Search

14.12.2005

Newsletter 06/05

N E W S L E T T E R - 6/05

Dear reader,

nuclear, gas, coal and renewables – what constitutes the mix of electricity we use? And what pollution does it cause? Consumers in Germany will get answers from their suppliers as of tomorrow, when the new mandatory electricity disclosure scheme enters into force. But this move, which is welcome in principle, has come unstuck in practice. This newsletter tells you why. You will also learn why the producers of transgenic plants can scarcely know what they are really doing, and why Öko-Institut scientists take such a critical view of uranium mining in Namibia’s Naukluft National Park. We further present brand new market surveys released by the EcoTopTen consumer information campaign, and ways to make mass tourism lighter on the planet. I wish you pleasant reading, a relaxing Christmas and a good start to the new year.

Katja Kukatz, 14 December 2005

CONTENT
F O C A L   T H E M E S

N E W S F L A S H

I N T E R N A L

E V E N T S

N E W S L E T T E R A R C H I V E


C O N T A C T


Electricity source labels clearly controversial

Öko-Institut is critical as electricity suppliers follow generators’ suggestions and misrepresent the energy mix

pic_1Nuclear, gas, coal and renewables – what constitutes the mix of electricity we use? And what pollution does it cause? Your next electricity bill should be able to tell you. From tomorrow, 15 December, a new disclosure scheme will apply in Germany. “This new, transparent approach could increase the demand for electricity generated in an environmentally friendly manner”, says Christof Timpe, energy expert at the Öko-Institut. But this move, which is welcome in principle, has come unstuck in practice. Timpe’s criticism is that “If suppliers follow the energy industry’s suggestions, the proportions of the various different energy sources in the power mix will be miscalculated – systematically”. This miscalculation will result in the amount of renewable energy looking larger, while the proportion generated from nuclear and coal seems smaller. “If you want to be sure of what you are buying, choose certified green electricity bearing the ‘ok-power label’ or the ‘Grüner Strom Label’ (green power label in gold)”, is Timpe’s advice.

Electricity disclosure was introduced to Germany in the Energy Industry Act (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz, EnWG), which came into force in July 2005. The German legislation is based on an EU Directive from 2003. By mid-December, all suppliers are obliged to start disclosing the sources of the energy they sell. As a minimum, the volume of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide which is emitted and the amount of radioactive waste produced must also be stated. The scheme aims to allow customers to choose suppliers on the basis of the origins of the electricity, rather than simply on price.

The Öko-Institut has been looking at the introduction of disclosure in a variety of research projects, and is currently working on improving the procedure yet further. “Disclosure is an important new aspect of competition in the energy sector”, explains Christof Timpe, coordinator of the Institute’s Energy & Climate Protection Division. “We know that many individuals, public and private bodies want to buy electricity generated in an environmentally friendly way, especially energy from renewable sources.” The new bills will show this information alongside data on the German average, to allow direct comparison, and Timpe is convinced that anyone who sees the figures for the power mix supplied to our sockets will become more aware of the environmental issues involved in electricity supply. This will increase ‘green’ suppliers’ prospects on the energy market.

However, the scheme is not without its controversies: the German Electricity Association (VDEW) has issued guidelines on implementing the new disclosure rules, but the Institute has criticized these. Timpe believes that most suppliers are not ready to grasp the opportunity which disclosure represents. “But the biggest problem is that the energy industry wants to introduce a reporting procedure which is systematically flawed”, he states. In most cases, the proportion of energy supplied from renewable sources appears higher than it actually is. The reporting procedure also makes the share of power from nuclear and coal-fired stations appear smaller. The reason for this distortion is that the electricity industry is attempting to combine two ways of accounting for the electricity.

In order to calculate what percentage of the overall mix the various energy sources represent, electricity suppliers can use data from two different sources. They can either have their own suppliers certify which power stations the energy comes from, and the amount of energy supplied from each one, or use statistical averages for electricity generation as a whole, derived for example from electricity traded on the EEX European Energy Exchange. If suppliers use data from both sources, then their calculations need to be adjusted so the overall total is correct. This is because the quantity of electricity certified directly is also included in the statistics. Unless the amounts certified directly are deducted from the statistical averages, they will be counted twice. Yet the procedure the industry recommends makes no provision for any such deduction. And the main type of electricity which suppliers are likely to have certified directly is electricity from renewable sources. So the proposed method will disproportionately double-count, and thus overestimate, environmentally-friendly energy. Another flaw in the method is the use of European rather than German average values. The European values contain a much higher proportion of energy from renewable sources than the German ones, which makes the suppliers’ energy mix look better.

