Environment

LIFE support for environmental NGOs

in 2013

Involving civil society in the EU policy process

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

LIFE (“The Financial Instrument for the Environment”) is a programme launched by the European Commission and coordinated by the Environment Directorate-General (LIFE Units - E.3. and E.4.).

The contents of the publication “LIFE support for environmental NGOs in 2013” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors: Jon Eldridge (Editor, ASTRALE GEIE - AEIDL), Joanne Potter (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL), Kirsten Heppner (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL), Lucie Trokanova (Nature and Biodiversity Expert, ASTRALE GEIE - AEIDL, Communications Team), Christophe Thévignot (ASTRALE GEIE - AEIDL, Communications Team Coordinator). Managing Editor: Hervé Martin, European Commission, DG En-vironment, LIFE E.4). LIFE NGOs series coordination: Stefan Welin (DG Environment, LIFE NGOs coordinator), Valerie O’Brien (Environment DG, Publications Coordinator). Technical assistance: Pavlos Doikos, Robert Atkinson, Georgia Valaoras, Christy Duijvelaar (Astrale GEIE). Production: Monique Braem (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL). Graphic design: Daniel Renders, Anita Cortés (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL). Photos database: Sophie Brynart (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL). Acknowledgements: Thanks to all LIFE pro-gramme beneficiaries who contributed comments, photos and other useful material for this report. Photos: Unless otherwise specified; photos are from the respective NGOs. For reproduction or use of these photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Cover photo: AlexMax - istockphoto.com - Design D. Renders.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);• at the European Commission’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet (http://

ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union):• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/

index_en.htm).

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-79-44180-6ISSN 2315-2249doi:10.2779/142595

© European Union, 2014Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

L

IFE, the EU’s financial instrument for the environment, was founded in 1992. The last phase of the pro-

gramme, LIFE+, ran from 2007-2013 and had a budget of €2.143 billion. Though around 78% of the LIFE+

budget was dedicated to funding the actions of projects, LIFE+ also supported the activities of EU-level environ-

mental NGOs through the competitive and transparent awarding of annual operating grants.

Specifically, the LIFE+ Regulation provided funding for “operational activities of NGOs that are primarily active in

protecting and enhancing the environment at European level and involved in the development and implementation

of Community policy and legislation” (Annex 1 to the Regulation). The number of NGOs funded each year varied

according to the quality of the applications, the amounts applied for and the total budget available, but typically

around 30 NGOs were supported by LIFE funding.

This funding for NGOs aimed to strengthen their participation in environmental policy making and implementation.

It is vital that this process is as open and wide reaching as possible, involving all stakeholders, including NGOs that

are well placed to convey public concerns about the environment and balance the interests of other actors.

European NGOs also play a valuable role in preparing position papers and being present on expert groups, as well

as by conducting research studies and raising awareness.

Calls for proposals are published on the DG Environment web page and the received applications for the yearly

grants are then evaluated and ranked according to the degree in which the NGO can contribute to priority EU policy

areas. Environmental NGOs must be non-profit making, independent and active on a European level. Also, they must

have members in at least three EU Member States.

This is the second time a brochure has showcased examples of activities carried out by environmental NGOs re-

ceiving the LIFE operating grants. This brochure gives a broad overview of the contributions made by the 32 NGOs

funded during 2013, including more in-depth descriptions of the activities carried out by four NGOs in different

policy areas.

Foreword

1

Foreword ....................................................................................................... 1

Informing and implementing EU environmental policy ...... 2

Driving sustainable economies ........................................................ 4

Greener healthcare for Europe ......................................................... 6

Working towards clean and safe ship recycling ...................... 8

Protecting local biodiversity through Slow Food ................. 10

List of NGOs funded in 2013 ......................................................... 12

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

In 2013, a wide range of environmental NGOs were supported by operating grants, allowing them to not only carry out EU policy but also to make key contributions to the decision-making process.

Renewables Grid Initiative (RGI) promotes 100% integration of electricity produced from renewable energy sources

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Informing and implementing EU environmental policy

Phot

o: J

ürge

n -

Wik

imed

ia C

omm

ons

2

Without the operating grants many of the NGOs would not be able to fully play their vital role in en-

vironmental policy making and implementation. A total of 32 NGOs in 2013 received grants amounting to nearly €9 million.

The grants are awarded on the proposal’s relevance to EU policy. The Commission makes an assessment of its poten-tial for shaping and implementing policy in key policy areas, such as climate change, nature and biodiversity, environ-ment and health, natural resources and waste, and horizon-tal and cross-cutting issues.

Similar to 2012, a large number of proposals in 2013 focused on horizontal and cross-cutting issues, while climate change

initiatives also featured highly. In all categories, however, policy making and implementation had a slightly stronger focus than awareness raising and environmental education.

