Green hydrogen is one of the building blocks of our energy transition, making its rapid roll-out immensely important for the future energy system as well as for the economic and social well-being of the EU.
Green hydrogen is one of the building blocks of our energy transition, making its rapid roll-out immensely important for the future energy system as well as for the economic and social well-being of the EU.
Yet, establishing the supply, demand, infrastructure and production when it comes to hydrogen entails a range of challenges. Hydrogen is both expensive and dependent on proper framework conditions. On the one hand, we must first target its use to sectors that are difficult to electrify and as an energy storage medium. On the other hand, we must ensure that the necessary conditions are created for a rapid and efficient expansion of hydrogen infrastructure.
Three points are particularly crucial here:
The necessary financing of the infrastructure must be ensured. Since building transport infrastructure will entail significant costs, the EESC underlines the importance of the efficient allocation of resources. This will require smart and integrated planning, including across borders, and a regulatory regime that enables necessary investments in the infrastructure while promoting the environmental sustainability of the energy system as a whole and protecting network users from excessive network charges. At the same time, additional burdens in the form of cross-subsidisation of hydrogen grids by gas grid users certainly need to be avoided. This is especially important since the future users of the hydrogen grid infrastructure differ considerably from today's gas grid users. It is therefore important to apply the user-pays principle as far as possible and thus to ensure that hydrogen infrastructure is primarily financed by the users of that infrastructure.
In addition to financing, the workforce needed for the expansion and production must be secured. In addition to the creation of new quality jobs, the redeployment of existing workers is particularly important. This means that existing workers need to be properly trained, reskilled and upskilled, and the workforce needs to be retained by offering good working conditions. For example, network operators need to be bound by customary collective agreements and working conditions need to be improved to attract skilled labour. The EESC therefore calls for efficient and conclusive social dialogue in the gas sector at both the European and national level.
Uniform, traceable and mandatory certification of hydrogen produced by a central EU scheme must be ensured. In addition to environmental criteria, these certification schemes must also guarantee social standards. These must include fair and safe working conditions and compliance with labour, social and trade union rights.
The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to revise the hydrogen strategy, which was rightly criticised by the European Court of Auditors. In cooperation with civil society at national and European level, it must be ensured that a comprehensive strategy is drawn up, factoring in certification, financing, labour requirements, promotion and consumer protection. It is only then that the European hydrogen industry can have a bright future.
Several participants underlined their appreciation of the EU rule of law review mechanism, which acted as a catalyst for debates at national level and in relation with the EU. Participants in this session expressed fears that the strong rule of law culture established in the Netherlands might fade away, given the political direction that the country was taking after the 2023 general election.
Participants described a highly-developed system for reporting discrimination at national and local levels, building on a network of ombuds-institutions in most municipalities, independent public institutions, and a rich environment of CSOs active in all areas of discrimination. One participant explained that regular meetings took place in every region to bring together the public prosecutor dealing with discrimination, the police officer dealing with discrimination, and anti-discrimination support bodies. This helped with the prioritisation of – and follow-up to – discrimination cases.
Despite the country’s solid foundations in terms of freedom of expression and media freedom, participants called for vigilance in the face of trends that might at some point severely affect those freedoms. With its tradition for tolerance, the Netherlands was maybe not properly equipped to face new challenges such as misinformation and disinformation, or the spread of hate speech. One possible new trend referred to was that the authorities might be increasingly prepared to pay fines rather than grant access to information for some types of documents.
For a country with a strong tradition of respecting freedom of association and assembly, according to one participant, the Netherlands’ Public Assemblies Act contained provisions that did not meet international standards. According to the participant, the act allowed for restrictions on assemblies based on traffic considerations, and it also made it possible to prosecute and punish peaceful protesters for merely failing to submit the required notification (in time) or for violating a prior restriction.
Participants described the well-established Dutch model of social dialogue, building on the tripartite Economic and Social Committee (SER), the bilateral Labour Foundation (StdvA) at national level, collective bargaining at sectoral and company level, and the role of work councils at company level. They agreed that relations were very cordial in discussions between the government, employers’ organisations and trade unions.
Participants noted that there were generally not many issues regarding how CSOs working against discrimination could operate in Estonia. Participants in this session also welcomed the strategic partnerships that existed between ministries and CSOs, as participants had done in other sessions. Participants referred to research showing that the legislative procedure had been positively impacted by these partnerships. Nevertheless, according to participants, the consultation of anti-discrimination CSOs by the authorities during the policy-drafting process remained inconsistent.
Participants agreed that freedom of expression and media freedom were good overall in Estonia. They explained that it was safe for journalists to express themselves, but they also considered that selfcensorship might also exist in relation to a journalist's loyalty to their employer. Participants believed that freelance journalists' socio-economic situations were at a disadvantage in the Estonian media business model.