Under the German Renewable Energy Act, all electricity suppliers must currently find around eleven per cent of the total they supply to final customers from certain approved energy sources, such as wind or hydroelectric power. “There is no requirement for suppliers to disclose that this part of their supply merely fulfils a legal obligation”, Timpe points out. Thus German electricity suppliers can legitimately display levels of between 11 and 24 per cent from renewable sources, depending on the amount they buy on the EEX, even if they have not actively bought any green electricity themselves.

Timpe takes the view that “The electricity industry must raise its game in this area. Perhaps the Energy Industry Act should even be amended.” Up to a third of energy generated from renewable sources and fed into the European interconnected grid could be counted twice, according to Öko-Institut’s estimates. Its energy experts are currently working on a procedure which would significantly reduce this double-counting.

The Öko-Institut also sees room for improvement in other respects. No rules dictate how electricity suppliers should actually display the necessary data on the origins of their electricity and the pollution it causes. It could be shown as a chart, a diagram or just plain text – according to the electricity industry’s recommendations, almost anything goes. This could unnecessarily complicate the comparison between different suppliers. “Any supplier obliged to publish information they think their customers won’t like can simply hide it in the small print on their electricity bills,” Timpe explains. He believes all data should be presented in the same, customer-friendly format instead.

Environmentally-aware energy customers who want to be sure of what they are buying are best advised to choose electricity with a guarantee: either the ‘ok-power label’ or the ‘green power label in gold’. The consumer campaign EcoTopTen provides an overview of the best ‘green’ electricity on offer. A summary is available in English at www.ecotopten.de/z_archiv_news050621_eng.php and additional information in German can be found under ‘Strom beziehen’ at www.ecotopten.de/produktfeld_strom.php. This includes tips on saving energy, because – Timpe explains – it is just as important to save electricity wherever possible as it is to insist on environmentally friendly generation. cr

More information is available on the Internet at

Contact:

Christof Timpe,
Veit Bürger
Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg Head Office
Energy & Climate Protection Division

[back to the index]


Genetic engineering: Producers have little notion of what they are actually doing

Öko-Institut demands that risks and unintended effects be evaluated appropriately: Symposium in Frankfurt

pic_2At the end of November the media reported the alarming news that mice fed genetically modified peas got inflammatory reactions. The cause was a protein that originally came from beans, but was expressed differently in the peas. The unintended change to the chemical structure consisted in a different glycosilation pattern of the protein and triggered a severe immune response in the mice. “This example clearly shows that current GM technology has not been safe for commercial use,” states Katja Moch, Öko-Institut’s expert in genetic engineering. On behalf of Greenpeace she analysed the latest research on epigenetic effects in transgenic plants and the significance of these findings for the commercial use of genetic engineering. At the beginning of December the Öko-Institut and Greenpeace invited to a symposium to discuss this hot topic with critical GMO experts from all over Europe.

“Gene regulation is much more complex than it has long been assumed,” explains Katja Moch, “And it turns out we know far too little about what happens when we genetically modify organisms. The result can always be unintended adverse effects.” The mouse feeding experiment is the most recent published example of such an unintended effect. The fact that the bean protein changed its chemical structure in the peas was neither intended nor predicted. What at first seemed just to be a small modification had severe consequences – in this case ones that were harmful to health. And this despite the fact that peas and beans are closely related.

Epigenetic mechanisms are the main cause of such unintended effects. Epigenetics studies the regulatory network influencing which genes are transcribed: When, how and in which cell is which gene activated or silenced? It has long been known that the dogma that had been postulated for decades, that one gene contains the blueprint for one specific protein, is outdated. Today the opposite holds true. A gene has many different functions and it influences a range of different traits. This finding needs to be weighted more heavily when transgenic plants are produced and approved, according to the approximately 70 delegates representing science, policy and environmental organizations, who gathered in Frankfurt in response to the invitation to the symposium.