This funding stream of the LIFE programme supports NGOs of all sizes and thematic focuses and covers a wide geo-graphic area. In 2013, the average NGO supported by LIFE was based in Brussels and had around 18 permanent staff members. It had a network of on average 43 member or-ganisations, most of which were located in EU Member States – this network stretched over 14 European countries on average. NGOs are expected to contribute to policy im-plementation in Member States and involve stakeholders at a national and local level, so the extent of its network is an

Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) ran an informational campaign on hazardous substances

Birdlife Europe is a leading conservation NGO focusing on bird species, sites and habitats

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

Phot

o: w

efc.

euPh

oto:

Jua

n La

cruz

- W

ikim

edia

Com

mon

s

3

make the case for a long-term ban due to their impact on bee populations.

Similarly, Health Care Without Harm campaigned in 2013 for the banning of mercury in blood pressure devices, a result that was achieved in April of 2014. Operating Grants also frequently allow NGOs to take on a staff member in Brussels in order to more effectively follow and contribute to Euro-pean environmental policy. CDP provides a good example of this aspect of the grant.

Partnerships on specific issues are also fostered thanks to LIFE funding. For the aforementioned Slow Food campaign, the NGO teamed up with European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee-Life). NGOs are able to learn from experienced partners as well as benefit for additional capacity and expertise.

Campaigning can make many different forms, as was dem-onstrated in 2013. As part of its focus on the EU Ship Re-cycling Regulation, NGO Shipbreaking Platform, for example, organised an exhibition in Brussels featuring photographs and paintings of conditions in shipbreaking yards in Chittagong, Bangladesh. This exhibition was aimed at EU decision makers.

Finally, NGOs in 2013 highlighted areas of non-compliance with EU legislation, produced education materials, carried out staff training, developed strategy and managed publicity. Moreover, the development of networks was another typical NGO activity, enabling them to be more effective in commu-nicating and carrying out policy.

The LIFE+ NGO Operating Grant scheme is thus a great way of supporting NGOs in their efforts to reach a wide range of stakeholders and boost the involvement of civil society in the legislative process. Indeed, NGOs overwhelmingly assert that LIFE funding is essential to their role in shaping EU en-vironmental policy debate and implementation.

important consideration. It is for this reason that many of the NGOs emphasise, in their proposals, the value of the support that they can draw from their network of members.

In 2013, the average LIFE-funded NGO also participated in 14 expert groups, sent out 38 press releases and submitted 28 documents (positions papers, policy briefings etc.) to EU institutions. It carried out such activities through an overall budget of around €730 000, of which typically 45% was provided by LIFE. This figure, however, varies considerably from one NGO to another, ranging from 11 to 70%.

Scope of activities

This brochure aims to show the range and value of the ac-tivities supported by this strand of funding in the LIFE Pro-gramme. Benefiting NGOs focus on policy across a range of issues and facilitate the practical implementation of EU policy. They also have a key role to play in including citizens in environmental policy making.

The activities of four environmental NGOs are highlighted in this brochure – addressing environmental issues relating to food production/consumption, carbon reporting, shipbreaking and healthcare. Taken together these NGO activities provide a good illustration of the type of actions that are supported by this aspect of LIFE funding.

Indeed, many NGOs focus on the revision and introduction of EU legislation in their field of interest. For Slow Food, for ex-ample, the introduction of a two-year ban on three neonico-tinoids was a successful end result of their campaign against this group of insecticides, though the NGO is continuing to

CDP, formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project, is a global NGO that provides investors and governments with environmental insights from businesses and cities. It is helping them make the right deci-sions that support sustainable, thriving economies with low green-house gas emissions, better managed water resources and better protected forests.

CDP made an valuable contribution to the debate on CO2 emission reductions and the 2030 targets

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

C L I M A T E C H A N G E : R E D U C T I O N O F G R E E N H O U S E G A S E M I S S I O N S

Driving sustainable economies

Phot

o: E

urop

ean

Uni

on

4

I f we are to avoid a “Mad Max scenario” of uncontrolled rising global temperatures, either carbon emissions

need to be dramatically capped or greater investments in alternative energy sources need to be made so that they replace fossil fuels, says Steven Tebbe, Managing Director of CDP in Europe. In both cases, investors such as banks, private investment and pension funds, must reassess their investments. “They will ask ‘why do I even have this value on the books if it’s an asset that depends on how big the oil fields are’? It becomes what they call a ‘stranded as-set’,” he explains.

CDP was set up to provide such investors with information that enables them to make informed decisions concerning their investments. An economic, as well as an environmen-tal, case can be readily made for investing in ‘low-carbon companies’ and CDP provides the required data and facts to make that case.

“We are running a huge data machine,” says Tebbe. “CDP provides the only global environmental disclosure system for companies and cities to communicate their impacts and progress to investors, companies, policy makers and the public. We have become a vital market mechanism and that requires funding. That’s why the Life+ operation-al grant is so essential,” he adds. LIFE funding in 2013 helped the NGO expand its operations in Central and East-ern Europe, allowing it to employ a staff member in War-saw. “What LIFE enabled us to do was quite spectacular. Our funding challenge as an NGO is that we’re not pho-togenic. We are not a bird-saving or a panda-saving NGO. We don’t produce heart warming pictures that you can use to attract donations. We are changing the way the world operates towards sustainable economic systems.”

