Following last week’s violences and constant anti-austerity and anti government protests, over 40 important Romanian NGOs have shaped a programatic document that synthesizes political change at the demonstrations in the University Square in Bucharest’s historical center.

Occupiers of the University Square in Bucharest, Romania

“We protest:

1. Against merging of local and national elections, an abuse against democratic principles.
2. Against corruption and inefficiency within healthcare.
3. Against inefficiency of European funds management.
4. Against education’s underfunding, favoring the military and secret services.
5. Against politicians’ support for numerous abuses against the environment: illegal loggings and deforestations, landfills covering half of the country’s surface, introduction of hunting in protected areas etc.
6. Against the open-cast gold mining project in Rosia Montana and against the direct involvement of President Basescu in supporting and promoting private interests.
7. Against destruction of national architectural patrimony carried out by authorities in complicity with realtors of illegitimate interests.
8. Against the arrogance and contempt shown by the whole political class in enforcing transparency laws and against blocking public access to decision-making and participation.
9. Against violations of rights and liberties of the disadvantaged and of minorities.
10. Against abuses and brutality of police and gendarmerie and against repeated violations of free expression and the right to protest.
11. Against undemocratic passing of Government’s ordinances instead of parliamentary debates in matters of utmost importance; against adopting and transposing legislation in spite of lacking impact studies as well as against repeated and chaotic modifications of current legislation.
12. Against abusive and antidemocratic behavior of President Basescu that
- offends and humiliates persons that belong to certain social segments of society and, through this, offending groups that these persons belong to;
- imposes his own personal projects by organizing in a populist and irresponsible manner referenda based on a total lack of information and expertise of citizens;
- fully engages in political partisanship by supporting the party in power in all election campaigns – an issue expressly banned by Constitution;
- leads in an authoritarian way Romania’s Government and abusively taking over legislative initiative;
- understands in a partisan manner what political majority means, supporting parliamentary majorities formed via political migration.

13. Against inequalities within Romanian society, supported by the whole political spectrum.
14. Against a growing tendency to ignore legality, transparency, and consultations with civil society in designing new public policies and legislation.

Furthermore we express our revolt and concern related to the low political and moral qualities of the opposition leaders, acolytes in phenomena for which we blame the political power such as: politicization of local administration, nepotism, corruption, political migration from one party to another despite radical ideological differences, incapacity to reform their organizations.”

There has been a series of anti-government demonstrations in the Romanian capital over the past 10 days. The protesters have been calling on President Traian Basecu and his government to resign over a package of austerity measures, which includes a cut of 25 percent to civil servants’ salaries and a tax increase.

The government says the measures are needed to keep an International Monetary Fund aid deal on track.

Most of the rallies have been peaceful, but there has been sporadic violence. One demonstration that did turn violent last weekend saw more than 50 people injured clashes between police and protesters.

Marco Onida, Secretary General of the Alpine Convention, interviewed for 2Celsius Network by Raul Cazan

The Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention organized from 4th to 12th July 2011 the fifth edition of SuperAlp!, the sustainable crossing of the Alps.

For the fifth year SuperAlp! linked different territories, issues and cultures aiming at improving the knowledge of the Alpine Convention, that recognizes the Alps as a whole and unique territory.

A group of journalists belonging to world’s top publications (and 2Celsius Network was among them) crossed the Alpine arc for 10 days using sustainable means of transport and trying out the various links that make up the chain of alternative mobility to private cars. The group traveled from France to Italy across Switzerland and Austria by train, bicycle and on foot.

The 2011 edition let participants discover the conditions of alpine glaciers, one of the most evident indicators of the effects of climate change. It also intends to make this crossing an occasion to communicate the Alpine Convention and its Protocols as tools for the sustainable development of the Alpine region, easily transferable also to other mountain regions of the world.

What is SuperAlp and why did you organize it?

SuperAlp is a project of the Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention that has two main aims. The first aim is to bring the Alpine Convention to the territory. The Alpine Convention is a treaty, which entangles alpine territory, but the territory not always knows this. The second aim is through this long journey of journalists we talk about the Alps, we determine journalists to write about the Alps and we raise awareness on critical topics such as sustainability in the Alps. SuperAlp is made with public and sustainable means of transport and fueled with local food, as to show that it is possible to travel like that.

