Regarding ‘Brussels outlines vision for ‘fairer’ EU farm policy‘:

The European Commission’s Communication on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy sets separate objectives of social cohesion, economic health and environmental sustainability. Our association fully shares these objectives.

Together with the 19 participants from 14 member states and highly diverse backgrounds who attended our workshop on ‘labelling socio-economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture’, we believe that a comprehensive quality labelling system, taking into account the three inseparable dimensions of sustainability above, would be a key policy tool to achieve the objectives of the European Union regarding the future of the CAP.

More details of our public policy proposal may be found on our website: http://www.citizenseminars.eu/ExecSum/Su…

Laurent Zibell

European Citizens’ Seminars e.V.

Regarding ‘Chinese pledge raises hopes of climate compromise‘:

The UN has already lowered expectations of COP 16 negotiations to rock bottom, and while only the most optimistic would expect a deal to emerge from Cancún, the fundamental imperatives underlying the urgency to adopt more sustainable economies have not gone away, nor can we afford to be lured into thinking they have.

In the face of the inability of negotiators to develop a common global approach, industry has been filling the void and providing leadership. The postal industry was the first services industry – and one of the very few sectors worldwide – to have adopted an industry-wide, concerted approach to reducing its carbon footprint, setting an industry target of a 20% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 based on 2008 figures.

Underscoring this initiative is a fundamental belief that only by working together transparently to achieve joint objectives can we make any progress in delivering on climate change. The results of collaboration speak for themselves: under the auspices of the International Post Corporation’s independently-audited Environmental Monitoring and Measurement System (EMMS), 20 postal operators representing some 80% of global postal volumes have managed to cut 597,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions in just one year.

IPC is working for greater industry collaboration, and Österreichische Post and Poste Italiane have recently joined the programme.

The lack of political progress is, simply put, down to the inability of nations to work with one another, with the major fault-line splitting developed and developing economies.

Negotiators could take inspiration from the pragmatic approach the postal industry has taken in engaging carriers across the globe, irrespective of size or wealth, in tackling emissions. An entry-level scheme allows posts in developing countries and emerging economies that may not have the resources to participate in the full programme to nonetheless contribute however they can, and allows all postal services to share learnings and best practices to the benefit of the industry as a whole.

We are also eager to share our experience and tools with other industries ready to make the commitment to reduce emissions.

It is imperative that governments in their drive to slash budgets to reduce deficits do not disincentivise business investments in green technologies, and we very much support UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent call not to sacrifice green investments on the altar of austerity.

The postal business has long been dependent on extensive carbon-intensive infrastructures and operates probably the largest vehicle fleet in the world, estimated at 500,000 including trucks and planes, but it is marking the long-term capital investments to convert away, wherever possible, from carbon-intensive processes to less environmentally-damaging solutions. Just because the challenge is daunting does not mean we can shy away from it.

Industries like the postal sector can and have already taken the lead. They would benefit from a global political framework on climate change that would make their efforts all the more impactful. Governments need to set that framework. It’s time for the negotiators to catch up where industry has led.

Herbert Michael Zapf

CEO

International Post Corporation

Dag Mejdell

Chairman of the Board, International Post Corporation; CEO, Norway Post

International Post Corporation
Avenue du Bourget 44
1130 Brussels
Belgium
Contact:
 Herbert-Michael.Zapf at ipc.be
George Candon, Head of Communications, Tel. +32 (0)4 77 53 00 40

About the International Post Corporation:
The International Post Corporation (IPC) is the cooperative association of 24 member postal operators in Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific. IPC develops technology systems that bring transparency to the mail processing system and delivery chain and drive improvements in the quality of mail services. IPC engages in industry research, creates business intelligence for its members, and provides a range of platforms for member CEOs and senior management to share best practices, discuss strategy and engage with third-party thought-leaders from industry, think tanks and academia. IPC also manages the system for incentive-based payments between postal operators. For more information on the International Post Corporation visit www.ipc.be.

Regarding ‘EU’s new transport strategy to put price on pollution‘:

The most important external effect of (urban) traffic is congestion. In cities larger than about one million inhabitants, the cost of congestion far outweighs the combined costs of pollution, traffic accidents, noise and climate change.

