News

Legislation

Commission sets priorities; launches agri and energy policies

The European Commission is to make resource efficiency a priority for the year ahead. Unveiling its work programme for 2011, Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the EU executive would be launching a “flagship initiative on resource efficiency”, as announced in last year's EU 2020 strategy. This would provide “a roadmap” for decoupling growth from resource use, he explained. Sustainable resource use will also be a central plank of the revised agriculture and fisheries policies.

In other areas, the Commission is planning a white paper on EU transport policy for the next ten years; will assess the results of the sixth Environmental Action Programme; and will review the thematic strategy on waste prevention and recycling. Preparations for the Rio + 20 Earth Summit in 2012 will be high on the agenda, as well as bilateral talks with other regions on joint climate projects in areas such as clean technologies, carbon trading and renewable energy.

Specific proposals on reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were released late last year.¹ As expected, the Commission is proposing to tie future direct payments to farmers to certain environmental practices, such as crop rotation and ecological set-aside. This green element would complement existing cross-compliance rules, linking subsidies for farmers to compliance with a range of environmental, food safety and animal welfare laws. It would be introduced under the CAP's ‘first pillar’ market support mechanism and, according to the Commission, would be one of several principles on which direct payments could be based. Others include the idea of basic income support and specific support to small European farmers.

The proposals are highly controversial and face tough opposition from farming groups and several governments. EU agriculture lobby Copa-Cogeca described the move as “costly” and urged for any further actions to be taken on a voluntary basis under the CAP's second pillar, instead. Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos dismissed these concerns, saying financial support needed to be used to encourage farmers to make changes. Measures such as crop rotation were good choices for farmers not extra burdens, he added. However, MEPs have warned that it could be dangerous to tinker with the CAP at a time when the UN is warning about food scarcity.

In another major policy announcement, the Commission published its new European Energy Strategy to 2020. Energy efficiency and an integrated European energy market are among the five strategic priorities identified. Action on these should enable the EU to meet its three long-term goals of ensuring security of supply, combating climate change and ensuring affordable energy, the Commission says.

On energy efficiency, the strategy notes “vast untapped potential”, but mainly repeats existing policy aims, such as addressing the problem of incentives in the rented housing sector. One new idea is for electricity suppliers to be required to secure documented energy savings from their customers. To facilitate this, the Commission intends to propose new investment incentives and innovative financial instruments to accelerate building refurbishments. However, it stops short of making binding the EU's existing target of 20% greater energy efficiency by 2020, as MEPs and green groups had wanted.

The package also includes proposals for upgrading Europe's energy infrastructure, including smart metering and smart grids, and to complete the internal energy market by 2015.

European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/ (Work Programme 2011, reference = IP/10/1399) and Paper: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/cwp2011_en.pdf; CAP Reform (reference = IP/10/1527) and Communication: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/communication/com2010-672_en.pdf; Energy Strategy (reference = IP/10/1492) and Communication: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/strategies/2010/2020_en.htm; Copa-Cogeca: http://www.copa-cogeca.be; WWF: http://wwf.panda.org/

EU charts path on nuclear waste

EU-wide safety standards for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and from research are being advocated under proposals put forward by the European Commission.

The much-anticipated draft directive (announced almost a year ago²) will set legally-binding standards developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); however, EU states would be free to choose their own method and locations for disposal. They would have to draw up national programmes within four years of the directive's adoption. These would specify plans for the construction and management of disposal facilities, concrete timetables for their construction with targets, cost assessments and financing schemes.

Unveiling the proposals, Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger said the Commission was not mandating a date by which these storage facilities should be built. But the timeline should be “in this generation” and Member States would not be able to halt building the facilities once started. The draft law was “just a start”, he added, and another directive would be presented in four or five years.

Exports of nuclear waste to non-EU countries would be banned under the directive, but Member States would be allowed to send their waste to other EU countries. Some exemptions would be allowed for certain Eastern European countries with contracts to ship nuclear waste to Russia.