What was the theme this year, 2011?

This year we have chosen glaciers as a theme. We are particularly interested in climate change. It has extreme effects on the Alps; the average increase in temperature in the Alps is higher than the average increase in other areas of the Northern Hemisphere, we had 2 centigrade increase in the Alps (within the last two decades, n.n.), the effects are very visible and, most of all, very expensive. One of the most visible effects is the retreat of glaciers. We chose 5 glaciers in the Alps and we crossed them all in order to see with our eyes what the situation is and to talk to knowledgeable people, glaciologists, experts that have been living here for the last 50-60 years and that are able to explain what is the situation’s evolution, what is the speed of the retreat, what are the problems associated to this retreat and so on.

Journalists on Breithorn (4165m)

On what criteria did you choose the journalists?

We published an open call for interest on the internet to which some journalists replied and some were contacted directly. We have actually been quite selective this time because we wanted journalists whom were not only to hike on mountains with ice axe and crampons, but that are very motivated because in days like today we were walking seven hours and it is not the only day we were hiking that long.

Do you see any similarities between the Alpine Convention and the Carpathian Convention?

The principles are pretty much the same, which means cooperation to solve common problems and to better exploit the common opportunities. The reality, however, is quite different. The Carpathian area is much bigger than the Alps, it is much wilder than the Alps, nature is still to a certain extent unspoiled, it is not that much tourist friendly as the Alps, problems are different. The Carpathian Convention was signed in 2003 that is it is still much younger. It is difficult to compare the two, I would say, from the point of view of the philosophies they are pretty much the same although there are objective differences due to the physical differences of the countries which are associated to the Carpathian Convention. There are not always easy relations with Ukraine, which is member of the Carpathian Convention. I mean political relations are good, but cooperation on the territory requires long-standing trans-border cooperation, which is not part of every day life between Romania, Poland and Ukraine. So the idea is pretty much the same, yes.

It is pretty much the same even when considering the whole geographic area because they belong to the very same orogeny, Carpathians, Alps, Pyrenees…

Yes, exactly. They are the mountains of Europe, basically and they are pretty much neglected from the political perspective, neglected by the European policies, the interests of people in the mountains are not being always considered and this is why it is very important to have these conventions because they can also jointly do lobbying in Brussels to have better consideration of mountain dimension. We often do this with the Carpathian people.

Three years ago I had the great joy to join you in SuperAlp 2. The theme of that project was mountain communities and mountain agriculture. What happened after? Any follow up?

Well, changes in the Alps take ages like everywhere in society. So I would say that we are experiencing pretty much the same situation, we see the same problems with public transport not being enough developed. What we see as a weakness is a little less awareness related to the existence of the Alpine Convention because in the last three years we were working intensively, but in the Alps the situation is quite unchanged. To a certain extent it is actually worsened. And that is on two dimensions. Climate change and tourism. We are going towards a quite dangerous direction with mass tourism in the mountains and not realizing that this is not going to be sustainable.

Why not?

First of all, there is too much focus on winter tourism, on skiing. Ski resorts are investing to get more slopes and ski lifts, but there is less snow and less people mainly due to a greater competition. Today people also want to have quieter holidays even off-season, so there should be a diversification of tourism offers that take place only in some resorts, alpinism villages that we visited in Austria. This is an interesting development, but there are still places where mass winter tourism is considered to be a must and this is harming the environment. But I should say that this is also harming the economy because it makes no sense to have for two months people coming from all over Europe, locals to work there and then, for he rest of the year – mere unemployment.

So do you think that initiatives such as SuperAlp can be applicable to the Carpathians – a SuperCarpatica?

