Metamorphosis - July 2010

July 2010 Newsletter # 58 European Environmental Bureau

META MORPHOSIS Editorial

30% NOW A NEW EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET IS WITHIN REACH

By John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General

The European Commission has shown that increasing the EU’s climate ambitions now is technically achievable, affordable and may save the EU’s frontrunner position in energy related innovation. But it failed to show the courage to actually propose to move to a 30% EU reduction target by 2020 (from 1990) unilaterally, leaving it to member states to take the initiative.

Environment Ministers from Germany, UK, France, Netherlands and Ireland have already expressed support for such a move, but the European Council did not even set a date for deciding this. We are wasting precious time for moving to a low-carbon economy and risking dangerous climate change due to lack of leadership.

The European Commission’s Communication on moving beyond a 20% reduction target unequivocally demonstrates that reaching a 30% target below 1990 levels in the EU would be a wise and responsible decision. The fact that the Commission has chosen to undertake this analysis is entirely welcome. What is clear is that the existing 20% target is now redundant. The EU’s 2009 domestic emissions were already 14% below 1990 levels, so the 20% is no longer

an ambitious target. This is even more the case if one takes into account that companies and member states are allowed, within the 20% decision framework, to buy emission rights with projects outside the EU (CDM projects) and that large fossil fuels users can even use emission rights they have collected in the period 2008-2012, when they received more rights than required. As shown in the previous Metamorphosis, with these loopholes included, further domestic reductions are hardly needed if the bar isn’t raised.

Most importantly, the EU’s existing target is woefully inadequate to meet its long term 2050 emissions reduction target and to keep global temperature rise below 2°C. The Commission, in the Communication, also recognises that not moving faster now will increase the costs later beyond “optimal cost”.

Peer-reviewed science and the EU’s historical responsibility indicate that the EU requires cuts of at least 40% on 1990 levels in 2020.

Unilaterally raising the reduction target to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 will focus the EU’s attention on setting ourselves on the path > Continued on page 2

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

2

> Continued from page 1

towards a sustainable, low carbon economy and society. We are far from that scenario, but moving to a 30% domestic scenario is already a step in the right direction.

Since 2008, European economics have changed.

A 30% reduction target or more by 2020 is now within arms reach - moreover, the opportunities that come with such action far outweigh the costs. In 2008, the EU -20% target was estimated to cost €70bn per annum in 2020. Since the recession, the price has dropped to an estimate of €48bn. Increasing to a -30% target is now estimated to cost €81bn per annum in 2020. The Commission states that the extra costs of an unconditional greenhouse gas reduction target of 30% are easily compensated with important co-benefits such as green jobs creation, reduction of air pollution and industrial innovation. Health costs alone, related to air pollution would be cut by at least €3.5 billion.

There is growing evidence that Europe is losing its comparative advantage in clean technologies compared to other major economic players across the globe. Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Action Commissioner, recently said “Europe needs to do

more to drive our innovation and leadership forward if we are to avoid the risk of being left behind. If we stand still, we will lose our frontrunner status”. Increasing Europe’s climate ambition is precisely in line with one of the core objectives formulated in the Europe 2020 strategy, namely to reorient our industrial and economic model to a green economy. Indeed, by sticking with the 20% target we seriously risk undermining rather than stimulating innovation and economic recovery.

Regrettably, the release of the Communication also triggered industry scaremongering. This needs to be addressed head on and dismissed.

Firstly, the Communication shows that the economic impact of reaching the EU target is less demanding than originally assumed, and the over–allocation of permits and the low carbon price make the potential for carbon leakage much lower than was estimated in 2008.

European governments are actually at risk of losing billions of euros per year through lower auctioning revenues following the collapse of carbon prices. Moreover, a recent analysis by research institute CE Delft points out that the steel, iron and petrochemical industry has made

some €14bn in windfall profits by passing on the costs of free emission allowances to consumers. It is estimated that ten of the EU’s most polluting firms alone are sitting on stashes worth over €3 billion. With profits like these, it comes as little surprise that these are the voices fighting so hard to maintain the 20% regime.

Despite the critical need for the EU to increase its ambition domestically and to add some well needed direction and leadership into international climate talks, the premise of conservative politicians and business federations remains the same. They want the EU to stick to its 20% target until there are equivalent efforts from other governments. This approach has failed to raise the appetite of others in the past. A move to -30% or even -40% has far more use as an international example, rather than being used as a bargaining chip to try and conditionally entice other parties, something which clearly failed in last years climate conference in Copenhagen. If the 30% target is easily achievable and is in Europe’s own economic interests, why wait for others? •

EEB’s TEN TESTS FOR THE BELGIAN PRESIDENCY 1. A EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY THAT BRINGS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Decision at European Council level that flagship initiatives on energy/resource efficiency, on industry and on research/innovation policies all have a central role to substantially reduce the EU’s ecological footprint, and move it towards a green and social economy. ecision to increase the ambitions, and improve D the governance, of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy as major guidance for the further development of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

2. FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVES 2014-2020 General agreement that the future EU-budget must reflect the priorities identified in the public consultation of 2007-08 to achieve a low-carbon, resource-efficient and sustainable Europe.

