BT has become the first company to successfully cut 20 per cent of its business flights as part of WWF’s One in Five Challenge, a programme that helps companies to reduce their reliance on flying, in favour of lower carbon alternatives.

In a single year, BT was able to reduce the number of business flights from 85,130 to 65,510 – a reduction of nearly 20,000 flights.  By making these cuts, BT was also able to reduce their CO₂ emissions by more than 1,700 tonnes in avoided flights.

“What BT has achieved in such a short period of time is fantastic. They have shown real leadership and proved that it is possible for a business to make significant cuts in their flights. BT is setting a great example to other companies in demonstrating a pioneering approach to managing its travel by actively promoting the use of conferencing services to further reduce carbon emissions.” said Lucy Bertenshaw, Campaign Manager at WWF-UK.

WWF’s One in Five Challenge aims to help companies cut their flights by one fifth over a period of up to five years. The programme, which is independently audited by JMP Consultants Ltd, was launched last year and so far has 9 participating organisations, including Marks & Spencer, Skanska and Capgemini.

“BT sustainability and climate change programme manager Gabrielle Ginér said “We are delighted to be the first company to receive this prestigious award and be recognised for the proactive steps we are taking to reduce our business travel and minimise our impact on the environment.

She added: “In addition to promoting the use of conferencing services, we have been piloting a smart travel planner to help BT employees understand the carbon impact of business travel.

BT’s target is to reduce its group worldwide CO₂ emissions by 80% – from 1997 levels – by 2020. By travelling less and recognising the impact of travelling on CO₂ emissions, BT employees are helping the company meet its target and combat climate change in general.

For further information please contact:
Jo Sargent, Senior Press Officer, WWF-UK
Tel: 01483 412 375, Mob: 07867 697 519 email: jsargent@wwf.org.uk

Enquiries about this news release should be made to the BT Group Newsroom on its 24-hour number: 020 7356 5369. From outside the UK dial + 44 20 7356 5369.

All news releases can be accessed at our web site: http://www.btplc.com/News

Notes to Editors
WWF-UK is the UK arm of the WWF Network, the world’s leading environmental organisation founded in 1961 and now active in over 100 countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the earth’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

Using our unique combination of practical experience, knowledge and credibility, our 300-strong staff work with governments, businesses and communities both here in the UK and around the world so that people and nature thrive within their fair share of the planet’s natural resources. BT is one of the world’s leading providers of communications solutions and services operating in 170 countries. Its principal activities include the provision of networked IT services globally; local, national and international telecommunications services to our customers for use at home, at work and on the move; broadband and internet products and services and converged fixed/mobile products and services.

BT consists principally of four lines of business: BT Global Services, Openreach, BT Retail and BT Wholesale.

In the year ended 31 March 2009, BT Group’s revenue was £21,390 million. British Telecommunications plc (BT) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BT Group plc and encompasses virtually all businesses and assets of the BT Group.

BT Group plc is listed on stock exchanges in London and New York.

For more information, visit www.bt.com/aboutbtwww.bt.com/aboutbt

Key players in the housing and construction sector have joined together to outline a plan of action for upgrading the UK’s woefully outdated housing stock. The Existing Homes Alliance (ExHA) 2010 Manifesto seeks commitment from the Government to deliver a national retrofit programme, essential for moving the UK towards a low carbon economy. The need for action is pressing. Emissions from UK households are not falling, and are 5 per cent higher than ten years ago.

Key demands in the manifesto include:
• All homes to have a whole house retrofit by 2030
• £6bn a year should be invested in retrofitting the UK’s existing stock
• A 2010 to 2030 roadmap to set out minimum regulatory standards and voluntary aspirational standards for the energy performance of homes
• Energy Performance Certificates to gain greater prominence in the marketing of homes, to ensure that energy efficiency standards are reflected in house prices
• A range of financing mechanisms are made available to homeowners to cover the upfront costs of retrofitting
• Greater investment in a support and advice programme that will engage homeowners to use less energy in their homes and seek higher EPC rated properties

The Existing Homes Alliance assert that such a programme of updating the housing stock will benefit the economy by creating new jobs and reducing levels of fuel poverty. It will also provide certainty for businesses investing in low carbon measures for homes.

Colin Butfield, Chair of the Existing Homes Alliance, said:
“It is a sad fact that in the UK the majority of our homes are underperforming leaving many of us out of pocket, out in the cold and wastefully emitting carbon emissions. This manifesto outlines what we see as the solutions to our housing crisis. It is now essential that the Government establishes a national retrofit programme with some urgency so that we can meet the UK’s carbon budget targets.”

