Metamorphosis - April 2010

April 2010 Newsletter # 57 European Environmental Bureau

META MORPHOSIS Editorial

EUROPE 2020: EUROPEAN COUNCIL DRIVING AN OLD AGENDA

By John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General

On the 3rd of March the Commission published its Europe 2020 economic agenda with the slogan “for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”.

This was indeed a promising motto, pointing at knowledge, education and training, climate action and resource efficiency, and poverty reduction as key drivers for the economy during the next decade. However, in its first response on 26th March the European Council moved back to the old adage of “jobs and growth”. Europe’s leaders also removed all references to the climate and environmental crises, showing little concern towards steering the EU away from the massive ecological deficit it is collectively running.

Europe 2020 should not be allowed to fail. The coming decade will be decisive for the sustainable future of Europe, and the planet.

Climate change and biodiversity degradation will only exacerbate, and we may begin to see reduced oil production (peak-oil) and increasing scarcity of other resources, which will damage economies and can threaten world peace.

Overuse of natural resources is also a threat to the environment.

Therefore, we must turn the curve and start reducing our energy and resource use in absolute terms now. Europe 2020 has great potential if it is strengthened with concrete energy and resource use reduction targets and an explicit link to biodiversity protection. It needs to make the market work for the environment through environmental tax and subsidy reform, and a truly functioning emission trading scheme. The EU agriculture, cohesion, research policies and budgets also need reforming to serve this purpose.

The first response of the European Council was disheartening. In the coming months civil society and parliaments in every EU country should become engaged in Europe 2020 and bring the EU’s political leaders to the understanding that greening the economy should be more than just a slogan.

INTERESTING BUT INCOMPLETE PROPOSALS The Commission set measurable targets for an increase of jobs, investment in research and development, education rates and poverty reduction. It included the targets agreed in December 2008 under the Energy/Climate Package: > Continued on page 2

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

2

> Continued from page 1

2 0% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 (compared to 1990), moving up to 30% “if the conditions are right” [a new formulation] 20% energy production by means of renewables 20% increase of energy efficiency.

The European Council did not (yet) accept the anti-poverty and education targets. For climate reduction, it refused the new, more open formulation for moving to 30%, referring back to the old requirement of a global agreement with comparable obligations for other countries.

The Council, then, slammed the door firmly shut on the possibility of improving the EU’s climate objectives.

This is a worrying signal for the Commission which will present an impact assessment in June on how much it would cost to the EU economy to move to the 30% target. It is expected that the costs will be seriously reduced compared with pre-economic crisis assessments, given that we have seen a serious reduction in energy demand in the last 1.5 years.

decarbonise the transport sector, promote renewables and realise smart grids in a European super-grid, and a new Energy Efficiency Action Plan.

It calls on Members States to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies and use market instruments, focus on the building sector and urban transport. Elsewhere, it is even advocating environmental fiscal reform as a “growth friendly” way of strengthening public budgets. “an industrial policy for the globalisation era”: one of its objectives is to lead to a more energy and resource efficient economy.

WHAT MORE DO WE NEED? The EEB has called for a clear longer term target: halving the EU’s ecological footprint by 50% by 2020. This would allow for specific targets for the next decade to be made, which sharpen the picture of what the flagship initiatives and the national reform programmes should do. For the time being an annual increase of resource efficiency of 3% is necessary, to be brought up to 6% if the EU economy starts growing again in GDP terms. 2% has been business as usual in the last three decades, so the increase is feasible.

The June European Council will discuss these flagships followed by development into actions for the EU and national levels.

Making a greenhouse gas reduction target dependent on international agreements is a poor stimulus for eco-innovation and for moving to a low carbon economy. For now, the conditionality for the 30% reduction target needs to be removed, and serious discussions should start about a 40% reduction target. Also, the new biodiversity target to halt the decline by 2020 and restore where feasible should not be isolated from the Europe 2020 Strategy, but become a corner stone of it.

Besides targets, the Commission proposed seven “flagship initiatives” to achieve the five targets.

Three are particularly interesting for environmental purposes:

The Commission also proposed a method to involve the Member States in the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy. As with the old Lisbon Strategy, governments are to make national reform programmes, on the basis of guidelines and targets they agree with the Commission. The Commission will assess progress every year. The European Council has already declared that “productivity” is “an essential indicator of progress”.

innovation union”: with a focus on “ challenges “such as energy security, transport, climate change and resource efficiency, health and ageing, environmentally-friendly production methods and land management”; “resource efficient Europe”: for “a resourceefficient and low-carbon economy that is efficient in the way it uses all resources”. It proposes to mobilise EU financial instruments for that purpose,

The Lisbon Strategy was quite weak at national level and was more of a vehicle to support EU wide initiatives focusing on reducing costs and restraints for EU business. Whether or not Europe 2020 does better remains to be seen. The environmental and social dimension of the Commission’s proposal are bound to face strong resistance from business, so it is imperative Europe 2020 has the attention and support from civil society to counter this.

The Commission should initiate a coordinated environmental tax reform, to make it happen without being undermined in each country by vested business interests who claim to be disturbed by cross-country trade conditions. The Strategy should also revive the idea of working on other methods of measuring progress rather than using GDP/capita. This was already launched within the Commission but failed to make the final proposal.

The Commission must not give into the pressure from Council and it must show real leadership for a sustainable future. •

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – A POTENTIALLY STRONG TOOL FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

Environmental impact assessments (EIA) can be important to integrate environmental concerns with planning and decision-making to prevent or

minimise environmental damage and pollution.