The proposal is designed to complement nuclear safety rules adopted in 2009 which set standards for active nuclear power plants and on-site storage.³ Fourteen EU states currently have nuclear power plants, and two more, Italy and Poland, are considering building them. None has yet built final repositories for long-lived radioactive waste, but France, Finland and Sweden are planning to do so within the next 15 years.

Although the proposal does not mandate how countries dispose of their waste, it recommends deep underground storage as the safest method based on “worldwide scientific and technical consensus”. NGOs reacted angrily to the proposal, saying no such consensus exists and the recommendation could lead to large investments in facilities that ultimately fail. Addressing a conference in Brussels, Greenpeace's Jan Haverkamp called the directive “a sloppy piece of work” which should have proposed a wider range of options. The proposals ignored many of the principles used for managing other hazardous waste, he added. The organisation had previously accused EU advisors of producing “misleading research” on deep geological disposal.⁴

In a separate move, the Commission has published guidance on financing the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and the management of radioactive waste; it updates a non-binding recommendation issued four years ago. The public has become more well disposed towards nuclear power over recent years [see separate article below], while surveys show they favour an EU role in regulating nuclear waste.⁵

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/waste_management/waste_management_en.htm; and http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/decommissioning/decommissioning_en.htm; Foratom Conference: http://www.foratom.be/

Environmental quality

Could biofuels double emissions?

Increased use of biofuels over the next decade could produce more than twice the amount of emissions as the use of fossil fuels, NGOs claim in a recent report. The study by nine environmental groups, including Greenpeace, ActionAid and Friends of the Earth (FoE), estimates that emissions will increase by 81–167% as a result of the EU's policy. However, these figures are at odds with independent research reportedly recently, which suggests biofuels emit 65–140% less greenhouse gases than petrol or diesel.⁶

The EU has set a goal of producing 10% of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020. Individual national targets, set out in renewable energy action plans, suggest that this will translate to 9.5% of EU fuels coming from biofuels, the report concludes. It is the latest in a series of NGO studies designed to maintain pressure over the EU's controversial biofuels policy.

Deforestation resulting from the increased use of fuels from agricultural crops will mean an extra 27 to 56 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2020, notes the report. That is equivalent to an extra 12 to 26 million cars on the road. The EU's big five – Spain, Germany, Italy, France and the UK – will be responsible for more than two-thirds of the increase. The UK alone would produce 13.3 million extra tonnes of CO₂ per year from biofuel use. To grow the crops the EU as a whole would need a land area the size of Belgium, the NGOs claim.

EU certification rules forbid the use of biofuels that were grown by clearing forests.⁷ However, this might not prove sufficient protection, the NGOs say, because biofuels grown on uncleared land can indirectly cause deforestation elsewhere. The Commission has been consulting on such indirect land use change (ILUC).⁸

Meanwhile, a survey of European public opinion has revealed strong backing for biofuels and other key renewable energy technologies. The Eurobarometer poll reveals 78% support for biofuels across the EU-27. An even higher proportion approve of sustainable biofuels that, for example, do not compete with food production. FoE accused the researchers of asking loaded questions, in particular by identifying sustainable biofuels as decreasing net greenhouse gas emissions. Spokesperson Adrian Bebb said: “The full impacts of biofuels are only now becoming understood, so it's not surprising that the public doesn't know about them yet. We're convinced that the more the public knows about biofuels, the more they will start to ask questions.”

On other sensitive technologies, the Eurobarometer poll found increasing hostility to genetically-modified (GM) foods and a softening in opposition to nuclear power. Across the EU-27, 61% of people are opposed to GM foods, four percentage points higher than in 2005. Public support for wind energy and solar power, which was already very high, has strengthened further with an optimism index (support minus opposition) reaching 80% and 83%, respectively. Public optimism for nuclear power, at 0%, is far lower than for any other technology tested but has shown a sustained rise from net negative views over the past decade.

