News

Legislation

Climate a priority for new Commission

Climate change emerged as one of the winners in the new European Commission, with the announcement of a new department dedicated to steering the EU's climate change agenda. Connie Hedegaard, former climate and energy minister of Denmark, will head the new department and serve as Climate Commissioner under Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

Introducing the team for his second term, Mr Barroso said the new commissioner will “promote the climate agenda both internally and externally”. Ms Hedegaard had been a favourite for the post. She will deal with the EU's international climate strategy, Europe's emissions trading scheme and industrial emissions and ozone layer protection, including the integrated pollution prevention and control directive (IPPC).

The move represents a set back for the Commission's environment department, which has been significantly scaled down. In addition to climate and industrial pollution it will lose its biotechnology, pesticides and health unit to the health department and two civil protection units to the humanitarian aid department. Its main responsibilities, under former research commissioner Janez Potočnik, will be issues such as soil protection, water and air policy.

Mr Barroso also confirmed the transport and energy directorate would be split into two departments, with the pro-nuclear German Gunter Oettinger in charge of energy. EU anti-fraud chief Siim Kallas will become transport commissioner in place of Antonio Tajani, who takes over as head of the industry department. Andris Piebalgs moves from energy to development and Maire Geoghegan-Quinn obtained the research portfolio.

All posts are subject to confirmation hearings in the European Parliament in January.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/

EU gets tough on waste

The European Commission is set to take a much tougher stance on waste management, after two recent reports showed waste law is poorly implemented and enforced in many countries. Member States must take EU waste legislation much more seriously than they have done in the past, the Commission said.

The analysis came in a report on recent implementation of eight waste laws, including directives on end-of-life vehicles, waste oils, sewage sludge and hazardous waste. Implementation of the waste framework directive and laws on landfills and waste shipment are particularly problematic, the Commission said. In many cases, waste treatment infrastructure is missing and waste is not collected separately, it added. This means targets for the reuse, recycling and recovery for waste streams such as electrical and electronic equipment, end-of-life vehicles and packaging are not being met. Problems are particularly acute in eastern European countries.

More than 20% of all EU environmental infringement cases are related to waste management and the Commission has signalled its intention to step up enforcement actions against those states failing to comply. Proper implementation of EU waste legislation could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30%, the Commission estimates. There are also significant opportunities for companies from generating secondary raw materials.

Brussels also called for better information and indicators which “could facilitate a more in-depth investigation into the state of implementation” and the effectiveness and efficiency of waste legislation. The statement is further evidence that the EU executive's policy focus is progressively shifting from law-making to implementation and enforcement.

The Commission is also finalising guidelines, to be published later this year, for drawing up national waste prevention programmes. Member States must draw up such plans by December 2013. According to a spokesperson, waste prevention initiatives work best when targeted at specific waste streams such as paper and packaging. Governments must set “waste prevention objectives” in their plans but they are under no obligation to set quantitative targets.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/

Agency to revise SO₂ standards

After nitrogen, ozone and particulate matter,¹ sulphur dioxide is the next pollutant on EPA's list to be subject to stricter air quality standards. The Agency has announced it is to strengthen the sulphur dioxide (SO₂) air quality standard for the first time in nearly 40 years.

Under the proposal, EPA would set a new national one-hour SO₂ standard at between 50 and 100 parts per billion (ppb). This standard is designed to protect against short-term exposures ranging from five minutes to 24 hours. The current 24 hour and annual health standards would be revoked because the revised standards would be more protective.

Monitoring and reporting requirements will also be strengthened, with monitors being placed in areas with high SO₂ emission levels as well as in urban areas. The Air Quality Index would be updated to reflect the revised standards, improving states' ability to alert the public when short-term SO₂ levels may affect their health.

Only the primary standards—those designed to protect public health—are affected. EPA will address the secondary standard—designed to protect the public welfare, including the environment—as part of a separate proposal in 2011.

Also, EPA has unveiled new interactive tracking tools on its website to provide the public with information on SO₂ emissions. Users can observe recent changes in emissions and other indicators using interactive charts and Google Earth satellite maps. In addition, information on federal and state enforcement of air and hazardous waste regulations at facility level is available through the Agency's updated Enforcement and Compliance Online (ECHO) website.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide; http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/quarterlytracking.html; http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/

Europe split on biocides directive

European authorities are divided over controversial proposals to revise EU rules on biocidal products.