The LIFE funding also in part enabled the NGO to take on a staff member in Brussels who is dedicated to policy is-sues. “We have been very helpful on a number of issues. In particular the EU directive on non-financial reporting…and we have also supported the forming of opinion on 2030 [CO

2 emission reduction] targets,” says Mr Tebbe.

Influencing policy makers

Currently, CDP works internationally with 767 institu-tional investors holding US$92 trillion in assets to help reveal the risk and opportunities in their investment port-folios. Many of these traded companies are much more “optimistic about having strong, ambitious policy on the

In the UK, CDP played a key role in the passing of legislation on mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting

Oganisation: CDP - Carbon Disclosure Project

Address: 3rd Floor, Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, Thomas More Street, London, E1W 1YW

Website: www.cdp.net

Amount awarded (€): 423 491.00

EU contribution (%): 51.82

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

Phot

o: E

urop

ean

Uni

on

5

Actions such as these taken in one country can have a far-reaching impact. “We can say to another country, ‘look at what the UK has done, surely you can do the same?’,” he says. France is the leading country in Europe on manda-tory, non-financial reporting. In order to avoid duplication for companies, CDP’s aim now is to facilitate the exchange of experience between Member States to build a ‘critical mass’ that will see other countries adopt reporting com-patible with the global CDP reporting system.

“You can only manage what you can measure, and that’s what we do. The problem is that our society is not measur-ing the value of the common goods such as clean air, safe water or standing forests. We are currently not putting an economic value on it and this means that we are also not managing it. What we are trying to do is to start measur-ing it, asking what are the impacts of what companies are doing? And then, investors at first, and society at large, will start evaluating and managing it. Our ultimate goal is to catalyse action from these key players in order to move towards a sustainable economic system that is in harmony with nature.”

environment, than mainstream trade associations would have us believe” according to Mr Tebbe. If their products are more energy efficient than those of their competi-tors, for example, then they see legislation as a means of gaining a competitive advantage and levelling the playing filed. The NGO argues that the information that it provides should inform policy making, given that it is based on the transparent, voluntary reporting by the companies them-selves and thus provides the basis for achieving a balance between the demands of environmental groups and those of trade associations.

A key achievement of the work programme in 2013 was the signing of a memorandum of understanding with both the Italian and Portuguese governments (a third MoU with the Spanish government is expected to be signed shortly) to boost the number of companies and cities that monitor and manage their carbon emissions in these countries. “We say to governments ‘help us help you’. They then co-sign a letter that we send to all the companies in their jurisdic-tion saying that we encourage you to respond to CDP… You want to create allies that pull in the same direction and have a lot of leverage – and it depends on the company. If it’s a state-owned company then this will have a lot of leverage,” explains Mr Tebbe.

In Germany, the approach has been slightly different. The federal government asked the NGO along with its part-ner, WWF Germany, to produce a guidance document to help German companies report their greenhouse gas emis-sions and climate change strategies. This project, which emphasises the impact that climate change can have on business models, depended on the CDP systems that were very much supported by the LIFE grant. A specific web-site was set up to explain the project, and the government is monitoring its impact before committing to a similar MoU to the ones that have already been signed. Neverthe-less, it is continuing the initiative for another two to three years to further educate companies and stakeholders. “It’s a little bit like a test lab for the German government,” says Mr Tebbe.

The approach of CDP is always to “advise governments on what works and what is accepted”. In the UK, CDP was instrumental in getting the mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reporting legislation passed. In 2013, CDP worked with the Department for Food, Environment & Ru-ral Affairs (DEFRA) to write guidelines for the new regula-tion requiring quoted companies to report climate change information in their annual reports to shareholders from October of that year. With LIFE funding the NGO was able to second a member of staff to DEFRA, while CDP staff also answered questions from companies about the new regulation on behalf of the department.

“Whenever we take a sip of water nowadays, we drink a cocktail of pharmaceuticals,” says Anja Leetz, Executive Director of the European chapter of the global non-profit organisation Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) that is committed to greening the healthcare sector.

HCWH took its messages to such events as CleanMed Europe in 2013

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

H E A L T H : P R O T E C T I N G W A T E R S U P P L I E S

Greener healthcare for Europe

Phot

o: J

ohn

Cairn

s

6

At this point, we can no longer deny that we have a problem. And the issue is only going to increase,”

Ms Leetz adds. “The important question is how do we ad-dress it?”

Numerous scientific studies have shown that there are more than 630 different active pharmaceutical ingredients and their metabolites in water and soil globally. While the con-centration levels are still quite low and experts say that they are not harmful to the public, we simply do not know what the long-term impact of continuous exposure to phar-maceuticals will be – on either the environment in general or on human health.

“A big part of the drugs we take are excreted unchanged, and thus end up in the environment in active form. Prudence dictates that we should take action,” stresses Ms Leetz. “First of all, we need to identify the pharmaceuticals in the environment and the pathways they took. And then we have to take action to reduce them.”

In the long term, this means getting pharmaceutical com-panies to develop medicines that are ‘green by design’ - i.e. drugs that have the lowest possible impact on the environment.