Indeed, even GMO proponents are now aware of these issues. However, the experts are divided about how relevant they are. “There is no consensus about how unintended side effects are to be evaluated,” says Katja Moch, citing the example of scientists who have observed that certain genetically modified insect-resistant corn varieties, known as Bt corn, have a higher lignin content in their stalks.

Uncritical proponents of “green” genetic engineering are not bothered by this effect. Katja Moch, on the other hand, demands that “if such changes have been detected, they should not be shrugged off using the argument of natural variance. They need to be looked into thoroughly and tested for the impact they could have on humans and the environment.”

However, a commensurate risk assessment of unintended effects has not yet been done. “In most cases there are no detailed safety standards that need to be met in any sort of standardized manner before transgenic plants can be used commercially,” stressed Dr. Beatrix Tappeser, a GMO expert of the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz).

Cesare Gessler of ETH Zürich gave concrete examples of what minimum requirements at the genetic level might look like, using the example of GM research on apple trees. One example of what is being demanded of the GM scientists is that genes foreign to the species not be used in breeding, only genes of other apple varieties. In addition, researchers need to be able to define exactly at which site in the genome the gene construct will be inserted. The researcher went even further to say that ideally it should be possible to very specifically replace a certain gene segment with the new gene construct.

In practice, genetic engineering has a long way to go to achieve this type of precision and producers of genetically modified plants have little notion of what they are actually doing. “If I insert a piece of DNA into a plant genome, then I don’t know where it will end up or what else I am changing along the entire chain from gene to protein. And there can also be unintended interactions on the protein level, which in turn can affect the plant’s compounds. I don’t know which regulating mechanisms I am encroaching on,” explains Katja Moch. And so there is an urgent need for systematic, standardized risk assessment. Subsequent to the conference, the experts want to compile a list of specific methods that can be used to assess risk.

They also called for stricter approval procedures for GM plants. These include the demands that

  • compulsory feeding studies last for at least 90 days instead of the current 28,
  • the new protein should not be tested in isolation, but should be fed integrated into the transgenic plant tissue that is to be used commercially,
  • transgenic plant tissue be tested on multiple generations of test animals.

The most significant findings from the conference will be published in January in the form of the symposium proceedings and will be available for download from Öko-Institut’s website free of charge. For more information, see the 1/2005 issue of this newsletter and the Greenpeace brochure “The underestimated risk. Interviews with nine scientists on the subject of genetically modified plants”. kk

Contact:

Katja Moch
Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg Head Office
Biodiversity, Nutrition & Agriculture Division

[back to the index]


Namibia issues permit for new uranium mine – within the Naukluft National Park

Ministry of Mines and Energy has no reservations – despite substantial mistakes in the Environmental Assessment

pic_3Because the price of uranium rose over the past two years after decades of stagnation, its prospection and mining is now booming – in Namibia, too. Lately, the Ministry of Mining permitted the operation of a new uranium mine near the mountain called “Langer Heinrich”, located within the Naukluft National Park. Earlier in the permit process an Environmental Impact Study was prepared. This study contains serious errors – as revealed by Öko-Institut experts. On behalf of the non-governmental organisation Earthlife Africa they reviewed the study. Despite these shortcomings, uranium can now be mined.

“We not only detected serious errors in the calculation of the radiation doses in the environment of the planned facility”, says Gerhard Schmidt, expert in the research division for Nuclear and Plant Safety of Öko-Institut’s Darmstadt office. But also the information on how the wastes from mining and milling will be managed is either missing or contradictive to that in other parts of the report. “Due to these deficits, a correct assessment of the environmental impacts is impossible”, Schmidt stresses. However, the Ministry has permitted the mining project as applied. This can happen again, if economic interests have their way.

Many old and new uranium mining projects are pushing to start, even with poor uranium concentrations in the ore. The most advanced project is the one promoted by the Australian company Paladin Resources Ltd. and its Namibian subsidiary. In the neighbourhood of the “Langer Heinrich”, about 50 miles east of the coastal cities of Swakopmund and Walvisbay, and located in the Naukluft National Park, mining of the radioactive metal uranium will already start next year. The ore will be mined in open pits, it will be crushed and milled, and the uranium will be extracted with soda. The remaining ore wastes, which contain radioactive and other harmful substances, will be air dried and filled back into the mined-out pits. So these materials later come into contact with the groundwater.

