Metamorphosis April 2011

METAMORPHOSIS

There is little disagreement over the fact Europe is in dire need of a resource policy. After a slight drop following the 2008 economic crisis commodity prices are on the rise again, particularly agricultural commodities. The current environmental crisis and the political turmoil associated with it is a constant reminder of how vulnerable our resource hunger makes us. The big question the European Commission will need to answer in the coming months is how a resource policy should take shape.

One thing that is clear is that it needs to be about much more than just securing supply and merely substituting one resource with another. For example, moving from fossil to renewable materials is primarily a result of running out of fossil resources, not necessarily a major step towards becoming more sustainable. Sustainability is about making sure that the ecosystems that form our resource base are effectively protected. Biomass, although renewable, is limited in supply and we need to think hard about the best way to use this. A European resource policy therefore needs to look at our overall consumption of resources and make sure this is brought back to a sustainable

level. This means an absolute reduction of our resources consumption.

The Resource Efficiency Flagship suggests that the Commission is becoming increasingly aware of our resource overconsumption and will address this in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap (RER), scheduled for publication this summer. However, clarity will need to be provided on whether the Commission will be able to propose the right measures.

In the discussions so far a lot of focus has been on the question of how to measure resource use and which indicators to use for this, which is indeed an important first step. These indicators will need to be robust and solid, reflecting global impacts and covering key resource issues such as water, land, materials, biodiversity, carbon and energy which can be used straight away in macroeconomic decision-making.

In the next two years some very big decisions with far-reaching consequences will need to be taken in Brussels. These will not only be about the EU budget for 2013 till 2020 and how to reshape the EU Agriculture, Fisheries

GIVING DIRECTION TO A EUROPEAN

RESOURCE POLICY

Editorial

By Pieter de Pous, EEB Interim Secretary General(Jeremy Wates to begin 1st May)

April 2011Newsletter # 61European Environmental Bureau

> Continued on page 2

and Cohesion Policies but also about how national reform programmes and national budget preparations need to be brought in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy through the so called ‘economic semester’. The indicators that will be proposed in the RER will need to be playing a central role in all of these discussions and decisions.

Taking The nexT sTepAdopting and using these indicators is however only a first step to know whether we are progressing or not. The next step is to adopt the tools and measures that will get us moving in this right direction.

These tools will need to do essentially two things: first to bring strong and effective protection to our resource base and to draw a line when we are over using this, and second to adjust our production and consumption policies to a level that prevents us from over using.

For the first objective, the EU’s long overdue Biodiversity Strategy has a crucial role to play in making sure that the biodiversity objectives set for 2020 will actually be met. Existing policies such as Natura 2000 and the Water Framework Directive have an important role to play here and the challenge is to ensure they are properly implemented.

This implementation and enforcement challenge is only becoming more important when the pressure to secure material supply increases. New initiatives will also need to be developed to deal with, for example, invasive species and to implement the new Access and Benefits Sharing Protocol adopted last year at the last meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity.

For the second objective, a large part of the solution lies in Europe’s waste and product policies. The "dynamic framework to improve the energy and environmental performance of products and foster their uptake by consumers" as foreseen in the Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan is still a far cry from reality. Most critical decisions under the Ecodesign Directive to make water heaters and boilers more efficient for instance have long been stalled within the Commission for very unclear reasons.

If ambitious decisions were to be taken on these this could save the equivalent energy consumption of 43 million EU citizens a year (391 TWh/year) by 2020 and reduce carbon by 211 mega tonnes a year by 2020 – equivalent to taking 74 million cars off the road.

Critical and immediate advances can also be made on waste policy to move towards a zero waste society where waste is first prevented and then seen as a resource in a material circular economy (cradle to cradle).

The fate of the WEEE Directive, which regulates the fastest growing waste stream in the EU - electric and electronic equipment - and now goes into the second stage of decision making in the EU, will be a test case for whether the EU is capable of developing a successful resource policy.

Finally, the publication of the RER also presents an opportunity to look at governance issues around resources. Governance structures that have evolved to deal with waste policy implementation could be expanded to deal more broadly with resource use, to advise member states and businesses on how to become more efficient and to act when rules are violated.

Publishing the RER is only the first step however. The reaction from the Council and the European Parliament and, even more importantly, the legal proposals the Commission will bring out as a follow up, will in the end determine success or failure. • P

Victor Ananias, a dear friend to many of us, the Chairman of EEB's Turkish member organisation Bugday and EEB Board member, died on 2nd of March. He went to sleep in his mother's house in Bodrum and never woke up. The cause of his death is still unclear. He was 40 years old.