Under proposals tabled by the European Commission,² companies would be charged annual fees for certain biocide approvals. Authorisation would be introduced Europe-wide, with fees paid to the European Chemicals Agency and national bodies. Many Member States are opposed to annual fees, although some such as Ireland already impose charges. The Commission accepts that reduced fees could be introduced for small businesses, provided these could be financed by other means.

MEPs, meanwhile, are concerned that the Commission's proposals for on EU-wide authorisation system do not go far enough. At present, only two types of products—low-risk biocides and products based on new active ingredients—would require EU authorisation; others would continue to be authorised at national level, with strengthened rules on mutual recognition by other EU states. Some MEPs want to rein back the proposals, while others want them extended to cover a wider range of biocidal products.

Christa Klass, who is leading the Parliament's response on the measure, said the proposal could entail “massive costs” for industry. But Danish centre-left MEP Dan Jorgensen said there was too much focus on reducing costs at the expense of environmental and health protection. Mr Jorgensen predicted that the Parliament's discussions on biocides would closely mirror its lively debates on the new EU authorisation procedure for pesticides.

Industry representatives are concerned about the Commission's “low-risk” definition for products subject to EU-wide authorisation. Alexander Grube of German chemicals body VCI said its members believed it would be “almost impossible” to find substances meeting the definition. Ministers are divided over how broad the low-risk definition should be.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biocides/index.htm; European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu

RoHS debate hits full stride

Debate on the proposed revision to two EU laws relating to electrical and electronic equipment intensified during the late autumn, with discussions in both the European Parliament and Environment Council (representing national governments). The two bodies agree on some issues and are split on others.

Most EU governments want the restrictions on hazardous substances in electrical equipment (RoHS) legislation to cover all electrical goods, with specific exemptions for certain products.³ With many MEPs in the Parliament's Environment Committee taking a similar line, the European Commission's proposal to retain the existing closed scope for RoHS looks likely to be rejected.

UK MEP Jill Evans, who is the Parliament's sponsor (or ‘rapporteur’) for the proposals, wants restrictions extended to cover PVC, chlorinated plasticisers, and the phthalates DEHP, BBP and DBP. There should be a transition period of three-and-a-half years for products not previously covered by RoHS to give producers time to prepare and apply for exemptions. Looking further ahead, Ms Evans wants new criteria for deciding on future substance bans. Reviews should consider the impact of a substance on the recyclability of products, the exposure of workers handling end-of-life products, and the potential release of hazardous substances during recovery or disposal.

Many large electronics firms are already phasing out halogenated flame retardants and PVC from their products. At a recent event on greening electronics, a spokesperson for Sony Ericsson Mobile said the mobile phone industry “is already going bromine- and PVC-free”. “Legislation banning these substances would help, because it makes alternatives cheaper more quickly,” he said. But Willem Hofland of EBFRIP, representing manufacturers, said the Commission's decision not to propose restrictions on chlorinated and brominated flame retardants, such as TBBPA, was due to a lack of scientific evidence for a ban. These substances are “far more tested and controlled” than current alternatives, and some have already passed EU risk assessments, he added.

Governments and MEPs are less united over proposals for harmonisation of EU rules on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), however. Under the Commission's proposal producers would only have to complete a single registration in one EU country to be registered in all member states where they operate. This is designed to eliminate the need for multiple registrations, which the Commission and industry say are overly burdensome. Governments have argued that EU-wide registration will make it harder for them to enforce the rules in their territories, and have also raised concerns over the costs of making their producer registries interoperable.

In a debate in the Parliament's Environment Committee, German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz questioned governments' stance on the issue. “I can only assume it's because registrations generate revenues, and governments don't want to lose money”, he said. Mr Florenz also questioned why a new EU-wide WEEE collection target of at least 65% by weight of EEE products placed on the market in the previous two years would only apply from 2016.

In a related move, industry has criticised Ms Evans's proposal to phase out antimony trioxide as part of the RoHS revision. The International Antimony Association said the measure was ill-informed because the substance poses no health risks. Other substances on the review list include arsenic and beryllium compounds, bisphenol-A, and organobromines and organochlorines other than flame retardants and plasticisers.

European Parliament, Environment Committee: http://www.europarl.europa.eu; EBFRIP: http://www.ebfrip.org; International Antimony Association: http://www.antimony.be

Environmental quality

Scientists offer their climate diagnosis

As JEM went to press, negotiators and world leaders were gathering in Copenhagen in the search for a global deal on a post-2012 climate strategy. With prospects for the much sought after agreement weakening, leading climate scientists made a last ditch attempt to draw attention to what was at stake.