Friends of the Earth: http://www.foeeurope.org/agrofuels/ILUC_report_November2010.pdf; European Commission: Eurobarometer, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_winds_en.pdf

Gulf spill: final verdict on dioxins

Controlled burning of oil on the ocean surface during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill earlier this year did not create an adverse risk from dioxins, scientists say. Two peer-reviewed reports find that while small amounts of dioxins were created by the burns, the levels that workers and residents would have been exposed to were below EPA's levels of concern.

The first report, summarizing EPA's sampling effort, indicates that while dioxins were created from the oil burning, they were created at low levels, similar to the emissions from residential woodstoves and forest fires. In total, between 222 000 to 313 000 barrels of oil (or 9.3 to 13.1 million gallons) were burned during the four months the well was uncapped.

The second report, co-authored with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), presents the results of a screening risk assessment for the dioxins emitted from the controlled oil burns. These results indicate that increased cancer risk due to exposure to the dioxins released from the controlled burning was small – less than a one in one million increased cancer risk. Additional cancer risks through inhalation by workers and onshore residents and fish consumption by residents were considered negligible.

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, a multi-agency body set up to lead restoration efforts following the spill, has held its first meeting in Pensacola, Florida. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was joined by Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, along with representatives from other federal agencies, and Gulf coast state and local officials.

Under an executive order published by President Obama, the Task Force is charged with integrating federal restoration efforts with those of state and local governments, and facilitating accountability and support throughout the restoration process. Its executive director is John H. Hankinson, a Florida native with extensive experience in environmental issues in the Southeastern states, including seven years as EPA's regional administrator.

Also in relation to the oil industry, EPA has announced that eight out of nine companies have agreed to submit information as part of the Agency's study into hydraulic fracturing.⁹ Companies are being asked to provide information on the chemical composition of fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, standard operating procedures at their hydraulic fracturing sites, and the locations of sites where fracturing has been conducted. The ninth company, Halliburton, has been subpoenaed after failing to meet EPA's voluntary request. Congress asked EPA to look into the issue after concerns that hydraulic fracturing has potential adverse impacts on drinking water and public health.¹⁰

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/research/dioxin/ and http://www.restorethegulf.gov/

EU assesses its Arctic footprint

Europe has a disproportionate effect on the Arctic region on several measures, a recent scientific study shows. The assessment looks at the EU's footprint in areas such as chemical pollution and fisheries.

Although contributing only 16% of total greenhouse gas emissions, Europe uses 24% of Arctic oil and gas resources, compared with 37% and 26% for Russia and the US respectively. But 60% of exports from the Arctic's infrastructure-intensive industries go to the EU and the region is responsible for a similar proportion of black carbon emissions in the Arctic. It shows Europe is also responsible for 57% of PCB-153 emissions.

The EU-funded Arctic Footprint and Policy Assessment Project presents a number of proposals to cut Arctic impacts. These include extending the Natura 2000 network and cutting carbon emissions from diesel engines. The EU could also support minimum environmental standards for Arctic oil and gas extraction through a multilateral agreement.

The assessment is a step forward for EU efforts to devise a comprehensive Arctic policy, as part of which the European Environment Agency intends to establish a permanent Arctic observation network. The importance of the Arctic to the EU will also grow after Iceland's anticipated accession.

In a related move, Norway is leading the planning for the Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS), an international project with partners from 14 countries. The initiative aims to develop an optimised observational infrastructure which can support advanced Earth System models and provide near-real-time information on Arctic change to relevant stakeholders. It will prepare upgrades to the existing infrastructure, as well as organise a limited number of observation platforms and provide a basis for establishing a joint knowledge centre in Longyearbyen.

The SIOS initiative has now entered the preparatory phase. “In this phase there is no funding for research or monitoring,” explained Project Director Karin Refsnes of the Research Council of Norway. “The main tasks are to gain an overview of the existing infrastructure on Svalbard and establish the organisational, administrative and financial parameters. The EU has allocated €4 million for this purpose, and the Research Council has contributed funding as well.”

