Children in the balance - REC Publicationsdocuments.rec.org/publications/GH_41.pdf · David Landry...

QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE VOLUME 4 NUMBER 1 | MARCH-MAY 2007 | EUR 5.00

Investing in the futureJohn Ashton, the UK’s specialrepresentative for climate change, onbuilding a low-carbon infrastructure.

see page 5

Clearly ambitiousThe EU has a new strategy toprotect Europe’s marine habitats.

see page 28

Montenegro braces for changeEurope’s newest country hopes to putfresh investment to good use withoutdestroying its many scenic marvels.

see page 12▼ ▼▼

balancein theThe next generation

stands to inherit what thisone leaves behind.

Are we giving tomorrow’s children

an outside chance?

Children

Green Horizonprovides me withnecessary, up-to-

date, comprehensiveand high-standardinformation about

environmental policyand law in Central

and Eastern Europe.As an advisor in

environmentalinstitution-building

concerned withpolicy, legal and

administrativeissues, Green Horizonranks high on my list

of publications to read.

Lothar Guendling, ResidentTwinning Advisor, Romanian

Environmental Protection Agency

‘

‘

Alert. Attuned. Ahead.The Green Horizon Reader.

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

Alert. 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 Adam Proofreader: Michael LindsayAdministrative Officer: Zsuzsa Reka TovolgyiWebmaster: Tamas BodaiIntern: Nyambura Njagi

EDITORIAL BOARDREC PR: Zsolt BauerEnvironment and security: Marta Szigeti BonifertGreen financing: Joanna FiedlerEnvironmental policy: Oreola IvanovaClimate and energy: Zsuzsa IvanyiSouth-Eastern Europe: Radoje LausevicTurkey: Sibel SezerInformation and research: Jerome SimpsonEnvironmental law: Stephen StecPublic participation: Magdolna Toth NagyNew EU member states: Beata WiszniewskaSustainable development: Janos Zlinszky

CONTRIBUTORSRobert Atkinson ■ Wojciech Kosc David Landry ■ Dejan Lucic Nyambura Njagi ■ Ludovic RousseauJerome Simpson

ARTMarta Bonifert ■ CEE BankwatchEU2007.de ■ Flickr.comForeign and Commonwealth Office (UK)Government of MontenegroGreenLight ProgrammeGreenpeace Slovakia ■ Tzvetko PetkoEric Rainsberry ■ REC Albania REEEP ■ REReP ■Reuters ■ sxc.hu

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

SPONSORS AND PARTNERSThe cover story on environment and healthfor children was was sponsored by the Italian Trust Fund. Other sponsors of this issue include theEnvironmental Benchmarking Project,Japanese Special Fund, the Danube RegionalProject — UNDP/GEF, the REEEP Secretariatfor Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey,the EU-funded Cabri-Volga Project and theWorkshop on Environmental Mediation.

Volume 4 Number 1 | MARCH-MAY 2007ISSN 1786-0423

F O R U M

5 Interview with John AshtonThe UK’s climate change representative argues the benefits of building alow-carbon economy.

C O V E R S T O R Y

16 Our children, their futureClimate change poses several new health threats to future generations.

19 Breathing easierCleaning up the air in Europe’s schools is a key children’s health issue.

I N S I G H T

11 Looking for the bestBenchmarking is one tool that can help you get the most out of yourorganisation.

12 Bracing for new challenges Montenegro, Europe’s newest country, hopes to put fresh investment togood use without destroying its many scenic marvels.

14 Lukewarm reception for watered-down regulations The European Parliament votes to enact comprehensive chemicallegislation, but Reach fails to please parties on either side of the aisle.

R E C B U L L E T I N

22 Putting Aarhus into actionSouth-Eastern Europe is benefiting from REC assistance in Conventionimplementation.

25 Network for Horn of Africa launchedThe effects of climate change on marginal environments are causing oraggravating social, environmental and economic conflicts.

ON THE COVER

Children in the balance Now that we’re just beginningto understand more about thenegative impact that humanactivity worldwide has ontoday’s environment, it’s ofparamount importance toconsider what sort of healthhazards our children will face inthe coming years. No child,including this little European,should have to worry aboutwhether a playground is safefrom environmental pollution.

COVER PHOTO Reuters

DEPARTMENTS

Forum 4

CEE news 8

REC Bulletin 22

Legal Matters 28

Information Technology 29

Green Literature 30

22

25

CONTACTSEditorial:

[email protected]:

[email protected]:

[email protected]

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

▼▼

▼

PAVE

L AN

TON

OV

REC ALBANIA

3 | MARCH-MAY 2007 | green HORIZON

Two people wrote this editorial: me,and my six-month-old daughter. A squeal-ing, babbling and kicking baby on myknees doesn’t make for perfect writingconditions, but certainly lends sharp per-spective. In the coming decade, the healthof millions of children will greatly dependon the quality of environment; but even asthe EU continues to expand, some politicalleaders appear far removed from the envi-ronmental concerns of so many parents inCEE. The good news is that a tide of envi-ronmentally responsible thinking seems tobe spreading across Europe nonetheless.

In March, the leaders of EU memberstates adopted a climate protection pro-gramme involving binding targets to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and increase theuse of renewable energies by 2020. Praisedby European Commission President JoséManuel Barroso as “the most ambitious cli-mate protection strategy anywhere in theworld,” the European Council’s decisionhas reaffirmed the EU’s commitment toglobal sustainability leadership.

The reason for this “true triumph” –—quoting UK Prime Minister Tony Blair here— is not necessarily a love for nature.Britain’s Special Representative for ClimateChange John Ashton warns against label-ing the trend as “environmental” (see oppo-site page). Rather, he claims, a low-carboneconomy is a matter of continental securi-ty and prosperity, and a way to restore cit-izens’ trust in the European project.Whatever the case may be, the Council’sdecision makes me prouder as an EU citi-zen and more relieved as a father.

But not everyone shares these senti-ments. The EC’s own vice-presidentresponsible for industry, GuntherVerheugen, appears to be one such per-son. On the eve of the Spring Councilmeeting, Verheugen warned against “cli-mate hysteria” and claimed that strict car-bon targets will harm Europe’s competi-tiveness. Quite contrary to these remarks,Ashton believes a low-carbon switch willactually improve Europe’s competitivenessand self-confidence.

Verheugen is not alone in opposingthe EU’s climate commitments. In spite ofprovisions that the new targets be shared“fairly and equitably” between member

states and take into account differentnational “circumstances, starting pointsand potentials,” the plan has not been uni-versally embraced within CEE. MirekTopolanek, the Czech prime minister, hascalled the targets “unreasonable” and“nonsensical” –— comparing them to thefive-year economic plans imposed undercommunism. But Czech President VaclavKlaus has resorted to even stronger rheto-ric.

“The biggest threat to freedom, democ-racy, the market economy and prosperityat the beginning of the 21st century is notcommunism, [but] the threat of ambitiousenvironmentalism,” Klaus wrote to the USHouse of Representatives.

Should someone read Klaus’ wordsseriously, it would seem that the new“threat” for the region is coming fromBrussels. Indeed, most recently the EC hasrequested that Poland and the CzechRepublic should cut their planned annualindustrial greenhouse gas emissions for2008–12 by 27 percent and 15 percentrespectively.

Earlier in March, the Commission tookPoland to the European Court of Justiceover a motorway cutting through the pro-tected Rospuda Valley habitat, a Natura2000 site. Poland chose to defy earlierwarnings and to proceed with the con-struction project. And Bulgaria, one of theEU’s newest members, is also having ahard time complying with Natura 2000, theEU’s network of protected areas.

But today’s generation of parents inCEE is quite well aware of the differencesbetween communism and environmental-ism. Paradoxically, polling evidence fails toshow an overwhelming base of public sup-port for the anti-environmental stances ofgovernments. In fact, according to KirilAvramov, a senior analyst for PoliticalCapital, a Budapest-based think-tank, pub-lic support for environmental movementsand new green parties seems to be on therise across the region. If this proves correct,the tide of environmentally aware politics,policy making and consumer behaviourwill soon reach CEE.

It is already here, actually. Among thefirst signs: rising real estate prices in greenareas, and a growing interest in bio prod-ucts. Climate change consequences and theloss of natural habitats and ecosystems haspeople worried. As the region becomeswealthier, health and security are becom-ing more and more a concern for many par-ents — myself included. And concernedparents make for impassioned voters.Rather than building lines of defenceagainst environmentalism, CEE politiciansshould learn to keep pace with it.

editorial

FORUM

green HORIZON | MARCH-MAY 2007 | 4

WORLD VIEWS: Europe’s leaders are reaching for global sustainability

Following the tide

REC

AR

CHIV

E

Pavel P. Antonov

Letter to the editor: Pipeline risks

The project for a petrol pipeline between Burgas andAlexandroupolis [signed by Bulgaria, Greece and Russia onMarch 15] suggests non-stop tanker traffic from Russian orUkrainian shores to Bulgaria. With the number of tankersexpected to grow progressively, Bulgaria’s [Black Sea]shoreline of 367.4 kilometres will be turned into a high-risk

zone for tanker collisions and terrorist acts. An incomparableintervention in the environmental equilibrium in the Balkanswill be realised.

Bogomil Avramov Hemy, Bulgaria

Having just celebrated the 50thanniversary of the Rome Treaty, isEurope forgetting why it should be aleader in global sustainability?

In the middle of the second half of the20th century, it was so evidently true thatthe sources of threats to European pros-perity and security, as well as the eco-nomic opportunities, lay primarily withingeographical Europe. The case now isthat the main threats and opportunities lieoutside our geographical frontiers.

For example, the economic debateabout globalisation in its current form islargely about competition from countrieslike China. We also have issues like climatechange and terrorism, which simply can-not be dealt with through an exclusivelyEuropean decision-making process.

Today’s threats and opportunitiesneed to be engaged with at the source. Alot of that engagement has to be at theEuropean level, and it needs to be anengagement of scale — an engagement onthe part of what has become the world’s

largest single market. If we are to have achance of accelerating China’s transitionto a low-carbon economy, it has to be aneffort undertaken as Europe, rather than asindividual member states. Harnessing thepower of the world’s largest single marketto the world’s fastest-growing economywould create a transformational economicforce felt globally.

I think that we need to develop a moreoutward-looking debate about Europe.And it needs to be a more self-confident

debate. I think we’ve fallen into a mood ofanxiety. Threats of terrorism, of climatechange, of losing your job to competitionfrom outside — all of these drive anxiety.Because of the anxiety that dominates ourpolitics at the moment, we tend to under-estimate our strengths, which lie in thesocial and institutional capital that’sembodied in the European project.Europe worries about losing jobs to China,but China worries about why it lacks thesocial safety nets that Europe has.

Speaking as a climate changeambassador, have you observed anypositive changes in the Europeanmindset?

There are some positive signs. Theoutcome of the European Council inMarch was extremely encouraging. Itaccomplished two things. Until now, thecentre of gravity of elite opinion inEurope has been: “Climate change is, ofcourse, a problem, but we need to becareful because strong policies to respondto it will undermine competitiveness.”

What’s happening now is the emer-gence of a new political synthesis, whichsays: “We need to be leading the globaltransition to a low-carbon economy if wehope to remain competitive.”

This also comes at a time when thereis real concern about the widening gapbetween European governments andelites on one hand […] and European citi-zens on the other. Many people have dif-ficulty seeing why the “European project”is necessary in order to address the needsthat they have. One thing is very clear:that both climate security and energysecurity are causing a great deal of con-cern to Europeans. Polling evidence tendsto say that [European citizens] would liketo see governments do more to addressenergy and climate.

So here you have Europe respondingto that challenge — Europe making aproposition to citizens which addressesthese concerns — and offering to build alow-carbon economy before any other

major economy builds it. This is a verysignificant shift of political gravity amongEuropean leaders.

You seem optimistic about Europe’sability to accomplish the transition toa low-carbon economy.

I am being quite measured in what Isay. Nobody should suggest that it’s easyto build a low-carbon economy. Big polit-ical questions will need to be resolved.

We’re talking about at least three fun-damental changes within the structure ofthe economy: the way we produce andconsume energy; the way we achievemobility; and the way we use land.

Such deep economic restructuringwill give rise to enormous distributionalchallenges. There will be a lot of argu-ments where one interest group says:“You’re asking us to bear too much of thepain, and you should put more of the painonto other sectors.” The bigger question,however, is: What is the distribution ofeffort between tax payers, consumers andshareholders?

I’m not trying to be optimistic or pes-simistic, just simply pointing out what wehave to do.

Does it worry you that the EU’s newestmembers could very likely put up a lotof resistance to such changes?

Yes, that is a concern. I know that,among the more sceptical voices in theEU on the package that came out from theEuropean Council, many were fromCentral and Eastern countries [CEE].