Victor was exceptional and was the most positive and kind person I've met in my life. He had a rare gift and ability to call into existence the many positive visions he had about human life in harmony with nature. He was a real inspiration to his friends and co-workers.

Victor was a pioneer of the organic movement in Turkey. He had a vision of his country developing into a sustainable society based on its rich nature and on the wisdom of its best traditions. Out of this vision he initiated TaTuTa, a network of organic farms located all over Turkey which accommodate visitors and volunteers from all

2European Environmental Bureauwww.eeb.org

> Continued from page 1

GOODBYE TO A FRIEND - A spECIAl pERsON: AN ExCEpTIONAl ENVIRONmENTAlIsT

In this issue

April 2011Newsletter # 61

3

around the world. A few years ago he also became the Secretary General of ECEAT (European Center for Ecological and Agricultural Tourism).

In 2006 he started together with his enthusiastic colleagues 100% Ecological Farmers Markets, which allow small organic farmers to sell their produce directly to the consumers. The markets are a big success – in Istanbul alone there are three with 100 to 350 stalls, and new markets have been established in other Turkish cities.

In the last few years he devoted himself to setting up a rural centre in Camtepe,

some 400 km south of Istanbul. Just a few minutes from the centre that opened in 2010, he and his friends started to develop an eco-village. I visited the beautiful grounds last August and I had no difficulties imagining the buildings there which he sketched for me two years previously when visiting our organic feast in Slovenia.

All this is just a small part of his work; more on Bugday's projects can be found on www.bugdayglobal.org.

Although Victor's heart was in Turkey, his vision – and his impact – was global. He was involved

with environmental and organic farming networks and besides EEB he was also a member of the IFOAM "good governance task force" and many other networks.

Victor touched and inspired many people. It is very difficult to accept that he is gone, but I am sure that the seeds he has sown will develop further and contribute to making this world a better, more sustainable place. •

By Anamarija Slabe, EEB Vice-PresidentInstitute for Sustainable Development, Slovenia

We caught up with Jeremy Wates before he takes up his post as the new Secretary General in May.

eeB: in the 1990s, you were hired by the eeB to lead a campaign to persuade governments to start work on a treaty on environmental democracy which later became the aarhus Convention. You then worked with the Un for more than a decade running the secretariat for the Convention. how does it feel to return to the eeB in your new role?In a word: great. Working as an international civil servant at the centre of intergovernmental processes has only served to reinforce my belief in the key role that civil society organisations play in provoking political change, so I am really pleased to be returning to the NGO camp again.

My connection with the EEB actually goes back to the late ‘80s when the Irish environmental organisation Earthwatch, of which I was the Coordinator, became a member of the EEB. I served on the EEB Board from 1991 to 1993 and it was after that that I started to work on environmental rights issues with the EEB. It is impressive to see how the EEB has grown in stature since then under the excellent leadership of John Hontelez and it feels like a real privilege to take over the helm at this time.

eeB: What developments and initiatives do you intend to introduce in the near future in order to maintain the eeB as one of the strong leaders of environmental groups in the eU?Well, as your question implies, a large part of what is needed is to build on the good work that has already been done. Expanding and consolidating the network of member organisa-tions, maintaining and strengthening a highly professional and competent staff, making the right strategic choices as to which issues to focus on, building relations of trust with key decision-makers and partners, raising the profile of environmental issues and keeping the funds flowing - these are some of the ingredients of the EEB’s past success and will continue to be essential in the future.

p.1 Giving Direction to a European Resource Policy

p.2 Goodbye to a Friend - a Special Person: an Exceptional Environmentalist

p.3 Interview With Jeremy Wates

p.5 EEB Member Focus

p.6 European Transport: Less is More

p.7 The Challenge to Unleash the Green Power of Europe’s Biggest Consumer

p.8 Campaign Updates

p.9 Hot Off the Press!

p.10 An Energy Efficiency Plan with no Action?

p.11 Voluntary Agreements in Ecodesign

p.11 The Future of Environmental Policy

p.12 Forthcoming EEB Events - Coming and Going

INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY WATES, INCOmING EEB sECRETARY GENERAl

Jeremy Wates speaks after being voted in as the new EEB Secretary General


With any organisation, there are always things that can be done better and in the first months of my tenure of office I intend to learn more about the internal functioning of the organisation and look into those areas where there is room for improvement. In this process, I very much look forward to hearing views from all sides – espe-cially from those who have been deeply involved in the EEB for some years, whether as staff, as board members or within member organisations, but also from other partners who look at the EEB from the outside and can see with a different perspective.