An EIA assesses the environmental impact of a project, looks into alternatives and proposes mitigation measures leading to the best decision from an environmental standpoint. What was unusual in the mid-eighties, when the EIA Directive was adopted, was that it also contained provisions for access to information and public participation that were extended by the Aarhus Convention. It is not surprising then that this directive raised high expectations with those working for the protection of the environment.

However, there has been a lot of disparity among EU Member States with the interpretation and application of the directive, which was subsequently amended by two Directives. As required by the 2003 directive, the Commission tabled a report in June 2009 on the effectiveness of the EIA Directive (serving as a basis for a further amendment), and intends to start a public consultation in the coming weeks.

The original Directive leaves no doubt about the overall objective and the Member States’

3

obligations, stating that they: “shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, by virtues… of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regards to their effects.”

In practice there are many factors that influence the quality of an EIA, including well informed and well trained decision-makers, independent and knowledgeable people in charge of the impact statements, early and effective public participation, transparency, and the independence and political will to get a correct EIA. For big infrastructure projects, a positive EIA is a requirement to get access to EU funds, but some

politicians see them as an obligation jeopardising important investment projects, and increasingly so in a period of economic crises. One of the tactics to avoid a negative EIA is by dividing a project, so-called “salami slicing”, to reduce or avoid the accumulative impacts of large projects.

The EIA Directive certainly has shortcomings and it would make enforcement easier if the ’85 directive and the two amending directives were consolidated. Reporting requirements should be improved as currently scientific reports or data omitted in the impact statement can be ignored.

Clear rules for monitoring the project after a finalised EIA are missing, including whether or not the EIA and public participation are taken into account in permitting procedures. EEB is aware of several complaints cases from member

April 2010 Newsletter # 57

organisations where agreed compensation measures have not been enforced. Monitoring and reporting should be made mandatory and the directive gives no clear instruction as to at what stage of the EIA procedure public participation should start, so there is plenty of scope for improvement. But does this justify a revision? Opening a directive for revision also opens it to those who would rather limit its scope than strengthen it.

EEB will carefully balance the potential for improvements and the risk of watering it down before asking for a revision and will focus on better enforcement, and collect examples for best practice and strong case law. •

By Regina Schneider, Head of Communications and Enforcement

FROM CONSUMERS TO CITIZENS: HOW TO INVOLVE PUBLIC ON NANOTECHNOLOGIES The paradox of this so-called “public” debate behind closed doors is not merely an anecdote.

The French experience can be seen as an extreme example of the current failure, in Europe and elsewhere, to involve citizens in finding answers to the new challenges ahead due to the rapid development of nanotechnologies.

On the 23 of February the French public debate on nanotechnologies concluded in Paris under close surveillance, where a small group of participants gathered in a building circled by police vans. What was supposed to be the crowning moment of a four month exercise in public engagement turned into farce and was hardly democratic. rd

This was mainly due to the successful action of a small group of ”anti-nano” activists (Pièces et Main d’oeuvre, also known as PMO) who protested at several public meetings, even resorting to the use on ammonia sprays on occasion. This led to the cancellation of a number of meetings (Montpellier, Nantes) and the reinforced security at the closing debate in Paris.

In this issue p.1 Editorial Europe 2020: European Council Driving an Old Agenda

With over 1000 nano-enabled products available on the market we are all, as consumers, exposed to nanomaterials. Manufactured nanomaterials are present in many forms and can be found in computers, fridges, cosmetics, tennis rackets and even socks. But how many of us are aware of the existence of these tiny materials which have the potential to revolutionise our lives? Who has been asked for consent when it comes to defining the so-called “benefits” these materials might bring to society? When it comes to deciding how to deal with nanomaterials, our role as citizen is unclear.

p.2 Environmental Impact Assessment – A Potentially Strong Tool for Environment Protection

Technological development is often portrayed as something positive that we should foster, but there is very little preliminary thinking about the needs for technological developments.

p.10 The End of Biodiversity Loss by 2020?

> Continued on page 4

p.4 Interview with Stavros Dimas, Former EU Commissioner For Environment p.5

Campaign Updates

p.6 Hot Off the Press! p.7 EEB Member Focus p.8 EU Needs New Environmental Action Programme p.9 Doing the Right Thing Does not Have to be Conditional

p.11 Should the Waste Implementation Agency Become More than Just an Idea? p.12 Forthcoming Events

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

4

> Continued from page 3

For example, the nanotechnology homepage of the European Commission presents nanotechnology as a promising technology that will “boost the competitiveness of our industry” and “create new products that will make positive changes in the lives of our citizens”. Citizens, however, should be given the means to decide upon the need for such technologies which may, or may not, benefit society.

This is crucial because there is ample evidence which suggests that the use of nanotechnology may have adverse impacts on human health and the environment. This is one of the key issues which the EEB has tried to bring to the Commission’s attention in its recent response to the public consultation on the Action Plan for 2010-2015.1 This is not to suggest that the issue of public involvement has been completely ignored by decision makers. A recent research project funded by the European Commission (NANOPLAT)2

shows that several countries have come up with initiatives which aim to involve the public in nanotechnology issues. Learning from their experience on GMOs, countries like Australia, Denmark and the UK launched deliberative processes as early as 2004 and these have been emulated recently by other countries (US, Germany, France). In total, more than 60 deliberative processes of various forms (citizens’ panels, public forums, surveys) have taken place within the field of nanotechnology.

From these examples of public engagement, the NANOPLAT project draws some interesting conclusions. An important one is that the impact of deliberative processes on policy making is often very little or nonexistent. In most cases, there has been no description of how the process would influence the political agenda. Organising a public debate can be difficult, but it appears that putting the outcomes of these debates into practice is even harder.

