Romania’s Regional Development and Tourism Minister Elena Udrea said the thermal rehabilitation of apartment buildings will be made with loans contracted by homeowners’ associations and guaranteed by the state, with interest rates subsidized by the Regional Development Ministry, reads Mediafax.

Udrea

Udrea said this decision was made by the Government, through an emergency decree, and is being implemented via lender CEC, She added a contract or convention with lender BCR will also be concluded and, she went on, other lenders are also expected to join the project, whereby banks grant loans, on a five-year period, to homeowners interested to have their homes thermally refurbished.

Udrea said her ministry’s budget cannot cover the funds needed to keep running the existing thermal rehabilitation program, which, she stressed, “was very successful last year.” Udrea pointed out that if the thermal rehabilitation program went on the way it is now, “it would take 100 years” to thermally refurbish the approximately three million apartments in Romania.

Early May this year, Udrea said she plans to introduce a new thermal rehabilitation program, whereby the Government will guarantee the loans contracted by homeowners for their homes’ thermal rehabilitation. Udrea stressed at the time that “everybody is displeased” with the existing program, whereby thermal rehabilitation costs are 50% covered by the state, 30% by local authorities and 20% by homeowners.

Interview by Raul Cazan.

Museum in the Clouds or Messner Mountain Museum is the highest expositional structure in the world, situated at 2181 metres altitude. One cannot access it but on mountain paths or on an old mountain road by a coach especially dedicated to the “ascension in the clouds”.

 
The great alpinist, activist and entrepreneur, Reinhold Messner, after a lifelong climbing on the 14 world’s 8000ers with no oxygen mask, is dedicating his energy to cultivating the image and culture of the mountain. He is voicing alpine communities in the Dolomites, is a promoter of sustainable tourism and founder of a museum structure with no precedent in the world.

 
At Firmiano Castle there is the “administrative” centre of his museums. At Juval the myths of the mountains are “hosted”, while in Ortles one can visit the museum of the ice worlds. In Brunico, the museum of the mountain peoples. On Monte Rite, the most shocking attraction – the museum of alpinism and of the rocks. As I was already contemplating the Carpathian variant of the SuperAlp, I wondered if his projects were worthy of being transposed in a Carpathian environment.

Then bigger questions came up. What is the culture of the mountain? How will we maintain
natural equilibria and life in the mountains? At the conclusion of the SuperAlp!2 – a project of the Alpine Convention, which consisted of sustainable crossing of the Alps from Chambery (France) to Belluno (Italy) with low carbon footprint means of transportation (hike, bike, train or bus) – the rough mountain man answered my questions with an “unusual kindness”, as some locals told me…

Are your projects exportable in the Carpathians?

Such museum related initiatives as well as support for the mountain peasants can be done in the Carpathians. However you must find someone to be willing of carrying out such job.
I for one cannot be that person simply because I do not have the power and the means to export my work all the way to the Carpathians in order to create from scratch such structures. I visited Bulgaria lately, the Balkan Mountains, and I noticed that poverty over there is way higher that it used to be in the South Tyrol or in the Dolomites 50 years back. I am aware that the economic differences with regards to the mountainous areas between Bulgaria and Romania are rather minimal.
There is though the possibility to grow a large sustainable tourism initiative, but you will be in need of financial means and a lot of energy. A museum structure such this one is just a drop of water in the sea. Nonetheless it is a structure that functions, it is beautiful and I am convinced that these kinds of museums will be more successful in the next two decades.

But why a museum in the clouds?

 
I am glad that you, the SuperAlp! guys ended your itinerary here in Monte Rite because you have the occasion to enjoy this Mountain Museum, a project that speculates already existing construction structures. The walls of the museum belong to an old fort from WWI, and there is nothing I have changed in terms of construction. Even the road that led you here is almost a century old. However, I gave this old structure content and I filled it with culture. The idea of a mountain museum in the Alps does not presuppose building of new structures because they might have a negative impact on the environment. A mountaineer can see that in the objects exhibited in the museum lies a great culture and history. There are old paintings that reveal alpine ascensions’ histories, ancient objects that belong to the alpinists, documents, photographs and geological data that speak the history of the alpine rocks.
The exhibitions comprise, in each room of the fort, one decade in the history of ascensions on the alpine peaks.
 