In a special report called ‘The Copenhagen Diagnosis’, 26 researchers, most of whom were authors of published IPCC reports, conclude that several important aspects of climate change are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago. The report also notes that global warming continues to track early IPCC projections based on greenhouse gas increases. Without significant mitigation, the report says global mean warming could reach as high as 7 degrees Celsius by 2100.

“This is a final scientific call for the climate negotiators from 192 countries who must embark on the climate protection train in Copenhagen. They need to know the stark truth about global warming and the unprecedented risks involved”, said Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU).

Among the new evidence highlighted, satellite and direct measurements now demonstrate that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level rise at an increasing rate. Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. For example, the area of summer sea-ice melt during 2007–2009 was about 40% greater than the average projection from the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Professor Matthew England, joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of NSW, Australia, and another of the report's authors, commented: “Our available emissions to ensure a reasonably secure climate future are just about used up. Within just a decade global emissions need to be declining rapidly. An urgent binding treaty is needed to ensure unilateral action among the high emitters.”

JEM will report on the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference in the next issue.

Copenhagen Diagnosis: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com

Year of talk on biodiversity?

A third of the world's amphibians, a fifth of all mammals and 70 per cent of all plants are under threat, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The figures come in the latest edition of the IUCN's Red List, and provide an urgent reminder of the risks of a tide of worldwide extinctions at the beginning of the UN's International Year of Biodiversity 2010.

IUCN's Red List, published since 1963, provides an annual snapshot of the conservation status of species and subspecies on a global scale - highlighting those threatened with extinction and promoting their conservation. The organisation says that out of close to 48 000 species it assessed for this year's Red List, over 17 000 are threatened with extinction.

Among the report's other key findings: more than 1000 freshwater fish species are threatened with extinction, reflecting the strain on global water resources; 12% of all known birds, 28% of reptiles and 35% of invertebrates are under threat. Amphibians are the most threatened group of species known to date—1895 of the planet's 6285 amphibians are in danger of extinction.

“The scientific evidence of a serious extinction crisis is mounting,” said Jane Smart, Director of IUCN's Biodiversity Conservation Group. “The latest analysis of the IUCN Red List shows the 2010 target to reduce biodiversity will not be met. It's time for governments to start getting serious about saving species and make sure it's high on their agendas, as we're rapidly running out of time.”

Indeed, 2010 is the year by which the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity committed to achieving a “significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth”. The 2010 target has also been endorsed by the UN General Assembly and incorporated as a new target under the Millennium Development Goals, but progress has been slow. Whether the International Year of Biodiversity turns out to be a turning point for conservation or just a meaningless political gesture remains to be seen.

One of the most significant measures could be the setting up of a new international body to manage biodiversity and ecosystems, along the lines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The body, known as the Intergovernmental Panel or Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), would provide governments and the broader development community with periodic and timely scientific information in support of policy development and decision-making. UNEP hosted intergovernmental negotiations in early October⁴ and a final decision to establish the Panel will be taken at a meeting later this year.

UNEP: http://www.unep.org; International Year of Biodiversity: www.cbd.int/2010/; IUCN: http://www.iucnredlist.org

Study shows fish contamination in US lakes

A significant proportion of fish in US lakes and reservoirs contain potentially harmful levels of chemicals such as mercury and PCBs, an EPA study shows. Results from the four-year National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue show that these contaminants are widely distributed in US freshwater bodies.

The study looked at fish tissue from a representative sample of 500 lakes and reservoirs across the US. Almost half (49%) of game fish had mercury concentrations exceeding EPA's recommended levels, and around one-fifth (17%) had polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels of potential concern. The study also confirms the widespread occurrence of dioxins in fish.

EPA says women of child-bearing age and children should continue to follow its advice and that of the Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption as it relates to mercury. The study also sends a strong message to state and local governments to redouble their efforts in looking for opportunities to reduce mercury discharges, as well as developing fish advisories, especially to reach those in sensitive and vulnerable populations.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy

Chemical hazards

Europe acts on pesticide residues

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 11 pesticide active ingredients have been reduced in the EU under a regulation adopted by the European Commission. The move came after the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) highlighted safety concerns.

