Future of EU Environmental Policy

EEB ANNUAL CONFERENCE REPORT
Future of EU
Environmental Policy:
Towards the 7th
Environmental Action
Programme
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y
EUROPE’S LARGEST FEDERATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENS’ ORGANISATIONS
The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) is a
federation of over 140 environmental citizens’
organisations based in most EU Member States,
most candidate and potential candidate countries
as well as in a few neighbouring countries. These
organisations range from local and national, to
European and international.
EEB’s aim is to protect and improve the environment
by influencing EU policy, promoting sustainable
development objectives and ensuring that Europe’s
citizens can play a part in achieving these goals.
EEB stands for environmental justice and
participatory democracy. Our office in Brussels was
established in 1974 to provide a focal point for our
members to monitor and respond to the EU’s
emerging environmental policy.
CONCEPT/DESIGN/PRODUCTION
EEB 2010 Annual Conference report:
Future of EU environmental policy: Towards the 7th Environmental Action Programme
Contents:
STATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CHALLENGES FOR THE NEXT DECADE
4
VISION 2050: LIVING WELL, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PLANET: WHAT ISSUES TO ADDRESS IN THE NEXT
DECADE IN THE EU CONTEXT – PRO-ACTIVE BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES
6
WHICH TOOLS FOR THE EU ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN THE NEXT DECADE?
8
MORNING SESSION ROUNDTABLE
10
AFTERNOON SESSION – ROUNDTABLE: PRESENTATION OF THE EEB POSITION ON THE 7TH
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME & ROUDNTABLE DISCUSSION
13
PARTICIPANTS LIST
19
The EEB gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the European Commission, Ministry for
Environment Brussels and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and
Water Management and the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and
Housing
3
John Hontelez, EEB Secretary General and Chair for the day, welcomed all. Introduced the
theme of the conference: the future of European environmental policy in the context of a new
Environmental Action Programme (EAP), with the current sixth EAP due to expire in 2012. He
clarified that the EEB is in favour of developing the 7th Environmental Action Programme (7EAP) as
soon as possible, and he refers to the “Input Paper” the EEB had prepared for this conference, on
the basis of internal discussions the EEB had since the 4th of March,
He thanked the European Commission, Bruxelles Environnement/Leefmilieu Brussel (The Brussels
Institute for the Environment) and the Lebensministerium (Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and Water Management) and the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable
Development, Transport and Housing for their financial support to the event and its preparations.
“State of Environment and Challenges for the next Decade”
Jacqueline McGlade, European Environment Agency
View the slideshow on eeb.org
As we asses the 6EAP we have an excellent opportunity to reflect on the state of the environment
today. This also comes at a great time with the EEA’s European Environment State and Outlook
Report – SOER2010 – with its core messaging saying ‘environmental policy works’.
With regards to climate change we are not doing enough both internationally and in EU, but we
have made progress. The 2020 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) targets should be met by the EU-27, and
the EU-27 is also on course to meet the 2020 renewables target. However, looking at sectoral
GHG emissions, it’s not all positive. Aviation, shipping and transport are clearly lagging behind.
We all still need to reach out to citizens – they don’t see the package as a whole. What is the
narrative that would in a sense give us a license to not have a 7EAP?
Also, international efforts to tackle problems are insufficient at the moment. Designation of Natura
2000 sites in the EU is nearly complete, but the marine environment is heavily overfished. The EU
Biodiversity Baseline provides a snapshot against which we can measure progress, as well as the
biodiversity information system for Europe.
With emissions and water legislation we are not meeting targets, but going in the right direction.
Forests are under pressure and heavily exploited. Indicators tell us there is a great danger there
with biodiversity, soil and carbon sequestration.
Overfishing remains our Achilles heel. Huge coast line so we have an enormous responsibility.
We have seen waste management shift from disposal to recycling and reuse but we have seen
waste increase. It is slowly being decoupled from GDP however. It is good business now.
Europe is vulnerable regarding mineral use, much comes from beyond our borders and we are in a
global competition for rare resources. This puts us in a position of vulnerability so our resource use
in EU must become much more efficient. It makes good economic sense.
We are being successful on air but ambient air quality remains inadequate. Still much to do on
environment and health. Too many urban dwellers are exposed to excessive levels of air pollution.
All of this leads us to an important question, which is how do we join the dots? How do we link all
these issues into a single, common narrative? Resource efficiency is an important aspect, as it can
boost growth, create jobs, help the environment and stimulate innovation. Policy should also be
aware of environmental impacts, not just measure the quantity of a resource used.
4
Hontelez Thanked Jacqueline McGlade for a call on a common narrative which we might call a
7EAP. He mentioned that the EEA and the EEB often have common messages.
QUESTIONS TO MS MCGLADE:
Andrzej Kassenberg, Poland Said If we look at the different linkages between environmental
policies a 2015 report would probably be worse than today. Today we are seeing in structural
funds that money is not spent in a climate or biodiversity friendly manner, and feared that the
Financial Perspectives 2014-2020 will not make much difference. He asked how can the EEA’s
work affect that financial perspective of the EU? How can we link it?
McGlade: Said the EU is working on these linkages, and starting in 2012 it will look at headline
indicators, which Heads of State will evaluate and then use to see how the policies relating to
those indicators are being implemented. What is good is that we are seeing climate and resource
efficiency in there, meaning that with performance and economy there is a kind of carbon currency
going on, which is the opportunity we need. She said we can look at the monitoring mechanism in
a much more refined way having an accountability we never had before. Transport therefore will
stand out like a sore thumb.
There is no doubt that countries jump up and down on emissions but there is an agreement to act.
The days of laissez faire will come under far more intense scrutiny. Our challenge is to understand
the reasons why emissions are going up – not just saying ‘lets hit the transport sector’. Is it poor
planning or subsidies etc? Analysis has to be much more precise and aggressive.
Sonja van Rensen, ENDS Europe Asked if McGlade could give us her experience on the
European Commission (EC) thinking on 7EAP and how would it fit with the EU 2020 Strategy?
McGlade Said it was not her role to comment on the Commission but it will be interesting to see if
we can see a real transition, the mainstreaming of environment into the Strategy. The Commission
is efficient and doesn’t want resource efficiency just to be about water for instance. We have to be
sure everything is in place. She thought the jury was still out and that maybe we shouldn’t rush it
and wait and see what comes out of these discussions in the next months.
