Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONTENTS
I. FOREWORD 2
IV. FORESTRY 28
SPECIFIC ACTION EUROPEAN FOREST ENERGY NETWORK EUROFORENET 28
INTERNATIONAL, PANEUROPEAN AND EUROPEAN PROCESSES 29
EUROPEAN FORESTBASED SECTOR TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FTP 30
ILLEGAL LOGGING 30
CERTIFICATIONS 30
BIODIVERSITY STREAMLINING THE EUROPEAN BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS SEBI 2010 30
LIFE+ 31
FOREST FIRES 31
FINAL REMARKS CONCLUSION 32
V. ENLARGEMENT 32
PERSPECTIVES 41
1
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 2
2
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 3
To tackle those challenges we advocate one should We might be entering into the worst food crisis since
initially understand three considerations: World War II.
First, land management is like no other sector of the The President of our Consultative Committee, Cor-
economy, it provides a complex, and constantly rado PIRZIO-BIROLI, is expressing the view that such
changing balance of private goods and environ- food crisis is accompanied by growing environmen-
mental services. tal stress. Britain’s chief scientific adviser has just de-
Second, these activities are spatially defined and cli- fined food security as an enormous problem on a par
matically and biologically determined. Each plot of with climate change. The World Food Program is
land is a unique mix of soil, water, climatic and eco- unable to meet requests for increasingly expensive
logical characteristics and is set into business struc- food aid. FAO Director General Jacques DIOUF has
tures defined by the local social and legal structures. called for a coordinated response and a long-term
Third, private businesses are delivering both private solution to a structural food demand-supply gap,
and public goods, and because of this securing pay- warned about growing social unrest and rising global
ment for public goods. hunger, and convened a conference in June to discuss
At least eight principles should underlie sustainable the links between food, biofuels and climate change.
land management and should guide public food and
environmental policies. These principles are: Food supply and environmental security are
interacting challenges threatening the future of our
1. An intergenerational time view, planet and its people. Climate change is happening, is
2. A science-based approach, man made; it’s global, and intensifies the food and
3. Voluntary participation, environmental challenges, in particular in the
4. Working in partnership, developing countries, the majority of whom are net
5. Proportionality, importers of food, catching up with western
6. A decentralised approach, consumption patterns, and loosing agricultural land
7. Working with natural cycles, and top soil. As they seek to avoid food riots feeding
8. Securing property rights and responsibilities. internal insecurity and political opposition, these
governments act to freeze internal retail food prices
We do not say that land managing owners are never on staples, slashing import duties, and/or resorting to
responsible for environmental harm. We do however export taxes or embargoes, and/or food subsidies,
say that property rights can be developed to tackle and causing major budgetary costs and foreign debts.
this problem. What happens with these countries, their soils and
Tradable emissions rights are an example. They forests, their rural economies and their budgets will
can bring down overall levels of pollution, but also have an even greater impact on the world than what
reward efficiency and innovation, unlike monolithic happens with ours.
regulation.
The challenge is to harness the behaviour that There is a distinct risk that Malthus will eventually
protects property rights at a time when new chal- prove right. We must therefore ask whether and how
lenges such as the food crisis are arising. the world’s farmers and agricultural industry can
But let’s be clear, the economic, social and political double food production by 2030 to meet world de-
framework has dramatically changed over the past mand using less water and less energy, and slashing
half century. There are mounting concerns about gas emissions. To do this it is essential to protect the
global trends in population and economic growth, long-run food production capacity of the EU without
western consumption patterns, agricultural land avoidable environmental degradation.
availability, crop yields, soil and water availability,
environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and Advocates of scrapping the CAP ignore the risks this
the threat to the cultural landscape, and their would involve. These include production intensifica-
combined effects on food and the environment, with tion with increased pollution, land abandonment
their economic, social and political implications. with rural desertification (nature needs caring) and
3
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 4
reduced farm output, accelerated urbanization with try and the agrifood system, and the rural areas will
additional infrastructural and environmental costs, face over the coming years. Secondly, we must
potential difficulties for the internal market, higher establish the tools to meet those challenges, starting
world food prices with serious humanitarian, eco- from those that exist, but adding to them. Only after
nomic and political consequences. The same holds for that can we assess the budgetary means required.
the end of agricultural support elsewhere in the world. These means notably concern Budget Heading 2 on
the Protection and Management of Natural
But, after the Health Check, CAP reform needs to con- Resources. They need to respond to the fact that the
tinue step-by-step after 2013. As European CAP and environmental policy face bigger challenges
Agriculture is becoming ever more market driven, in the first half of this century for an enlarging EU, and
appropriate tools need to be put in place to address a more interdependent world community than they
widespread market failures. These market failures, did in the last century.
partly related to technology shortfalls, are reflected in To sum up, we send out a call for new policy objectives
the looming world food imbalance, growing water for the next half century, and for special action af-
shortages, and rising energy prices, as well as in the
fecting food supplies and environmental improve-
damage caused by competitive farming. Moreover,
ments. The demands on what we want from our land
the delivery of public goods such as low-impact farm-
managers are increasing, they have a critical role in
ing and maintenance of landscapes and wildlife habi-
helping secure food and environmental security, there
tats cannot just emerge from the market system. They
are pervasive market failures surrounding these ac-
require farmers to take specific actions that carry
tivities, dealing with these market failures is part of EU
extra costs, which the market does not cover. They
need to be remunerated by specific and targeted pub- policy. This requires the further development of the
lic payments if society is to enjoy those public goods. CAP, as well as the budgetary resources appropriate
to meet the food and environmental challenges and
There is a case for a European Food & Environmental produce the required security on both accounts.
Security Policy; it is based on the Single Market, on Wider and more challenging tasks cannot be met
evolving EU food and environment policies, on envi- with shrinking budgetary means or even by all kind
ronmental directives, on the Göteborg declaration of burdensome regulations.
and the Lisbon process, and on the transboundary
character of nature and climate change. It is our job to tackle it: the ELO is getting this message
across to the EU institutions, the NGOs, the academic
The objectives of such a policy should be to provide world and national representatives. The ELO is lead-
incentives for private sector rural resource managers ing the debate on the relationship between owner-
to produce socially optimal quantities of nutritious, ship, business and environment both in terms of the
high quality food and fibre, renewable energy, concept and in order to develop prosperous country-
biodiversity, landscape, heritage, and soil, water and side businesses and to fulfil its ethical mission. While
air management. the task is huge, we strongly believes the society is
increasingly accepting this message The ELO could
Such a new policy is a world responsibility of the Eu- not achieve its goal without its members, its partners
ropean Union and other countries that are and you, who ever you are when you are sharing this
relatively less affected and better placed to deal with conviction, in order to convey our message from
climate change, and have the financial means to lead European to national, regional if not local levels.
by example.
4
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 5
5
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 6
The intervention of man into this natural set of tions, the Members States and the numerous stake-
inter-relationships has provided the basis for much holders during 4 years, has as its main objective to
of modern life from food production to infrastruc- ensure the protection and sustainable use of soil in
ture grounds. the EU by preventing soil degradation, preserving
The point is not to forbid human activities on soil functions and restoring degraded soils.
soil, but to minimise their negative effects on its So far, only nine EU Member States have imple-
functions. mented specific legislation on soil protection.
However, different EU policies such as water
Some European soils are facing major threats, (including floods and droughts), nitrates, waste,
reversible or not, enhanced by unsustainable use chemicals, industrial pollution prevention, nature
of soils and climate change. protection, pesticides or agriculture, are already
contributing to soil protection. ELO agrees with
the EU Commission that there needs to be a more
... Addressed at EU level ... holistic approach to the coordination of soil
protection policies.
