QUARTERLYMAGAZINEOFTHEREGIONALENVIRONMENTALCENTERFORCENTRA...

QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE VOLUME 4 NUMBER 2 | JUNE-AUGUST 2007 | EUR 5.00

It’s not easy being greenEC President Jose Manuel Barrosobrings a stirring message to GreenWeek participants in Brussels

see page 5

Things are picking upPoland’s inefficient wasterecovery and recycling marketundergoes a consolidation phase

see page 12

Where is thy sting?The death of North American beepopulations is baffling scientists andenvironmentalists alike

see page 10� ��

Europe for Environment

HITTING the MARK?

Europe for Environment

HITTING the MARK?

No otherenvironmentalpublication in

Central and EasternEurope equals the

attention togovernmental issues

and concerns thatGreen Horizon has.

Its articles andstories are well-

written; theinformation it offers

timely anddependable. I findthe magazine veryuseful for my work.

Slavitza Dobreva,Head of the

European IntegrationDepartment,

Ministry of Environmentand Water of Bulgaria

‘

‘

Alert. Attuned. Ahead.The Green Horizon Reader.

Advertise or sponsor our print or on-line editionsby inquiring at <[email protected]>.Visit us at <gh.rec.org>.

Attuned. Ahead.The Green Horizon Reader.

CONTENTS

Green Horizon is the quarterly magazine ofthe Regional Environmental Center for Centraland Eastern Europe (REC), published from1990 to the spring of 2004 as The Bulletin.Green Horizon assists the REC in its mission topromote public participation in environmentaldecision making by providing information onthe environment and encouraging cooperationbetween regional stakeholders.Green Horizon reports on the cases andstories that shape the environment andsustainable development in Central andEastern Europe. The magazine is useful forprofessionals from businesses, internationalorganisations, national governments, localauthorities, non-governmental organisations,academic institutions and the media.The views and opinions expressed in GreenHorizon do not necessarily reflect the viewsand opinions of the Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern Europe.Green Horizon is not responsible for thecontents of paid announcements andadvertising published in the magazine.Green Horizon is available on the Web at<http://greenhorizon.rec.org>.

MAGAZINE TEAMEditor in Chief: Pavel AntonovEditor: Nathan JohnsonDesigner: Patricia BarnaProduction: Robert AdamProofreader: Michael LindsayAdministrative Officer: Zsuzsa TovolgyiWebmaster: Tamas BodaiIntern: Nyambura Njagi

EDITORIAL BOARDClimate and energy: Zsuzsa IvanyiEnvironmental law: Stephen StecEnvironmental policy: Oreola IvanovaEnvironment and security:Marta Szigeti BonifertEU member states: Beata WiszniewskaGreen financing: Joanna FiedlerInformation and research: Jerome SimpsonPublic participation: Magdolna Toth NagyREC PR: Zsolt BauerSouth-Eastern Europe: Radoje LausevicSustainable development: Janos ZlinszkyTurkey: Sibel Sezer

CONTRIBUTORSYunus Arikan � Wojciech KoscDavid Landry � Istvan PomaziEva Pawlowski � Ludovic RousseauJerome Simpson � Daniel SwartzPeter Szuppinger

ARTBOT Group � For the Nature Coalitionistockphoto.com � ReutersSergiu Dragos SerbanSlovalco a.s. � sxc.hu

PRODUCTIONPrinting: Smartpress, HungaryPre-press: SmartpressGreen Horizon is printed on Cyclus Printrecycled paper.

SPONSORS AND PARTNERSSupport for this issue comes from orthrough the following: CEHAPE projectimplementation, funded by the ITF; theEnvironmental Benchmarking Project; theREEEP Secretariat for Central and EasternEurope and Turkey; the Secretariat of theRegional Environmental ReconstructionProgramme for South Eastern Europe(REReP); SECTOR, funded by Sida;the Italian Trust Fund; and the Workshopon Environmental Mediation.

Volume 4 Number 2 | JUNE-AUGUST 2007ISSN 1786-0423

F O R U M

5 Facing today’s ‘greatest challenge’Green Horizon presents an abridged text of European CommissionPresident Jose Manuel Barroso’s opening speech at Green Week.

I N S I G H T

10 Sticky situationScientists and environmentalists remain baffled as to why beepopulations are vanishing in North America. Should European beekeepersbe worried about Colony Collapse Disorder?

12 Poland consolidating its waste collection industryIncreased competition typically leads to competitive prices and a greatervariety of services, but things have worked out quite differently in thisparticular sector of the Polish economy.

C O V E R S T O R Y

16 Europe for EnvironmentFor all the apparent willingness to commit to sustainable development,there aren’t enough tangible results, according to Hungary’s seniorenvironmental advisor.

18 Flying the Natura flagA new generation of activists puts up barricades to defend wilderness inBulgaria and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe.

20 Seeking the best policyCentral and Eastern Europe’s leaders might be reading the Stern Reviewupside down.

R E C B U L L E T I N

23 REC supports Turkey’s climate change challengesREC Turkey’s success at the national level proves inspiring for other RECcountry offices.

ON THE COVEREuropean hit or miss?In recent years, climate changeand sustainable developmenthave emerged as especially hottopics on the European politicalstage. This is an encouragingdevelopment, but there appearto be as many approaches tosolving problems as there areproblems to solve. Howsuccessful have CEE leadersbeen in steering theirenvironmental policies?

COVER ILLUSTRATION

iStock and Patricia Barna

DEPARTMENTS

Forum 4

CEE news 6

REC Bulletin 22

Legal Matters 28

InformationTechnology 29

Green Literature 30

18

16

CONTACTSEditorial:

[email protected]:

[email protected]:

[email protected]

The Regional Environmental Centerfor Central and Eastern EuropeAdy Endre ut 9-112000 Szentendre, HungaryTel: (36-26) 504-000Fax: (36-26) 311-294Web: www.rec.org

��

�

REC

ARCH

IVE

FOR THE NATURE COALITION, BULGARIA

3 | JUNE-AUGUST 2007 | green HORIZON

How might one best convey theimage of 13,500 children? How about 30average-size primary schools full of kids?Or 10 big movie theatres – I mean the oldtype, before shopping malls and multi-plexes – full of school-age children mak-ing noise and popping bubble gum? Or,maybe easier, enough kids to fill 200buses – roughly the entire public trans-port fleet of a mid-sized city?

Numbers are, of course, crucial forgaining clear understanding, but often failin communicating a truly effective pic-ture. And after hearing the latest figuresannounced in June by the World HealthOrganization (WHO), I believe that it’sessential that people see the real picture.Below are a couple of figures that shouldleave a strong impression.

In 2001, 13,500 children aged 14 oryounger died because of poor water con-ditions, with most deaths occurring inCentral and Eastern Europe and CentralAsia (according to the WHO’s ‘Children’sHealth and the Environment in Europe: ABaseline Assessment’); and nearly 5,000deaths per day in Europe could be pre-vented through environmental action(according to the organisation’s ‘CountryProfiles of Environmental Burden ofDisease’ report).

While it’s less difficult to picture 5,000people, the major point made by bothWHO reports is that environmental actioncan actually rescue many lives. For this totake place, health needs to become a keyfactor in policy development and decision-making, said Roberto Bertollini, who headsthe WHO’s Health and Environment pro-gramme in Europe.

Unfortunately, different priorities andlimited imaginations often manifest them-selves in a reluctance to carry out im-mediate policy changes; and while inter-national institutions and the EU might becapable of bringing some authorities backon track, the real power for holding gov-ernments accountable and committed tohealth and the environment lies in thehands of citizens.

Paradoxically, the countries with thegravest problems are those which con-tribute the least to the monitoring process,and therefore appear least sensitive to theissues, Bertollini observed.

According to WHO reports, problemsare definitely worst in the Eastern part ofthe continent. In order to make its find-ings clearer, the organisation presenteddetailed data for each of its 53 membercountries in Europe. The data profiles therange of years of life lost in each country,and there is a four-fold variance acrossthe WHO European region. High risk lev-els are reported for some countries ofEastern Europe, due to traditional risk fac-

tors (e.g. lack of clean water) and modernones (air pollution and chemicals).

The EU’s solid record of policy com-mitment to the environment has beencalled “one of our greatest success stories”by European Commission President JoseManuel Barosso. But even in the moredeveloped West, citizens trust govern-ment less to properly care for the envi-ronment: a recent Eurobarometer surveyshows that 72% of respondents favourmore European-level decision making onthe environment.

“The message is clear: when it comesto protecting Europe’s environment,Europeans want ‘more Europe,’” Barrososaid. But let’s not suggest that he is over-ly optimistic. In spite of the EC head’snod to “substantial progress to improvehuman health, as well as the environ-ment,” he admits that the EU still facesmajor challenges, starting with climatechange, biodiversity loss and “our unsus-tainable way of life.”

Outside the EU, the picture is not onlygrimmer but beyond EU influence; and asa UN body, the WHO is not supposed topoint fingers at any individual country.

“It is a moral obligation of govern-ments to develop tools and legislation, toaddress the issues and enforce measures,”said Nata Menabde, deputy director of the

WHO’s European office. A Georgiannational, she acknowledged in a Viennatalk that more needs to be done in theregion, but that the organisation lacks suf-ficient resources to take effective action.

One opportunity to involve countriesoutside the EU more actively in environ-ment protection policy efforts is the forth-coming Environment for Europe ministeri-al conference in Belgrade. In October,ministers of environment from the pan-European region of the UN EconomicCommission for Europe will get together tostreamline environmental policy making.

It must be said, however, that nointernational conference, process or enti-ty – not even the EU – can force govern-ments into honouring moral obligationsto health and nature protection. It’s up toeach country’s own citizens to hold theirown government responsible anddemand action. Effective protection ofenvironment and health is a clear litmustest for democracy and good governancein every country.

editorial

FORUM

green HORIZON | JUNE-AUGUST 2007 | 4

SEEKING SHELTER: When the Sava River flooded in 2006, residents of this poor Roma community in Belgrade,Serbia were among those most adversely affected.

Environment: lifeand death matters

Pavel P. Antonov

REU

TERS

As we take stock of Europe’sachievements in this 50thanniversary year of the Treaty ofRome, there can be no doubt thatenvironmental protection is one

of our greatest success stories.In short, we are delivering a Europe of

results, in a policy area that the peoples ofEurope care deeply about. In fact, nofewer than 72% of respondents in a recentEurobarometer survey favoured moredecisionmaking on the environment at theEuropean level. The message is clear:when it comes to protecting Europe’s envi-ronment, Europeans want ‘more Europe.’

As Europe has grown, and growntogether, we have learned an importantlesson: that protecting our environmentand our natural resources is not a luxury,but a crucial investment in our sustainableeconomic future.

We cannot rest on our laurels, how-ever. And Europe, let alone the rest of theworld, still has a way to go. Protecting theenvironment for future generations con-tinually raises new challenges.

Without doubt the greatest challengewe face today is climate change. It has thepotential to redraw the face of our planet,causing crippling economic damage anduntold human suffering that will threatenglobal security.

We have to act. A considerable part ofthe scientific community tells us that wehave to keep global warming to no morethan 2°C above the pre-industrial level.Higher than that, we risk irreversible andpossibly catastrophic global changes.

The Commission’s integrated climateand energy package, approved byEuropean leaders in March, sets out aclear and ambitious strategy for action. Itis nothing less than a commitment torestructure Europe’s economy towards alow-carbon future.

Now we must move rapidly toimplement the package. That meansconvincing our international partners tofollow our lead and start negotiationson a bold new global climate agreement

to replace the Kyoto Protocol when itexpires in 2012.

And although climate change is thebiggest threat, we must not let it eclipsethe other serious environmental chal-lenges we face.

In particular we must not lose sight ofthe grave threat posed by the loss of bio-logical diversity, both within Europe andglobally. As you know, this is being exacer-bated by climate change itself.

Biodiversity underpins our economiesthrough the goods and services thatecosystems provide. These goods andservices constitute nothing less than thelife-support system on which humanwell-being depends.

We cannot afford to deplete our natu-ral capital in this way. That is why the EUhas committed itself to halting the loss ofbiodiversity within its territory by 2010.Our goal is ambitious, but essential, if our

future development is to be sustainable.The Commission’s Biodiversity Action

Plan spells out how to achieve this, but it isclear that much more progress is needed.

It is important to bear in mind thatthese challenges are also opportunities –and not least economic opportunities.

Environment policy has been a driv-ing force in the development of Europe’sfast-growing eco-technologies sector.This sector is making a considerable con-tribution to the renewed Lisbon Strategyfor Growth and Jobs.

Today it employs around 3.4 millionpeople in the EU and its annual turnoverrepresents more than 2% of EU GDP.Some of these eco-technologies can beseen at the Green Week Expo in the Parcdu Cinquantenaire.

