Regarding ‘EU innovation needs paradigm shift, says commissioner‘:

To achieve EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik’s goal of turning research into market products, we should go back to the fundamental questions of what innovation means.

Innovation, unlike basic research, is an organic phenomenon. It is reactive to demand far more often than it is predictive of it, but in either case, success depends on meeting the needs of the market. That is simply not the case for basic research.

Europe has always been great at research but typically weaker at innovation. Why? One oft-cited reason is that research is a better fit for the European model of investment and subsidy, whereas innovation is far more dependent on marketplace dynamics. Whether responding to a market or creating one, the common characteristic in successful innovation is meeting the needs of the marketplace.

How can Europe succeed at innovation? Ensure that innovative firms have unfettered access to markets at home and abroad. Ensure innovative firms have access to risk capital to build, refine and promote their products. Ensure the minimum of regulatory barriers to the development, promotion and sales of innovative products. Ensure that investments in building innovation and intellectual capital can be protected by innovative firms.

So while a fragmented, over-regulated, over-taxed, over-complicated, and over-politicised Europe has not held back basic research, it’s lethal to innovation. Our challenge in Europe is to look at innovation in nearly the opposite way we have looked at basic research. Rather than focusing on grants and aid programmes, governments could do the most good by clearing the fields of regulatory hurdles, and letting innovators and entrepreneurs refocus on their businesses.

Jonathan Zuck,

President,

Association for Competitive Technology

The European Union (EU) is said to have been established by the Treaty on European Union signed in 1992.

However, taking advantage of your neutrality, I would like to question the EU’s existence based on the following considerations:

First, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly states that the EU “shall be founded on the European Communities” (Article A of the Treaty on European Union, renamed Article 1); however, the EU does not replace, substitute or succeed the existing European Communities.

A careful look into the TEU shows two most interesting facts: (i) the newly “established” union does not have legal personality, and (ii) it does not have any of its own institutions – despite the common misperception, the European institutions (e.g. European Commission, European Parliament, European Court of Justice, etc.) are in fact institutions serving the European Communities (clearly stated in the respective legal name of most of these, e.g. Commission of the European Communities, Court of Justice of the European Communities, etc.).

Further, the copyright holder for all official publications by the European institutions is no-one else but the European Community (or the European Communities) as clearly demonstrated by the copyright notice of official documents released by the European institutions.

Second, the Treaty of Lisbon is the first legal act to grant the EU a legal personality by amending the existing Treaty on European Union and Treaty Establishing the European Community and renaming the latter Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The amended Treaty on European Union for the first time reads that the EU “shall replace and succeed the European Community” (Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon) and that it “shall have legal personality” (Article 47 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon).

However, the Treaty of Lisbon is still not in force and, hence, its provisions have no legal power.

In view of the above, I would like to raise the question, does the European Union exist at all?

Svetoslav Apostolov

Regarding ‘Europe’s education systems ‘stifling creative thinking’‘:

The Bologna Process represents the greatest opportunity for higher education reform in Europe ever undertaken. It is also the subject of a large degree of misunderstanding, as shown by the recent student protests in several countries and by the comments of Erik Spiekermann in the article on creativity and innovation.

The Bologna Process as envisioned is not an educational straitjacket that seeks to fit 46 different national education systems into one mould. Rather, it is a fundamental governments and stakeholders’ cooperation process, while providing the opportunity for redesigning educational structures and practices that foster creativity and innovation as part of the reform process.

The key to this is implementation. The situation that Mr Spiekermann describes is not attributable to the Bologna Process as a policy agenda, but it can be caused by the way it has been implemented at national level up until now.

The implementation problems are well?known by all those involved in European higher education actors and are clearly documented in our Bologna With Student Eyes 2009 report; the only independent analysis of Bologna published this year. Problems have arisen due to countries viewing the reforms not as a package of actions to be implemented simultaneously, but as an ‘a la carte’ menu to pick and choose from.

For example, if you try to condense a 5?year degree programme into a 3?year one without also implementing the action lines on flexible?learning paths, student workload and student?centred learning, then yes, the result is a programme with overloaded students and teachers who can do little more than focus on ticking boxes. But this situation is because of a persistent failure at national level to translate the Bologna vision into ground?level changes. And as a clarification, there is no reference within the Bologna Ministerial communiqués that a first cycle degree should have 3, 4, 5 or 10 years.

There is a lot of cause for hope. The recent Ministerial Conference of the Bologna Process in Leuven/Louvain?la?Neuve at the end of April produced the most positive communiqué yet in ten years of the Process with an unprecedented level of attention of student?centred learning and the quality of the student experience. It follows, therefore, that if the 46 Bologna countries make a renewed effort to deliver on all of the action lines as now defined, Mr Spiekermann’s quest for creativity and innovation in European education will indeed become a reality.