These threats were addressed during the Working
Groups preparing the Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection in which ELO actively took part, ... Trough the Soil Thematic Strategy ...
focusing on erosion, contamination, sealing,
compaction, reduced organic matter, salinisation The Commission adopted a Soil Thematic
and landslides. Strategy (COM(2006) 231) and a Proposal for a
Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) on
22 September 2006 with the objective to protect
In direct line with its policy,
ELO enhances awareness
soils across the EU.
with regard to environ- The Strategy and the proposal have been sent to
ment and soil manage- the other European Institutions.
ment in the rural world The European Parliament adopted the Directive on
with its “Environment Wednesday 14 November 2007, with 501 votes in
and Soil Management favour and 160 against under the codecision pro-
Award” in close coopera- cedure (first reading). The Rapporteur Cristina
tion with the scientific GUTIERREZ-CORTINES said that the text takes into
world and the European
account “the enormous differences existing among
Union Services.
The 2007 Soil award will soils and leaves the national authorities with the
be presented in 2008 on choice of the forms and the methods to protect
the occasion of the gala them“. She also said that “this Directive is the first
dinner that follows the piece of Community law that recognises the positive
First forum on the future role of agriculture on soil protection and tackles the
of agriculture (27 March issue of climate change“.
2008) to Eugenio SE- The report has indeed redrafted the original
QUEIRA, Liga para a Pro-
proposal of the European Commission to concili-
tecção da Natureza
for its outstanding contri- ate the views of those who think this rule is neces-
bution to soil recovery in a sary and those who think the existing rules in the
rural threatened ecosys- Member States are enough to protect soils.
tem in Portugal. It contains for example a provision stating that
within five years of the transposition date,
Member States will have to identify the “priority
This Strategy, which has been the subject of areas” which need special protection against
intense discussions between the European Institu- erosion, organic matter decline, soil biodiversity
6
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 7
loss, compaction, salinisation, landslides, desertifi- In any case, ELO has been and, in 2008, will be thor-
cation or acidification. It indicates that the choice oughly monitoring the whole adoption process to
of measures to combat these phenomena will be make sure that it will be based on sound science,
left to the MS. It states also that MS which already and that no additional burden will be imposed on
have national legislation in place will be exempted land managers and owners, or at least, ensure that
(Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, these constraints will be remunerated. The main
Denmark, France, Germany, United Kingdom). barrier to the adoption of improved soil manage-
ment practices in agriculture is indeed their cost.
However, in December 2007, in spite of the various ELO has been constantly advocating in favour of
attempts of the Presidency to present compromise incentives for environmental services provided by
proposals in order to meet delegations’ concerns, land businesses, such as agri-environmental pay-
it was not possible, at this stage, to attain the qual- ments, which is a very good way to encourage
ified majority needed to reach political agreement land businesses to mitigate the threats.
on a draft directive establishing a framework for
the protection of soil. Negotiations between MS on The Soil Thematic Strategy entails:
the subject have been very difficult. A Communication from the EU Commission
A group of MEPs lead by the Rapporteur Cristina (COM(2006) 231) explaining why further action
GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINES have called for the contro- is needed to ensure a high level of soil protec-
versial soil directive to return to the EU agenda as tion, sets the overall objective of the Strategy
soon as possible and the Commission is also will- and explains what kind of measures must be
ing to overcome the political blocking alliance that taken. It establishes a ten-year work program for
the European Commission.
prevent the MS to agree on the proposal.
A proposal for a framework Directive
ELO has been and will continue to actively lobby (COM(2006) 232) setting out common princi-
the EU institutions and national governments to ples for protecting soils across the EU.
make sure that the new Thematic Strategy and its 2 Impact Assessment (SEC (2006) 1165 and
Framework Directive will be consistent with the SEC(2006) 620) containing an analysis of the
existing policies and contribute to the elaboration economic, social and environmental impacts of
of workable tools. The Organisation also partici- the different options that were considered in
pated in the Internet Consultation launched by the the preparatory phase of the strategy and of the
Commission on the subject. measures finally elected by the Commission.
7
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 8
ELO believes that the future of European agricul- to a comprehensive and ambitious new interna-
ture and forestry, as well as of the landscape, is tional agreement on climate change by the end of
without doubt linked to a sustainable water man- 2009.
agement. Therefore, to follow the setting of envi-
ronmental objectives and their implementation, For land managers and landowners, the impacts
having significant economic and social impacts, of climate change are mixed (a little warming does
ELO is involved in different activities organised by not necessary harm), but mostly negative, such as
the European Commission – DG Environment, higher CO2 concentration, increase of droughts,
under the umbrella of CIS. At present, ELO is also floods and storms, often accompanied by an
full member of the Strategic Coordination Group, increased spread of plant and animal diseases, the
the Strategic Steering Groups “WFD and Agricul- combination of factors hence leading to greater
ture”, “WFD and Hydro-morphology”, the Working volatility to manage.
Group on Flood Risks Management and Stake-
holder Forum on Scarcity and Droughts.
In all these groups, ELO seeks to improve the per- Context:
ception that other stakeholders have of landown-
ers’ activities and their impacts on water. Taking
The EU produces around 22% of global green-
into account the available resources and relevant
house gas (GHG) emissions.
timeframes, ELO also plays a key role in identifying
instruments and measures within the CAP and the
In order to address climate change, the Kyoto
Rural Development Programme which can be
Protocol (agreed on 11 December 1997 at the 3rd
used to help landowners and managers achieve
Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, entered into
the WFD objectives. At present is also taking part
in the preparation of the forthcoming guidance force on 16 February 2005) establishes an interna-
document on “Land Use & Groundwater”, aiming tional policy context for the reduction of carbon
to clarify land use pressures on groundwater in the emissions (the EU has agreed to a cut by 8% from
light of the current legislative framework. its 1990 emission levels by 2008-2012) and in-
ELO promotes best practices and incentives, and creases in carbon sinks. It entails the principle of
provides its expertise on other European policies financial and technological transfers to land man-
linked to water resources, for example the Nitrates agement projects and initiatives (through forestry
Directive, pesticides or Natura 2000 network. and farming) that sequester and protect carbon
Participation in such events as the European Water stocks through the Clean Development Mechanism
Conference (March 2007) and the launch of the (CDM) and Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
WISE (Water Information System for Europe, Mechanisms (LULUCF).
www.wise.eu), or in the preparation of the 5th
World Water Forum (to be held in 2009 in Istanbul), In December 2002, the EU created an emissions
allows ELO to anticipate the requirements for trading scheme (EU-ETS, became operational in
water management in the EU. 2005) in an effort to meet these tough targets
through the first and biggest market enabling
companies to trade carbon dioxide emissions into
CLIMATE CHANGE the atmosphere.
Climate change was the hottest topic in 2007, It means that quotas were introduced in six key in-
mainstreamed in the main policies at EU level, and dustries (energy, steel, cement, glass, brick mak-
culminating with the United Nations Climate ing, and paper/cardboard) as well as a system that
Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, punishes MS that fail to meet their obligations,
where the Bali Roadmap was adopted. As a result starting from a fine amounting €40/ton of carbon
of the Conference, the EU’s top priority is to come dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008.
8
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 9
In 2007, the EU Commission proposed an Energy CALM means Carbon Accounting for Land Man-
package including a Renewable Energy Roadmap agers. It is a publicly available, fully-free, on-line,
that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG business-based calculator of annual flows of GHG
emissions by 2020 and a separate Strategic Energy emissions and carbon sequestration from a de-
Technology Plan (SET Plan) was also proposed in fined land-based business. It follows the widely
order to support the 20% targets by increasing the used and internationally agreed Intergovern-
use of 'clean' or low GHG-emitting energy tech- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method-
nologies. Financing issues related to this Plan have ology for business to understand, quantify and
been delayed until November 2008. manage their GHG emissions. The methods used
On 23 January 2008: the EU Commission for the national GHG inventory have thus been
proposed a new bouquet of measures: the so- adapted for application to individual businesses.
called Climate change and energy package,
which includes CALM will enable farmers and land managers to
An updated Emissions Trading System to create assess their level of emissions and sequestration
a borderless ETS to drive cuts in GHG emissions and then consider remediation measures taking
from big industrial emitters with an EU-wide into account for example energy efficiency, fer-
CO2 cap tiliser use efficiency, manure systems, renewable
Specific, binding national targets so that energy.