Earthlife Africa asks independent experts for advice
In an attempt to demonstrate the environmental compatibility of its plan, Paladin prepared an Environmental Assessment Report (EA Report) and collected objections to the draft. The NGO Earthlife Africa asked the Öko-Institut for an expert review. The Green Party in Germany and two Members of the European Parliament financed the investigation. Gerhard Schmidt and the uranium expert Peter Diehl (uranium(at)t-online.de) from Dresden reviewed the large EA Report from a critical standpoint. Here are the weak points they exposed:

Radiation doses ten times higher
When calculating the radiological doses in the environment of the planned uranium mine, the content of radium in the processed ore was under-estimated by a factor of four. The breathing rate of people in the vicinity was selected at a value 2.3 times lower than internationally used. No explanation is given for this extraordinary selection. By correcting these two errors, the resulting dose near the facility has to be expected to be 10 times higher than calculated. The radiation doses for employees are not calculated at all, the total collective dose for employees in the ore mining and extraction section is not given in the EA report.

No conclusive management concept for the radioactive waste
Also missing are detailled statements on the management of the huge amount of ore and processing wastes, the “tailings”, and on their environmental impacts. The few statements are contradictive and central questions remain open. Where exactly will these tailings be disposed? How will they be isolated? How will the dams be constructed that will enclose the tailings? And how will the groundwater be protected against these hazardous wastes? A further cause for alarm is the increase in economically mineable uranium by one quarter of the previous estimate, compared to the amount given in the EA report, caused by additional increases in the uranium price, and the connected increase in tailings to be disposed of. The report thus does not reflect the current status and needs a thorough revision.

Very high consumption of the scarce resource water
An additional critical point is the huge amount of water needed by this project. For the extraction of uranium from the ore and its purification as well as for dust control in mine works and in road transportation, Paladin will need 1.3 million cubic metres of water per year. The water demand is as high as it is because the water evaporates from the tailings during their air drying and because dust control with water is not very effective in an arid climate. The groundwater in the Naukluft Park does not provide enough water for the mine, so water will transported from Swakopmund via a 50 mile pipeline. The water consumption of the mine will be responsible for a roughly 10% increase of the water production in Swakopmund. Paladin will be one of largest single consumers of water. How can this consumption be reduced? This problem has not even been addressed in the EA Report: another relevant point for a revision.

Despite all these errors and weaknesses Paladin has announced that the responsible Ministry for Mines and Energy has permitted the mine’s construction and operation. The Minister personally attended the ground-breaking ceremony in the Namibian desert. gs

The complete review paper by the Öko-Institut is available at: www.oeko.de/oekodoc/266/2005-014-en.pdf

Contact:

Gerhard Schmidt
Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt Office
Nuclear & Plant Safety Division

[back to the index]


EcoTopTen – clarity for consumers

New market survey highlights energy-efficient and eco-friendly fridges and freezers

Few people are aware that “Fridges and freezers labelled `A` for energy efficiency are no longer top of the class”, explains Ina Rüdenauer, researcher at the Öko-Institut. The new EcoTopTen market survey therefore recommends that consumers only go for models with A++ energy efficiency. It is these that are the best buys in terms of their environmental and energy performance. Our expert warns against fridges and freezers in the A class, which many assume to be the best. Now these goods can even be found for sale in discount outlets, but “high operating costs may be lurking behind tempting purchase prices”.

But what has caused the confusion? When compulsory labelling was launched in 1995, the energy efficiency classes only ranged from A to G. But because fridges have been getting more efficient ever since – without the criteria becoming more stringent –most models now make the grade as class A. There are now only a few class B goods on sale, and class C goods have practically disappeared from the market.

However, disparities within the A class are continually increasing. “The top models now consume up to 45 per cent less electricity than the worst performers in the same category”, explains Ina Rüdenauer. So that consumers can easily identify these much more efficient products, the range was extended in 2004 to include sub-classes A+ and A++.