Annemarija Slabe, Slovenia Asked when climate change results were explained how are external
factors taken into account for the EU impact, such as biofuels? Is that reflected?
McGlade: Said it was not and that is a challenge. We now have a big debate on burden sharing in
the EU and outside EU. There has been long discussion which would also be part of resource
efficiency.
Mikael Karlsson, Sweden Asked if McGlade could elaborate on greenhouse gases (GHG)
development after the recession. What factors are key for keeping them low?
McGlade: Whilst there will be bickering about subsidies to non-renewables and renewables there
is a decision framework now. The industry on renewables side has everything on its side. In the
electricity world we are on course not to see the switch back. Where I see a problem is that some
people are still focused on biomass use. Whilst it is sequestering carbon it is a long way of the
immediacy of wind and hydropower. Overall the signs I see in the major manufacturing countries is
that there are different paces. In the South, for instance, debt loads are higher. But it is an
opportunity and the conversations I hear are going in the right direction.
Hontelez Asked if the agency assess the environmental impact of the EU budget?
McGlade: Said this was not really the case. We can look at policy effectiveness but not on
financial scales. Countries are asking us to do benchmarking and that is important for
implementation. But in terms of budget it is way out of our sphere.
5
“Vision 2050: Living well, within the limits of the planet: what issues to
address in the next decade in the EU context – pro-active business
perspectives”
Per Sandberg, World Business Council Sustainable Development
View the slideshow on eeb.org
We work to articulate the business case for sustainability. That is what will drive action. We with 29
of our members came together for our Vision 2050, looking at every issue at once. It’s about
connecting the dots. We wanted an optimistic story, something solutions focused. To drive change
you need a positive story.
There is now an incredible amount of growth, which unfortunately isn’t matched by the policies to
keep up with that. The world population is increasing, ageing and urbanising. In addition, the
middle class – those with disposable incomes – is rapidly expanding. This means more
consumption.
The economic power is also shifting. If we look at the top 10 economies by GDP in 2050, you’ll
notice that only the UK and Germany come in there at 9 and 10. There is a race on, and Europe
looks like its being left behind. China, the US and India are really going to be, if not already, the
dominant forces.
On an environmental front, GHGs will continue to rise with business as usual, as well as other
degradation with biodiversity and resources. By 2050 the world could be running out of valuable
resources. It’s clear the world is on an unsustainable track.
We used the ecological footprint to sum up all the trends in one measurement. It was useful for this
global analysis and found that to 2050 we will be using the equivalent to 2.3 planets. So how do we
conclude this we asked?
We said no – this cannot and should not happen. Business as usual is dead. So we turned this into
a vision which is a simple one. Three elements – keep within the budget of one planet. Second we
accept the fact that there will be something like 9billion people. The third element is a very high
moral ambition which is saying all those people will live well and have a good quality of life: 9 billion
living well within the limits of the planet. Ultimately everyone must have high development
standards with low ecological impact.
Sustainability is the driver to innovation. That is why we created this pathway vision to 2050. We
need to collaborate on all levels of society to achieve this, because everyone’s consumption
patterns have to change. Business can’t achieve this alone. We must of course internalise the
costs of carbon, water and other ecosystem resources, we agree on that I think.
We have made a business case for this – we have shown how businesses can profit from walking
on this path. Urban infrastructure globally will need mass investment, and in order to sustain a new
energy mix there will need to be investments up to a trillion dollars per year. There will also be
growth in ecosystem markets. Education is also key – especially for women. Providing schooling
for girls for an extra year increases wages by 10-20%. There will also be massive demand for
products and services for our aging population, with one-fifth of the total global population being
over 65. Can you imagine? So the business opportunities are large.
6
QUESTIONS TO MR SANDBERG:
Hontelez Hoped we will all have an active role in shaping the 7EAP. We all noticed your long term
vision is for 1.1 planets, he said.
Sandberg Said this work comes out of 29 companies coming together and discussing in four days.
They tried to have one planet but it didn’t add up and we were left with 1.1 and we thought lets
stick with that, and not renegotiate with all the companies.
Slabe, Slovenia Said that everybody is speaking of this nine billion. She pointed out Sandberg
spoke of education of women; if we invested there this number would never be achieved.
When he said some of the members in their portfolios they have up to 30% green business; it is
important how this is defined: is biofuels green business in Sandberg’s case? The majority at the
meeting wouldn’t see that as green business.
Then there is the shareholder reality, she said. What they want is profit. How do you involve them?
Sandberg Pointed out that the nine billion people, using UN scenario, is the medium one. Nine
billion is quite successful actually. He personally thought that this was an eight billion pathway.
There is so much in education and economic empowerment which gives rapid decline in birth
rates, although too much in many cases, like in South Korea. Business doesn’t want to discuss
population, but Sandberg thought they should.
Biofuels are many things, he said, but we shouldn’t have a static view on it. If we rule them out
then we are giving away a major card in our stock of cards. It’s our job to make them sustainable.
The shareholders question is right, he said, and he thought what we are saying here is that
basically there is a necessity for shareholders to act.
7
“Which tools for the EU environmental policy in the next decade?”
Jean-Pierre Hannequart, Director General of the Brussels Institute for Environmental
Management
View slideshow on eeb.org
What tools do we need for EU environmental policy in the next decade? The Belgium Presidency
wishes to actively push this debate forward.
The Environment Commissioner, Potocnik, has three main priorities: promoting a green economy,
stopping biodiversity loss, and implementing and improving existing environmental legislation.
Europe 2020 also seeks ‘sustainable’ growth.
We have seen past thematic strategies move at a very slow pace. They are a participative process
but often very disconnected from the final results. The thematic strategies on air and waste, for
instance, had few political orientations. Resources, soil and urban strategies had very poor results.
Other strategies? We find there are often too many, their targets are not clear, lack of mandatory
instruments, and they are often having limited monitoring and reporting mechanisms. There is
perhaps also the need for better regulation – but this has low legal simplification, and the
consultation rules are limited. Evaluation has also been problematic because it focused on the
state of the environment rather than policy effectiveness – there is a clear gap there.
We also have a lack of indicators currently, beyond GDP, which we agree is too limited. National
reporting is often far too complex, and not harmonised enough.