Isn’t it a perfect infrastructure needed for such a project? Whom these initiatives belong to?

The most important thing lies in the common will and determination of those who live or are linked with the mountain area; strength of a single man, whoever he may be, does not suffice. Even hiking freaks and nature lovers eventually need hotel rooms, good tourism structures, incentives to get people to walk in the mountains. We need open roads with a sufficient breadth as to allow access of a bus, but with restricted access for automobiles. Problems such as these are solvable if there is local will and initiative. This is the essential thing: locals and only locals must be involved in development structures of sustainable tourism development in order to sell their products to mountaineers that respect the mountain. I do believe that it is wrong and unproductive to blame politicians. Local is the key word, each must acknowledge her own responsibility.

Have you ever been in the Carpathians?

Yes, I have, unfortunately not in Romania, but in Tatra. Carpathians are much different than the Alps, it is a long range and well forested, much more than here. It is a big mountain chain and I am sure that extraordinary things can be done over there. However, you must carry them out!

Why does the alpine tourism suffer?

I see now that a lack of structures which can promote sustainable tourism in the last four decades made us enter in competition with the global tourism, and I am referring to the whole European continent. Today we compete with Africa, China, South America, with the whole globe. Nowadays, a three week trip to Nepal costs less than a little holiday trip from Frankfurt to Cortina d’Ampezzo with the same duration. Investments in alpine areas are essential as long as they aim at sustainable mountain tourism or mountain agriculture, if they are made in the spirit of cleanliness and respect for those places. Moreover, we should not be depending on any government. For the case here, the regional Government in Venice or the Italian Government in Rome are way too remote, they have no clue about what the mountain is. Same in Brussels, 90% of the politicians come from the plains and they simply cannot be well informed on what is happening in the mountains. Governments impose taxes or start over some programmes, nothing more. But what should governments do? How can mountain inhabitants be supported? Governments must allow people to live in the mountains as genuinely as they can. Tourism must be an incentive for people of the mountain, which, by their own old means of production maintain sustainability in the area. They must work in order to survive, to eat and drink, to make it through tough winters. The main condition is to be left alone.
The success of sustainable tourism in South Tyrol lies primarily in the fact that people realized that peasants, mountain producers, cannot be successful unless they become owners of small hotels. We are talking about very small hotels with few guest rooms where they serve typical products directly on the plate. And everything with no state aid whatsoever. Peasants are smarter than politicians; they understood that before the government.

Are you involved in such agro-tourism projects?

I own two small guesthouses which I leased to good administrators – otherwise I would not be here for the interview – that function very well in our south Tyrolean system. What I want most is to have the opportunity to work freely with no cap-laws coming from Bolzano, Rome or Brussels, which are almost imprisoning us. In the mountains the rules are pretty tight anyway. In mountain households there is no need of state aid nor state taxes. The model is valid since the Middle Ages. What I produce is enough for me and my family, the surplus will be sold to those who come in my “Agritour”. I do not sell a single bottle of wine on the market because the competition simply kills me. If a peasant sells his litre of milk to a dairy company at a certain price, this price will be quadrupled on the table of the city consumer.

Thus, by producing and consuming everything in your own household, naturally – with respect to all hygiene norms, the peasant exits politics and the market, becomes his own master. If one has not got enough funds, household can unite in cooperatives of 20-30 entrepreneurial families that manage their selling points. All the time, however, they must keep a hawk’s eye on attracting tourists and on avoiding commercial companies that “chase” their products to re-sell them, thus decreasing quality. Cheese, produced and consumed in one household, is unique and has a way greater value and quality than labeled merchandise which is sold in the city.
In the end, why are you so preoccupied with sustainable mountain tourism?

I give a great deal of importance to the mountains ; mountains per se are not that important, but I add value by the things I do and I hope many others will do the same here and elsewhere.

Fourteen years now, I no longer climb the highest peaks of the world, I only practice some moderate alpinism – it is no longer the scope of my life, however I completely dedicated myself to promoting and deeply knowing the Alps, the Dolomites.

I am for the idea of creating a type of natural parks dedicated to those who truly love mountains and feel the urge to spend their holidays in the alpine areas. Mountain peasants have always climbed towards 2000 metres altitude to get their construction stones or wood for the winter.