The results of public consultations should no longer be ignored - even when they can be disturbing or unexpected, as recently in the case of France. If they are not followed by concrete actions, deliberative processes contradict the concept of deliberation and can be a waste of time.

Listening to the public is a good start. It is now time to adapt discourses and political priorities accordingly. •

By Louise Duprez, EEB Nanotechnology Policy Officer 1

E EB’s Comments to Commission’s Public Consultation “Towards a Strategic Nanotechnology Action Plan (SNAP) 2010-2015”

2

S ome conclusions of the NANOPLAT project can be found in the European Commission’s recent publication “Understanding Public Debate on Nanotechnologies: Options for Framing Public Policy”

INTERVIEW WITH STAVROS DIMAS, FORMER EU COMMISSIONER FOR ENVIRONMENT You always come away feeling like you haven’t fully accomplished everything you aimed for but the fact I am receiving this recognition [Twelve Stars Award] is the highest acknowledgment I could have.

It is very moving and provides great satisfaction.

Stavros Dimas, former EU commissioner for environment

On finishing his five year tenure as EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas has been awarded the Twelve Stars Award of the EEB. At the EEB seminar on a 7th Environmental Action Programme in March, Mikael Karlsson, President of the EEB, awarded Dimas for being the most open and accessible commissioner ever seen for both EEB and national NGOs. His proactive work on fighting climate change, development of the emission trading scheme (ETS), and his defence of biodiversity legislation made him a worthy recipient of this award. After receiving his reward, EEB spoke with Dimas.

During your time at the Commission what is the one thing you feel most proud of?

There were so many happy moments, and hard moments. By the end I slept and dreamt of CO2 and I had a lot of agonising moments such as fighting for ETS - I had to fight hard and often alone. The moment we were awarded this I was very happy indeed. So there were many moments of happiness and agony, but not a single moment of boredom.

It was intense and interesting and I felt I was doing something worth doing, working alongside many interesting, clever and hard-working people.

What is your biggest disappointment?

COP 15 (Climate Conference Copenhagen 2010) was a disappointment but it was not a complete failure, depending on what happens next to lead towards a legally binding agreement.

Unfortunately the negotiations were not at the level of Ministers – because of that the EU wasn’t able to play the role it wanted to play. It was difficult.

What do you see as the big challenges in the next five years for EU environmental policy?

Climate of course is a leading theme. Getting

something workable post Copenhagen relies a great deal on China and the United States. We need to look at international support for developing countries and new technologies.

Biodiversity, and the economics of biodiversity, is as urgent as climate change and we need to incorporate a new value of goods, eco-systems and services.

Waste is still a priority. Improving implementation means better use of resources. International governance needs to be improved; a world environmental organisation could be useful. Trade and environmental policies need to be reconciled or we are simply exporting our footprint.

We should be aware of new threats such as nano and cocktails of new chemicals. Industry has changed and it is important it is not just the voice of the laggards which is the loudest. The commission is moving in this direction and moving to green growth and I believe a 7th EAP could be very useful for this.

What role do you think environmental NGOs can play? And how strong is industry pressure in comparison?

I always welcome criticism from NGOs and civil society and used these to achieve good environmental objectives. > Continued on page 12

5

CAMPAIGN UPDATES substances, plastics and forestry. Decisions were taken on a case-by-case basis for each individual product group leading to different requirements across products on the same issue. One of our main concerns has been the reactive approach to chemicals, and case-by-case decision-making indicated the absence of a strategic approach to substances.

ECOLABEL: CHANGE IS IN THE AIR The European Ecolabel is almost 20 years old, and EEB has been actively involved in it for almost as long. The Ecolabel – or the EU Flower – claims to be Europe’s label of environmental excellence for a range of consumer products.

EEB officially represents environmental NGOs on the Ecolabel Board (EUEB) and participates in the technical working group meetings where minimum ecological requirements for each product group are designed.

In February 2010 the revised Ecolabel Regulation entered into force. The revised Regulation strengthens the role of the EUEB (consisting of Member States and stakeholders) as a consultative forum for the Commission. For instance, the EUEB will now have a permanent president, giving it more structure and consistency.

Importantly, EUEB´s role will be strengthened as the Commission has to provide justification if it deviates from the EUEB’s recommendations on criteria in products or in an approach to be taken on horizontal issues, such as certain chemicals or forestry. At the latest EUEB meeting in March, discussion on the implications of the new Regulation started and will conclude in June with the formal agreement on terms of reference of the Board.

Another important issue on the meeting’s agenda was the long-awaited discussion on so-called “horizontal issues”. An ongoing problem of the EU Ecolabel was the inconsistent approach towards aspects including hazardous

April 2010 Newsletter # 57

What’s the latest news from EEB’s campaigning frontlines?

Austria, Denmark, Germany and Ireland abstained because it “does not hold a more ambitious line for the protection of human health and the environment, and a better basis for the more consistent and uniform implementation of policy to create a more equal and level playing field across the EU.”

At the meeting, the need for a new approach on controversial horizontal issues was finally recognised, and discussions on general principles for the use of chemicals will continue at the next EUEB meeting. EEB aims to reach an agreement on the general principles for chemical use which guarantee that only allow chemicals proven to be safe are used in ecolabelled products.

The Commission proposed for this Directive to make the use of Best Available Techniques (BATs) obligatory for industrial plants. The majority in the Council of Ministers however want wide derogations from this principle. The four countries who do not agree want them to be more restricted.

They were also concerned about the continuation of the right for existing Large Combustion Plants (mainly coal using electricity production plants) exceeding the emission limits in the new Directive.