Member States know exactly what they have to
do outside the ETS, in sectors like transport, ELO already actively promotes concrete meas-
buildings, agriculture and waste. ures :
New rules to stimulate carbon capture and
storage (CCS) Enhance water resources through building of
A new approach through a Directive proposal reservoirs
to actively promote renewable targets, again Adapt cultivation practices (no-tillage) and
including binding national targets. cropping
New state aid rules. Livestock management through prevention of
heat stress and diseases
Mitigation of soil erosion by maintaining vege-
The rural world is aware of its share of responsibil- tation cover
ity in terms of contribution to climate change - as Conversion to uneven-aged, mixed species
forests with continuous cover and replacement
farming is the source of 2 powerful greenhouse
of individual tree species (better suited to the
gases (methane and nitrous oxide) which must be
site and climate)
reduced-, but also of its unique role in mitigat- Greater investment in sea defences and coastal
ing climate change through good land man- management techniques
agement practices (i.e. leverage effect).
9
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 10
10
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 11
tional workshops and a final conference ( 28 No- our respective members, in the presence of repre-
vember in Brussels) plus ‘technical’ support such sentatives of the ministries of the environment
as guidelines, practical cases, survey, the Twinning and agriculture, the European Commission, local
Lite project and the website www.natura.org. and regional authorities, businesses, NGOs and our
members and local partners.
The Austrian seminar, organized on the shores of It is interesting to note that their conclusions co-
the Danube delta, brought together over 30 ‘am- incide. The most important of these is the issue of
bassadors’ representing almost all the EU coun- who should fund environmental services. Manag-
tries. For five days people who work with Natura ing the land requires long-term perspectives and
2000 on a daily basis were able to network (an idea five year management plans have been judged
copied in the Twinning Lite project with a sort of too short if we take into account the two major Eu-
sponsoring scheme among the various members). ropean reforms underway – that of the CAP via the
This seminar enabled them to share their experi- 2008 health check, and that of the budget in-
ences and perceptions of the problems and thus tended to prepare the 2008-2020 perspectives.
communicate more efficiently with a broader pub- The need to draw up the right specifications as
lic. Cooperating, supporting each other and ulti- part of detailed legislation was also mentioned as
mately contributing to a better understanding of a primary point.
Natura 2000 were some of the keys to the success
of this meeting on the Danube. The future chal- The participants also highlighted the need to be in-
lenges were also examined, the biggest one being cluded in the designation and adjustment process
the funding of environmental policies. The fact is of environmental legislation. This is in order to
that with the exception of LIFE+, environmental avoid the landowner discovering that his estate is
policies are not directly funded as such but are part of the Natura 2000 network and not having a
part of integrated systems and thus use funds clue how it works. This active participation builds
available to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), trust between the different users of the natural en-
rural development, structural funds, research vironment and promotes knowledge of everyone’s
funds or even fisheries funds, which shows how needs. Such a ‘bottom up’ approach on a local and
complicated it can be even for the informed user. national level prevents the wrong message getting
Apart from the question of fund accessibility, the through and means problems can be anticipated
need for information to be accessible is the most in the field and more readily settled in the event of
pressing one for rural stakeholders. With a network a dispute. This consensus, backed up by explicit
composed of 25,000 sites, i.e. 20% of the EU’s ter- and transparent rules, is vital to clearly identify the
ritory (April 2007, but the EU data was for 25 Mem- advantages for the users and managers of the
ber States), today with the EU’s 27 countries the Natura 2000 sites. By pooling examples of good
network covers 9 biogeographical zones. To re- and bad practices, they can find new activities and
spond to that DG Environment has drafted spe- thus adjust better to market demand.
cialist documents, such as management models,
targeted workshops and on-line helpdesks etc. The final NNP conference took place on 28 No-
However, the implementation and management vember 2007 in Brussels. As ELO strongly under-
of these environmental policies is the responsibil- lines, private owners have been protecting nature
ity of the Member States. and biodiversity for decades. They adapt as nature
evolves, with the intention of transferring it to fu-
Each partner in the NNP project organized 5 work- ture generations. However, it is indispensable to
shops and ELO was responsible for 5 national sem- find the right balance between economic needs,
inars taking place in Latvia (12 July), Romania (4 environmental conservation and social impera-
September), Luxemburg (12 September), Poland tives in order to continue this approach on a daily
(9 November) and Portugal (14 November). All basis. This is only possible if economic conditions
workshops were co-organised with the support of are reliable.
11
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 12
12
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 13
both European and international regulations, good practices and management in hunting es-
received their labels on this occasion as recogni- tates will be produced. This handbook will consist
tion for exemplary management. They are the of guidelines based on the different experiences
Crown Hunting Grounds in Belgium (Hertogen- of all partners involved today in the PWE initiative.
wald and St Michel-Freÿr) for the region of conti- In 2008, it will be then proceeded to the extension
nental Europe, La Garganta in Spain and Herdade of the labellisation to other estates
da Raposa in Portugal for the Mediterranean, and
the Chambord Estate for the Atlantic regions.
13
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 14
The establishment of the Natura 2000 network is a group SEBI-Streamlining European Biodiversity In-
major achievement for the conservation of biodi- dicators, the Invasive Alien Species and the Busi-
versity and of biological resources in the EU and it ness and Biodiversity initiative. During theses
is now a priority to ensure that there is sufficient meetings, the ELO members’ viewpoints were reg-
expertise, local knowledge and resources for the ularly expressed either orally or via written contri-
management of these Natura 2000 sites. butions. These groups are particularly interesting
as in addition to the representatives of the Com-
ELO believes that one of the key obstacles in the mission, the participants come from the European
creation of the network has been local opposition, Environmental Agency (EEA), national ministries
often stemming from misunderstanding about the and other NGOs.
aim and implications of the network. For the fu-
ture management of sites this problem is likely to
persist. In this process, all concerned stakeholders D/ ELO synergy with other lobby
– such as private rural actors, public authorities, groups on biodiversity: the Natura
conservation NGOs – must be involved. This is why
raising awareness through the provision of clear
2000 Users Forum
and reliable information and by open and con-
ELO during 2007 also worked in close collabora-
structive dialogue between these stakeholders is
tion with other lobby groups involved in biodiver-
essential to the success of the network. In this re-
sity management via its Natura 2000 Users Forum.
spect, hunters and anglers together form a stake-
This platform enables us to share information with
holder group which is highly representative of
other groups acting at the European level and to
rural communities, with close links to land use
create synergies on common concerns. The core
practices, and covering a broad spectrum of socio-
task was focussed on the articles of the Natura
economic backgrounds. Raising awareness of
2000 Directives, notably article 6.4, article 8, arti-
hunters and anglers is therefore an efficient way
cle 12 on strict liability and article 17 on reporting,
to transmit the aims of the network to our rural ac-
and the maritime designation process.
tors at local level, living in and around Natura 2000
sites.
Therefore ELO’s ambition in the SHAI programme E/ ELO support to its members
ambitions is to further ameliorate the sound im-
plementation of the Natura 2000 network to the ELO during 2007 provided information and sup-
benefit of the countryside and nature. port to its members on specific cases related to
Natura 2000 and biodiversity protection, notably
concerning the local interpretation of the Direc-
C/ ELO participation in various tives and the relation with the local stakeholders
European Commission meetings and administrations. These cases not only have a
local interest but also underline the difficulties of
an adequate implementation in the field and be-
ELO lobby action during 2007 was also focussed
come show cases for our network.
on technical aspects of the elaboration of the en-
vironmental legislation related to biodiversity pro-
tection or interpretation of existing legislation.