eeB: as the secretary to the aarhus Convention at UneCe for more than 10 years you have played an active role in setting up this crucial tool for environ-mental democracy. how do you intend to reconcile your deep interest in defending this treaty and dealing with all the other eeB activities?Environmental democracy has been a central plank of the EEB’s work since before the preparatory work on the Aarhus Convention began and I do not think anybody would want that to change. Regarding my personal involvement in Aarhus, I do not think I will be tempted to do more than the outgoing Secretary General has done in relation to Aarhus, and I may well do less. John Hontelez was after all not only the Chair of the European ECO Forum’s Public Participation Campaigns Committee but also represented the environmental organisations on the Bureau of the Convention. I certainly hope to bring my knowledge and experience of Aarhus to bear but probably at a more strategic level.

eeB: Can you identify a particular field of environmental policy which you believe the eU should be looking at in more detail?I welcome the fact that the European Commission is giving priority to the issue of resource use through the Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative of Europe 2020 Strategy. This creates an opportunity for the EEB to push forward on a cluster of issues that have an impact on levels of resource consumption such as eco-design, green public procurement, eco-labelling and energy efficiency, as well as tougher measures such as extending the use of outright bans on products and processes that manifestly fail to meet environmental sustainability criteria.

The Japanese nuclear crisis has thrust the nuclear issue back onto the table. Actually, it was never really off the table. However, the quiet assumption in some quarters that a new generation of nuclear plants would fill up the gap that renewables and energy efficiency would be unable to fill after fossil fuels are reduced to meet climate change mitigation targets has been brought out into the open and is now more openly debated. This increases the pressure to find alternative ways forward, and that pressure creates opportunities.

eeB: in your opinion, what are the most important challenges the eeB will face in the upcoming years? how will you tackle them?One of the key challenges is nurturing and strengthening the network of membership organisations that make up the EEB, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

The EEB is already the largest federation of environmental organisations in Europe and that speaks for itself. However, there are some EU and EU accession countries where the EEB has few or no member organisations, or where there are important national environmental organisations which meet all the criteria for EEB membership but for some reason are not EEB members. There are of course other networks such as Greenpeace or WWF where it is more or less a matter of corporate policy not to join federations such as the EEB and with whom we enjoy good cooperation at Brussels level. But there are probably many national organisations which could benefit from joining the EEB and whose participation would in turn enrich the EEB.

Perhaps of even greater importance is the more qualitative question as to how the EEB functions as a network. As with any network, the whole should be more than the sum of the parts. We need to promote more effective coordination, capacity building and exchange of information on good practices within the network, so as to maximise the added value that the EEB as a federation provides on top of the individual efforts of its members.

In order to stay at the cutting edge of the environmental movement, we will also need to maintain the high level of expertise in the staff, which means maintaining and eventually increasing levels of funding. This is not going to be easy in the current climate but it is clearly fundamental to the EEB’s success. •

55 April 2011Newsletter # 61

MaDRiD CheaTs OVeR aiR QUaLiTYNobody doubts that during 2010 Madrid exceeded the legal limits for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) contamination, and it was even recognised by the official media representative of Madrid City Council.

According to the Council's figures, NO2 levels exceeded annual targets of 40 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3) at 18 of the 24 monitoring stations. The average figure for the network of stations was 44 µg/m3. Furthermore, six stations surpassed the hourly NO2 targets on more than 18 occasions. At one station, records showed that the hourly NO2 levels exceeded limits on 76 occasions, more than four times the leeway allowed. Furthermore, another station twice registered levels in excess of the warning threshold (400 µg/m3 for at least three consecutive hours).

This situation, however, is not surprising. Since 2001 – when limits for various atmospheric contaminants were set for the EU – the municipality of Madrid has exceeded legal limits for this contaminant without taking the necessary steps to solve the problem. As a result, without adopting drastic measures to reduce traffic levels

it was to be expected that in 2010 Madrid would continue to exceed legal limits. That is exactly what happened.

We, at Ecologistas en Acción, have been denouncing this situation year upon year. We open up the information we compile about exceeded limits to the public, making it accessible for all citizens - something the city council should do itself. We also propose effective measures aimed to reduce contamination that would breathe life into an 'action plan' for the municipality of Madrid, a plan that has yet to arrive. The principal measures proposed are clearly aimed at reducing the use of private cars in the city – the main source of NO2 emissions.

The city council has been far from developing an action plan that includes traffic reduction measures. Instead, it has indebted the citizens of Madrid for the following decades by undertaking the incredibly expensive enlargement of the M-30. Since its enlargement in 2007, this urban motorway has made circulation in the city centre increase with up to 200,000 cars a day travelling through, worsening the problems of air contamination (as well as causing a 7% increase in CO2 emissions).

The city council knew that the figures would sooner or later speak for themselves, so they attempted a trick: removing some monitoring stations and moving others to areas with less traffic. Despite this strategy the city was still unable to comply with NO2 limits.