Work is also planned on other issues such as plastics, flame retardants and forestry. There is obviously change in the air and the EEB´s role will now be to ensure that the recognition of this alternative approach translates into real action without further delays.

Derogations imply that a member state can delay the implementation of an element of the Directive which can result in allowing plants to avoid operating to emissions levels set by BAT.

Lukas Hammer, EEB/BEUC Ecolabel Coordinator

EEB has prevented any significant weakening from the European Parliament thus far, particularly on these two issues, and succeeded in making the European Parliament hold an ambitious position.

It is now for Members of the European Parliament to react in second reading. Rapporteur Holger Krahmer set out draft recommendations containing 52 amendments. EEB has produced a briefing note for second reading, setting out its key priorities. We are confident that key amendments from Krahmer will be put back on the table for negotiation with the Council.

PROPOSED EMISSION CONTROLS FOR LARGE INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATIONS: CLEANER AIR FOR CITIZENS OR MORE PROFITS FOR OPERATORS? On the 15th February the EU Environment Ministers first reading position on a Directive on industrial emissions (IED-Directive) became official.

The Environment Committee second reading vote will take place between 27th/28th April, and Plenary vote in beginning of July. EEB appeals to decision makers to take a strong stance in defending an ambitious legislation.

Christian Schaible, EEB Industry Policy Officer

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

6

Recent EEB press alerts and Media coverage

© www.energypicturesonline.com

GREEN GROUPS SUE THE COMMISSION OVER WITHHELD BIOFUELS DOCS A coalition of environmental groups filed a legal action against the European Commission over its refusal to release documents. The documents contain undisclosed information on the negative climate impacts of biofuels use in the EU. The lawsuit, brought by ClientEarth, Transport & Environment, the European Environmental Bureau and BirdLife International, alleges several violations of European laws designed to promote transparency in EU policy-making.

“That the Commission should choose to deny our right to know on such a critical issue, as the science underpinning our climate policies is astounding” said Tim Grabiel of ClientEarth. The Commission informed the coalition of their right to sue. In response, the coalition has taken the step of taking the issue to the General Court of the European Union. At issue is the future regulation of biofuels in the European Union.

Member States are required to use renewable sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020, which will be met through the increased use of biofuels. A consequence of biofuels production is the conversion of natural areas into cropland, to replace those croplands lost to biofuels production. This phenomenon releases significant greenhouse emissions.

The requested documents sought in the ClientEarth v. Commission case reveal the science on those impacts. The result is that crucial information is being withheld, and access to law compromised.

Read the full press release at eeb.org

EUROPEAN COUNCIL GIVES EUROPE 2020 A POOR START The EEB is deeply disappointed with the poor start of the Europe 2020 Strategy by the European Commission. Especially at a time when we experience huge economic deficit in Greece, there appears to be little concern about ensuring the Europe 2020 Strategy would prevent the EU from ecological deficit. “Amazingly, there is no mention of fighting climate change or the need for a low carbon economy behind the motivation for the new Strategy”, John Hontelez, Secretary General of the EEB, said.

The Commission had proposed to include the main Energy-Climate conclusions of December 2008 in the Strategy: “With this proposal, the Commission opened an opportunity to improve the EU’s domestic climate policy, but the European Council has slammed that door firmly shut.” John Hontelez continued: “They have stepped back to the old condition of requiring other nations in the world to make comparable commitments. This has absolutely nothing to do with creating a low carbon economy here in Europe, which can only be triggered by ambitious domestic greenhouse gas reductions.”

The EEB welcomes the European Council’s commitment to a new biodiversity target formulated at the Environmental Council, but regrets the fact that the Council failed to incorporate it into the EU 2020 set of headline targets.

Read the full press release at eeb.org

EUROPEAN ECOLABEL PRODUCTS LINKED TO RAINFOREST DESTRUCTION ACTIVITIES The EEB is angered by revelations that illegally harvested wood is likely to be in paper awarded with the European Ecolabel, according to a report released by environment group FERN.The European Ecolabel is meant to award products of environmental excellence but the EEB has long warned that weaknesses in requirements for forest products could lead to such a situation.

The report revealed that operations by Indonesian paper producers Pindo Deli have had devastating impacts on Sumatran rainforests, causing deforestation, threatening endangered species such as the orang-utan and harming the rights of indigenous peoples.

Pindo Deli provides two different paper products with the French EU Ecolabel license AFNOR and is part of the controversial Asian Pulp and Paper (APP) company that has been highly criticised by NGOs and the forest certification scheme, the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC).

To get a European Ecolabel license, companies must prove they have obeyed a set of ecological criteria established by the EU, which should guarantee that only the most ecological products on the market are awarded with the Ecolabel.

EEB has long called for fully certified products, with high percentages of wood from sustainable sources and stricter requirements for certification bodies to be involved in such criteria, but this has largely been ignored.

Read the full press release at eeb.org

7

EEB MEMBER FOCUS

April 2010 Newsletter # 57

News from EEB members and working groups

States have adopted in 2010 will do little to improve the situation. The Big Jump in that case will serve as a wake up call to decision makers that there is a strong demand for them to start living up to their commitments.

The EEB is therefore encouraging its members to get involved in one or more Big Jumps and to support the call for stronger action to protecting our waters and biodiversity.

More information about the practicalities around this years’ Big Jump can be found at: http://www.rivernet.org/bigjump/ READY TO TAKE THE PLUNGE? Most people will have July 11, 2010 in their diary for the football World Cup finals. Before the start of this final however, at 15.00 PM CET to be precise, another signal will ring across Europe after which probably hundreds of thousands of people will jump into river and lakes.