Transporting people one by one in a tonne of steel is extremely stupid. With intelligent solutions for instant ride-sharing offered by smartphones and the Internet, the number of vehicles can be at least halved, with the same or better transportation standards as today. The technical systems already exist. All we need are social, juridical and economic incentives.

Björn Abelsson

Sundsvall Municipality

Sweden

Regarding ‘Bio-economy poses new competitiveness challenges for Europe‘:

Innovation Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn has highlighted an area where the EU is missing out compared to other countries – particularly the USA. It need not do so, for it actually needs to address it through a different emphasis.

Firstly, the EU should seriously consider removing the ridiculous subsidies to Biomass-burning Power Stations, which we read about across the EU and which are built by a variety of energy companies. These subsidies also include massively expensive incineration plants that countries like Ireland, Croatia, the UK or Italy cannot afford.

It is iniquitous on the one hand that subsidising companies which do not need subsidising only for these same companies to use these massive subsidies to fill shareholders’ pockets. (Remember this has been around before, as the EU has already made it known that this is not acceptable for companies such as ALCOA in the issue reported on in Sicily or for the others that may be heard have similar equal issues elsewhere – where these subsidies end up in shareholders’ pockets as magnificent dividends! (If this was not the case then consider the issue of why so many of these facilities get sold off even before they are working.)

What Máire Geoghegan-Quinn is seemingly saying is that this wasted money could be better spent on bio-refineries and the developments we now see with those that are seriously looking at changing the perception of dealing with converting biomass from sustainable sources (such as Non Food and Waste and Macroalgae). They are currently being followed and engineered by pioneering companies that never get the credence that is due to them. All that happens is the mega-big companies grasp the issue head on, gaining these huge subsidies at the others’ loss.

If it wants to address this issue fully and square on, the EU (and those that can make the decisions, like EU Innovation Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and others, right up to Mr. Barroso) should take note.

Karel Yurian

Private citizen

Regarding ‘Barroso drops financial taxes from draft G20 wish-list‘:

It is shocking to see the European Commission backtracking from pushing for financial taxes to be on the agenda at the forthcoming G20 summit in Seoul in November. A global bank tax to help poor people survive the economic and climate crisis must be urgently agreed.

Just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the Commission put its head above the parapet as it published a paper proposing a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) at global level to raise money for development and climate change. The report also proposed that Europe should move unilaterally to a tax on financial activities, which could definitely also mobilise tens of billions of euros to tackle these pressing international challenges.

The EU cannot afford to bury its head in the sand just at the moment of truth. Shrinking away from taking bold steps will have an impact on both the lives of poor and vulnerable people and Europe’s international credibility.

EU heads of state, meeting this week in Brussels, must now take up this mantle and put financial taxes high up on their wish-list for the G20 summit if Europe is going to set the standard in Seoul.

Yet, as Oxfam underlines in its latest report ‘The Making of a Seoul Development Consensus: The essential development agenda for the G20′, it is not only by delivering on the FTT that Europe and the G20 can make a difference for developed and developing countries alike at this G20 summit.

The G20 should capitalise on Korea’s support to include development issues within the agenda to make progress on forging the right type of development consensus: one that uses growth to reduce inequalities, commits to tackling tax havens and fighting tax evasion and demonstrates leadership in advancing the fight against climate change.

European leaders can help make sure this happens.

Elise Ford

Head of Oxfam International’s EU office

Regarding ‘Finland eyes world’s first ‘green highway’‘:

It is indeed encouraging to read your news item on Finland’s ambition to create the first green highway in the world. However, Sweden and Norway are already almost there with a similar project, ‘Green Highway’, aka the E14, which stretches from the Atlantic to the Baltic, connecting Norwegian town Trondheim with Swedish town Sundsvall. You can obtain more information by clicking here.

In my opinion, credit is due to this project, which has been repeatedly advertised and made public in local media as well as in the national trade press.