EFSA said new information on toxicology, consumer exposure and expected residues led it to conclude that the existing MRLs were too high for some consumer groups such as children. The regulation lowers the MRLs for all pesticide-crop combinations for which EFSA established a potential risk, including dimethoate on cherries (lowered from 1 to 0.2 mg kg⁻¹) and fenamiphos on carrots (lowered from 0.5 to 0.05 mg kg⁻¹). In March the Commission completed a long-awaited risk assessment of 1000 pesticides placed on the EU market before 1993.⁵

New EU rules on collecting data on the distribution and use of pesticides are also due to come into force after being approved by ministers. The regulation will require Member States to submit data annually on the amount of pesticides placed on the market and used in their territories. Initially, the new rules will only cover pesticides defined as “plant protection products” under EU law but will eventually be extended to biocides, subject to an impact assessment.

Also, the Commission is to carry out an assessment of how potentially harmful combinations of chemicals should be addressed in EU legislation such as REACH. The move follows concerns raised by Denmark that such “chemical cocktails” are not addressed sufficiently in existing EU legislation.⁶ But some governments have expressed concern that current research is insufficient to begin crafting legislation in this area. Ministers have asked the Commission to review the situation and report back by 2012, in time for a possible revision of REACH.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/index_en.htm; EU Council of Ministers: pesticide statistics regulation: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st03/st03676.en09.pdf

Agency kicks-off hormone testing

EPA has hailed a new era in transparency after it issued the first orders for pesticide chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system. It has made available the battery of scientific assays and test guidelines for conducting the assays, as well as a schedule for issuing test orders to manufacturers for 67 chemicals during the next four months.

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, said the Agency was “aggressively moving forward” on the issue “after years of delay”, an implicit reference to the slow progress under the Bush Administration.

EPA says the data generated from the screens will “provide robust and systematic scientific information” to help it identify whether additional testing is necessary, or whether further steps should be taken to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals. Testing, conducted through the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, will eventually expand to cover all pesticide chemicals.

Meanwhile, a Danish consumer group is calling for products containing suspected endocrine disruptors to be banned from the market. The Danish Consumer Council has asked members of the public to help identify products containing any of 17 cosmetics chemicals on an EU list of suspected endocrine disruptors.⁷ Many leading manufacturers are using such chemicals, the Council says, and it is pushing for a ban on the substances at both national and EU level. The group says it also wants to alert consumers to the dangers posed by mixing products with these chemicals together.

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/endo; Danish Consumer Council: http://www.forbrugerraadet.dk

Register provides new window on pollutant data

European authorities have unveiled a new Europe-wide inventory that they say provides easily accessible key environmental data from industrial facilities in the EU.

The European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) contains data on emissions of 91 pollutants from more than 24,000 industrial facilities across Europe for the year 2007. The register covers all 27 EU Member States as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It replaces and improves upon the previous European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER).

For each facility, information is provided concerning the amounts of pollutant releases to air, water and land as well as off-site transfers of waste and of pollutants in wastewater for key pollutants including heavy metals, pesticides, greenhouse gases and dioxins. Preliminary information on releases from diffuse sources, such as agriculture, is also available and will be gradually enhanced.

The European Commission says the register “contributes to transparency and public participation in environmental decision-making”. It arose from an international protocol on pollutant release registers which entered force late last year.⁸ The protocol was adopted under the UN Aarhus Convention on public access to environmental justice and information.

E-PRTR: http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/

Public & occupational health

Climate mitigation actions bring health benefits

Strategies to reduce greenhouse gases also benefit human health, according to a major study by an international team of scientists and health researchers. They say cost savings realised from improving health will offset the cost of addressing climate change and, therefore, should be considered as part of all policy discussions.

Published in the medical journal The Lancet, the study highlights case studies on four climate change topics—household energy, transportation, electricity generation, and agricultural food production. Key researchers and public health officials in the United States and Britain unveiled the new research via satellite simulcast in the run-up to the Copenhagen Conference in December.

“These papers demonstrate there are clear and substantive improvements for health if we choose the right mitigation strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Linda Birnbaum, Director of the NIEHS and National Toxicology Program, one of the key sponsors of the international event. “We now have real-life examples of how we can save the environment, reduce air pollution and decrease related health effects; it's really a win-win situation for everyone.”

Each study in the series examines the health implications of actions in high- and low-income countries designed to reduce the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The household energy paper, for instance, shows that introducing low-emission stove technology—specifically replacing biomass stoves in India—could improve respiratory health. The technology is one of the most cost-effective climate-health linkages, given that indoor air pollution from inefficient cooking stoves increases respiratory infections in children and chronic heart disease in adults.