Well, that would be a dream. Distances in the Carpathians are much bigger, probably the development of public transport in mountain areas of the Carpathians is still at an early stage. And also, I would say, probably the political consideration of mountains in areas of the Carpathian countries is not yet the same as here. In the Alps we have a stronger environmental pressure, mass tourism, massive transport transit, loss of mountain agriculture. In the Carpathians, after the political changes in Europe and the accession of many Carpathian countries to the European Union, problems are rather… quite others. But it is very good to have this cooperation because we want to anticipate problems. So the Carpathians can find themselves in the very situation in which the Alps were 20 years ago; so we can anticipate and better deal with these problems. Soon, the Tatras can be in the very same situation in which the Alps are today. We should take care of that.

Can we go back to mountain communities? I know last year you had as theme in SuperAlp food and gastronomy. The funny thing is that in Romania most of the traditional food – or what we generally call slow food nowadays – is coming from the mountain areas. That means there is a lot of added value to food comes from the mountains. How did you tackle that?

This is very important, yes. Last year we had Slow Food as a partner of SuperAlp, we visited the headquarters of Slow Food and its university of gastronomic sciences in Polenzo (Piedmont, Italy), and across our journeys we stopped in places where we almost always had local products. It is quite clear that there is a strong demand for that. Particularly in times of globalization and health problems associated to urbanization or hysteria such the latest e-Coli, if one eats mountain food nothing happens to him or her. Now having this food in mountain areas is good, it creates new opportunities and money. But it requires also a lot of investment in order for the products to reach the cities, which is not always easy – also because of the low quantities in which food is produced. But I think this a very important development and that is why we concentrated SuperAlp on that and it should be a focus of the Carpathian countries as well.

Evidence reveals the negative impacts many biofuels can have on the environment: displacing crop-lands, driving deforestation and, in many instances, actually increasing green house gas emissions. Unless current policies increasing biofuel production are changed to include meaningful sustainability standards that take ‘indirect land use change’ (ILUC) into account, biofuels will cause more harm than good.

ILUC is happening as a direct result of a legally binding EU target for 10% of transport fuel to come from renewable fuels (mostly biofuel) by 2020. As fields of food crops are switched to grow biofuels for our cars, somebody somewhere goes hungry unless those missing tonnes of food are grown elsewhere. This expansion of global agricultural land comes at the expense of forests and wildlife.

The crops that make-up the shortfall could come from anywhere, but economics dictate it will likely be in tropical regions, encouraging farmers to cut down rainforests, or drain ancient peatlands – both resulting in a massive release of greenhouse gas emissions.

For most current biofuels, the effect is to wipeout any benefits for climate change – making them worse even than fossil fuels.

A recent study by the independent Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) found that the use of biofuels in EU transport will emit between 81% and 167% more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels in 2020 and the knock-on effects of growing these biofuels will mean converting an area twice the size of Belgium of forests, grasslands and peatlands into new crop fields. The findings were based on EU member states’ own plans for increasing use of biofuels and the most recent science.

Environmental organisations are calling on the EU to bring forward a legal proposal to account for the ILUC problem by only allowing biofuels that are better overall than fossil fuels, when ILUC is fully accounted for. The European Commission is expected to propose how it intends to deal with ILUC by July.

For more information on EU biofuels policy consult with the organisations behind this campaign:

• BirdLife Europe
• ClientEarth
• European Environmental Bureau
• Friends of the Earth Europe
• Transport & Environment

Looking at the monitored 6 year period of a study titled “Air quality in Bucharest – health impacts”, the deaths of over 800 adults and over 200 babies can be directly linked to PM10 air pollution in the Romanian capital, researchers assert. The survey, an independent research released by the Centre for Sustainable Policies Ecopolis, draws attention to the high level of air pollution in Bucharest. Air polluting substances in Bucharest are often and substantially above the thresholds allowed by the European Union and the World Health Organization, seriously impacting on its inhabitants’ health, reads the study.

Ecopolis’ experts demand that authorities take urgent actions to improve the situation and appeal to the Romanian capital’s citizens to contribute to solving the problem.
“The Romanian air quality legislation does not currently comply with EU directives, air quality monitoring is incomplete, concentrations of air-polluting substances are at levels well above the EU and WHO recommended health hazard limits, whilst the population does not have an accessible means to realistically and coherently evaluate the quality of the air it is breathing.”, says Irina Bota, research expert with The Centre for Sustainable Policies Ecopolis.

