80,000 people have already been buried and the final death toll could be twice this number. Hospitals are overwhelmed and many are still dying. Some 200,000 are in need of emergency shelter. There are still shortages of fuel, medical supplies and even clean water.

Europe has some of the best rescue workers in the world and the Commission’s Civil Protection Department has been at the centre of coordinating the assistance provided by European countries. The EU Civil Protection Mechanism was activated the on the same day of the earthquake. The first European teams - from Iceland and French Antilles - reached Port-au-Prince the next day. An assessment and coordination team composed of European experts and a European Commission liaison officer has been on site since 14 January, helping with the coordination of the international relief effort, carrying out needs assessments and matching incoming European assistance with the needs on the ground.

All in all the Civil Protection Mechanism coordinated the assistance from 23 European countries.  The help provided includes urban search and rescue teams (one quarter for all international teams were European), field hospitals, medical teams and supplies, tents, blankets, water sanitation units and clothing.

The destruction of local infrastructure made it difficult to deliver international assistance. But the assistance has been getting through and is making a real difference.  EU teams have pulled people alive from the rubble. An  EU water purification unit, financed by the EU, is providing water for 20,000 people. We have also helped finance cargo flights to transport European assistance to Haiti. The visibility of the EU role could perhaps have been higher. But our priority has been getting the work done on the ground.

The response was effective – but there is always room for improvement. The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has suggested that Europe develops a Rapid Reaction Force to deal with this type of emergency. I personally agree, and it would make sense to develop the Mechanism into an operational centre that can dispatch national civil protection assets in real time, with more planning before emergencies and more robust coordination in the response phase.

We are now moving from the immediate response phase. The next task will be supporting the economic and social recovery of Haiti – which even before the earthquake was one of the poorest countries in the world. The EU is currently channelling a total of €122 million in humanitarian assistance to the country, of which the European Commission is contributing a €30 million emergency relief package. Commission funds are distributed via UN agencies, international NGOs and the Red Cross.

I am very proud of the effectiveness of the European response and the role the European Commission has played. And I am convinced that the next Commission will do everything it can to ensure that the vital work of reconstruction is carried out.

So where are we now? Progress has been made on issues like technology cooperation, capacity building in developing countries, and putting in place a work programme on agriculture.

But this is far from satisfactory. We are not making sufficient progress. We are running out of time.

It is essential to agree on emission reduction targets for developed countries, actions by developing countries to limit their emissions growth, long-term funding for developing countries, especially the poorest and most vulnerable and a system of monitoring and verification that will ensure commitments are implemented.

The time for procedural discussions is long past. Now we need to focus on the key issues. 

That means substantial emissions reductions commitments for all developed countries, including the United States, ambitious enough to allow us to stay well below 2 degrees Celsius. It means actions from developing countries that bring their emissions to a level significantly below business as usual, and money on the table. All this must become legally binding within six months.

There is no time for games - the time has come for action. I cannot believe that more than 100 heads of state and government are prepared to go home empty handed.

I’m an optimist, of course, and I have been from the beginning. It has been very gratifying to see ever more pledges laid on the negotiating table as the conference approaches.

But my main concern isn’t with just reaching an agreement. It’s with reaching the right agreement – a legally binding agreement that is fair to developed and developing countries alike, ambitious enough to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius, and which covers all the elements we agreed in Bali two years ago. And it needs a solid financial architecture to come into effect quickly – ideally in the course of next year.
The biggest threat isn’t a failure to reach agreement. It’s being saddled with an agreement that looks good on paper but fails to address the real problems that threaten our planet.

I’m sure we will end up with an agreement that will lay the foundations for a legally binding treaty. A legally binding agreement remains our objective. But the deal in Copenhagen must be guided by science and must therefore preserve environmental integrity. The EU, for example, would find it very difficult to sign a deal that has no real effect on net emissions. To avoid that, we need to solve some of the most difficult technical issues, like the fate of the unused national emission allowances allocated under the first Kyoto commitment period, which would seriously damage the integrity of the deal if they are simply carried over to the next period. We must also avoid rewarding business as usual when it comes to tackling deforestation in the developing world and forest management in developed countries, or they too could compromise the integrity of the deal. Issues like these might well end up being the best measure of success.
We need real steps that will actually solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, and that means no loopholes, and ambitious targets for all the sectors not currently covered by the Kyoto protocol.

International aviation and international maritime transport, for example, make up nearly 5% of total world emissions and their contribution is growing fast, yet there is still no agreement to cut it; and the same is true for agriculture, which accounts for about 14% of global emissions, and for hydrofluorocarbon gases, which have a powerful greenhouse effect.