Innovation, stimulated by policy initia-tives, has made Europe a world leader in anumber of environmental technologies,such as wind power. Implementation of ourclimate and energy package will unleash anew wave of eco-innovation, as the mostdynamic firms compete to be first on themarket with the low-carbon technologies ofthe future. European industries must seizethis opportunity with both hands.

There has been substantial progress toimprove human health as well as the envi-ronment itself. It has helped Europeanindustry to become a world leader in anumber of high growth sectors, and it hascreated millions of jobs.

However, we still face major chal-lenges, starting with climate change, theloss of biodiversity and our unsustainableway of life. Despite our efforts, we cannotyet say that we are firmly on the path tosustainable development. As we lookahead to the European Union’s next 50years, getting on that path must be at thetop of our agenda.

Highlights from the EC president’s GreenWeek opening speech, delivered June 12in Brussels

Facing today’s‘greatestchallenge’By Jose Manuel Barroso

‘As Europe has grown,and grown together,we have learned animportant lesson: thatprotecting ourenvironment and ournatural resources isnot a luxury, but acrucial investment inour sustainableeconomic future.’

DELIVERY IS KEY: Barroso drives home one of several points made in Brusselsduring Green Week.

ZSOLT

BAUER

interview

FORUM


��

M I N I N G

Head of controversial mining enterprise wins CSR honour


NEWS

REU

TER

S

� Leaders from eight of the world’s most industrialised countries concluded the33rd G8 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, having pledged to make cuts ingreenhouse gas emissions, but were forced to compromise with US PresidentGeorge W. Bush, who refused to commit to specific numerical targets. The USdid, however, make a breakthrough commitment to halt the rise in globalwarming gases, and promised to follow up by making “substantial” reductions.The US and China lead the world in carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other dignitaries also promised tostrike a new global deal by 2009 that would widen the scope of the UN-bro-kered Kyoto Protocol.

“In setting a global goal for emissions reductions [...] involving all majoremitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the EuropeanUnion, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissionsby 2050,” the leaders released in a joint statement posted on the G8 website.

The EU claims that greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed by at least50 percent to prevent global temperatures from rising to levels that could trig-ger “dangerous” changes.

�On March 27, Alan Hill, president and CEO of Canadian mining company Gabriel Resources, was named ‘Responsible Man-ager of the Year’ in the ‘international’ category at an event hosted at the Austrian Parliament in Vienna. Barbara Prammer, pres-ident of the Austrian Parliament, presented the award. Hill was recognised for his leadership of Rosia Montana Gold Corp., aRomania-based project that could result in the construction of Europe’s biggest gold mine. Rosia Montana, however, hasproved bitterly controversial, and faces widespread domestic opposition.

According to the jury, Hill is “committed to social and ecological responsibility in a challenging business like mining, whichdoes not typically apply such criteria.”

The mining concern now employs around 400 people – most from the Rosia Montana community, which is currently suf-fering from roughly 30-percent unemployment. Gabriel Resources claims that the project will employ 1,200 for two years ofconstruction, and 600 over a projected 17-year project lifespan – which together will indirectly generate a further 6,000 jobs.

The project is opposed, however, by those who argue that the company is actually behaving in an ecologically and social-ly irresponsible manner. Harry Eyres wrote in the Financial Times that the mine would “involve flattening four mountains andobliterating much of Romania’s oldest recorded settlement and one of the most important Roman archaeological sites inEurope.” The same article cited physician and epidemiologist Julian Tudor Hart, who wrote: “Open-cast mining is indeed adegradation of the environment generating minimal employment at maximal environmental cost.”

Eugen David, president of Alburnus Maior, an association of property owners in Rosia Montana opposed to the mine, hasclaimed that 90% of Romanians oppose the mining scheme.

C L I M A T E C H A N G E

G8 leaders strike emissions deal

E N V I R O N M E N T A L F I N A N C I N G

Climate cash reportrips EU funding� An April report from Friends of the EarthEurope (FoEE) and the CEE Bankwatch Net-work warned that EU funding plans regard-ing new member states for 2007–13 are notconsistent with EU climate goals, and thatPolish emissions could grow by up to 31%during the period. NGOs responded by call-ing for the European Commission (EC) and itscommissioners to take swift action.

“The spending plans […] feature remark-ably little in the way of clean and efficientenergy and transport,” said FoEE projectcoordinator Martin Konecny. “Seven yearsand billions of euros [could be] lost to energy-intensive development.”

The “EU cash in climate clash” reportfound that draft funding plans for the 10 CEEnew member states (which joined in 2004)have allocated just one percent of EUR 177billion of available Structural and CohesionFund money toward energy efficiency andrenewable energy.

Also, according to the study, 53 percent oftransport sector funds have been allocated forroads and motorways that will produce moretraffic and greenhouse emissions, with just 30percent to be spent on railways and 10 per-cent on public urban transport.

Hungary’s and Poland’s plans are worstfrom an energy-efficiency point of view,while those for Romania, Slovakia, Lithuaniaand Slovenia are poorest in terms of cleanurban transport. Poland, tapped to receivenearly 20 percent of total funds from the EUbudget for the eight-year period, plans a 31-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissionsby 2013 compared to 2003, according to strat-egy indicators.

European Union update

� German minister calls for permit auctionsGermany’s Environment Minister Sigmar Gabrielannounced in early June that companies should eventual-ly pay for carbon dioxide (CO2) permits. Under the EU’scurrent Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), governmentsissue most of the permits free of charge – a process thathas been extremely profitable to power companies but haspassed on the costs of ETS participation to consumers.

The trading scheme is the EU’s main line of attack onglobal warming; companies, however, are allowed totrade certificates based on whether they overshoot orundershoot their targets.

“We will probably receive proposals to auction at least50 percent [of the certificates],” Gabriel told the press at ameeting of EU environment ministers. “If you really takethis instrument seriously, you will have to auction 100 per-cent at some point in time.”

� Council applies brakes on car emissionsThe EU’s Council of Ministers reached a deal with MEPs onMay 30 to introduce tighter restrictions on pollutant emis-sions from cars and light commercial vehicles. The Euro 5scheme imposes caps on small particles, hydrocarbons andnitrogen oxides (NOx), and will be applied from September2009. The Euro 6 regulation will place even stricter limits onNOx, and will be in effect from 2014.

Also to be introduced is a standardised method formeasuring fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, whichthe council has argued will eliminate technical barriers tofree trade.

� Green 10 criticises Barroso CommissionTen of Europe’s largest environmental organisations/net-works, the so-called Green 10, delivered a review of theBarroso-led European Commission (EC) in April that wascritical of the EC’s environmental record during the firsthalf of its five-year term.

The Green 10, in assessing 16 separate policy areas,argued that EC President Jose Manuel Barroso has focusedtoo narrowly on growth and jobs, while failing to developprogressive and sustainable industrial policies.

The Commission received the review’s highest mark(7/10) for its climate policy, having pledged support forglobal greenhouse gas emissions cuts of 30 percent by 2020.The EC’s energy and agriculture policies both earned marksof 6/10, whereas its Biodiversity Action Plan received a pointless. A weak proposal on marine protection and a reluctanceto take a stronger stance against illegal timber resulted inscores of 2/10 for the EC’s marine and forest policies. TheBarroso Commission’s overall review score was 4.3/10.

Despite awarding low marks, the green groups madeseveral policy recommendations and emphasised thatthere is still time for the EC to improve its record under MrBarroso’s leadership.

� EU contributes to biodiversity databaseThe EU announced on May 9 that it will assist in devel-

oping a global species information system. The project,introduced in Washington, DC on the same day, is a fol-low-up to the G8+5 talks held two months earlier in Pots-dam, Germany. The EU will allocate funds to collect datafrom across Europe for its new SpeciesBase.

In the same week the European Commission launchedNET-BIOME, a new research initiative to help preserve therich biodiversity of the EU’s tropical and subtropicalregions. The bloc’s outermost and overseas territoriesencompass five of the world’s 34 biodiversity ‘hotspots.’

NEWS


E V E N T S

Mixed forecasts at Green Week

T H E B A L K A N S

Serbia’s environmentministry now independent� Serbia, which will host the Sixth Ministerial Conference“Environment for Europe” in October, once again has anindependent Ministry for Environmental Protection (MEP).Following elections in January, the Serbian Parliamentapproved a new government on May 15. The new majority-led coalition has 22 ministries – five more than previously –with the re-established MEP amongst them. Under the previ-ous government, environmental issues were managed by theformer Ministry for Science and Environment.

The new Minister for Environmental Protection is SashaDragin, who was born in Sombor in 1972. Dragin graduated in1999 from the Faculty of Agriculture in Novi Sad, earned a mas-ter’s degree in 2003, and received his doctorate earlier this year.His previous post was Undersecretary of Agriculture, WaterManagement and Forestry of the Autonomous Province ofVojvodina. He is also an assistant teacher at the University ofNovi Sad’s Faculty of Agriculture, specialising in moleculargenetics of domestic animals.

For more coverage on the Balkan environment, see theRERep Record at <rerep.re.org>.

� European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso expresseda degree of scepticism in a speech given during Green Week.“Despite our efforts, we cannot yet say that we are firmly on the pathto sustainable development,” Barroso said.

Tying in with the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, theEuropean Commission’s Green Week took place in the Europeancapital of Brussels from June 12–15, and drew an estimated 4,000participants. Carrying the motto ‘Past Lessons, Future Challenges’the event provided an opportunity to discuss the impact of EU greenpolicies to date, and to plot the course of future initiatives.

Twenty-two separate conferences and numerous exhibitions andside events covered a wide range of environmental issues, includingclimate change, loss of biodiversity, unsustainable production andconsumption patterns, and eco-friendly technologies.

As head of the EC’s Environment Department, Mogens Peter Carlsaid that EU legislation has been most successful in areas where it isclearest, but added that the EU is struggling to resolve perceivedconflicts and contradictions when confronted with the twin tasks ofenvironment protection and economic growth.

ZSO

LTBA

UER


NEWS

� BNP Paribas’ planned financial involvement in Bulgaria’s Belene nuclear power facility sparked June protests from greengroups in 15 European countries. The harshest critics of the plan argue that the facility is a “second Chernobyl” waiting to hap-pen. The project is so controversial that 11 of Europe’s leading banks turned down the project before the French bank,Europe’s fifth largest, stepped in: Commerzbank, UniCredit, Societe General, Citibank and Credit Suisse are among those whosee such involvement as too risky – at least to their reputations.

The Belene Project was conceived in the early 1980s, a few years after a 1977 earthquake just 14 kilometres from the pro-posed site killed 120 people. Construction on Belene started in 1985, shortly before the Chernobyl catastrophe took place.Construction ground to a halt in the 1990s after the Bulgarian Cabinet found the project “technically unsafe and not econom-ically viable,” but the government announced plans in 2004 to restart the project. According to Greenpeace, the proposed pairof reactors are of Russian design, have never been built before, and have not been officially assessed for safety.

BNP Paribas’ CEO Badouin Prot later met with green opponents and announced plans to proceed with a EUR 250 million“general corporate loan” to Bulgarian utility NEK, but denied that the funds will be used for Belene facility construction.

For more coverage on the Balkan environment, see the REReP Record at <rerep.rec.org>.

� The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) held its‘Genes Are Not for Sale’ conference at Krakow’s Wawel Castle on April 25. The datewas selected ahead of time to coincide with a three-day biotech industry confer-ence, also taking place in Krakow.

On February 13, 2007, Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski pledged sup-port for an act that would allow special GMO zones to be created in the country,and the Polish Parliament will debate the issue later this year.

The ICPPC argues that continued pressure to open markets for GMO productsis undermining Poland’s commitment to remaining a “GMO-free zone,” and is con-cerned that the public is not adequately aware of alleged health and agriculturalhazards of introducing such products in Europe.

The coalition’s April ‘counter-conference’ attracted several speakers, includingArpad Pusztai, the first scientist to link liver and kidney disorders to mice fed withgenetically modified potatoes, and Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian cereal farmer whoblames GMO contamination for an alleged complete lack of purely organic maizeor rapeseed in the whole of Canada.

One unexpected participant was Poland’s Undersecretary of State and ChiefNature Conservator Adrzej Szweda-Lewandowski, who presented arguments for hissupport of the proposed GMO Act.

A G R I C U L T U R E

Group takes on GMOs in Krakow

� On June 12, ministers from the Euro-pean Union’s Agriculture Council adop-ted a law that will allow “adventitious ortechnically unavoidable” geneticallymodified organism (GMO) content of upto 0.9 percent in foods that are classedand labelled as ‘organic.’ The decisionhas disappointed the European Parlia-ment and environmental groups callingfor a 0.1 percent “contamination” thresh-old for organic food – the lowest level atwhich GMOs can be detected.