Indeed, the potential pressure on the rural activi- F/ ELO Participation in Green Week
ties depends on the interpretation of the concepts 2007
defined in the directives and their national imple-
mentation. Therefore ELO participated in the Eu- ELO actively participated on behalf of its members
ropean Commission expert groups such as the in Green Week 2007 organized in Brussels by the
Habitats Committees, the biodiversity expert European Commission, having two stands, in the
14
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 15
Charlemagne building and - for the 1st time in the development in rural areas. These aim at reward-
Green Week edition- also in the Parc du Cinquan- ing innovative, environmentally friendly and en-
tenaire. As on previous occasions, FCS and ELO trepreneurial achievements in the European
wanted to share the experience of the manage- countryside.
ment of private properties, via best practices, to
better respond to the new needs of the European 1. Anders WALL Award
citizens: protection of biodiversity and human ac-
tivities, man and nature, scarcity of natural re- Since 2002, the Anders WALL Foundation (Swe-
sources such as water etc. One of the drivers was to den), Friends of the Countryside, DG Environment
involve the next generation, via its daughter or- and the Royal Agriculture Academy of Stockholm
ganization (Young Friends of the Countryside), have been presenting an annual award to encour-
which gathers members between 18-35 years old, age and promote efforts made by creative entre-
to develop and link the environmental spirit with preneurs who have contributed to the creation of
the economic viability, to connect the countryside a “positive rural environment”: landscape preser-
“lifestyle” and the technology innovation (such as vation, biodiversity enhancement, cultural her-
renewable energies, use of water resources, air itage conservation and contribution to the rural
protection, Climate Change etc). The ELO and FCS economy. The Anders WALL Award 2007 was pre-
members’ action was particularly well perceived sented to the Jarras-Listel estate, represented by
and the stand received a lot of visitors asking ques- Paul-François VRANKEN, who understood very
tions and details. early on the role of environmental protection com-
bined with sustainable use of landscape for wine
production on a relict sandbank from the Rhone
river included in the Natura 2000 network.
http://www.friendsofthecountryside.net/
award.htm
15
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 16
2. Belleuropa Award
The Belleuropa project, was launched in Italy in the
late 1990’s, thanks to the initiative of Giuseppe
NATTA, a leading environmental figure, with the
cooperation of ELO. Belleuropa is based on the
principle that in much of Europe, the rural territory
is highly degraded, and a quality environment is
thus a scarce resource upon which much value is
placed today. The Belleuropa Award is presented
to a rural property, which thanks to agri-environ-
mental measures has developed into an important
example of Third Generation agricultural produc- K. KOSTOPOULOS, E. SEQUEIRA, T. de L’ESCAILLE
tion, achieving significant results from an environ-
mental point of view. In 2007, the Belleuropa
Award was presented to les Salins du Midi (France). BIOMASS/BIOFUELS
16
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 17
The EU Commission has set up energy and climate allows minimising fossil fuel use in processing and
change policy objectives: to reduce greenhouse fuel transport.
gas emissions by 20% and ensure 20% of renew-
able energy sources in the EU energy mix; in order It is nevertheless crucial to remember that biofuels
to reduce EU primary energy use by 20% by 2020. widely vary in terms of their impact; it is hence
It would save the EU some € 100 billion and cut necessary to monitor the whole life cycle of each
emissions by almost 800 million tonnes a year. To type of biofuel, i.e. how they are produced (inten-
that end, there is a strong need to develop cost- sive v. extensive production, use of fossil-based
effective low carbon technologies, including the fertilisers, fossil fuels, etc.) and their impacts on
use of biomass and sustainable biofuels. soil, water resources, biodiversity etc. Energy Effi-
ciency is a key word: 2nd (and 3rd) generation bio-
With this mind, in 2007 ELO organised and at- fuels have a bigger potential than 1st generation
tended numerous conferences and events crops, which are limited and can compete directly
throughout the EU 27, such as the Sustainable En- with food production, even though they prepare
ergy week that took place in Brussels, as well as the way for the next generations.
meetings with MEPs, national and EU high-level of- However these new alternative materials are faced
ficials, in order to explore partnership opportuni- with the technical challenges of being converted
ties with ELO on this matter. into high-performance fuels and to ensuring that
life-cycle CO2 production is low, performance of
the fuel is high and manufacture can be commer-
3 main types of biomass cially viable. In addition, they are expensive to
• Agricultural resources (flax, rape, chicory, beet- produce. More research, adequate policy and legal
root, perennial grasses, miscanthus, etc) framework are needed, as well as deeper
• Forestry resources (forest residues, wood in- involvement of the decisions makers and of the
dustry sub-products, very-short-rotation cop- investors.
pices) see ELO’s EUROFORENET programme.
• Waste (manure, agro-alimentary industries, etc)
Uses
EU support for bioenergy:
• Biomass for heat
• Biomass for transport fuels (biodiesel form
The use of biomass for energy receives support
oilseed rape, bioethanol from wheat, sugar beet.., from the Common Agricultural Policy through
ETBE, etc) the CAP reform (decoupled income support, en-
• Biomass for electricity ergy crops on set-aside areas, energy crop pre-
• New products from Biomass research (biochem- mium, sugar reform – with sugar beet for ethanol
icals, solvents, biopolymers, biolubricants, bio- eligible under both regimes, exempt from quotas,
materials , etc) etc), from the Rural development Regulation
• Building materials (2007-2013) with its set of measures in support of
Processes renewable energy (e.g. biomass supply chains, pro-
combustion, gasification, cogeneration, bio- cessing capacity, bioenergy installations, including
methanisation, plant chemistry, etc energy use of forest material), and from funds ded-
icated to Research through technology Platforms
(industry-led co-operation to develop Strategic Re-
Biomass is all renewable raw material of plant or search Agendas (SRAs) which set R&D goals and pri-
animal origin destined for non-food use, and can orities such as forest-based Sector Technology
be considered as one of the most important re- Platform (www.forestplatform.com); biofuels Tech-
newable energy sources thanks to several benefits nology Platform (www.biofuelstp.eu), plants for the
future (www.epsoweb.org), sustainable Chemistry
including large savings in GHG emissions. Its sus-
(www.suschem.org) and the 7th RTD framework
tainable use is part of a virtuous circle that enables programme as well as Intelligent Energy for Eu-
the efficient management of waste, supporting an rope.
integrated approach, and when produced locally
17
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 18
18
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 19
19
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 20
20
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 21
21
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 22
much slower, but is increasing as farmers further What does coexistence mean?
realize the benefits of biotech crops. Directive 2001/18/EC covering the deliberate re-
lease into the environment of GMOs allows MS to
GMOs can provide clear benefits for agriculture establish coexistence measures.
and the society as a whole. They include sustain- The coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to
able benefits for farmers as they increase global choose between conventional, organic or GM-
crop productivity in improving food feed, fibre, en- based crop production, in compliance with EU leg-
vironmental and energy security. islation on labelling and-or purity standards to
Some concrete non-exhaustive examples: pre- avoid commingling and cross-pollination, and re-
venting insect feeding damage, improving weed lates to the economic consequences of farmers
control programs, preventing crop loss to plant complying with the coexistence measures as well
disease, using less pesticides, mitigating loss of soil as dealing with adventitious presence (AP) of GM
organic matter, fighting erosion and compaction trait in non-GM crops. A major concern when
through less ploughing, and a crucial sparing of adopting GM crops in agricultural systems relates
water resources, as well as direct benefits for con- to the possibility of unwanted GM inputs into non
sumers such as improving the quality and nutri- GM crops.
tional benefits of food crops, hence contributing The EU regulations have introduced a 0.9% la-
to the alleviation of poverty and hunger. belling threshold for the AP of GM material in non-
In addition, they allow a much more efficient pro- GM products.
ELO participated in the 3rd edition of the confer-
duction of “green fuel.” Besides, green biotech-
ence in coexistence between GMOs and non GM
nologies have already reduced the global
agricultural supply chain (GMCC07) that took place
environmental footprint of production agriculture
in Seville, on 20-21 November 2007.
by 14% including reductions of CO2 emissions
The upshot of the conference showed that coexis-
equivalent to taking 5 million cars off the road for
tence raises questions such as harvest purity, crop
one year.
transformation, transport and segregation effi-
ciency.
ELO is in favour of research which would produce
genetically enhanced plants able to increase
National measures adopted or proposed in the
yields, make industrial processes more efficient MS regarding coexistence:
and cleaner, while providing safer, healthier and
better-tasting food for consumers. In addition, this Draft coexistence legislation has to be notified to
new generation of « biotech products » could also the EU Commission. In August 2007, 15 MS noti-
be used to develop pharmaceutical products for fied theirs. In some cases, the competence for co-
human health or proteins for life-saving drugs. existence measures lies at the regional level.
