green Growth Partnership (GGP). The GGP is convened by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) and provides a forum to promote positive exchange between progressive European governments and businesses, with regular involvement of like-minded parliamentarians, and other key stakeholders and opinion formers, determined to support the development of a climate neutral and prosperous Europe.  📌 Agenda: 13:15 – 14:00: Scene Setter for the 10-year anniversary of the GGP:  “A look back at 10 years of climate policy – Where does the EU go from there?” 14:00 – 15:30: Session 1: ‘‘Stepping stones towards 2040” 15:50 – 17:20: Session 2: “The Green Deal as compass for the EU’s future competitiveness” 17:20 – 17:45: Closing Session: Fireside chat: “Unpacking the international implications of EU policies and expectations for the COP” This hybrid event will take place both physically in Brussels and online. Don't miss the chance to engage with high-level representatives from the Green Growth Group of ministers, EU institutions, experts, and businesses as they discuss the past decade's achievements and chart a course for a climate-neutral and prosperous Europe. Speakers include: Leonore Gewessler, Federal Minister for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, Austria (video message) Teresa Ribera Rodríguez, Third Vice-President of the Government of Spain and Minister for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (video message) Uroš Vajgl, State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Slovenia Ambassador Barbara Cullinane, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland to the EU Ambassador Pierre Cartuyvels, Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium to the EU Berthold Goeke, Representing Head of Climate Department, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Germany Kristi Klaas, Deputy Director General for the Green Transition, Ministry of Climate, Estonia Bas Eickhout, MEP, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Christophe Grudler, MEP, Renew Europe Group Ville Niinistö, MEP, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Kurt Vandenberghe, Director General, DG Climate Action, European Commission Simon Henzell-Thomas, Global Director Climate & Nature, Ingka Group (IKEA) Rafael Mateo Alcalá, CEO, ACCIONA Energía Megan Mitrevski Dale, Director, Environmental Sustainability, Coca-Cola Europacific Partners Harry Verhaar, Head of Global Public & Government Affairs, Signify, and Chair, CLG Europe Dr. Kimmo Järvinen, Head of European Governmental Affairs, SSAB María Mendiluce, CEO, We Mean Business Coalition Dr. Laura Diaz Anadon, Chaired Professor of Climate Change Policy, University of Cambridge, & Vice-Chair, European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change Ursula Woodburn, Director, CLG Europe and the Green Growth Partnership The event will be moderated by Maria Tadeo, Europe correspondent, Bloomberg TV, and John Ainger, Climate and Energy Reporter, Bloomberg News.

...

In the newest episode of our Endangered Species Act 101 series Megan Evansen, our Conservation Science & Policy Analyst, breaks down the difference between Section 7 and 10 of the ESA. Red-cockaded

In the newest episode of our Endangered Species Act 101 series Megan Evansen, our Conservation Science & Policy Analyst, breaks down the difference between Section 7 and 10 of the ESA. Red-cockaded woodpecker footage by: @Running Wild Media Transcript: The U.S. Endangered Species Act, or the ESA, has been working to protect threatened and endangered species since 1973. And it has an amazing track record – most species listed under the ESA are still around today. This is thanks to the many protections afforded to ESA-listed species and the prohibitions that work to keep species safe from harm. The prohibitions of the ESA are strict, but Congress realized it’s difficult to completely avoid harm to species. So they created two routes to allow activities to move forward while also limiting harm – or take – to listed species. Those two routes are found in sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act. These two sections have some similarities, and because of these similarities, it can be difficult to know the difference between them. Let's break it down. Section 7, often called “the consultation process”, requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service if they're funding, carrying out or authorizing any action that may adversely affect ESA-listed species. Section 7 ensures the proposed action won’t jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat. The end of the consultation process results in an incidental take statement, or how much harm a project is expected to do to species. But what if there is no federal agency involvement, but a project's actions might risk taking a protected species? Individuals and organizations can obtain incidental take permits, or ITPs, under Section 10 of the ESA. To get one of these permits, they must develop a Habitat Conservation Plan. It's a planning document that describes the project, how it might affect species and how the landowner will minimize or mitigate harm to protected species. Both Section 7 and Section 10 allow for incidental take, whether through a statement or a permit. The major difference between Section 7 and Section 10 is who is involved – federal agencies vs. private, state and local landowners – and how incidental take is dealt with – via statement or permit. But is there ever a situation where you might need…. both? The short answer is yes. While Section 7 consultations can stand alone, Habitat Conservation Plans through Section 10 can’t stand alone – they require an accompanying Section 7 consultation. That’s because the act of issuing an Incidental Take Permit at the end of an HCP is considered a federal action – therefore, a consultation needs to be done on issuing the take permit itself. Though they may seem similar, we hope this video has shown how these two sections of the ESA are different in some key ways. For more information on Section 7 or Section 10, you can check out our other ESA 101 videos. Thanks for watching!

...

Published on Sep 29, 2016

Read more

Email a Friend