Costel Popa, leader of the group Ecopolis

Ecopolis undertook a detailed monitoring of air quality in Bucharest in 2010. Its aims were those of pin-pointing and drawing attention to the most dangerous air-polluting substances and the main risk areas in Romania’s capital city, then of linking these air pollution levels to related health problems reported for Bucharest inhabitants and, furthermore, of identifying suitable actions that need to be taken, either in the direction of air quality monitoring and transparency improvements, but also towards actual air pollution diminishing and reducing the inacceptable costs – both human and material – it generates.
High air pollution is not specific to one or some particular areas in Bucharest. Despite the inherent exceptions – days and times when air pollution is more intense in some parts of the city – the phenomenon is utterly generalized. In 2010 all air monitoring stations in the Bucharest-area registered excessive levels for at least one of the monitored polluting substances (mainly PM10). Some stations even recorded excessive levels for 2 or 3 substances. PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations were well above the health hazard limit levels at all monitoring stations that measure these substances (all the 8 stations throughout and around the city for PM10 and three stations – B1, B5 and B6 – for PM2.5). 7 out of 8 monitoring stations reported air pollutant levels above the daily limit for more than 35 days, violating the limits imposed by the EU.

Out of all polluting substances detected in the Bucharest atmosphere, the fine particles – (particulate matter) PM10 and PM2.5 – are the most dangerous for human health. For these fine particles the monitoring stations listed concentrations five times bigger than the allowed levels (for PM10) and six times bigger than the daily limit for PM2.5. The annual average for PM10 as well as for PM2.5 are above the EU annual limit for all monitoring stations that measure them.

The human impact of air pollution requires immediate measures. A number of researches, the European Union and the World Health Organization look at the human health effects of air pollution (especially regarding fine particles) and find them to be very serious. A series of studies show that, among the adults and babies that die every year, some could be saved if the air quality would be higher. Deaths of over 800 adults and over 200 babies can be directly linked to PM10 air pollution.

Furthermore, by reducing the PM10 pollution, the number of persons hospitalized with chronic res

piratory diseases could be reduced by hundreds. Only looking at the individuals with chronic diseases registered in 2009 in Bucharest, we estimate that over 300 of them were hospitalized because of the air pollution related complications.

The Romanian health system spends huge extra sums of money yearly on account of air pollutants’ effects on human health. Only in 2009, by reducing the number of hospitalized patients, the system could have cut back around 400.000 RON of the total costs of these diseases. This figure only includes Bucharest and only chronic patients hospitalized here; it would certainly steep-raise if medicine and examinations costs were taken int

o account.

“The Ecopolis research clearly highlights Romanian authorities’ incapacity to protect our health and our lives. We hold authorities responsible for this situation, primarily the Bucharest City Hall Environment department. Bucharest is the most polluted European capital and this situation absurdly costs us human lives. We firmly demand the resignation of those found guilty on the issue and we ask Bucharest’s Mayor, Mr. Sorin Oprescu, for an official statement regarding this situation and a plan for improving air quality in Romania’s capital city”, declares Costel Popa, President, Centre for Sustainable Policies Ecopolis.

Fate of the World, a ground-breaking download game based on state-of-the-art climate models and input from top scientists, is set to launch on Monday 28th February 2011. Red Redemption – the Oxford-based developers of this innovative strategy game – have partnered with the global TckTckTck campaign to help garner support for climate action.

Fate of the World works on the principal that people are ‘players’ in the climate change debate and can contribute towards real-life changes. A charity edition of the game is downloadable from www.tcktcktck.org/fotwgame with a percentage of proceeds going to support the campaign.

“Playing and promoting Fate of the World means breaking new ground for the climate movement, as this is an unusual type of campaign tool with a rare mix of fun, science, strategy and action. Gamers who download Fate of the World via the tcktcktck.org website directly support climate campaigns”, said Paul Horsman, Campaign Director at the Global Campaign for Climate Action that runs TckTckTck. (ENDS)

In Fate of the World gamers must find a way to deal with Earth’s ever-depleting resources and the climate crisis, whilst reconciling the needs of a growing world population that demands more food, energy, and living space. The game seeks to increase the understanding and awareness of climate change by providing gamers with the opportunity to learn and explore the subject in ways never before available.