In 2007, the legislation had already been adopted
The European Commission has developed a leg- after notification in 7 MS: Austria, Czech Republic,
islative framework based on the precautionary Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Hungary and Slova-
principle to ensure that GMOs that are grown, kia.
marketed and imported meet the highest stan- Romania adopted coexistence legislation before
dards of safety for the environment, and for its accession to the EU. In some cases, framework
human and animal health, subject to risk assess- legislation was adopted or proposed, with detailed
ment. good agricultural practices still to be developed.
Technical strict coexistence measures include iso-
In 2007 special attention was dedicated to the lation distances between GM and non-GM fields,
concept of coexistence. in some specific cases for crop and seed produc-
tions. They are key segregation measures.
It is up to MS to provide for flexible measures such
22
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 23
as buffer zones, which can be additional or substi- products such as meat, eggs and milk to be la-
tuting isolation distances, temporal isolation belled « GM free ». This label should appear in a
measures (cultivation intervals), volunteer control, near future in the food department stores.
cleaning of equipment (harvest, transport, stor- It is crucial to demonstrate to public opinion as
age), etc. well as to the decision makers the difficult situa-
In addition, some MS oblige GM crop growers to tion in which land managers and farmers will be
undergo specific training. Specific information (and to some extent, already are), in a globalized
procedures have been established to ensure a flow economy not really favourable to EU farmers, if the
of information to public authorities, and in many EU doesn’t get to grips with adopting a more
cases, neighbours. courageous attitude towards biotechnologies.
The EU coexistence bureau is in charge of elabo- The EU is indeed already far behind its competi-
rating crop specific guidance for coexistence tors who could increase their yields thanks to
measures. It aims to have EU-wide application biotechs.
while taking into account the diversity of agricul-
tural systems.
ELO strongly believes that the coexistence
should be left open to the choice of producers
and pave the way for more research. The Euro-
III. PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE
pean Commission should ensure that, for biotech AND ECONOMICALLY
products authorized in the EU, Member States do VIABLE AREAS
not restrict farmers’ access to such products
through the use of arbitrary and illegal bans or
through the adoption of discriminatory national
THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE CAP
or local coexistence rules. AND THE HEALTH CHECK
In 2008 a study from the ISAA (International Serv- 2007 was a busy year for the ELO in getting ready
ice for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applica- for the Health Check. In November the European
tions) showed that in 2007 GM crops increased by Commission unveiled its Communication on the
12% i.e. 12.3 millions hectares, hence amounting Health Check of the CAP. The so-called ‘Health
114 millions hectares in the world. This increase Check’ is build on the approach which began with
has been followed by 2 million more GM farmers. the FISCHLER reforms, and seeks to improve the
However, at EU level, clear political decisions are way rural policy operates, based on the experience
still expected as regards authorisation of new gathered since 2003, and to make it fit for the new
plants… challenges and opportunities in EU 27.
Some MS are very hostile to GMOs, as illustrated The Communication examined the possibility of
by the brand new German law allowing certain further policy adjustments to take account of mar-
ket and other developments in focusing in partic-
ular on the Single Payment Scheme, market
support instruments and new challenges. The
Communication was designed to kick off a wide-
ranging six-month consultation which took the
form of a questionnaire to which ELO responded.
Also part of this broad stakeholders’ consultation,
the DG AGRI organised on 6 December 2007in
Brussels a conference which dealt with all the top-
ics covered by the Health Check. It brought to-
gether experts, including ELO, representing the
various social and economic interests (producers
and cooperatives, trade, industry, workers, con-
23
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 24
sumers, environmentalists, animal welfare inter- ELO indicated that it believed in decoupling pay-
ests) as well as Members of the European Parlia- ments from production and recoupling them to
ment, the Economic and Social Committee, the the delivery of environmental and cultural land-
Committee of the Regions and the Court of Audi- scape services, and this should apply to all prod-
tors. Another special Seminar on the future of the ucts and in all regions. Retained product-specific
dairy sector, which ELO also participated in, took coupled payments seemed unfair competition to
place in Brussels on 11 January 2008. other producers within the single market.
In its answer to the Health Check questionnaire, -As regards the adjustment of the Members States’
ELO constantly recalled that it did not consider Single Payment Scheme model towards a more
that the Health Check should introduce new re- flat rate of support, at national or regional level,
forms, stressing the need for stability. It accepted ELO thought that Member States should be al-
the Health Check could and should bring simplifi- lowed to make these adjustments, but it should be
cation and streamlining, but not fundamental re- an optional, not compulsory move.
form. Both Pillars of the CAP have been radically Besides, ELO supported a close relationship be-
reformed since 2004 and many of these reforms, tween the payments and the land, this was the
including the new Rural Development Pro- best way to ensure the land was kept in Good Agri-
grammes, have just been approved by the Com- cultural and Environmental Condition.
mission for implementation, while some remained
to be approved. -On cross-compliance, ELO made it clear that if
ELO stressed that whilst it was right to discuss the there were to be an enduring case for substantial
correct balance between the two Pillars and the payments to private land managers for their de-
mechanisms for changing this balance, it was very livery of public environmental and cultural land-
hard to see how the outcome of such discussions scape services, then the real debate was in which
could be implemented before 2013.
form and through which instruments to make
In responding to the consultation, ELO was willing
these payments. What mix of Pillar 2 payments, for
to insist about the fact that ELO members were ex-
example in Agri-environment and Less Favoured
pecting more clarity about the way the CAP would
Area schemes, and Pillar 1 payments for respect-
evolve in the longer run and particularly on the fu-
ing tough EU standards would be optimal? ELO
ture financing of measures dealing with long term
had no clarity on this but if tougher EU standards
market failures.
– e.g. for water management – would to be ap-
The questionnaire was dealing with a couple of is-
plied then this would provide further justification
sues such as:
for farm payment. Simplification may lighten the
-On simplifying the Single Payment Scheme (SPS), administrative burden but should not undermine
ELO answer was that the elimination of the Fruit, the effectiveness of the Cross-Compliance meas-
Vegetable and Potato authorised entitlements was ures in delivering high standards.
already a sensible simplification. Provided set-
asides were abolished for good, the removal of set- -On capping, the Organization firmly said that if
aside entitlements would be another welcome the payments are to move towards a flat-rate or
simplification of the Single Payment System. Like- Regional Average Payment, then it makes no sense
wise the simplification of the 10 months rule al- to counter this simplification with a complication
ready underway was a welcome move. Set-aside to differentiate payments per hectare and digres-
have no place in the ‘decoupled’ CAP, however for sivity of payments according to farm payment size,
those Member States who wish to have voluntary and urged the Commission to drop it.
set-aside, this should be possible and imple-
mented under an EU-wide voluntary arrangement, -On price intervention, ELO believed that the best
paid-for and arranged by amending Pillar 2 agri- way to maintain the safety-net role of intervention
environmental schemes. was to maintain it as a measure of last resort in ex-
24
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 25
25
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 26
Throughout the year, ELO has been thoroughly ad- The focus of the rural development policy 2007-
vocating during various meetings with EU repre- 2013 is in line with three thematic axes laid down
sentatives and national senior officials that it was in the new rural development regulation. These
not too soon to start reflecting on the future adap- axes are:
tations which may be required for Pillar 2. Whilst 1. Improving competitiveness for farming and
there was a general acceptance that Pillar 2 meas- forestry;
ures for rural development and for paying for pub- 2. Environment and countryside;
lic environmental and cultural landscape services 3. Improving quality of life and diversification of
were the right general direction, there were many rural economy;
problems surrounding the present arrangements, 4. and the fourth axis, the LEADER axis, should
such as the financing of Pillar 2, the complexity contribute to the priorities of the other 3 axes
and administrative costs of some of the schemes, and introduces possibilities for locally based
the accessibility of the measures for all farmers and bottom-up approaches to rural development.
potential beneficiaries, measures to deal with the
continuing flight from the land, and the current
Rural
problem of the rising opportunity cost of environ- Development
mental delivery as commodity prices rise. 2007-2013
“LEADER” Axis
These are complex matters that will not be quickly
Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3
resolved. This is why the Commission should be Competi- Environment Economic
encouraging debate on these matters during the tiveness • Divers.