A new EU Sustainable Development Strategy must guide budget spending, and priority must be given for dedicated support to environmental and social programmes orientated around sustainable development, as well as instituting the strict application of climate-proofing criteria and sustainable development conditions on all major areas of budget spending.

Start of discussion on specific and guaranteed funding for Natura 2000, at least 3 billion euros per year from EU budgets.

3. TOWARDS A 7TH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME Agreement with the European Commission about the (early delivery of) a draft 7th Environmental Action Programme, to enter into force in the second half of 2012.

A clear initial indication of what the key objectives of the 7EAP should be, including:

- Contribution to a 50% reduction of the EU’s ecological footprint by 2030, aiming for the EU to stay within the planets, and regions’, carrying capacity over time.

- Prevention, precaution, and polluters to pay principles at the heart.

- Targets and timetables for reductions of specific pressures on the environment as well as all major forms of pollution and strong emphasis on integration of environmental objectives and requirements in all the EU’s sectoral policies.

- Special focus on reduction of energy and resource use to stay within environmentally sound limits.

4. FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE Move to a minimum 30% reduction target without further delay, and establish a comprehensive climate and energy policy package that will deliver the 30% cuts by 2020 domestically.

3

nce the 30% target is in place, initiate a new O assessment on reaching a 40% target.

S et in place the annual 2.4bn euros, new and additional, EU contribution for the ‘fast start financing’, made available with immediate effect. Set clear figures on the EU’s contribution (at least 35bn euros/year by 2020) to go directly to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation support. This support must be new, additional to ODA commitments, predictable and binding.

E nsure a clear, unified and leading role for EU in UNFCCC negotiations in Cancun to build foundations for a fair, ambitious and legally binding global agreement.

5. SHOW LEADERSHIP ON THE BIODIVERSITY AGENDA A well prepared and coordinated EU at the Nagoya meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity to ensure effective leadership, demonstrating willingness to protect and restore biodiversity at home as well as to significantly reduce its impact on biodiversity globally.

F acilitation of preparatory debates on the new biodiversity strategy and support for this strategy to lead to new and stronger legal and financial tools.

6. REVERSE UNSUSTAINABLE WASTE TRENDS Secure the collection, reuse and recycling ambitions of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) recast, and strengthen the implementation of the individual producer responsibility principle. Set specific collection targets for cooling and freezing appliances; mercury containing lamps; small appliances, and ICT products containing “scarce” resources. This requires harmonised registration and a fight against leakages from official routes and illegal shipments. o not give up on biowaste: Insist the D Commission creates a biowaste Directive, including food waste and industrial biowaste, separate collection requirements, minimum targets on reuse, and quality standards for composts and digestates, that would ensure soil protection and enrichment and create an EU wide market.

I ntegrate the project of a sewage sludge Directive, as planned for 2011, into the framework of this broader Biowaste Directive.

7. PHASE OUT HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS A thorough debate in the Environment Council is required about the slow progress with the implementation of REACH, in particular with regards to the phasing out and substitution of substances of very high concern. ith regards to Restriction of Hazardous W Substances (ROHS), support phase out of brominated and chlorinated organic substances as well as phthalates and other hazardous chemicals including Bisphenol A and PVC in electronics products (extend list of Annex IV).

Support a comprehensive and workable methodology for future substance restrictions; work towards a comprehensive candidate list for future substance restrictions; and follow the Environment Committee of the European Parliament in its provisions in regards to nanomaterials

July 2010 Newsletter # 58

10. TOWARDS A RESPONSIBLE EU NANOTECHNOLOGY POLICY Ensure the strict application of the precautionary principle as well as the introduction of appropriate labelling requirements for all uses of engineered nanomaterials and in all relevant EU legislation – particularly the Novel Foods regulation, RoHS Directive and Biocides regulation.

L ead Member State discussion on the anticipated Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Action Plan, to ensure that fundamental research on hazard and exposure is undertaken before further development of applications.

8. GET RID OF MERCURY Ensure that a new revised and robust EU Mercury strategy is adopted, including further actions, such as phasing out the use of mercury in the chlor-alkali industry, in dental care and button cell batteries since safe mercury-free alternatives are available. Action is also required regarding emissions from coal-fired power plants, the biggest source of mercury emissions in the air both in Europe and globally.