A note of humility here: My knowl-edge of these countries is very limited, soI hesitate to pontificate in these circum-stances. These countries are undergoingvery far-reaching transitions, with politicalconsequences which need to be dealtwith and absorbed. If you say to a societywhich is already making a difficult transi-tion: “Here’s another transition you haveto make!” it causes some anxiety andit’s hard to build support.

While enjoying a cup of tea and leafing through a copyof The Independent, John Ashton, the UK’s special representative for climate change, explains how low-carbon choices will make Europe more competitive, prosperous and secure.

Confidence in a low-carbon economy

By Pavel Antonov

COU

RTE

SY O

F TH

E FO

REI

GN

& C

OM

MO

NW

EALT

H O

FFIC

E

interview

FORUM


‘Because of theanxiety thatdominates our politicsat the moment, wetend to underestimateour strengths.’

▼

interview


Cohesion is something that Europehas been pretty good at. We need to buildthe low-carbon idea into how we addressthose issues. Next year, there will be areview of the European budget, and partof that will look at structural funds. It’s anobvious question: How do you applystructural funds in a way that will deliverjobs, growth, rising living standards andfaster transition to low carbon — particu-larly to those countries most in need ofstructural funds? That’s a very relevantquestion in terms of what we can do col-lectively to make it easier for CEE coun-tries to be part of this transition.

What do you think Europeans need tobe prepared to do without in order tobuild a low-carbon economy?

It’s never very good politics to say topeople that they should give things up, butwe’re now beginning to understand thepicture of low-carbon economy in a lotmore detail. The conclusion of the recentreview by my colleague, Sir Nicholas Stern,was very clear: There will be some cost, butit won’t be overwhelming. The politicalproblems of that cost will be disproportion-ately great because there will be distribu-tional issues, and distributional politics isalways very difficult. But, against the back-ground of a healthy and attractive prospectof welfare and prosperity, I do not thinkthis is predominantly about cost and sacri-fice — I think it’s much more about oppor-tunity. There are huge opportunities inbuilding a low-carbon economy.

The Independent ran on itsfront page a list of “50reasons to love the EU” –and reason number 16 is:“Europe is helping to savethe planet with regulatorycuts of CO2.” Withprosperity, the common

market and consumer rights rankedthird through fifth, doesn’t it seem thatthere needs to be a bit more desire toaddress climate change?

The language of this question is veryrevealing — let’s deconstruct it. To “savethe planet” is an environmental proposi-tion. I think the most fundamental thingabout a successful response to climatechange is building a sense that this is notprimarily about the environment. This isabout prosperity and security.

We won’t be secure, and we won’t beprosperous unless we are effective inresponding to climate change. It’s notabout the planet — it’s about us.

And then [The Independent] mentions“regulatory cuts in CO2.” Of course, youhave to have an economy which is lesscarbon intensive. But to describe it in thatway is misleading. It sounds like marginal

changes to one aspect to the economy.It’s not! It’s a fundamental reform of theeconomy. So I would say a very differentthing: “Building a low-carbon economy.”

How tough is this to argue duringinternational negotiations?

First of all, it isn’t about negotiations.Once you get to the point of negotiations,it’s too late. This is about trying a politicalfoundation for a certain direction in society.

I will give you an example: One of thethings that we need to do as we drive thistransition is to release a considerableamount of public investment to acceleratethe deployment of low-carbon technolo-gies. For very understandable reasons,public investment is very difficult. Youcan only get that if politics allows you toget it, and we need that political permis-sion — otherwise we won’t make thetransition fast enough. This was anothermessage of the Stern Review: One dimen-sion of climate change work will certainlybe public investment.

Structural funds are public invest-ment. So the issue is: How do you focusthem, and what do you get in return?There’s huge opportunity in the fact thatCEE countries are already undergoing atransition and that a lot of new infrastruc-ture is being built. When you build infra-structure, you lock a certain structure ofyour economy into place that will last forgenerations.

[Then it’s a question of] what kind ofeconomy you want to build: high-carbonor low-carbon infrastructure? Do youwant an infrastructure which encouragesa lot of short-haul air travel, which is

going to be very emissions intensive, orone which favours train travel, which isless emissions intensive but requiresinvestment? Choices are made by defaultif you don’t think about them — if youdon’t consider the alternatives. In manycases, we’ve built economies withoutmaking those choices because we didn’tarticulate the alternatives. In this case, weneed to articulate the alternatives.

What is the biggest obstacle to buildinga low-carbon economy?

Lack of self-confidence. We need tolook right across the economic relation-ship with China and with our other majorpartners, and to say how we can use theserelationships to amplify the signal that weinitiated at the Spring Council. That willmake us and our partners able to buildlow-carbon societies faster than we other-wise would.

At the moment, there’s a real questionof whether we have the confidence to dothat. So, those of us who want to see thetransition need to be asking ourselveshow to build that confidence. How canwe build a vocation which is outward-looking and self-confident, and thereforecapable of bearing the weight of thesepolicy structures that we need to build todrive the transition?

What’s the first step to take?One thing I would focus very much

on is the European budget. We know wehave to modernise the budget anyway,and we’ve agreed to have a review of itnext year. Part of that review shouldexplain how we can have a budget forenergy and climate security in the sameway that we had a budget for food securi-ty 60 years ago. We need a budget fortoday’s problems, rather than a budget foryesterday’s problems.

This interview was inspired by E3G’s “Europe inthe World: Political choices for security andprosperity” pamphlet, which can be found at<www.europeintheworld.eu>. The full text of theinterview is available at <gh.rec.org>.

FORUM

‘We won’t be secure,and we won’t beprosperous unlesswe are responding toclimate change.’

EU20

07.D

E

BENDING AN EAR: Germany, as EU president, andPoland have plenty to talk about.

Interview continued from page 5

▼

European

Partners for the

Environment

With the generous support of the Czech and Norwegian Government

We cordially invite you to participate in our conference on

Financing Eco-Innovation in Central and Eastern EuropeExperiences New Mechanisms Challenges

Learn how to:

Mobilise private funding

Bridge the gap between early-stage innovation and commercialisation

Create fiscal incentives and foster public-private partnership instruments

Enhance cooperation between EU member states

We would be happy to provide you with further information and useful contacts.

Conference Agenda

Needs and drivers for financing eco-innovation

Opportunities and new mechanisms for the CEE region

The EC Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP)

Experiences of countries

Experiences of businesses

Debate on financing eco-innovation, Round table with financiers

Budapest, Monday, 23 April 2007

Venue: Radisson SAS Beke Hotel, 1067 Budapest, Hungary, Terez korut 43.

Conference language and all conference materials will be in English.

Pre-registration is required. Please visit our website for more information:

http://ecoinnovationfinancingconference.rec.org

■ At the EU’s spring council meeting on March 9, leadersadopted a unilateral target to cut greenhouse gas emissionsby 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. While headsof state agreed to commit to greater use of renewable energysources, the emissions targets disappointed green groups.

Council members stopped short of adopting a 30 percentunilateral target, opting instead to make a recommendationthat developed countries be more ambitious in cutting backon greenhouse emissions.

“It will be interesting to see the EU trying to persuade[US] President Bush to reduce America’s emissions by 30 per-cent, with EU leaders cowering from adopting such a targetfor themselves,” said Jan Kowalzig, a climate campaigner atFriends of the Earth Europe.

Leaders also agreed that 20 percent of Europe’s primaryenergy should come from renewable sources. Critics, howev-er, argue that the broad target is not only too low, but tooth-less in principle, as it is not sector-specific. The EuropeanCommission agreed in its “Renewable Energy Roadmap”impact assessment: “A single broad target is too unfocusedand fails to provide sufficient guidance and certainty to busi-nesses operating in specific sectors of the market.”

Finally, environmental groups have roundly criticised anagreement to cut energy waste by 20 percent by 2020, alleg-ing that the plan lacks enforceability.

■ Nuclear plant alarms Latvians Latvian citizens and environmental groups gathered inmid-March to oppose plans to build a new power plantin neighbouring Lithuania. The plant would replace anextant facility in Ignalina, which lies adjacent to Latvia’sDaugavpils region.

Residents of Daugavpils and neighbouring munici-palities are concerned about a proposed storage facilityat which spent nuclear fuel from Ingalina’s Nos. 1 and 2reactors would be stored for decades to come.

Daugavpils (pop. 100,000), is Latvia’s second-largestcity, and just 30 kilometres from Ignalina. Rural munici-palities such as Demene and Medumi lie even closer tothe nuclear site.

“Land prices are decreasing, and organic farmers andrural tourism are suffering, because nobody wants tobuy products from or visit an area with a nuclear powerplant right next door,” said Demene Municipality MayorValentina Gadzane.

Facility proponents have thus far withheld mostplant-related data, citing confidentiality concerns.

“Nuclear energy’s astronomically high costs com-pletely handicap possibilities to develop sustainablelocal renewable sources for some time to come,”claimed Alda Ozola-Matule from the Latvian GreenMovement and Bankwatch CEE network.

■ Group calls for halt to pipeline financingReacting to the March signing of an agreement on theEUR 1 billion Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline by theBulgarian, Greek and Russian governments, South EastEurope Development Watch (SEEDW, formerly StabilityPact Watch) called on the EU and publicly owned inter-national financial institutions (IFIs) to not finance oilpipelines in South-East Europe (SEE), and to focusinstead on investments in sustainable energy projects.

SEE governments and international business repre-sentatives at last month’s Sofia Energy Conferenceclaimed that financial support from the EU and IFIs forsuch projects will only increase oil usage in the EU andthwart efforts to meet recently adopted targets to reducegreenhouse gas emissions within the bloc by 20 percentby 2020.

Also, Bulgarian environmental NGOs have raisedconcerns that the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline willbisect Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites, including the Man-dra-Poda lake complex near Burgas, and the TundzhaRiver Gorge on the Bulgarian-Turkish border.

Pipeline proponents, on the other hand, claimthat pipeline presence will reduce the risk oftanker accidents in the narrow, crowded TurkishStraits. Others argue that greater demand for oil,pipelines notwithstanding, will lead instead to increasedtanker traffic on the Black Sea.

■ Danube to be celebrated in JuneDanube Day will be celebrated for the third time on

June 29 to mark the 1994 signing of the Danube RiverProtection Convention in Sofia, Bulgaria. The Vienna-based International Commission for the Protection of theDanube River (ICPDR), responsible for Danube Basinwater management, is spearheading the event.

All 13 Danube River Basin countries will host morethan 100 event-related activities, such as river-cleaningefforts, concerts, festivals, biking tours and more.

“Danube Day is a tribute to the vital role that theriver plays in people’s lives: in providing water, power,recreation and livelihood,” said ICPDR Executive Secre-tary Philip Weller.

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

Environmentalists criticise‘timid’ emissions targets


NEWS

Regional news briefs

G O L D M I N I N G

RMCG-UNDP meeting protested■ In late February, various opponents of the Rosia Montana Gold Cor-poration (RMGC) — majority-owned by Canada-based GabrielResources — took their fight to the steps of the Slovakian office of theUnited Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Members of Greenpeace had learned that top management per-sonnel from Gabriel were meeting in Bratislava with Soknan Han Jungand Florin Banateanu from UNDP Romania.

“The meeting was about sustainable development plans for a proj-ect that the Romanian Science Academy, Hungarian government andEuropean Parliament consider a serious ecological threat to the wholeregion,” Greenpeace said in a statement.

Greenpeace sent an open letter to the UNDP, alleging that vari-ous communications between Gabriel and the development branchwere being willfully withheld from the public and all stakeholders.

Zoran Stevanovic, a spokesman for the UNDP’s Bratislava office,confirmed that talks between the two parties were taking place, butwas unwilling at the time to disclose particulars.

GREENPEACE SLOVAKIA

European Union update

■ Member states fight anti-flood billIn the wake of catastrophic flooding in 2005, the EuropeanCommission (EC) composed a draft directive in early 2006aimed at urging EU capital cities to better coordinate andmanage flood risks. As the directive heads for a secondreading vote at the European Parliament in April, memberstates are under fire from members of Parliament’s Envi-ronment Committee for trying to weaken it.

The original draft envisages a three-phase approach:initial flood-risk assessment, flood mapping, and drawingup flood-risk management plans for river basins.

A “cost recovery principal” is one of the most contro-versial aspects of the directive. Austrian conservative MEPand document architect Richard Seeber explained to theEUobserver: “If a construction [project] has a direct effecton flood risk, [parties] responsible for authorising con-struction should pay costs for increasing the risk.”

Seeber believes the document will be taken to a stage ofinter-institutional conciliation, during which various partieswould strive to balance interests. A so-called “conciliationcommittee” would have six to eight weeks to finalisewording for a joint text of the anti-flood measure.

■ Some MEPs seek Euratom adjustmentsNuclear energy is again the subject of high-profile talksamong MEPs in Brussels. The latest debates surround the50th anniversary of a landmark document for Europeannuclear cooperation, the Euratom Treaty.