ESU fully supports the need for greater creativity and innovation in European higher education, and in addition to supporting its prioritisation within the Bologna Process, we will continue to push for a pedagogical paradigm change towards student?centred learning, both through high?level policy debates and a major project in 2010 on student?centred learning and how to advance creativity in learning. We would very much hope to work with Mr Spiekermann and the other creativity and innovation ambassadors on achieving this common goal.

Frances Aldson

Information and Communications Officer

The European Students’ Union (ESU)

Regarding ‘Spain tops EU fishing ‘overcapacity’ ranking‘:

I am sure you are all too familiar and have continuously read about the ocean’s dwindling fish stocks time and time again.

Even Joe Borg, the EU fisheries commissioner, has admitted to getting the European’s fishing strategy all wrong. He stated that 88% of EU stocks were overfished with fishing fleets either running losses or returning low profits, the result being that the industry is on the brink of suicide and several species, including cod, bluefin tuna and anchovy are in danger of extinction after 25 years of EU policy failure.

If current practices continue, worldwide fishery collapse is predicted by 2048. The facts are often repeated but what is really being done about this situation by the authorities? We can solve this problem, but do you think we can get one piece of support from any such government-funded body? In simple terms the answer is ‘no’.

Imagine if you will, a sustainable supply of fresh cod around the world and being able to afford to eat it, whatever your income. Well, it has happened! Diobas has found a completely new way to rear cod in freshwater as a valuable comparatively cheap resource at any location in the world in a controlled environment, even on the most unproductive terrain, at any distance from the sea, without quotas.

Diobas has managed to push the boundaries beyond established research with a completely new solution to the rapid depletion of our ocean fish stocks. This innovation will revolutionise the way we harvest cod in the future. In the very near future, all fish will be produced this way right alongside processing plants situated where they are needed in major cities worldwide and is one of the most important steps forward we have all had the opportunity to take for many years in terms of green issues.

After receiving no support and no third-party or government funding, it has been a challenge all round. These challenges include:

a) No response to any correspondences sent to our local MP; MPs; the prime minister; the secretary of state for environment, food & rural affairs, or any DEFRA ministers;
b) No support from the government-funded body called ‘Seafish’.

At the present time, it looks like opportunities to keep the Cod Research Project and facilities in the UK are dwindling and we may reluctantly have to move overseas. It will be devastating if we cannot keep this technology in the UK as it has all the right ingredients, and inexhaustible demand for the product, it is low-risk with excellent returns and very definite environmental benefits.

This is the beginning of a whole new technology and one day all fish for the table may well be reared with this system.

Should you be interested in finding our more information, please contact me on  commercial.director at diobas.com or see www.diobas.com

Kind regards,

Gerry Stopps
Commercial Director
DIOBAS LIMITED
Office: +44 (0) 1409 253123
Mobile: +44 (0) 7831 494709
 commerical.director at diobas.com
 www.diobas.com

Regarding ‘EU leaders warned about emerging ‘major’ gas crisis‘:

As the threat of another potential gas crisis looms, AEGPL, the European LPG Association, would like to highlight the availability and suitability of LPG as a back-up alternative, particularly in industrial installations.

Not all back-up fuels are created equal. LPG, as a clean-burning gaseous fuel with highly flexible supply routes, is a particularly suitable substitute for natural gas in the event of a supply crisis.

Thanks to the physical similarities between natural gas and LPG, a switch-over can be easily and rapidly undertaken. Indeed, certain industrial end-users, both in Europe and abroad, have already opted to establish an on-site reserve of LPG with a view to avoiding the sort of undue disruptions experienced earlier this year.

The EU and its constituent member states could encourage this pro-active approach by providing support in the form of market-based instruments.

Enhanced preparations to confront a gas supply crisis will benefit the EU, its citizens and society at large. LPG can and should be a part of this process.

Paul Voss

AEGPL

Regarding ‘EU summit seeks to avert ‘perfect storm’‘:

Rich countries cannot manage climate change alone, even if they reduce emissions to zero. To succeed will require significant contributions from developing countries, particularly the major emerging economies such as China and India.

Developing countries are the most vulnerable to climate risks, the least responsible for historic emissions, have the fewest resources to address the issue, and have a right to grow to reduce poverty and raise standards of living.

The reality is that an effective framework to tackle climate change will require significant transfer of funds, in the order of tens of billions of dollars per year, from developed to developing countries to help them reduce their emissions and to help them adapt to climate risks that are already real and are growing more serious by the day.

Let’s be clear. This is not about charity. Failure to secure an effective treaty will see much larger costs and risks. We know that the costs of unabated climate change are likely to be at least five times the costs of prevention and there will be additional social, human and health costs.