HCWH Europe and its 76 member organisations – hospitals, local councils and regions that procure for hospitals, envi-ronmental and health organisations, unions, public health institutes, and universities – are addressing the issue from different angles. They are seeking to change the way doc-tors make prescriptions, raise awareness of the issue in the healthcare sector as well as the general public, and help shape related EU policies.

In 2013, the organisation and its members conducted a study on drug collection schemes in the EU. According to EU legislation, Member States are responsible for the safe collection of unused medicines. However, how the law is im-plemented at national level is up to Member States. HCWH’s

study showed that many EU citizens do not know how im-portant it is to dispose of their unused drugs correctly.

“Some people want to do the environmentally responsible thing,” explains Ms Leetz. “So they empty left over medicine into the sink to recycle the glass bottle it was in, unaware of collection schemes or that putting pharmaceuticals in the water supply can have a negative impact on the environ-ment. Others have simply no idea how to dispose of medi-cine.” Moreover, the study showed that for three countries – Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta – no evidence could be found that they had a scheme in place.

No to harmful medical devices

In 2013, campaigns and communication activities also fo-cused on safer medical devices. Thanks the HCWH’s work, the sale of thermometers containing the highly toxic chemi-cal element mercury was banned from 2007, and the NGO is continuing to raise awareness globally of the dangers of mercury. HCWH also campaigned for the banning of mer-cury in blood pressure devices, a result that was achieved in April 2014.

“

HCWH Europe campaigned for an amendment to the European Parlia-ment’s proposal to phase out harmful substances such as DEHP phased out for use in medical devices

Oganisation: Health Care Without Harm

Address: 1 Rue de la Pepiniere, B1000 Brussels, Belgium

Website: https://noharm.org/

Amount awarded (€): 311 720.00

EU contribution (%): 70.00

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

Phot

o: H

CWH

EU

ROPE

7

With a view to the ongoing revision of the EU regulatory framework for medical devices (Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC), HCWH Europe successfully cam-paigned to have the European Parliament add an amend-ment to the proposal that would see harmful substances such as DEHP phased out for use in medical devices where alternatives exist. The proposal is now with the Council, and HCWH Europe hopes that the Council will support the Parlia-ment’s view.

DEHP is a phthalate, an organic compound, commonly used as a plasticiser in PVC for feeding tubes and intravenous bags. As a proven harmful substance, DEHP is on the candi-date list to be phased out under current chemicals legisla-tion, REACH, and has already been banned from use in toys for children under three years old. However, the argument that medical devices save lives and are thus an exception has so far prevented a phase out of their use for this pur-pose – an argument hard to uphold since safer alternatives are on the market and in use, says Ms Leetz.

“Patients’ immune systems are already weakened,” she ex-plains. “Exposing them to these substances on top of every-thing else is not necessary, especially because some hospi-tals are already using safer alternatives.”

Substances, such as polyethylene, EVA and silicone are be-ing used in hospitals all over Europe, and HCWH Europe is doing its best to spread the message farther. Among other things, the organisation set up a website and database for medical device manufacturers and procurers.

Public procurement of goods accounts for 16% in the Euro-pean market and is one of the most important target sec-tors for HCWH’s campaigns, since greening procurement practices and criteria could finally motivate the medical de-vice and pharmaceutical industries to provide greener prod-ucts to hospitals. The idea is to foster innovation by creating demand through procurement.

Hence, HCWH Europe promoted sustainable procurement practices among both EU policy makers and healthcare pro-curers by organising workshops and events for procurers and policy makers in 2013.

Leading by example

“There are around 15 000 hospitals in Europe,” Ms Leetz points out. “If we can green how they go about treating pa-tients, that could have a massive impact on Europe’s en-vironmental footprint, including energy consumption: those hospitals are responsible for roughly 5% of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe, similar to the aviation or shipping industry.”

While efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions of aviation and shipping are very much in the public eye, the healthcare sector has received little attention in that respect to date – a fact that HCWH Europe has been working hard to change. “We believe that the healthcare sector can lead by exam-ple,” says Ms Leetz.

So, despite all these recent successes, a lot of work remains to be done. “Receiving the LIFE+ grant has been instrumen-tal in continuing our work, being able to employ staff, organ-ising workshops, bringing our members to events in the Par-liament or to our workshops,” emphasises Ms Leetz. “Being able to employ a communication officer as well as our policy team is important, since good communication is vital.”

And HCWH Europe’s communication strategy was highly successful in 2013: the organisation doubled the number of its followers on Twitter and expanded its campaigns on LinkedIn and Facebook. It created numerous project web-sites and publications – all with one aim in mind: reaching the largest possible audience, including policy makers and healthcare professionals as well as the general public.

“The link between healthcare and the environment is not an obvious one,” says Ms Leetz. “So, raising awareness still is one of the biggest challenges in our line of work.”

Patrizia Heidegger: “The LIFE grant helped us to substantially influence the debate for a progressive European regulation on ship recycling”

NGO Shipbreaking Platform is a network of environmental, human and labour rights organisations which seeks to prevent toxic end-of-life ships from being beached in developing coun-tries – in particular India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, the largest shipbreaking countries.