The action is an inspiring project that captures the essence of current EU water protection legislation into one single public act: at one date, at one time, people will jump into rivers all over Europe. It is a European river swimming day where people reclaim their environment and demonstrate their wish to have clean and living rivers again.

Reconnecting people to their rivers For many years now rivers have been seen as useful channels to drain away our waste and carry our goods. Rivers are no longer synonymous with nature and pleasure. In some places rivers have been covered and kept out of sight.

European citizens in most countries find it hard to consider river swimming as a 21st century pleasure, and Big Jump aims at reconnecting EU citizens to their rivers. The Big Jump campaign is dedicated to the local level, pushing each of us to go back to the closest river, to discover its beauty

or past beauty, and to get into action for it by organising a Jump.

This huge event could not be simpler: all you need to take part are some people and a designated clean river or lake. Big Jump is like rediscovering a lost treasure, and can be a festival for many with music and costumes. Every Jump is unique but it is an essential for this whole movement to send a common message throughout Europe.

Calling for stronger action on water protection 2010 is the year that authorities have committed themselves to finalising and presenting the plans which aim to bring Europe’s water into good status by 2015. This year’s Big Jump will therefore also serve to demonstrate the broad public support there is for governments to go further in cleaning up our waters, as well as to take action more broadly to protect and restore biodiversity.

During the first 6 months of 2010 the EEB is carrying out a final in-depth assessment of the final river basin management plans required by the EU Water Framework Directive with the purpose of finding out how much progress can be expected. If the findings of the earlier assessment are confirmed it will mean that the plans Member

BACKGROUND ON THE BIG JUMP The first Big Jump took place in 2005 with great success.

There was extraordinary participation: 31 rivers, 22 countries, 216 official actions, 240 spontaneous non official jumps, 250, 000 people, and wide coverage by media.

Another Big Jump is also scheduled for 2015.

For more details, you can contact: Marie Cors, Fédération Inter-Environnement Wallonie, m.cors@iewonline.be Pieter de Pous, EEB Biodiversity Senior Policy Officer, Pieter.depous@eeb.org

2010 IS ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF BIODIVERSITY

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

8

EU NEEDS NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME

Time is running out for the European Commission for a Seventh EU Environmental Action Programme (Environment Commissioner Potocnik).

The EEB is campaigning for a Seventh EU Environmental Action Programme (7EAP). A 7EAP would guide the EU’s environmental policies for the next decade and ensure environmental challenges and objectives are central to the EU’s sectoral and horizontal policies. The Commission should really start preparations for such a programme now, but it is hesitating and is loosing precious time.

In the coming three years, far reaching decisions will be taken that determine whether or not the EU finally moves in a sustainable direction. An ambitious 7EAP can make a difference if it is timely. The EEB has already found powerful allies and in the coming months we will organise and take part in discussions focusing on the content of a 7EAP. THE CONTEXT While EU Member States still have some freedom to develop their own environmental policies, the reality is that nowadays most environmental policy originates in “Brussels”. This is the case for almost 100% of environmental requirements for products, as this is part of the “single market”.

Production methods, waste management, emissions into air and water, nature protection are also to a large extent determined by EU Regulations and Directives. This means that the success of EU environmental policies largely determine the fate of public health, biodiversity and the natural conditions for future prosperity in Europe.

Since 1971, the European Union (then “European Economic Community”) had Environmental Action Programmes to determine objectives,

timetables and instruments to make progress.

They announced specific environmental laws, but also emphasised the need to integrate environmental objectives into other policies (such as agriculture, transport and energy).1 In July 2002 the 6EAP was adopted, to last ten years. Where previous programmes were exclusively the responsibility of the Commission (with the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers making remarks), the 6EAP was turned into a Decision of the three lead institutions together: Commission, Parliament and Council. The procedure took 15 months and considerably improved, in the EEB’s view, the original proposals from the Commission.

The 6EAP described general objectives and policy initiatives on climate change, biodiversity, waste management, water, air soil protection, and chemicals, etc. It announced seven thematic strategies, which were tools to allow for a broader debate on how to tackle persistent problems. It also emphasised the need to better enforce EU legislation in day to day practice. The 6EAP has now run its course and has lost much of the political influence it once had to face the future; a future that should “green the economy” and deal with opportunities and threats related to new technologies, better climate and biodiversity policies, and new agriculture, transport and cohesion policies in an enlarged EU. TOWARDS THE NEW EAP For the Belgian government, EU President later this year, the 7EAP is one of its priorities. Spain, the current President of the EU, is on board, and received a positive response from many Ministers at the (informal) Environment Council in January this year.

Jo Leinen, the Chairman of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, has announced that the 7EAP is one of his three priorities. And new Environment Commissioner Potocnik has, on several occasions, announced that he is personally convinced of the benefits.

However, he still needs to overcome resistance inside the Commission.

The Commission has started an evaluation of the 6EAP, but with its current timetable no conclusions could be formulated before

mid-2011. At this pace, a 7EAP is not expected, if at all, before 2012. That is far too late.

In our opinion it has to be tabled no later than early next year. A number of events and studies, launched by the Belgian Presidencies, will assist the drafting.

In this framework the EEB will organise a major event on the 1st October, in Brussels, for which already two Commissioners (Hedegaard for Climate and Potocnik for Environment), Jo Leinen and at least two Ministers (Belgium/Brussels and Denmark, the Presidency of early 2012) are attending.

WHAT SHOULD BE IN IT? The EEB has started an internal discussion to hammer out the main objectives for the 7EAP, with a position to be prepared by June ready for debate. An EEB seminar on the 4th of March decided that the 7EAP should address (at least) two key challenges: 1) absolute reductions of energy and resource use, in order to reduce the EU’s ecological footprint, and 2) mobilising, and at the same time managing, new technologies so that they favour people and the planet without creating new damage. Think of nanotechnology and green chemistry.