When it comes to the multi-stakeholder policy we are seeing a lack of transparency, and I talk
about the process here as well. For some EU institutions, their roles are unclear. What impact
does ECOSOC, EEA etc have on these processes?
With all this in mind, I propose a few things for a clear 7EAP.
There must be a coherent vision, which addresses the specific issues and their links with other
policies. We are seeing a proliferation of various thematic strategies and other eco-strategies. We
are missing coherence here, as well as strong follow up mechanisms.
There must be strict priorities, with clear 5-10 year targets, and a 2050 vision. This must all help
develop a new business and consumption model. Therefore we must integrate with connected
policies and other main EU policies, and external global policies as well.
Political instruments such as regulation, evaluation and implementation must also be bettered.
Clear and effective regulation with economic instruments and better implementation are needed for
effective outcomes.
So what of the process? I said earlier that the stakeholder process needs to be improved. There
must be a formulised procedure whereby all stakeholders have an input, on a consistent and equal
basis.
We urgently need new guidelines for the future, and a genuine 7EAP would help achieve this.
8
QUESTIONS TO MR HANNEQUART:
Hontelez Notes that much said was very much in line with what the EEB works on.
Jouni Nissinen, Finland Noted that Hannequart asked for more focus on market instruments and
new policy instruments, and agreed with this, but said that we then we run into a problem that the
present EU system has a very limited say. How should we proceed on EU level to make it possible
on EU level?
Hannequart Said the possibility for the EU to do something concerning taxation is not really
finished. There are a lot of decisions which are linked with economic instruments like VAT. The
commission already opened a communication concerning the strategy on waste prevention and
recycling and we could support more of those types of proposals.
He said we should point out that some policies aren’t working with some policies and processes;
they are going against green policy. They are not respecting the hierarchy. There is a gap between
what we want and the action in reality right now. He said we can say the financial responsibly is
limited but we can have more harmonisation of the basic principal to elaborate some economic
instruments.
9
MORNING SESSION ROUND TABLE
Johannes Schilling, EEA Brussels liaison officer, standing in for Jacqueline McGlade.
Sarolta Tripolszky, Hungary Wondering if businesses are really looking at biodiversity lose on the
entire landscape. Who can reinforce this cause? She feared it is still an ‘environmental agenda’
and didn’t see the forces needed would come from the environmental field. Spatial planning needs
to be green.
Schilling Asked who could we mobilise? We are in the international year of biodiversity and we
can all see, and based on data we have, awareness on these issues isn’t very high yet, so we
need to work with the citizens to understand what these issues are about.
Second we need cross cooperation with the local level, using the big networks like yours. There
needs to be a debate.
Hontelez Pointed out that the whole issue of spatial planning was and is the most important
challenge in the focus of environmental policy.
Hannequart Said a big issue is biodiversity in urban areas. You can have a lot of education with
young people on this, which is what they need.
Sandberg Said biodiversity is very relevant for some business but for many it’s not that relevant all
the time. When working on this we have a particular focus on ecosystem services. We believe we
need more use in market systems. Those proposals will be there if they are linked to public need,
so we work with IUCN and we were instrumental in the TEEB report.
Francisco Ferreira, Portugal Said he wanted to focus on the numbers. We saw the vision on
2050, on climate change, in terms on what we should reduce on GHG. But, he said, we have 2020.
Ms McGlade was only talking about 2C instead of 1.5C, which is spoken about more now. And
also, when we talk about 2020 that means for sure a lot of decisions by Europe within the next few
months and Jacqueline said we are almost there. The EU is very close to the 20% reduction
compared to 1990. Therefore, he asked why don’t we talk about 30% with an eventual 40%
reduction which will change the role of the EU within the climate negotiations, which weren’t
successful.
On renewables: we talk about electricity as the easiest target to be met by 2050, maybe 100%
renewable. But electricity is a small part of the final energy consumption which is what is in the
renewables directive. Transport is the big issue to overcome.
Schilling Said we are indeed quite close to the 20% target but said we should remember these
figures were measured during the recession: we might have different figures when the economy
picks up and grows again. But of course we are having discussions on how we move to 30% and
the EC did a good job in their communication published in May.
Whether the 2C target is adequate or not: it is one of elements of the Copenhagen Accord,
considering of course all relevant information which comes in.
About transport: again most of transport is one of the big issues linked to climate change. The EEA
saw increases among different economic sectors in recent years. It’s not developing as fast as
other sectors, which is probably a question for the long run to 2050.
Hannequart Said we are using CO2 target, we are doing transportation, fixing targets at national
level for example. We need to think about direct emissions of electricity, so electricity produced
outside of Brussels for Brussels. We need material policy connected to energy policy in the same
question of targets.
10
Hontelez Asked Sandberg how much of carbon is still used in his 2050 scenario.
Sandberg Said they used figures from the IEA, and used quite a radical scenario. How much fossil
fuel? There are some, perhaps 20%. A lot of carbon sequestration. On the policy side he would
start with energy. GHG is not the only thing there, there’s energy security for instance. Most GHG
improvements are more driven about energy security. Same on transport, GHG is not the only
thing there. There’s commercial emissions, safety, congestions etc. There again we should look at
which sort of solutions can make links all the time, he said. We currently have ‘sort of’ indicators
which can be extremely useful which is safety and conventional pollutions – there has been an
incredible success there.
Christer Agren, Sweden Said his organisation focus a lot on air pollution. With reference to
Thematic Strategies and 6EAP, and he felt that the lead up to the Thematic Strategy was a very
good, open process. The idea was that this should lead to a continuous evaluation of five year
cycles, but we are not seeing a proposal of the revision of the NEC Directive.
If the targets were to be achieved by 2020 with a NEC, the additional cost of putting that in place
would be 1.4billion for the EU – 2.7 euros per capital a year. He said it would therefore be difficult
to say it’s too costly as such. Much is car pollution, but with a NEC half a million premature deaths
would be avoided.
He felt the 6EAP process initiated a very good process and thought it was a pity that it looks like
it’s not being continued, and just changing for the sake of changing.
He said it would be great to be more engaged with industry, as Sanberg said, but many of those 29
companies you worked with are still planning to build coal fire power stations which will be there for
the next 50 years. Some refuse to pay for cleaner fuels for cleaner shipping systems. The main
reason they can continue is because the buyers of the services are not prepared to pay the extra
price for the cleaner fuels. There is a discrepancy between ambitions and realities.