Similarly in transportation, cutting emissions by reducing motor vehicle use and increasing walking and cycling would bring substantial health gains by reducing heart disease and stroke by 10–20%, dementia by 8%, and depression by 5%. The electricity study demonstrated that changing methods of generation to reduce carbon dioxide, such as using wind turbines, would reduce particulate air pollution and yield the greatest potential for health-related cost savings in China and India. And since the food and agriculture sector contributes about 20% of the global greenhouse gases, a 30% reduction in consumption of saturated fats from animal sources would reduce heart disease by about 15% while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/series/health-and-climate-change

Europe to review nano laws; US invests in more research

The European Commission has committed to maintain a rolling review of all EU legislation relevant to nanotechnology to ensure that products using nanomaterials pose no threats to health, safety or the environment.

In a progress report on the EU's Nanotechnologies Action Plan, the EU executive said it is considering or has already introduced new provisions on nanomaterials in EU laws on cosmetics, novel foods and food additives. It will table an “updated regulatory review” in 2011, accompanied by possible legislative amendments. By the same date it will also publish detailed information on the different types of nanomaterials, including their uses and safety concerns. A new five-year EU nanotechnology action plan is set to be published later this year.

The European Parliament has been increasingly vocal on nanotechnology and in April called on the Commission to “nano-proof” all relevant EU legislation within two years.⁹ Also, European consumers' organisations BEUC and ANEC have published a list of products on the EU market which claim to contain nanomaterials. The groups say the list, which includes information on substance characteristics, will continue to be updated regularly.

In the US, meanwhile, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is investing $13m in health and environmental studies of nanomaterials. Thirteen new two-year grants, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will develop better methods to assess exposure and health effects. The new awards focus on reliable and reproducible methods and models to assess exposure, exposure metrics, and biological response to nanomaterials. NIEHS says the research is also essential for the harmonisation of research results and forming a scientifically sound basis for hazard assessment, as well as the safe design and development of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

“There are inconsistencies in the biological effects of ENMs reported in the scientific literature, and a major reason for this is lack of detailed characterisation of the physical and chemical properties of the ENMs used in these studies,” explained Sri Nadadur, Program Administrator at the NIEHS. “One of our goals is to identify three or four reliable and reproducible test methods using the same ENMs by investigators across different labs.”

NIEHS says the projects form an integrated programme that will identify the best methods to evaluate the health effects of nanomaterials through use of cell cultures and animal systems. After the initial meeting, grantees will meet face-to-face twice a year to share information, evaluate progress and determine next steps. This effort is part of goals identified by the US's National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategy.

A recent report called on the EU and the US to set up a joint reporting system for products containing nanomaterials.¹⁰ A separate consultancy study also called on the EU to instigate a mandatory reporting system.¹¹

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology; NIEHS: http://www.niehs.nih.gov

EU joins forces for nuclear safety

Ministers have called on the European Commission and national nuclear safety regulators to work together in developing common EU rules on the safe management of nuclear waste.

The call follows a new EU directive on nuclear safety adopted last June.¹² They have asked the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) to identify areas for increased cooperation by national authorities under the directive. This could include developing common reporting systems and self-assessment methodologies, the ministers said. They also urged the Commission to work closely with ENSREG should it decide to propose “legally binding instruments” on nuclear waste management.

Meanwhile, plans to use copper for sealing nuclear waste underground have been thrown into disarray by new evidence from Sweden. Copper artefacts brought up from the wreck of a seventeenth century vessel in Stockholm harbour show strong signs of decay. This challenges the scientific wisdom that copper only corrodes when exposed to oxygen. A report by Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) says the findings “cast additional doubt on copper for nuclear waste containment and other important applications”.

Solutions to the long-term management of nuclear waste are becoming ever more essential as governments across Europe and elsewhere gear up to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in response to climate change.

ENSREG: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_en.htm

Dual perspectives on air pollution and health

A new report describes a unique collaboration among investigators from Europe, the United States, and Canada into the impacts of air pollution on health. APHENA, supported by the Health Effects Institute in collaboration with the European Commission, used existing data from three geographic areas. It offered a large and diverse data set with which to address methodological as well as scientific issues about the relationships between PM10, ozone, and mortality and morbidity that were the subject of lively debates at the time the project was launched.