Comprehensiveness and environmental integrity – those will be my two watchwords for COP 15.

Thank you very much for all your questions. It’s good to see that so many people share the sense of urgency that I feel when I look at our climate – Copenhagen has to deliver and I am sure it will.

I hope I haven’t been too technical, but sometimes it’s important to look at the thinking that underlies the main positions, especially on crucial issues like deforestation and ways to find incentives to prevent it. What we need is an agreement that is politically possible and scientifically credible, setting us on the path to a low-carbon future fuelled by clean, sustainable sources of energy.

I’ll be posting regularly on climate in the coming weeks, and going over what I see as some of the main building blocks in the agreement we need to reach in Copenhagen.

Many thanks for following,

Stavros Dimas

Commissioner Dimas takes a call as a part of the “TCKTCKTCK campaign” which has been organised by a broad coalition of environmental and anti-poverty organisations in order to bring home the urgency of reaching an ambitious global deal on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December”. For more details on the campaign visit the website.

It’s easy to use – click on the map on a country of your choice, and you arrive at a fiche showing a profile and a range of indicators for the country in question. You can check how your country is faring in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita, the direction of the trend, the sort of cars that are being bought, and get an overview of air quality, waste production, and even the percentage of agricultural land given over to organic farming.

Transparency is particularly important in the field of the environment, for the simple reason that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Citizens need to know how their country is doing, and they have a right to see how they doing compared to other countries around the world. For things to change, public opinion needs to bring pressure to bear on public authorities. And this can be done most effectively when the public has the information they need.

These figures can also be found in the Environment Policy Review the Commission produces each year. The events of last year – above all the adoption of the EU’s climate and energy package – will have a major affect on European policy at least until 2020. But this latest edition is much more than overview of our institutional achievements. It also focuses on the opportunities of greening the economy and other challenges for the years to come.

Looking back on the last few editions of the Review, we can see significant steps to improve our environment and enhance the quality of life of European citizens, thanks to legislation like REACH, the Air Quality Directive and the expansion of the EU-wide network of protected areas under Natura 2000 legislation. Many further improvements are still needed, but we shouldn’t lose sight of how far we have come in recent years.

Green Week is all about communication. The Commission showcases its current thinking and listens to the views of the world at large. We set out our stall, so you can watch discussions of the climate and energy package, listen to discussions about the state of play of the international negotiations, and see our plans for adapting to climate change.

We also try to create lively debates, where Commission officials exchange ideas with NGOs, stakeholders and industry in a public arena. And even when the week has ended we welcome all comments – so please send in any thoughts or ideas that you may have and these will be passed on to our negotiating team as they prepare for the Copenhagen Climate conference in December.

Millions of Europeans enjoy going to the beach every summer. And when they do so they are reassured by European standards – which are underpinned by European legislation – that the water is clean and is safe to swim in.

This is why the bathing water report published today is so important. It presents the monitoring results of last year’s bathing season. And it is encouraging to learn that, once again, there has been an improvement on the previous year. More than 96% of costal beaches are clean, and this is also the case for some 92% of beaches located along rivers and lakes. The overwhelming majority of Europe’s bathing areas are clean – which is excellent news.

The quality of our waters is rising as the direct result of integrated, targeted policymaking. Sustainable agricultural practices are becoming more widespread. Powerful legislation on pesticides and chemicals are taking effect. Waste-water treatment has become the norm. And, perhaps most importantly, the ecosystem approach of the Water Framework Directive is beginning to pay dividends.

Clean beaches are vital for the health of summer swimmers, but they are also essential for the well-being of Europe’s marine environment and for preserving biodiversity on our continent. As we expand the Natura 2000 network into more marine areas I am sure that the quality of our costal waters will improve even more.

The report has been put together by the European Environment Agency. In addition to being a useful resource for European citizens it is also a way for us to identify where problems still exist and to make sure that action is taken to further improve the situation year on year. If you want to know more, the Environment Agency has produced an interactive map which allows you to view the quality of any beach in Europe.

From the scientists we heard how the loss of biodiversity is continuing at something like 1000 times the “normal” level. And from the economists we heard that this loss is costing us trillions of Euros through the loss of ecosystem services. What is more - just like climate change - it is the very poorest who are hit hardest, because they are most directly dependent on the natural environment for their livelihoods.

There was some good news. Many of the measures taken in Europe are having a positive impact. Some the pressures on European ecosystems are being reduced and the rate of biodiversity loss has been slowed. But, despite this progress, it is now clear that the 2010 target for halting the loss of biodiversity will not be met. Additional efforts are needed and identifying these measures was the main reason for the conference.