Ends

Notes to Editors

ExHA is comprised of expert organisations working with all sectors including financial institutions, builders and installers, energy utilities, manufacturers, suppliers, retailers, social housing managers, homeowners, landlords, local authorities and with government, to develop a programme of radical low carbon refurbishment. For further information visit www.existinghomesalliance.org.uk

A WWF/IUCN Global Review of Forest Fires (2000) has been the subject of comment in media regarding its use as a source for the IPCC and questioning the credibility of some of its claims. Some commentators have concluded that potential climate impacts on the Amazon are overstated and unsupported. WWF refutes this conclusion and stands by the credibility of its report.

WWF-UK would like to clarify the following details:

• The Global Review of Forest Fires says that “up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” WWF’s source for this statement was Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute). The source quotation from Fire in the Amazon reads “Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” Our report does NOT say that 40% of the Amazon forest is at risk from climate change.

• WWF acknowledges that a reference to Fire in the Amazon as the source of the 40% claim outlined above was mistakenly omitted during the editing process of the Global Review of Forest Fires report.

• The essential point made in the report (and referred to by the IPCC) is that reduced rainfall increases fire risk and that a drying of the “normally fire-resistant Amazon forest” could impact the hydrologic cycle with implications for regional and global climate.

• WWF has since published a further, more detailed report that looks at this subject in further depth: Nepstad, Daniel C, The Amazon’s Vicious Cycles: Drought and Fire in the Greenhouse – Ecological and Climatic Tipping Points of the World’s Largest Tropical Rainforest, and Practical Preventive Measures, (WWF 2007). This report was supported by The Woods Hole Research Centre, the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia, and the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, and independently reviewed by Prof Yadvinder Malhi, Professor of Ecosystem Science at Oxford University.

• What is not in contention is that the Amazon is at risk from factors which include and are complicated by climate change. Climate change is widely predicted to pose a significant risk to Amazon forest cover and type. A number of recent peer-reviewed studies support this.

• WWF cannot answer for the use of our 2000 report by other institutions.

The overwhelming majority of scientists from all relevant fields stand by the basic conclusion of climate science that human-induced changes in the composition of the atmosphere are resulting in warming which is driving damaging and possibly catastrophic climate change. This finding is supported by theory, modelling and more and more extensively by measurement over more than 20 years of what has become the largest international scientific collaboration ever mounted.

Recent controversies have largely concerned scientific standards employed in the assessment of projected impacts of climate change in a very small proportion of regions and cases studied. These incidents have no bearing on the overwhelming mass of findings on the reality and causes of climate change.

As the world’s leading science-based conservation organisation, WWF is committed to ensuring the information we provide to the public meets high standards of accuracy. WWF practice is to research any errors we are alerted to and make corrections where relevant.

For further comment please call Benjamin Ward (+44 7837 134 193) or Phil Dickie (+41 7970 31952).

Benjamin Ward
Head of Press & Media Relations
WWF-UK

+44 (0) 1483 412 378
+44 (0) 7837 134 193
bward@wwf.org.uk

WWF recently became aware that a 2005 report contained erroneous information about the rate at which glaciers are melting in the Himalayas

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) comes out on top in a new report commissioned by WWF that reveals poor performance among other assessed seafood ecolabelling schemes and calls for improvements across the board to strengthen their effectiveness.

Accenture’s non-profit practice, Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP) compared and ranked seven fishery certification schemes that use ecolabels on seafood products against a set of WWF criteria that focus on the schemes’ effectiveness in addressing the health of fisheries and oceans.

The MSC is ranked the highest in the ADP report, Assessment of On-Pack, Wild-Capture Seafood Sustainability Certification Programmes and Seafood Ecolabels, with a score of just over 95 percent compliance to the assessment’s criteria requirements.

The report finds that except for the MSC, the other assessed schemes – Naturland, Friend of the Sea, Krav, AIDCP, Mel-Japan and Southern Rocklobster – do not evaluate fisheries across all criteria to the extent required to support sustainable fishing and healthy oceans.

“The findings of this assessment reveal serious inadequacies in a number of ecolabels and cast doubt on their overall contribution to effective fisheries management and sustainability.” said Miguel Jorge, Director of WWF International’s Marine Programme.

“While the assessment shows the MSC comes out best in class using the most rigorous programme out there, it is not perfect. Improvements are needed across the board to ensure all seafood ecolabels deliver on their promise.”

The criteria used in the assessment reflect best practices for fisheries ecolabelling certification schemes with the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 2005 guidelines for ecolabelling forming the basis for the criteria. Standards developed by the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) and elements from WWF’s framework for ecosystem-based management of marine fisheries were added.

The assessment points to significant differences in transparency, information availability, structure and accuracy of claims made by each scheme. Aside from the MSC, all other schemes assessed have substantial shortcomings in the area of transparency and information provision.

“The growth of seafood ecolabels over the last ten years attests to the strong demand from consumers and seafood companies who want seafood from better fisheries.” added Jorge.

“But with the proliferation of ecolabels and the variability of these schemes there is a real risk of confusion, or worse still a lack of confidence in seafood ecolabelling among buyers and consumers.”