Bengt Magnusson
Chefredaktör o europakorrespondent för tidskriften ERA
Editor-in-chief and Europe correspondent, ERA magazine

Svensk Energi – Swedenergy – AB
SE-101 53 Stockholm, Sweden

och/and

Rue de la Loi 227
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

www.era.se
www.svenskenergi.se

Regarding ‘EU to overhaul GM crop approval system‘:

The European Coordination Via Campesina is dismayed at the proposal of the European Commission to restructure decision-making processes between the EU and member states, which will result in more GM crops being grown and used in Europe.

The Commission’s proposal to allow countries to implement strict legislation on co-existence between GM and non-GM crops, effectively facilitating countries’ wishes to ‘ban’ GM crops in their territories, is a simple attempt to make it easier for states to approve GMOs, bypassing the current impasse in the decision-making process in Europe.

European citizens do not want GM crops or foods. This has been reiterated on various occasions in the Council by the negative votes of numerous governments. The Commission is now attempting to fragment opposition to GM crops at EU level.

Such a policy on such a contentious issue is simply unacceptable. The EU’s single market should not be held hostage by GM technology corporations – how will one country be able to prohibit farmers from buying and growing GM seeds which are legally for sale and freely circulating on the single market, while other farmers in neighbouring countries grow the same crops without restrictions? No member state will be able to resist pressure from the WTO for long if it is not supported by the EU.

A ‘renationalisation’ of decision-making on GMOs will create huge difficulties in competition law and the single market – and will threaten the coherence of the European Union. If the EU wishes to cease meeting its WTO commitments and permit Europe to develop agricultural policies based on social justice and food sovereignty, we congratulate it – but not when the only beneficiaries are transnational chemical and seed corporations.

Changes in the processes of evaluation and authorisation currently in force in Europe are certainly necessary, but only in order to improve and reinforce existing mechanisms, not weaken them.

It should be noted that:

• GM agriculture and GM-free agriculture cannot co-exist.
• GM agriculture causes huge biodiversity loss.
• There is a strong influence of transnational corporations in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) leading to a failure of its mandate to properly assess the impacts of GMOs.
• The Commission has repeatedly ignored its own regulations requiring socio-economic, ethical and other related assessments.
• Biotechnology and GMOs are not necessary in order to feed the world’s population.

The European Commission, as opposed to facilitating market access for the the biotechnology and seed industries, should instead support the wealth and history of biodiversity developed and nurtured by farmers in Europe for the last 800 years.

We ask the European Commission to reconsider its proposition and call for:

• A permanent EU-wide ban on the cultivation and import of GMO crops and seeds.
• Support for the development of plant varieties selected without genetic manipulation to protect European biodiversity.
• A permanent ban on all forms of patent on genes of plants and animals.
• EU funding to support farmers’ rights as required in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Yours respectfully,

Josie Riffaud & Pierre Andre Tombez

European Coordination Via Campesina

Regarding ‘EU eyes increased role for organic farming‘:

I have been involved with improving the quality of water that is used for the production of food for over a decade.
Once the quality has been improved, pathogenic diseases tend to be much less without the use of chemicals – just by using oxygen.

Clive Tillett

Regarding ‘EU biofuels target borderline sustainable, report finds‘:

Biofuels have been a hotly contested issue for a number of years. They are at the top of the European Union’s agenda at the moment after the European Commission was sued by four environmental NGOs for muffling evidence on biofuels’ sustainability last month.

Some leaked documents suggest that turning peatlands into palm plantations to produce biofuels would get a green light under the new sustainability criteria to be presented by the EU executive later this year, which has outraged environmental groups.

Biofuels first made headlines in 2007/2008, when they were widely blamed for the rising food prices at the time, as they diverted cultivated land from growing crops. Later analysis, however, indicated that a number of causes – namely an unprecedented drought in Australia, increasing meat consumption in developing countries and rising oil prices – were equally responsible.

Biofuels can indeed contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus mitigating climate change, to enhancing energy security and to stimulating innovation and jobs. Transport is responsible for more than 20% of all carbon emissions and accounts for the vast majority of oil exports in the EU, therefore the Commission’s keenness to promote biofuels is understandable. In its Renewable Energy Directive, it has set the target of 10% of road transport fuel coming from renewable sources by 2020. According to the latest Commission report, biofuels can contribute up to 5.6% without compromising global biodiversity.