There is thus a possibility to live in the mountains if we use what local knowledge and culture offers. We must turn to good account the alpine zones and forget the naïve idea we can bring back the wilderness in the mountains – in the Alps, at least. This is no longer possible.

But it is possible to show respect for the majesty of high zones and do not touch that, which in the past was not touched because it did not offer oil or wood. Up there, there was a place of those who wanted to get closer to the sun. Walking in the mountains does not mean roaming around, climbing and enjoying picturesque views. It is literature, art and philosophy. I want to give this culture’s substratum to the wanderer that comes from afar.

Translated from Italian

The Japanese company Toshiba is planning to invest in construction of solar power plants in the USA and countries in Europe, including Bulgaria.

The company has annouocned it is expecting an income of USD 1,8 B from these investments by March 2016.

Toshiba will begin implementing its investment plan with the construction of a 10 MW solar power plant in Bulgaria, which is expected to begin working in the next financial year, reads Novinite.

The plant will be located near the Bulgarian city of Yambol and it will cost about EUR 3,7 M. It will be sufficient to supply electricity to about 2000 households.

Toshiba will not retain the ownership of the plant but would sell it to local financial funds and investors instead.

The Japanese company is planning to build 8 large solar power plants in Europe by 2015.

“We will consider the acquisition of local companies with experience in the construction of such plants,” the company’s spokesperson said.

The experience in the field of solar energy and “smart grids” can provide Toshiba‘s good positions on the US and Italian market.

Bulgaria’s energy production from renewable sources by the end of 2010 will be 3 times more than the one in 2009, according to Plamen Dechev from the State Commission for Energy and Water Regulation (DKEVR), quoted by Novinite.

In 2009, Bulgaria produced 800 thousand MGWH from green sources while for the first six months of 2010, this production has already reached 1 million MGWH. According to the expert, in the next few years the share of renewable sources in energy production can reach 17% to 20%.

Currently Bulgaria has 1 870 MGW in Water Power Plants and 771 MGW in facilities using other renewable sources.

Denchev informs until now DKEVR had received requests for the construction of plants using renewable energy sources with a total power of 10 000 MGW, but the current network can sustain only half of them.

The National Electric Company (NEK) had set aside BGN 30 M for the expansion and renovation of the network in the next 5 years in order to respond to the increased demand of green energy.

Romanian environmental groups call upon Günther Oettinger, Commissioner on Energy, expressing their concern about the coherence, validity and efficiency of the Romanian National Action Plan on Renewable Energy, developed by the Romanian Government.

Elisabeta Teodorescu, President of Climate Action Network Romania

“We believe the action plan is crucial for Romania’s sustainable development and that applying it will have major impacts on citizens’ lives. Still, as civil society organizations, we are extremely disappointed by the way the Romanian Government understands transparency in decisionmaking and policy planning and by the content of the Action Plan, which is misleading, incomplete and inefficient,” reads a public letter undersigned by groups such as ALMA-RO, WWF Romania or TERRA Mileniul III.

The publication of the Plan did not comply with the access to information and transparency principles and legislation, as it was only public on the Ministry of Economy’s website and
comments could only be sent for 5 days after the publication (on June 16, 2010), including one week-end. Romanian legislation (Law no. 52/2003) specifically states that the duration of any
consultation process should not fall below 10 working days.
The Ministry of Economy also completely ignored two requests for public information sent on June 8 by two NGOs (TERRA Mileniul III and ALMA-RO), that declared themselves stakeholders regarding the National Action Plan on Renewable Energy. They were never informed about the publication of the action plan, or any public debate. Moreover, the Ministry of Economy never really answered the requests of information, referring precisely to the National Action Plan and the implementation of Law 220/2008, which is the main piece of legislation supporting the development of renewable energy in Romania, but has never been implemented because it lacked the methodology.

The content of the National Action Plan on Renewable Energy is also proof that the document has
never really been open for consultation. During the last year, TERRA Mileniul III and ALMA-RO
developed a series of projects involving stakeholders of renewable energy policies, including
public administration, companies and NGOs. Around 12 meetings1 were organized in Bucharest
and around the country, where stakeholders were invited to express their points of view on the
current policy framework regarding the use of renewables. We were thus able to gather
comments from various areas of the country regarding the barriers in producing and using
renewable energy in Romania and recommendations to improve the system, based on active
companies’ experience. Most of the comments and recommendations were not requested by the
Ministry of Economy or the Ministry of Environment, although they had been informed of our
projects and invited to the meetings. Most stakeholders’ concerns and recommendations are
certainly not answered in the National Action Plan for Renewable Energy.