The old issue of making the market work for the environment will be high on the list of the general tools, such as environmental fiscal reform, green procurement and effective emission trade. However, we should not give up on strict standards and bans where public health is threatened and where green market instruments might not work.

The 7EAP is an important debate to start, not only for its specific measures, but first and foremost to reconfirm the essential role of the EU for saving our environment and that of the planet. It underlines the fact that all EU policies need to undergo environmental scrutiny. •

By John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General 1

F or a good introduction on EU Environmental Action Programmes, see article of Christian Hey, in EU Environmental Policy Handbook, published by EEB in 2005. Also to be found at EEB’s website under “General” in the Library.

April 2010 Newsletter # 57

9

DOING THE RIGHT THING DOES NOT HAVE TO BE CONDITIONAL Institute, the potential for 40% emissions reductions entirely within Europe is shown to be completely achievable through a variety of measures without offsetting.

Even the European Commission seems to agree on the potential for domestic emissions cuts. The Commission estimates that the measures set forth in the Ecodesign for Energy-Using Products Directive (EuP) Directive could deliver emission reductions of approximately 750 million tonnes (Mt) CO2 by 2020, equivalent to 13 percent of the EU’s total emissions in 1990. Ambitious measures for boilers and water heaters alone would be capable of cutting 210 Mt CO2 emissions, which would be like taking 74 million cars off the road every year.2 The European Union likes to present its climate policies as models of aggressive action. However, at the centre of these policies there is a gaping hole: the -20% emissions cuts (using 1990 as a baseline) by 2020 agreed as part of the EU Energy Climate Package in 2008 will require virtually no effort to achieve in Europe. Making a move to a deeper target conditional upon aggressive action in other countries, as the policy now stands, is misplaced. It is Europe that needs to move, as deeper cuts are feasible without harming the economy and would in fact yield a financial benefit.

LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS In 2005 EU emissions were around 8% lower than in 1990. This means that an additional 12% needs to be reduced by 2020 to achieve the 20% reduction target. According to the EU’s Energy and Climate package, 64% of this additional effort can be met through offsets. Hence, only an additional 4% of emissions would need to be cut domestically by 2020.

Before the December 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, the EU proposed rules on how to account for emissions from forestry practices in Europe. If these accounting rules on forestry were applied, this loophole would provide an additional 3% emissions reduction on paper compared to 1990.

As a result, virtually no additional domestic emissions reductions would be required in the EU to achieve a 20% reduction by 2020. These statistics show how easy it is for the EU to play

with numbers to create the appearance of doing aggressive work to reduce emissions while actually doing nothing.

SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY The worst economic crisis to hit Europe in the last 70 years has created one benefit: achieving emissions reduction goals is likely to be significantly cheaper than originally modelled in 2007. Because of lower projected emissions due to the economic crisis, the effort required and actual overall costs to reach reduction targets will also be lower. According to E3G and New Carbon Finance, the cost of achieving a 30% pledge is estimated to be €104 billion cheaper than the original 20% pledge.1 Strong mitigation policies are likely to have significant co-benefits, in terms of decreased expenditure on fuels, increased energy security, increased revenues from low carbon technologies and new jobs. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, carbon constraints in the EU would increase demand for heavy materials and open new global markets for more efficient solutions such as low carbon steel.

YES WE CAN (DO FAR MORE DOMESTICALLY) There are numerous studies that identify the financial benefits of deeper cuts. Such studies also outline how these cuts could be achieved using technical means, such as energy saving technologies and building renovations. In a recent report by the Stockholm Environment

Furthermore, bringing buildings that are undergoing renovation up to contemporary standards would save 460 Mt CO2 per year, like taking 162 million cars off the road. The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) could have achieved these savings, but the EU missed this opportunity during the Directive’s recent revision. Systematically implementing these simple technical upgrades could save enough energy to, in theory, account for reductions that would cover most of the gap to a 30% target and take large bite out of a 40% target.

Will we see those cheap efficiency measures applied vigorously? Will we feel the benefits of lower energy costs and innovative production in the EU? It depends on one thing: if European decision makers do the right thing and move to a reduction target of at least 40%, with at least 30% domestically, by 2020. •

By Tomas Wyns, CAN Europe Senior Policy Officer

This article is modified from CAN Europe’s February-March edition of Hotspot.

1

imsdale and Findlay, E3G, with data sourced from New D Carbon Finance. “30 Percent and Beyond: Strengthening EU Leadership on Climate Change,” November 2009.

2

S ource for CO2 equivalents to cars off the road ratio: EEB and Friends of the Earth Europe. “How recycling can fight climate change,” pamphlet, 2008.

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

10

THE END OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS BY 2020? parts of the EU budget (Agriculture, Regional and Fisheries Policies) are preparing for the negotiations of a new EU budget post 2013.

Ensuring coherence between these preparations and the preparation of a new biodiversity policy package will be vital to both significantly increase the spending for biodiversity as well as to cut spending which is harmful to biodiversity.

The EU has set itself a new biodiversity target: instead of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, it has now moved the deadline to 2020 and increased the level of ambition somewhat ‘to restore it where feasible’.

Although some will argue that with this generous deadline extension the EU is now letting itself off the hook all too easily, there are some signs that it is also beginning to learn from its failure to meet the 2010 target. Firstly, the European Commission has announced that they will present a baseline as well as a set of measurable sub-targets and indicators by the end of 2010 through which we better know what the starting point is, where we are going and what distance to target. They are also planning to improve use of information and other technologies to allow for a more effective and transparent use of biodiversity information, status and trends.