Critics claim that the legislation vio-lates the principle of consumer choice,but are also concerned that the decision isa move that could ultimately do signifi-cant damage to Europe’s most competi-tive and environment-friendly sector. Theorganic market in the Czech Republic, forexample, ballooned to EUR 27 million in2006 – a rise of 49 percent and the high-est such growth in Europe. Analysts pre-dict that the Czech market for organicfood and drink will quadruple by 2011.The creation of new jobs and provenhealth benefits are two more reasons thatthe organic market is enjoying wider pub-lic support in Europe.

The EC is now considering optionsfor containing commercially grown GMcrops (a strategy known as “coexis-tence”), and plans to issue a report in2008 on how successfully guidelines areimplemented in each country. At present,there is no such EU-wide legislation.

“Strict coexistence measures are anecessity for protecting conventional andorganic farming from genetic contamina-tion, with stiff penalties for GMO farmersand biotech companies if contaminationdoes occur,” said Mauro Albrizio, vicepresident of the European EnvironmentalBureau, according to Ends Daily Europe.

A G R I C U L T U R E

Ruling to weakenorganic standard

N U C L E A R E N E R G Y

Bulgarian nuke plant project finds backer in BNP Paribas

SXC.

HU

The Japan Special Fund of the

Regional Environmental Center for

Central and Eastern Europe (REC), established

in 1993, is a mechanism through which the

Government of Japan supports the REC in its

efforts to solve the environmental problems of

the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region.

In recent years the Japan Special Fund

has turned its major attention to climate

change, one of the most challenging

environmental issues of our generation.

Its aim in this field is to support the CEE

countries’ efforts to comply with the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

J A P A N S P E C I A L F U N D

Bridging East and East

Bee populations in some parts ofthe world are dying off in aston-ishing numbers. The phenome-non, known as Colony CollapseDisorder (CCD), is triggering

widespread concern in both the scientificand agricultural communities; and whileseveral theories have been put forward toexplain a cause (or causes), it appears thatno one is really certain why so many beesare flying away from the hive and nevercoming back. While there have beenreports of some bee die-offs in parts ofEurope, the problem appears to be mostpronounced in North America, and the USin particular.According to an article published in

the UK’s Independent on April 15, CCDhas struck half of all US states, with theeast and west coasts reporting bee popu-lation losses of 70 percent and 60 percentrespectively. The article alleged that CCDhas spread to continental Europe, andpossibly to the UK.A CNN article appearing two weeks

later claimed that CCD has spread to 27US states, and reported “similar collapses”in Brazil and Canada.

With alarming frequency, hive inhabi-tants are suddenly disappearing, leavingbehind them only queens, eggs and unde-veloped workers. It is normally the casewhen a colony dies that a hive will betaken over by parasites, wildlife or otherbees making a raid on the honey andpollen left behind. Not so with many ofthe CCD hives, it appears: nothing isgoing anywhere near them.And while most of the vanished bees

seem to be dying singly in undeterminedlocations, consider the following episodedescribed by an anonymous poster fromCalifornia on a bee-related forum: “Irecently witnessed a hive self-destructing.I saw 200 to 2,000 bees circling next to theintake of a new industrial-sized air condi-tioner in Burbank. The sun had becomehidden by late-afternoon clouds. To me itlooked as if the bees were lost: theythought they were near their hive, butthey [weren’t].“The next day, janitors were sweeping

up thousands of dead bees. I got down onmy hands and knees with a paper cupafterward, and still managed to pick upabout 50 to 200 bees that were left. Fewerthan five showed any signs of life. They

appeared to have starved from flyingaround in circles until they dropped.”

Multiple suspectsIn a quest to discover the cause of

CCD – a one-time ‘phenomenon’ that isnow a serious concern – scientists andagricultural experts have built up a port-folio that includes a wide range of sus-pects: global warming, GM crops, para-sitic mites (e.g. varroa), stress, pesticides,genome weakness, genetic mutation,unknown viruses or bacteria – or a lethalcombination of any of the above. Anotherpossible culprit – and the one identified inthe Independent article – is radiation fromincreased mobile phone usage.While there is yet far too little upon

which to build an overwhelming case toidentify the cause of CCD, it is worth not-ing that a paper on the electrical proper-ties of insect hairs was published as earlyas 1929, and that it has been known forsome time that the effects of electriccharges on honeybees is especially pro-nounced. The most important research inthis area has been carried out in Germany.In a remarkable study published in

INSIGHT | agriculture


Sticky situationBy Nathan Johnson

Scientists remain baffled as to why bee populations are vanishing in NorthAmerica. Should European beekeepers be worried about Colony CollapseDisorder?

KEEPING BUSY: Some would argue thatAmerican bees work too hard.

ISTOCKPHOTO

1976, Ulrich Warnke from the Universityof Saarbrucken wrote: “It is possible torecord the arrival or departure of an indi-vidual bee, within a suitable distance ofthe hive entrance, by recording thechange in the potential of the colony witha sufficiently sensitive instrument.”Warnke went on to demonstrate how

bees and colonies are charged in relationto the weather – i.e. positively charged infine weather, and mainly negativelycharged during rainfall. He then demon-strated: “Before a thunderstorm breaks,the high relative humidity causes dis-charge of bees on the ground, and a highbipolar concentration of atmospheric ionsdischarges bees in the air. During the dis-charge of lightning, very high variations inelectric potential occur in the colony.”Warnke then turned to earlier studies

to justify documented hyperactivity of beecolonies existing near high-tension electri-cal wires, and also to substantiate claimsthat a bee’s ability to return to its home orhive varies according to the level of atmos-pheric disturbances (i.e. electromagneticoscillations in the long-wavelength range).While admitting at the time that moreexperimentation was needed, Warnkeposited: “If an electric charge is basicallyimportant for the orientation of insects,discharge would be followed by disorien-tation, and possibly aggressiveness.”The Independent article lacks enough

hard evidence to support the claim that

cell phones are to blame for CCD, andcritics of the theory point to the fact thatcell phone penetration is much higher inEurope than in the US. However, theGerman findings of recent decades sug-gest that such claims should not be dis-missed out of hand as ‘ridiculous.’But what about other possible causes?Cited in the aforementioned CNN

piece, University of Illinois entomologistMay Berenbaum said that scientists, hav-ing recently mapped the honeybeegenome, discovered that the insect lacksthe normal complement of genes toremove poisons from its system.“Honeybees may be peculiarly vulner-

able to disease and toxins,” Berenbaumsaid, noting that “the fruit-fly or mosquitohas twice the number of genes to fighttoxins.”

No place like homeHoping to gain some Hungarian per-

spective, I paid a visit to Szentendre-based beekeeper Gusztav Adamis, whokeeps around 40 families of honeybees inhis spacious backyard.Having kept bees for a little over a

decade, Adamis makes and sells his ownhoney, but is not overly fearful that hislivelihood is under imminent threat. “Ithink what is happening to bees in the UShas more to do with monoculture farming[which is physically weakening the bees],harsh winter temperatures, and over-

work,” he said. “That’s not so much thecase with bees in Europe – or at least withbees in Hungary.”Adamis explained that most US bees

are used for crop pollination, and aretrucked across the country from one farmto the next. This, he claims, leaves thebees exhausted, disoriented and lackingthe nutritional foundation of a cultivated,stable home environment. Not only doesthe honey produced in the hive producevaluable nutrients that contribute to abee’s health and immune system, butgood drinking water is another healthbenefit that Adamis’ bees enjoy. The bee-keeper showed me several ‘wateringholes’ for his bees, into which he placesspecial volcanic blocks that filter and addnutrients to the water.Asked about the navigational abilities

of the insect, Adamis told me that his beescan find their way back to the hive fromdistances of up to five kilometers – anenormous distance compared to a bee’sbody size. “But if they somehow gobeyond that range, they die,” he says,which goes someway toward explaininghow it is possible that bees shipped forcommercial pollination could eventuallybecome disoriented.Adamis said that the biggest threat to

his hives, and to most commercial beefarmers, is the varroa mite. The varroaarrived a few decades ago from the Asiansubcontinent and nearly wiped outEuropean bee populations before aneffective pesticide was introduced, whichbeekeepers are now able to use to keepdamage to a minimum.

Alarm and optimismSharon Labchuck, from Prince Edward

Island, is a part-time organic beekeeperand leader of the provincial wing ofCanada’s Green Party. She wrote recentlyin a widely circulated email: “I’m on anorganic beekeeping list of about 1,000people, mostly Americans, and no one inthe organic beekeeping world, includingcommercial beekeepers, is reportingcolony collapse on this list. The problemwith the big commercial guys is that theyput pesticides in their hives to fumigatefor varroa mites, and they feed antibioticsto the bees. They also haul the hives bytruck all over the place to make moremoney with pollination services, whichstresses the colonies.”If Labchuck and Adamis (who seem

generally in agreement) are correct intheir assessment of what is causing – ornot causing – Colony Collapse Disorder,then maybe we can breathe easier for theworld’s bee population. Maybe the USdie-offs can then be addressed effectivelyso that bees can grow back in robustnumbers in the near future.On the other hand, maybe there is

something sinister afoot that science andagriculture can’t yet properly identify, andmaybe we should worry. The bee andnature have coexisted for some 50 millionyears, but the threat of bee colony extinc-tion is a not-so-subtle reminder of ourfragile connection to life on Earth.

agriculture | INSIGHT


�

SWEET REWARDS: Adamis offers a closelook at his backyard beekeeping business.

PHOTOS ON THIS PAGE BY NATHAN JOHNSON

INSIGHT | waste recovery and recycling


After years of fragmentation,Poland’s recycling and packagingwaste recovery market is becom-ing more consolidated. Thesmallest, least effective and least

efficient companies are either going out ofbusiness or are being forced to merge withbigger players. This development willhopefully improve the country’s trackrecord of packaging waste management.The main problem is that the exces-

sive number of recovery and recyclingcompanies in Poland has actually been aharmful influence on the market.Companies that produce waste can eitherassume care of waste recovery or recy-cling themselves, or have their wasterecovered and/or recycled by specialistcompanies. Given the growing market forwaste recovery, many such ‘specialist’companies have appeared, but with manyof them operating in a dishonest capacity.Some of the more disreputable firms per-form waste recovery and/or recyclingactivities ‘on paper’ only, while othershave offered their services for rock-bot-tom prices without taking into considera-tion the total costs involved in the ade-quate performance of services. This hasresulted in waste being barely processed– or in not being processed at all.Naturally, this dynamic has served toundermine the quality of service and toreduce waste recovery and recycling inPoland to unacceptably low levels.The number of ‘specialised’ waste

recovery firms now in Poland will likelyshrink from about 40 to 10 at the most –which, however, is quite a few comparedto the Czech Republic or Germany, wherethere are one and three such companiesrespectively.Poland-based companies involved in

business that produces packaging wasteneed to pay a product-fee and to ensurethat a fixed percentage of waste createdwill be recycled. Some of these firms –and the number will in all probabilitygrow – are outsourcing recycling activitiesto specialist firms.Krzysztof Kawczynski heads one of

Poland’s largest recovery and recyclingfirms, Polski System Recyklingu (PSR),which processes some 185,000 tonnes of

packaging waste annually. Kawczynskibelieves that Poland’s approach at theonset of a market-based economy in thelate 1990s was much too liberal.“Anyone [at that time] could set up a

recovery and recycling business, regardlessof actual plans or potential for, say, invest-ment in selective collection of waste,” hesays. “This had a great deal of negativeimpact, like non-credible firms performingcollection and recycling on paper only, oroffering dumping prices that never tookactual waste management costs intoaccount, and so on,” Kawczynski added.

Unhealthy competition“As with any business, credible and

non-credible companies exist on our mar-ket,” Piotr Szajrych told monthlyWirtualny Nowy Przemysl earlier thisyear. Szajrych is the CEO of Rekopol,another of Poland’s leading waste man-agement companies. “The former investin selective recovery and strive to offerthe widest possible range of services,” hecontinued, adding that company involve-

ment in the development of a country-wide system of selective collection will bea particularly good test of long-term com-mitment – as opposed to pursuing a sin-gle-minded ‘get rich quick’ strategy.According to some recyclers, intense

competition between as many as 40recovery and recycling companies fight-ing to take over recycling duties has led tomajor distortions on the market, insteadof – as one would typically expect fromincreased competition – improved levelsand variety of service.This becomes clear from the roughly

EUR 20 million that companies producingpackaging waste pay to have it recycled –an amount that has remained more or lessthe same for a couple of years.“The real result is that only a fraction

of this money ends up with companiesthat are really working to recycle waste,”claims Krzysztof Chojnacki, owner of theFlora-Impex recycling firm. Flora-Impex,which processes approximately 150tonnes of packaging waste per month(less than 1/1,000th of the amountprocessed at PSR), appears destined toeither disappear or merge with one of thelarger companies.Another problem is the lack of a mech-

anism to properly verify what is actuallyrecovered and recycled. Documents aresupposedly verified by regional authori-ties on an annual basis, but the reality isthat there are massive delays. Last year’sreport from the NIK, Poland’s state auditinstitution, confirms Kawczynski’s com-ments: some companies have never evenbothered to carry out recovery and/orrecycling activity; while others have per-formed the activities for years, but withoutthe necessary permits. The report also pro-vided examples of companies that neverreached minimum recycling quotas – evenquotas as low as five percent.Today, however, the market is on the

brink of a breakthrough. As much as 85percent of the market is now controlledby companies whose services are not lim-ited to particular kinds of waste. Thesefirms are also less limited geographically,and they are generally pursuing a strategyof investment in a countrywide selectivecollection system for packaging waste.