Land •
next two years. The ELO is very keen to participate Management Quality of
Life
in this debate and will be submitting its own
thoughts in a near future. Single set of programming, financing, monitoring, auditing rules
RURAL DEVELOPMENT After last years budget allocation, the main issues
in 2007 were the approval of the Rural Develop-
The strengthening of EU rural development policy ment Programmes presented by the different
is and should remain an overall EU priority. ELO Member States and/or Regions. The European
agrees that both traditional farming and forestry budget for the period 2007-2013 is €90.8 billion
together with the multitude of other rural activi- (€67.6 billion as a core fund and the rest under Bul-
ties remain crucial for land use and management garia and Romania Accession & (Voluntary) Mod-
of natural resources in the EU’s rural areas. Rural ulation from Pillar 1). ELO was able to actively
development plays an increasingly important role contribute to the elaboration of an optimum rural
in helping rural areas to meet the economic, social development funding allocation in cooperation
and environmental challenges of today’s society. with the Commission which would better enable
Therefore providing support for the development landowners to adjust to a changing market. ELO
of rural areas is a key tool for the restructuring of has also reacted that this is far too little to achieve
the agricultural sector, and it also encourages di- the increasingly challenging needs of the rural
versification and innovation in these areas. areas. As a result, European areas, including agri-
culture, forestry and other rural activities, are con-
During 2007, ELO was actively engaged in efforts tinuing to come under significant pressure.
to support a rural development policy and partic-
ipated in the EC’s Rural Development Advisory About 2/3 of the rural development programs
Committee as well as attending many other meet- were approved at the end of 2007. On average the
ings in the field of rural development to represent relative distribution of the funds according to the
it members. Axes was:
26
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 27
Axis 1 (Improving competitiveness for farming and farmers and managers in the areas) and preven-
forestry) 34%, tion of land abandonment and sustainable land
Axis 2 (Environment and countryside;) 44%, management. ELO welcomes the revision to pro-
Axis 3 (Improving quality of life and diversification vide a solution which will fit the new objectives
of rural economy) 13%, and tackle the problems in areas with an excess of
Axis 4 (Leader) 6%, criteria or those without-of-data criteria and
Technical Assistance 3%. maybe not describing handicaps to production. In
2008 a consultation will be held in which ELO will
Within each axes rural programs could choose for react to position the importance of landowners
a whole set of measures. About two-thirds of the and rural businesses in LFA areas and the handi-
budget under axis one will go to three measures caps they have in these areas. We will also empha-
which are: farm modernisation, increase of the size the crucial role land owners and managers
added value of production and investments in play in avoiding land abandonment and sustain-
agricultural and forest infrastructures. Under Axis able land management.
2, the majority of the budget (89 %) will be used
for the following measures: agro-environmental Within the CAP Health check debates ELO will em-
payments, payments for less-favoured areas and phasize the new challenges in Rural Development
first afforestation of agricultural land. Under Axis including renewable energy, effects on environ-
3, 66% of the budget will be used for the follow- ment, water management and risk management
ing measures: renewal and development of vil- and the problems of having to adapt to these new
lages, basic services and development of landowners and managers challenges in the fu-
micro-enterprises. ture. ELO continues to emphasize that land man-
Now that national and regional Rural Develop- agement and ownership contribute to the
ment Programs are being finalized we continue to economic, ecological and social dimension repre-
emphasize that landowners and managers should senting the overall viability and development of
be able to touch funds in all 4 axes for the multi- the rural areas (all 3 axes of RD).
tude of public services they deliver for the rural
areas and the high added value to rural develop- Rural landscapes, which are highly valued in the
ment. Land is the crucial factor in developing rural EU today, are the result of agricultural activities.
areas. The Rural Development Regulation enables Besides producing marketable products, land
land managers and rural territories to define ac- owners and land managers have to face changing
tivities tailored to their local needs. contexts and their impacts (globalisation, climate
change, competition, food safety, - quality and -
In 2007, the implementation of the European Net- availability, society’s demand for non-marketable
work on Rural Development has already been also goods like landscape, biodiversity and other rural
realized by several MS. The Commission also an- amenities). All these factors confront rural com-
nounced the creation of a Coordination Commit- munities with threats and opportunities as well.
tee of the European Network on Rural Rural areas also remain crucial in the renewable
Development with representatives of the national energy debate whether this is from biomass (in-
rural networks and 12 organisations (4 among each cluding bioenergy) or other sources (water, wind,
axis) working in Rural Development at European sun,…). Regional biomass programs are important
Level. ELO has submitted a strong candidature to assets for land and forest owners and managers.
be included in this Coordination Committee.
It remains clear that much more needs to be done
The Commission has started to review the delimi- to improve rural development in the future and
tation of areas under Less Favoured Areas (follow- the start of the new programming period should
ing the Council Regulation EC 1698/2005). The be the right moment to turn policies into actions
objectives are to avoid depopulation (keeping on the ground.
27
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 28
Alongside the creation of the wood-energy plat- In order to achieve these objectives, EURO-
form, ELO continued to work to represent the in- FORENET used two tools:
terests of private land and forest owners and • A communication campaign and awareness
producers at the International, pan-European raising campaign, developed on the one hand
and European level. ELO organised and attended by means of a dedicated website and on the
a series of meetings and conferences, such as the other hand by means of monthly thematic ar-
5th Ministerial Conference for the Protection of ticles aimed both at experts and non special-
Forest in Europe, the Forests Dialogue (an inter- ists.
national platform of exchange) and the Forestry • A platform for study and analysis of the
and Cork’s Advisory Group. The ELO also joined wood-energy supply chain, composed of 4 dis-
the Forest Technological Platform created in tinct working groups that engage profession-
2005. als and specialists from France, Belgium, Italy
and Slovenia, with the intention of developing
a practical guide to be downloaded on the
website.
SPECIFIC ACTION EUROPEAN
FOREST ENERGY NETWORK Experiences, practices and principles within the
EUROFORENET EUROFORENET action have been selected based
on three criteria:
– www.euroforenet.eu sustainable forest management, local and rural de-
velopment and reduction of GHGs
From November 2006 onwards ELO was the proj- Moreover, the action created the opportunity for
ect leader of a 1-year action called EUROFORENET an important extension of the ELO network in Eu-
(European Forest Energy Network). This work was rope by creating and consolidating links from the
done in collaboration with the FECOF (European local to the international level. ELO strengthened
Federation of Forestry Communes) the IFFC (Insti- its image and its recognition as a major player on
tut de Formation Forestière Communale) and the the European and international scene in the field
EOMF (European Observatory on Mountain of forestry and energy.
Forests). EUROFORENET is a direct application of
the European Forest Action Plan Key action n°4:
“Promoting the use of forest biomass for energy gen-
eration”. (www.euroforenet.eu)
28
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 29
29
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 30
30
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 31
31
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 32
V. ENLARGEMENT
On 1st January 2007 Bulgaria and Romania became
full members of the European Union, which now
has 27 Member States. Their accession after seven
years of preparation closes the Union’s sixth en-
largement. However this is not an end in itself but
a stage, albeit a decisive one, part of a long process
launched after the transformations of 1989.
“This enlargement has strengthened peace and
has brought greater prosperity to Europe. This is VI. STATUS OF PRIVATE
the right decision for Bulgaria and Romania and PROPERTY
the right decision for Europe”, declared José
Manuel BARROSO. The European Parliament also ELO and its sister organisations - GEFI and
welcomed the new Members of Parliament, which UEHHA - are clearly promoting the property rights
has increased the number of MEPs from 732 to and its uses as the basis or our modern societies.
785. ELO believes that not only the fundamental right
At present, the share of rural territories in the EU itself is to be promoted, but also its concrete ap-
increased to 90%; and sustainable development as plications, in order to avoid having an empty shell
well as the implementation of environmental leg- at the end of the day. It therefore focuses on all the
islation, including NATURA 2000 became one of issues which could have an impact on its mem-
the main issues of the EU agenda to ensure a bal- ber’s activities.
anced development of EU 27.