It certainly pays to look at energy consumption with fridges and freezers: they are constant consumers since they stay switched on. Products in energy efficiency class A or B, which use much more electricity, can end up costing more in the long run. Their smaller purchase price can be outweighed by high annual electricity bills.

Here’s how it works: Anyone who chooses a 120-litre fridge with a four-star freezer compartment and class A++ energy efficiency, as recommended by the EcoTopTen campaign, will pay around 330 euro up front. The overall annual cost – including the cost of a year’s electricity – works out at 49 euro. A typical fridge of a similar size in energy efficiency class A is around 20 euro cheaper to buy. But the annual cost of operating it is 66 euro, because it uses 230 kWh (kilowatt-hours) of electricity, or around 100 kWh more than the EcoTopTen fridge. So the EcoTopTen fridge costs the consumer about 17 euro less each year – even if it does cost more up front.

EcoTopTen has supplied a market report on the most efficient fridges, fridge-freezers, chest and upright freezers, arranged according to their capacity. As the different types cannot be compared directly because of the differences in their size, we do not rank the goods – in any case, all the items listed are top-of-the-range from an environmental viewpoint.

The fridge-freezers EcoTopTen recommends also have separate temperature regulators for the different compartments, so if you are away for a long time, for instance if you go on holiday, you can effectively switch the fridge off, but leave the freezer on. The EcoTopTen market survey contains information on energy consumption, purchase price and overall annual cost, as well as details of special functions such as energy-saving holiday programmes, automatic defrosting and temperature warning systems. Unfortunately, our selection is limited to stand-alone units, because there are no reasonably-priced in-built class A++ products on the German market at present.

While we’re on the subject, we should mention that, if you have room, a chest freezer is better than an upright model. Chest freezers use around 12 per cent less energy for the same useable volume.

The full market survey, tips and further information relating to ‘Fridges and freezers’ is available in German at www.ecotopten.de/produktfeld_kuehlen.php. Useful downloads in German are available at www.ecotopten.de/download.php. A new market report on organic and fair trade grocery retail (also in German) went online in October.

EcoTopTen is a major initiative for sustainable consumption and product innovations in mass markets initiated by Öko-Institut. At regular intervals, the institute’s scientists produce a recommendation of high-quality ‘EcoTopTen products’ – all of which offer good value for money and top environmental performance. By way of comparison, typical products failing to meet the EcoTopTen criteria are also presented. This means that EcoTopTen market reports can make it easier to choose products that are good in all respects. You can read them in German on the internet at www.ecotopten.de under the heading ‘Produktempfehlungen’. A further 13 market surveys are to follow by the end of 2006, the next on dishwashers.

The EcoTopTen research project is sponsored by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection and the Legacy for the Future Foundation. The monthly magazine ‘natur&kosmos’ is one of our media partners, and regularly reports on EcoTopTen. The current issue illustrates our latest market report under the heading ‘Kühlen mit Köpfchen’ (‘Use your head when you chill’). Would you like to stay informed? Subscribe to the German-language EcoTopTen newsletter by sending an e-mail to anmeldung(at)ecotopten.de. kk

Contact:

Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg Head Office
Kathrin Graulich
Project coordinator, EcoTopTen
Ina Rüdenauer
Sustainable Products & Material Flows Division

[back to the index]


INVENT: Dream destinations for sustainable tourism

Research project leads to socially and environmentally sustainable mass tourism

pic_4Mile upon mile of high-rise hotels, dirty beaches, damaged forests and mutilated mountains – in many places on the planet, mass tourism is an environmental menace. Yet this need not be the case. Tourism can be environmentally and socially sustainable if holidays are targeted increasingly specifically. This is the conclusion reached by the INVENT project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The project, coordinated by the Öko-Institut, saw researchers and the tourist industry coming together to develop joint marketing strategies and holiday products which will help to reduce the burden tourism places on the environment and prevent social conflict. Travel companies Deutsche Bahn AG, AMEROPA-REISEN GmbH and LTU-Touristik GmbH have incorporated new, sustainable trips to various destinations into their forthcoming offerings.