Worse still is that this situation is generally true across Spain. Ecologistas en Acción has denounced the manipulation of monitoring networks in at least 13 regional capitals throughout Spain. The Environmental Public Prosecution Office has currently ordered investigation into this in Barcelona, Seville, Valencia and Madrid.

Faced with the seriousness of events, the Mayor of Madrid had no option but to recognise what Ecologistas en Acción has been saying for years: that to comply with air contamination limits, traffic levels in the city must decrease by at least 50%. After making this recognition, the city council hurriedly added that it would not be possible because it would be harmful to Madrid's tourism and economy. Furthermore the Mayor, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón Jiménez, alluded to his intention to ask Brussels for a five-year extension in order to comply with limits.

But comply by doing what? It is not known since there is no plan on the table. Perhaps he is forgetting that Brussels only grants extensions to those who have demonstrably done something to solve the problem. Of course, if we take into account the extension ‘on credit’ that the Commission recently granted the UK in order to comply with particle limits in Greater London, then perhaps he is privy to information that we do not have.

By Samuel Martín-Sosa Rodríguez, International Coordinator at Ecologistas en Acción, an EEB member

EEB MEMBERFOCUS

News from EEB members and working groups


As oil prices have risen in recent months, politicians and commentators across the EU have begun calling for all kinds of non-solutions such as lowering petrol taxes, encouraging oil states to raise production and dipping into strategic reserves. It seems once again that the most obvious strategy – using less of the black stuff – is so obvious that it is not even considered.

One place you would hope to find some serious thoughts on how Europe can cut its oil use is in the Common Transport Policy (CTP) white paper. It is great to have a 10-year plan for transport, so we can set strategies and targets that take the long-term view and are not subject to the short-term pressures of wars, price rises and politicians needing to get re-elected. And the transport sector, responsible for 60% (and rising) of oil use in Europe, is the place to start.

The paper released on 28 March does contain some positive language. It says the Commission will look into the issue of tax subsidies for company cars, currently €54 billion or 0.5% of GDP according to research, although there is no detail or timescale for action on this.

It also mentions speed limiters for vans, the last commercial vehicles remaining limit-free.

But it needs to go much further if it is serious about cutting oil use and reducing transport’s carbon emissions by at least 60% by 2050. Addressing transport speed, not just for vans but also for lorries and ships, would be an immedi-ately effective measure to reduce emissions and cut oil consumption. For lorries, the German logistics industry and police unions recently called for an 80km/h harmonised limited speed. We wholeheartedly support this call. In shipping, Maersk recently ordered ships with lower design speeds to save fuel – this shows that industry is also waiting for a clear EU policy in this field.

These ideas will all help the EU to cut its oil import bill. And that in turn will lead to a lower oil price – on top of the savings from buying fewer barrels – because of the reduced demand. This is not a call for cheaper motor fuel prices: a lower oil price means expensive dirty oil like tar sands is much less attractive to extract. And it’s simply better to tax petrol and diesel, and for governments to use the revenues to cut

labour taxes, than to write ever larger cheques to dictators sitting on massive oil reserves.

But the CTP is about more than just oil use. We also need EU transport policy to contain a much stronger commitment to fair transport pricing throughout Europe. While the draft paper contains a further step in the right direction on lorry charging, action is also needed on shipping, and decisive action to end hidden subsidies for aviation, such as the tax exemption for kerosene as well as start-up subsidies for airlines and airports. Improvement of the TEN-T strategy is also needed to ensure that EU spending contributes to emissions targets by prioritising clean infrastructure projects.

These ideas would enable Europe to cut its oil import bill, reduce congestion and bring down emissions. Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a European transport plan with the aim that less is more? •

By Nina Renshaw, Transport & Environment Deputy Director

EUROPEAN TRANSPORT: lEss Is mORE


With an annual spending of more than €2,000 billion – about 17% of EU’s GDP - the public sector is Europe’s most powerful and influential consumer.

Considering this massive purchasing power, public procurement has an enormous potential and special responsibility to promote more sustainable goods and thus be an important driver for many different objectives of Europe’s 2020 strategy.

gReen OR sUsTainaBLe?Green public procurement (GPP) describes the process where public authorities such as national or local governments, ministries or public schools take environmental considerations into account when buying goods. Sustainable public procurement (SPP) also looks at the social aspects of goods in addition to the pure environmental impacts.

Big iMpaCT aT VeRY LOW COsTFor many years, the EEB has been advocating to use public money more wisely and to maximise societal benefits of public procurement by integrating life-cycle environmental and social consideration in the purchasing decision.