Hannequart Found a lot of interesting information in those points made. The process for the clean
air forum was a very good initiative which functioned quite well. After that there was a parallel
initiative which had no clear conclusion. He said it was clear to him that there must be a formalised
process of consultation, with outcomes written by an independent body, and not the EC for
instance who already have ideas in their mind.
If we take city air pollution, he said, we see we have more and more problems everywhere. It’s true
technology is better: He said he could see his hybrid car is consuming less but there are many
more cars on the road. We have to change the organisation of the city, not only the products.
Sandberg Said Algren was right: he could take any one of these companies and they are involved
in the dirty race and the clean race. Like countries: Spain lead on renewable investment and this
week took massive coal subsidies. It’s confusing for industry.
The important thing is to understand those companies have renewable projects or businesses,
projects which they would like to succeed. What I want you to focus on is where the developments
are. We will replace coal power with better alternatives, not by complaining about it.
McKinsey has shown 1/3 of the carbon challenge can be achieved with current technologies.
Companies struggle with this, so there is enormous room for entrepreneurs to drive innovation.
Michael Warhurst, UK Said it was good to hear a lot of businesses are worried about the future.
Some businesses are well ahead of politicians, who rarely think long term.
He said what his organisation thinks is one of the tools to do resource efficiency is to ensure you
are measuring. They have proposed four measurements:
11
1.
2.
3.
4.
A carbon footprint of EU.
Landfill footprint.
Water footprint.
Material footprint.
These are four indicators which they think will have real power.
On the waste side: waste is in many ways very simple; you can go out there and find regions and
companies who can do it well. There is best practice sitting there. But why is it, when we look
across the EU, can’t a Member State recycle as much as Flanders? Because of weak
implementation and policy being frozen.
He asked: Why is it when best practice is sitting there, does it get frozen?
He highlighted product policy as a difficult issue. Nobody is doing it very well, and we have only a
limited system, he said. Policy shouldn’t send us into a seven year study of a single phone, but we
should have things like compulsory warranties etc. At the moment they are not on the agenda, and
he worried that it is one of the environmental policy areas which gets stuck for years.
Sandberg Said if it takes 20 years it will obviously not work. On the numbers, he agreed indicators
and measurements are important for driving innovation; companies are obsessed by numbers.
What is important for NGOs to drive this forward with companies is that they (companies) are
obsessed by numbers but they are not designed to measure and report things, their meaning of life
is to sell products. So in the sustainable development area we must find useful tools.
Measurements aren’t the end to it all, he said.
Hannequart Agreed with Michael here on many things. He said with resource efficiency we
absolutely need an EU level decision on a measurement methodology. The difficulty is to find a
simple solution, because we want every angle in there. Yes we need common measurements; we
have to enlarge the debate with full parameters. The problem at EU level is not only increasing
targets but asking for commitments on those targets. For waste, you could use four different
methodologies for instance. It’s a complete disharmonisation which is completely not what EC,
Parliament or NGOs wanted.
He said we need a true, clear common target of reference with some support with economic
instruments.
Schilling Resource efficiency is a concept the EEA and other organisations are making their
minds up on more and more, he said. Michael mentioned much of that, so it is definitely a concept
for development, he said. He found what Michael said for impact assessments for retailers are
interesting and of course there needs to be close cooperation there to have an effect.
If we have resource efficiency policy we can’t just look at resources we must also look at overall
environmental impact.
Hontelez Conclusions Said we have seen a wide range of arguments here, all pointing to a
similar outcome. Obviously public awareness is important, but the driver behind policy needs to be
securely in place. We have seen a very interesting business case also, and clearly we as NGOs
must do more to connect our work in that context. One could say this is putting a strong case
together for a 7EAP, which can touch upon these areas.
12
Afternoon session – roundtable: Presentation of the EEB position on
the 7th Environmental Action Programme
Mikael Karlsson, President of EEB
View slideshow on eeb.org
Explained why the EEB decided to promote discussion on a 7th EAP. He presents the reality of the
human population exceeding planetary boundaries. Challenge is to reverse this situation, and EEB
considers a new EAP as a tool, to:
• increase and clarify ambitions
• underline environment as a central task for the EU
• simulate debate and involve citizens
• manage the big picture and address sustainable development
• improve policy integration and coherence
• continue to push member states broadly
• take and strengthen global leadership
• stimulate environmental adaptation among corporations
Sets as a central objective that the excessive ecological footprint of EU must be reduced 50% in 20
years. This could be measured in:
• Land: total area used in hectares
• Materials: total tonnage of biological and mineral material used
• Water: water footprint, measured in litres
• Climate: carbon footprint, including imported products
Besides these objectives, the EU must also improve the protection of public health
This vision is to be translated into specific targets for a 10 year period
• Solution-oriented and effective policies; clear action priorities
• Deep and strong links to economic and sectoral policies
• Funding instruments that make all policies coherence with 7EAP
• Prevention, precaution, polluter pays and substitution
• Promoting environmentally sustainable development globally
We cannot wait for the evaluation of the 6EAP, then we miss the reforms of CAP, CFP, Cohesion
Policy, Financial Perspectives, and perhaps FP8.
Presents specific demands of the EEB for the new 7EAP in the areas of climate change,
biodiversity, resource use, health protection and pleads for measures to make the market work for
the environment.
13
Roundtable discussion with:
-
Evelyne Huytebroeck, Brussels Minister of Environment, Energy, Water,
Jurisdiction and City Rejuvenation, for the Belgian Presidency
-
Kurt Vandenberghe, Chief of Cabinet of Environment Commissioner
-
Peter Vis, Chief of Cabinet of Climate Commissioner Hedegaard
-
Jo Leinen, Chair EP Environment Committee
-
Janusz Zaleski, Minister, Under-Secretary of State, Poland (Presidency 2nd half
2011)
-
Karen Ellemann, Minister for Environment, Denmark (Presidency 1st half 2012)
-
Mikael Karlsson, President of the EEB
-
Paul Ekins, Member of Green Budget Europe, Professor of Energy and
Environment Policy, UCL Energy Institute, University College London
-
Tony Long, Director WWF European Policy Office
Brussels’ Minister Evelyne Huytebroeck, (speech – French on eeb.org) for the Belgian
Presidency underlined the importance of a coherent and ambitious European framework for
environmental action at the national and local levels. The Presidency is of the same opinion as
EEB that the debate on the 7th EAP should start as soon as possible, and it therefore already
started studies and discussions in 2009, including on an evaluation of the 6th EAP. This will lead to
a major conference in Brussels end November and conclusions in the December Environmental
Council.