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T : R E C y C L I N G

Working towards clean and safe ship recycling

Phot

o: S

hipb

reak

ing

Plat

form

8

Its aim is “to ensure safe and environmentally sound dis-mantling of obsolete vessels by creating a catalyst for

reform and finding sustainable global solutions that encom-pass the principles of human rights, environmental justice, producer responsibility and clean production”, according to Patrizia Heidegger, the organisation’s executive director.

The platform’s secretariat in Brussels coordinates the net-work’s 19 members in 10 countries and interacts with policy makers, on both a European and international level, who are working on improving conditions in the shipbreaking industry.

Ms Heidegger says LIFE operating grants are extremely useful: this funding helped cover the NGO’s operating costs in 2013, as well as enabling it to carry out several other

activities. She explains: “We work on a very particular issue which is not well known to the general public and we com-pete with organisations working on ‘popular’ issues such as climate change. It is impossible for a small organisation such as ours to obtain a substantial amount of private do-nations to cover our core expenses.”

Shaping EU legislation

A major part of the focus of NGO Shipbreaking Platform in 2013 was the proposed European legislation on ship re-cycling. The EU Ship Recycling Regulation came into force in December that year; its aim is to reduce the negative impacts linked to the recycling of EU-flagged ships, espe-cially in South Asia, without creating unnecessary economic burdens.

“Globally, there is no definition of what clean and safe ship recycling is. The EU had to come up with its own definition and there was a lot of debate around that. The maritime industry and shipbreakers tried to dilute the proposed Euro-pean standard, which would have enabled beach shipbreak-ing facilities to be classified as green ship recycling yards,” says Ms Heidegger.

“We managed to influence the outcome of the regulation. The EU definition includes strict requirements asking European ship owners to use only modern ship recycling facilities off the beach. We were glad that our activities, which were enabled by the LIFE grant, helped us to substantially influence the de-bate for a progressive European regulation on ship recycling.”

As part of its advocacy work to influence policy on this issue, NGO Shipbreaking Platform organised an exhibition in Brus-sels in May 2013 featuring photographs and paintings of conditions in shipbreaking yards in Chittagong, Bangladesh.

Photograph of a young worker at the shipbreaking yards in Chittagong, Bangladesh, that featured in the Brussels exhibition

At a meeting in Islamabad, the NGO presented its report on the shipbreak-ing industry in Pakistan

Oganisation: NGO Shipbreaking Platform

Address: Rue de la Linière/Vlasfabriekstraat 11, 1060 Brussels, Belgium

Website: www.shipbreakingplatform.org

Amount awarded (€): 166 140.00

EU contribution (%): 61.01

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

Phot

o: S

hipb

reak

ing

Plat

form

9

The grant also financed NGO Shipbreaking Platform’s an-nual general meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, in October 2013. The organisation used the event to present a report it had compiled on the shipbreaking industry in Pakistan to an invited audience including politicians, scholars, researchers and journalists. The aim was to raise awareness about the industry and its negative impact on the environment and labour rights issues, according to Ms Heidegger: “This was the first NGO report on shipbreaking in Pakistan and the first time a civil society organisation had started working on the issue.” The organisation hopes that it will lead to the intro-duction of legislation on ship recycling in Pakistan.

In addition, the funding supported NGO Shipbreaking Plat-form’s corporate campaign, under which it seeks to engage directly with different stakeholders, such as ship owners and European recyclers, to raise awareness in the maritime in-dustry about the issue. “Many owners do not deal directly with ship recycling; they just pass vessels on to other par-ties to take care of them. We want to convince them to act responsibly when it comes to the end-of-life management of their fleet,” Ms Heidegger says.

The NGO launched a website in 2013 to support this cam-paign, www.offthebeach.org, which focuses on corporate practices. It features a database of ship owners and their practices of selling end-of-life vessels to substandard beaching yards, a blog reporting on best practices and new ship recycling policies, and an animated video about Euro-pean ship owners.

This exhibition was aimed at political decision makers in the European Commission, Parliament and Council who were forming the legislation.

The NGO also proposed the creation of a European Ship Re-cycling Fund into which all vessels calling at European ports must pay. The funds would be used to reimburse ship owners that have contributed when they recycle vessels in a clean and safe manner. “It’s a way to implement the polluter pays principle for ship owners,” says Ms Heidegger. The EU Ship Recycling Regulation did not include the immediate estab-lishment of the fund, but the European Commission is ana-lysing the possibilities for such an instrument in the future.

Other activities

The LIFE grant enabled NGO Shipbreaking Platform to carry out a range of activities. In December 2013, it organised the first Green Ship Recycling Conference in Brussels, informing European ship recyclers about the new legislative develop-ments and allowing them to meet each other, the NGO and representatives from the European Commission.

Ms Heidegger explains that these companies recycle mainly government-owned and military ships, as well as vessels that are too small to be sent further afield for disposal. It is hoped many of the European recyclers will be certified under the new EU regulation and that ship owners will con-sider recycling some of their vessels in Europe in future.