SPP can contribute to achieving existing policy objectives – and could do so more cheaply than other available policy instruments. This would

lead to a reduction in the cost of achieving those environmental goals. Experiences in front running member states have shown that the implementa-tion of GPP policies led to significant benefits at no additional costs of ownership. A study in seven EU member states conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009) concluded that the countries green procurement practices led to CO2 reductions of 25% with average life cycle cost reductions of 1%.

CURRenT eU pOLiCiesThe EU has so far failed to unleash the full potential of SPP. In fact, current public procurement rules have not been designed to promote the integration of other policy objectives (such as resource efficiency) and give public purchasers a big incentive to simply choose the cheapest offer rather than the one with the lowest environmental and social impacts and costs.

Furthermore, EU policies that set minimum requirements for specific product categories such as buildings, office equipment or vehicles, have been very tentative and are clearly lacking ambition compared to the urgency of the problems.

In 2008, the Commission published a Communication on GPP in the framework of its Sustainable Consumption and Production Action Plan. Since then, the Commission has developed criteria for 18 different product groups that are part of a toolkit to assist member states in the implementation of green public procurement policies. In addition, member states were “encouraged” to develop national Action Plans and to use the GPP criteria in 50% of all procurement activities by 2010. Although most EU countries (21 out of 27) have now finalised their action plans, it is also clear that the vast majority have not achieved the 50% target as voluntarily agreed (countries only “welcomed” the 50% target without further commitments).

WinDs Of Change?It seems that policy makers across Europe are getting increasingly aware of the multiple benefits of using public procurement as a policy tool to achieve various policy objectives.

The Europe 2020 Strategy for instance repeatedly highlights the key role of public procurement for

innovation and resource efficiency. The recently published Energy Efficiency Plan (EEP) also recognises the potential of public procurement and highlights that high standards of energy efficiency should be systematically applied in public procurement.

However, the Commission did not further specify how this should be implemented and if it will propose any mandatory energy efficiency requirement for public procurement in the upcoming Energy Savings Directive.

On 27 January, the Commission launched a public consultation ‘on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy’ which will most likely lead to a revision of the current procurement directives at the end of 2011. The EEB has been participat-ing in the consultation and will continue to follow the revision of the EU procurement rules.

A consistent approach is needed on smart and sustainable procurement that aims at maximising the societal benefits of public spending rather than focusing on short term cost savings. A future framework for public procurement has to make elements of sustainable procurement - such as life-cycle costing - the norm rather than the exception for front-runners. Furthermore, it has to provide more legal clarity and actively promote the integration of all environmental and social aspects that are relevant to a product’s life cycle, from resource extraction to disposal.

If the Commission will propose, as tentatively announced in the EEP, minimum energy efficiency requirements for goods purchased by public authorities, what would be the reason for not setting up minimum requirements for other environmental impacts in the light of the Union’s broader resource efficiency agenda? The voluntary GPP criteria developed by the Commission provide an idea about how these products’ specific requirements could look but lack ambition. In any case, new policies that aim at improving the rules of procurement will need to be complemented by and coordinated with consistent policies that set minimum require-ments for specific product groups. •

By Lukas Hammer, outgoing Ecolabel Coordinator (succeeded by Łukasz Woz‘ niacki)

THE CHALLENGE TO UNLEASH THE GREEN POWER Of EuROpE’s BIGGEsT CONsumER


CAMPAIGN UPDATES

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

Until the very end, the European Parliament kept a strong stance on how nanotechnology should be regulated, calling for further development of the testing methodology as well as specific labelling requirements. The Council and Commission disagreed on the first point, saying that the testing of ‘nanofood’ should be made “on a case by case basis”.

The recent failure to reach an agreement means that there will be no special measures addressing nanomaterials in food for many years.

By Louise Duprez, EEB Nanotechnology Policy Officer

nOise pOLiCY UpDaTeThe European Commission will soon publish a report on the implementation of the 2002 Environmental Noise Directive (END) and its possible revision. The report will be addressed to the European Parliament and Council and will be subject to a public consultation.

Noise disturbs the lives of millions of people in Europe. It is estimated that 44% of Europeans (over 210 million people) are regularly exposed to noise levels considered potentially dangerous to health.

The main objective of the END is to provide a common basis for tackling the noise problem

across the EU. Noise levels must be monitored and addressed through "strategic noise maps" for major roads, railways, airports and agglom-erations. Member states must inform the public about their exposure to noise and draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary and maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. However, the Directive does not set any limit values, nor does it prescribe the measures to be used in the action plans, which remain at the discretion of the competent authorities.

EEB is currently conducting a survey among its members in order to gain a critical insight on the END and how it is being implemented in EU countries. The results will be published in a report which will also include recommendations for improving the existing Directive.