We are at the very beginning of a long and challenging process, but the “Message from Athens” will help set the agenda over the coming years. There is no single measure that can stop the loss of biodiversity. Many areas were identified where urgent action is needed. But perhaps the Message can be summarised as recognising the need to develop a coherent vision of why biodiversity really matters to the quality of our daily lives. Understanding the true value of nature has to be the foundation of engaging public and political opinion. And once this is done the priority will be integrating biodiversity concerns into all other policy areas.

There is no political issue more important than the loss of biodiversity. It is – quite literally – the future of life on earth. The Athens conference stated a process which, I hope, will lead to the new generation of policies that will finally allow us to guarantee the conservation of Europe’s natural heritage.

But the reality is that there is nothing more real than biodiversity. It is quite literally the sum of life on Earth and we depend on it for the food we eat and the materials that drive our industries. It purifies the water that we drink and the air that we breathe.

Biodiversity is in crisis because of pollution, changing land-use, over-exploitation, invasive species and climate change. Taken together, the compound effect of these forces is terrifying and the global rate of extinction is now something like 1000 times the natural rate.

It is impossible to imagine a countryside without birdsong - and yet intensive farming practices have had a catastrophic effect on the variety of birds that depend on those big open spaces. Numbers have fallen by around 50% since 1980.

Our honeybees are also disappearing and we don’t know why. This is not just a passing concern because (as the European Parliament was informed last year) some 76% of our food production depends on bees acting as pollinators. Problems, for what looks like a tiny element in the food chain, could have enormous consequences for us all.

European nature legislation had helped halt the decline, but more needs to be done both in Europe and at the global level. The threat from the loss of biodiversity is every bit as serious as the threat of climate change. That’s why we need to develop a coherent vision of why protecting biodiversity really matters to the quality of our daily lives.

At the beginning of next week I’m hosting a conference in Athens to try and get these issues into the public eye. I hope the conference will provide real inspiration for raising public awareness, generating political support and ultimately developing a new generation of policies for nature protection.

If you are interested in following the discussions then much of the proceedings are being web-streamed. And in advance of 2010 – which is the UN international year of biodiversity – all of your comments and suggestions are particularly welcome.

The European Green Capital award is Europe’s newest environmental prize. It goes to a city that is leading the way towards a greener future by taking innovative measures that combine local issues with global concerns. It’s not just about environmental record - the quality of life for citizens is just as important.

It was very hard to select just two winners from the many entrants.  Doing so meant having to compare factors like excellent air quality against a visionary transport system. But from a shortlist of eight (Amsterdam, Bristol, Copenhagen, Freiburg im Breisgau, Hamburg, Münster, Oslo and Stockholm), the first winners are Stockholm for 2010 and Hamburg for 2011.

About one million people live in Stockholm, and if all goes according to plan these citizens will be fossil free by 2050. It’s a city that puts a premium on its green spaces, and 95% of the population live within 300 metres of a green area. But even that isn’t enough from the city planners, and more beaches for bathing are promised.

Hamburg is a city that seems to have solved its transport problems, and you’re never more than 300 metres from some form of public transport. It also boasts a fully integrated waste management system, excellent energy recovery from waste, and it is leading the way in water consumption and leak prevention.

The European City of Culture was conceived in 1983 by Melina Mercouri, the Greek Minister of Culture at the time. It has proved to be a great success and I hope that this award - first developed by the City of Tallinn in Estonia - has an equally illustrious future before it.

The other award was for Mobility Week which is an event that just keeps on growing. More than 2000 towns and cities took part last year, with a combined population of more than 200 million people. Budapest “walked away” with the award, and was commended for the year-round improvements to its public transport infrastructure, and expansions to the downtown pedestrian area. Zagreb in Croatia (mobility week isn’t restricted to the EU 27), and Almada in Portugal ran Budapest close for the prize.

Both of today’s awards have a simple message: cities are for people. Europe’s planners have an obligation to ensure the best for their citizens, and those that do deserve to be rewarded. Congratulations to them.

Chemicals surround us. They are an intrinsic part of modern life: in the keyboard, the computer, the desk chair, the carpet under the chair, the plastic water bottle on the desk, cleaning products, cosmetics…

One of my tasks as environment Commissioner is to make sure that their risks are properly controlled and that authorities and industries doing their utmost to ban and substitute dangerous chemicals. However, a basic problem here is that our current knowledge is limited and scattered. The REACH Regulation has been the Commission’s response and it has become a benchmark in global chemicals legislation.  The opening words of the legislation set out the EU’s core concern which is that “This Regulation should ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment”.