For a long time ELO has been developing its net- The situation differs from one Member State
work of member organisations in the New Mem- to another, despite the fact that most of the na-
bers States (NMS) and Candidate Countries (CC) tional constitutions refer to property rights as
32
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 33
stated in the European Charter of Fundamental From an ELO and GEFI perspective, this is not
Rights. The question of repossession is dealt with a “mini treaty” as the Charter is part of it and the
at national level and while some Member States core question of better functioning of the Union
have solved the issue via legislation, such as is solved. The ratifications should intervene before
Poland hopefully in the near future, some other the 1st January 2009 and most of the Member
Member States have opted for a case by case ap- States have this time opted for a parliamentary rat-
proach, leading to delays and lots of difficulties, ification.
such as Romania. From an ELO perspective, it is
fundamental that each Member States solves the
difficult issue of repossession as this is the only EUROPEAN COURT OF
way forward, and as there is a societal demand to HUMAN RIGHTS – ECHR
solve this issue. A proper legal framework that
safeguards the principles of private ownership can ELO is closely following the ECHR court cases
help to achieve sustainable development of EU and it is to be underlined that a large part of the
cities and rural areas, representing 90% of the ter- cases remains related to property rights. Since
ritory, as well as contributing to the competitive- 2005, one case particularly interested ELO and its
ness of EU rural economy, while protecting social sister organisation GEFI (Groupement Européen
cultural and historical heritage. des Féderations intervenant dans l’Immobilier –
Real Estate Private Owners): the court case HUT-
TEN-CZAPSKA vs. Poland, (35014/97 – 22.02.2005)
DEBATE ON THE on rent blockage. Poland was condemned (viola-
tion of Article 1 of Protocol 1 – protection of prop-
CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY erty) as the rent was too low to even enable the
maintenance of the building by the owner. Poland
ELO actively lobbied during the period of elab- appealed and in 2006 the Grand Chamber upheld
oration of the Constitutional Treaty especially on the decision. This pilot case is particularly interest-
property rights issues. The inclusion of the Euro- ing as it clearly condemned the rent blockage. On
pean Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty the 24th of April 2008, the ECHR notified the
was a key element of ELO’s support for the Consti- friendly settlement which promises both to re-
tution. Since the end of 2006, after the ratification solve fundamental problems with Polish housing
process was blocked by the French and Dutch ref- legislation – affecting some 100,000 property
erenda, were some attempts to relaunch the de- owners and to provide redress for the applicant.
bate on the Treaty without success. The
discussions were mainly at intergovernmental
level. FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES –
REDUCED VAT AND EU REITS
On the 12th December 2007 in Strasbourg, the
3 institutions jointly proclaimed the European Reduced VAT is an important issue for ELO and
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The “Union recog- its sister organisations for housing and repairs. A
nize the rights, freedoms and principles of the seminar was organized for our French members in
Charter”, with a special exception for UK and Brussels the 26th February 2007 on the need to
Poland. As a consequence, their citizens will not maintain reduced VAT applied to housing repairs.
have direct access to the European Court of Jus- The issue is regularly raised on many occasions,
tice – ECJ on the basis of a breach of their funda- notably in the context of the European Parliament
mental rights (the option of the ECHR remains for Intergroup on Urban Housing, and reduced VAT is
them). The Lisbon Treaty was signed on the 13th of recognised as an important element for the oper-
December 2007. ators, should they be private or public. The inde-
33
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 34
pendent evaluation published on the 21st June mission. This was the occasion notably to debate
2007 by the Danish consultancy Copenhagen Eco- on the contribution of the real estate sector to the
nomics Aps, favourable to reduced VAT applied to objectives of reduction of our environmental foot-
repairs, was followed by a Communication of the print. The core discussion was on the revision of
Commission on the 5th of July 2007 and by a pro- the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
posal of a Directive modifying the 2006 Directive. Several elements of the proposal are of high im-
2007 was a crucial year for VAT and ELO is hopeful portance for our members and we are notably fo-
to see its members viewpoints taken into account cusing on the 1000 m² threshold abandonment,
in the new text to ease the VAT process and its con- the need of a special attention to buildings which
crete implementation when undertaking repairs are not listed and which are likely not to perform
on real estate in cities, rural areas and historic the same as modern buildings, but are neverthe-
houses or places of worship. less highly contributing to the historical and socio
cultural link of rural and urban communities, the
The ELO and its sister organisations joined a coali- need for adequate incentives, the need for profes-
tion lead by European Property Federation on the sional training and the need for a clear process of
need of an EU REIT – real estate investment trust. the energy labelling of buildings (A, B, C etc) as it
Our European real estate industry organisations in could adversely hamper the market. ELO wel-
2007 lobbied the European Union to consider comes the Commission’s initiative and works to-
plans for an EU REIT, a cross-border real estate in- wards inclusion of its members viewpoints in the
vestment company structure that would have sim- future text.
ilar tax advantages to those in national
jurisdictions. The EU is already consulting on pro-
posals for cross-border open-ended real estate HISTORIC HOUSES
funds, and should also consider a similar close-
ended investment alternative. Most large EU mem- ELO works in close cooperation with the
bers already have some form of REIT legislation, Union of European Historic Houses Asso-
although considerable differences between Mem- ciations (UEHHA), to identify common
ber States exist, particularly concerning opera- problems and solutions for private owners, partic-
tional and leverage restrictions and whether stock ularly regarding the fiscal and legal framework for
market listing is mandatory. This REIT vehicle could the conservation and restoration of buildings with
enable fairer competition across Europe and en- a historic, architectural and natural importance.
hance market security and stability. The coalition
viewpoints were elaborated on the basis of the re- UEHHA positioned itself on a number of policy is-
sults of a study made by Maastricht University sues that have a direct impact on historic houses.
(available on the ELO website). ELO will pursue its
work on this issue in 2008 aiming at a favourable As regards the cultural dimension of heritage,
scheme for real estate investment. UEHHA has been selected to be a partner to the
European Commission’s European Year of Intercul-
tural Dialogue 2008. The UEHHA General Assem-
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY WEEK AND bly this year focused on education as a means to
REVISION OF THE ENERGY contribute to a better society by exploring the pos-
sibilities of social integration by heritage and in-
PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS tercultural dialogue.
DIRECTIVE - EPBD
ELO and UEHHA also published their position as
ELO and its sister organisations partici- regards the EU policy on Plant Protection Products
pated in the Sustainable energy week which affect historic gardens and surroundings.
organized at the beginning of January Whilst acknowledging the need to reach a high
2008 under the auspice of the Com- level of health and environmental protection,
34
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 35
UEHHA warned of the lack of alternative products democracy and transparency and enhanced effi-
which can harm biodiversity by altering ecosys- ciency in the decision-making process. In this con-
tems and questioned the economic feasibility of text, the European Parliament sees its powers
the policy implementation. reinforced notably through the extension of the
scope of the codecision procedure, which puts it
In addition, in the context of the EU’s sustainable on equal footing with the Council in policy-mak-
energy policy and the fight against climate ing. One can hence measure the significance of ad-
change, ELO and UEHHA have also been reflecting vising the European Parliament elected members
on the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive on all policy areas covered by ELO.
as regards the role of Historic Houses in creating a
more energy efficient built stock. Indeed, it
claimed that financial and tax incentives would be URBAN AND HOUSING INTERGROUP
useful to reach the energy efficiency goals in order
for owners to be able to reduce CO2 emissions.