Researchers Klea Katsouyanni and Jonathan Samet and their colleagues undertook a rigorous examination of time-series methods used to model the relationship between daily PM10 and ozone concentrations, and daily mortality and hospital admissions. They sought to develop a standardised approach to the analysis of time series data at the city and regional level, to assess the consistency between relative rates of mortality and hospital admissions across Europe and North America when estimated using a common analytic protocol. They also aimed to explore possible explanations for any remaining variation in the results that analytic differences could not explain.

In a related area, EPA and other agencies have teamed up with the American Journal of Public Health to publish a new online resource for those working on environmental and occupational justice. The website includes more than 30 research-based articles, editorials and commentaries from community, government and academic leaders in the field. The topics range from reducing pesticide exposures in farming communities to how community-based approaches in urban and rural areas have successfully improved public health outcomes for low socioeconomic status groups, children and immigrants.

“Air Pollution and Health: A European and North American Approach”, HEI Research Report 142, http://www.healtheffects.org; “Environmental and Occupational Justice”, online supplement to the American Journal of Public Health: http://www.ajph.org

Research activities

Industry calls for eco-innovation

Governments must provide more funding and new policies to reverse under-investment in eco-innovation, according to delegates at a recent conference sponsored by the OECD.

Economic recovery funds in Europe and the US have placed a high emphasis on green and low-carbon technologies as a means of innovating out of the global economic downturn. But funding has been insufficient, delegates said, and EU businesses and governments are being significantly outspent by Asian countries on green economic recovery funds.

Industry representatives called for a clear price on environmentally harmful activities, incentives for technology transfer between universities and businesses, and technological impact assessments to examine the risks and benefits of new technologies. A recent review identified the environment as a key driver of innovation in the EU.¹³ The Commission is due to publish an eco-innovation action plan later this year in response to a request from EU environment ministers.

In June, the European Patent Office (EPO) will unveil the results of a study on the growth in new EU patents for “environmentally sound technologies” at a renewable energy technology conference to be hosted by the Spanish EU presidency. Business groups have been increasingly concerned that the lack of a European Community Patent creates a bottleneck for innovation in the EU, and there have been calls for green technology patents to be fast-tracked.

In France, meanwhile, a government study has identified low-carbon vehicles, marine energy and biofuels among six key sectors with high economic potential. France is well placed to create “world champions” in these sectors, the government said as it launched a consultation on eco-industries. The study also identifies five sectors that could generate significant growth, such as smart grids and green chemicals. These sectors need “clear strategic roadmaps [and] massive public investment in R&D,” the study concludes. SMEs should also receive strong support to help them become market leaders, it adds.

OECD Global Forum on Eco-Innovation: http://www.oecd.org; EPO: http://www.epo.org; French Environment Ministry: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Lift off for soil probe

The European Space Agency (ESA) has successfully launched the second satellite in its Earth Explorer series. The Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission, together with a demonstration satellite under ESA's Project for Onboard Autonomy (Proba-2), were launched into orbit from northern Russia late last year.

SMOS will play a key role in the monitoring of climate change on a global scale. It is the first ever satellite designed both to map sea surface salinity and to monitor soil moisture on a global scale. It features a unique interferometric radiometer that will enable passive surveying of the water cycle between oceans, the atmosphere and land.

Travelling piggyback on the launch of SMOS, Proba-2 is a follow-on to the highly successful Proba-1 satellite launched in 2001. It will demonstrate 17 advanced satellite technologies – such as miniaturised sensors for ESA's future space probes and a highly sophisticated CCD camera with a wide angle view of about 120° – while carrying a set of four science instruments to observe the Sun and study the plasma environment in orbit.

Also, as part of its partnership with Microsoft, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has expanded its Eye On Earth portal launched in May 2008.¹⁴ A new application, AirWatch provides information on air quality across Europe, bringing together both measured and modelled data alongside citizens' own observations on air quality. In addition to near real-time data on specific air pollutants available from air-quality measurement stations, AirWatch presents air-quality information based on Europe-wide modelling covering larger areas. This allows users to get an indication of the air quality anywhere in Europe and not only in the proximity of measurement stations. Users are also able to see how other viewers described the air in a particular area.

ESA: http://www.esa.int; Eye on Earth: http://eyeonearth.eu

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1563–1903.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 917.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1566–1906.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 2108.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 918.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1907.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2008, 10, 160.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 2107.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1132.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1908.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 2111.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1569.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1909.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2008, 10, 799.

---