Arctic Footprint and Policy Assessment Project: http://arctic-footprint.eu/; Research Council of Norway: http://www.forskningsradet.no

Chemical hazards

Concessions win RoHS deal

As JEM went to press, EU legislators were set to finalise an agreement on revised EU rules restricting hazardous substances in electronics (RoHS). Negotiations between EU governments and the European Parliament on the issue had been deadlocked for months and the long-fought for deal involved concessions from both sides.¹¹

Under the agreement, MEPs dropped demands for a list of priority substances to be included under the RoHS regulations, which would have marked them out for possible future bans. They also dropped their demand for the revised law to contain a ban on nanosilver, opting instead for the mention of a future ‘priority review’.

For their part, Member States agreed to back down on the issue of what criterion should be used to exempt substances under the new law. The UK and others had wanted substances to be eligible for exemption on the basis of substitutes not being available in a reasonable amount of time. This has now been discarded, instead putting the availability of substitutes in a list of secondary criteria that can be used to determine the length of an exemption. Exemptions can only be granted if substitution is not technically possible or if the negative effects of the available substitute outweigh the benefits.

Green groups reacted with disappointment to the deletion of the priority list, saying brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and PVC – two of the four substances earmarked for the draft lists – pose a threat to human health and RoHS risks becoming an empty shell without at least identifying them for future action. Electronics industry group Orgalime said exemptions should be based on a comprehensive set of criteria.

ChemSec: http://www.chemsec.org/; Orgalime: http://www.orgalime.org/

EC scrubs up detergent proposal

The European Commission is proposing an EU-wide ban on the use of phosphates in household laundry detergents. The measure would be introduced from January 2013, allowing sufficient time for manufacturers to modify their products, it says. Traces of phosphorous compounds other than phosphates could still be used up to a limit of 0.5% by weight.

Brussels last held this debate seven years ago. A harmonised EU detergents regulation that entered force in 2004 required the Commission to evaluate phosphates and if justified propose legislative curbs within three years. New restrictions promised in 2007 and again in 2009 failed to materialise.^12,13

Phosphorous compounds are used to improve detergent performance, especially in hard water areas, but can harm aquatic environments by causing eutrophication. Removing phosphates from urban wastewater is a costly process, and not all EU sewage treatment plants have the necessary equipment. Cutting phosphate inputs would therefore lower the cost of sewage treatment, benefit consumers through lower bills and reduce eutrophication. A ban would also send an important message to countries outside the EU, the Commission said.

Phosphate reductions made to date have been insufficient to maintain acceptable water quality in some areas. In the absence of harmonised EU rules on phosphates a patchwork of national limits has grown up, which has caused problems for manufacturers. In the Baltic region, which has serious eutrophication problems,¹⁴ governments are scheduled to ban phosphates used in all detergents by 2012.

The draft regulation does not cover detergents for dishwashers or professional use, a restriction that drew criticism from green groups. The Commission says there are no economically or technically viable alternatives for these applications. Nevertheless, Sweden intends to ban phosphates in household dishwashing products from July of this year.¹⁵

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/documents/specific-chemicals/detergents/index_en.htm

Europe mulls Hg import ban

European authorities should consider a ban on the import of mercury in both its pure form, elemental mercury, and its compounds. But there should be exemptions for use in research and medical purposes, and antiques restoration where there are no mercury-free alternatives. The recommendations are made by consultancy Bio Intelligence Service in a study undertaken as input to a revised strategy on mercury use.

The consultants also recommend extending an existing export ban on elemental mercury to medical uses and to all mercury compounds, and to mercury-added products that are prohibited on the European market. However, the success of these measures depends on whether non-EU countries take similar actions on export. Mercury compounds can be exported from the EU and then made into elemental mercury once abroad, they point out. Also, reclassifying mercury recovered from product recycling as waste would discourage recycling efforts and could lead to an increase in mercury emissions to air and water, the authors warn.