While enthusiasm for nuclear energy has waned since1957 — especially since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 —several MEPs argue that it should comprise a greater part ofthe EU’s energy mix. Lithuanian MEP Eugenijus Maldeikis,a strong advocate of nuclear power, prepared a draft reportthat calls for “adjustments” to the treaty, which hasremained unchanged since being signed half a centuryago by the EU’s six founding member states, but whichnow applies to the entire 27-nation bloc.

Many EU governments, however, are wary of allowingBrussels to assert its influence in the sphere of nuclearenergy. “Some countries do not want the European Com-mission to stick its nose into their business,” one EU offi-cial told the EUobserver.

With votes on the report taking place in mid-March,several amendments are likely before it reaches plenary.

■ EU supports Hungarian GM crop ban In a vote taken on February 20, EU governments defeatedefforts to force Hungary to lift its ban on a genetically mod-ified organism (GMO) — in this instance, US-based Mon-santo’s MON810, a transgenic maize product containing atoxin to kill pests. Among bloc members, only Finland, theNetherlands, Sweden and the UK voted to overturnBudapest’s decision.

Just last year, EU ministers upheld an Austrian ban onthe same product, and the February vote marked the thirdoccasion that EU governments quashed a European Com-mission (EC) proposal to force a member state to acceptdomestic GMO cultivation.

Countries such as Romania and Spain have plantedtens of thousands of hectares of GM crops, but both coun-tries sided with Hungary on this occasion, citing groundsof national sovereignty.

The EC is now left to consider its options: It could takelegal action, or drop efforts altogether to lift the Austrianand Hungarian bans.

“Our only regret […] is that the EU does not operateaccording to the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy,” saidMarco Contiero, Greenpeace’s EU senior policy adviser ongenetic engineering, following the vote.

NEWS


CEE

BAN

KWAT

CH

N A T U R E C O N S E R V A T I O N

Danube makes ‘endangered’ top 10■ Dams, pollution and global warming and a host of otherenvironmental threats have combined to earn Europe’slongest river the unenviable distinction of being one of theworld’s 10 most-endangered rivers, the World Wildlife Fund(WWF) announced on March 20.

According to a WWF report, more than 80 percent of theoriginal floodplain of the Danube and its tributaries has van-ished since the early 1800s; meanwhile, poor managementand ongoing construction are worsening the situation.

The EUobserver cited the WWF as warning that the EUTrans-European Network for Transport also stands to place“valuable natural stretches” of the Danube at considerablerisk to harm, one of which includes the middle and lowerDanube in Hungary, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria.

“Further canalising results not only in loss of biodiversityand wetlands — thereby increasing problems with flood man-agement — but can also draw down water tables, riskingaccess to drinking water for 20 million people,” the WWF said.

Danube spring flooding has regularly wrought disaster inrecent years. And while efforts have been stepped up to offerbetter flood protection, experts expect that more than 85 per-cent of the river will fail to meet objectives of the EU WaterFramework Directive, the aim of which is to achieve “good”status for all European waters by 2015, the EUobserver wrote.

The Danube is Europe’s sole river in the WWF’s endan-gered top 10: The others are the Yangtze, Mekong, Salween,Ganges and Indus (all in Asia), Latin America’s La Plata andRio Grande, Africa’s Nile, and Australia’s Murray-Darling.

■ North-east Poland’s Rospuda Valley is the scenic stage for a show-down between the Polish government and the European Commis-sion (EC). On the EC’s recommendation, Poland faces a date withthe European Court of Justice (ECJ) for breaching EU environmentallaw by commencing with construction of the Via Baltica Expresswaythrough the valley — a legally protected Natura 2000 site.

The EC is even resorting to special “interim measures” for quickintervention, as construction crews are already on site. Environmen-talists are deeply concerned that unless decisive court action is takenimmediately, the valley will suffer irreversible harm.

Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski proposed in Februarythat the issue would be put to referendum, but critics argued that areferendum cannot be held on whether or not to break EU law.

“It’s very unfortunate that Poland is being taken to court […], butit’s no surprise either, given the government’s rash approach toEuropean law in this instance,” Bankwatch Policy CoordinatorMagda Stoczkiewicz commented in late March. “The EC’s firm standis encouraging, however, and it can only be hoped that the courtverdict will be positive for the valley.”

N A T U R E C O N S E R V A T I O N

EC gets tough with Poland


DANUBE WATCH

river basin protection

■ Concluding in December 2006, five demonstration projectswere conducted at Danube “hot spots” — areas identified bythe International Commission for the Protection of the DanubeRiver (ICPDR) as having exceptionally high levels of pollution.With very modest funding, these projects yielded generousresults within a relatively short time. A Bulgarian NGO,Ecomission 21st Century, carried out one of these demonstra-tions to address pollution of the Osam River.The Osam, which flows into the Danube, is one of Bulgaria’smost polluted rivers. The NGO worked in two counties mostaffected by the pollution (Lovech and Troyan) to test andimprove information access and mobilise community aware-ness concerning watershed management.Ecomission’s first step was to send questionnaires to regionaland local institutions, along with requests for data on waterquality and human health, pollution sources, and risks. It alsorequested a copy of the discharge permit granted to a majorpolluter, along with information related to the monitoring andenforcement of permit requirements. The NGO used thisinformation to gauge the level of cooperation from authoritiesand to identify obstacles to information access.Ecomission also conducted capacity-building workshops withmajor stakeholders to discuss more effective means of accessto information and public participation to discuss proposals toimprove legislation and to encourage other counties in Bul-garia to adopt similar best practices.Finally, a public outreach campaign drew media attention towater and human health issues and to the difficulties involvedin obtaining necessary information. The NGO was encour-aged, when, as a result of improved public information, theLovech regional governor ordered mayors to define and markzones deemed unsafe for bathing and swimming.Ecomission’s efforts to engage Bulgarian citizens and NGOs insubmitting information requests to local, regional and nation-al authorities not only improved the skills of local communi-ties in seeking and obtaining information, but also tested whatkind of water management information was being withheld asconfidential. The results helped the NGO to propose improve-ments in national legislation and practice. More information is available at: <www.bluelink.hnet/water/public/>.

L E S S O N S L E A R N E D

Free flow of information

■ Citizens who want to know more about water pollution intheir countries have a great deal of difficulty tracking down suchinformation, as water-related data tends to be widely dispersedamong many ministries and government offices at federal, enti-ty, regional and local levels. Information in Bosnia and Herze-govina (BiH) might, for example, be hiding inside any of 324separate institutions! So, what can be done about this?

A programme established under the UNDP-GEF DanubeRegional Project entitled “Enhancing Access to Information andPublic Participation in Environmental Decision Making” workedwith five Danube Basin countries to develop solutions.

In BiH, a consultant worked with government authorities andNGOs to develop an online meta-information system to assist cit-izens who now know where to direct inquiries for water-relatedinformation within multiple levels of government. The systemprovides a contact person, website address and hyperlink, institu-tion description and information content for each of the country’s324 institutions holding water-related information.

A Serbian NGO, the Association of Young Researchers,worked with local authorities and firms in Bor Municipality toestablish a database on pollution, wastewater and drinking water.This information will eventually be transferred to the municipali-ty’s Environment Protection Department. The NGO even trainedmunicipal employees to operate and maintain the database.

These and other results and lessons learned are summarised ina booklet called Flowing Freely. The booklet contains recommen-dations for other governments and NGOs who might want to reachsome of the same goals.

Some ways to develop an access-to-information system are:identify key offices and people with water-related information (alabour-intensive enterprise); build an electronic system to link orintegrate multiple sources of data and information; encourageagencies to participate and convince them of the mutual benefitsof shared information; bring together various information holdersto discuss how best to share and integrate data; and include futureusers who can help officials understand how the data system willbe used in practice by members of the public and NGOs seekingwater-related environmental information.

Guidebook guidanceGovernment officials, burdened by many responsibilities

and severe time constraints, often lack the tools or training to siftthrough documents and details on how to ensure access to infor-mation and public participation.

Manuals, guides, handbooks and guidelines for governmentauthorities (to inform them of their responsibilities) and individ-ual citizens (to inform them of their rights) are excellent meth-ods to enhance environmental leadership. Another recommen-dation of the DRP project is that NGOs should play an active rolein producing such materials.

All too often, however, the high turnover rate of governmentpersonnel, changes in the rules and other normal change meansthat such publications end up collecting dust on a shelf or quick-ly become obsolete. Care should be taken that these guides aredesigned and written in such a manner to be of optimum use forthe longest possible period of time. The most effective revisionsdraw from user feedback, and thus help to ensure that the guidesprovide maximum assistance to their target audiences.

Two manuals for officials on access to information and publicparticipation in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive(among the four published within the project) benefited fromobtaining government endorsement and are or will be made avail-able on the ministry’s website. One was from Serbia, the other fromRomania. Find more information about this project implemented bythe REC, Resources for the Future, and New York Universityat :<www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicPart ic ipat ion/DanubeRiverBas in/pro jec t_products/defau l t .h tml> .

An Osam response

TZVE

TKO

PET

KO

WATER’S EDGE: A herdsman and his cattle cool off in Bulgaria’s Osam River.

MOVEMENT FOR CHANGE: More environmentalinspections are taking place in Romania’s ClujCounty, but fines are few and far between.


know-how | INSIGHT

Individuals and groups tend to believethat their own ways of seeing anddoing things are best, and that theyalone are best suited to teach othershow to improve or move forward.

This kind of thinking is, of course, partof human nature, but in organisationalmanagement parlance it’s called “para-digm blindness.” Management personnelare too often blind to the consequences oftheir own way of doing things, but there isalways a realm of alternatives to choosefrom: Benchmarking is one of them.

Benchmarking is all about recog-nising the possibility that someone,somewhere, is capable of doing some-thing better than you can. Merelyadmitting that there are strongergroups out there is often the first stepfor many companies and organisationsas they travel along the road to changeand improvement.

The benchmarking concept — whichhas the potential to have a hugely posi-tive impact in terms of improving andprotecting natural environments — isnow making its way into South-EasternEurope (SEE).

In recent years, six county environ-mental commissariats in Romania’s Cluj-Napoca region have introduced bench-marking successfully. During this time, theregional commissariat closely monitoredthe performance of county commissariatsin Cluj, Bihor, Nistirca Nasaud, Maramares,Satu Mare and Salaj counties.

A number of penalties were imposedwithin each county, and each county commis-sariat was assessed annually in terms of

penalty amounts levied and number ofinspections.

An effort was made to use indicatorsthat can illustrate the activity of one com-missariat, and thus enable a comparisonof activity against the other five groups,said Regional Commissar of the NationalEnvironmental Guard Mihaela Beu.

In fact, the numbers varied quite sig-nificantly. In Cluj, for example, there weremany inspections, but few fines; in SatuMare, fewer inspections produced agreater number of penalties.

Salaj County, however, emerged asthe hands-down winner: Its commissariatconducted the most inspections, issuedthe most fines, and generated the highestrevenue.

After analysing causes of the widelydiffering performances, respective com-missariat management personnel wereable to take concrete action. Beu organ-ised meetings with all the chief commis-sars from county commissariats at leastonce per month. Those agencies laggingbehind were finally given some motiva-tion to gain ground, and this led to animprovement in overall commissariat per-formance, Beu claimed.

Putting power to good useBenchmarking was developed origi-

nally as a means of sizing up competition,but its potential for use in the public sectorbecame evident soon afterward.

A World Bank-funded study, car-ried out by the REC in 2006–07,demonstrated that benchmarking is apowerful tool that can prove incredibly

useful to environment-related organisa-tions, ministries, inspectorates and insti-tutes. The aforementioned project(Strengthening Environment Institutions inSouth-East Europe) produced some of thefirst benchmarking guidelines, andprogress monitoring will also soon beavailable within the project.

There are two main types of this newpractice. The first is called “process”benchmarking and the second is “perfor-mance” benchmarking, both of which canbe applied successfully in Central andEastern Europe, said the REC’s MihailDimovski, manager of the project.

“The former compares identicalprocesses in two or more organisations,or different units within one organisa-tion,” Dimovski explained. “Performancebenchmarking is where performances arecompared, rather than processes.”

Assessing environmental capacity, aswell as monitoring regular progress report-ing related to levels of transposition andimplementation of key EU legislation, areimportant obligations for both EU memberstates and EU candidate countries. And thisis why benchmarking is an excellentinstrument to put to use during the EUaccession process, Dimovski claimed.

“Benchmarking involves collectingdata, comparing best practices, andexchanging experiences — all particularlyuseful for monitoring and assessing envi-ronmental capacity,” Dimovski said.“Benchmarking also provides a systematicapproach for establishing proper progressmonitoring of approximation, which the EUrequires.”

Using benchmarking as a tool for organisational improvement

Looking for the bestBy Ruslan Zhechkov

◗

SXC.HU

In spring 2007, Montenegrins will cel-ebrate their one-year anniversary ofdeclaring independence from Serbia.Though a small nation geographical-ly speaking (just 13,812 square kilo-

metres), Montenegro offers a clear-bluesea, fast-running rivers, high mountains,dazzling countryside, and a cultural mixthat is breathtaking and unforgettable.