According to the NGO, some Chinese ship recyclers seem likely to apply for inclusion on the list of yards compliant with the new EU regulation. Consequently, in spring 2013 the NGO made a field trip to a number of facilities in China, which helped to develop its position on the industry there and improve its policy input to the European Commission.

Phot

o: P

ierr

e To

rset

Slow Food has created a catalogue of traditional products at risk of extinction

Fast food is a concept familiar to us all, but its green ‘virtuous’ twin, Slow Food – promoted by the NGO of that name – is a lesser known idea. Nevertheless, the movement is gathering more and more support for its campaigns for food production and consump-tion practices that respect local traditions and the environment.

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

B I O D I V E R S I T y : F O O D P R O D U C T I O N A N D C O N S U M P T I O N

Protecting local biodiversity through Slow Food

Phot

o: M

iche

le L

iste

llo

10

In 2013 the NGO was able to employ a full-time staff mem-ber in Brussels thanks to LIFE financing. Such a presence in

the decision-making capital allows Slow Food to better com-municate its messages as well as effectively present its posi-tion papers on key legislation. Key issues for the NGO in 2013 were GMOs, hygiene rules, animal welfare, food waste, sus-tainable fishing. Another important area was the banning of the use of the neonicotinoids, pesticides that adversely affects bees. In collaboration with European Beekeeping Coordination (Bee-Life), Slow Food drew up a position paper ‘Bees and ag-riculture. A vital alliance to be preserved’ and prepared a joint policy briefing, ‘Why are neonicotinoids a threat to ecological health and safety of the European Union?’ It campaigned in fa-vour of EU legislation banning neonicotinoids use in agriculture.

The campaign was successful. In April 2013, Member States voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids for two years from 1 December 2013. The move followed the 2013 report

of the European Food Safety Authority that concluded that these neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees.

The issue is illustrative of the NGO’s outlook, which recog-nises that local food production know-how that has been built up over centuries is in danger of being lost, says Paola Roveglia, a senior policy officer. “The first initiative, which was launched 20 years ago called the Ark of Taste, aimed to cre-ate a catalogue of traditional products at risk of extinction.”

The Ark of Taste is an online catalogue, collecting small-scale quality productions that belong to the cultures, history and traditions of the entire planet: an extraordinary heritage of fruits, vegetables, animal breeds, cheeses, breads, sweets and cured meats.The Ark aims to point out the existence of these products, draw attention to the risk of their extinction within a few generations, and invite everyone to take action to help protect them. Included in the Ark of more than 2 000

Slow Food campaigned for the banning of insecticides that are harmful to bees

Oganisation: Slow Food

Address: Piazza XX Settembre, 5 12042 Bra (Cuneo), Italy

Website: http://slowfood.com

Amount awarded (€): 424 580.00

EU contribution (%): 34.03

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

small-scale, traditional, quality food products are 37 differ-ent types of honeys and bee-related products.

Honey is just one of many areas of food production in which the NGO is actively creating international networks of quality producers. Through its grassroots projects, the NGO supports small-scale agriculture for a wide range of food products. It provides technical assistance through training seminars and visits, technical manuals and the exchange of experience. Slow Food also provides promotional support and communi-cation tools to producers, helping them to find new markets and to diversify their sources of income.

The NGO is helping to create an “alliance” between produc-ers and consumers, emphasises Ms Roveglia. In fact, Slow Food views consumers very much as ‘co-producers’ – a con-scious consumer who goes beyond the passive role of con-suming and takes an interest in those who produce our food, how they produce it and the problems they face in doing so.

Awareness-raising therefore has a central role to play in the NGO’s activities mainly through communication campaigns and international events. In 2013, these included Cheese and Slow Fish.

An international rallying cry

The NGO has its origins in a reaction to fast food. Founder Carlo Petrini organised a demonstration against the opening of McDonald’s branch on the site of the Spanish Steps in Rome in 1986. Three years later the international Slow Food movement was born in Paris and a manifesto was drawn up emphasising the value of locally and traditionally produced food that is not harmful to the environment.

“Food has lost its meaning from a social, environmental and cultural point of view,” says Ms Roveglia, and Slow Food is seeking to redress this imbalance. “We are working directly with producers at grassroots level to help them continue to produce and grow local and traditional products – mainly through the Presidia. The Presidia are projects that involve food communities in safeguarding native breeds, plant vari-eties and food products (bread, cheese, cured meats, wines, etc.). Their objective is to save traditional, artisanal, quality foods by strengthening the organisation of producers, rais-ing the profile of geographic areas, preserving traditional techniques and knowledge, and promoting environmentally and socially sustainable production models.”

The NGO is also seeking to promote the consumption of local and seasonal products to protect environment and human health. “Slow Food promotes the consumption of small-scale products sold in the local market, involving chefs as best am-bassadors of the ‘terroir’. One of the ways to promote the

product is to help the producers create a local network with hotels, restaurants and the media,” explains Ms Roveglia.

“We then link them to the Terra Madre network [its interna-tional network of food communities that meets every two years], where they can exchange their experiences with other local farmers. It helps restore dignity and pride to the role that farmers have,” she says.