Mercury use in dental amalgams, which is the largest remaining use in products not restricted in the EU, requires further attention, the consultants say. Risk assessments should be completed as soon as possible to fill information gaps and possibly ban such uses. Sweden has called for the revised mercury strategy to include restrictions on use in dental fillings.

The European Commission is due to publish its revised strategy shortly and will provide input to on-going global negotiations on mercury.¹⁶ The US recently announced plans to cut mercury waste from dental practices as part of a package of measures that include curbs on incinerators, cement manufacture and mining.¹⁷

Meanwhile, random sampling has revealed very high levels of mercury – many times WHO's safe exposure levels – in the air around two Spanish chlorine installations last summer. Mercury was also detected in gardens around the two plants, one in Catalonia and the other in Galicia. The survey was conducted by the University of Castilla-La Mancha on eight Spanish installations using mercury cell technology for chlorine production, on behalf of the NGO Ecologistas en Accion. The group said that, of all EU countries, Spain “has given most environmental permits to and exercises least control over” plants using mercury cell production.

European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/mercury/index.htm and NGO reaction: http://www.zeromercury.org/; Ecologistas en Accion: http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/

Endocrine disruptor screening moves to second phase

EPA has announced a list of 134 chemicals to be screened under the second phase of its endocrine disruptor screening programme. This latest release follows a list of 67 pesticide chemicals for which the Agency issued screening orders in October 2009.¹⁸

The list includes chemicals that have been identified as priorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and may be found in sources of drinking water where a substantial number of people may be exposed. It also includes pesticide active ingredients that are being evaluated under EPA's registration review programme to ensure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA says the data generated from the screens will provide robust and systematic scientific information to help it identify whether additional testing or other steps are necessary to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Meanwhile, its European counterpart, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is being advised to work with other bodies to develop specific common criteria for identifying substances with endocrine-disrupting properties. Experts have recommended that the Authority creates a panel of scientists from different Member States to guide its work in this area and that it cooperates with other bodies to develop a common testing and classification methodology. This could include adopting the tiered testing approach currently used by the OECD, the experts suggest. The issue of endocrine-disrupting properties stretches across EFSA's remit, such as committees looking at bisphenol-A and plant protection products, and there have been concerns that different approaches were being used. The methods will feed into ongoing work to assess the dangers of chemical mixtures.¹⁹

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/endo/; EFSA: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/1932.htm

Health warning on BFRs

Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants (BFRs and CFRs) pose health and environmental hazards while at the same time providing only limited fire safety benefits, scientists have warned.

The statement, published on a US government website and signed by 145 scientists from 22 countries, says the currently-used BFRs and CFRs are highly toxic and their presence has been found in the environment. The US is also considering a ban on BFRs through a recast of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).²⁰

Industry group the Bromine Science and Environment Forum said many of the concerns raised by the scientists, such as the finding of one part per million of a substance in the environment, do not actually pose a risk to human health or the environment. It also challenged the scientists' assertion that BFRs and CFRs have limited fire safety benefits. However, some manufacturers have already backed bans proposed under the EU's RoHS directive.²¹

NIEHS: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003089; Bromine Science and Environment Forum: http://www.bsef.org/

Public & occupational health

Nano ‘no quick fix’

Nanotechnology should not be seen as a “quick fix” for environmental problems, Friends of the Earth (FoE) has warned. Current uses of nanotechnology cannot deliver significant benefits for global warming or resource depletion despite the chemical industry's claims to the contrary, the campaign group says in a recent report.

Although nanotechnology has the potential to change energy usage patterns, the large amount of energy consumed in the production of nanotechnology products outweighs the benefits, the authors say. For instance, the manufacture of carbon nanofibres requires up to 300 times the energy to make steel. US research, cited in the study, asserts that single-walled carbon nanotubes may be “one of the most energy-intensive materials known to humankind”. Furthermore, the performance of nano-based materials has been less than predicted, with nano solar panels about 10% less efficient than silicon ones, the report adds.