Despite the country’s abundance ofwild beauty, Montenegro is dealing with anassortment of environmental and ecologi-cal problems, such as pollution from thePodgorica Aluminium Plant, wildernessdumping, illegal construction and — mostsignificantly — energy lobbies active in try-ing to submerge the Tara River Canyon.

With investment opportunities pour-ing into the world’s youngest country,Montenegro’s government must balance ademand for fresh money with the need tocreate necessary infrastructure for sustain-able development and tourism.

Darko Pajovic, a member of both theCommission on Environmental, Economicand Social Policy (CEESP) and WorldConservation Union (IUCN), said thatMontenegro will need to greatly modify itsenvironmental regulations if it hopes toone day join the European Union.

Pajovic explained that this wouldbasically entail bringing Montenegrinenvironmental law into compliance withEuropean rules, building eco-funds, sign-ing pollution agreements, regulating andmonitoring wastewater treatment and dis-posal, and actually implementing enactedlegislation.

Montenegrin Minister of Tourism andEnvironment Protection Predrag Nenezicsaid that the main objectives of the“Montenegro as an Ecological State” projectare to bring about integrated developmentat all levels, and to involve as many social,economic, technological and naturalresources as possible.

Hard choicesAccording to recent media

reports, however, these targets couldbe difficult to reach. One of the topenvironmental stories concerns theconstruction of silos for surpluscement in the port of Zelenika (pop.1,400) in Herceg Novi municipality.Zelenika’s citizens, the municipal parlia-ment and environmental NGOs stronglyoppose the construction project, thoughthe facility’s owner, Eurocem (which wasgranted permission to build in 2002), hascontinually stated that the silos pose noenvironmental threat.

Nenezic argued, however, that thesilos are unacceptable in view of touristdevelopment needs alone.

“If it were up to me, nothing like thiswould be built directly on the coast, but atleast 50 metres inland,” he explained,adding that such a project has to firstserve the interests of the local population.

INSIGHT | sustainable development

Approaching its first anniversary of independence, Montenegro hopes to putfresh investment to good use without destroying its many scenic marvels

Europe’s youngest countrybraces for new challengesBy Dejan Lucic

BALKAN DELIGHTS: (clockwise from left)Whooping it up in Podgorica in 2006;Montenegrin mountain majesty; theendangered Tara River Canyon

PRESS OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MONTENEGRO


sustainable development | INSIGHT

◗

Nenezic said that adoption ofMontenegro’s National SustainableDevelopment Strategy would be a hugestep forward in terms of establishing aprinciple of sustainability to help steerfuture economic thinking, policymakingand implementation at all levels.

“As important as this document is,much more is needed,” said Nenezic.“Strong political support and the determi-nation and readiness of all segments ofsociety are also required if sustainabledevelopment is to become an integral partof economic and political dialogue.Montenegro, being a small state, will beable to resolve its current developmentdilemmas only in this way — as it willprovide the broadest level of consensusamong social actors.”

On the other hand, economic devel-opment and environmental concerns donot always walk hand in hand. Last year,and in 2005, various local media warnedthat the Podgorica Aluminium Plant(KAP) was responsible for pollution inMontenegro’s Zeta Valley. The Movementfor Change (PzP), an NGO turned politi-cal party, even went so far as to accuseKAP of “ecocide.”

Montenegrin authorities rejected PzP’sstrong language, but did not flatly denyallegations of causing pollution. Russal,KAP’s new owner, promised improve-ments and has pledged to implement afive-year environmental programme.

Pollution, however, is not the onlyenvironmental concern. According tomedia reports, there are plans to build upto 40 small to regular-sized hydroelectricpower plants on Montenegrin rivers. VanjaCalovic, executive director of the Networkfor Affirmation of the NGO Sector (MANS),

alleged that KAP and power-industry lob-byists are the only parties “in need of”these plants.

One of the hydroelectric projects, BukBijela, would submerge the Tara RiverCanyon, a site protected by UNESCO. Twoyears ago, the Montenegrin Parliamentadopted an official declaration to protectthe canyon, but since then, high-rankingofficials and some scientists have arguedthat such “popular sentiments” are incon-sistent with the country’s need to boost itselectrical energy capacity.

Coping with more cashCalovic claimed that the NGO sector is

sympathetic to the country’s powerneeds, but added that the needs can bemet without causing irreversible environ-mental harm.

“I think that Montenegro should firstobtain a clear estimate of its powerneeds,” said Calovic. “Next, an environ-mental impact assessment should be car-ried out for every proposed solution, andthe country should choose the solutionthat’s best overall in terms of sustainabledevelopment.”

Because of Montenegro’s sunny,coastal climate, Calovic and other NGOrepresentatives argue that solar powerand wind power are the country’s bestenergy alternatives.

Montenegro’s NGOs, in addition toconfronting myriad environmental con-cerns, are also trying to find the best waysto cope with a recent influx of foreigninvestment.

Many Montenegrins are tempted bythe possibility of earning millions of eurosor dollars, simply by selling houses orproperty to foreigners. Even rocky hide-aways with zero road access or electricityare selling for unheard-of amounts.

Many foreign investors are also pre-pared to invest in tourist infrastructure.Environmental NGOs have warned thatunchecked foreign investment in thetourism sector could drastically alterMontenegro’s ecological balance and per-manently scar its natural beauty.

State authorities, on the other hand,are playing up the economic benefits ofincreased tourism while downplaying itsharm to the environment.

“Further tourism development willaccount for larger and larger shares ofemployment and national revenue, and istherefore a top economic priority, saidTourism and Environment MinisterNenezic. “Of course, we’re firmly orientedtoward preserving the very resources thatattract tourism in the first place, includingMontenegro’s natural and culturalheritage.”

While the minister admitted thattourism development will create newpressures on the coastline, he added thatnew facilities will be created or remod-elled in such a way as to create morebeach space.

“Tourists, however, are most stronglyattracted to the natural coastline. Itspreservation is therefore a precondition,not only for the preservation of natural

balance, but also for long-term tourismdevelopment plans,” Nenezic said. “Inorder to address development pressuresand urbanisation, the Tourism MasterPlan is currently being revised along prin-ciples of sustainable development putforth by the UNWTO.”

Nenezic emphasised that carrying-capacity assessments and sustainabilitytests have not yet been applied toMontenegro’s tourism development plan;nor have they been applied to theNational Spatial Plan, which regulates theuse of coastal space and developmentorientation.

“Because of this, we’re aiming to com-plete carrying-capacity assessments oftourism plans in northern Montenegro andBoka Kotorska Bay. A strategic environ-mental assessment [SEA] is also being car-ried out for the spatial plan,” said Nenezic.“The application of these and similarmechanisms are keys to further develop-ment and implementation of planningdocuments and decision making in thecoastal region.”

Nenezic stressed that internationalcooperation is critically important whereenvironment protection is concerned.

“Natural resources do not recognisenational borders, and neither does pollu-tion nor climate change,” Nenezic contin-ued. “The concept of an integral approachto environment through the cooperationof national governments, professionalinstitutions and the NGO sector hasworldwide acceptance. To that extent, theassistance of EU support is vital.”

Building cooperationNenezic went on to explain that inter-

national organisations within the UN andEU — as well as regional organisationssuch as the Regional EnvironmentalCenter for Central and Eastern Europe(REC) — greatly help to develop nationalcapacities and to build cooperationbetween countries.

He added that interaction betweenMontengro’s Ministry of Tourism andEnvironment and the REC is an importantpart of regional and, indeed, internationalcooperation.

“The very first projects that the RECimplemented within the Stability Pact:Regional Environmental ReconstructionProgramme (REReP) in 2001 saw the com-pletion of numerous activities in the fieldsof institution building, legal developmentand transboundary cooperation,” saidNenezic. “Even more important is that allof these activities were carried out in aregional context, which has helped to cre-ate networks of experts in which toexchange experiences in a variety offields.”

Montenegro surely has the potential todevelop economically while remaining anearthly paradise and Mediterranean treas-ure. One way that the country can improveits chances for future EU membership is tostep up and fulfil its environmental andecological targets, which would benefitEuropeans and Montenegrins for genera-tions to come. ◗

REUTERS PHOTOS

INSIGHT | chemical legislation


Among the European Union’s vastcorpus of environmental regula-tions, Reach — a comprehensivetool developed to curb chemicalusage across the bloc — has been

one of the most controversial. Fiercelyopposed by industry lobbyists and champi-oned by green organisations, a compromisedeal became reality last December. Greencomplaints of a watered-down Reach (as aresult of the compromise) would seem tosuggest that industry welcomes the deal:Instead, industry reaction has been less thanenthusiastic.

The green lobby has argued thatReach in its present form differs substan-tially from the document originally envi-sioned by the European Commission(EC). The current regulation pertains tosome 30,000 chemical substances pro-duced in or imported to the EU inamounts of at least one tonne, and com-panies must register these chemicalsaccording to three different deadlines.

According to current Reach regula-tions, firms manufacturing any chemical involumes above 1,000 tonnes, or othercompounds containing carcinogenic,mutagenic or reprotoxic substances in vol-umes above one tonne, have three yearsto register. Other key registration dead-lines include: six years for production ofsubstances in volumes between 100–1,000tonnes; and 11 years for chemicals pro-duced in volumes between 1–100 tonnes.

There is also an obligation to submit aChemical Safety Report (CSR) to docu-ment the safety of some 1,500 additionalhazardous substances. Most hazardoustoxic and bio-accumulative substancescould be phased out gradually with theintroduction of safer alternatives.Organisations such as Greenpeace andWWF allege, however, that these solu-tions stand little chance of warding off theharmful influences of chemicals onhuman health and the environment.

Who’ll pay?The main criticism is that Reach in its

current form does not require companiesto carry out safety checks on substancesproduced or imported in amounts notexceeding 10 tonnes annually.

According to Greenpeace Poland,

companies producing several harmfulsubstances are required only to submitstatements agreeing to comply with vol-untary self-regulation. Greenpeace citedthe Czech and Polish governments asbeing most aggressive in seeking awatered-down Reach document.

Poland, the CEE region’s biggest econ-omy, could still take something of a hit afterReach enters into force in June 2007 (theentire package will take effect 11 yearslater). The Polish government and thechemical industry have been eyeing Reachwith concern, especially with regard tocosts of implementation, which are estimat-ed at EUR 340–416 million in Poland alone.

The costs could well be digested bythe biggest players in the sector, but couldalso prove lethal to hundreds of small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) that will beunable to bear the financial burden ofsubstance registration. More costs will beincurred in purchasing the results of CSRsfrom more-advanced Western laborato-ries, particularly German and Dutch facil-ities. CSRs will become free of chargeeventually, but only after 12 years — toolate by far for many SMEs.

Caution and scepticismAccording to Polish estimates, Reach

regulations might encourage big chemicalcompanies to downsize employment by asmuch as three percent, but SMEs might beforced to cut staff by as much as 30 percent.The EC, on the other hand, has claimed that

an estimated EUR 50 billion (as a result ofReach implementation) in healthcare sav-ings will far outweigh the losses suffered bythe chemical industry sector. For their part,green organisations share neither the indus-try’s concerns nor the EC’s optimism.

“We lost a chance for the first-everEuropean legislation that would havemade the industry responsible for itsproducts. Both consumers and the envi-ronment will suffer,” said WWF Poland’sDariusz Sredzinski.

The chemical industry, however, is bothcautious and sceptical about the Reach doc-ument — even one that is weaker than orig-inally envisaged. The industry’s Europeanbody, Cefic, claimed that the obligation forsafer substitution of most dangerous sub-stances is both a “costly and bureaucraticrequirement” and an “illusion,” as findingreplacements for substances in questioncannot be “operated by a regulation.”

Other industry groups, such asemployers’ association Unice, metalsassociation Eurometaux and manufactur-ing trade association Orgalime, haveechoed Cefic’s reservations.

“Substitution does not automaticallyrepresent the best option in terms of safe-ty, functionality or overall environmentperformance of a product [...], and wehave yet to be convinced that the provi-sions on substances in articles will beenforceable and workable in practice,”said Orgalime’s Adrian Harris, as quotedby ENDS Europe Daily.

The European Parliament votes to enact comprehensive chemical legislation, but Reach fails to please industry lobbyists and green organisations alike

Lukewarm reception forwatered-down regulationsBy Wojciech Kosc

OVER A BARREL: The chemicaldebate is unlikely to endanytime soon.

REU

TER

S

◗

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

green HORIZON | MARCH-MAY 2007 | 16greenHORIZON | DECEMBER 2006-FEBRUARY 2007 | 16

COVER STORY | environment and health

ust over 22,000 babies were born in Europe on January 1, 2007. When put-ting environmental concerns into perspective, it should help to try andimagine the kind of lives that these children will live, and the kind of futurethat they will inherit.