Slow Food is organised in local chapters. While an overarch-ing agenda for the NGO is set on an international level, the local groups are free to organise their own campaigns to re-flect the particular concerns of the areas where they operate.

“In the association we try to provide tools for both those people interested in knowing more about the origin of food and how to make informed and responsible food choices, and those who want to take political action to change the food system,” says Cristina Agrillo of Slow Food.

In practice, this bifocal approach means producing consumer guides on different products while at the same time pro-ducing position papers on food waste and beef production, for example. In 2013, a position paper on animal welfare was produced. Also in this year, the NGO organised a ma-jor conference at the European Parliament on the sustain-ability of the food system as part of its ongoing campaign for the introduction of a common approach to sustainability across all the DGs of the European Commission. Slow Food is calling for a holistic approach to EU food policies and for the adoption of the overarching principle of sustainability as the basis for food sovereignty, food security and safety, food quality and diversity, and for the value of food.

Phot

o: S

low

Foo

d

Results of the Call for the submission of proposals from European non-governmental organisations primarily

active in the field of environmental protection for 2013 under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)

- Regulation (EC) No. 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May, 2007.

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

Organisation awarded Address LIFE grant €

% of total NGO annual

budget

BIRDLIFE Europe Avenue de la Toison d’Or 67, 1060 Brussels, Belgium 353,508 27.05

CAN-EUROPE Climate Action Network Europe Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 239,760 22.06

CCB Coalition Clean Baltic Östra Ågatan 53, 75322 Uppsala, Sweden 392,997 69.99

CDP Carbon Disclosure Project Europe Reinhardtstraße 14, 10117 Berlin, Germany 423,491 51.82

CEE Bankwatch Network Na Rozcesti 1434/6, 190 00 Prague, Czech Republic 350,232 63.58

CEEweb for Biodiversity Széher út 40, 1021 Budapest, Hungary 217,096 69.99

COUNTER BALANCE - Challenging Public Invest-ment Banks

Na Rozcesti 1434/6, 190 00 Praha, Czech Republic 95,401 69.11

EUCC Coastal & Marine Union Breestraat 89a, 2301 EE Leiden, The Netherlands 139,858 37.76

ECNC European Centre for Nature Conservation PO Box 90154, 5000 LG Tilburg, The Netherlands 343,290 62.21

ECOS European Environmental Citizens’ Organi-sation for Standardisation

Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 171,124 51.24

EEB European Environmental Bureau Bd de Waterloo 34, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 830,700 40.62

EUROPARC Federation Waffnergasse 6, 93047 Regensburg, Germany 152,934 27.85

EWLA Eurogroup for Wildlife and Laboratory Animals

Rue des Patriotes 6, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 168,909 35.33

EWP European Water Partnership Avenue de Tervuren 216, 1150 Brussels, Belgium 406,133 68.66

FACE Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU

Rue Frédéric Pelletier 82, 1030 Brussels, Belgium 147,680 27.22

FERN The Forest and the European Union Re-source Network

Groenesteeg 65, 2312 SP Leiden, The Netherlands 114,653 11.03

FOEE Friends of the Earth Europe Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 751,064 54.89

HCWH Health Care Without Harm Rue de la Pépinière 1, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 311,720 70.00

HEAL Health and Environment Alliance Boulevard Charlemagne 28, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 350,462 60.79

J&E Justice and Environment Udolni 33, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic 171,701 69.33

KYOTO Club Via Genova 23, 00184 Roma, Italy 53,506 14.50

NFI Naturefriends International Diefenbachgasse 36/3/9, 1150 Wien, Austria 236,054 46.36

PAN Pesticide Action Network Europe Rue de la Pépinière 1, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 106,617 55.00

RGI Renewables-Grid-Initiative Haydnstraße 1, 11203 Berlin, Germany 421,885 69.99

RREUSE Reuse and Recycling European Union Social Enterprises

Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 81,716 62.86

SaR Seas at Risk Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 92,208 20.69

SHIPBREAKING Platform Rue de la Linière 11, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 166,140 61.00

SLOW FOOD Piazza XX Settembre 5, 12042 Bra (CN), Italy 424,580 34.03

T&E European Federation for Transport and Environment

Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium 240,903 16.44

WECF Women in Europe for a Common Future Biltstraat 445 PO Box 13047, 3572 AW Utrecht, TheNetherlands

284,066 40.96

WWF-DCPO Danube-Carpathian Programme Ottakringer Strasse 114-116, 1160 Wien, Austria 185,062 22.09

WWF-EPO European Policy Office Avenue de Tervuren 168, 1150 Bruxelles, Belgium 573,647 21.80

List of NGOs funded in 2013

12

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

A number of LIFE publications are available on the LIFE web-site: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/in-dex.htm

A number of printed copies of certain LIFE publications are available and can be ordered free-of-charge at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/order.htm

LIFE thematic brochures

LIFE and Air quality (2014, 76 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-38304-5 – ISSN 1725-5619)

LIFE and Invasive Alien Species (2014 – 80 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-38307-6)

LIFE and Soil protection (2014, 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-38305-2)