Continued claims of environmental benefits from nanotechnology is drawing investment away from proven solutions such as renewable technologies, says FoE. And there are serious uncertainties surrounding the health and environmental risks of nanomaterials, with early research suggesting nanotubes can cause cancer. Reacting to the report, chemical industry body CEFIC said the sector was still confident that energy savings are achieved when full life-cycle analysis is taken into account.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has consulted on a draft definition of nanomaterials following an earlier request from the European Parliament.²² Based on an opinion from its scientific experts,²³ the EU executive defines a nanomaterial as being one that meets at least one of three criteria: (i) consists of particles, with one or more external dimensions ranging from 1 nanometre to 100 nm for more than 1% of their number size distribution; (ii) has internal or surface structures in one or more dimensions ranging from 1 to 100 nm; or (iii) has a specific surface area by volume greater than 60 m² cm⁻³, excluding materials consisting of particles with a size lower than 1 nm. The definition will be reviewed in 2012 due to the rapid development of nanotechnology.

In a separate move, European consumer association BEUC has repeated its call for an official nano-product inventory, in support of a proposal by the Belgian Presidency to set up a register of all nanomaterials.²⁴

Nanomaterials have figured prominently in the RoHS debate over a revision of EU rules restricting hazardous substances in electronics [see separate item above] and also feature in the EU's REACH legislation.

Friends of the Earth: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2010/nano_climate_energy_nov2010.pdf; EU Consultation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/nanomaterials.htm; BEUC: http://www.beuc.org

Asian air pollution on the mend

Incremental improvements in air quality in Asian cities are expected to improve health, even in areas with relatively high ambient concentrations. This is one of the main findings of a major literature review of outdoor air pollution and health in Asia, including more than 80 Asian time-series studies. The results are consistent with the approach taken in setting the WHO air quality guidelines, and suggest that additional health benefits would result from further reductions in exposure to pollution.

The review is published by the US-based Health Effects Institute and is the first comprehensive assessment to come out of its Public Health and Air Pollution in Asia (PAPA) program. It builds on an initial assessment conducted in 2004²⁵ and describes the current scope of the Asian literature on the health effects of outdoor air pollution, enumerating and classifying more than 400 studies. In addition, the report includes a systematic and quantitative assessment of 82 time-series studies of daily mortality and hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease.

The meta-analytic estimates appear consistent in both direction and magnitude with those from other regions. In broad terms, the effects of short-term exposure in Asian cities are on a par with those observed in hundreds of studies worldwide. The same pollutants – fine particulates and gaseous pollutants such as ozone (O₃), SO₂, and NO₂ – affect older people with chronic cardiovascular or respiratory disease. The adverse effects in some locales, reported in studies published in the 1980s and 1990s, may reflect the effects of air pollution concentrations that have subsequently decreased. However, more recent studies continue to report adverse effects at lower levels in cities in Thailand and Japan, where air quality has improved, as well as in heavily polluted Chinese and Indian cities.

The meta-analyses of time-series studies should serve to reduce concerns regarding the extent to which the substantial, but largely Western, literature on the effects of short-term exposure to air pollution may be generalised. They suggest that neither genetic factors nor longer-term exposure to highly polluted air substantially modifies the effect of short-term exposure on daily mortality rates in major cities in developing Asia.

The results of the chronic-effects studies appear to be broadly consistent with those in other regions, the report concludes, suggesting that long-term exposure to air pollution promotes chronic pulmonary disease and other adverse effects that result in reduced life expectancy. Nevertheless, these studies are more susceptible than the time-series studies to being confounded by strong risk factors, such as tobacco smoking, indoor air pollution from the burning of solid fuels, and factors related to socioeconomic status, such as diet.