She welcomed the green elements in the EU 2020 Strategy and underlined the need to ensure
environmental dimensions in other policy areas, but a special environmental strategy remains
necessary, on the one hand in order to respond to some specific and priority environmental
concerns, and on the other hand to ensure coherence with other European strategies and sectoral
policies.
In her view, the 7EAP should not only focus on greening of business but also lead to a new
consumption model. We need a New Green Deal which should not only focus on resource
efficiency but on reduced resource use. Therefore also policy instruments must be evaluated,
market and financial instruments, monitoring and evaluation tools. She also pleaded for
involvement of regional and local authorities in the entire cycle of elaboration and implementation
of EU environmental policies.
Kurt Vandenberghe, head of the Cabinet of the Environment Commissioner welcomed the
interest in this debate. Said the Commission has not yet decided on the follow up of the 6EAP.
Emphasised that the context of today is very different from when earlier EAPs were adopted.
Focus of governments now is on growth and jobs and the changed global relations; an ambitious
EAP which does not take this into account may not lead to much result for the environment.
Challenge is to seek green growth and address the rapid emergence of China as largest economy
which is also greening its economy.
Important is to move from individual environmental risks to much more systemic ones, with
biodiversity, climate, chemical cocktail effects, resource use etc. He said that, contrary to 10 years
14
ago, EU now has a quite strong environmental acquis in place. Real challenge is now proper
implementation.
Furthermore integration in other policy areas is important and EU 2020 presents a good chance to
do so, as well as the coming reforms of agriculture, fisheries policies, financial perspectives. This
needs to be done now, not in two years. Politics is about timing and timing is now.
Finally, unlike ten years ago, we have many programme and initiatives, which is different from ten
years ago.
In conclusion, Vandenberghe said that while there are questions inside the Commission about the
need for a 7EAP, Commissioner Potocnik agrees with a need for strategic orientation on future
environmental policy which must be a democratic debate beyond Brussels and institutions here.
What is really important in that debate is what are our objectives are; what analysis; what we
should do about it, and what are the priorities for the future, which will allow us to choose the best
tools for the future.
Peter Vis, Head of the Cabinet of the Climate Commissioner added that in the climate field the
scene for the next decade has already been largely set, and that next year a 2050 roadmap will be
finalised which would look much further ahead in order to inform what we should be doing today.
He thought that that roadmap could stretch the ambitions much further than a 7EAP would. And for
mainstreaming climate into other portfolios the 7EAP is not necessary, because other portfolios
than Climate Action & Environment would need to have their action plans to make mainstreaming
happen.
Vis also doubted whether the 6EAP has been as influential as some think. Climate policies had
their own dynamics, see for example the emission trading scheme.
Finally, he referred to (staff) resource constraints in the Commission to take into account.
Jo Leinen, Chair Environment Committee of European Parliament welcomed the discussion
but expressed disappointment with the comments from the two Commission representatives. Felt
there is not time to lose, and hopes the Environment Council in December will call for the
Commission to hurry up.
7EAP should describe the transition to a low carbon economy and low resource society. We have
to look beyond the legislation and even beyond the decades. So we are often looking at too small
timeframes. And a 7EAP should really reflect EU’s role in the world.
He insisted on the need for an open and democratic debate at every level.
He admitted that in the European Parliament there is pressure to water down policies now, which
he disagrees with. The crisis should be seen as an opportunity to move to sustainable
consumption patterns.
Vice-Minister for Environment of Poland Janusz Zaleski agreed with presentation by EEB and
welcomed the Belgian initiatives. Said a 7EAP is needed for ambition, coherence and policy
integration. It is also important to avoid mistakes made by 6EAP such as absence of timetable and
targets.
Resource efficiency will be the leading subject in 2011. The Polish presidency will support this
debate, link it to future forms of economic growth, innovation and also the CAP. The CAP needs to
reflect new challenges relating to climate, energy, water, and biodiversity. Even of a transboundary and global character. Also the cohesion policy should be closely linked to the
development of low carbon economy.
15
Sustainable development needs to be defined as the main strategy approaching 2020. We also
need good financial instruments for nature protection, including Natura 2000.
Danish Minister Karen Ellemann expressed real appreciation for EEB’s initiative and shared its
analysis of the situation. She underlined that while addressing the climate and resource use
challenges the EU should use its competitive advantages in eco-innovation.
EAPs have been bringing coherence in our policy making in the past. It gave environment
commissioners a clear mandate. The 6EAP has been successful in promoting strategy and
establishing important legislation.
However we are in a different environmental and economic context today and a 7EAP should
reflect this. EU legislation is in place in most environmental areas, and targets and objectives are
lined up for 2020. The EU is now in need of a fundamental change of political paradigm which
touches on the basic way of living and consuming in modern society. The future challenge is to
focus on resource efficiency and sustainable materials management. A new EAP could be the link
to a new political and economic paradigm and secure the competitiveness of our industries and
ensure this in the long run.
Professor Paul Ekins (Green Budget Europe) said that all EAPs failed in environmental and
economic objectives. The next one will fail unless we have a values revolution which won’t happen
as long as we prioritise growth. Resource efficiency might be a key to this revolution. It is difficult to
conceptualise and he hopes we will soon move beyond the ecological footprint because that is
scientifically completely inadequate. The four indicators developed by SERI and Friends of the
Earth mentioned in the Conference are however feasible and practical.
Once we have those indicators there is a need for policy implementation. We know we need
prices, public procurement, mobilisation and regulation. We need to change the direction of
innovation. Our failure to build any kind of environmental sustainability in to innovation brings us
faster to the abyss. Capitalism doesn’t like braking, so we must look at changing its direction.
A fundamental policy for changing the direction of innovation is green fiscal reform, as EEB and
Green Budget Europe promote: a taxation base shift from labour to environmental use. For really
changing the direction, the shift has to be considerable. You need quite high taxes on a wide range
of resource and energy use.