Another encouraging sign is the speed with which a new biodiversity target and policy package is being prepared. Within the first three weeks of 2010 the Commission launched its Communication containing four options for a new target. The Spanish Presidency then immediately organised a High Level Conference to kick off the debate between Member States and stakeholders, and subsequently smoothly steered the Council discussions at the March 15 Environment Council meeting towards adopting the most ambitious option proposed by the Commission. This new target was then endorsed at the highest political level during the Spring Summit two weeks after.

What is troubling, however, is the fact that despite receiving this endorsement, the new biodiversity

target was not incorporated into the EU 2020 Strategy as one of the EU 2020 headline targets.

The debate during these first three months of 2010, however, has also revealed some worrying signals. Arguments that biodiversity protection should only be done when this is ‘realistic’ and ‘affordable’ have come to the fore. These arguments are peculiar because the ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) study already demonstrated that concerns about affordability are unfounded. The study came to the conclusion that not protecting biodiversity will cost us dearly (even more dearly than failing to tackle climate change) and that most of the policy instruments at the EU’s disposal for starting effective biodiversity protection makes good economic sense: from establishing protected areas to reforming fiscal policies, they are all sensible and necessary.

The big question for the remainder of 2010 will be how exactly the EU’s biodiversity policy framework should be strengthened. At the end of the day, the political commitment that EU Ministers of Environment demonstrated at their March Environment Council can only be translated into action through three routes: getting serious about the implementation of existing laws, a readiness to adopt new legislation where this is necessary and putting the money where their mouth is.

To start with the last point: The EU currently dedicates a mere 0.1% of its total budget to biodiversity. Throughout 2010 the various departments within the European Commission responsible for the management of significant

The continued resistance to the adoption of a Soil Framework Directive is a worrying signal in relation to the second point: a readiness to adopt new legislation. In fact, soil has become a symbol of unnecessary legislation to the fans of ‘better regulation’ and ‘subsidiarity’. By allowing this to happen, politicians from countries like France, Germany and the UK - and also Netherlands and Austria - are helping the EU to continue cutting the branch it sits on.

Soil biodiversity is literally at the basis of all the ecosystems services that exist, which in turn support everything we do. Everything begins and ends in soil. Safeguarding biodiversity, ecosystems and the services they provide is unthinkable without protecting soils. And protecting soils is unthinkable without an EU soil policy.

Regarding the first point, better enforcement of existing environmental legislation, the signs are not much better. The European Commission has an increasingly strong tendency to treat clear cut cases of infringements as ‘technical difficulties’ or ‘unfortunate misunderstandings’ which are best resolved through the exchange of best practices and informal meetings. In many cases problems can indeed be resolved this way but will only work when the EU is able and willing to crack down when the situation requires. The EU does just this, for example, when internal market and competition rules are violated.

The content of the Commission’s new biodiversity strategy, scheduled to come out in December 2010, and the reaction to this from the Council and Parliament will demonstrate how serious political commitment to biodiversity will really be. • Read our Biodiversity Rescue Plan and more: www.eeb.org/iyb2010

By Pieter de Pous, EEB Biodiversity Senior Policy Officer

April 2010 Newsletter # 57

11

SHOULD THE WASTE IMPLEMENTATION AGENCY BECOME MORE THAN JUST AN IDEA? and 700% for plastic waste between 1995 and 2005 for the EU15, with most recycling activities occurring abroad. The EU certainly needs to ensure the associated treatments and recycling activities would be performed according to safety standards for human health and environment.

Whilst not being a fresh idea, the proposal to create a European Waste Implementation Agency has been raised again following a study released in December 2009. Such an Agency would have a great challenge. In 2006 about 2.6 billion tons of waste was produced in the EU, equivalent to around 6 tons per citizen. Amongst that, 90 million tons of hazardous waste was produced.1 Much of this waste is not dealt with according to the EU Waste legislation, and so creates unnecessary pollution and loss of secondary resources.

Most of this waste is not municipal waste, which only accounts for 10% in the EU15 and 2% in the EU12.2 A vast majority comes from mining (about 25%) and construction and demolition waste (23%). European waste policy consists of more than 60 legal acts, with a clear lack of inspection and enforcement with waste cases accounting for 20% of the environmental infringements in the EU according to the study - the largest share of environmental infringements with cases concerning nature preservation.

The question, then, is no longer about the need to reinforce implementation and controls of waste policies, but how to do it the most appropriately. The study concluded that a European Waste Implementation Agency (WIA) integrating a full range of missions would be the best solution.

WHAT ROLES AND RESOURCES? The key task of such an agency would be the assistance and control for the transposition, implementation and enforcement of waste policies. For example, waste shipments have exploded by more than 500% for paper waste

However, the enforcement role of the WIA should be considered only as a complementary one to national, regional and local authorities. It would not intend to relieve the pressure upon them to ensure the waste laws are respected. In combination one should organise: training of local authorities; updating waste legislation; support waste and prevention programs; gather and improve data on waste; act as a knowledge centre. These are all required missions to enable proper enforcement.

The study estimates that a 16 million euro budget per year is required, with additional resources at local level (not under direct responsibility), and eventual case by case expertise. It is recognised that there is great difficultly quantifying the benefits of such an executive agency but, as the Stern reports have already shown for global warming, the cost of doing nothing at all will be far worse.

Benefits of such an agency include reduction of greenhouse gases emissions (it is estimated a proper waste policy implementation could lead to about 19% of the EU targets for reducing GHG emissions” by 2020) and less contamination of soil, groundwater and air – primarily due to illegal activities and suboptimal treatments.