Getting the REACH proposal onto the statute book was one of my top priorities when I started in the Commission in 2004, despite rumours at the time that the proposal could be withdrawn.  It became law at the end of 2006 and in June 2008, REACH became operational with a six month pre-registration period where EU manufacturers and importers had to inform the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the chemicals they produce or import above one tonne per year.

By 1 December 2008, ECHA had received 2.7 million pre-registration entries. This figure was far higher than estimated. The entries were screened and sorted, and we now have a list of approximately 150,000 chemicals, entered by 65,000 EU companies.  The next step is that these companies must submit a full registration file to ECHA with detailed information about the chemicals they use and place on the market. The REACH requirements are quite demanding of the EU industry but the end result will be unique. Nowhere else in the world does this kind of data exist.

REACH does not only set up a database in response to the current knowledge gap. It also seeks to substitute and take off the market the chemicals which are known to be dangerous (for example, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction). In addition, REACH imposes obligations on the suppliers of articles containing certain dangerous chemicals. When a citizen asks about the composition of an article, the supplier must give the information. This will encourage industry to step up its search for greener substitutes.

Concerns about the safety of chemicals were the subject of Ruth Carson’s Silent Spring. It is an issue that sparked the birth of the environmental movement and it remains central to ensuring that we live in a healthy environment.

A strong policy on chemicals remains a priority and I would like citizens to do their part by asking critical questions about chemicals in their environment. I would like SME’s and large companies to be creative and seek cleaner and greener alternatives. The EU industry that has taken up the challenge and the responsibility for a more sustainable chemicals management.  My wish is that countries outside the EU will also take on equally far-reaching decisions on managing chemicals – because chemicals are everywhere and because everyone deserves the same level of protection that we are developing for our citizens.

Commissioner Dimas has published an open letter to President Obama arguing that America’s support will be “an essential part of any successful global effort to tackle climate change”.

Click on the letter below for more

If you have any thoughts on the issues raised please feel free to post below.

Dimas Webteam

In a year that contained many highlights, the climate package was a massive achievement. It will reduce European emissions and perhaps most importantly it offers a blue-print for the rest of the world.  There were many who doubted that the EU could design, adopt and then agree on a package. Not only did we do this – but we did it in less than 12 months.

After many years of rhetoric on sustainable consumption and production we adopted proposals for a package of legislation that has the potential to revolutionise the way our economy works.

REACH became operational with the setting up of the EU Chemicals Agency. This was a remarkable achievement and our chemicals legislation is now providing inspiration for the rest of the world.

With the “forest package” we put forward proposals to address deforestation and illegal logging. Deforestation is responsible for more greenhouse emissions than the entire EU. We need to make every effort to meet our target of halting deforestation by 2030. And, if we do this, we will have also made a major step towards saving the planet’s most important biodiversity hotspots.

2008 was also a year when our biodiversity policies delivered results. International negotiations in Bonn were a success. We have nearly completed the terrestrial designation of NATURA 2000. And we have showed our determination to take legal measures when necessary. 2008 should be remembered because there was no spring hunting in Malta and no motorway built through the Rospuda valley.

And with the blog it has also been a good year. Traffic has risen by 60% and the site is now the third most visited of all the Commissioners’ sites. Most importantly it has provided a forum for debate and feedback on the work that we have been doing.

This year we are looking to develop the site further. There is a new blog interface, we are trying to increase the use of video clips and we will shortly be publishing sustainability scorecards looking at the performance of different countries. And as always we are interested in your thoughts about how what we can do could be further improved.

The negotiations are intense, and so far I have had productive discussions with China, Mexico, and a number of other emerging economies. I remain optimistic about a deal, because I have been struck by the degree of cooperation and understanding. Declarations, of course are easy: signed agreements in black and white are far more difficult to achieve.

The EU is discussing global reduction targets of 20%, but we also have a long-standing commitment to 30% by 2020 if other countries come on board. No one is under any illusions about the need for far more stringent targets in the more distant future: but we have to start somewhere, and get the world accustomed to the idea that change must come.

It is increasingly clear that our current ambitions may not be enough, and that we will probably need to revise our level of ambition upwards. The EU has always prided itself on basing its policies on science, and there are signs that the scientific consensus is shifting towards the need for more ambitious targets to avoid irreversible damage to our planet.