A conference on the future of EU noise policy, jointly organised by EEB, Transport and Environment (T&E) and Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) will take place on Wednesday 25th May in Brussels. The conference will bring together experts in the fields of environment, transport and health, as well as representatives from the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament. It is hoped that the conference will provide an opportunity for stimulating debate on future noise policy and lead to ambitious proposals from the European Commission.

For further information contact Louise Duprez or Laura fairclough at [email protected]

nO speCiaL MeasURes fOR nanOfOODsAfter three years of negotiations between the European Parliament and Council, EU leaders have failed for the second time to find an agreement on a new Novel Foods Regulation. On March 29th, the last round of conciliation ended in a deadlock due to the divisive issue of cloned animals. Both food from cloned animals and food produced with the help of nanotechnology fall under the scope of the Regulation.

Studies suggest that nanomaterials may pose new risks to human health, such as damage to DNA and asbestos-like diseases. Because food is ingested, the use of nanotechnology in food, for example to alter flavour or colour, should require extra cautious attention by regulators. Risk assessors across Europe, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), acknowledge that conducting risk assessments of nanomaterials in food is still subject to a high degree of uncertainty because of a lack of tools and experience. This is why EEB has called for a strict application of the precautionary principle when allowing ‘nanofood’ on the EU market, i.e. that no market authorisation be possible until reliable test methodologies have been agreed on.

9

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

Recent EEB press alerts and media coverage

April 2011Newsletter # 61

eU Misses The pOinT On e-WasTeThe EEB welcomes the agreement on e-waste made at the Environment Council meeting last March but warns there is still a long way from having a solid plan to tackle Europe’s fastest growing waste stream. However, the EEB recognises the efforts of the Hungarian Presidency to push through an agreement.

“We not only need to be sure e-waste is properly collected and treated but start preventing its creation by building innovative products which can be easily reused and as well recycled,” says Stéphane Arditi, EEB Waste Policy Officer. “We must start viewing waste as a resource and not as a burden.”

The EEB points out one of the main problems of the Council’s proposal for the WEEE Directive (which covers electrical and electronic equipment waste): by lowering the collection ambition, member states will not properly address the risks of illegal export and improper treatment. A higher collection rate would minimise the risk of e-waste being illegally dumped elsewhere.

The EEB also regrets that possible policy innovations proposed by the European Parliament which could help minimise the amount of e-waste have been neglected by the Council. It is now expected that the European Parliament will stand firm on this.

Visit eeb.org to read the full story

eCODesign pOLiCY: sTOp TaLking, sTaRT aCTingThe coolproducts coalition is disappointed that the European Commission’s talk on the Ecodesign Directive is not followed up with actions in response to the Energy Efficiency Plan adopted in March 2011. This Plan acknowledges the Ecodesign Directive - which aims to improve the environmental performance of energy-related products - as one of the most effective tools the EU has in order to deliver energy savings. But successive delays have hampered the initial dynamism and the actual delivery of this directive.

According to the coalition, although the Ecodesign Directive may be one of the success stories of EU energy efficiency policy, it also reveals the weaknesses of the Energy Efficiency Plan, by assuming that existing policies are working well and that to deliver more savings we merely need more measures. However, piling up studies and good intentions without taking decisions on implementation measures is wasting the whole potential of this directive.

A 2010 coolproducts study revealed that the most ambitious Ecodesign measures could not only save energy but also save Europeans up to 44 billion euros a year. Taking decisions now could save the equivalent of the residential energy consumption of about 60 million EU citizens by 2020.


COMpanY CaRs COsTing eUROpeans BiLLiOns anD haRMing enViROnMenTA study commissioned by the European Commission revealed that subsidies for company cars are costing Europeans up to €54 billion annually, equivalent to 0.5% of the EU’s GDP in lost tax revenues. It was discussed and analysed at a conference co-organised by Green Budget Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and DG TAXUD of the European Commission.

Current tax subsidies were shown to distort consumer choice by creating certain contradic-tions, such as inducing over purchasing of cars, influencing favour of high-emitting vehicles, and increasing the number of journeys made. This preferential tax treatment of company cars leads to more cars, more pollution and more emissions

The study has estimated that resulting welfare losses (alongside the above mentioned €54 billion losses) amount to €37 billion. This is calculated as the difference between willingness to pay and the actual cost incurred for all compa-ny car users.

Green groups demonstrated that while European governments work to aid welfare and environ-ment on the one hand, they are paradoxically supporting subsidies which damage any possible progress.


Political stalling is severely hampering European progress on energy savings. In December, the Parliament called for the energy savings target to be made binding. In January, Commission President José Manuel Barroso called for "concrete steps" to meet the EU's energy savings target. Heads of Government in February agreed that ‘investments in energy efficiency enhance competitiveness and support security of energy supply at low cost’. Analysis shows that we will miss our energy saving target by half.