The general trend is towards taking shorter breaks, further afield. “On the one hand, this creates more jobs and greater added value in the tourism sector”, says Martin Schmied, a researcher working in the Institute’s Infrastructure & Enterprises Division and the leader of the INVENT project. On the other hand, both social conflict and environmental pollution increase in the destination countries, the latter due to the increase in traffic and the burden on fragile biotopes. “However, since a pristine environment and a visitor-friendly climate are essential for the economic success of the tourist sector”, Schmied says, “it is in travel companies’ interest to make tourism sustainable.”

Yet people will only buy a holiday if it meets their hopes and expectations. The project therefore focussed on identifying target customers for particular holidays. “We surveyed 2,000 holidaymakers and identified seven different types of traveller, so we can market sustainable tourist packages directly to particular groups”, explains Konrad Götz, of the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), a partner in the INVENT project. Two of these groups are particularly interested in environmental and social issues while on holiday. ‘Demanding cultural travellers’ want as authentic an experience as possible of their destination countries’ cultural diversity, while ‘Nature and outdoor holidaymakers’ often travel with their families, and seek to enjoy their activities in a pristine natural environment. But how can other groups of holidaymakers be tempted to try sustainable travel?

One promising approach lies in influencing people’s choice of holiday. For example, holidays in your own or a neighbouring country put less strain on the environment. “If we can win over a group which often takes long-haul trips and attract them to less far-flung destinations instead, and if we can increase the proportion of travel by train; this will benefit climate and environmental protection”, explains INVENT partner Edgar Kreilkamp, a tourism specialist from the University of Lüneburg. For example, why not holiday in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania? It has empty beaches, extensive forests and clean lakes, as well as interesting old seaside towns, castles and red-brick Gothic architecture. It is an ideal destination for ‘Nature and outdoor holidaymakers’.

To arouse travellers’ interest in attractive areas like this, the package must be pitched just right. Important elements of the pitch will include the ease of accessibility by train, the charm of staying in hotels built in a characteristic local style, and good overall environmental standards. The pitch might also include ‘nature activity’ excursions such as canoeing trips, cycle tours, sailing excursions or health and fitness packages. The travel packages which INVENT has developed for Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania are now on offer from Deutsche Bahn AG and AMEROPA-REISEN GmbH.

But you don’t have to holiday on your doorstep to travel sustainably. You can go further afield and still limit the harm done to your host environment and society. One way to achieve this is for holidaymakers with high expectations of the accommodation, natural environment and ambience to travel to traditional mass tourist destinations. This gives tour operators an incentive to improve their environmental protection, conservation and social awareness. “There is a growing motivation for people on the ground to protect and preserve their precious existing natural resources for the long term”, explains Ulrike Rheinberger, a researcher working in the Institute’s Infrastructure & Enterprises Division. To achieve this aim, holidaymakers must be able to discover and experience the natural environment at their destination, perhaps through a variety of day trips, through tours including a seaside element or through country-wide discovery trips lasting several days. JAHN REISEN, a subsidiary of LTU-Touristik, has incorporated these ideas into its Dominican Republic holidays for winter 2006/2007.

The basic idea and marketing strategies can be found in the Project Design document and the Project Design and Target Groups presentation, which can be downloaded at www.oeko.de/pdf/INVENT_Broschuere_051104.pdf. The final project results were announced at a conference in September 2005, the proceedings of which are available online at: www.invent-tourismus.de/_daten/texte/konferenz.html. The brochure can also be ordered by fax on +49 (0)30 280 48688 or by email from invent(at)oeko.de.

Information on INVENT is available at www.invent-tourismus.de. The INVENT project was coordinated by the Öko-Institut, involving the University of Lüneburg and the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), in conjunction with AMEROPA-REISEN GmbH and Deutsche Bahn AG. The project was sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research. kk

Contact:

Martin Schmied
Öko-Institut e.V., Berlin Office
Infrastructure & Enterprises Division

Ulrike Rheinberger
INVENT project coordinator

[back to the index]


New project: Can Public Private Partnerships bring greater sustainability?

Öko-Institut investigates

Authorities across Germany are faced with a problem. Many public buildings are in need of renovation, but no money is available. The lack of funds in many local authorities means alternative financing models are required. These authorities are pinning their hopes on Public Private Partnerships, PPPs. They expect PPPs to perform faster and better, at less cost. But just how sustainable are such partnerships from an environmental, economic and social perspective? Indeed, how can we test the sustainability of a project? And what criteria must a PPP project fulfil if it is to meet sustainability targets? The Öko-Institut is launching a project, which will last for a year and a half, to find the answers to these questions.