The New Year, for example, brought the arrival of Espera, a bright-eyed girl born in a west European farming region; Zoe came along on the same day, andshe will grow up in a village in Central Europe; baby Daniel, already with something ofa serious demeanour, first greeted the light of day in South-Eastern Europe.

All three children might be considered typical of their generation, and have beenborn into what might be considered typical families. All three are held to be full of prom-ise, and it’s very possible that they could one day shape the future by becoming tomor-row’s leaders. But one thing is certain: All three inherit today’s Europe — that is, “our”Europe.

Climate change is a more or less universally accepted phenomenon, and furtherchange is likely inevitable. Though it is impossible to predict which changes will takeplace in five, 10 or 15 years, one increasingly convincing argument is that extreme weath-er events and new threats to human health will accompany changes in climate.

Flooding in 2002 and a heat wave in August 2003 caused untold billions of euros intotal damages and cost perhaps thousandsof European lives. Both occurrences werecited in a World Health Organization(WHO) policy action guide titled “Healthand Climate Change: the Now and How”as part of redoubled efforts to raise aware-ness of the severity of climate change andits consequences.

The action guide was the result of athree-year project, ending in 2004, andwas coordinated by the WHO with sup-port from the Energy, Environment andSustainable Development Programmewithin the Fifth European UnionFramework Programme for Research andDevelopment.

Karin Zaunberger stated in the guide’sforeword that the dramatic meteorologicalevents of 2002 and 2003, though the corre-lation to climate change was undeter-mined, “revealed in a rather drastic wayour vulnerability and unpreparedness.”

he results published in theguide were the product of“Climate Change andAdaptation Strategies forHuman Health in Europe”(cCASHh), a research project

that “started with the assumption that, irre-spective of actions that have been taken toreduce or halt climate change, humanpopulations in Europe will be exposed tosome degree of climate change over thecoming decades.”

The research-heavy cCASHh projectresulted in a 450-page summary of find-ings, and the general conclusion that “rela-tively little has been done in public healthto incorporate projections of climate vari-ability and change in policy planning.”

When asked whether mitigation mightbe taken in time vis-à-vis damage due toclimate change, summary co-editor BettinaMenne stated: “We’re already much toolate, [and we] should have started 30 yearsago. The more urgent [the problem], themore that extreme mitigation is needed.

[Mere] adaptation will not be enough.”Menne is the Global Change and Health medical officer at the WHO Regional Office

for Europe. She and the department are also overseeing the Climate Change and ImpactResearCh (CIRCE) project, the aim of which is to develop an assessment of climatechange impacts in the Mediterranean area.

The Global Change and Health programme began in 1999 after the Third MinisterialConference on Environment and Health declared that “human-induced changes in theglobal climate system and in stratospheric ozone pose a range of severe health risks.”

In Menne’s view, changes to climate are complex, pervasive and “cannot beaddressed by any single ministry.” Instead, a “multi-dimensional multi-focus” is needed.

REU

TER

S

• Espera • 2007 •

S N A P S H O T S O F 2

• 2007 •

Adapting to the extremeFast-forward, if you will, to 2012.Imagine that Espera is now a pre-cocious five-year-old, and hasalready come to the conclusionthat adults are strange and talkabout things that don’t make anysense — particularly when theytalk about the weather. Summerdays are either too hot, or cold-spells are unseasonal. There’stoo much water and flooding, orthere’s not enough water andcrops are suffering.

Espera had to miss a weekof kindergarten in the spring,although she felt perfectly fine.Her parents kept her at homebecause of a blistering heatwave. The poor girl doesn’tunderstand the intricacies ofclimate change any more thanshe can understand why shecan’t go outside when it’s toosunny or too windy.

• Zo

• 2012 •

J

T

environment and health | COVER STORY


by David Landry

1 S T - C E N T U R Y C H I L D R E N ’ S H E A L T H I S S U E S

Our children,

e • 2007 • • Daniel • 2007 • • Espera • 2012 • • Zoe • 2017 • • Daniel • 2022 •

their future

The health officer said that she believesthere must be a combination of efforts ofhealth ministries, other governmentalministries and other interests to createmanageable living conditions for futuregenerations.

Unless rapid progress is made, theworld that Espera inherits just five yearsfrom now could be far more dangerous.

The REC in Szentendre, Hungaryplayed host to the 22nd Meeting of theEuropean Environment and HealthCommittee (EEHC) in November 2006.One particularly arresting presentation atthe conference was given by MargrietSamwel from Women in Europe for aCommon Future (WECF), a network oforganisations dedicated to health, envi-ronmental and sustainable developmentissues in the EECCA (Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia) region.

amwel explained howpathogens and nitrates inhuman waste contribute to groundwater pollutionwhen there is no source ofrunning water. She added

that the simple installation of a dry-urine-diverting toilet in place of pit latrines inHayanist, Armenia in August 2006brought immediate improvements interms of health and quality of life.

The failure to take such basic stepsoften results in tragedy. Samwel warnedthat there is a “dire” lack of clean water asfar west as Romania, resulting in extreme-ly high mortality rates in children due todiseases caused by faecal streptococcibacteria.

The lack of a water supply in Hayanistposed a unique challenge, but the WECFand partner NGOs took on a similar situa-tion in Garla Mare, Romania in lateOctober 2006. Located in southwestRomania, Garla Mare (pop. 3,500), has nocentral water supply, sewerage or gasifi-cation system.

The EEHC meeting at REC headquar-ters in Szentendre was kicked off with anannouncement of recent statistics pub-lished by the WHO, which stated that thenumber of persons in Europe with accessto clean water supplies has barelyimproved in the last 15 years. Even moredamning was the judgment handed downin the European Environment Agency’s“Belgrade Report,” which stated that water-quality management and monitoring with-in the EECCA region has actually been indecline over the same period of time.

Roberto Bertollini, director of theWHO’s Regional Office for Europe, statedat the Szentendre meeting that “the numberof Europeans with access to clean waterhas stayed the same” for the past 10 years.

Bertollini also introduced a draft agen-da for the “Intergovernmental Mid-TermReview,” a report on issue implementationaddressed in the Budapest Declaration,which was issued at the Fourth MinisterialConference on Environment and Health inJune 2004. The finalised version of themid-term review will be presented to theEU ministerial conference in Vienna thiscoming June.

Samwel went on to say that “onlythrough extreme intervention can we prop-erly alleviate this situation in the region.”

At present, the reported millions of vil-lage inhabitants drinking water pollutedwith nitrates, bacteria and pesticides in vir-tually every country from Romania east-ward are being assisted one action at a time.The efforts of the WECF show that bringinga cleaner, safer and healthier world to Zoe’sfriends, family and community is certainlypossible through fairly simple means. Thisis, after all, the 21st century.

Among the many anticipated conse-quences of climate change is a rise inmicrobial pathogens and bacterial dis-ease, due to conditions more favourablefor microbe breeding.

Notably addressing the matter, theEuropean Commission funded theEuropean Surveillance of CongenitalAnomalies project (also known as EURO-CAT). The far-reaching programmeinvolves 20 European countries and isdesigned, in part, to: provide essentialepidemiological information; coordinatedetection and response to outbreaks ofdisease; and assess developments in pre-natal screening.

At the aforementioned 21st EEHCmeeting, Steve Pedley of the RobensCentre for Public and EnvironmentalHealth spoke of how surveillance and

response systems have been successful inthe UK in dealing with parasitic diseasesand bacterial infections such as cryp-tosporidiosis, giardiasis and campylobac-teriosis. The Robens Centre researchgroup has produced its own water-testingkit, in addition to data management andanalysis software, while collaborating onprojects in the UK, Europe and Africa.

his encouraging progressnotwithstanding, anotherbig battle is being foughtworldwide against the useof mercury — one oftoday’s most dangerous

legacies for future generations. In what is now widely called “brain

drain,” mercury poisoning can causedevelopmental disabilities and brain dam-age. Studies from highly industrialisednations indicate practically without excep-tion that mercury poisoning is rife in theNorthern Hemisphere, and that children inthese areas are particularly at risk.

An EU impact assessment on mercurysuggested that up to five percent of thegeneral population has absorbed mercurylevels above the reference limit. SomeEuropean populations (noted in thereport are Mediterranean and Artic fishingcommunities) have people carrying levels10 times the recommended norm — i.e.



EXTREME CLIMATE: Floods and heat wavesthat frequently strike the CEE region couldhave a large impact on children’s health.

• 2007 •

A new water sourceIt’s now 2017. Zoe is only 10,but already experiences prob-lems with things like sanitationand waste disposal. Enduring21st-century conditions thatmany would find unthinkable,some villages in Zoe’s part ofEurope still feature pit latrines inpublic areas, animals grazingnear wells, serious overuse andpoor disposal of pesticides, andno solid-waste control. All ofthese factors lead to disease andhigher childhood mortality rates.

With the installation of newwastewater systems in Zoe’sarea, she and her peers not onlyavoid diarrhoeal diseases mademostly harmless in the West,but are able to drink as muchclean tap water as they like.

• 2017 •

S

T

▼

PAVE

L AN

TON

OV


environment and health | COVER STORY

Many of our biggest environmental problems stem from collec-tions of molecules that are truly microscopic — anywhere from 10nanometres to 100 micrometres in diameter.

These threats, known as “particulate matter,” comprise anaspect of pollution that presents a major health risk to the generalpopulation, but children especially. But particulate matter is alsoone of the fronts on which gains are being made by environmentalconcerns, which is a genuine cause for optimism.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines particulate mat-ter as “any air pollutant consisting of a mixture of particles thatcan be solid, liquid or both, is suspended in the air, and representsa complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances.”

Major components of particulate matter include sulphates,nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and water.

While particulate matter is emitted from natural sources suchas mineral dust, sea salt, forest fires and volcanic activity, indus-trial activity and internal combustion engines produce massiveamounts of these aerosols. Conservative estimates attribute 10percent of all atmospheric aerosol particles to human activity.

Particulate matter has been identified as a serious health haz-ard, with long- and short-term effects, at least since 1994 and theWHO’s Environmental Health Action Plan for Europe.

One recent study (WHO fact sheet EURO/04/05, entitled:“Particulate matter air pollution: How it harms health”) summa-rized a data assessment undertaken in 2004 by the WHO’s EuropeanCentre for Environment and Health in 2004, stating that particulatematter, among other hazards, increases the risk of respiratory deathin infants under one year of age, and seriously increases deathsfrom cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer.

Due to factors ranging from smaller body size to greateramounts of time spent outdoors, children risk the greatest exposureto particulate matter, and are most likely to suffer anything fromshort-term to long-term respiratory effects — even brain damage.

Particulate matter is such a high-level concern that it emergedas “Regional Priority Goal 3” of the Children’s Environment andHealth Action Plan for Europe (CEHAPE), which was signed by 52countries during the WHO Europe’s Fourth Environment and HealthMinisterial Conference, held in Budapest in 2004.

In February, representatives from 52 European countries met inBrussels to launch a review action plan (EED 28/06/04). The WHOinitiative addresses environmental threats to child health in fourpriority areas: water, air, chemicals and injuries.

The REC project “Indoor Air Quality in European Schools:Preventing and reducing respiratory diseases” seeks to directlyaddress CEHAPE Regional Priority Goal 3. The project involves RECoffices in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Serbia andSlovakia, together with related organisations in these countries,and in Austria, Italy, and Norway.

The project period is 2005–2009, and final findings will be pre-sented in 2009 at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environmentand Health, to be held in Italy.

Working under the Italian Health Ministry’s “Guidelines for theSafety and Promotion of Health Indoors,” published in November2001 in the Official Journal of Environment and Health, the projectbegan as a pilot programme in Hungary.

In 2004, REC Hungary employed the Italian model for improvingindoor air quality in schools. The pilot training programme wasdeveloped by several teachers from Hungary, together with Italianand Hungarian medical consultants.

According to the 2006–2007 programme itinerary, the projectwas kicked off in eight countries, as were requisite planning andtraining courses based on the Italian-Hungarian concept. The all-important measurement of indoor air pollutants within schoolsstarted in November 2006, and will continue through March 2007.

By the end of the year, a questionnaire will be distributed in select-ed schools for measuring the representative health of 1,000 chil-dren per country, followed by collection and analysis of the results.

The programme will continue next year, and the REC hopes thatthe Hungarian-Italian model will be propagated throughout theeight participating countries.

Progress is steadily being made in this area of environmentalimprovement. The early success of the REC’s “Indoor Air Quality inEuropean Schools” project is but one outcome of CEHAPE RegionalPriority Goal 3. The latest large-scale defining of goals in particu-late matter-related, health-risk management was the ThematicStrategy on Air Pollution, part of the EU’s Sixth EnvironmentalAction Programme.

Past projects took on new directions under an EC directiveissued in September 2005, which promised to “cut the annual num-ber of premature deaths from air pollution-related diseases byalmost 40 percent from the 2000 level.”