Moreover, on July 13th 2010 the Ministry of Economy uploaded on its website the new improved
version of the National Action Plan on Renewable Energy, “after having consulted the
stakeholders”. TERRA Mileniul III submitted a new request for public information aiming to find out
when and where the public consultation took place, when and where this information was
announced, who took part in the meeting and what were the comments made by the participants.
To this date, the Ministry of Economy has failed to offer a consistent answer to this request.
Last but not least, we consider that a proper National Action Plan on Renewable Energy should
have undergone the strategic environmental assessment procedure, not only given the
environmental potential impacts of the Plan’s implementation, but also to comply with the national
legislation – Governmental Decision 1076/2004 which transposes the 2001/42/CE Directive.
Below is a list of crucial issues we identified in the National Action Plan on Renewable Energy that
need to be addressed in order to make the plan efficient. Part of the comments below is included
in the study “The corruptibility of legislation. Case study: the use of wind energy in Romania” that
ALMA-RO developed during the first half of 2010, under a Phare Project. The study is available
online in Romanian, on ALMA-RO’s webpage: http://alma-ro.ngo.ro, the Publications section.

1. Systemic approach: the National Action Plan does not include any reference to decoupling
energy consumption and economic growth. On the contrary, the prognosis of energy
consumption is proportional to the projected economic growth.

2. Planning: There is no evaluation of investments and actions accomplished so far as a
consequence of the National Strategy for the use of renewables, adopted by the
Romanian Government in 2003. There is no clear image of our current status, which the
action plan should be based on.

3. Planning energy efficiency: the plan practically contains no information regarding energy
efficiency actions in buildings (pages 52-54 of the plan are empty because of lack of data).

4. Legislation 1: The Action Plan constantly mentions Law no. 220/2008 setting up the
system for the support of energy production from renewables as an operational piece of
legislation that is put in place. The system includes two components: green certificates (for
the producers of electricity from RES) and mandatory quotas (for the electricity suppliers).
Though the Law was enforced on November 8, 2008, it was never applied due to lack of
application norms (supposed to be published 90 days after the enforcement of the Law).
Consequently, we can state that, without a doubt, Romania doesn’t seem to have a real
interest in supporting renewable energy production. Law 220/2008 was amended by Law
139 in July 2010 and we are still waiting for a new methodology to implement the latter,
which will make the process even longer.

5. Bureaucracy and institutions on RES: although the Action Plan suggests the legal
framework is clear, it mentions that the latter is composed of 48 laws (excluding secondary
legislation). The list is incomplete and the legislation is frequently overlapping and
confusing. Just the number of laws gives a good image on how difficult it is to plan a
renewable energy investment project. According to the plan, 11 permits are needed to
start producing energy. Still, companies say over 80 permits are needed to develop and
commission an energy plant and no difference is made between renewable energy
investments and others (fossil fuels, nuclear etc.). Although a unique office to take over
renewable energy procedures is needed and was requested repeatedly by companies
(following success stories from other Member States), the Plan does not take this into
account. No credible measures to improve the institutional framework are planned.

6. Bureaucracy and institutions on energy efficiency: there are inconsistencies in identifying
the institutions that are responsible for policy implementation. One example is related to
responsibilities regarding the energy efficiency policy. According to the Plan, most of the
responsibilities related to industrial energy efficiency fall under the duties of the Romanian
Agency for Energy Conservation. The agency was dissolved at the beginning of 2010 and
transferred as a department within the National Agency for Energy Regulation. The new
department currently has two remaining employees and the Government operates the
public personnel policy based on IMF recommendations that prevent it to hire more staff.

7. Environment: the Action Plan does not mention any inconsistency related to the
environmental impact assessment of renewable energy investments. Still, there is no map
including both protected areas, especially Natura2000 sites, and the renewable energy
potential available to the public, so stakeholders are dependent on tardy information
procedures ran by the environmental authorities. Most of the times, and especially related
to large investments (such as wind power plants), protected areas are first ignored by
investors, also due to the difficult access to information. No measure to improve this
situation is planned.