For the UK, for instance, the Green Fiscal Commission, which contained senior members of all the
major political parties, modelled a shift in environmental taxes which, for example, would double
the price of petrol in 2020 as compared to 2010. While this seems a lot, it is actually about a 10%
price increase per year, which is less than the volatility often seems in oil prices. In terms of tax
reductions, income taxes could then be reduced by 10%, and employment and social security
contributions by 30%.
Such a shift would allow us to reach, for instance, the UK’s 34% greenhouse gas reduction
ambition by 2020. It would entail a very small decrease in economic growth. So green growth might
be a little bit slower than brown growth, but this seems a small price to pay for a habitable planet
for the future. On the other hand, there would be a net gain of 450.000 more employed people (or
20% of current unemployment). In the UK we have won the argument on this policy, but not yet the
politics.
Tony Long, Director of WWF European Policy Office was asked to focus particularly on the
international level. He was undecided that, given limited resources with NGOs, focussing on 7EAP
was the best choice.
In his view, the 6EAP was very modern in its international dimension, not much wrong with it. On
the other hand, the Sustainable Development Strategy, agreed in 2001, was hardly looking beyond
the EU. In reality, other agreements had more influence, such as the Millenium Goals and the
OECD’s Paris Declaration on policy coherence for development (2005).
16
Saving the planet requires policy coherence on a territorial basis. We need to bring in spatial
planning, at the global and EU level. And we need to start paying for eco services, paying for areas
we want to save, with fast track funding. We have to find some 30 billion for climate, 50 billion for
biodiversity. For that we need new sources of financing, such as auctioned carbon emission rights
and transaction taxes.
We need to solve market failures. In the OECD an interesting debate is going on regarding green
growth. We also need to look carefully at the problem of the rebound effect.
Important is also that we should not keep talking to ourselves but demonstrate how we can work
across different agendas. This includes the spending of the future EU funds.
Discussion amongst the panellists on basis of questions from chairperson (John Hontelez):
Ellemann agreed that the situation is different from 10 years ago, that 7EAP cannot be copy-paste
from 6EAP. She urged the Commission to start the drafting process, as we need such an umbrella
and strong mandate, which includes ensuring the decoupling of growth and environmental impacts.
And while as a Liberal she was not fond of taxes, she agreed that environmental tax reform is
necessary to trigger resource efficiency.
Zaleski agreed that environmental tax reform was an inevitable tool in changing consumption and
production patterns. But warned that societies might not be ready to accept it. Also warned for the
use of the term sustainable growth too easily.
Leinen agreed with the urgency to include spatial planning in the debate, and not only for land. He
referred to the dramatic situation with fish-stocks. He agreed with Tony Long about the sums of
money necessary for eco-services, which will not come from the public budgets. A tax on financial
transactions, which also Sarkozy and Merkel favour, could be something to fight for. But also EU
Bonds for green purposes could be a good idea.
He insisted that the EU needs leadership and an umbrella strategy, pulling policy areas together in
an operational way with targets and dates. Leadership should come from Potocnik, not from
Barroso.
Vandenberghe answered that both Commissioners Potocnik and Hedegaard take their
responsibility, seek to show leadership every day. The real debates are taking place now, example
CAP reform, if we want to green it, we have to act now.
Was not convinced that a 7EAP would deliver the Commissioners an additional mandate in the
current context of growth and jobs focus, and a long decision making process could even backfire.
But he left options open: times might change. Repeated that we have to get out of our inner circles.
We need to draw lessons from the 6EAP review what progress we have made in real integration
and what not.
Vis supported this view.
Karlsson answered it is not enough to follow the windows of opportunity. Sometimes you need to
open these windows or even hit through walls of concrete. Science is clearer than ever about the
challenge, as business and citizens are more prepared than before. So he found it difficult to
accept the view that an ambitious agenda nowadays is difficult and that we have to wait for an
opportunity.
Karlsson also disagreed with the idea of that the environmental acquis is more or less ready.
Implementation is a serious problem indeed (see REACH) but for example for air pollution we need
stricter standards.
17
He accepted the critique on the limitations of the concept of ecological footprint. But it is a strong
communication tool: we have only one planet: that is an ultimate measurement.
Ekins was concerned about the defensive attitude of the Commission representatives. He called
for a different approach and referred back to the morning presentation of Per Sandberg: he spoke
about a green race, one that should be embedded in the political agenda. That if we do not see it
as a race, whereby sustainability is a requirement to be competitive, others might catch up fast.
This should be the message to those departments in Commission that are now ruining the
environment. And DG Environment and Climate, with a plan, a programme, should offer their help
to make the changes necessary to be able to take part in that race, with the overarching theme of
resource efficiency.
Long: I learnt from the contribution of Kurt Vandenberghe that an integrated economic and
environmental plan could work. We should take that with us as a suggestion. A final remark I want
to make about the ecological footprint and what it learns us. It is not an ideal tool, I know, but it
does clarify in quite clear terms that our consumption patterns are unsustainable. We are living as
if we have 2,5 planets available, which in practice means that we consume at the expense of other
parts of the world and of future generations. From there we need to move on: integrate this
awareness both in EU’s external policies as well in our central economic thinking.
Hontelez in conclusion:
Worrying to hear that the Commission representatives think we have to accept the dominance of
the jobs and growth agenda. Jo Leinen answered that that agenda is exactly the reason now to
have and Environmental Action Plan. And Per Sandberg spoke about the need for imagination. So
an environmental programme, setting clearly the marks for where we need to go with economic
development, sounds logical. Whereby we have to be clear about the difference between a
Strategy and a Programme. A Strategy is a Commission alone product, a Programme negotiated
between the three decision making institutions, with more public debate.
We have also been talking a lot about technological development and its limits. And consumption
patterns at personal level and economic issues (pricing, availability, alternatives). An EAP needs to
address all that; it needs to address economic features.
A very important debate was about where to put our energies: focus on an EAP while so many
other things are going on now, or going to be decided soon. We have to think about this, and
indeed relentlessly try to influence the coming agriculture, fisheries, and regional policies. But are
we so optimistic that we think afterwards an environmental programme as pressure tool will not be
necessary anymore? I am afraid we might need one.