The good news is that particulate matter emissions actually doseem to be on the wane. The “ambitious” goals set in the ThematicStrategy will, by present calculations, be reached. Meanwhile, par-ticulate pollution from the troublesome internal combustion enginewill be diminished somewhat on the continent, as the EuropeanUnion recently introduced a more stringent standard of 0.025 gramsper kilometre (0.04 grams per mile) in particulate emissions fromlight-duty vehicles.

While we’re still some (perhaps, many) years away from run-ning industrial machinery at sufficiently clean levels, we can even-tually win the battle on the microscopic level of particulate matter;and this should make us, and our little ones, breathe easier.

For more information, please go to <www.rec.hu/search>.

Breathing easier

IMPORTANT LESSONS:A clear mind is a creative mind.

REU

TER

S

Cleaning up the air in Europe’s schoolsBy David Landry

levels at which damage can occur to thedeveloping brain.

s is now required by law inmany countries, food prod-ucts made from predatoryfish such as swordfish andtuna must contain warn-ings for pregnant women,

as mercury ingested by expectant moth-ers will be passed on to the developingfoetus.

The EU assessment also found that 44percent of three- to six-year-old childrenin France have mercury levels exceedingrecommended limits, while a 2005 televi-sion documentary from the US made theclaim that “one in six children born everyyear has been exposed to mercury levelsso high that they are potentially at risk forlearning disabilities, motor-skill impair-ment and short-term memory loss.”

Currently, the “Stay Healthy, StopMercury” campaign is publicising itsreport called “Halting the Child BrainDrain.” As campaign members see things,nothing short of a total ban will stop theseepage of mercury (an element that thehuman body does not in the least require)into water supplies through industrialactivity and discarded consumer prod-ucts, such as batteries.

Released on January 10, 2007, thereport is the result of a joint effortbetween the Health & EnvironmentAlliance (HEAL) and alliance groupHealth Care Without Harm. These groupsalso form part of the “Zero Mercury”movement, an international informationnetwork also involving the EuropeanEnvironmental Bureau, Ban MercuryWorking Group and Mercury PolicyProject.

In hopes of drawing attention andawareness to one of today’s most seriousthreats to our children’s health, “Haltingthe Child Brain Drain” was presented tothe Governing Council meeting of the UNNations Environment Programme/GlobalMinisterial Environmental Forum inNairobi in February, and also this June atthe Fourth International Conference onChildren’s Health and the Environment:“Reducing Environmental Risks for OurChildren.”

It is sadly ironic that a ban on mostproducts containing trace mercuryappears likely at a time when worldwidefishing stocks (the major biological repos-itory for mercury and heavy metals) aredwindling to zero.

Mercury stays in the body once inges-ted. Its molecules are small enough todamage at the cellular level, and thechemical has been linked to prematurebrain disorders such as Alzheimer’s dis-ease. Even if a total ban on mercury prod-ucts were to be introduced tomorrow,tens of millions of Europeans — childrenand adults alike — will be carrying dan-gerous levels of mercury for the remain-der of their lives.

Many of Daniel’s generation will becharged with caring for a growing num-

ber of sufferers from mercury infestation— just one of many environmental issuesthat requires immediate attention.

A fighting chanceOf course, at the time of writ-

ing, Espera, Zoe, and Daniel arejust three months old. Instead ofwondering about the weather atfive, or being overly concernedwith sanitation at 10, or studyingthe effects of mercury poisoningat 15, these children are learningto smile, to babble, and to crawl.

Every parent hopes that theirnewborn child will grow up in aworld that offers wonder, excite-ment and opportunity. Life posesenough natural challenges and dif-ficulties, and today’s children don’tneed the extra disadvantages ofgrowing up in an unhealthy, dan-gerous world, surrounded by ableak, dreary landscape.

The fact that Espera, Zoe,Daniel and roughly 22,000 othersborn on New Year’s Day 2007 stillhave a fighting chance for a goodlife is something, at least, fromwhich to take encouragement.

• 2007 •

The ‘other’ brain drainLet’s move on to 2022. Daniel ismature enough at 15 years ofage that adults call him a “youngman.” As he prepares toadvance through high school,family members and teachersare encouraging him to pursuethe study of medicine. Nearly aquarter of the way through thecentury, there have been somebreakthrough advances in medi-cine, but new health challengesare demanding bright medicalminds in even greater numbersthan before.

Even if we prove capable ofcorrectly addressing the gravehealth issues of today’s Europe,Daniel and his generation willnonetheless be called upon tocare for those affected at thismoment by toxic conditions.

• 2022 •

A



COLOURING HER WORLD: A young girl particapatesin a mass painting effort in Bucharest, Romania.

◗

REU

TER

S


REC BULLETIN | public participation

In late 2004, the REC began a two-yearproject titled “Improving the Practicesof Public Participation: Next Steps inImplementing the Aarhus Conventionin South-Eastern Europe” to support

implementation of the Convention and theProtocol on Pollutant Release and TransferRegisters (PRTRs) in Albania, Bosnia andHerzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Serbia andMontenegro, and Kosovo (territory cur-rently under interim UN administration).

In addition, pilot projects were com-pleted within the two-year period in eachof these SEE countries and entities. Each ofthe 12 projects is representative of howpublic participation can influence environ-mental decision-making at local levels.

Twelve laboursA project in Bosnia and Herzegovina

focused on monitoring air quality in Tuzla.The city has five monitoring stations, butcitizens were receiving information aboutair quality only once a month.

Addressing the need to safeguard pub-lic health, the “Citizens of Tuzla Have aRight to Know” programme, implementedby the Center for Ecology and Energy, wasdeveloped to obtain data dissemination ona daily basis, to have the data delivered inuser-friendly formats, and to develop alegal mechanism to hold industrial opera-tors responsible for exceeding establishedpollution limits.

“Air-quality data started being releaseddaily in February 2006, just two months intothe project,” said Project CoordinatorSabina Jukan. “The data is also televised,and we’ve enjoyed good media support.”

Jukan said that one disadvantage is thatthe emissions data is not specific enough toidentify the biggest polluters.

“We do know that one of the biggerones is the steam power plant, and we’retaking various actions against the opera-tors,” said Jukan. “We’ve also met with var-ious experts to consider how the plantshould compensate the city for pollution.”

Meanwhile, FYR Macedonia’s Centar,Gazi Baba and Zelenikovo are threemunicipalities lacking means of commu-nication to solve environmental prob-lems. Working with mayoral support fromeach of the three communities, the ORT(Training for Sustainable Development)NGO worked with administrators, citizensand other stakeholders in a pilot projectto implement an Aarhus-level “system forenvironmental decision-making.”

The primary activity of the programmewas to conduct research into public opin-ion in order to reveal which problemsneeded to be addressed.

“The project established an ‘open gate’for citizens, and more and more people areinsisting on participating in meetings anddebates on environmental problems,” saidProject Coordinator Vesna Jankova.

Jankova added that Gazi Baba’s citizenshave participated in several meetings todiscuss problems concerning sewerage andwater-supply systems, and restoration andreconstruction efforts.

Montenegrin NGO Green Home car-ried out its “Participate! Decide! Win!” proj-ect in the municipality of Danilovgrad.

Green areas comprise approximately15% of Danilovgrad’s total area, but theselands have been misused or abused withno enforceable regulations in place.

Completed in May 2006, the projectactivated citizens to participate in draftingand adopting the Regulation on PhysicalPlanning and Protection of Green Urban

Areas. Local authorities and institutions, cit-izens, the media and NGOs all enjoyedcloser cooperation during the project.

“There was such a high level of stake-holder involvement because the problemof solid-waste disposal at the local levelwas so widely recognised,” said ProjectManager Natasa Turakovic.

“Taking a ‘learn by doing’ approach,we helped show how to influence thedecision-making process. But it will stilltake a long time to turn knowledge andpublic awareness into high-level publicparticipation,” Turakovic added.

Justice is served?Without public recourse to a court of

law or administrative proceeding, the firsttwo pillars of the Aarhus Convention (i.e.access to information and public participa-tion in decision-making) mean little ornothing at all. Unfortunately, however,legal recourse granted to citizens in someparts of Europe can often be denied to cit-izens in other parts. Germia, a green NGObased in Pristina, Kosovo, is one suchorganisation that has discovered the nar-row confines of its present legal situation.

When the Kosovo Parliament decidedto embark on construction of an adminis-tration and protocol centre in a protectedwooded area, the Germia Coalition wasestablished as a joint initiative of environ-mental NGOs in an effort to stop the con-struction. Even though an environmentalimpact assessment (EIA) was carried outon the proposed project, the Pristina CityCouncil granted a building permit withoutholding a public hearing.

“By building the administrative andprotocol centre, all the environmental reg-ulations and laws were ignored, as well as

REC

ALB

ANIA

The REC plays an important role in Convention implementation in SEE

Putting Aarhus into actionby Nathan Johnson

FAR-REACHING IMPACT: Albania is just one of many countries that can benefit from enhanced public participation in environmental decision-making.


■ As part of the second round of DRP grants, 62 non-govern-mental organisations (NGOs) affiliated with the Danube Riverand its tributaries received USD 636,000 within the frameworkof the Danube Regional Project (DRP), with support from theUnited Nations Development Program/Global EnvironmentalFacility (UNDP/GEF).

The grants have enabled these NGOs to facilitate the reduc-tion of nutrient and toxic pollution in 10 target countries of theDanube River Basin (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,the Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia,Slovakia and Slovenia).

Following the scheme of the first round, grants were dividedinto two main components: National grants were focused on fos-tering stakeholder cooperation in addressing pollution-relatedproblems at the local level; regional grants were targeted at pro-moting regional NGO cooperation.

Five multi-country projects helped to bring stakeholderstogether at the regional level. This took place, for example,near the Hernad River in Hungary and the Sebes and Korosrivers in Romania. Also, public participation has been intro-duced in Sava River Basin management through the EU WaterFramework Directive, while best agricultural practices werepromoted in two projects to reduce farming-related pollutionin lower Danube countries. Finally, the benefits of reusablenappies and environment-friendly detergents were extolled inCroatia and Slovenia.

At the national level, 57 projects received USD 458,830 in sup-port. Ongoing project efforts include: reducing pollution fromDanube tributaries such as the Sava, Olt, Ipoly, Prut, Zitava andTisza; campaigning for and promoting organic agriculture inVukovar (Croatia), Moravia (Czech Republic), Subotica (Serbia)and Moldova; promoting best agricultural practices to reducenutrients and pesticides in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,Hungary and Serbia; introducing phosphate-free detergents in theCzech Republic; better protecting and managing wetlands alongthe Slovak Danube and in the Slovenian karst; improving floodmanagement in Bulgaria and wastewater treatment in Moldova;

and alerting local populations about existing pollution from haz-ardous waste disposal in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

NGO initiatives have been crucial in extending public aware-ness actions to address basin-wide problems and in tacklingwater pollution and cross-cutting issues that local and nationalpoliticians do not generally assign as high priorities.

“Many NGOs have demonstrated how to address real pollu-tion issues at local, national and transboundary levels,” saidAlexander Zinke, a Vienna-based environmental consultant whoevaluated both rounds of projects. “These NGOs have offeredinformation and introduced new nutrient management tech-niques, have achieved the engagement of local communities andindustries, and have started to change consumer behaviour. Thegrant programme ended with multiple sustainable successesthroughout the Danube Basin.”

public participation and drp grants | REC BULLETIN

N G O G R A N T S

Second round of DRP grants extended to 62 NGOs

the urban plans for this zone,” said GermiaCoalition member Nehat Bllacaku.

Germia would have had a very strongopportunity to challenge the procedure ina different legal setting. What developedinstead was a classic example what canhappen without a proper mechanism inplace to achieve acceptable levels of accessto justice.

“Given the disregard of the personsresponsible, we decided to resort to thecourt system,” Bllacaku explained, “includ-ing the Supreme Court and Pristina’sDistrict Court, which is responsible for thezone in question. We gathered all neces-sary proof against construction of the build-ing, but the process was slow and difficult.”

Bllacaku added that, in the end, theSupreme Court rejected Germia’s appeal,arguing that the NGO — not being theowner of the land in question — had nostanding to bring the case to court.

The lower courts later challengedGermia’s legal status, either out of igno-rance or a willingness to exploit theNGO’s lack of legal expertise. Accordingto the Aarhus Convention, anyone —including individual citizens and environ-mental NGOs — would have the right of

access to justice in such a case.Nonetheless, in this instance, the centrewas completed by the time it took Germiato exhaust its court possibilities, which ina more mature legal environment wouldresult in suspension or termination of theconstruction project.

“The District Court, to this day, has notconducted an inquiry into this case. Thelocal courts aren’t yet independent fromexternal influences,” said Bllacaku.