But how sustainable are biofuels? The so-called ‘first generation’ biofuels, or bioethanol and biodiesel widely used in the US and Europe today, represent considerable environmental risks through direct and indirect land-use change. Because soils and plants are the largest carbon sinks (stores) in our biosystem, converting forests, peat and grasslands into croplands to grow biofuels would release vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The logic is simple: the larger the demand for biofuels, the more land is needed to grow them (and the less land is available for rapidly increasing global food demands).

Moreover, taking into account that deforestation and farming practices are already responsible for about a fifth of all carbon emissions, the picture becomes rather grim. One of the biggest worries is rainforests: with more Europeans producing biodiesel from rapeseed oil, many rainforests are felled to create palm oil plantations across Indonesia and Malaysia to fill this gap in food demand. A case in point is the recent study by Tim Searchinger from Purdue University in the US, which suggests that greenhouse gas emissions from bioethanol are higher than those from fossil fuels if the full life-cycle analysis is applied. The negative impacts on biodiversity and water resources need also be considered.

The problem might be partly solved by so-called ‘second generation’ biofuels. These include a variety of non-crop feedstocks, such as waste biomass, wood, stalks, switchgrass, etc. They offer a number of advantages compared to the ‘first generation’. Namely, they are often grown on land that is unsuitable for food crops, can be planted on degradable lands to invigorate their fertility and requires less fertilisers. But more importantly, they provide much higher fuel yields compared to traditional biofuels.

Miscanthus, for instance, mainly grown in Africa and South Asia, can produce up to 1,250 gallons of fuel per acre, with switchgrass not far behind.

The only problem is that they are not commercially viable at the moment, as they are still in the laboratory phase. This means that they are unlikely to make a substantial contribution to the EU’s target of 10% before 2020. Also, whether we opt for the first or the second generation of biofuels to fill our tanks, the competition for land, water and other resources between energy and food crops is likely to remain.

The ‘third generation’ of biofuels is also in the pipeline – these are derived from algae and are believed to have huge yields: some species can produce as much oil from an area of a football pitch’s end-zone as three entire football pitches of soybeans. But the technology is too costly and far from entering the market at the moment.

In the end, how can we ensure that we benefit from biofuels? The most obvious answer is to be honest in evaluating their impact: the more resources and energy we dedicate to examining and researching the direct and indirect impact of increased use of biofuels, the better equipped we will be to make the right choices as to their deployment. Another crucial point is the need for international cooperation: the EU’s sustainability criteria will be toothless to ensure that forests around the world is not felled and damaged. Thus, only comprehensive, ambitious land-use change policies at international level can offer a solution. Over to you, COP16!

Julia Poliscanova

Regarding ‘Controversy mounts over EU biofuels fall-out‘:

The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention (the Council of Europe Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats), worried that the increase of biofuel cropping systems may lead to cultivation escapes of invasive taxa with subsequent negative effects on native biological diversity, adopted advice to reduce impacts of potentially invasive alien plants used as biofuel crops on species biodiversity and natural ecosystems (Recommendation 141, 2009).

The Italian Institute for Environmental Protection (ISPRA), with a report submitted to the Bern Convention panel of European experts, prompted these measures. In its report, ISPRA (an agency led by the Italian Ministry for the Environment) drew attention to the fact that sustainable development and environmental benefits can be jointly achieved only when biofuel crops are farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner.

The Recommendation, which is legally binding on member states, warns that some biofuel crops invade disturbed areas outside cultivated fields, and in so doing may impact on native biodiversity. The Council of Europe advises a reduction of the potential invasiveness of alien plants used as biofuel crops.

It is important, say the experts, to bring in pre-cultivation screening for each proposed genotype and region. In addition, new cultivation criteria to limit the dispersal and recruitment capacity of the invasive crops need to be introduced. Without these measures, escaped biofuel crops may cause loss of native biodiversity and farmland functionality.

In the long-term, biofuel crops with invasive traits need to be limited in number and extent, even if this affects agronomic efficiency and the financial bottom line. Complying with these Bern Convention recommendations will conserve Europe’s wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats while producing sustainable energy, allowing European states to reach the policy targets on use of renewable energy sources.

Janette Fiddes