The risk of conflict will be raised as disputes arise over scarce resources, particularly water. As the glaciers melt in the Himalayas, on which over a billion people rely for fresh water, hundreds of millions of people will be looking for new homes. And rising crop failure and the resulting breakdown of social systems in the world’s poorest countries will increase the risk of ‘failed states’, incubating grounds for terrorists and other subversive groups. It is clear: an effective post-2012 climate change framework is squarely in our self-interest.

The EU made a promise at the UN negotiations in Poznan in December 2008 to deliver its vision of how a post-2012 agreement will be financed at the March Spring Council. The EU failed to agree a position and we are concerned that this situation will not change at the next European Council on 18-19 June.

The breaking of this promise undermines the EU’s position as a leader and further erodes the trust between developed and developing countries. We should not be treating this process like a tactical trade negotiation where everything can be agreed at the last minute.

The EU’s approach needs to be strategic, allowing time for developing countries to respond to positive signals and to win domestic political support for more ambitious negotiating positions. The later we put money on the table, the less time and incentive developing countries will have to prepare ambitious plans and the greater the risk of failure at Copenhagen.

As legislators from across the political spectrum and from a cross-section of member states, we urge EU heads of state and government to make commitments at the June Council to:

• Publicly recognise the scale of the required transfer of funds from developed to developing economies to make a post-2012 climate change framework effective (we believe this to be at least 65-100 billion Euros per year in the period 2010-2020);
• Accept the EU’s fair share of this total (according to the EU’s share of emissions);
• Agree that the post-2012 framework should include a new climate finance mechanism with innovative funding sources and democratic governance, along the lines of the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund;
• Declare that climate finance will be new and additional to existing Overseas Development Aid commitments and make an immediate commitment to additional funding for urgent adaptation needs;
• Recognising the difficulties of committing to new funding at this time of economic hardship, begin an open and honest debate with the public about why this investment is necessary to secure our future security and prosperity.

Finally, we reiterate that we are personally committed to building support for an ambitious post-2012 climate change framework. Not just because it is morally the right thing to do, but because it is fundamentally in our own self interest.

List of signatories:

Anders Wijkman (MEP, Sweden, EPP, GLOBE EU president 2004 to 2009, vice-president of the Club of Rome)
Sirpa Pietikainen (MEP, Finland, EPP, interim GLOBE EU president).
Stephen Byers (MP, UK, Labour, president of GLOBE UK and GLOBE International).
Steen Gade (MP, Denmark, Green, president of the Environment Committee of the Danish Parliament, president of GLOBE Europe).
Michael Kauch (MP, Germany, Liberal, environment FPD spokesperson at the Bundestag, president of GLOBE Germany and vice-president of GLOBE Europe).
Thérèse Snoy (MP, Green, Belgium, Focal Point of GLOBE Europe at the Belgian Federal Parliament).
Hugo Alfonso Moran (MP, Socialist, Spain, environment spokesperson at the Spanish Congress, ‘Focal point’ of GLOBE Europe in Spain).
Roberto Della Seta (Senator, Socialist, Italy, Member of GLOBE Europe at the Italian Parliament).
Petra Bayr (MP, Socialist, Austria, focal point of GLOBE Europe in Austrian Parliament).
Boris van de Ham (MP, Liberal, NL, D-66 environment spokesperson at the Dutch Tweede Kamer, focal point of GLOBE Europe in The Netherlands).
Spyros Kouvelis (MP, socialist, Greece, environment spokesperson at the Hellenic Parliament, focal Point of GLOBE Europe in Greece).
Haluk Ozdalga (MP, EPP, Turkey, chairman of the environment committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, focal Point of GLOBE Europe in Turkey).

Regarding ‘Former MEP: UK far-right success ‘won’t last’‘:

I was rather taken aback to see numerous references to ‘the UK’ having voted for the BNP in the interview with former Labour MEP, Richard Corbett.

I think this is seriously misleading, as ‘the UK’ includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as England, and I don’t recall the BNP doing too well in the Celtic nations, with the possible exception of Wales, where they obtained around 5% of the vote.

The Labour Party is largely to blame for the rise of the BNP in England, due firstly to their betrayal of the working classes, and secondly to their recourse to moronic and ill-thought out statements, such as the now infamous ‘British Jobs for British Workers’, as they seek to shore up their rapidly eroding support.

Labour let the cat out of the bag when it declared open season on foreigners and they are now paying the price. I therefore doubt that Mr Corbett will be back in Brussels in five years time as he seemed to be suggesting.

Yours Sincerely,

Tom Cuddihy

Concernant ‘Ecologist’s film ‘boosted’ French Greens‘:

Le film ‘HOME’ de Yann Arthus-Betrand (présenté ce 5 juin sur Club RTL)
devrait être visionné dans toutes les écoles, donner lieux à un concours de
dissertation par les jeunes de plus de 12 à 20ans ( avec un impact sur leurs
parents,) et pourquoi pas récompensé par un prix – ne fusse qu’un visite au
parc à éoliennes danois ou mieux un court séjour pour le gagnant dans la
station Elisabeth en Antartique.