As part of a project, the REC held atraining workshop for NGOs, judges andrepresentatives of ombudsmen’s offices tohelp tackle some of these difficulties. Thegeneral aim of the session was to help par-ticipants identify: violations of rights andprocedures; standing requirements relatedto cases under discussion; injunctive reliefand other legal remedies; best possiblestrategies for making appeals or initiatingcourt cases; and overcoming barriers toaccessing justice.

Database discoveriesWith much of SEE exposed to several

forms of air, water, soil and waste-relatedpollution, the UNECE Protocol onPollutant Release and Transfer Registers

(PRTRs) has become an important tool forinforming members of the public aboutthe status of their environment.

Using a comprehensive database, peo-ple can gather the knowledge and infor-mation needed to effect change and influ-ence environmental decision-making inan informed and constructive way.

As part of the Aarhus project, the RECorganised a three-day study tour in theCzech Republic, home to one of theregion’s best integrated pollution registers.

In late 2006, selected participants —including ministry officials, agency repre-sentatives and authorities from Albania,Montenegro and Serbia — convened atthe Czech Environmental InformationAgency, where they were given practical,hands-on training in database building,operation and maintenance. They alsohad the opportunity to hear severalexperts address a wide range of PRTR-related topics.

It was stressed at the event that NGOsplay an important role in serving the pub-lic’s environmental needs, and that activeNGO involvement will advance the causeof bringing the benefits of PRTR expertiseand technology to the SEE region.

REC

AR

CHIV

E

Students take water samples from the Danube to measure nutrient pollution.

◗◗

◗◗


E D U C A T I O N

Green Pack a hit with MEPs

REC BULLETIN | news

■ More than 200 high-level government officials met in Budapest on March 6–7 to discuss and develop a European green paperon urban transport, which will likely be prepared by the end of September.

The European Commission (EC) initiated the consultation in the hope that stakeholders, interested parties and citizens will all beinvolved in the preparatory phase of the paper. The EC is therefore organising an Internet consultation, two public green paper con-ferences and debates on key questions involving European stakeholder organisations during targeted technical workshops.

In addition, the EC welcomes input via writing or e-mail, Zoltan Kazatsay, deputy director-general of the European Commission’sDirectorate-General for Energy and Transport, remarked when the conference opened.

During the first day, participants discussed how transport financing differs from city to city. Also discussed on day one wereEU cohesion policy, fare and pricing strategies, and access-control schemes.

The second day was devoted to public transport, inter-modality and intelligent transport, while debates focused on the safety,security, environmental performance and efficiency of public transport.

The REC, a Paramount Project partner, hosted the event, together with the Hungarian Ministry of Economy and Transport and theEC. Municipal government representatives, research institutions and think-tanks from across Europe, the European Investment Bankand civil society all contributed to the discussion.

■ The REC’s environment education toolkit, the Green Pack, was introduced inBrussels during a high-level presentation at the European Parliament on January 31.

The event took place under the patronage of Stavros Dimas, European commis-sioner for the Environment, and was opened by Nikoloas Sufinakis, MEP and chair-man of the European Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee.

In addition to welcoming environmental attaches and other governmentalorganisations accredited in Brussels, the REC also invited business and media rep-resentatives to the event.

The REC’s Robert Atkinson and Kliment Mindjov were on hand in Brussels tointroduce and provide information about the Green Pack, which has won highpraise from educators and environmentalists alike. Also joining in with enthusiasticremarks during the proceedings were Toyota Vice-President Piet Steel, HungarianMEP Peter Olajos and Italian MEP Alfredo Antoniozzi.

■ Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) isexperiencing some serious water sec-tor-related difficulties, due mostly topoorly developed capacities andinfrastructure, but also to an assort-ment of socioeconomic and institu-tional shortcomings. A new REC proj-ect (Support to the Public RegionalCommunal Service Company andFour Municipalities in BiH) aims tobring about more efficient water man-agement in the country.

BiH’s ample water resources offersignificant economic potential, buthave suffered from a lack of protec-tion in the past; wartime damage toinfrastructure and a lack of mainte-nance have only exacerbated condi-tions. There are also few wastewatertreatment facilities, and sewerage sys-tems are inadequately looked after.

REC Bosnia and Herzegovina’snew project will be focused on fourmunicipalities located in the UpperVrbas River Basin: Bugojno, Jajce,Donji Vakuf and Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje. The Vrbas provides thesecommunities with water supply, agri-culture, tourism and other benefits,but wastewater is discharged directlyinto the river because the municipali-ties lack a treatment plant.

Support will go to public regionalservice companies of the four munic-ipalities for help with the preparationof feasibility studies. The main long-term goal of the project is to reducethe amount of untreated waste enter-ing the river, and thus to improve thecitizens’ quality of life.

The project, funded by theNorwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,runs from January 5–December 31,2007.

W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T

Project addresses BiH water sector

U R B A N T R A N S P O R T

Officials convene in Budapest for talks on green paper

MAR

TA B

ON

IFER

T

MOMENTOUS OCCASION: Commissioner Dimas (left)exchanges words in Brussels with Toyota’s Steel and REC Executive Director Marta Szigeti Bonifert.

■ In March, REC Albania published its fourth volume of Albanianenvironmental legislation, which covers the period 2004–06.

The 560-page volume contains approximately 60 legal acts,and testifies to Albanian efforts to bring the country’s environ-mental law in line with EU directives and other internationalobligations.

The publication will be distributed free of charge to all gov-ernmental institutions, NGOs and other actors in Albanian envi-ronmental society.

REC Albania also published a new series of four bookletsoffering local-language translations of 20 European acts on air,water, waste and SEA/EIA.

Acting in close cooperation with the Ministry of Educationand Science and the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and WaterAdministration, REC Albania successfully introduced the GreenPack educational toolkit to Albanian 7th graders for the secondsemester (February–May) of the 2006–07 school year.Approximately 500 teachers received two days of training at anyone of 14 workshops throughout the country.

Originally launched in Albania in November 2006, the GreenPack targets 1,800 schools and toolkit availability of one per 30students.

news | REC BULLETIN

■ While climate change and energy security are two of Europe’sheadline issues, conditions are such in other parts of the worldthat food security is more of a primary concern. Nonetheless,the effects of climate change on already marginal environmentsare clearly causing or aggravating serious social, environmentaland economic conflicts. Bearing this in mind, the REC was invit-ed in December 2006 to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to attend a con-ference on the launch of a Regional EnvironmentalCenter/Network for the Horn of Africa (REC/N HoA).

Hanan Mutwakil of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) told conference participants that the ethnicconflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, although spring-ing from political causes, is certainly being exacerbated bychanges in climate. Such changes have increased desertification,and have forced northern Arab herders into land traditionallyoccupied by non-Arab pastoralists. Drought, coupled with anincreasing birth/survival rate in the region, has led to less land formore people.

Janny Poley of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Ethiopia anda driving force for the new network, told those assembled: “Weneed to turn the tide of environmental degradation by improvingenvironmental governance throughout the Horn of Africa.”

As real initiatives and pragmatic solutions appear to be com-ing from below (i.e. from civil society and academic institutions),the Netherlands announced that it would support REC/N HoAwith EUR 9 million for its first three years.

The REC’s HoA network comprises six countries (Djibouti,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and Sudan), all of which(excepting Kenya) are listed by the UN among the world’s 50poorest countries.

Focus in the coming years will be on three major environ-mental management topics: lake and wetlands management;park and buffer zone management; and management of erosion-

prone highlands and dry lowlands. The conference focusedlargely on wetlands: Ethiopia’s Central Rift Valley, Kenya’s LakeNaivasha and the Sudd Wetland in Sudan were highlighted ascase studies of how difficult it is to balance a variety of resource-use pressures.

Director for Civil Initiatives Robert Atkinson spoke about theREC’s history, structure and achievements over the past 16 years,and particularly stressed the REC’s ability to draw from its expe-rience in Central and Eastern Europe in offering support to thefledgling centre. It is hoped that a fact-finding visit from REC/NHoA management to the REC headquarters will further cementthis promising relationship.

R E C M O D E L

With Dutch support, Network for Horn of Africa launched

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

REC team establishes four-point focus in 2007

S E R I E S

Albania publishes lawvolume, debuts Green Pack

PAVE

L AN

TON

OV

■ In its January newsletter, the REC’s EnvironmentalFinancing unit detailed four main areas of focus for2007.

The first is on environmental infrastructure, and theteam is preparing a number of pre-feasibility and feasi-bility studies for regional waste management and waste-water in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYRMacedonia and Serbia.

Second, Environmental Financing will continue toassist new EU member countries in developing projectswith the support of EU funds; it will also help investi-gate co-financing options, and carry out analysis ofimpacts of the Lisbon Agenda on environmental proj-ects.

Third, the team will prepare two major reports forthe Ministerial Conference in Belgrade, which will takeplace in October: One will be on environmental financ-ing trends in South-East Europe, while the other will beon municipal infrastructure in SEE.

Finally, the team will explore some uncharted terri-tory, such as financing eco-innovation within theEuropean Union.

Awareness-raising in Ethiopia’s Simien Mountains National Park.

■ Boosting the amount of efficient lighting in commercial andpublic buildings and outdoor spaces will play a major role inachieving European CO2 reduction goals. At the same time, moreenergy-efficient lighting can reduce dependence on energyimports, expand business opportunities for European Union-based industries, and help to improve working conditions.

The GreenLight Programme is part of a comprehensive strat-egy set out in the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, and has beendeveloped to facilitate the penetration of efficient lighting sys-tems in the non-residential sector. Furthermore, the REC’s CzechCountry Office plans to submit an application to endorse theprogramme.

The current economic trend toward increased private invest-ment in efficient lighting will be stimulated through raising publicawareness, public relations activities, and through steering publicsupport programmes toward GreenLight Programme objectives.

In serving as a catalyst for developing key sectors of energy-efficient lighting, the programme can send clear positive signalsand encourage further investment in such development initiatives.

GreenLight is a voluntary programme through which privateand public organisations and companies can commit to upgrad-ing lighting systems in existing spaces wherever and wheneverenergy savings justify such an investment, and to install the mostefficient lighting systems available in new building.

GreenLight “partners” will aim to pursue and achieve the fol-lowing objectives via programme participatioin: to upgradelighting in existing facilities; to build all new facilities withenergy-saving technology; to reduce operating costs; to improvelight quality and worker productivity; to prevent the emission ofgreenhouse gases and other pollutants; and to improve economicperformance.

Partners have permission to use the GreenLight logo, andprogramme-related activities may be included in other relatedpromotional activities, such as awards presentations, catalogues,advertising or other company literature.

GreenLight benefits from the active support of the nationalenergy agencies and institutions of 26 European countries.

For more information, please contact Juraj Krivosik at<[email protected]>.

E N E R G Y

GreenLight Programme shineson non-residential sector

REC BULLETIN | news and country offices

green HORIZON | MARCH-JUNE 2006 | 26

ALBANIA Rr. Ismail Qemali, No. 27, Third Floor, Tirana, AlbaniaTirana, AlbaniaTel/Fax: (355-4) 232-928BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Kalemova 3471000 SarajevoTel/fax: (387-33) 263-050, 209-130E-mail: [email protected] Luka Field OfficeSlavka Rodica 1 78000 Banja Luka, RS Bosnia and HerzegovinaTel/fax: (387-51) 317-022E-mail: [email protected] Tzar Simeon 42, Ap. 21000 SofiaTel: (359-2) 983-4817Fax: (359-2) 983-5217E-mail: [email protected] Djordjiceva 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]

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

HUNGARY Ady Endre ut 9-11 2000 SzentendreTel: (36-26) 504-075Fax: (36-26) 302-137E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLICOF MACEDONIA Ilindenska 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

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

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

SERBIA Primorska 31 11000 BelgradeTel: (381-11) 329-2899

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

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

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

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

TURKEY Ilkbahar Mah. 15. Cad. 296. Sok. No:806550 Yildiz Cankaya Ankara Tel: (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 and private institutions.

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

Improving environmental mediation in CEE ■ Cooperative decision making and conflict management in public planning and environment was the theme of a two-day work-shop held in January 2007 in Budapest by the REC and Austria’s OGUT. The workshop was part of a joint project to collect case stud-ies to examine and compare environmental conflicts and approaches to problem-solving in both Western and Eastern Europe.Researchers, professional mediators and NGO activists from all over the EU teamed up to share knowledge and experiences.

The event was also part of CIPRA’s “Future in the Alps” knowledge-transfer project, within which a network of persons and insti-tutions involved in public participation, environmental conflict management and environmental mediation was created.

Participants came to agree that environmental conflicts are conflicts of values and interests, and that environmental mediators facemajor challenges in refraining from advocating for either investors or activists. Mediators should be equally distant from all parties,explained Martina Handler, a participation expert from OGUT. Handler also drew attention to the CEE region’s lack of skilled indi-viduals and official support for this type of informal conflict resolution.

Processes in the region often start spontaneously and without preparation, she commented, adding that it is essential to getinvolved at the earliest possible stage, when there are more options on the table.