Every day sees a new report from a major NGO or respected group of scientists underlining the urgent need for action. Some of these reports stick in the mind: today for example the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network announced that one fifth of the world’s coral reefs have already died or been destroyed, and that the remainder are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

I am constantly thankful for the work NGOs do: we need them to pester us, and to ensure that the world cannot just tune out climate change.

Poznan is just a stepping stone, but it is a major one all the same. The real test will come in year’s time in Copenhagen, where we absolutely must reach an agreement. That is not an option – it is a categorical imperative. I am confident that world will deliver the agreement we need, but there is a mountain of work to do on the way.

Just over two months ago, the world’s first commercial wave power project was launched at Aguçadoura, a short distance off the Portuguese coast. The power plant - which looks like a giant snake and floats roughly 5 kilometres from the shore - is a significant step towards harnessing wave power as a source of electricity.

Once complete, the project will be able to provide electricity to 15,000 Portuguese households each year and by doing so will eliminate more than 60,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Wave energy could play a major part in the world’s efforts to combat climate change, and according to the British Wind Energy Association, could displace 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum from conventional fossil fuel sources. What is more, this kind of venture is creating job opportunities in construction, operations and maintenance.

The need to develop renewable sources of energy – requires scientific inspiration and entrepreneurial determination. This is what has been happening with wave energy in Portugal, solar energy in Spain and wind power in Denmark. Energy companies in these countries have worked successfully to harness the power of nature so that they can generate electricity at a comparatively low cost and to the benefit of the environment. It is an area where Europeans should be proud that their industries are in the lead and where policy makers should support these technologies to make sure that we keep our position as front-runners. 

He is in charge of one of the world’s most respected sources of economic analysis and we discussed the potential impact of the economic crisis on climate change policy (a subject I have already posted on). His message was clear: there is absolutely no economic case for delaying the policies that will make the shift to a low carbon economy. On the other hand, there are very strong economic reasons why the reform process needs to start immediately.

The first is that the longer the delay in cutting emissions the more severe (and costly) the impact of climate change will be. A recent OECD report found that “the economic costs of failing to introduce environmental policies that are sufficiently ambitious can be considerable”. In the case of climate this could be over 14% of GDP.

The second reason is that if we act early the investment costs needed to cut emissions are manageable. But the longer we wait then the greater these costs will be.

A third reason is that energy investments – such as a coal burning power station – have a lifetime of 30 to 40 years. Unless we start investing in clean energy immediately we will effectively be “locking in” dirty technologies for the foreseeable future.

The final argument is that the shift to a low carbon economies is inevitable. There is quite simply no other option if we want to avoid a global meltdown (in the literal sense). This means that developing clean technologies and providing environmental services is an excellent way to modernise our economies and to create new “green collar” jobs.

Climate change will not simply disappear because of an economic down turn. Emissions are continuing and the environmental situation is getting steadily worse. The people who argue that we should do nothing until the economic situation is better are either missing this fundamental point or are hiding their own agendas behind the crisis.

The conclusion of our meeting was clear. If we are concerned about the long term development of our economies then we need urgent and ambitious climate policies. Protecting the environment is not some kind of luxury that we can only afford in the good times. It is an essential investment in our future. And when the world’s top economists are sending this message then the world’s policy makers should act accordingly.

During my visit I gave speeches at Harvard and Yale which highlighted the fact that we urgently need to strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The package of climate action and renewable energy proposals that the European Commission issued in January of this year seeks to do just that. It will allow sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and result in a major increase in renewable energy - but at a cost of less that half of one percent of GDP. This is far less than the cost of simply letting climate change happen. And of course there is that added advantage that we will increase our energy security.

If we look at the long term then investing in the fight against climate change should be seen as the bargain of the century. It can also be profitable for investors. A recent report from Deutsche Bank pointed out that, in a world of increasing financial uncertainly, one sure trend is that we are on the way to a low carbon economy. Europe has realised this – which is why our climate goals are supported not only by ministers of the environment but also ministers of the economy and not only by green NGOs but also by business organisations.      

Tackling climate change can be the catalyst to modernising our economies and watching the presidential debates this is a point that was made by both candidates.  This is excellent news and since combating climate change will require an effective global response, we hope that others, including – or perhaps I should say, especially – the United States, will draw on our experience. 

I have had meetings with both camps - and it is clear that whoever becomes the next President we can look forward to a much closer cooperation on environmental issues in general and on climate change in particular. I am convinced that these fundamental challenges will move to the centre of the future trans-Atlantic agenda.

As Winston Churchill, who was half American himself, once said “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing – after exhausting the available alternatives.”