18
Participants list
SURNAME
NAME
INSTITUTION/ORGANISATION/COMPANY
COUNTRY
ADAMSKA
Bozena
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Poland
ADOLF
Constanze
EUFED - European Union Federation of Youth Hostels Associations
Belgium
AFFRE
Alexandre
Belgium
AGREN
Christer
Business Europe - the Confederation of European Business
Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat - Luftförorenings- och
klimatsekretariatet
Sweden
AKERS-DOUGLAS
Adrian
TERRA CYPRIA FOUNDATION
Cyprus
ALBRIZIO
Mauro
LEGAMBIENTE (Italy)
AMELINCKX
Simon
ANANIAS
Victor
Bugday Association for Supporting Ecological Living
Turkey
ARAPIS
Gerassimos
ELLINIKI ETAIRIA
Greece
ARDITI
Stéphane
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
BAGAGE
Claire
BAKKES
J.A.
BALL-LLOSERA
Marta
EDC
Spain
BANOS
Eva
Belgium
BENDIK
Gabor
EUROCITIES
CAAG - Clean Air Action Group Levegö Munkacsoport
BINDER
Jürgen
BROEKMAN
CARDOSO
FERREIRA
Anne
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCION
Spain
Francisco
QUERCUS - Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza
Portugal
CINGAL
Georges
SEPANSO-FNE
France
CLIQUOT
Nathalie
EUROPEAN COMMISSION- EACI
FEAD - FNADE - Féd. europ. des activités du déchet et de
l'environnement
Belgium
Ireland
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency - RIVM
Netherlands
Hungary
Germany
COLLOT
Florence
CORCORAN
Frank
DAVELAAR
Henriette
DAVID
Hubert
DE GREEF
Nadine
AN TAISCE
MINISTRY OF HOUSING, SPATIAL PLANNING & THE
ENVIRONMENT (VROM)
EEAC- European Environmental and Sustainable Development
Advisory Councils
FEAD - FNADE - Féd. europ. des activités du déchet et de
l'environnement
Belgium
DE LA PAZ
Carlos
JUNTA DE ANDALUCIA
Belgium
DE POUS
DE
SCHAMPHELAERE
Pieter
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
Sarah
Verbist Advocaten
Belgium
DEBONO
Christian
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
DEFOSSEZ
Faustine
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
DELACOURTIE
Alexandra
SYPRED
France
DESHAYEZ LOPEZ
Juan Carlos
Belgium
DEWULF
Barbara
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
IBGE - INSTITUT BRUXELLOIS POUR LA GESTION DE
L'ENVIRONNEMENT
DIATKA
Roman
Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the EU
Belgium
DIDIER
Anne-éline
PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF FRANCE TO THE EU
Belgium
DODINVAL
Paul
DOUMA
Wybe
TMC Asser Institut
Netherlands
Netherlands
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
DUARTE
Maria Joao
EPPSA
Belgium
EKINS
Paul
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
United Kingdom
19
EKSTEN
Rickard
Scotland House
Belgium
ELLEMANN
Karen
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
Denmark
ERKAN
Ayse Yesim
TEMA FOUNDATION
Turkey
FAZEKAS
Sandor
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND WATER
Hungary
FERGNANI
FERREIRA
MARQUES
Flavio
EEA
Denmark
Jeanine
Ministère de l'Environnement
Belgium
FERRIGNO
Roberto
LUMINA SPRL
Belgium
GARCIA
Vicente
OFICINA DE EXTREMADURA EN BRUSELAS
Belgium
GAUDART
Delphine
Ministry of Ecology
France
GIELIS
Bart
THE WORLD BANK
USA
HAJDU
Zoltan
FOCUS ECO CENTER
Romania
HALLO
Ralph
HAMMER
Lukas
HANNEQUART
Netherlands
Belgium
Jean-pierre
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
IBGE - INSTITUT BRUXELLOIS POUR LA GESTION DE
L'ENVIRONNEMENT
HAUNOLD
Veronika
EU-UMWELTBÜRO
Austria
HEDLUND
Tom
Sweden
HERRMAN
Hanne
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
NFMS - Norsk forening mot stoy Norwegian Association Against Noise
HONTELEZ
John
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
HUMEZ
Nicolas
SYPRED
France
HUYTEBROECK
Evelyne
Cabinet du Ministre de l'Env. - Bruxelles Capitale
Belgium
INURRIETA
Estibaliz
Delegation of the Basque Country
Belgium
JANSSEN
Rod
Helio International
France
JUNGER
Corentin
BDE - Bundesverband Der Deutschen Entsorgungswirtschaft E.V.
Belgium
KARLSSON
Mikael
Sweden
KASSENBERG
Andrzej
Naturskyddsföreningen- Swedish Society for Nature Conservation
ISD - Institute for Sustainable Development Instytut Na Rzecz Ekorozwoju
KAVVATHA
Eleni
ECOCITY
Greece
KLINGER-DERING
Verena
Permanent Representation
Germany
KONRAD
Clemens
Austria
LA COUR
LAHAYE
Jens
MarieHélène
ÖKOBÜRO - Coordination Bureau of Austrian Environmental NGOs
DN - Danmarks Naturfredningsforening - Danish Society for Nature
Conservation
Cabinet du Ministre de l'Env. - Bruxelles Capitale
Belgium
LAXTON
Hugh
JNCC
United Kingdom
LEINEN
Jo
EP - European Parliament
Belgium
LINDE KJELDSEN
Julie
ETN - European Turbine Network
Belgium
LITTLECOTT
Chris
GREEN ALLIANCE
United Kingdom
LONG
Tony
WWF - EUROPEAN POLICY OFFICE
Belgium
LORELEI
Limousin
Belgium
LOTTES
Ralf
BELLONA EUROPA
ECOS - European Environmental Citizens' Organisation for
Standardisation
Belgium
LYMBERIDI-SETTIMO
Elena M.