Il faut réaliser un vrai marketing pour une modification durable des comportements.

Mais nos responsables en sont-ils capables en sortant des idées farfelues?

Robert Balsaux

APIA

Belgium

I am writing in response to the letter ‘Water needs politics, not techno-fixes‘ by Martin Pigeon of Corporate Europe Observatory, dated 4 May 2009.

Commenting on Veolia Water’s calls for a ” low-water economy “, Mr. Pigeon suggests that Veolia’s views are driven only by commercial and short-term profit optimisation purposes, and that their aim is to maintain water consumption levels at the highest possible level at the expense of sound water management.

Aside from the fact that totally misrepresents Veolia Water’s positions, Mr. Pigeon’s remarks basically deny the ability or legitimacy of a private operator of a service of general economic interest to participate in the public policy debate, or to help clarify important issues of sound water management and shape policy options related to water.

Moreover, his letter is misleading for readers who are not familiar with water management and water services, because he confuses two key, high-stakes issues: on the one hand, the consequences of decreasing water consumption in developed countries, especially its impact on the long-term economic balance of water and wastewater services (be they privately or publicly run); on the other hand, the solutions to address the challenge of water scarcity in European areas that are affected by tensions over water availability ( cf. the article by Antoine Frérot , ‘The European Union and the challenge of water scarcity’ – European issues n°126 – Foundation Robert Schuman – 2nd February 2009).

In a context of declining water consumption, we need to bridge the gap between sustainable management of water resources, financial sustainability of water services and affordability of water for customers. Both public-owned and private operators who promote water savings and water efficiency still depend on variable revenues related to water consumption to cover their fixed operating costs, which amount to almost 80% of their overall expenditures.

The water business model was driven in the XIXth century by the combination of higher water consumption and higher standards of public health. Today, a new issue of general concern has emerged on policymakers’ and local authorities’ agendas alongside the traditional concern for public health and hygiene: water service operators are now also being asked to protect water resources and manage them in sustainable ways. As Antoine Frérot explains in his recent book ‘Water: Towards a culture of responsibility’, there is therefore a need to rethink the traditional model for at least two reasons: first, to achieve the sustainable cost recovery of water services and therefore prevent under – investment in water infrastructure; secondly, to pave the way for a new water business model that is consistent with this newer mission of sustainable management of water resources.

There is no easy or ‘one- size-fits-all’ solution to this issue. Veolia Water’s ambition is to inject some ‘food for thought’ into the debate , with ideas that could be discussed and explored by decision-makers and other stakeholders, including public-owned operators and NGOs.

This contribution also means that there is no ‘hidden agenda’ whereby Veolia allegedly would recommend that citizens, companies and farmers alike consume as much water as they used to.

In developed countries, such a stance would be nonsense , given that an operator, even the biggest one, cannot alter the trend of declining water consumption.

In developing countries , where access to water and sanitation has yet to be secured, the situation is or course different. There, Veolia Water does indeed advocate the extension of water services to meet the Millennium Development Goals set by the international community.

It is obvious that such a move would result in increasing water consumption. For instance, in Tangiers, Morocco , water consumption per capita and per day has increased from 25 litres to 120 litres since the population has been connected to water services. But it is hard to dispute that this is a positive trend, unless you consider that these populations have no right to water and the related improvements in public health that Western countries experienced in the 19th century.

Regarding water scarcity , Veolia Water’s commitment to a low-water economy calls for a two-pronged approach , combining the fight against water wastage and increasing efficiency in water use.

We fully support combating wastage. This includes improvements in network efficiency and potential savings related to irrigation in agriculture. Veolia Water has clearly embraced the cause of reducing wastage and excessive water abstraction.

We also want to help use available water resources more efficiently. This necessarily includes a greater capacity for sustainable utilisation of alternative water resources, such as seawater desalination and water reuse, if and when appropriate and required by the local context. That is why technologies such as seawater desalination and water reuse have been implemented in areas suffering from water stress. The purpose is to secure access to water and limit water abstractions in areas prone to water scarcity, not to maintain the level of water consumption per capita.

As Veolia Water has often stated, the future growth of desalination will depend on the capacity of operators in the sector to desalinate brackish water and seawater at a competitive price while meeting sustainable development objectives, such as reducing the energy intensity and carbon footprint of desalination plants.

Water is a political challenge for all. As a stakeholder, our ambition is to help distinguish the real problems, and the real solutions, from the phony polemics.

Regards,

Dinah Louda
Director of Communications
Veolia Water
Paris, France