Fate of the World is an innovative way to reach out to people, using a new framework for discussing environmental issues and exploring contemporary policy debates. Whilst playing it, gamers engage with principles like technology development, food security and wildlife adaptation, and impose policies such as banning logging in the Amazon rainforest or making all Europe’s public transport run on electricity. They can also play a reverse scenario and destroy the planet, thus learning how possible it is, in fact, to do just that.

The PC English language version of Fate of the World will be available to download at www.tcktcktck.org/fotwgame on 28 February 2011. The game is priced at £9.90 (EUR 14), with a percentage of proceeds going to TckTckTck.

Giedre Steikunaite, blogger with the New Internationalist in London, has joined the protesters and reported on the unique demonstration in Cancun. Her full article is available on the New Internationalist blog.

‘This day is not for a party, it’s for struggle and protest!’ went one popular chant. And so it began at around 9 am in downtown Cancún, led by Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, with around 1,500 participants from more than 40 countries – Latin American farmers, grassroots activists, indigenous peoples, and the ‘hippies’ from the alternative Klima Forum.

Marcha: Protesters caused traffic problems in downtown Cancún.

The message from the bus with loudspeakers: ‘Repressive politics destroy natural resources and violate the rights of indigenous peoples. We are calling for the unity of social movements and organizations, both national and international. We cannot allow our environment to be continuously contaminated. We are marching to tell the governments that we don’t agree with them. It’s a struggle of all of us.’ Struggle is one of the most repeated words of the day – people are determined, and creative.

The March

Wrapping up posters, flags, and other marching equipment, protesters get on buses which would bring them closer to the Moon Palace, an extravagant place where the COP 16 negotiations are being held (a 30 minute ride from the city center). They would then march and present their demands to the world leaders.

Nevertheless, they were stopped long before their final destination.

Silent dance. Their unmoving presence is the perfect stage for a silent dance.

A local guy. ‘[COP 16,] Why did you all come here? To contaminate even more?’

He comes from Cancún. Addressing COP 16 which doesn’t listen, he asks: ‘Why did you all come here? To contaminate even more? All those planes, hotels and waste… For 16 COPs you’ve been doing this.’ It needs to stop. Just like REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, one of the points COP 16 is expected to agree on). ‘No more REDD! No more REDD+, REDD++ and REDD+++!’ he says. ‘They are all pure corporations. I am here to tell you that we, the indigenous people, defend nature. We want to bring conscience to all people.’

Back at the assembly, speakers highlight the power of the people. ‘I am here to show your strength [to save the environment], the strength that they at the COP 16 don’t have.’ Tom Goldtooth, from North America’s Society for Threatened Peoples, denounces the negotiations: ‘Over there, at the UN meeting, there is a lot of confusion and darkness.’ He adds, ‘It’s business there.’ Pure business.

Hammer and wall. A floating hammer, a symbolic crasher of the corrupt processes of international climate negotiations, is passed to the other side. There are no plans to try to bring down the barricades. The protest remains peaceful.

The march didn’t reach its destination.

Hundreds of environmental NGOs are campaigning in Cancun, Mexico for the hottest topics of the day. Indeed, just as in Copenhagen, the most delicate issue remains the problem of funding. The Climate Fund is sometimes perceived as a panacea for climate adaptation, while mitigation lost its strong input.

Naturally, environmental groups, that create events and agitate around the topic, claim social and climate justice with focus on resilience to the impacts of climate change, protect forests, and adopt low-carbon development pathways. Public finance is vital to meet these needs, while carbon markets are, to say the least, inadequate or inappropriate. Developing countries could not possibly gain anything on trading schemes. Thus, the fund must mark a clear shift in the management of global flows of climate finance that deliver the poor.

The Fund must be legitimate and effective, be designed through UNFCCC process involving good experts. Unfortunately, the trustees of these funds would be the experts from the World Bank.