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
MANDEL
Kätlin
Ministry of the Environment
Estonia
MARGARIDO
MARTIN-SOSA
RODRIGUEZ
Rita
GEOTA
Portugal
Samuel
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCION
Spain
MAYR
Claus
NABU - Naturschutzbund Deutschland
Belgium
McGLADE
Jacqueline
EEA - European Environmental Agency
Denmark
MESIK
Juraj
STUZ/SR - Society for Sustainable Living - Slovak Republic
Slovakia
MENSEN
Antje
DNR - Deutscher Naturschutzring
Germany
MILLER
Jacqueline
IEB - Inter Environnement Bruxelles
Belgium
Belgium
Norway
Poland
Denmark
20
MOISI
Petruta
CCEG - Centrul de Consultanta Ecologica Galati
Romania
NAZER
Simon
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
NEWMAN
Keith
CABINET DN
Belgium
NISSINEN
Jouni
Finland
NORDMAN
Bernt
Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
NATUR OCH MILJO - The Finnish Society for Nature and
Environment
OEHLMANN
Claas
BDE - Bundesverband Der Deutschen Entsorgungswirtschaft E.V.
Belgium
ORHAN
Seda
Bugday Association for Supporting Ecological Living
Turkey
OROUNTIOTIS
Costas
TERRA CYPRIA FOUNDATION
Cyprus
PARRAG
Bernadett
ETN - European Turbine Network
Belgium
PASCOE
Daniel
EFAEP - Europ. Fed. of Associations of Environm. Professionals
Belgium
PEARCE
Catherine
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
PEREDUR
John
Belgium
PERNECZKY
Laszlo
WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT
HUMUSZ - Hulladék Munkaszövetség Waste Reduction Alliance
PETRLIK
Jindrich
Czech Republic
PHOKAS
Theodoros
ARNIKA ASSOCIATION
FEEO - Federation of Environmental & Ecological Organisations of
Cyprus
PIEDERRIERE
Morgane
FNE - France Nature Environment
France
PLUIMERS
Jacomijn
SNM - Stichting Natuur en Milieu
Netherlands
PUCCIO
Luisa
ADS INSIGHT
Belgium
Finland
Hungary
Cyprus
QUINTAS
Elisabete
Ministry for Environment and Regional Development
Portugal
RIHOVA
Gabriela
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Czech Republic
RIVIERE
Josiane
EEA - European Environmental Agency
Denmark
ROLING
Sandra
NFI - Naturfreunde Internationale
Belgium
SANDBERG
Per
WBCSD
Switzerland
SCHAIBLE
Christian
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
SCHEUER
Stefan
STEFAN SCHEUER SPRL
Belgium
SCHILLING
Johannes
Belgium
SCHLEGELMILCH
Kai
EEA - European Environment Agency
Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V. (FÖS) Green Budget Germany
SCHNEIDER
Regina
EEB- European Environmental Bureau
Belgium
SEGLAR
Aiana
EDC
Spain
SHERIDAN
Kathryn
Belgium
SIVITOS
Stamatis
Sustainability Consult
ECOS - European Environmental Citizens' Organisation for
Standardisation
SKALIK
Jan
Czech Republic
SLABE
Anamarija
SMEETS
Nienke
Green Circle - Zeleny kruh
ITR - INSTITUT ZA TRAJNOSTNI RAZVOJ - Institute for Sustainable
Development
PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF THE NETHERLANDS TO THE
EU
SONDERGAARD
Ida
EPA - Danish Environmental Protection Agency - Miljostyrelsen
Denmark
STAUFFER
Anne
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ALLIANCE - HEAL
Belgium
Germany
Belgium
Slovenia
Belgium
STEFFENS
Rainer
PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF GERMANY TO THE EU
Belgium
STOCZKIEWICZ
Magda
FoEE Friends of the Earth Europe
Belgium
STRAZDINS
Girts
Latvia
STUBENRAUCH
Margareta
LDF - Latvian Fund for Nature, Latvijas Dabas Fonds
Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt,
Wasserwirtschaft
TELGMAA
Juhan
ESNC - Estonian Society for Nature Conservation
Estonia
THELLE
Ellen Hvidt
PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF DENMARK TO THE EU
Belgium
TRIPOLSZKY
Sarolta
CEEWEB FOR BIODIVERSITY
Hungary
Austria
TROUILLET
Séverine
CAMBRE ASSOCIATES
Belgium
ULJEVIC
Srdan
SUNCE - Assoc. for Nature, Environment and Sust. Development
Croatia
VAN BETS
Linde
SAR - Seas at Risk
Belgium
21
VAN EECKHOUT
Denis
PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF BELGIUM TO THE EU
Belgium
VAN RENSEN
Sonja
Ends Europe
Belgium
VANDENBERGHE
Kurt
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Belgium
VARELA
Marta
DOW
Belgium
VETTORI
Andrea
EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG Environment
Belgium
VIS
Peter
EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Cabinet of Ms. Connie Hedegaard
Belgium
VON HOMEYER
VON
KNOBELSDORFF
Ingmar
Ecologic Institute for International and European Environmental Policy
Germany
Mechthild
CAN-EUROPE
Belgium
VOSSEN
Bjela
DNR - Deutscher Naturschutzring
Germany
WARHURST
Michael
FoE England, Wales & Northern Ireland - Friends of the Earth
United Kingdom
WAX
Ruth
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Belgium
WERNER
Julia
Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation & Nuclear Safety
Germany
WINZER
Matthias
UMWELTBUNDESAMT- Federal Environmental Agency
Germany
WITHANA
Sirini
IEEP - Institute for European Environmental Policy
United Kingdom
YIORDAMLI
Artemis
TERRA CYPRIA FOUNDATION
Cyprus
ZALESKI
Janusz
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Poland
22
Editor responsible
John Hontelez, Secretary General EEB
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
Federation of Environmental Citizens Organisations
Boulevard de Waterloo 34 | B-1000 Brussels | Belgium
Tel.: +32 2 289 1090 | Fax: +32 2 289 1099
E-mail
[email protected]
Websites
www.eeb.org
www.springalliance.eu
www.newngoforum.org
www.participate.org
www.zeromercury.org
AN INTERNATIONAL NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE SANS BUT LUCRATIF
The EEB gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the European Commission,
Ministry for Environment Brussels, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and Water Management and the French Ministry of Ecology,
Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL BUREAU (EEB)
Boulevard de Waterloo 34 | B-1000 Brussels | Belgium
Tel +32 2 289 1090 Fax +32 2 289 1099
E-mail [email protected]
www.eeb.org
www.springalliance.eu, www.green10.org,
www.zeromercury.org, www.newngoforum.org, www.participate.org