For more information, please visit <www.rec.org/REC/Programs/PublicParticipation/Mediation> or <www.partizipation.at>.

GR

EEN

LIG

HT

PRO

GR

AMM

E

BRIGHT IDEA: New, energy-efficient lighting has been installed in thisIkea store in Ostrava, Czech Republic.

BULLETIN BOARD


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

This course presents a unique opportunity to urban transport offi-cials with an interest in developing their professional skills in sus-tainable mobility. Limited spaces in this course will be awarded tothose applicants who demonstrate their commitment and capabil-ity to contribute to improving urban transport and mobility.

WHEN: May 30-June 1, 2007 in Graz, Austria (Application deadline: May 15)

WHAT: The course will include three half-day modules on: • parking space management;• alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies; and• mobility management and travel awareness.

The last day is for site visits.

Please contact Gabor Heves at [email protected] obtain a registration form and detailed agenda. Participation is free.

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

European Local Transport Information Service

www.eltis.org

A natural place to meetthe REC Conference Centerthe REC Conference Center

Ideal location:

■ on the grounds of the REC head office

■ peaceful, wooded campus on the banks of theDanube in the historic town of Szentendre

■ one hour by car to Ferihegy International Airport

■ public transport link to Budapest by bus and suburban train

Features:

■ conference hall, seating up to 150 classroom style

■ session rooms

■ secretariat room

■ banquet hall, accommodating up to 100

■ air-conditioning

For more information:

Write us at <[email protected]> or visit ourwebsite at <www.rec.org>.Telephone: (36-26) 504-000 Fax: (36-26) 301-191

A natural place to meet

Sustainable transporttraining for officials

COLUMNS


Deep thinkingEuropean Union unveils marine environment strategy

In December 2006, the EU’s Councilof Ministers presented an ambitious strat-egy to more effectively protect marineenvironments across Europe. The statedobjective of the strategy is “to promote thesustainable use of the seas and conservemarine ecosystems.” The strategy docu-ment is a revised version of the EuropeanMarine Strategy (EMS) Directive, whichthe European Commission originally pre-sented in October 2005.

Although there are several policies inEurope that refer in part to the marineenvironment (e.g. the Habitat Directive,Bird Directive and Water FrameworkDirective), none has yet been developedin an integrated way to protect all seas ofthe European Union.

The Marine Strategy will constitutethe environmental pillar of future EUmaritime policy, and is designed to har-monise full economic potential with ahealthy marine environment.

In order to implement the directive,European marine waters have been splitinto four different eco-regions: the BalticSea; the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (includ-ing the North Sea and Celtic Sea; the Bayof Biscay, Iberian coast and Macaronesianarea (those waters surrounding Madeira,the Azores and the Canary Islands); andthe Mediterranean (including the Adriatic,Ionian and Aegean-Levantine seas). It isrecommended that separate marinestrategies be implemented for each ofthese eco-regions.

One of the most important ongoingtasks set by the directive is to produce anenvironmental assessment of the current

state of these water bodies, together withcorresponding pressures and impacts.

Things taken into considerationinclude physical and chemical character-istics, such as bathymetry, temperatureand salinity; habitat types, together withtheir physico-chemical characteristics;and biological elements, like phytoplank-ton, zooplankton and invertebrate fauna.

Pressures and impacts to be assessedshould include nutrient inputs andcycling, chemical pollution, physical loss,physical damage, non-physical distur-bance, non-toxic contamination, and bio-logical disturbance.

Each study must also include an eco-nomic and social analysis of how a particu-lar sea is used, together with the estimatedcost of marine environment degradation.

Based on these assessments, a set ofmeasurable environmental targets and

associated indicators will have to be drawnup for all European waters. Surveillanceprogrammes to monitor achievements willalso need to be in place. If certain pro-grammes fail to achieve established goalswithin a particular time frame, the MarineStrategy must be able to introduce correc-tive measures — both through ecologicaland socioeconomic means.

In order to build this ambitious strategy,the EU must adopt new approaches andprinciples.

First, a dual EU/regional approachneeds to be established. This involvesbuilding cooperation between memberstates and tertiary countries bordering EUoceans and seas. At the regional level, theplanning and execution of measures musttake into account a diversity of conditionsrequiring tailor-made solutions.

Second, informed policy-making willdepend on an integrated, knowledge-based approach.

Third, an ecosystem-based approachwill allow for integrated management ofhuman activity affecting the marine envi-ronment, and also promote conservationand sustainable use.

Fourth, cooperation will be sought toenhance observance of and compliancewith existing regional maritime treaties.

The target date established by thedirective for establishing “good” environ-mental status for all of Europe’s seas is2021. This coincides with the first reviewof river basin management plans underthe EU Water Framework Directive, thusallowing for synergies in the furtherimplementation of both directives.

Legal MattersLu

dovi

c Ro

usse

au

FLIC

KR

BLACK SEA NEIGHBOUR: Ukraine, though not anEU member, stands to be a strategy beneficiary

◗

Please deliver my donation to:

TITLE ■■ Mr ■■ Ms NAME SURNAME

ADDRESS

POSTCODE COUNTRY

E-MAIL TELEPHONE

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

TITLE ■■ Mr ■■ Ms 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

Information Technology

COLUMNS


Jero

me

Sim

pson

Searching for solutionsReegle launched as a one-stop resource for clean-energy queries

Recent evidence of climate change —e.g. high-speed winds in Europe, snowfallin Jerusalem and Los Angeles, and thewarmest winters in 300 years — are clearsigns of how urgently we need to cutgreenhouse gas emissions.

It is timely, then, that the EuropeanRenewable Energy Policy Conference(hosted in Brussels at the end of January)saw the launch of www.reegle.info, whichis touted as an “information gateway forrenewable energy and energy efficiency.”

Reegle acts as a search engine and“actors catalogue” of key players andorganisations active in clean energy andenergy conservation, and is expected tocontribute to an increased global uptakeof renewables and energy efficiency.

“Key prerequisites for a speedy globalexpansion of renewable energies and theefficient use of energy are supportiveframework conditions and easy access toup-to-date and high-quality information,”said Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s FederalMinister for the Environment.

Whether you’re hunting for financing,need to find a technology supplier, or arelooking for a market to invest in, Reegle isa good one-stop resource.

The Reegle online facility not onlyoffers high-quality, up-to-date and reli-able information, but encompasses cover-age of emerging markets and developingcountries, complete with country-specificdetails with regard to laws, regulations,policies, jurisdictions, investment andfinance conditions, and technologies.

Search results can be broken down bydate, file type and/or organisational

source (e.g. the World Energy Council).Just entering “wind farms” as search wordsbrings up 161 web pages or documentfiles linked by html, ranging from casestudies and technology programmes tonews articles and equipment providers.

Tabs at the top of the page, mean-while, enable visitors to click on “actorscatalogue” to home in on different con-stituent players (financers, universities,NGOs or businesses) and to narrow asearch by geographical region and/or sec-tor (e.g. renewable energy, co-genera-tion), which is useful if, for instance,you’re looking to invest in a developingcountry. The “search by category” tabenables one to further narrow a search byinformation type, rather than by actor.

By relying exclusively on pre-selecteddatabases, such as those of theInternational Energy Agency (IEA) orWorld Bank, Reegle aims to avoid provid-ing information that varies widely in quali-ty and reliability — a problem typicallyassociated with broader search engines.

The average visitor spends 20 minutessearching Reegle, which averages 10,000unique visitors and more than 35,000page impressions per month.

Behind the user-friendly front end is anew design concept known as “semanticwebbing” (the application of state-of-the-art “knowledge-mapping” technology),which is used to link usage patterns. Thiskind of advanced “intelligent search”mechanism is designed to enable users tofind information more rapidly.

While Reegle is certainly useful (notleast of all the “news” and “events” sec-

tions), much depends on the quality ofinformation fed in and on how frequentlythe site is updated. IEA and World Bankpolicy and programme documents arefine up to a point, but the real emphasisneeds to be on facilitating technologytransfer — i.e. linking renewable energyinvestors with project developers andenergy providers. In fact, a “marketplace”for those actors actively seeking investorsis being looked into as part of Reegle’sfuture development plans.

Reegle was developed by theRenewable Energy and Energy EfficiencyPartnership (REEEP), and the RenewableEnergy Policy Network for the 21stCentury (REN21). It is sponsored by thegovernments of Germany, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom.

The Information Society has arrived!Your feedback and suggestions for inclu-sion are welcome at: [email protected]

TURNS FOR THE BETTER: Scary climatescenarios call for cleaner alternatives

REE

EP

◗

Green Literature

COLUMNS

We’re in this togetherStakeholders and shareholders alike share environmental responsibilitiesNy

ambu

ra N

jagi


The CSR Professional Services Directory 2007Published by Ethical Performance, 66 pages

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become a busi-ness reality of the 21st century, and though there is a wealth ofinformation and literature available about corporate responsi-bility (CR), it has taken until now to bring about a compilationof organised CSR-related information.

Corporations naturally have to consider how to make prof-it and stay accountable to shareholders, but they must also betransparent about how profits are made, and be seen as bene-ficial to local communities. Not only are corporations expected

to be accountable to the public, they are also expected to consider the best interestsof employees and customers. Sustainable development – including environmentalsustainability – is another key to success in today’s corporate climate.

The directory, which features 443 service providers in the CSR sector fromEurope, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, is divided into an alphabeti-cal and geographical index of 49 categories of organisations offering a plethora ofprofessional services. Such services, inasmuch as they pertain to CSR, include man-agement consultancy, communications management, marketing, and work/life bal-ance solutions.

The directory is fairly easy and straightforward to use, and many organisationslisted also include a brief company profile. An invaluable tool for CSR compliance,the directory costs EUR 55 and can be ordered from the publisher at <www.ethi-calperformance.com>.

The Millennium EcosystemAssessment: a toolkit for understanding and actionPublished by Island Press, 25 pages

In 2000, then-SecretaryGeneral of the UnitedNations Kofi Annan andhis constituents decided“enough is enough” andpartnered with interna-tional financial institu-tions, the World HealthOrganization, leading

environmental institutions, governmentsand other stakeholders to establish a sci-entific link between human activity andecosystem degradation.

Their objective was to organise, coor-dinate and synthesize environmentalresearch from around the world to pro-vide the “scientific basis for action need-ed” in order to get the political ball rolling.

The effort, carried out by 1,360experts from 95 countries, cost an estimat-ed USD 24 million; and if all the documentpages were placed end to end, theywould rise to twice the height of the EiffelTower. Fortunately for interested readers,an overview of key millennium ecosystemassessment (MA) mechanisms is conve-niently available through the internet.

However the “MA Toolkit” leavesmuch to be desired for those hoping formore holistic approaches to solvingenvironmental problems. Instead, itoffers a perspective reflecting the pre-

vailing view that environmental chal-lenges should be primarily understood ineconomic terms (e.g. nature as serviceprovider), and improved through marketmechanisms (e.g. assigning monetaryvaluation to nature’s services and design-ing policies that “allocate these costs inan equitable way”).

The toolkit is colourful, concise andeasy to understand, but is more properlydescribed as an introduction to some ofthe MA’s most interesting publications andresearch, including full reports, graphicresources, slide presentations, videos andpress releases that can be found at<www.maweb.org/en/index/aspx>.

◗

◗

A S

tep

Ahe

adWorld leadership with grass roots

E3G and its network of change agents call upon European leaders to extend democracy to every citizen.With a firm mandate in hand, Europe can make political choices that ensure its security and prosperity inan interdependent world, and spread the call for global sustainability. Europe in the World is based on aseries of "thinking events" held over the spring and summer with the support of various partners such asthe REC. A passionate debate hosted by the REC in 2006 in Szentendre, Hungary, which featuredvarious stakeholders, contributed heavily to the content of the publication.

The Italian Trust Fund ITF – a targeted contribution to the Regional Environmental Center (REC) by theItalian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea – and the REC assisted the development of theEurope in the World pamphlet. ITF is committed to a sound environment in the region both at the locallevel and on a global scale. From concept to strategy, from hot spots to sustainable development, theITF is a step ahead in supporting all-in sustainability solutions for Central and Eastern Europe. Formore information on ITF’s activities visit www.rec.org/rec/programs/itf.

THE ITALIAN TRUST FUND

www.rec.org/reeep

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

We are an active global partnership that formulates policy initiatives for clean energy markets and facilitatesfinancing for sustainable energy projects.

The REC serves as the regional REEEP secretariat for 15 countries in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Turkey.

The benefits of sustainable energy are clear: energy security, economic development, social equity and environmental protection.

Join the drive for sustainableenergy!

REEEP a sustainableenergy future

Children in the balance - REC Publicationsdocuments.rec.org/publications/GH_41.pdf · David Landry...

Documents

Transcript of Children in the balance - REC Publicationsdocuments.rec.org/publications/GH_41.pdf · David Landry...