8. Access to grid: the Plan states that the grid is old and it does not have enough transport
capacity to take over renewable energy, but does not provide measures to overcome this
barrier. In practice, most of the costs related to infrastructure improvement are transferred
entirely to investors (the plan is confusing related to this aspect and avoids stating this). In
the mean time, Romania has a considerable amount of money available from EU funds to
improve the electricity grid that it is not being used (the funds under Axis 3 and 4 of the
Sectoral Operational Program for the Increase of Economic Competitiveness have not
been accessed yet).

9. Small-scale investments: the energy providers’ current policy does not allow individuals
(natural persons) to use both-way counters, so that households that produce energy from
renewables can deliver it in the systems and have financial benefits/compensations from
it. This and various other discriminatory practices in applying legislation compel smallscale
energy producers (including small companies) to quit the market or prevent them to
invest.

10. Access to grid: companies complain that access to grid is given based on un-transparent
procedures and that generally large companies are favored There is no clear public
information source regarding the transport capacity of the network in various areas. The
legislation states that renewable energy producers are offered priority access to the grid
(Law no. 220/2008 amended by Law no. 139/2010), if this does not destabilize the system.
But the Plan states the opposite (there is no priority access granted) without mentioning
the source.

11. Agrifuels: preventing the impact of direct and indirect land-use change practices is not
seen as necessary in the Action Plan. The sustainability certification of biofuels is said not
to be applicable since the raw materials will only come from Romania and imported
materials or products will be accepted if certified.. No certification, monitoring or impact
analysis is taken into account for local production.
Considering all missing information, the illegal adoption procedure of this document (regarding
transparency in decision-making) and its unreliability, we urge the European Commission not to
accept the Romanian National Action Plan on Renewable Energy submitted under Directive
28/2009 and to recommend to the Romanian Government to follow legal procedures and to carry
out a thorough revision of the Plan at national level.

Environment Policy Review 2009 was published and it reports on EU policy developments from last year and looks in detail at EU and Member States’ environmental trends and policy performance.

Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik said: “The 2009 Environment Policy Review shows that Member States adopted and implemented a variety of environmental policy measures. It gives interesting examples of how environmental objectives can be integrated into other policy areas. Nevertheless, a number of data and trends remain worrying. I see a clear need to sustain the momentum for promoting green growth and for further EU and national policy measures to make Europe more resource efficient”.

Commissioner Janez Potocnik

The Environment Policy Review details EU policy developments under the four priorities of the 6th Environment Action Programme, namely Climate change, Nature and biodiversity, Environment and health and Natural resources and waste. It also indicates key issues for 2010 and the coming years.

As a cross-cutting issue, the Review shows that Member States included many green initiatives in their economic recovery plans, seeking to move towards a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy. The Europe 2020 strategy, which was proposed by the Commission in 2009 and formally adopted by the European Council in June 2010, supports this shift to a resource efficient Europe.

The Review also provides an overview of environmental data and trends under the priority areas of the 6th Environmental Action Programme. Although progress is evident in some environmental areas, further efforts are needed in many others, in particular concerning the loss of biodiversity. The country profiles in the third part show the diversity of policy initiatives being taken in the Member States to tackle the different environmental challenges.

Background

Policy developments in the priority areas of the 6th EAP

Climate change

Within the EU, 2009 was a year during which efforts to mitigate climate change were consolidated and where the Climate and Energy package was formally adopted. Internationally, although the achievements of United Nations Conference on climate change in Copenhagen fell short of the EU’s goals, the resulting Copenhagen Accord, which agrees to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, is a step in the right direction.

Nature and biodiversity

The need for using ecosystem and biodiversity services efficiently was underlined by the findings of the 2009 report of ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ which showed that investing in protecting ecosystems makes economic sense. The biodiversity picture, both in the EU and globally, shows worrying trends. Effective protection of nature and biodiversity requires measures to be taken at an international level. Thus in 2009 the European Union actively supported global initiatives such as the establishment of an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services. The coming years will test the credibility and efficiency of EU and global policy-making in the area of biodiversity.