All agree that we must do more. It is indeed a welcome sign that the 2050 Roadmap to a Low Carbon Economy, released on the same day in March as the Energy Efficiency Plan (rather ominously missing the ‘action’ in its title) presented energy savings and meeting our existing target as central to going further in our climate objectives. Yet the plan itself was presented without the binding target, or the ‘concrete steps’.

Financing, regarded as one of the biggest obstacles and in particular how to realise the upfront costs, is covered only in terms of an assessment of the current situation. A review in 2013 comes too late and would not even match the implementation of the proposed Directive. The impact assessment itself does not even

guarantee it will meet the 20% energy savings target. The strength of the few measures that are proposed is left to the individual ambition and efforts of Member States, and given their pledges so far in the National Reform Programmes, under Europe 2020, this does not count for much.Looking ahead to the summer, the proposed Directive on Energy Efficiency and Savings will revise the Cogeneration and Energy Services Directives, bringing them into one Directive while also implementing the Energy Efficiency Plan. EEB will be working to ensure the Directive sets the highest ambition with a wide scope covering primary and end use energy that actually reduces consumption. The EU therefore needs to provide the tool box for, if not legally binding targets, at least a series of comprehensive and far-reaching, binding measures covering the full energy supply chain that will get us to 20% savings. In order to create a dynamic, competitive energy services market that drives a positive and certain framework for the needed investment, a clear set of policies are needed. If too much flexibility is left to Member States, it risks dilution and so much heavy pruning that the policies become ineffective and invisible.

The Energy Supplier Obligation – a policy instrument to incentivise more efficient use of

energy and less wastage - is a case in point. Existing schemes have shown how it is possible to place requirements on energy utilities to deliver a certain level of savings through implementing energy efficiency improvements to the energy consumer (whether it be a family home or a business) or across a broader range of sectors. While the potential coverage is vast, cutting corners can only dampen the reach. Member States must ensure that utilities avoid taking on simple shallow steps known as ‘cream skimming’ but rather go for the deepest savings. Only that way can we be sure that the ‘deep renovations’ are pursued, for example. The most ambitious targets within the obligation must be set to also help drive the deepest measures.

Since so much is riding on meeting our energy saving target, more should be done to monitor progress. The Directive should set out clear plans for accurately monitoring, reporting and verifying savings. Such an approach would help introduce much needed transparency. Furthermore, a set of indicators, selected according to policy relevance, analytical soundness and measurability, would help monitor progress and could help provide a basis for comparisons across Member States

A poor track record of implementation and delivery both by Member States and agencies delivering the services has not helped in raising credibility to consumers or society at large on the issue. Further attention must be taken to ensure a reliable and guaranteed quality of professional service, access to accredited agencies, neutral, informed advice and transparency throughout. A ‘one stop shop’ that brings this altogether: access to finance, advice and delivery agents could also help to remove some of the hassle factor often associated with energy saving measures.

At a time when our energy savings objectives are being placed central to our path to a low carbon economy, the lack of commitment and ambition should be all the more concerning. With oil trading at just over $100 a barrel and dependence on nuclear power now in question after the disaster in Japan, the reasons for using less energy become all the more compelling. •

By Catherine Pearce, EEB Senior Policy Officer for Energy Policy

AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLAN WITh NO ACTION?



In February 2011, the European Commission has released a letter approving the first Voluntary Agreement (VA) in the framework of Ecodesign Directive. This is relating to the complex set top box (CSTB) industry – makers of digital TV decoders, for instance.

VAs are self-regulated initiatives by industry and in the case of Ecodesign, they substitute regulation. EEB, together with its coolproducts campaign partners have expressed concerns regarding this type of policy instrument. We are very suspicious about their effectiveness to go beyond the business as usual scenario.

Doubts about usefulness of VAs replacing regulation was also raised in the authoritative study by OECD in 2003 , which has so far not been contradicted by any new reports. Consumer organisations have also expressed their worries.

Three main elements are confirming our doubts at the moment:

1. The transparency of a Va process. While stating a full openness to stakeholders’ input and a full transparency of the process, the CSTB VA has not been circulated in its final version to all members of the Consultation Forum (the consultative committee for Ecodesign). We have no proof that it will integrate some of our recommendations and we fear how it will be monitored in the future.

2. The ambition of the Va. The version of the VA that is circulated to the European Parliament for exerting its scrutiny right (the final agreement to the proposed policy) does not reflect some demands by the Commission, member states and the community for higher

ambition in energy efficiency and mandatory investigations for other environmental dimensions.