In a PPP arrangement, the planning, construction or refurbishment, financing and sometimes also operation of public buildings is devolved to private companies. The local authority pays an annual fee for these services for an agreed period – usually 20 or 25 years. This means that it need not find all the funds for urgently-needed work upfront, but can pay for it in instalments spread over the term of the partnership. Thus the necessary work gets done, rather than being postponed, and can be expected to cost less in most cases.

Furthermore, Dietlinde Quack, a researcher working in the Institute’s Sustainable Products & Material Flows Division, adds “PPP can also bring benefits with regard to sustainability.” For example, many contractors will not only be responsible for the construction or renovation, but also for running the building – often for many years. The contractor will seek to work as economically as possible: “The main aim is to optimize costs, yet very often, this also benefits the environment”, Ms Quack explains. For example, it is in the contractor’s interest to keep heating, water and electricity supply costs as low as possible. Over the years, any savings they make will add up, thus justifying any initial investment in environmental technologies. The converse is also true: corners cut during construction or renovation will make for higher operating costs in the long run.

However, a PPP can also have major disadvantages when it comes to sustainability. Caretakers can lose their jobs as a result of new partnerships, cleaners may be obliged to accept worse working conditions and the people in charge may not have the environmental expertise to implement sustainable technologies. The Öko-Institut has therefore launched a new study, ‘PPPs for Sustainability?’, which aims to prevent such negative consequences.

The first stage of the report will involve researchers developing criteria – in consultation with experts in the field – by which to assess how sustainable PPP projects are. These researchers will then use the Product Sustainability Assessment method PROSA developed by the Öko-Institut to compare projects run with and without PPP. From the results of this comparison, the scientists will develop criteria which a PPP project must fulfil if it is to achieve real sustainability. The resulting model will then be refined when it is tested in practice. One PPP project will be selected, with the researchers monitoring the tender process. The City of Freiburg, which is considering renovating several schools and its main fire station using PPPs, is a potential candidate for this monitoring.

The ‘PPPs for Sustainability’ project is part of the ‘BW Plus’ environmental research programme, which is sponsored by the Land of Baden-Württemberg. The project is expected to run until March 2007. The results will be displayed on a specially designed website, and a workshop held to publicize them. The Institute’s cooperation partners on this are Local Governments for Sustainability ICLEI and the Ö-Quadrat bureau for ecological and environmental design. kk

Contact:

Dr. Dietlinde Quack
Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg Head Office
Sustainable Products & Material Flows Division

[back to the index]


Reading tip: Micro Cogeneration - Towards Decentralized Energy Systems

New book explores the effects of the introduction of this technology

The introduction of micro CHP – the simultaneous production of heat and power in an individual building based on small energy conversion units such as Stirling and reciprocating engines or fuel cells – is of increasing political and public interest. The new book Micro Cogeneration - Towards Decentralized Energy Systems explores the effects of the introduction of this technology. A large-scale introduction of micro cogeneration would radically change the electricity system and turn consumers into power producers. At the same time, micro cogeneration could, if supported by favourable economic and policy conditions, represent a considerable market segment, promoting downstream innovations such as "virtual power plants", altered consumer awareness or new household energy management systems.

The diverse consequences of a widespread introduction of micro cogeneration for the energy market, the customers, the environment and the economy require an interdisciplinary investigation into the real benefits and barriers of micro cogeneration. This book not only introduces micro cogeneration systems and technologies, but also presents the results of the first such investigation carried out by four German research bodies, including the Öko-Institut. As micro cogeneration is being developed worldwide, experts from the five most important micro cogeneration countries - Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United States of America - report on the energy markets, the micro cogeneration hard-and software, and the respective peculiarities in these countries.