Health and environment

A clean and healthy environment is essential for human well-being. To limit environmental threats to human health, the EU continued to take action and to make progress in various fields during 2009, such as the implementation of the REACH chemicals legislation and the Water Framework Directive and the agreement reached on the Industrial Emissions Directive.

Waste and Natural Resources

Current patterns of consumption and production are leading to the depletion of natural resources, while also causing serious environmental pressures. Further to the existing set of policies in order to move towards a more sustainable consumption and production and better waste management, the Commission launched in 2009 the Retail Forum which aims to improve the understanding of the practical measures needed.

The Annual Environment Policy Review is a report designed to monitor recent environmental trends and policy developments at EU and national level and the progress towards the EU’s key environmental goals. This year’s Review is the 7th edition.

The 2009 version of the European Policy Review can be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm

The European Commission has decided to ask Poland to comply with EU environmental legislation in the area of flood prevention and risk management. Poland has failed to inform the Commission about the implementation of this legislation, which was due by November 2009. Poland has two months to inform the Commission of measures taken to comply with the request for information, which takes the form of a ‘reasoned opinion’ under EU infringement procedures. In the absence of a satisfactory response the Commission may refer Poland to the Court of Justice.

Skawa River Flood, Poland

Non-communication of the Floods Directive

Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks is intended to reduce and manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. Floods endanger lives and cause human tragedy as well as heavy economic losses. Floods are natural phenomena but through the right measures their likelihood can be reduced and their impact limited. In addition to social and economic damage, floods can have severe environmental consequences, for example when installations holding quantities of chemicals are inundated or wetland areas destroyed. The coming decades are likely to see a higher flood risk in Europe and potentially greater economic damage.

The Directive requires Member States to carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river basins and associated coastal areas at risk of flooding. Flood risk maps are then to be drawn up for such zones by 2013, with flood risk management plans following two year later, by 2015. The risk maps focus on prevention, protection and preparedness.

Member States had until 26 November 2009 to implement the legislation and inform the Commission. Ensuring prompt and correct implementation of EU legislation by Member States is a priority for the Commission.

For current statistics on infringements in general see:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/implementation_en.htm

More details on water policy: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm

A new report funded by the European Commission makes a strong case for integrating biodiversity into private sector business plans and core activities around the globe. The report reveals considerable recent growth in eco-certified products and services, growing consumer concerns for sustainable production, and shows how biodiversity can provide a substantial business opportunity in a market that could be worth US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050. It makes seven key recommendations for businesses, and calls on accounting professions and financial reporting bodies to develop common standards to assess biodiversity impacts, and develop new tools for this purpose. “TEEB for Business” will form part of the TEEB synthesis report to be launched at a meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010.

European Commissioner for the Environment Janez Potočnik said: “Despite some local successes, and in spite of a growing awareness of the problem, the global rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing. But this report shows that businesses can help, and I am heartened to see these tangible examples of companies that are flourishing without damaging the only planet we have.”

TEEB Study Leader Pavan Sukhdev said: “Through the work of TEEB and others, the economic importance of biodiversity and ecosystems is emerging from the invisible into the visible spectrum. It is clear that some companies in some sectors and on some continents are hearing and acting on that message in order to build more sustainable, 21st century businesses.”

Key proposals for businesses

TEEB for business recommends a series of actions to help companies minimise their biodiversity risks and seize the business opportunities ecosystems services create:

• Identify the impacts and dependencies of your business on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES)
• Assess the business risks and opportunities associated with these impacts and dependencies
• Develop BES information systems, set SMART targets, measure and value performance, and report your results
• Take action to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks, including in-kind compensation (‘offsets’) where appropriate
• Grasp emerging BES business opportunities, such as cost-efficiencies, new products and new markets
• Integrate business strategy and actions on BES with wider corporate social responsibility initiatives
• Engage with business peers and stakeholders in government, NGOs and civil society to improve BES guidance and policy.

Biodiversity is good for business

The report finds that while a majority of companies still treat biodiversity superficially in their reports, growing numbers are aware of the potential benefits. Biodiversity and ecosystem services offer opportunities for all business sectors, and their integration can bring significant added value by ensuring the sustainability of supply chains, generating new products, creating and penetrating new markets and attracting new customers.

Policies to manage biodiversity and ecosystem risks can also help to identify new business opportunities, such as reducing input costs through improved resource efficiency, developing and marketing low impact technologies, managing and designing projects to reduce ecological footprints, and providing professional services in risk assessment and management/adaptation.