LIFE support for environmental NGOs in 2012 (2014 – 16 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-34921-8)

Long-term impact and sustainability of LIFE Nature (2014 – 60 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-34698-9)

LIFE creating green jobs and skills (2013, 76 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-25091-0)

LIFE and human coexistence with large carnivores (2013 – 76 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-30401-9)

LIFE’s Blueprint for water resources (2012, 80 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-27206-6 – ISSN 1725-5619)

LIFE managing habitats for birds (2012 – 80 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-27587-6)

LIFE and coastal management (2012, 96 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-25091-0)

LIFE and invertebrate conservation (2012 – 56 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-23822-2)

LIFE and Resource Efficiency: Decoupling Growth from Resource Use (2011, 72 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-19764-2)

LIFE preventing species extinction: Safeguarding endangered flora and fauna through ex-situ conservation (2011 – 60 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-20026-7)

LIFE and local authorities: Helping regions and municipali-ties tackle environmental challenges (2010, 60 pp.– ISBN 978-92-79-18643-1)

LIFE and European Mammals: Improving their conserva-tion status (2011 – 60 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-19266-1)

Water for life - LIFE for water: Protecting Europe’s water resources (2010, 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-15238-2)

Other publications

Environment Policy & Governance Projects 2013 compilation (2014, 134 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-37961-1)

Information & Communication Proj ects 2013 compilation (2014, 12 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-37957-4)

Nature & Biodiversity Projects 2013 compilation (2014, 100 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-37956-7)

European environmental NGOs - LIFE operating grants 2014 (2014, 31 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-37959-8)

Best LIFE Environment projects 2012 (2013, 48 pp. – 978-92-79-32961-6 – ISSN 1725-5619)

Best LIFE Nature Projects 2012 (2013 - 36 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-33177-0)

European environmental NGOs - LIFE operating grants 2013 (2013, 36 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-29499-0)

Environment Policy & Governance Projects 2012 compilation (2013, 157 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-29479-2)

Information & Communication Proj ects 2012 compilation (2013, 14 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-29475-4)

Nature & Biodiversity Projects 2012 compilation (2013, 100 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-29476-1)

Best LIFE Environment projects 2011 (2012, 24 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-28217-1 – ISSN 1725-5619)

Best LIFE Nature Projects 2011 (2012 - 24 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-28217-1)

Environment Policy & Governance Projects 2011 compilation (2012, 122 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-25247-1)

Available LIFE publications

13

L I F E s u p p o r t F o r E n v I r o n m E n t a L n G o s I n 2 0 1 3

doi:10.2779/142595

LIFE “L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financial instrument for the environment

The LIFE programme is the EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action

Period covered 2014-2020

EU funding available approximately €3.46 billion

Allocation of funds Of the €3.46 billion allocated to LIFE, €2.59 billion are for the Environment sub-programme, and €0.86 billion are for the Climate Action sub-programme. At least €2.8 billion (81% of the total budget) are earmarked for LIFE projects financed through action grants or innovative financial instruments. About €0.7 billion will go to integrated projects. At least 55% of the budgetary resources allocated to projects supported through action grants under the sub-programme for Environment will be used for projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity. A maximum of €0.62 billion will be used directly by DG Environment and DG Climate Action for policy development and operating grants.

Types of intervention> Action grants for the Environment and Climate Action sub-programmes are available for the following:

- “Traditional” projects – these may be best-practice, demonstration, pilot or information, awareness and dissemination projects in any of the following priority areas: LIFE Nature & Biodiversity; LIFE Environment & Resource Efficiency; LIFE Environmental Governance & Information; LIFE Climate Change Mitigation; LIFE Climate Change Adaptation; LIFE Climate Governance and Information.

- Preparatory projects – these address specific needs for the development and implementation of Union environmental or climate policy and legislation.

- Integrated projects – these implement on a large territorial scale environmental or climate plans or strategies required by specific Union environmental or climate legislation.

- Technical assistance projects – these provide financial support to help applicants prepare integrated projects.

- Capacity building projects – these provide financial support to activities required to build the capacity of Member States, including LIFE national or regional contact points, with a view to enabling Member States to participate more effectively in the LIFE programme.

> Operating grants: LIFE programme also supports the operations of EU-level environmental NGOs through the competitive and transparent awarding of annual operating grants. This funding aims to strengthen the participation of NGOs in the dialogue process in environmental policy making and in its implementation.

Further information More information on LIFE is available at http://ec.europa.eu/life.

How to apply for LIFE funding The European Commission organises annual calls for proposals. Full details are available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life.htm

Contact European Commission – Directorate-General for the Environment – B-1049 Brussels (env-life@ec.europa.eu).

European Commission – Directorate-General for Climate Action – B-1049 Brussels (clima-life@ec.europa.eu). European Commission – EASME – B-1049 Brussels (easme-life@ec.europa.eu).

Internet http://ec.europa.eu/life, www.facebook.com/LIFE.programme, twitter.com/life_programme, www.flickr.com/life_programme/.

LIFE Publication / LIFE support for environmental NGOs in 2013

KH-AZ-14-001-EN

-N