|
Informing NGOs, MEPs, |
|
The deadline for changes to
the European Commission’s renewable energy proposal, which includes agrofuel
targets, is approaching fast and many groups are working to make changes. The
Slovenian presidency has tasked an ad-hoc group to update the European Commission’s
proposal on sustainability criteria, and European Parliament Committees are
busily preparing amendments. Meanwhile, calls to drop the ten per cent
agrofuels target proposed in the European Commission’s Renewable Energy
package keep growing. (See FW 124) Echoing concerns heard but never seemingly
heeded by the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee has
urged “extreme caution when considering the role and use of biofuels.” Also,
at the 17 April 2008 Public Hearing on Sustainability Criteria for Biofuels,
it was stated that “[s]etting a mandatory 10 per cent target clearly risks
being counter-productive and leading to unsustainable biofuel production.”1
There are worries too in the European Parliament, where 105 MEPs supported a
proposal tabled by the Greens for a moratorium on agrofuels from foodcrops.2
Although the Commission remains adamant
that dropping the target is not an option, some Commissioners clearly don’t
share DG Transport and Energy’s passion for the ill-conceived target.
Environment Commissioner Dimas reiterated in press statements that the EU’s
sustainability criteria “must address both environmental and social concerns
in order to be able to help us protect the environment and respect social
justice”3 – yet social criteria are wholly absent from the
Commission proposal. The Belga news agency also reported Development
Commissioner Louis Michel’s caution against agrofuels in his address to the
Belgian Senate, “I have long said that the fashion for biofuels could be a catastrophe
especially in countries which are not self-sufficient in food.” On top of
this, a Food and Agriculture Organisation report recently stated that the
rapid increases in large-scale production of agrofuels is likely to
exacerbate the marginalisation of women in rural areas and threaten their
livelihoods. This is because the plantations needed to help achieve EU
targets “require an intensive use of resources and inputs to which small
farmers, particularly women, traditionally have limited access.”4 With all of this evidence still coming in,
the Council and Parliament must make sure that they don’t rush through the
Commission proposed targets which will end up doing more harm than good. 1. http://www.eesc.europa.eu/activities/press/cp/index_en.asp 2. http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/230/230140.food_pricesagrofuels@en.htm 3. http://www.ictsd.org/biores/08-04-18/story2.htm 4. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000830/index.html |
|
Is Bulgaria swapping Natura 2000 for ski resorts? Protecting Bulgarian forests and the
proposed Natura 2000 sites against the development of ski resorts and mafia
investment is becoming increasingly difficult. This was one of the major
issues outlined at this year’s Forest Movement Europe Meeting, 18-20 April
2008, hosted by Birdlife Bulgaria (BSPB) in the foothills of the Rila
mountains. Over 40 participants attended, discussing
issues such as paper consumption, carbon trading, bio energy, forest
certification and illegal logging as well as that the very surroundings they
were having the meeting in were under threat. The Bulgarian government took its final
decision about the Natura 2000 sites on 4 December 2007, but Bulgarian NGOs
contested it because buffer zones which are important to defend national
parks were omitted. Since then, attempts to protect these important areas
before resorts are built have been in vain. BSPB’s Veronika Ferdinandova
stated, “Those responsible for environmental protection in Bulgaria are not
able or willing to stop destructive investments in the country. Corruption
has spread to all management levels and we have no other hope but to appeal
to the European Institutions for help.” A 145,000 signature strong petition
will be handed to the European Commission on the 8 May 2008 calling for the
Bulgarian state to immediately order the halt of all illegal building works
in Rila National Park and Rila Buffer. |
|
Eliasch review continues Johan Eliasch, the UK Government adviser
on forestry and climate change, will take his deforestation review to the
next stage with a roundtable meeting in London on May 8 2008. His findings
and recommendations will be published in a report in summer 2008. Those who
have already made submissions1 into the review, including the
Forest Peoples Programme, Rainforest Foundation UK, Global Witness and FERN
have been asked to attend. Whilst each organisation comes from a different
angle, their answers to the questionnaire all spoke of the need to put local
peoples’ rights at the centre of the debate and expressed concerns about
trying to use carbon trading as a financial mechanism to address
deforestation. Eliasch review submissions should certainly make it onto
Commission officials and MEPs’ reading list as they prepare to present a Communication on this issue in