In this issue

9. PRIORITISE LEGISLATION ON AIR POLLUTION Insist the Commission comes with the revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NEC Directive) without further delay, setting tighter national caps for four pollutants (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and ammonia) as well as first-ever national caps on emissions of ultra fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

p.1 Editorial 30% Now a New Emissions Reduction Target is Within Reach

E nsure the reduction of air pollution from ships by insisting on the immediate revision of the Sulphur content of marine fuels Directive by the Commission.

p.8 Interview with Matthew Spencer, Director of Green Alliance

p.2 EEB’s Ten Tests for the Belgian Presidency p.4

Expectations for the Belgian Presidency

p.5 Spanish Presidency of the EU: Much Ado About Nothing p.6

Campaign Updates

p.7 Hot Off the Press!

p.9 Bioenergy: Were Biofuels Just the Tip of the Iceberg? p.10 EEB Member Focus p.11 Meeting Between Spring Alliance and President Van Rompuy p.12 Forthcoming Events

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

4

EXPECTATIONS FOR THE BELGIAN PRESIDENCY

2010 is a decisive year for the EU to update its fundamental direction for the next decade and to set itself on a path towards a safe and sustainable, low-carbon, resource efficient economy; the only way to address the current economic and ecological crisis. In July, the Belgian government shall takeover the EU Presidency and has the opportunity to take action on some important challenges.

In 2006, the Stern Report was a wake-up call to the world as it estimated the high economic cost the world would have to pay if immediate action to stop climate change was not taken. According to the findings of the “The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity” (TEEB) study, initiated by the G8+5 environment ministers, the continuous loss of biodiversity will, under a business as usual scenario, cost the world at least 7 % of gross domestic product in 2050. The costs of policy inaction for Europe are estimated to be at least 1.1 trillion euros per year in 2050 (relative to 2000). Many of these costs will have to be borne well before 2050.

We live at the expense of future generations and our dependency on biodiversity and the multitude of ecosystem services it provides is massively under-recorded in our conventional accounting system.

The OECD Framework for green growth explicitly recognises that halting the loss of biodiversity and maintaining essential ecosystem services are key policy objectives which are as equally

important as combating climates change. The costs to society, and to future generations, of not accounting for these natural system provisions are simply too huge to contemplate.

The Europe 2020 Strategy must tackle the full scale of the global ecological crisis, and recognise that a radical change in strategies and policies is required to establish biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration as sine qua non conditions for sustainable development. Both in climate change and in the struggle against biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, Europe can and should take the lead. Not only because we want to set an example, but because we strongly believe that smart decisions will be fruitful in the very near future. A healthy and resilient environment is not just a luxury product, but an essential condition for a sustainable economy, an inclusive society, better equipped for resilience and adaptation to climate change.

The Belgium Presidency will lead the EU through crucial international negotiations with the UN’s High Level meeting for the review of the Millennium Development Goals in September, the 10th conference of the parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (October 2010) and the 16th conference of the parties of the Convention on Climate Change (December 2010).

With regard to EU policies and legislation, the Belgian Presidency, together with the European Council, has the opportunity to take strategic

decisions to profoundly modernise the energy sector and boost Europe' s economy in a sustainable way, strengthen energy security, create green jobs, deliver real solutions to climate change, and support the desirable phase-out of nuclear power. •

By Marie Cors, Policy Director, Inter-Environnement Wallonie and EEB Board Member

The Belgian environmental umbrellas and main organisations: Bond Beter Leefmilieu, Inter-Environnement Wallonie, Inter-Environnement Bruxelles, Brusselse Raad for het Leefmilieu, Greenpeace Belgium, Natagora, Natuurpunt, and WWF Belgium.

5

SPANISH PRESIDENCY OF THE EU: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

The Spanish Presidency of the EU began with high expectations and a lot of hype, but it is ending with disappointing results in the middle of a crisis which has dampened the spirits of the Spanish government.

The debates and decisions made in relation to environmental issues have been marginal, making no headway into what were originally grand intentions of the Presidency. They have also failed to reach beyond the walls of the environmental institutions.

It has to be said that it did look promising in the beginning. The Presidency led with a firm objective with regard to biodiversity post-2010, even (unusually) going beyond the proposals of the Commission and explicitly calling for the Europe 2020 Strategy to include biodiversity objectives. However, none of this has materialised, and the post-Lisbon strategy that was discussed in the European Council appeared to ignore not only biodiversity, but nearly all environmental considerations as a future economic focus, only briefly referring to a resource economy.

July 2010 Newsletter # 58

With regards to water and drought, the Spanish Presidency organised a conference in which it was determined to promote the idea that “Spain is different”, trying to justify the systematic application of exceptions within the EU’s Water Framework Directive. This meant not only confronting environmental organisations, but also other Member States and the European Commission, which has just warned Spain for having failed to comply with the Directive.

On forestry, despite the Presidency’s determination to involve NGOs, a superficial declaration was drawn up in which a focus on productivity prevails over an ecosystem perspective, largely due to the rigid boycott from Nordic countries. Results regarding fisheries were also disappointing. The Presidency largely limited the participation of NGOs in working towards the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Although Spain decided to lead the fight for a quota exchange system, the country stood alone in the face of environmental opposition, as well as opposition from the other member states.

Finally, the great event of the Presidency was the EU-LAC (EU – Latin America and Caribbean) Summit which had an enormous public response, including large-scale protests, as a result of an alternative social summit and a People’s Permanent Tribunal which passed judgement on the actions of European companies in Latin America. The official summit resulted in the signing of a series of Economic Partnership Agreements which will have negative repercussions on the environment and LatinAmerican society. •

By Samuel Martín-Sosa Rodríguez, International Coordinator, Ecologistas en Acción and EEB Board Member.