ELO, via its sister organization GEFI
Also it pointed out that policies need a higher level (Groupement Européen des
of coherence by conciliating for instance the need Fédérations intervenant dans l’Im-
to keep the Historic character whilst implement- mobilier) actively participated in
ing energy efficiency requirements. ELO and the intergroup Urban and Housing chaired and co-
UEHHA have together been fostering the integra- chaired by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ADLE) and Alain
tion of energy efficient methods and technologies HUTCHINSON (PSE) respectively. The intergroup
into private historic monuments with the aim of firmly established itself as part of the Parliament
achieving sustainable energetic profiles as an an- stakeholder scene, bringing together various as-
swer to the upcoming clean energy challenges. sociations involved in urban planning and re-
structuring, as well as representatives of public
Finally ELO and UEHHA have been examining the housing groups, service-providers and private
state of play regarding the VAT policies across Eu- property managers. The various meetings of the
rope so that they correspond to the expectations intergroup and subgroup lead to the elaboration
of society as regards the services rendered by pri- of a European Charter for Housing. ELO has con-
vate owners to the society as a whole. The conser- sistently emphasized the role of private owners in
vation of heritage needs regulatory and taxation a sustainable and affordable property mix but we
support without which the sector cannot fulfil its fear that the current text is mainly focusing on
aims. public housing and not addressing the housing
issue on an holistic basis.
A series of side events co organized by or under
the auspices of the Intergroup took place in rela-
VII. CONTACT WITH THE EURO-
PEAN PARLIAMENT
ELO dedicates substantial attention to Parliamen-
tary affairs. It is expanding its contacts within the
Parliament but also participates in official meet-
ings such as Intergroups.
35
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 36
tion to housing, reduced VAT, sustainable devel- hance the European Parliament concrete demo-
opment of cities and urban areas, raising also the cratic value. Thanks to this activity, ELO expands its
issue of urban sprawling, social cohesion funding, networks and confirms its reputation as an essen-
and the contribution of housing to the energy tar- tial actor of the countryside.
gets.
GEFI organized a workshop on taxation and re- The aims of the Intergroup are, among others, to
duced VAT in collaboration with the intergroup in • promote the sustainable management and
February 2007 for its French member’s delegation use of wildlife and ecosystems,
of 100 representatives lead by its President Jean • defend the interests of countryside citizens,
PERRIN. The Members of the European Parliament • maintain discussions in the European Parlia-
Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (President of the Intergroup, ment on national, regional and local issues re-
ADLE), Jean-Paul GAUZES (EPP), the Commission lating to biodiversity and countryside
DG TAXUD and the French representation had an activities,
opportunity to exchange views on housing related • stress the socio-economic, cultural and envi-
taxation issues. ronmental value of rural activities.
36
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 37
property investment and enhance market se- the EU REIT Coalition, said:
curity and stability “Creating an EU REIT would turn the current
The leaders of the European Landowners Organi- fragmented EU market for property companies
zation, the European Property Federation, the into the largest and likely most efficient prop-
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, The Eu- erty market in the world. Investors, small and
ropean Group of Valuers’ Associations and the large, private and institutional, would greatly
Urban Land Institute Europe have asked the Euro- benefit from that.”
pean Commission to take an initiative to overcome
obstacles to cross-border property investment in Piet EICHHOLTZ, Professor of Real Estate Finance
the EU and enhance market security and stability: at Maastricht University and leader of the research
an EU Real Estate Investment Trust or EU REIT. team said:
“The academic literature and additional empir-
The REIT is a vehicle under which investment can ical evidence presented in our report highlight
be directed in a tax efficient manner into the real the very arbitrary nature of differences in na-
estate sector. A Maastricht University study high- tional REIT structures in Europe and provide
lights five main drivers for an EU framework: strong and fundamental arguments for the cre-
ation of an EU REIT. The EU REIT does not have to
1. the need to address increasing distortions of be created from scratch. Both in the EU and out-
competition as national REITs multiply; side of it, there is a lot of experience with these
regimes, and careful analysis of this experience
2. the opportunity to buttress market safety and provides direction towards an optimal pan-EU
security. Simply by ensuring a properly func- structure.”
tioning Internal Market for real estate invest-
ment, the EU can make a major contribution to
the control and stabilisation of property mar-
kets;
37
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 38
• The absence of workable statistics. Potential • The discussion during the conference made
players within the industry need access to clear that some ‘homework’ needs to be done,
clear facts and figures representing the viabil- i.e. better statistics are required in order to be
ity of the industry in terms of investment and more transparent and provide an improved
business plans. For example the total amount overview of the market, in reference to mobi-
of biomass in Europe is an unknown. The way lizing wood and supplying woodchips. There
in which the energy created is measured in needs to be standardization of final product
terms of volume of wood used and energy throughout the chain so that the consumer
output seems to vary from project to project can rely on access to the best information.
and country to country. For example, what is
38
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 39
• Toolkits available to private or public bodies • The platform of exchange of knowledge and
were presented during the final conference case studies showed great results. For instance
and are represented in more detail in the the 4 main case studies led to additional ex-
Guidelines on Local Forest Energy Networks amples which were presented and can be
for better mobilization and supply of wood. found on the website platform - www.euro-
Woodfuel Integrated Supply/Demand forenet.eu.
Overview Mapping – WISDOM - methodology
was one such method, which identifies two • The importance of being able to project the in-
main planning levels: strategic and opera- dustry, to be transparent was a clear response
tional. Strategic aims are: during discussions. The industry needs a rep-
resentative structure in Brussels. EURO-
Identify and outline woodfuel surplus and
FORENET is currently a network. It should be
deficit areas, i.e. areas with positive or neg-
the beginning of something more. To consti-
ative woodfuel supply/demand balance,
tute a ‘roadmap’ for the future, i.e. to build a vi-
for the entire country.
sion for the sector with industrial choices
Identify administrative units and forest dis- balance and arbitration for the uses of wood.
tricts with high bio-energy potential (sur- There is also a need to follow technological de-
plus areas) velopments – and ways of promotion (like the
solar industry has done so successfully).
Outline the potential sustainable supply
zones of selected location in consideration
of urban/rural woodfuel consumption and
suitable/accessible production capacities
Support strategic planning and policy for-
mulation aiming at the establishment of
sustainable wood energy systems
Objectively define priority areas of inter-
vention within which in-depth studies and
operational planning should be carried out
with precedence.
Operational aims
39
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 40
40
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 41
Transnational Giving Europe Network. The amount depopulation leads to decreased voter power and
kept for the service will be only 5% for gifts up to economic globalisation marginalizes rural interests
€50,000; for the next €100,000 only 2% is charged; in the public decision making process. Capital col-
for the next €500,000 another 1% is withheld, with lection is so far developing nicely. The exposure of
an overall ceiling beyond that of €9,500, whatever RISE in the public debate has been quite beyond
the size of the gift. expectations and should be of help in future fund-
RISE has obtained seed money from the BNP ing.
PARIBAS for €100.000 and private contributions
amounting to a quarter as much. It has invested Therefore, we look forward to 2008 with the belief
€10.000 for a land reclamation project north of that there will be sufficient funding for our first
Madrid. It has indications that it may obtain fur- projects, and that the profile of RISE will continue
ther donations totalling €1.2 million, and possibly to grow.
€2.1 million, and has raised interest with a number
of companies with whom the possibilities of part-
nerships are being assessed. Work has been ham-
pered by lack of staff time, but the CEO is now
assisted by one junior staff and is about to obtain
the free part-time collaboration of a senior staff. A
letter has been sent to friends to be contacted Corrado PIRZIO-BIROLI
with a request to help the take off of a small regu- CEO
lar team to manage the foundation and pursue the
capital campaign. This should markedly improve
its capacity for action on all fronts.
41
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 42
By reconciling food, fibre and environment, we are views and experiences. Also, with the support of
focusing the scope of ELO’s action on the essential Franz FISCHLER’s RISE Foundation and Corrado
role of landowners managing their land. PIRZIO-BIROLI’S Consultative Committee, the ELO
is apt to develop a vision on how to meet the chal-
Mitigating climate change and halting the loss of lenges the future has in store for us.
biodiversity are core concerns for 2008. This is why
we will place a link on our website to the carbon As usual, the ELO will promote truly sustainable
calculator system, described previously. land management , and thus will defend property
Rural actors have a unique role to play in mitigat- rights against the inadequate use of legislation
ing climate change through good land manage- which threatens to undermine the economic via-
ment practices. bility of rural businesses, upon which the conser-
vation of the countryside we cherish, along with
ELO, together with Friends of the Countryside, our its rich biodiversity and wealthy economy all de-
partner organisation representing rural and fam- pend.
ily businesses, provides a platform for exchanging
42
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 43
43
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 44
44