This review demonstrates that the information on the health effects of air pollution in developing Asia is substantial and continues to grow in both size and quality. As such, it provides an increasingly confident base of scientific evidence to inform critical decisions in the region regarding policies to protect public health while furthering economic development. Important gaps still remain, however, in the range of Asian settings studied and in the types of studies that need to be conducted in order to fully inform public policy decisions.

Health Effects Institute: “Outdoor Air Pollution and Health in the Developing Countries of Asia: A Comprehensive Review, Special Report 18”, http://www.healtheffects.org/

Research activities

Industry leaders call for boost to eco-innovation

Europe should develop common energy efficiency metrics so as to better compare different methods and standards for cutting carbon emissions. This was one of the eco-innovation measures identified by participants to the second annual European Innovation Summit held recently in Brussels. The Summit declaration stresses the need to stimulate intellectual capital in the areas of mobility, sustainable food security, healthy ageing, sustainable production, copyright, international cooperation and energy efficiency.

On energy efficiency, delegates called for more robust cost-benefit analyses so as to judge which measures are capable of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the most cost-effective way. They also identified energy storage as an increasingly important area of research to improve renewable energy production and urged subsidies to be better tailored to small innovative companies.

The European Commission has emphasised eco-innovation as part of its new innovation policy²⁶ and is due to issue an eco-innovation plan in early 2011. Studies have repeatedly emphasized the key role of public funding in the commercialisation of environmental technologies.²⁷

Elsewhere, Switzerland has unveiled a plan to regain a world-class position in green technologies by 2020, having fallen behind other countries in this sector. The plan foresees stricter standards for buildings, an evaluation of the Japanese ‘top runner scheme’, the expansion of green public procurement, more information on the environmental record of products, and export promotion for green technologies.

European Innovation Summit: http://www.knowledge4innovation.eu/; Swiss Cleantech Plan: http://www.cleantech.admin.ch/

A Big Society could deliver CAP reforms

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy [see separate item above] could play a key role in ensuring that land provides the wide range of public benefits we need from it, according to research carried out by the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme.

RELU's research shows that it is only by refocusing agri-environment schemes as a cornerstone of a new Common Agricultural Policy that our limited supply of land can provide everything we need in an era of climate change. Such schemes should stay, but need to be targeted more effectively to support farmers in delivering a wider range of services over a bigger area of land, RELU researchers conclude.

Land use consultant Alan Woods explained: “RELU research shows us that by taking an ecosystem services approach, we can get a much better return from land. That includes not only goods such as food and water, to which we can easily give a market value, but also environmental public goods, including carbon storage, wildlife and landscapes, that are important but difficult to price.”

Use of land has to be economically and ecologically efficient, RELU says. This can only be achieved if schemes are applied at the right scale, which may mean considering whole landscapes rather than individual land holdings. So schemes would be more effective if they encouraged farmers to act as a community, rather than as individuals. Timescales are also important and in the past there has been too much emphasis on short-term benefits which may be lost after five to ten years. A reformed CAP should be encouraging long-term delivery of valued services.

According to Woods: “A Big Society outlook could help, by providing incentives for landowners to deliver a joined-up approach to soil, water and biodiversity, across ownership boundaries. Rather than each negotiating individual agreements with the Government, it would be more effective for them to work together to provide the services that will most benefit their local environment.”

Rural Economy and Land Use Programme: “Informing the Reform and Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy”, http://www.relu.ac.uk/

References

1. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1008; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2197.
2. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1006; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1217.
3. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1569.
4. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1947.
5. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1385.
6. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1941.
7. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1503.
8. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1787.
9. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1944.
10. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1008.
11. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 20; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1220.
12. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2007, 9, 647.
13. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 11, 1319.
14. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2203.
15. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1221.
16. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1504.
17. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1785; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2201.
18. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 23.
19. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 805; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1009.
20. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1788.
21. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1388.
22. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 24.
23. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1647.
24. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1947.
25. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2004, 6, 72N.
26. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1649; M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 2197.
27. M. Sharpe, J. Environ. Monit., 2009, 10, 1453.

---