Increased competition typically leads to competitive prices and a greater varietyof services, but things have worked out quite differently in this particular sectorof Poland’s economy

Poland consolidating itswaste collection industryBy Wojciech Kosc

REU

TERS

Someone will pick it up, but who?

The main companies in question areRekopol, Polski System Recyklingu,Biosystem, Ekopunkt and BranzowaOrganizacja Odzysku, and these opera-tions have made good time in separatingthemselves from the competition. Thisyear’s EU-imposed levels of recovery andrecycling of packaging waste are set at 50percent and 25 percent respectively, butwill rise to 60 percent and as high as 55percent by 2014. In other words, demandfor services is certain to grow.The estimated value of Poland’s

recovery and recycling market for 2007 isroughly PLN 100 million [EUR 26.3 mil-lion], but this amount could increasenearly tenfold by 2014. According toKawczynski, there were roughly 4 milliontonnes of packaging waste on the marketlast year (of that number, 3.5 milliontonnes were subject to mandatory recov-ery and recycling under the PackagingWaste Law), up by about 10 percent com-pared to 2005. “This has been the firstyear of solid growth,” says Kawczynski.

Forces for changeEconomic growth in general is the

main driver behind this growing market,as people with more spending powerwill purchase more (regardless of howmuch ‘green lifestyle’ advocacy is takingplace), which, of course, results in thecreation of more waste that needs collec-tion and recycling. Furthermore, the dis-appearance of companies engaged indishonest and illegal practices will workto the advantage of large, more reputablecompanies offering a variety of servicesnationwide. Finally, legal business oper-ations will result in proper documenta-tion, which will therefore add to the ‘offi-cial’ value of the waste recovery andrecycling market.Major recycling firms, as well as asso-

ciations of companies that produce pack-aging, argue that there has to be a centralregistry of recovery and recycling firms,just as there is for those who deal withelectrical and electronic waste.According to PSR’s Kawczynski, the

market may now be changing on its ownin a sense, with smaller or disreputablecompanies no longer able to win cus-tomers, but a lot depends on how seri-ously authorities will approach the execu-tion of all legal regulations that the NIKreport described as breached. “If authori-ties are really after that, the market willconsolidate in two or three years’ time. Ifnot, it will take a lot longer, with harm tothe entire system,” he says.

waste recovery and recycling | INSIGHT

‘Only a fraction ofmoney paid forrecycling ends upwith companies thatare really working torecycle waste.’


�REU

TERS

SOUNDS LIKE TRASH:An industrial digger dropsthousands of illegally madeCDs destined for destructionat a Warsaw recycling plant.

INSIGHT | energy efficiency


It is the primary contention of the‘Stern Review on the Economics ofClimate Change’ (published in 2006)that pro-growth economic strategiesare not at odds with strategies to avert

climate change. The review argues, in fact,that tackling climate change is longer-termpro-growth strategy, and that this appliesto both rich and poor countries. Energyefficiency is one proven way of reducinggreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions withoutcrippling economic growth, and is there-fore one of the most effective and cost-efficient ways to improve air quality.Despite enormous potential for cost-

effective energy savings, investment inenergy efficiency has been slow to find itsway to the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS) – mostly because of policy bar-riers, lack of awareness, weak economicincentives and damaged business reputa-tions. However, CIS local governments tak-ing on more statutory obligations and gain-ing fiscal autonomy are becoming moreaccountable for the provision of utility serv-ices; and there is growing demand forinformation on replicable methods forimproving municipal services within limit-ed budgets. To address this need, theAlliance to Save Energy, a Washington DC-based NGO, conducted ‘FinancingMunicipal Energy Efficiency in theCommonwealth of Independent States’ –an international forum in Moscow, withfunding from the Renewable Energy andEnergy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).Participants included organisations

and companies from 11 countries, such as

Russia-based Center-Invest Bank,EnEffect Consult from Bulgaria, theInternational Finance Corporation, NordicFinance Corporation (NEFCO), UnitedNations Economic Commission forEurope (UNECE) and USAID, as well aslocal and national governments fromArmenia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Making the most of opportunitiesThe forum’s target audience was local

governments and local financing institu-tions that can work together to takeadvantage of the financial and social ben-efits of projects that improve energy effi-ciency in heating, public lighting, watersupply and wastewater treatment.To realise its objectives, REEEP’s work

is organised within two major themes.The first is to ensure that governmentpolicies and regulation encourage theintegration of renewable energy sourcesin energy supply portfolios, promotethe efficient end-use of energy and createa favourable climate for investment inthe sustainable energy sector. The secondis to attract a wider cross-section ofinvestors into emerging sustainableenergy markets and the rapidly evolvingcarbon market.There is no lack of funds for energy

efficiency in the CIS, according to finan-cial experts at the forum, but legal hur-dles, bureaucratic red tape, difficulties inobtaining loans and poor understandingof existing financing mechanisms oftenprevent project initiators from accessingavailable funding.

In order to lower the barriers to ener-gy efficiency in the region, REEEP is fun-ding a research and awareness-raisingproject implemented by the Alliance toSave Energy on the existing and potentialmechanisms for financing municipal ener-gy efficacy projects in the CIS. The know-ledge and experience shared at the forumwill be presented in a guidebook and casestudies that can be used as a starting pointfor local governments, NGOs, consultantsand utilities looking for answers on howto obtain project funding.

Drawing from experienceIn addition to examining existing atti-

tudes and financing mechanisms relatedto municipal energy efficiency projects inthe CIS, forum participants also exploredsimilar conditions in Hungary, Latvia andLithuania. Overall, the forum called forseveral recommendations that can serveto stimulate the development and adop-tion of local level financing mechanisms,among which are: harmonisation of fiscaland energy efficiency legislation;increased transparency and accountabilityof the financial sector and energy man-agement schemes; creation of municipalenergy management programmes; devel-opment and proper implementation ofrobust energy efficiency standards andbuilding codes; improvement of localinvestment climates to attract privatedirect investments in the municipal ener-gy sector; and creation of a unified databank containing details about financingmechanisms and experiences.

Drawn from CEE experiences, long-term,pro-growth strategies are being applied in CIS municipalities

Lowering barriersto energy efficiencyBy Eva Pawlowski

�

DEEP POCKETS: Oil derricks like these nearBaku, Azerbaijan represent much of the

natural wealth in the CIS, but the region isalso awash with excessive bureaucracy.

REUTERS


COVER STORY | europe for environment

EUROPEAN hit oBy Istvan Pomazi

REC

ARCH

IVE

SLOVA

LCOA.S.

WASTE NOT, WANT NOT: (top) Fossil fuels can only take us so far;(left to right) Tibor Farago talks environment and climate change onHungary’s behalf; Slovakia’s cutting-edge aluminium plant, Slovalco;a high-profile wind turbine spins in the European capital of Brussels.

europe for environment | COVER STORY


It makes an interesting play on words – ‘Europe for Environment’ or ‘Environmentfor Europe’ – but they are both important processes. (The former means that Europeshould bear greater political responsibility for its own and the world’s environment,while the latter is a UN-led pan-European process or forum. The solution to envi-

ronmental problems will remain on the agenda throughout Europe for a long time tocome. At the same time, Europe can also do more in the future to tackle global envi-ronmental threats such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

If we take the March 2007 meeting of the European Council as a yardstick, the polit-ical will seems strong, but nothing tangible has yet been accomplished – and it seemsthat tangible results will only be achieved in the distant future. In the meantime, theEuropean Union needs to guard against losing its credibility as far as combating climatechange and halting biodiversity loss are concerned.

Twenty years after the publication of ‘Our Common Future’ – or, the so-calledBrundtland Report – the world is marking a number of other dates that have been sig-nificant in the past four decades of environmental policy. Thirty-five years ago morethan 100 country representatives gathered in Stockholm for a UN conference, but withonly one minister for environment among them. At the 1972 Conference on HumanEnvironment participants laid down many key environmental policy principles that arestill cited today. It was after this event that environment policy became institutionalisedat both national and international levels – e.g. the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)was founded, environment ministries and agencies were established, and the mostimportant laws related to the environment were drafted.

The next notable milestone, after four years of deliberation, was the 1987 publica-tion of the Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment. The report dug deeper than the narrowly interpreted environment poli-cy of before, and argued that environment protection, reduction of global inequalities,and poverty alleviation could actually lead to greater global sustainability. Also, the term‘sustainable development’ was first formulated in this report, and the phrase is nowused regularly by environmental actors and detractors alike.

The word ‘sustainable’ seems to pop up in all manner of discussions these days, butnot necessarily everywhere. Surveys have revealed that public awareness of sustainabledevelopment is actually very low. Also, international bureaucracies and most politicianstend to misinterpret the term; for example, ‘sustained economic growth,’ ‘sustainableeconomic growth’ and ‘sustainable development’ are often used as interchangeablesynonyms.

Others say that the term is so difficult to quantify as to be meaningless. How can weknow when we’ve arrived at such a point? One could point to ‘sustainable economicgrowth’ (which means growth without boom or bust periods), ‘sustainable aviation’(which means a doubling passenger numbers) or ‘sustainable communities’ (building asmany new homes as possible). But these terms are oxymorons; they actually deliver theopposite of what is claimed.

Climate change and sustainabledevelopment are being discussednow more than ever, and therefinally seems to be some genuinepolitical will to make long-termcommitments to solving environ-mental problems. For all thisapparent willingness, there aren’tenough tangible results, saysHungary’s senior environmentaladvisor, Istvan Pomazi.

r miss?EW

EAISTO

CKPH

OTO

Each weekday morningChristina, 37, walks from herapartment block to the nearbyavenue and hops onto a

m arsh ru tka, one of the many crowdedminibuses that roll along Sofia’s hecticstreets. At 8:30 A.M. she sets her morn-ing coffee on her desk and starts workat the Bulgarian Ministry of RegionalDevelopment and Public Works. As aministry clerk Christina has a job thatmany in Bulgaria dream about, but herpassion lies elsewhere: in nature pro-tection. Christina has been spendingpart of every Thursday morning for thepast three months in front of anothergovernment building – the Council ofMinisters, which is where she coordi-nates a group of young people protest-ing against the ongoing destruction ofBulgaria’s wilderness heritage.

The assault on biodiversity is noth-ing new in Europe, but efforts in oppo-sition are also making history. On May21, conservationists celebrated the 15thanniversary of the Habitats Directive,which many call the EU’s most impor-tant legal tool for preserving biodiversi-ty. The directive’s key achievement thus

far is Natura 2000, a network of protect-ed areas in Europe that currently coversroughly one-sixth of EU territory. Butamong the EU laws Bulgaria had todigest quickly on its way to accession, itis Natura 2000 that has proven the mostcontentious so far. Mayors, constructionfirms, municipalities, government min-isters – and even some NGOs – havebeen involved in a bitter row with theEuropean network since lastNovember. Christina and her friends,with the support of several greenNGOs, are getting involved in the ver-bal fray as well, but pro-environmentactivists claim to be outnumbered.

OVERCONSTRUCTIONIn the past three years an avalanche

of construction projects has sweptthrough Bulgaria’s most attractivetourist areas – e.g. the Pirin, Rila, Balkanand Rhodope mountain ranges, and theBlack Sea coast. The Bulgarian govern-ment, local administrators, business-men and their lobbyists in Parliamenthave genrally embraced and defendedsuch development schemes as an easyway to bring fresh capital into what is

A new generation of activists puts up barricades todefend wilderness in Bulgaria and elsewhere in CEE


COVER STORY | europe for environment

Actual sustainable development –simultaneous social, environmental andeconomic progress – has, however,emerged as a central structural conceptfor many organisations. There are min-istries of sustainable development (e.g. inFrance and Sweden), national plans andinternational summits to measure suchprogress. Leading businesses, too, haveembraced the concept of looking at the‘triple bottom line.’ On paper, and in pol-icy terms, much has happened, but theconcept of sustainable development isstill subject to criticism.

Some argue that attempts to ‘balance’social, environmental and economic con-cerns are really ways to avoid making dif-ficult choices, or an excuse for pretend-ing there are no trade-offs and that every-thing can be win-win.