EEB ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 1ST OCTOBER 2010 FUTURE OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Janez Poto˘cnik, EU Environment Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Action Commissioner, and Jo Leinen, Chair of the European Parliament Environment Committee, (left to right) will be amongst the participants at this year’s EEB Annual Conference.

For more information, go to page 12 or visit eeb.org.

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

CAMPAIGN UPDATES

6

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

the Environment Committee’s lead, and seek support from member states for a ban.

AN END OF BFRs AND PVC IN ELECTRONICS? NOT YET In early May EEB, along with other NGOs and leading electronics companies (Sony, Dell, Acer and Hewlett Packard), wrote to the European Parliament demanding restrictions on all brominated and chlorinated flame retardants as well as PVC in electric and electronic equipment in the EU. This was ahead of a vote on restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS).

On nanomaterials, the Environment Committee supported a number of provisions, including the labelling for all nanomaterials that can lead to exposure of consumers. Nanomaterials are already used in a number of consumer products such as mobile phones, computer key boards and mice, washing machines and fridges. Due to their small size, nanoparticles have a greater potential to access the human body and enter our cells, tissues and organs.

For more information contact: Christian Schaible, EEB Chemicals Policy Officer Louise Duprez, EEB Nanotechnology Policy Officer

However, in June the Parliament’s Environment Committee voted against phasing out dangerous BFRs (brominated flame retardants) and PVC (Polyvinyl chloride). It voted to add the substances to a candidate list which will now have to be reviewed by the Commission in Mid 2014 at the earliest. The outcome was greatly disappointing for the EEB as it believes the RoHS could be a tool for creating a state-of-the-art and socially responsible product performance legislation, with the right incentives for product innovation, reducing unnecessary risks for people and environment from hazardous chemicals.

PVC and BFRs can currently be found in large amounts of electronic equipment and other products, creating not only high risks for environment and public health if these products are not properly disposed of but are also constituting barriers to more effective recycling of resources.

EEB will call upon the Plenary of the European Parliament, voting later this year, to not follow

MANAGING WATER IN THE MEDITERRANEAN In April the EEB, together with Ecologistas in Accion and Xarxa per una Nova Cultura de l’Aigua, organised a conference in Spain which aimed to facilitate a dialogue between EU Mediterranean member states, water experts and civil society in order to identify and discuss how the Water Framework Directive (WFD) can help address some of the most pressing water

management issues facing the Mediterranean region, and make a contribution to the preservation of its unique biodiversity.

Although the presentations and discussions at this conference revealed that the implementation of the WFD in Mediterranean countries is indeed posing significant challenges to water authorities and politicians, it also identified a number of solutions.

During the conference, the importance of active citizen participation including the involvement of social movements and NGOs was underlined.

This participation is an important condition for gathering wider support for meeting the WFD’s objectives, managing conflicts and facilitating the implementation of the measures.

It also concluded that increasing water demand inevitably comes with a high price in terms of finance, energy and carbon emissions and the disruption of water and sediment flows.

Continuing with attempts to increase supply without managing demand at times when potable water is becoming increasingly scarce and uncertain will make the Mediterranean region increasingly vulnerable, especially at a time of economic crisis.

The WFD is there to ensure a ‘hydrological discipline’ by making sure no more water is used than can be provided sustainably. Only by taking some immediate and decisive steps outlined in the WFD will the Mediterranean region be able to reduce its vulnerability, increase its resilience and move in the direction of a truly green and sustainable economy.

For more information contact: Pieter de Pous, EEB Water Senior Policy Officer

7

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

NEW EU BIOFUEL SUSTAINABILITY RULES ‘MISSING THE POINT’ The European Commission’s communication on biofuel sustainability, published on 11th of June, will do little to address the impacts on land and emissions from crop-derived fuels used in transport, according to BirdLife International, ClientEarth, the European Environmental Bureau and Transport & Environment.

On 8 March, the coalition of environmental organisations sued the European Commission for failing to release several key studies, documents and emails that reveal the extent of the impact of ILUC (indirect land use change). The case is being dealt with by the General Court of the EU: the Commission has until 4 July to respond.

According to its own figures, the Commission is currently withholding about 140 documents, although the groups suspect that number is higher.

The communication published by the Commission leaves a number of issues unresolved. Pieter de Pous from the EEB said: “Let there be no mistake, with this communication the Commission won’t be able to ensure that biofuels are actually green. A lot more needs to be done, starting with facing up to the reality of indirect effects but also tightening the exemptions for existing installations.”

“While it is commendable that the Commission has dropped the shameful attempt to pass palm plantations for forests, this communication leaves unchanged the fact that the EU is subsidising massive forest destruction through its bio-energy policies”, said Ariel Brunner, head of EU Policy at BirdLife International.