3. Reacting to failure. The possibility to react to failures (poor market coverage, poor results, signatory not meeting the objective…) while theoretically anticipated would in fact be difficult. Less market surveillance activities, delays between assessed results and eventual reactions and a poor sanctions scheme will not help for a reactive decision-making.

If these doubts above are not addressed we would not be able to accept any approval by the European Parliament’s scrutiny committee. A second VA is to be approved soon on printing devices.

We hope the voices calling for better transpar-ency and proper monitoring, ambition and quick reaction to any failure are heard. •

By Stephane Arditi, EEB Senior Policy Officer for Waste & Products

On 18th February EEB held a special conference on the future of environmental policy in the EU. The conference was also an opportunity to say goodbye to John Hontelez, who left EEB after 14 years as Secretary General.

Before the conference began, a short General Assembly with EEB members approved the appointment of Jeremy Wates as the new

Secretary General (read an interview with Jeremy on page three). The conference was a day of lively debates and discussions on how the EU can be the decisive player in protecting the environment as well as looking at the role of the EEB in the coming years.

Speakers included Catherine Day, Secretary General of the European Commission, Andreas

Carlgren, Swedish Environment Minister, Karl-Friedrich Falkenberg, Director General of DG Environment, Green MEP Claude Turmes and Joel Decaillon, Executive Secretary of the European Trade Unions Confederation and a host of NGO representatives such as Conny Reuter, President of Social Platform.

It was generally accepted that the EU had the opportunity and indeed the duty to do more on environment, particularly if it is to become a leading global player in environment. Sustainable development was a more divisive subject due to the holistic approach required and the need for a clear message the public could get behind. Turmes suggested there was still some way to go before the EU ‘really gets sustainable development’.

Speakers highlighted that the EU was in need of organisations like EEB more than ever before. Due to the increasing reach of the EU on environmental issues, the EEB is one of the few organisations which are expert across such a range of EU environmental policies and who are able to link this information to grassroots level. •

VOluNTARY AGREEmENTs IN ECODESIGN

ThE fuTuRE Of ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

This 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: Pieter de Pous, interim EEB Secretary General

Editor-in-Chief: Simon Nazer - EEB Press and Publications Officer

EBB: Boulevard de Waterloo 34 - 1000 Brussels - Belgium - Tel: +32 289 1090 - Fax: +32 2 289 1099 - Email: [email protected] www.eeb.org - www.participate.org - www.springalliance.eu - 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 Thanks to Meta Viendo - p.6 Thanks to ezioman - p.7 Thanks to Matt Barton under creative commons.

fORThCOmING EEB EVENTS

fEATuRED PUBLICATIONfor Clean air everywhere: what can be done in our cities to decrease air pollution?

12 tips for curbing air pollution in cities.

Download on eeb.org

Lukas hammer left EEB at the end of March to work for the Austrian Green Party in Vienna. After joining the EEB as an intern, Lukas soon started working as the Ecolabel Coordinator for both the EEB and the BEUC (European Consumers' Organisation) which he did for over a year and a half. In this period he has left his mark, working energetically with endless dedication and commitment to advance often difficult discussions and securing the adoption of the highest possible standards.

He will be replaced by Łukasz Woz‘niacki, from Poland, as of April 1st. With a background in law,

consumer protection and sustainability, Łukasz is well placed to continue the work of the EEB and BEUC on the Ecolabel scheme. Before joining the EEB he worked as a legal advisor to the largest and oldest Polish consumer organisation.

Three new interns have joined the EEB staff since February 2011: Laura fairclough, from the UK, is working on Air, Noise & Nanotechnology policies;angeliki Malizou, from Greece, is working with the Waste & Products Policy Officer;pauline Constant, from France, is assisting the Communications department.

COMING AND GOING

pUBLiC heaRing On enDOCRine-DisRUpTing CheMiCaLs: fROM aMBiTiOn TO aCTiOn (HELD BY CHEMSEC)May 3rd, 2011 – Brussels

The body of evidence showing that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) cause health and environmental problems is growing. The EU has the ambition to tackle the threat of EDCs but has so far been unable to agree on criteria for what qualifies as an EDC. It is time to overcome this deadlock in European regulation.

QUieT pLease: The fUTURe Of eU nOise pOLiCYMay 25th, 2011 – Brussels

The conference, jointly organised by EEB, T&E and HEAL, will bring together experts in the fields of environment, transport and health, as well as representatives from the European Commission and Members of the European Parliament. It is hoped that the conference will provide an opportunity for stimulating debate on future noise policy and lead to ambitious proposals from the European Commission.

Visit the events section on eeb.org for more details.

Documents

Metamorphosis April 2011