the second half of 2008. 1. http://www.fern.org/media/documents/document_4131_4132.pdf |
|
‘CO2 Alibi’ shows the truth behind offsetting In March this year, the Dutch Television
Programme Zembla exposed
how the Dutch company FACE Foundation is exacerbating local land use
conflicts in Uganda with their tree planting offset project.1 The
failures have previously been well documented in a number of print and radio
programmes but this was the first time FACE has has been so directly
criticised its home country. The argument is put across by a man from
one of the affected communities,“If industries have turned into a problem for
the people of Holland [don’t come] and punish people here; [don’t] plant
trees here to compensate for pollution elsewhere. That is colonialism.” In 2007 the Ugandan courts granted
villagers permission to cut down half a million of FACE’s ‘carbon’ trees to
enable them to return to planting food crops on their land. The FACE
Foundation states that they had planted sufficient trees to cover this and
that offsets paid for would still be covered. Even beyond such huge problems,
the documentary highlights why carbon offsets are a dangerous distraction to
addressing climate change. With five new coal fired power plants being
planned, the Dutch energy companies that created FACE, have clearly chosen
‘smokescreens’ rather than measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As
the programme states, “If we want to compensate for our energy use we’ll have
to plant trees in an area three times the size of Holland each year.” The
programme will be available in English and Portuguese soon at http://zembla.vara.nl. 1.http://zembla.vara.nl/Voorpagina.1975.0.html?&tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=5059&tx_ttnews%5bbackPid%5d=1974&cHash=f1abee2835 |
|
Unease increases about the impact of EU agrofuel targets There is a growing sense of unease among Member States as an increasing number of reports raise concerns about the negative consequences of proposed agrofuels targets. February 2008 saw the UK government announce a review of, among others, the environmental impacts of agrofuels, stating that “We are not prepared to go beyond current UK target levels for biofuels until we are satisfied it can be done sustainably.” Then in the first days of March, the EU’s Environment Council reconfirmed that it saw the 10 per cent target proposed by the Commission as binding only if production was sustainable and effective sustainability criteria were fulfilled.1 The Dutch environmental assessment agency MNP’s new study also found that the 10 per cent target “should be reconsidered”, stating that “the climate has more to be gained” from converting biomass resources into electricity.2 NGOs continue to call for the target to be dropped and are looking to the ad-hoc group established by the Slovenian Presidency to address the glaring holes in the Commission proposal (see FW 124). The group met for the first time on 29 February and is expected to present its suggestions for amending the Commission proposal by early April. FERN understands that many more Member States believe several issues omitted by the Commission, such as impact of agrofuel production on water, social criteria and impacts of indirect land use change must be considered. Several experts at a European Parliament hearing on sustainability criteria for agrofuels on 4 March also questioned the “arbitrary volume-based target” proposed by the Commission. 1. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/99178.pdf |
|
NEWS IN BRIEF World Bank: Climate Profiteer, a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, shows how
the World Bank’s growing engagement in carbon markets is dangerously
counter-productive. The Bank’s US$2 billion, and growing, carbon finance
portfolio is forging a path toward a dirty energy future. The report
recommends that the Bank gets out of the carbon market, stops fossil fuel
financing, and begins to calculate its own significant impact on the global
climate. The report is available at http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#292 A proposal for additional legislation to prevent the
marketing of illegally harvested timber and timber products in the EU is expected to be discussed in the European Commission’s
Inter Service Consultation group in mid May. If deadlines are met, this will
lead to an EC Communication outlining the options for further legislation,
possibly accompanied by a legislative proposal in June. The proposal will
build upon the results of the stakeholder consultation on the issue run
between December 2006 and March 2007. It will also draw information from the
2007 impact assessment study of the likely effect of different legislative options. Official FLEGT VPA negotiations will hopefully be launched in Congo
Brazzaville and Liberia in the first week of June
2006, although confirmation is still pending for both countries. Discussions
are already ongoing in Cameroon, Ghana, Indonesia and Malaysia, with Central
African Republic and Gabon expected to follow. Other countries in the
pipeline include Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador and Vietnam. |
|
|