ELECTRONIC GIANTS AND GREEN GROUPS PUSH EU FOR FLAME RETARDANTS AND PVC BAN An alliance of global companies, including Acer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Sony Ericsson, and environmental organisations, have released a statement demanding for restrictions on all brominated substances as well as PVC in electric and electronic equipment in the EU. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) can currently be found in large amounts of electronic equipment and other products, creating high risks for environment and public health if these products are not properly disposed of.

The organisations call on EU legislators to ban the use of all BFR and PVC in electronics put on the market by end of 2015. EU legislators are now in the process of deciding future restrictions on hazardous substances in electronics through the revision of the EU Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive.

Christian Schaible, Chemicals Policy Officer at the EEB, said: “The objective of the RoHS directive is to protect human health and the environment and to contribute to environmentally sound recovery and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment”.

“EU lawmakers should accordingly take this opportunity to eliminate these hazardous substances that are having a negative impact on recycling and the conservation of resources” continued Schaible.

July 2010 Newsletter # 58

Recent EEB press alerts and Media coverage

CAUTIOUS APPROACH TO ‘NANO FOOD’ SUPPORTED The EEB welcomes the vote by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee supporting the protection of Europeans from the dangers of using nanotechnologies in foods. MEPs support the mandatory labelling of all nano ingredients, and requested detailed proof that nano present in both food and packaging are safe before they enter the market.

Louise Duprez, Nanotechnology Policy Officer at EEB, welcomed the outcome: “We are pleased MEPs continued to defend consumer health and the environment. There are serious knowledge gaps regarding the general safety of nano and there is great public concern about nano in food.

Consumers are one step closer to being sure that nano won’t land on their plates unless it is proven to be safe.”

The EEB has long pressed for a precautionary approach to nanotechnologies; the European Food Safety Authority recently acknowledged that risk assessments of specific nano products are “subject to a high degree of uncertainty”.

Nanotechnologies use very small particles which give food and other products novel properties.

Due to their small size, nanoparticles have a greater potential to access the human body and enter our cells, tissues and organs.

The vote, on the regulation of novel foods, must now be endorsed by the whole parliament in July. The regulation will be adopted after co-decision: both the European Parliament and Members States must agree on a final text.

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

8

INTERVIEW WITH MATTHEW SPENCER, DIRECTOR OF GREEN ALLIANCE The Coalition is being forced to rehabilitate the role of regulation in public policy, which has been unpopular with the Conservative Party. As a result 19 of the 23 environmental policies in the Coalition agreement rely on some sort of regulation.

We're also confident that the new UK Government is going to be more progressive on green taxation. The need to generate new tax revenue to help fill the public deficit hole gives them a compelling reason to follow through on their commitment to increase environmental taxation.

Matthew became the new director of Green Alliance in May 2010. Green Alliance is an influential environmental think tank working to ensure UK political leaders deliver ambitious solutions to global environmental issues.

How would rate the previous Labour government’s work on environmental issues?

It's mixed. They were very strong on climate diplomacy, but only really started to grapple with the challenge of delivering energy efficiency and renewable policy during the last few years.

They did take a number of key - and bold decisions on the institutional framework for action. The Climate Change Act of 2008 created the independent Committee on Climate Change, the setting of carbon budgets, and the scrutiny of government delivery against those. At around the same time, the creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) brought together the climate teams of the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with the energy teams of the old Department for Trade and Industry. Ed Miliband, our last Secretary of State, grasped the strategic significance of action on climate change and really pushed hard during his time in office. We now have a much stronger policy on coal and CCS, for example, which wouldn’t have come about without his engagement.

The Labour government acted like a 'super NGO' in many fora, using energy and drive to push the climate agenda forward. Under David Miliband the Foreign and Commonwealth Office put huge time and effort into improving political conditions for the negotiations through bilateral relations as well as the formal diplomacy of the UNFCCC. We hope that will continue under William Hague, who's shown strong interest in this agenda.

Interestingly, Labour did achieve more effective delivery policy on the waste agenda than on the energy challenge, and we have seen a rapid if belated improvement in UK waste policy. As so often in the UK this was driven by effective EU regulation, in this case the Landfill directive.

Do you think the new Conservative/Liberal coalition government is better equipped to deal with environmental issues?

The political conditions necessary to achieve rapid decarbonisation are very difficult to achieve, as it takes sustained public mobilisation, political leadership from the premier down, favourable international conditions and highly capable delivery agents in the private and public sector. It's too early to know how this government will respond to the challenge, as everyone is still getting used to the novelty of coalition government, including our new ministers, but there are some positive signs. The first is that the environment is one of the things that holds the coalition together, and is core to the Liberal Democrats’ political identity. This means that it is the interests of the leadership of both coalition parties to deliver on the detailed environmental commitment laid out in the coalition agreement. This included strong policies on an Emissions Performance Standard for power stations, a new Green Investment Bank, and a new loans scheme for household energy efficiency. If they deliver on these in their first year it will be a good down- payment for a radical and reforming decarbonisation plan.