Other indirect benefits are also anticipated such as creating a level playing field for waste industry and securing local jobs, as well as decreasing clean-up costs.

WHAT LIMITS AND RISKS? A WIA could be a way to reinforce credibility and ownership of Europe at local level because waste issues are close to citizen’s concerns, but this also reveals the strong reliance on local authorities.

Waste enforcement is a local issue, and some raise this as an argument to doubt the effectiveness of a central agency.

This accompanies the question on effectiveness with a limited budget; inspections experts say 16

million euros a year for the most resourced option is insufficient. However, interdependency and a lack of resources should not lead us to the conclusion that such a scheme is worthless. As previously noted, training and data monitoring would also be amongst the WIA’s mission. If we can understand the doubts regarding the WIA as the ‘miracle solution’, it may at least help to lever local authority enforcement duties, and hopefully contribute to remediate some local difficulties.

The reluctance of the Commission to create any kind of new executive agency and the budget constraint, both at EU and local levels, are other limitations to a WIA. Will the new Commission show the political will strong enough to overcome this austerity principle (budget restrictions)?

What we do know is that the cumulative effect of time and hazards represent one of the major risks for irremediable environmental damages - we all agree we have to act, and not acting now will only intensify degradation of the global environment and increase the future curative costs.

Whatever the form it will take, such an agency will not alter the behaviours of citizens and decision makers, and act as a daily watchdog in every corner of Europe. A clear role still remains for local stakeholders, and particularly NGOs. •

By Stephane Arditi, EEB Waste and Products Policy Officer 1 2

According to WIA The EU15 comprised the following 15 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. EU12 are the remaining new Member States.

T his Newsletter is produced by the European Environmental Bureau (aisbl) (EEB). EEB is the largest federation of environmental citizens’ organisations in Europe. It groups together over 140 member organisations from more than 30 countries.

Editor responsible: John Hontelez - EEB Secretary General Editor-in-Chief: Simon Nazer - EEB Press and Publications Officer E BB: Boulevard de Waterloo 34 - 1000 Brussels - Belgium Tel: +32 289 1090 - Fax: +32 2 289 1099 - Email: eeb@eeb.org www.eeb.org - www.participate.org - www.springalliance.eu www.newngoforum.org - www.zeromercury.org Publication free of charge.

Printed on 100% recycled, chlorine-free paper using vegetable ink.

Production : fuel. - www.fueldesign.be EEB gratefully acknowledges the financial assistance for this newsletter from the European Commission and the governments of the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland and the United Kingdom. This publication reflects the authors’ views and does not commit the donors.

Photos p. 5, 6, 7, 10, & 11 courtesy of creative commons

FEATURED PUBLICATION BIODIVERSITY AFTER 2010: TIME TO LAUNCH THE ULTIMATE RESCUE PLAN In this critical International Year of Biodiversity the EEB outlines what steps must be taken to halt the devastating loss of species beyond 2010. The paper investigates why the EU continues to miss its targets on biodiversity. It then focuses on setting new and better targets and the financial, legal and transitional measures needed to achieve them.

FORTHCOMING EEB EVENTS ATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IN THE W MEDITERRANEAN 22-23 April 2010 – Barcelona EU and its Member States have committed themselves under the Water Framework Directive to publish their plans for bringing waters to ecological health by 2015. The EEB aims to facilitate dialogue between EU Mediterranean Member States, water experts and civil society to address water issues in the Mediterranean.

See our events section on eeb.org for more details

E EB ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON 7TH EAP 1 October 2010 – Brussels Hedegaard for Climate, Potocnik for Environment, Jo Leinen, Ministers of Belgium and Denmark have already confirmed their attendance. For further details please make reference to the related article at page 8.

See our events section on eeb.org for more details

T HE BIG JUMP – 11 July 2010 – 3pm (CET) Big Jump is a European river swimming day: at one date, at one time, people will jump into rivers all over Europe. For further details please make reference to the related article at pg. 7.

See our events section on eeb.org for more details

> Continued from page 4

One thing is very important. People in civil society believe in certain things: in protecting the environment or society and making lives better and saving the planet. One woman or man who believes in something is worth one thousand of the others. But we should not generalise, there are many socially responsible voices in industry and they are also our allies.

There is pressure but when I met with industry or an organisation representing them we exchanged arguments. You should listen to their concerns, it would be wrong not to. But if you are serving a purpose and a duty I don’t see any reason to question pressure. If they are wrong and we are right then why change? So I don’t really understand how this pressure should affect the decision making process in the Commission.

Do you think future environmental policy, such as a 7th EAP, should reach into other issues such as economic green growth?

Of course, they should go hand in hand otherwise we will not achieve. If industry policies aim for short term profits then society has to pay in terms of health and nature. You should not look at short term profit but look at what will benefit society in the mid to long-term.

Energy efficient societies must always be central to an environmental agenda. Economics will be more effective if they use energy efficiency – recycle more and use less.

It cannot be environmental issues in isolation of economy and social agendas, it would be wrong and would fail and I consider protecting environment as contributing to the competitiveness of our industries and putting it on the right side of the cost to the environment. So you cannot look at environment in isolation from everything else.

Any advice for NGOs? I would always encourage NGOs to aim high so we can always achieve more, and criticism is good. Unlike others who might look upon this in a negative way and don’t like ambitious targets, I would welcome it. I used those higher targets and achieved significantly higher cooperation with NGOs and mass media which was very important – they can be very supportive.

What is next for you?

Once a politician always a politician and with all the problems my country is facing right now I will try to help. We shall see. •