F inally, sustainable development isa concept that is often difficult tocommunicate to the general pub-lic. The term itself is an abstrac-

tion that encompasses three moreabstractions in the ‘triple bottom line’concept. In 1992, many heads of state andgovernment officials convened in Rio deJaneiro for the World Conference onEnvironment and Development. The con-ference resulted in the signing of somevery significant international agreements(e.g. on climate change and biodiversity),and the publication of the lengthy‘Agenda 21’ document.

Rio+5 took place in 1997, and theKyoto Protocol was signed after intensenegotiations and several compromises,resulting in some modest commitments toreduce greenhouse gases. Ten years afterRio, the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment took place in South Africa,but the resulting ‘Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation’ showed little ambitionand was generally disappointing.

Three landmark reports commis-sioned by the UN in 2005 revealed thegrand scale of problems to be addressedworldwide: the ‘Millennium Project’ con-firmed that progress in reducing povertywas too slow; the ‘Millennium EcosystemAssessment’ concluded that 16 of 25ecosystem benefits to humanity werebeing critically degraded; and theIntergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange clearly demonstrated the seri-ously negative impact of unsustainabledevelopment paths.

Flying the NATURA flagby Pavel Antonov

REC

ARCH

IVE

FORTH

ENAT

URECO

ALITION

WITHIN REACH?: Achievingsustainable development involvesmaking some difficult choices.

currently the EU’s poorest economy.Pro-development parties naturally

view Natura 2000 as a threat to businessand quick profits, but one neo-liberalthink-tank, the Institute for MarketEconomy of Sofia, has gone so far as tocall the provision an instrument of injus-tice and expropriation of private property.Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev wasquoted by the media as saying thatBulgaria should not become Europe’s“nature preserve.” The PM’s governmentcoalition also redrew proposed maps toreduce the amount of Natura 2000 sitesfrom 35 percent of national territory to 18percent, meanwhile postponing for “fur-ther clarification” any proposed coastalareas until October.

On the other side, nature protectionorganisations like the Green BalkansFederation and the Bulgarian BirdsProtection Society argue that the Bulgariangovernment is violating an EU law thatrequires Natura 2000 territories to beassigned according to purely scientific cri-teria. The two organisations were original-ly contracted by the country’s Environ-ment Ministry to draft the Natura maps fornetwork coverage in Bulgaria, and weresummarily dealt the heaviest critical blowsfrom Natura 2000 opponents.

The two organisations joined with 15other NGOs in April to form the SaveBulgaria’s Nature coalition, and met EUEnvironment Commissioner Stavros Dimasin Sofia to air their concerns. One suchconcern was that more than 800 permitswere issued in a single three-month periodto carry out coastal construction projectson land originally designated Natura 2000territory. Also, the original maps excluded

land covered by urban development plansby 2004, but the government pushed backthe deadline, thus giving municipalities anopportunity to redesign plans to betterserve business interests by October 2007,the NGOs warned.

MISSING EU TARGETSNatura 2000, often called “the back-

bone of Europe’s nature protectionefforts,” is essential for halting biodiversi-ty loss by 2010, a goal to which EU lead-ers committed themselves in 2001. Mostmember states have made good progressin establishing the network, althoughsite designation has been difficult.Nonetheless, new member state Sloveniasucceeded in allocating more than one-third of its territory to Natura 2000, thehighest proportion of land of any EUcountry. However, according to theEuropean Habitats Forum (EHF), othercountries remain far short of meeting theirEuropean responsibilities.

“Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria areexamples of countries which must nowaccelerate designation of their Natura 2000sites,” said BirdLife International’sKonstantin Kreiser. “It’s not just a legalobligation, it’s also essential if we’re to saveEuropean nature for our future genera-tions. Endangered species, like the imperi-al eagle [Aquila heliaca], brown bear[Ursus arctos] or European bison [Bisonbonasus] need places to survive, and we allneed a diverse and healthy environment.”

Voices of concern echoed in Brussels.After a few months of delay, the EuropeanCommission (EC) began sending a strongmessage of its own: Hands off Natura 2000!

In June, Bulgarian daily Dnevnik citedLadislav Miko, director of the ECDirectorate for Protecting the NaturalEnvironment, as saying that the completelist of Natura 2000 territories in Bulgariawould likely be received in July – orSeptember at the latest. Miko also warnedthat legal proceedings will be launchedagainst Bulgaria if unjustified delays con-tinue. In a letter to Environment MinisterDjavdet Chakarov the director criticised theinvestors’ lobby and the lack of informa-tion made available to the general public.

EHF, a coalition of European conserva-tion organisations, together with theEuropean Environmental Bureau, recentlypublished ‘Saving Biodiversity: ReleasingNatura 2000’s Potential.’ The report identi-fied the following priorities: better imple-mentation and enforcement efforts frommember states and the EC, setting conser-vation objectives for Natura 2000 sites, fullparticipation in the implementation processby all relevant stakeholders, a transparentand user-friendly information system onthe exact location and status of protectedsites, consistent interpretation of key legaldefinitions, and proper EU community co-financing for network implementation.

While policy recommendations taketime, real life gets heated. Last JuneBulgaria’s Supreme Court revoked theprotected status of a natural reserve nearKamtchia River’s mouth to green-light yetanother construction project. Last-minutechanges by ruling coalition members inJune have weakened the new law on theBlack Sea coast. Expected to halt illegalconstruction and introduce strict regula-tions, the act has become “toothless” toaccomodate construction industry inter-ests, conservationists claim.

POPULAR PROTESTSkyrocketing development in public

spaces and the government’s apparentinability to rein in the construction indus-try has brought at least one positive out-come. The latent anger that manyBulgarians feel led them to the streets andwild areas to protest. “We realised that wecan’t depend on the state apparatus or theEU to prevent construction on Irakli, ourfavourite pristine beach area, that is whywe took things in our hands” saidChristina. Her Save Irakli campaigninspired others, and new committees infavour of Natura 2000 – or simply againstover-construction – have emerged acrossthe country. Similar developments inPoland and elsewhere in CEE bring hopefor Europe’s remaining pristine natureareas, and for democracy and good gov-ernance in the region.

For more coverage on the Balkanenvironment, see the REReP Record at<rerep.rec.org.>



NATURE UNDER ASSAULT: (far left) Bulgaria’scrystal-clear lake known as The Eye; (this page,clockwise from left) ski piste constructioncausing deforestation in Pirin National Park;illegal hotel construction in the Strandja NaturePark; a creative street protest getting underwayin Sofia.

FORTH

ENAT

URECO

ALITION

FORTH

ENAT

URECO

ALITION

�

FORTH

ENAT

URECO

ALITION


COVER STORY | environment and health

The job of an insurance agent is toconvince a potential client that apolicy for sale is vitally important:that the product is, in fact, neces-

sary for guaranteed safety and security.When told in sombre tones to “think aboutyour future…and your family’s future” thewords tend to sink in. With the SternReview concluding in 2006 that “scientificevidence is now overwhelming: climatechange is a serious global threat, and itdemands an urgent global response,” asolid policy seems to have been finallymade available to the worldwide public.While world leaders are still trying to con-vince one another of the necessity for anew round of stricter climate policies, thecosts and benefits of climate action remainunclear where the economies of Centraland Eastern Europe are concerned.

In June, leaders of the world’s eightleading industrialised nations agreed that“strong and early action” from all majoremitters – within a UN framework – is need-ed to prevent dangerous climate change.Global greenhouse gas emissions must stoprising, followed by “substantial” reductions,says the final communiqué from the G8summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. Majoremitters agreed on a “detailed contribution”for a new global framework by the end of2008, which would feed into a global agree-ment under the UN framework conventionon climate change by 2009.

The G8 made no commitment, how-ever, to any of the EU’s original goals: tolimit temperature rises to two degrees, to

halve emissions by 2050, or to movetowards a global emission trading system.A pledge from US President George W.Bush that his country will be activelyinvolved – even play a leading role – in apost-Kyoto framework made everyonewho cares about climate sigh with relief.

BOILING INSIDEBut even as the EU appears to lead the

global effort against climate change, ten-sions are at or near boiling point. TheCzech Republic and Poland decided lateMay that they would sue the EuropeanCommission, challenging its March rulingto slash both countries’ respective nation-al allocation plans. Poland’s original allo-cation plan called for an annual CO2 emis-sions ceiling of 284.6 for the second phaseof the EU’s emission trading scheme(2008–12). The EC then further loweredthat amount to 208.5 million tonnes. Theoriginal Czech proposition was for 101.9million tonnes annually, but this wasreduced to 86.8 million tonnes.

The rationale that Prague and Warsawused was the same: i.e. a limited numberof carbon dioxide emission allowancesimposed on Polish and Czech economieswill stifle economic growth. This woulddeny the ultimate goal of their EU mem-bership, which was precisely to lift bothcountries out of poverty and the neglect ofnearly five decades of Communism.

Indeed, three years after joining the EU,both countries – and all former communist

members of the bloc as well – are enjoyingrapid growth. Even the bloc’s biggest new-comer can’t keep up: according to EUexpectations, Poland’s 2006 growth figureof 6.1 percent is deemed too low.

The European Commission’s decisionhas brought continued protests from theCzech and Polish governments and theimpacted industries. Poland’s industrial sec-tor is worried that a tighter cap on emissionswill shrink the country’s GNP by at least onepercent. Czech Minister of Industry andTrade Martin Riman has called the EC’s rul-ing “harmful,” while Polish EnvironmentMinister Jan Szyszko has argued that Polandwill have to cut its industrial production ifthe reduced cap stands.

Szyszko hinted that a cap of about 250million tonnes would be “satisfactory” forPoland. The Environment Ministry haseven published a revised version of theNational Allocation Plan (NAP) in thehope this will pave the way to negotia-tions with the EC; but there has been noindication from Brussels of a willingnessto change its mind.

On the other hand, Szyszko’s Czechcounterpart, the Green Party’s MartinBursik, welcomed the Commission’s deci-sion in a statement that clashes with boththe Polish view and that of his govern-ment peer, Riman.

“The basic motivational aim of [theemission permits] is that it pays off for firmsto invest in modern technology with highefficiency and low emissions of carbondioxide. And that is the aim of not only theCzech Ministry of the Environment, butalso of the new joint energy policy of theEU,” Bursik said, adding that theCommission’s decision would not limit theCzech industry in the least.

Reacting to both countries’ moves,Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman forEnvironment Commissioner Stavros Dimas,said there was virtually no chance the NAPwould undergo any changes, and claimedthat the EC would be certain to win in court.

UNDERSTANDING STERNHungary has chosen for now to dis-

tance itself from the row and to assess thepros and cons of climate change policies.Citing review estimates that CO2 stabilisa-tion at levels of 500–550 parts per millionwould cost roughly one percent of globalGDP by 2050, Tamas Prager, an associateprofessor at Budapest’s Eotvos LorandUniversity cites the Stern Review’ in argu-ing that “the benefits of strong, earlyaction on climate change will outweighthe costs.”

Stern projections show that ‘businessas usual’ paths would lead to global GDPlosses of 5–20 percent. Hungary’s FinanceMinistry Secretary Miklos Tatrai helps toput these numbers in national perspec-tive: one percent of Hungary’s GDP isHUF 250 billion (nearly EUR 100 million),while the total annual budget forHungary’s Environment and WaterMinistry is HUF 60 billion. According tothe arithmetic, ‘business as usual’ couldcost Hungary anywhere between 500 mil-lion to EUR 2 billion.

Can the Stern Review prove successfulas an environmentalist marketing tool?

By Peter Szuppinger, Wojciech Kosc & Pavel Antonov

The best POLICY

BOTGROUP

POWERFUL PR: Of the BOT Group’s three powerplants in Poland, its Elektrownia Opole facility iscertainly the most eye-catching.



September 11, 2001 marked yetanother milestone, though a grim one,in the history of sustainable develop-ment. With the appearance of globalterrorism as a permanent threat, glob-al and individual security became atop priority – and, in many cases, theonly priority.

In Europe, during the Cold Warperiod that preceded the politicalchanges of 1989–90, divided Europeengaged in little or no environmentalcooperation. With the fall of the BerlinWall and Germany’s reunification, how-ever, a host of brand new and unex-pected opportunities to protect theenvironment became apparent. It was atime marked by great enthusiasm and,one might say, over-optimism, as mil-lions believed that socio-economic jus-tice was near at hand. However, thepopulations of many Central andEastern European (CEE) countries con-fronted high economic debt, economicrecession, running inflation, complexprivatisation, rising unemployment andindividual insecurity. Populationsforced to choose between bread andclean air will clearly choose the former.

At the same time, however,there were some positivedevelopments: internationaldialogue became clearer and

pan-European cooperation grewstronger, and many environmentalagreements were signed under theUNECE aegis. Meanwhile, the‘Environment for Europe’ process waslaunched in 1991 in Dobris (in then-Czechoslovakia), while the EuropeanUnion continued to prepare new actionprogrammes (five since 1972). Also, theEU now contains 27 members, with thelargest wave of expansion occurring in2004, when ten new countries joined.