How about it’s role in the EU? Should we be worried about the Conservative party’s stance against the EU? We might be pleasantly surprised by the new government's willingness to engage the EU on the environment. For all the Conservative Party's suspicion of European institutions, the leadership do recognise the EU's legitimacy and its track record on green issues. For as long as they enjoy the support of the Liberal Democrats they also have protection against some of the more eurosceptic instincts of their own backbenchers, because their parliamentary majority is strong.

Both David Cameron and William Hague (Foreign Secretary) have signalled that they want a pragmatic relationship with Europe. Chris Huhne (Energy & Climate Secretary) is a former MEP, while Caroline Spelman (Environment Secretary) is a former agriculture lobbyist who speaks both French and German. From my discussions with them they both understand how Europe works, and are keen to pursue a constructive and ambitious EU agenda. So if the Government as a whole can avoid any unnecessary fights over issues such as the UK's budget rebate, it could play a very positive role in Brussels. Speaking on a recent Green Alliance platform William Hague signalled his intent to reform the EU budget to work for '21st Century Priorities' including technological innovation and low carbon infrastructure.

The European fiscal crisis makes the need for reform of the budget even stronger, and the lack of an EU vision even more apparent. We will be encouraging the new UK government to lay out a vision of Europe's role in the world as a leader of low carbon, and to build coalitions within Europe to deliver the infrastructure and the innovation to turn that into economic success. •

9

July 2010 Newsletter # 58

BIOENERGY: WERE BIOFUELS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG? Even under more conservative agro-economic models, ILUC would result in 70 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, resulting in no net carbon benefit.

These two studies show that unless a number of urgent measures are taken, the EU’s renewable energy policy, an EU flagship policy to combat climate change, is very likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions. For it to remain a flagship of EU climate policy a growth in renewable capacities will need to be coupled with strong policies to increase energy efficiency and reduce demand. The development of renewable energy capacities will need to take full account of the physical limits the environment poses.

Under EU accounting rules, burning bioenergy is considered to be “carbon neutral” despite the significant release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the short-medium term. Bioenergy causes the release of carbon from vegetation and soils when biomass is harvested, and also causes further release when land is converted - either directly or indirectly - to meet the increased demand for agricultural crops.

The second study by CE Delft found that growing biofuels on agricultural land results in the conversion of forests and other land to replace land lost to biofuels production, with related emissions that can completely negate any climate benefits. The conventional thinking is that biofuels have a carbon benefit, displacing fossil fuels and associated emissions. However, biofuels and fossil fuels used in vehicles have comparable tailpipe emissions, so any carbon savings come from the assumption that biofuel feedstocks (i.e. crops) are carbon neutral: emitting the same amount of carbon removed during cultivation.

This assumption overlooks the fact that carbon would have been absorbed by vegetation on the land anyway. This is then worsened by the conversion of forests and other natural areas into agricultural land, leading to a reduction in its carbon stock – from forest to corn field, for example.

The first study’s findings by researchers Joanneum suggests that while recovering waste biomass can have short-term emission reduction benefits, increasing the harvesting of standing forests will mostly lead to a worsening of the climate crisis - and that is even before starting to look at other impacts such as biodiversity loss or increased erosion. Because initial emissions from bioenergy and biofuels can be higher than those from fossil fuels it can take some time before bioenergy delivers emissions savings. The study revealed that biomass for bioenergy can have different climate mitigation potentials, depending on the timeframe considered and the source of the biomass. In a worst case, but not unlikely, scenario it could take between 200 and 300 years before the use of bioenergy starts to deliver atmospheric benefits.

Therefore, to assess GHG implications for moving from fossil fuels to biofuels, it is essential to account for land use and land conversion. Land use changes can be both direct when a forest itself is converted to cropland for biofuels feedstocks, and indirect when current agricultural land is used for biofuels production, which means that existing crop production moves into natural areas. A review by CE Delft into existing studies on this so called ‘ILUC (Indirect Land Use Change) effect’ "most of which where commissioned by the European Commission and published following an access to documents request", shows that, under a risk-based approach, the estimated 70 million tonnes of CO2 reductions under the EU’s biofuel policy are dwarfed by the 270 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from land-use change.

Bioenergy, including solid biomass and waste, is expected to represent 60% of the EU’s renewable energy use by 2020, whilst biofuels are meant to represent most of the 10% of renewable energy use in transport. Despite biofuels being widely perceived as carbon neutral, new studies commissioned by the EEB, BirdLife and T&E reveal that these policies could be increasing emissions compared to fossil fuels.

For biofuels, this means that the European Commission will need to acknowledge the scientific evidence that the ILUC effect of its biofuel policy is significant and propose the necessary measures that will negate this effect.

The EEB believes that the only option that will deliver results is the adoption of a biofuel specific ILUC factor that will help determine for which biofuels there is a future and for which ones there is not.