This book is an indispensable source of information and analysis for decision makers in local and national authorities, energy companies, utilities, and associations, but also for lecturers and students who want to understand the principles and consequences of decentralized energy supply with Micro CHP systems. mc

Pehnt, M., Cames, M., Fischer, C., Praetorius, B., Schneider, L., Schumacher, K., Voß, J.-P.: Micro Cogeneration - Towards Decentralized Energy Systems, Springer Heidelberg, New York 2005; 346 p., Hardcover, ISBN: 3-540-25582-6; 99,95 Euro.

Contact:

Martin Cames
Öko-Institut e.V., Berlin Office
Energy & Climate Protection Division

[back to the index]


Stephan Kurth appointed to new German commission for plant safety

German Environment Ministry appoints Öko-Institut expert to newly established body

Stephan Kurth, a researcher with Öko-Institut’s Nuclear Engineering & Plant Safety Division since 1995, has been appointed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety to be a member of its commission for plant safety (Kommission für Anlagensicherheit, KAS) in that body’s first term.

The newly established commission will combine the advisory tasks previously performed by the technical committee for plant safety (Technischer Ausschuss für Anlagensicherheit, TAA) and the accidents commission (Störfall-Kommission, SFK) as part of the statutory duties established by the German Emission Control Act (Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz, BImSchG). The new commission will have 35 members, drawn mainly from industry, state authorities, labour unions, universities, science and environmental associations. The commission will advise the Ministry on issues relating to the safety of industrial facilities that present particular hazards.

Stephan Kurth has already been a member of the TAA committee since 1999. The 43-year-old engineer works principally in the fields of plant safety, safety assessment and environmental impact assessment. kk

Contact:

Stephan Kurth
Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt Office
Nuclear Engineering & Plant Safety Division

[back to the index]


GMO free Regions, Biodiversity and Rural Development

Announcement and Call for papers: 2nd European Conference mid January in Berlin

GENET (European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering), the Assembly of European Regions and the Foundation on Future Farming invite to the second European Conference on GMO-free Regions, biodiversity and rural development in Berlin, 14 till 15 January 2006. The organizers believe that the 2nd GMO free Regions conference comes at a crucial moment for the further political development within the European Union: Co-existence will be high on the EU agenda in the first half of 2006 and far reaching decisions will be made also with regard to the potential approval of additional GM varieties for cultivation.

Who should attend?

  • Everybody interested and active in the field
  • Active GMO free farmers and food producers
  • Representatives of GMO free regions and communities
  • Civil servants and politicians working on regional development and protected areas
  • Scientists, legal and economic experts on the issue
  • Farmers, NGOs and institutions planning to establish GMO free Regions

What to expect?

  • Introductions and latest information on the issue
  • Presentations of cases and concepts of GMO free Regions in Europe
  • Intensive, well prepared workshops on key issues
  • Discussion of strategies and joint demands
  • Contacts and opportunities for bilateral, trans-regional and international co-operation

What to contribute?

The organizers are looking for active participation before and during the conference. Preparatory papers and information will be published on the web-site and in the documentation. They are also open to facilitate additional workshops upon the participants requests.

The organizers are especially search

  • Updates on the situation in your region and country (see our web-site "GMO free regions by country")
  • Information on upcoming events and developments in your country
  • Papers and materials you have produced on the issue
  • Offers to participate in the preparation of specific workshops (including additional issues where needed)
  • Contributions to the special conference journal and its distribution
  • Help with translation of important documents
  • Pictures, Videos and other media

Programme

www.gmo-free-regions.org/conference-2006/programme.html

Speakers

Speakers will include high ranking representatives of the EU institutions, national and regional governments, representatives of companies, initiatives and organisations active in the field, scientists, lawyers and other experts on specific issues. The final speakers list is still under construction and subject to confirmation.

Language

The conference language will be English. Simultaneous interpretation will be available for the plenary sessions (hopefully for E, D, F, I).

Registration

www.gmo-free-regions.org/conference-2006/registration.html

For more details see www.gmo-free-regions.org

[back to the index]


C O N T A C T

Publisher
Öko-Institut e.V.
Institute for Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut)

Editorial office
Department of Public Relations & Communication
Christiane Rathmann
Katja Kukatz

Would you like to recommend the newsletter to a friend?
Do you have any comments?
Would you like to subscribe to the newsletter?
Would you like to unsubscribe to the newsletter?

Print Print

© 2009 Öko-Institut e.V.