With the EU’s half-billion inhabitantscomprising the world’s largest commonmarket it is important to think of thebloc as an entity that should bear moreresponsibility for alleviating glo-bal

problems, as it contributes to creatingthem. In fact, the European Union hasthe necessary economic, intellectual andcultural potential to be a global leader inenhancing sustainable development.

At the same time, the enlarged EUfaces diverse and complex challenges:coping with global competition (name-ly the US and China), addressing grow-ing institutional deficits, maintainingcredibility and narrowing the economicdisparities between old and new mem-ber states while ensuring the realisationof sustainability criteria. Other EU prior-ities are to enhance sustainable devel-opment in declarations and documents(e.g. the 2001 Gothenburg Strategy andthe 2006 Renewed SustainableDevelopment Strategy) and to establishmechanisms for making them work, butit seems that essentially profit-drivenapproaches tend to undermine the con-cept of sustainable development. Theonly chance that CEE’s new EU memberstates have for successful convergencewith ‘developed’ Europe and creating abetter quality of life for its citizens is thewise and efficient use of EU and domes-tic funds. These funds, utilised in anefficient manner by the recipient coun-tries, can provide chances to movetoward greater sustainable develop-ment. But we should not forget duringthis era of increasing globalisation andregional integration that it is impossibleto establish ‘islands of sustainability.’ Itis therefore vital to achieve lasting anddurable solidarity between nations andregions, and to spread this out overgenerations – and this involves address-ing several moral questions.

National governments must strive toavoid dividedness within the EuropeanUnion on issues such as climate changeand energy security; and it will be nec-essary to locate necessary partners, asnone of this can be accomplishedalone. There is also a vital need tostrengthen those institutions enhancingsustainable development, both at thegovernmental and NGO level.

Tatrai and Prager spoke at an‘Economic Aspects of Climate Change’conference, the goal of which was tointerpret the Stern Review in a Hungarianand regional context. The event wasorganised in April by the British Embassy,the Hungarian Business Leaders Forumand the REC.

Other key concerns regarding imple-mentation of Hungary’s national climatechange strategy by 2025 have to do withwhich parties will actually bear the costs,and how things will play out for theHungarian economy. If strategy compli-ance forces certain industries to pay high-er costs in Hungary, production mightmove elsewhere – Slovakia, for example.

Gergely Toth, secretary of theHungarian Association for Environ-mentally Aware Management (KOVET)claimed on the one hand that the reviewwill prove an important tool for convinc-ing “sceptics” about the dangers of climatechange, but also disputed the document’scentral conclusion that “the world doesnot need to choose between averting cli-mate change and promoting growth anddevelopment.”

All things considered, the Stern Reviewis a victory of sorts in the effort to tackle cli-mate change, and it should help dispel themedia-generated myth that scientists arestill “debating” the existence of climatechange, when there is actually a virtual con-sensus. Indeed, the document just might bethe PR tool needed to get more Europeansinterested in ‘taking out a policy’ on their –and their children’s – future.

Emission targets off track

Kyoto targets relative to 1990 levels, andcurrent 2005 figures for EU 27

1990 2005Austria -13.0% +18.1%Belgium -7.5% -2.1%Bulgaria -8.0% -47.2%Czech Republic -8.0% -25.8%Denmark -21.0% -7.8%Estonia -8.0% -52.0%Finland +0.0% -2.6%France +0.0% -1.9%Germany -21.0% -18.7%Greece +25.0% +25.4%Hungary -6.0% -34.5%Ireland +13.0% +25.4%Italy -6.5% +12.1%Latvia -8.0% -58.0%Lithuania -8.0% -53.1%Luxembourg -28.0% +0.4%Malta no Kyoto target +54.8%Netherlands 6.0% -1.1%Poland -6.0% -32.0%Portugal +27.0% +40.4%Romania -8.0% -45.6%Slovakia -8.0% -33.6%Slovenia -8.0% 0.4%Spain +15.0% +52.3%Sweden +4.0% -7.4%United Kingdom -12.5% -15.7%

Source: Friends of the Earth Europe / EU

HISTORY AND ACTION: A new generation of activists, trained to protect the environment, isdrawing inspiration from Balkan communities that still enjoy an idyllic relationship with nature.

REC

ARCH

IVE

�

�

REC BULLETIN | biodiversity

■ In 1995, Hungary’s government granted asan in-kind contribution the right of use ofproperty in Szentendre, Hungary to theRegional Environmental Center for Centraland Eastern Europe (REC) for a period of 99years.

The property, now home to the REC’shead office buildings and a conference centre,also features ample green space that is nowmuch more attractive because of a two-yearrenovation project, which kicked off in 2005.

The Italian Trust Fund made a contribu-tion of EUR 242,000 to the beautificationeffort, while Italy’s Agroinnova developed thearboretum design concept.

Speaker of the Hungarian ParliamentKatalin Szili was on hand in spring 2005 tocommemorate the planting of the first tree asthe project got underway.

N G O G R A N T S

Arboretum projectbeautifies the REC’shead office premises

PHOTOS BY NATHAN JOHNSON

Since Turkey’s accession to the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)in 2004, the country has taken promising steps in joiningthe global effort to meet the challenges posed by anthro-pogenic climate change.

In early 2007, the Turkish Ministry of Environment andForestry submitted the country’s first greenhouse gas inventoryand national communication to the UNFCCC Secretariat, a reportthat was a result of a collaborative effort of many governmentalinstitutions and stakeholders, and which also involved technicalassistance from the United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) and financial support from the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF). Recalling the international community’s 2001recognition that Turkey’s position is different from those of otherAnnex-I parties to the UNFCCC, the country – based on green-house gas emissions of approximately 300 million tonnes in 2004– ranks as an ‘advanced developing country.’ In other words,Turkey’s status is comparable to those of other non-EU develop-ing countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD).

Extreme climatic events and the latest International Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) reports have resulted in nationwide pub-lic awareness of environmental issues, a development that led tothe March 1, 2007 establishment of a Parliamentary ResearchCommission in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. The com-mission was given three months to provide key recommenda-tions for decision makers, and the body’s findings are expectedto help provide significant input as Turkey develops a climatechange strategy, but will also play an important role as the coun-try starts to consider options regarding the Kyoto Protocol.

Environmental NGOs are also trying to become more active inthe process. A petition demanding Turkey’s ratification of theKyoto Protocol was signed by more than 150,000 citizens in lessthan six weeks – much faster than expected, and a clear indicationof public concern about the issue, as thousands of Turkish citizensgathered to express voluble support. Also, as part of a global cam-paign to raise environmental awareness, Turkish citizens can lookforward to the Istanbul appearance of former US vice president AlGore, in addition to a ‘Live Earth’ concert in July.

Active as a ‘focal point’Named in May 2005 by the Turkish Ministry of Environment

and Forestry as a “national focal point” on education, trainingand public awareness, REC Turkey has been active as one of theleading institutions in facilitating the exchange of informationand capacity building of various stakeholders, and thus partici-pating in the climate change decisionmaking process at bothnational and international levels. Within this framework, RECTurkey has developed some key publications, hosted stake-holder workshops in major Turkish cities, and organised techni-cal training courses for key negotiators of leading government,research and business institutions.

REC Turkey has also facilitated the establishment of directcontacts between Turkish NGOs and international NGO con-stituencies, as well as their participation at official UNFCCConference of Parties (COP) meetings.

REC Turkey’s in-depth technical information capacity and

non-partisan position has led to the organisation’s recognition asthe first non-governmental actor to deliver a presentation to theParliamentary Research Commission.

Based on its successful support in providing national capa-city for implementation of the UNFCCC, REC Turkey is alsobecoming a trusted partner in the formulation of national policiesand strategies related to the first and post-2012 commitment peri-ods of the Kyoto Protocol. Because Turkey is the only Annex-IParty to the UNFCCC that is not listed in the protocol’s Annex-B– meaning that Turkey is not required to have a quantified emis-sion limitation or reduction target in the first commitment period– many negotiators have commented that Turkey could play acritical role in broadening commitments to Non-Annex-I and/orNon-Annex-B parties.

REC Turkey’s success at the national level has also inspiredmore active involvement of other REC country offices in theirnational processes. REC Turkey’s experience has also providedvaluable insight for the REC’s Climate Change Program.

“There are two main points that define the success of RECTurkey’s Climate Change Program,” said REC Turkey DirectorSibel Sezer, “[These are] facilitation of access to information, andestablishment of knowledge-based, trustworthy partnerships tofulfil international commitments. We are glad that the model isproviding fruitful outcomes and being extended.”

The REC is currently negotiating with the UNFCCC Secretariatto become a regional focal point in CEE for the purposes ofArticle 6 of the UNFCCC, within the scope of the extended NewDelhi Work Programme for the period after 2007.

turkey | REC BULLETIN


REC supports Turkey’sclimate change challengesBy YUNUS ARIKAN

Success at the national level proves inspiring for other REC country offices

◗◗

A VITAL LINK: Istanbul’s Bosphorus Bridge aptly illustrateshow Europe and Turkey are growing closer together.

ISTO

CKPH

OTO

REC BULLETIN | sustainable consumption


In trying to achieve sustainable devel-opment, ‘sustainable’ is the difficultbit. Development, willingly under-taken by stakeholders and often pro-ducing immediately tangible results,

is an easier sell.But how is development to be carried

out responsibly? And how can the initialenthusiasm generated in implementationof this programme or that round of aware-ness-raising be sustained? How does oneconvince people to reduce consumption?Or, in short, what does it take to get peo-ple to change their behaviour?

“An environmental project might lookgood on paper, but the results often don’tcontinue when the project ends,” saysAlessandra Pala, who heads the REC HO’sChangeLAB project, which offers a new,long-term approach to sustainable devel-opment practices. ChangeLAB operatesfrom the premise that sustainable devel-opment can be achieved by engagingdirectly with citizens in order to decoupleconsumption from economic growth.

Eight organisations are participating inthis three-year project, representing sevenpilot projects in Estonia, Greece,Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Swedenand the UK. In CEE, REC HO has joinedREC Estonia as a ChangeLAB contributorin running the pilot project in Estonia. Theproject is funded in part by the EuropeanRegional Development Fund programmeInterreg IIIC, and each Interreg region isparticipating in ChangeLAB.

Evidence and knowledgeChangeLAB is based on the “Precede”

and “Precede-Proceed” models, devel-oped by Lawrence W. Green and MarshallKreuter. These models from the early1980s describe an intervention planningprocess designed to address greater soci-etal behaviour in healthcare issues. By1991, Green and Kreuter had definedhealth promotion as “the combination ofeducational and environmental supportsfor actions and conditions of living.”

Such planning involves: identifyingoverriding problems and behavioural riskfactors; investigating mediators or determi-nants of risk behaviour; subsequentlyassigning intervention goals and method-ology; designing a comprehensive inter-vention package; and then implementingand disseminating the package. Each stepshould be evidence-based.

In terms of applying knowledge fromthe Interreg IIIC partners, ChangeLAB hasbeen developed to cross-culturally exper-iment with a range of approaches onchanging behaviour, and is rooted inmethodologies including regulation,financial penalties, information, educa-tion, social pressures, and enablementthrough infrastructure.

<Changelabproject.org> is an interest-ing online tool that features a database ofbest practices – the Knowledge Base andDigital Technique Planner – a direct resultof an aim to provide a transfer mechanismof experience between sectors and acrosscultures.

ChangeLAB partners discovered earlyon, however, that much data remainsunshared and unapplied after initial suc-cess. Pala said the Digital TechniquePlanner was used in ChangeLAB’s pilotproject in Estonia, using what had been asolution implemented first in the UK butwhich might be ‘Estonianised’ for use inthat country.

An electronic museThe planner, again based on Green

and Kreuter’s theories, uses an interactiveprogram allowing program designers toidentify predisposing determinants(awareness, social norms, knowledge,self-efficacy), enabling determinants(financial resources, technical resources,organisational resources, skills), and

changing consumer patterns that rein-force determinants of their target group.However, the first important step in aim-ing at changing behaviour of a chosen tar-get group is knowing well the targetgroup itself.

The Digital Technique Planner actual-ly acts as a sort of electronic muse or ideagenerator to which local flavour can beadded. Pala demonstrated the program’spotential and showed how easy it is toformulate a simple scenario.

For example, we wanted to seeschoolchildren in a CEE country doingmore walking: one of the basic examplessuggested on the website. After 15 min-utes and a little debate, the planner pre-sented 19 popular methodologies, alongwith scores expressing relevance. Topscores were given to ‘Enforcement andPenalties,’ ‘Agreements,’ ‘Promotion’ and‘Demonstration.’