Secondly, the Commission will need to immediately come back on its decision, taken in February 2010, not to propose legally binding standards for biomass for energy use. This should ensure that only biomass that delivers positive GHG gains compared to fossil fuels over a 20-year period should be allowed to qualify for meeting the 20% renewables target. In practical terms, this means limiting bioenergy to certain feedstocks, such as certain waste streams where this does not compete with other uses, new plantations on abandoned land with little biodiversity value, or carefully managed systems in which proven increased growth is stimulated by forest management.

The financial crisis has taught us that basing policy on rigged accounting is not a good idea; this is as true for carbon accounting as for financial accounting. •

By Pieter de Pous, EEB Biofuels Senior Policy Officer

Read the report at eeb.org

European Environmental Bureau www.eeb.org

EEB MEMBER FOCUS NGOs CALL FOR SUSTAINABLE EUROPEAN FISHERIES European fisheries are in trouble: 88% of all assessed European fish stocks are overfished and 30% are outside safe biological limits. Even if fishing were to stop altogether, it would be difficult for the most fragile fish stocks to recover enough to allow for commercial exploitation. In addition, fishing activities are having a severe impact on the marine environment through by-catch of non-commercial species (e.g. marine mammals and turtles) and the destruction of valuable marine habitats.

EU fisheries are managed under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In recognition of the policy’s failure to manage our fisheries sustainably, the European Commission has launched a process to reform the CFP by 2012. This reform is a unique opportunity to achieve sustainable European fisheries, for the sake of the marine environment and fisheries dependent communities.

In order to seize this opportunity Seas At Risk and four other environmental and development NGOs came together last year to launch the OCEAN2012 coalition. OCEAN2012 is a coalition of over 70 organisations in 15 EU member states dedicated to transforming European fisheries policy - to stop overfishing, end destructive fishing practices and to deliver fair and equitable use of healthy fish stocks.

Something rotten in the state of EU fisheries…

But declining fish stocks are only one of the challenges facing European fisheries policy.

Unfortunately, they are just one among several indicators that show that something is terribly wrong with the way we manage our fisheries.

No prioritisation of objectives The current CFP has multiple objectives: the protection and conservation of marine living resources, their sustainable exploitation, the

10

News from EEB members and working groups

economic and social sustainability of fishing industries, the standard of living for fishers, etc.

These objectives cannot all be met simultaneously, yet the CFP gives no indication of how they should be prioritised. As a consequence, policy-makers have consistently been moved by short-term interest rather than a strategic long-term vision that seeks to protect both the marine environment and the communities which depend on it for their livelihoods.

Under a reformed CFP this needs to change. The health of the marine environment must be recognised as a prerequisite for abundant fish stocks and thriving fishing communities. Simply put, there can be no fisheries without fish, and there can be no fish without healthy marine ecosystems.

An inadequate governance structure Currently, detailed technical decisions are taken at the highest political level by fisheries ministers and (under the Lisbon Treaty) the European Parliament. Issues such as the size of nets and annual quotas are discussed at Fisheries Council meetings, where short-term economic interests dominate the debate. In recent years, quotas set by the EU’s Fisheries Council have exceeded scientific advice by 48% on average, fuelling the severe overfishing of many fish stocks.

In the future, the ministers and the European Parliament must focus on the long-term over-arching vision and objectives of the CFP, leaving the detailed implementation to more appropriate decentralised management bodies.

Need to reward responsible fishing At present, access to fish stocks is allocated based on individual member states’ historical catches – rewarding those who have overfished the most. This model needs to be replaced with one that gives preferential access to fishing resources on the basis of transparent criteria which encourage legal and less destructive

fishing practices, low fuel consumption, good working conditions and high quality products.

This would create positive competition amongst fishers as those who meet the criteria would earn priority access to fisheries resources.

Sustainability criteria should also be applied when tackling the deep rooted problem of fleet overcapacity: the most destructive vessels should be removed from the fleet first. Simultaneously, environmentally harmful subsidies which fuel overcapacity must be removed.

Join OCEAN2012!

OCEAN2012 wants to engage groups all over Europe to advocate a CFP reform which delivers sustainable European fisheries. The first ever European Fish Week (5-13 June) saw OCEAN2012 members across the EU hosting activities to raise awareness of the need to put the environment first. The focus of the week was a petition calling on Commissioner Damanaki to put environmental sustainability at the heart of European fisheries policy. It is not too late to sign it, or even to seize this unique opportunity of playing a part in the reform by joining OCEAN2012.

You can sign the petition and find out how to join OCEAN2012 at www.ocean2012.eu, or you can just contact Vera Coelho at Seas At Risk (vcoelho@seas-at-risk.org). Seas At Risk is an association of European non-governmental environmental organisations working to protect and restore to health the marine environment of the European seas and the wider North East Atlantic.

11

July 2010 Newsletter # 58

MEETING BETWEEN SPRING ALLIANCE AND PRESIDENT VAN ROMPUY

Spring Alliance Manifesto being handed to European Council President van Rompuy: (R-L) John Hontelez, Mikael Karlsson (EEB), Mr van Rumpuy, Karin Ulmer, Mike Matthias (CONCORD), Anne Panneels (ETUC), Conny Reuter, Roshan di Puppo (Social Platform).