Estimates developed by PricewaterhouseCoopers for “sustainability-related global business opportunities in natural resources (including energy, forestry, food and agriculture, water and metals)” suggest a potential market in the range of US$ 2-6 trillion by 2050 (at constant 2008 prices). About half of this is “additional investments in the energy sector related to reducing carbon emissions”. Markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services are growing, as shown by data compiled by Forest Trends and the Ecosystem Marketplace:

• The certified agricultural products market was valued at over US$ 40 billion in 2008 and is expected to reach up to US$ 210 billion by 2020, and may reach US$ 900 billion by 2050.
• Payments for Ecosystem Services for water-related ecosystem services and watershed management account for only US$5 billion in 2008, but are expected to total more than 30 billion by 2050.

Background

The planet’s natural and nature-based assets – from individual species to ecosystems such as forests, coral reefs, freshwaters and soils – are declining at an alarming rate. Biodiversity loss costs billions to the global economy every year, undermining economies; business prospects and opportunities to combat poverty.

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – is a project funded by the European Commission and governments including Germany, Norway and the UK, dedicated to building the economic case to assist economies make transformational policy choices and changes in order to address this crisis and bring greater intelligence to the way nature-based assets are managed. TEEB will publish a final synthesis report in advance of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s meeting in Nagoya, Japan later in the year.

Further information:

The TEEB for Business report is available at

http://www.teebweb.org/

The EU Business and Biodiversity Platform:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.html

(Reuters) – Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2009 fell 1.3 percent to 31.3 billion tonnes in the first year-on-year decline in this decade, German renewable energy institute IWR said.

The Muenster-based institute, which advises German ministries, cited the global economic crisis and rising investments in renewable energies for the fall in emissions.

Global investment in renewable installations for power, heat and fuels last year rose to 125 billion euros ($161 billion) from 120 billion in 2008, IWR said.

But IWR director Norbert Allnoch said given the force of the crisis, the reductions in CO2 output could have been greater, had stronger output in Asian and Middle Eastern countries not overcompensated the savings obtained from declines in Europe, Russia, Japan and the U.S.

“The energy-induced CO2 output in China in 2009 due to its economic growth has grown to a level now that is as high as that of the U.S. and Russia combined,” he said.

China in 2009 was in top position with 7.43 billion tonnes after 6.81 billion in 2008, followed by the U.S. with 5.95 billion (6.37 billion 2008). Russia was in third position, just before India, and followed by Japan.

Global investments in solar and wind power were helped by lower equipment costs as the crisis led to price cuts, IWR said.

But it reiterated its earlier suggestions that, in order to put brakes on the rising fossil fuels usage and to stabilize global CO2, it recommends that global annual spending on renewables be quadrupled to 500 billion euros ($644.2 billion).

Global CO2 emissions are still 37 percent above those in 1990, the basis year for the Kyoto Climate Protocol.

The main barriers that are slowing down the development of the wind power energy sector in Romania are the legislative framework, the limits set up by Transelectrica for connection to the grid, the poor quality of land registration and ambigious landownership as well as the bureaucracy, reads an industry report carried out by LAMAR Company.

Despite a wind potential of over 14.000 MW of wind power in Romania that attracts investors and developers all over the world, the practice at this moment is different.

Ultimo 2009 there was only 14 MW installed. The Law on renewables is still not in place and the term to start a project in order to be able to benefit from the incentives for Green Energy ends 2016.

“Barriers to investing in wind energy in Romania” describes the Romanian Market for the construction and operation of Wind Farms anno 2010.

The reports explains the Day Ahead Market, the proposed scheme for Green Energy in the new version of Law 220, discusses problems with the development of wind farms in Romania and contains valuable recommendations for both developers and investors.

Author MARKUS Vrieling is consultant “Renewable Energy Sources” at HERM International Consultants and the CEO of LAMAR Company. His years of experience on the Romanian market and his expertise in European Funding and the implementation of New Technologies in Eastern Europe contributed to the quality of the report. In this report he shares valuable information and experiences about the Romanian Market for Wind Development with his audience.

The report is available from the 1st of August 2010 and it costs 1790,- EURO excl. VAT.