Of course, one has to apply a littlecommon sense (as the website instruc-tions warn), and penalty threats might bea bit over the top in efforts to encouragepositive behaviour, but the other method-ologies create ideas for any numbers ofprojects, rewards – and, ultimately, posi-tive reinforcement of sustainable lifestylebehaviour.

The REC HO will hold its ChangeLABregional conference in Szentendre onSeptember 18. Conference informationwill be posted on <www.rec.org>.

The course ends in December 2007.

ChangeLAB project explores responsible development strategies

Change our behaviour,change the worldby David Landry

TWO-WHEELIN’ TYKES: Getting kids totake an early interest in cycling is oneway to discourage excessive automobile usage.CH

ANGELAB

news | REC BULLETIN


■ Gino van Begin, regional director for Europe of ICLEI Local Governments forSustainability, and Marta Szigeti Bonifert, executive director of the RegionalEnvironmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), signed a memoran-dum of understanding between the two international organisations on March 22during the Fifth European Conference on Sustainable Cities and Towns inSeville, Spain.

This milestone signing offers a framework for expanding further cooperation inpursuit of sustainable local development in countries where both organisations oper-ate. It is particularly relevant in the context of engaging citizens and stakeholders toensure progress in local sustainability through supporting and spreading the AalborgCommitment process.

The REC will continue to deliver assistance and build partnerships with localcommunities to fight poverty, improve environmental planning and management.

More information is available from Beata Wiszniewska, regional director forCentral and Eastern European countries <[email protected]> and Srdjan Susic,project manager in the REC’s Environmental Policy Department <[email protected]>.

S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y

REC establishes partnership with ICLEI

R E G I O N A L G R A N T S

Grants awarded forurban sustainability

■ Thirty-eight national and five region-al grants worth more than EUR 525,000were awarded to support civil societyorganisations working on urban sus-tainability. The national projects will beimplemented in Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, Montenegro,Serbia and Kosovo (territory underinterim UN administration). The region-al projects will involve organisationsfrom the above countries, plus Croatia.Projects will likely run from June 2007to December 2008.

Forty-two percent of the selectedprojects involve typical civil societyactivities such as demonstrations,awareness campaigns and educationprojects, albeit with a focus on greeningSouth Eastern European cities. Another37 percent of the selected projectsaddress waste-related problems by pro-moting recycling, composting, andother waste prevention measures inurban areas.

The remaining projects address ener-gy consumption and sustainable trans-port. This grants initiative is coordinatedby the Regional Environmental Center(REC) with the support of the SwedishInternational Development CooperationAgency (Sida) and was first announcedat the end of September 2006.

The granting programme allocatedregional grants worth EUR 400,000,which will be distributed from 2007 to2009 in two rounds. During the sameperiod, national grants of EUR 1,040,000will be distributed in three rounds.

The programme aims to fund proj-ects that not only make cities more sus-tainable, but strengthen the civil societysector and increase community aware-ness regarding the state of urban envi-ronments. Funded projects should sug-gest possible solutions to problems,particularly those that threaten humanhealth. The programme also promotesdemocratic principles related to gender,ethnic and regional equality by ensur-ing the participation of diverse groups.

The selection process of the firstround took place from September 2006to May 2007. An independent evalua-tion committee coordinated by the RECreviewed proposals and selected thebest based on criteria given in the grantsannouncement. The results of the selec-tion were submitted to Sida for a finaldecision.

Full grants announcements andapplication forms are available at theproject website <www.rec.org/sector/-support/-index.html>. For more infor-mation on regional grants, please con-tact Project Manager Entela Pinguli at<[email protected]>.

R E C B O S N I A A N D H E R Z E G O V I N A

REC celebrates 10 yearsin Bosnia and Herzegovina

■ This spring marked the 10th anniver-sary of the REC’s establishment in Bosniaand Herzegovina (BiH). To celebrate theoccasion, the REC’s Country Office BiHorganised an event in the Parliament andCouncil of Ministers building in Sarajevoon April 24.

Attendees were addressed by ZeljkoKomsic, member of the Presidency of BiH;Beriz Belkic, speaker of the House ofRepresentatives of the ParliamentaryAssembly of BiH; and Katalin Szili, speak-er of the National Assembly of theRepublic of Hungary.

Afterwards, several individuals wereawarded charters for their contributionsto a sound environment, with Belkic,

Komsic and Szili receiving honours,along with Katica Cerkez and MiloradZivkovic. Nesad Seremet was also awar-ded with a charter for his successful workas director of REC Country Office BiHfrom 1997–2007.

Audience members, in addition tohearing a speech from Seremet and theaforementioned individuals, heard fromSlobodan Puhalac from the BiH Ministryof Foreign Trade and EconomicRelations; Head of Environment SenadOprasic; REC Executive Director MartaSzigeti Nobifer; REC Country Office BiHDirector Jasna Draganic, and RECCountry Office BiH Deputy DirectorDjordje Stefanovic.

DECADE OF DOING: Komsic (left) shakes hands with BiH DeputyMinister of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations Vilim Primorac,while Ministry Head Slobodan Puhalac looks on.

REC

ARCH

IVE

REC BULLETIN | region


ALBANIARr. Ismail Qemali, No. 27,Third Floor, Tirana, AlbaniaTirana, AlbaniaTel/Fax: (355-4) 232-928BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINAKalemova 3471000 SarajevoTel/fax: (387-33) 263-050, 209-130E-mail: [email protected] Luka Field OfficeSlavka Rodica 178000 Banja Luka, RSBosnia and HerzegovinaTel/fax: (387-51) 317-022E-mail: [email protected] Simeon 42, Ap. 21000 SofiaTel: (359-2) 983-4817Fax: (359-2) 983-5217E-mail: [email protected] 8a Br.10000 ZagrebTel: (385-1) 481-0774Tel/fax: (385-1) 481-0844E-mail: [email protected]

CZECH REPUBLICSenovazna 211000 PragueTel/fax: (420) 224-222-843E-mail: [email protected]

ESTONIARavala str 810143 TallinnTel/fax: (372) 646-1423E-mail: [email protected]

HUNGARYAdy Endre ut 9-112000 SzentendreTel: (36-26) 504-075Fax: (36-26) 302-137E-mail: [email protected]

LATVIAPeldu 26/28, 3LV-1050 RigaTel/fax: (371-7) 228-055E-mail: [email protected]

LITHUANIASvitrigailos g. 7/1603110 VilniusTel: (370-5) 231-0067Tel/fax: (370-5) 233-5451E-mail: [email protected]

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLICOF MACEDONIAIlindenska 1181000 SkopjeTel/fax: (389-2) 309-0135, 309-0135 or 306-0146E-mail: [email protected]

MONTENEGROIvana Crnojevica 16/281000 PodgoricaTel/Fax: (381/382) 210-235,210-236

POLANDul. Grojecka 22/2402-301 WarsawaTel: (48-22) 823-8459, 823-9629Fax: (48-22) 822-9401E-mail: [email protected]: www.rec.org.pl

ROMANIAStr Episcop Timus nr.4, Sector 1BucharestTel: (40-21) 316-7344, 316-7345Fax: (40-21) 316-7264E-mail: [email protected]

SERBIAPrimorska 3111000 BelgradeTel: (381-11) 329-2899

Fax: (381-11) 329-3020E-mail: [email protected]

Kosovo (territory under interimUN administration) Field OfficeKodra e Diellit Rruga 3Lamela 26, PO Box 16010000 PristinaTel/fax: (381-38) 552-123E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVAKIAVysoka 1881106 BratislavaTel: (421-2) 5263-2942Fax: (421-2) 5296-4208E-mail: [email protected]

SLOVENIASlovenska cesta 51000 LjubljanaTel: (386-1) 425-6860Fax: (386-1) 421-0939E-mail: [email protected]

TURKEYIlkbahar Mah. 15. Cad. 296. Sok. No:806550 Yildiz Cankaya AnkaraTel: (90-312) 491-9530Fax: (90-312) 491-9540E-mail: [email protected]

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe(REC) is a non-partisan, non-advocacy, not-for-profit internationalorganisation with a mission to assist in solving environmentalproblems in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The center fulfilsthis mission by promoting cooperation among non-governmentalorganisations, governments, businesses and other environmentalstakeholders, and by supporting the free exchange of informationand public participation in environmental decision making.

The REC was established in 1990 by the United States, theEuropean Commission and Hungary. Today, the REC is legallybased on a charter signed by the governments of 28 countriesand the European Commission, and on an international agree-ment with the government of Hungary. The REC has its headoffice in Szentendre, Hungary, and country offices and fieldoffices in 17 beneficiary countries, which are: Albania, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia,Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia,Slovenia and Turkey.

Recent donors are the European Commission and the governmentsof Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary,Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, andthe United States, as well as other inter-governmental andprivate institutions.

E V E N T S

REC helps organise talkson EU and sustainability■ The Hungarian Embassy in the United Kingdom,together with the Regional Environmental Center forCentral and Eastern Europe (REC), organised a May 25discussion on the theme ‘The European Union: a pilot forsustainability?’ The event provided an opportunity toassess current and future sustainability efforts in CentralEurope, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean.

For the past two decades, Europe has been grapplingwith three concurrent political processes: conflictsbetween environment and development that threaten theglobal economy, security challenges following the col-lapse of the Soviet Union, and legal and logisticalupheavals caused by significant EU enlargement.

EU enlargement has affected neighbouring regions,in addition to the Union itself; and it can be argued thatthe differences between Europe’s regions reflect – to acertain degree – the contrasts between different parts ofthe world. To this extent, Europe has the possibility tooffer the world a model approach in the implementationof sustainable development strategies.

There are a number of very wealthy areas in Europe –and certainly within the EU – with high per capita mater-ial consumption, cutting-edge technologies and efficientworkforces, sophisticated political and legal systems, anda tradition of the rule of law. These areas also produce highper capita carbon emissions and proportionally large eco-logical footprints. It is these regions that have transformedmost of their natural capital into other forms of wealth.

By contrast, there are areas in the EU with high pover-ty rates, low per capita material consumption, inefficienttechnologies and workforces, poor policy implementa-tion and weak law enforcement. Some of these areas stillpossess much of their natural wealth.

The recent accession of several CEE countries to theEU provides yet another opportunity for the continent togain valuable experience and credibility in global discus-sions, as it can address internal regional tensions and turnthem into drivers for sustainable development.

Hungarian Ambassador to the UK Borbala Czakokicked off this lively May debate. Following the ambassa-dor were presentations from Tom Burke, advisor at theUK Foreign Office and visiting professor at Imperial andUniversity College London; Nick Mabey, executive direc-tor of E3G in London; Miklos Tatrai, senior state secretaryat the Hungarian Ministry of Finance; and Marta SzigetiBonifert, executive director of the REC.

■ Sergiu Serban, the REC’s SEE expert, claimed top prize in aRomanian photo competition. Serban shot the winning photo inCoron Island, Bosuanga Arhipelago, Philippines in December2005. It is titled ‘Watery House’ and won in the ‘TouristicPhotography’ category.

T R A N S B O U N D A R Y C O O P E R A T I O N

Stara Planina discussed■ A meeting concerning Euroregion Stara Planina took place inPirot, Serbia on May 18, at which regional mayors decided toapply for membership of the Association of European BorderRegions, which joins some 160 border regions across the conti-nent. The mayors also decided to ask the Bulgarian Ministry ofForeign Affairs to facilitate the process of granting Bulgarianvisas to Serbian members of the Euroregion.

A Stara Planina logo will be designed in the coming weeks,and members of the working groups will be selected for the fol-lowing areas of transboundary cooperation: environment-friend-ly tourism, agriculture, culture, environment and infrastructure.

The Euroregion was established in 2006 with the aim of fos-tering transboundary cooperation between the Serbian bordermunicipalities of Dimitrovgrad, Knjazevac, Pirot and Zajecar andBulgaria’s Belogradchik, Berkovitza, Chiprovtzi, Chuprene,Georgi Damjanovo, Godech and Vurshtets. Another aim is toassist the two governments in the planning and execution ofcooperation and regional development policies.

The Regional Environmental Center for Central and EasternEurope (REC), which has supported transboundary cooperationin the West Stara Planina Mountain region since 2002, is actingas temporary secretariat of Euroregion Stara Planina and sup-porting its institutionalisation.

SERGIU

DRAG

OSSE

RBA

N

We have a winner!

BULLETIN BOARD


Join our free training seminar for mid-careertransport professionals from new EuropeanUnion member states, accession countriesand neighbouring EU countries!

This practically oriented course presents a unique opportunity forurban transport officials to exchange experience and develop theirprofessional skills in sustainable mobility. Places in this course arelimited and will be awarded to those applicants who demonstratetheir commitment and capability to contribute to improving urbantransport and mobility. Participation is free of charge.

WHEN: 15–17 October, 2007 in Tallin, Estonia[Application deadline: 15 September]

WHAT: The course will include three modules on:• Public transport: competition and contracting;• Preparation and submission of proposals forEuropean Commission programmes; and

• Transport land use planning.