On 11th May Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and a delegation representing the Spring Alliance met to discuss the development of the Europe 2020 Strategy from the perspective of its joint Spring Alliance Manifesto, published in July 2009 (www. springalliance.eu). Both the EEB President Mikael Karlsson and Secretary General John Hontelez attended along with representatives from the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), Social Platform and Concord.

Each organisation submitted specific issues: ETUC focused on industry policies that combine reducing energy and resource use with creating more and better jobs; T he Social Platform concentrated on the need for a poverty target, which the European Council did not adopt yet in its March meeting, and stronger emphasis on social inclusion; E EB emphasised that our consumption patterns are not sustainable: we should get prices right, remove environmentally problematic services, and introduce environmental tax reform;

ONCORD added that Europe 2020 lacks a C positive global dimension.

EEB also pointed to the need for the European Council to adopt a new way of assessing progress which goes beyond the role of GDP. The group also made a plea for more systematic dialogue between the European Council and Europe’s civil society organisations.

President Van Rompuy said he supported the five targets (which focus on tackling employment, research and development, green house gas emissions, education and poverty) as proposed by the European Commission for the Europe 2020 Strategy and that he was working on the adoption of the poverty target by the next European Council. Concerning a possible financial transaction tax, he recognised that the EU’s attitude to this is increasingly positive, taking the IMF study that will be discussed at the G-20 meeting as a point of reference.

As for the environment, he addressed the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30%,

supported by a recent communication of the Commission (see opening article). He said there is a need for more specific studies on the impact that this reduction would have on member states, otherwise he would expect the European Council to be reluctant to approve it.

Concerning environmental fiscal reform (EFR) a tax shift from labour towards environmental use - his main concern is about industries moving to countries with less strict fiscal policies.

EFR encompasses a wide range of taxation instruments: on the exploitation of natural resources, on water, or air pollution. Hence, Mr Van Rompuy called on the Spring Alliance to do further work to demonstrate how it is possible to implement the reform without losing competitiveness.

The meeting showed that the President is keen on the idea of promoting a better dialogue with civil society organisations, although he believes it is mainly a task for the Commission. •

By Gavina Masala, EEB Communications

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. 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9 courtesy of creative commons

FORTHCOMING EEB EVENTS ANNUAL CONFERENCE, 1ST OCTOBER 2010: “FUTURE OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: TOWARDS THE 7TH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME.” EEB is campaigning for a seventh EU environmental action programme that would guide the EU’s environmental policies for the next decade.

For this reason, this year’s conference will focus on the future of EU environmental policy.

The debate will involve leading speakers from the both European institutions and NGOs. The Morning Session will be opened by Ms Jacqueline McGlade, Director of the European Environment Agency on the “State of Environment and Challenges for the next Decade”. Mr John Hontelez, Secretary General EEB, will then present the EEB’s position on the 7th Environmental Action Programme.

There will be a panel debate with Mr Janez Poto˘cnik, EU Environment Commissioner, Ms Connie Hedegaard, EU Climate Action Commissioner and Mr Jo Leinen, Chair of the Environment Committee. The panel discussion will be also include Mr Andrzej Kraszewski, Minister for Environment of Poland, that will be the Presidency of the EU in the 2nd half 2011, followed by Karen Ellemann, Minister for Environment of Denmark, Presidency of the EU in the 1st half 2012, Mr Tony Long, Director of WWF European Policy Unit, and Mr Mikael Karlsson, President of the EEB. Since 1971, the Environmental Action Programmes (EAPs) have given direction to the work of the European Commission in the environmental field. They set targets, priorities and pave the way for the integration of environmental objectives into other policies.

BIG JUMP FEATURED PUBLICATION 11TH JULY 2010 AT 15H CET MEMORANDUM TO THE BELGIAN PRESIDENCY As with every new EU presidency, every six months, the EEB has released a report on what they see as the key environmental challenges for the new Belgian Presidency.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE? Associations, companies, municipalities, sports clubs & individuals are all welcome to celebrate and jump! Check out our website for jumping sites in your region.

Rivers are the irreplaceable arteries of Europe which move across all boundaries, sustaining people, communities, businesses, and our ecosystems.

This summer, hundreds of thousands of Europeans will simultaneously jump into Europe’s major rivers and lakes, all at the same time on the same day, showing their support for protecting and improving the health of Europe’s water.

Take part and make that splash!

In addition, it comes with the Ten Green Tests, which will be used at the end of the Presidency to measure their achievement, or indeed failure.

For more information visit: Information: infos_bigjump@ern.org, - www.bigjump.org Sign the petition & follow us on facebook!

You can also organise and coordinate an event yourself, big or small, even with your family and friends. Jump into a river or a lake, organise a temporary river beach, a debate or a party on the riverbank. Even if you can’t swim in the water, something can be done to highlight the problem.

Your event presents a great opportunity to show local problems and innovative local solutions for your country and for Europe.