“It is absolutely critical. We need a particular fair climate fund because there is a problem with the current system – we got a plethora, a spaggetti bowl of thousands of of different funds – they are delivering small amounts on different channels and became burdensome. Many requirements regarding access and reporting for these funds are at least discouraging, said Tim Gore, campaigner for Oxfam.

Poor people are suffering already, only 10% of the funds is dedicated to adaptation. Adaptation is rather more important than mitigation nowadays. Mitigation is prioritized a fair fraction would be 50% for adaptation.

“Cancun is re-opening the optimistic perspective and we are back on track for a legally binding treaty in the near future, that is at COP17.”

Sources at the Moon Palace, informed 2Celsius that the toughest debate on funds lies in balancing grants and loans.

The “excluded” are voicing up their grievances once more, the Bolivian delegation had complained that the process is not inclusive at all for least developed countries.

A step ahead was a decision to broaden the mandate of a Least Developed Countries (LDC) Expert Group and extend its mandate for a five-year term, the longest period given to the Group since its establishment in 2001. The Group provides technical guidance and advice to LDCs on the preparation and implementation of national adaptation programs of action (NAPAs). Since commencement of its support, 45 LDCs have successfully completed and submitted their NAPAs, 38 have initiated implementing adaptation on the ground, and the process has left a wealth of capacity and awareness across the countries from political levels down to community levels.
Countries also agreed to strengthen education, training and public awareness on climate change through increased funding for such activities, and to engage civil society more strongly in national decision-making and the UN climate change process.

Nonetheless, a march of protest is being prepared by Via Campesina. Local peasants backed by environmental groups will head to the Moon Palace in demand for fairer funds and rights of the poor and indigenous people.

FNPAR and AGROSTAR recently made a public call mobilizing Romanian farmers to participate in pro-GMO demonstrations which will take place in Bucharest on the second half of September. In the official
document, which states the list of demands of the two unions the seventh demand made is „The
introduction of cultivation of genetically modified plants, especially genetically modified corn and soy.”FNPAR and AGROSTAR are large unions that, allegedly, represent the interests of large agribusiness and the biotechnology industry in Romania.

Another supporter of the request, the Bio Romania Association, which initally signed the request proposed by FNPAR and AGROSTAR, has now refrained from the pro-GMO position of these unions.

Proposals for sustainable agriculture
Equitable subsidies that are not slanted towards large agriculturul producers and a ban on genetically modified organisms are principles which are needed for traditional and organic agriculture in our country and indeed,
everywhere, reads a press release signed by a coalition of environmental groups. Also, the negotiations of these unions on the problems of agriculture must be democratic, transparent and open to the needs of small farmers, shows the same press release.
„As a small organic farmer, I feel directly threatened by the large unions, because they promote
the interests of the biotechnology industry. If my corn becomes contaminated with genetically modified
corn, I would lose my organic certification. In Romania the cultivators of genetically modified organisms
can be counted on two hands. The fact is that these cultivators have succeeded in imposing their interests
at the expense of the majority or farmers, putting organic agriculture in danger, with a complete lack of
evidence of democracy. This is the moment when we, the small farmers have to act!” stated Willy
Schuster, vice president of the Eco Ruralis Association.

„The agro-business lobby recieves too much at the expense of small farmers. The future of
Romanian agriculture can not be built except through small family farms which need equitable subsidies
and thus an equal chance with the few large farmers which monopolize most of the market. In a world in
which large farmers are favored from the start through huge subsidies, small farmers are condemned to
disappear. We hope that on Thursday, as part of the actions in Bucharest, we can make the voice of the
small farmers heard, and not only as a means to an end for large farmers to achieve their goals,”declared
Gabriel Gib, president of the farmers association COZIA.
„It has already been demonstrated that genetically modified organisms are not safe and that they
do not bring economic benefits on the medium or long term. They are contrary to all of the principles of
sustainable agriculture. If today we don’t defend against GMO contamination, tomorrow we will not be
able to talk about agriculture, only about genetic manipulation,” stated Ramona Dunimicioiou, president of
the Genetically Modified Organisms Information Centre – InfOMG.

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

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.