Please contact Gabor Heves at [email protected] obtain an application form and detailed agenda.Limited travel cost reimbursement is available.

This training course is financed by the European Commission’s DGTransport and Energy as part of its ELTIS initiative.

European Local Transport Information Service

www.eltis.org

Sustainable transporttraining for officials

COLUMNS


EPA forced to regulateUS Supreme Court reaches key decision on greenhouse gases

In one of its most important environ-mental decisions in years, Massachusettsv. Environmental Protection Agency, theUnited States Supreme Court announcedon April 2, 2007 that it would direct theagency (EPA) to reconsider its refusal toregulate heat-trapping gases in automo-bile emissions. Led by the State ofMassachusetts, a dozen states and severalUS cities and environmental groups wentto court to try to force the EPA to regulategreenhouse gases such as carbon dioxideemissions. The petitioners claimed thathuman-influenced global climate changewas causing adverse effects – amongthem, a vanishing Massachusetts coastline.

The EPA gave several reasons fordeclining to regulate greenhouse gasemissions under the Clean Air Act, includ-ing its concern that climate change is aforeign policy issue to be addressed bythe president.

The EPA argued that it was not giventhe authority under the Clean Air Act toregulate CO2 or other greenhousegases. The Supreme Court challenged theEPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 as an air pol-lutant under the statute, and then ruledthat CO2 fits within the statute’s broad def-inition of an air pollutant. Further, theCourt stated that “[the] EPA identifiesnothing suggesting that Congress meantto curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhousegases as air pollutants.”

The EPA argued in its defence that

regulating CO2 would require regulatingfuel economy standards, which – accord-ing to the EPA – is under the purview ofthe Department of Transportation. TheCourt countered by acknowledging thatmulti-agency efforts can indeed overlapwhen addressing an issue as important asglobal climate change: “The fact that theDepartment of Transportation’s mandateto promote energy efficiency by settingmileage standards may overlap withEPA’s environmental responsibilities in noway licenses the EPA to shirk its duty toprotect the public health and welfare.”

Finally, the EPA argued that even if itwas granted authority to regulate green-house gases under the Clean Air Act, itwould be “unwise to do so at this time,”

adding that it might conflict with the cur-rent administration’s effort to address cli-mate change, particularly with regard tointernational climate negotiations.

The Court deemed insufficient theEPA’s argument that regulating emissionsfrom the transportation sector “mighthamper the President’s ability to persuadekey developing nations to reduce emis-sions.” Rather, according to the Court: “Areduction in domestic emissions wouldslow the pace of global emissions increas-es, no matter what happens elsewhere.”

Further, the Court said the Clean AirAct makes it clear that “the EPA can avoidpromulgating regulations only if it deter-mines that greenhouse gases do not con-tribute to climate change, or if it providessome reasonable explanation as to why itcannot or will not exercise its discretion todetermine whether they do.”

Finally, the Court was unconvinced bythe EPA’s argument that CO2 regulation inthe transportation sector would not makesignificant reductions in emissions, stress-ing nonetheless the EPA’s duty to takesuch a steps in order to “slow or reduce”global warming.

The Court’s decision opens the doorfor greenhouse gas regulation under theClean Air Act, it is also likely to catalysecalls for more comprehensive federal cli-mate change legislation – legislation thatcovers sectors other than transportation,as well as non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Legal MattersLudovicRo

usseau

COLUMN INCHES: The top US court surprisedmany observers by not caving in to the EPA.

◗

Please deliver my donation to:

TITLE ■■ MMrr ■■ MMss NAME SURNAME

ADDRESS

POSTCODE COUNTRY

E-MAIL TELEPHONE

Billing or credit card holder address, if different from above:

TITLE ■■ MMrr ■■ MMss NAME SURNAME

ADDRESS

POSTCODE COUNTRY

Choose your method of payment:

■■ I enclose a Western Union transfer receipt (charges paid by sender)

■■ Please charge EUR 18 to my Visa/Mastercard

CARD NO. ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ EXPIRY DATE ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■

DATE SIGNATURE

■■ I enclose a receipt for cash payment issued by a REC office (see list of country offices in The REC Bulletin section)

In line with its mission, the REC offers complimentary subscriptions of Green Horizon to selected environmental stakeholders from Central and EasternEurope. Eligibility is open to non-profit organisations, local and national authorities, businesses, academic institutions and journalists who cannot afford thesubscription donation. To request your complimentary subscription, send this form along with a brief explanation of your circumstances, and tick here ■■

Send this form by e-mail: [email protected] • Fax: (36-26) 311-294

Post: Green Horizon, Ady Endre ut 9-11, 2000 Szentendre, Hungary

See what’s on the Green Horizon

There is only one way to obtain the news, in-depth features, key facts and figures, andexpert opinions that you need for your work:a year’s subscription to Green Horizon.

This subscription fee comprises a donationfor the work of the Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern Europe (REC),a non-partisan, not-for-profit internationalorganisation that works to solve environ-mental problems in this region. The RECpromotes cooperation among non-govern-mental organisations, governments, busi-nesses and others, and supports the freeexchange of information and public partici-pation in environmental decision making.

One year’s subscription (four issues): EUR 18

SUBSCRIPTION FORM

REU

TER

S

Information Technology

COLUMNS


Jerome Simpson

Driving greener performanceHow to locate resources for achieving sustainable development

Lenovo, Nokia and Sony Ericsson areamong the highest-rated electronics per-formers, according to international pres-sure group Greenpeace’s Guide toGreener Electronics. Published this April,the guide ranks 14 companies accordingto their policies and practices on eliminat-ing harmful chemicals, and on takingresponsibility for products once discardedby consumers. Apple and Panasonicreceived the poorest marks.

Companies were scored across ninecriteria, with double points awarded fortackling more environmentally damagingpractices, such as adopting a timeline forphasing out brominated flame retardants(BFRs). The guide lists leading mobileand PC manufacturers based on publiclyavailable information, and on companycommunications and clarifications.

According to Greenpeace’s website,as many as 4,000 tonnes of toxic e-wasteare discarded worldwide every hour.Vast amounts are routinely and often ille-gally shipped as waste from Europe,Japan and the US to places where unpro-tected workers recover parts and materi-als. The driving logic behind the guide isthat safe recycling of electronics can takeplace once harmful chemicals areremoved from the products. China is onecountry that stands to benefit fromgreener practices.

In the latest ranking, Chinese manu-facturer Lenovo (the company behind theIBM PC) displaced Nokia at the top bytaking clear positions on the precaution-ary principle and individual producerresponsibility. Lenovo provides global

take-back and recycling services wherev-er its products are sold. Apple, on theother hand, scored badly on all criteria,though it does report on the amounts ofelectronic waste it recycles.

Companies do actually take notice ofsuch lists. Lenovo’s website, for instance,trumpets the company’s new ‘No. 1’ statusin its news section. And in response to theGreenpeace guide’s results, Apple made acommitment in early May to phase-outproduction of BFRs and PVCs by 2008 – amove that’s sure to lift the company out ofthe bottom slot.

“We’ve seen Michael Dell challengethe entire industry to adopt a worldwidetake-back policy,” said Greenpeace.“[We’ve] watched some companies meetand then exceed our demands, and haveenjoyed getting phone calls from othermanufacturers asking when, precisely,new policies need to be adopted in orderto be reflected in the next ranking.”

Combined with competitive pressureand increasing consumer concern for theenvironment, a poor reputation can seri-ously dent sales. Not surprisingly, factorslike these have driven an overall improve-ment in companies’ scores ever since theguide was introduced in December 2006.

Such league tables are a form of‘watchdogging.’ In this way, think-tanks,civil society organisations (CSOs), alterna-tive media and even citizens (rememberErin Brokovich?) seek to hold account-able and compare public personalities,public institutions, and/or industry fortheir impacts on social and political life.Actions, decisions, products and policies

of key players and countries may all bescrutinised over time according to qualitystandards, targets and indicators. The ulti-mate aim is to help reduce industrial pol-lution through transparency.

Watchdogging is nothing new.Successes were first demonstrated in theenvironment sector more than ten yearsago, when the US’ long-established toxicsrelease inventory revealed reductions inmanufacturing sector emissions to air, waterand land (45 percent between 1988–98). Inthe EU, the number of visitors to theEuropean Pollutant Emissions Register(EPER) grew to 340,000 in 2006 (up 67 per-cent from its launch in 2004).

The Information Society is upon us!Your feedback and suggestions for inclusion are welcome at <[email protected]>.

SYSTEM FAILURE: Too often, this is what atechnology upgrade looks like.

ISTO

CKPH

OTO

◗

NGO Directory of South Eastern Europe: A Directory and Survey Findings of West BalkanEnvironmental Civil Society OrganisationsPublished in hard copy and available online: Order or download at http://www.rec.org/sector/

ORDER NOW OR DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION!

This publication contains detailed contact information about environmental civil society organisationsworking in South Eastern Europe. Countries and territories covered are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo (under UN adminis-tration). The directory also contains the findings of an extensive assessment of these organisations andtheir operating environments; presented nationally, the findings highlight their status and the challengesthey face.

Accompanying the publication is a searchable online database containing contact information for morethan 430 organisations from the SEE region. NGOs can either submit or update information at<http://www.rec.org/REC/Databases/NGO_Directory_SEE/Find.html>.

SECTOR

By focusing on design, Cradle toCradle attempts to steer environmentaldebate about end-of-pipe solutions intoa constructive re-conceptualisation ofthe way we think about the environ-ment – largely by focusing on man-made products and their often destruc-tive interaction with ecosystems.

In a Mother Goose and Grimm cartoon from years ago,Mother Goose is paying for her groceries and is asked if shewants paper or plastic bags. Faced with a choice of killing treesor exploiting oil, and being unable to decide, Mother Goose isfinally put into a straightjacket and carried off to the loony bin.

There are, of course, other solutions not illustrated in the car-toon – such as reusable string and textile bags – but resourcesare also mined and used in their manufacture, and there is stillthe question of disposal. Nor are so-called “biodegradable” bagsthe answer: Today’s biodegradable bags comprise a mix of plas-tic interspersed with cornstarch. When and if the cornstarchbiodegrades (which it does not unless exposed to sunlight, airand water – none of which are present in a landfill disposal orincinerator), many small plastic bits remain.

Cradle to Cradle asks us to look at everything from bags,shoes, carpets and entire buildings, and to contemplateredesigning them in such a way that waste does not equalwaste, but equals food. A carrier bag, for example, can meana fully compostable bag that can re-enter the ecosystem asfood for biological processes, or be made from materials that

can be re-fed into bag-manufacturing process. Sports shoescan be made with soles that erode slowly through wear andleave behind material that biodegrades into soil nutrients.

The authors argue that all materials and products shouldbe designed so that they safely feed the biosphere and/ortechnical processes. For example, car exhaust emissionscould be reconceived and the process designed so that posi-tive emissions can either help purify the air or produce drink-ing water. They add, however, that these types of solutionsdo not get to the actual root problems of an auto-based cul-ture and infrastructure.

The authors also emphasise the big difference betweenrecycling and down-cycling. Recycling is to make the sameproduct from reclaimed materials. For example, Cradle toCradle itself is made from non-toxic, 100% recyclable poly-mer material that can be recycled into a new book. Recyclingmight make you feel good, but the authors claim that it doesnot provide adequate incentives to minimise either the wasteor the often-toxic chemicals used in production.

Energy-efficiency advocates might quarrel with theauthors’ contention that emission standards, permits, toxicrelease inventories and carbon trading schemes are just a“license to harm” – that making a destructive system less sois just not good enough. Being “less bad” or “sustainable”does not halt depletion, it just slows it down. The authorswrite, not without humour: “If a man characterised his rela-tionship with his wife as sustainable, you might as well pitythem both.”

Green Literature

COLUMNS

Manufacturing for lifeBeing ‘less bad’ isn’t always good enoughDa

niel Swartz


◗

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things By William McDonough and Michael Braungart Published by the North Point Press, 193 pages

www.rec.org/reeep

Our aim: to accelerateand expand the globalmarket for renewableenergy and energyefficiency technologies.

We are an active globalpartnership that formulatespolicy initiatives for cleanenergy markets and facilitatesfinancing for sustainableenergy projects.

The REC serves as theregional REEEP secretariatfor 15 countries in Centraland Eastern Europe, as wellas Turkey.

The benefits of sustainableenergy are clear: energysecurity, economicdevelopment, social equityand environmental protection.

Join the drivefor sustainableenergy!

REEEP a sustainableenergy future

QUARTERLYMAGAZINEOFTHEREGIONALENVIRONMENTALCENTERFORCENTRA...

Documents

Transcript of QUARTERLYMAGAZINEOFTHEREGIONALENVIRONMENTALCENTERFORCENTRA...