As part of WWF’s efforts to implement sustainable fishing practices globally to protect marine life and ocean habitats, the conservation organization works with major seafood buyers to use their purchasing power to secure seafood from sustainable sources and assess their current supply chain. The report is intended to address confusion expressed by this group and inform their choices.

The most credible ecolabelling schemes accepted in international fora are voluntary, third party, operated independently and involving interested parties.

In addition to fisheries certification scheme efforts to address sustainable fishing, other issues including carbon footprint, animal welfare and social issues such as worker’s rights are growing in public consciousness. WWF calls on the seafood ecolabelling community to develop internationally agreed criteria for these priority issues and establish evaluation mechanisms.

“We recommend the assessed schemes reflect on their contribution to marine conservation and use the report as a guide to how best to assess and evaluate fisheries seeking their ecolabel.” added Jorge.

For further information:

Debbie Chapman, Senior Press Officer, WWF-UK, 01493 412397, 07900 670282, dchapman@wwf.org.uk

Sarah Bladen, Conservation Communications, t+41 22 364 9019, m+41 79 415 0220, e sbladen@wwwfint.org

*New report finds technology and behavioural changes required to cut emissions from food*

The food we eat accounts for 30% of the UK’s carbon footprint, according to a new report published today by WWF-UK and the Food Climate Research Network. Previous estimates put the figure closer to 20%, but this study is the first to incorporate land use change overseas, increasing the estimate of emissions attributed to food consumption in this country from 152MtCO2 to 253MtCO2.

Land use change, mainly deforestation, is a major source of climate changing emissions. Each year world-wide, an area of forest equivalent to half of England is lost. The expansion of the food system is the biggest driver behind this as land is cleared to grow crops and rear animals.

Given the extent of food consumption on the UK’s overall emissions, WWF-UK and the FCRN are calling for a radical change to the country’s food system to help stop deforestation and reduce the scale of emissions from the food chain.

The new report – How Low Can We Go: an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050 – assessed various scenarios that explored what these changes might look like. Both technological and behavioural initiatives were tested, including decarbonisation of the energy used in the food chain, improved efficiencies and changes in consumption of meat and dairy products.

If the food industry is to play its part in keeping temperature rises below two degrees, emissions need to be cut by at least 70% by 2050. The report concludes that no one solution alone can reduce emissions to this extent. WWF-UK and FCRN are urging Government and industry decision-makers to recognise that a focus on technology alone is not enough – food consumption patterns need to change too.

Mark Driscoll, head of WWF-UK’s One Planet Food programme said: “The full impact of our diets on climate change is astonishingly high – this report shows that. This makes the target to cut emissions by at least 70% by 2050 a daunting task, but not an impossible one. We must stop chewing over some of the issues and start making change happen – both in terms of technology and behaviour.”

Tara Garnett, head of the FCRN said: “We now know enough to conclude that the food system contributes very substantially to the problem of climate change. We also know enough about where and how the impacts arise to start doing something about them. Business as usual – and even business as usual ‘lite’ – is no longer an option.”

In terms of the impacts of food consumption the report found:
• The food chain’s contribution to overall UK consumption-related emissions is 20%. However, when land use change is included this increases to 30%.
• All stages of the UK food chain give rise to emissions, with the breakdown as follows: production and initial processing (34%); manufacturing, distribution, retail and cooking (26%) and agriculturally-induced land use change (40%).
• Livestock farming accounts for 57% of agricultural emissions and is also responsible for three quarters of land use change emissions.

Solutions-wise, the report concluded that there is no silver bullet to achieve such reductions – a combination of activities and changes will be required. These include:
• increasing production efficiency, including improved crop yields and changes to animal feeds to reduce methane emissions
• a significant switch to non-carbon fuels and increased energy use efficiency
• changes in the types of food we consume

The idea of collaboration – between producers, processors, retailers, NGOs and Government – is highlighted in the Government’s recently published Food 2030 document, which sets out a vision for UK food. This should be applauded. The role of sustainable diets and a commitment to defining them will also be an important step.

Dietary changes will also ease land pressures, in terms of reducing the amount of land needed to produce the food we consume. While this study did not consider the impact of diet on land use change in detail, nor deal with the issue of land quality, and its potential to produce different types of food, these ideas will be dealt with in a follow-up study tackling the question of how changing consumption will affect land use.

For more details and to receive an embargoed copy of the summary and report, contact David Burrows: dburrows@wwf.org.uk 07917 831640

Notes to editors
• This report – How low can we go: An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050 – forms part of WWF-UK’s wider One Planet Food programme. This programme incorporates the whole food chain, from the production of commodities (like palm oil and soya) through processing and on to consumption and disposal. The goals of the programme are to radically improve the key environmental impacts of the food that is eaten in the UK, including our impact on the parts of the world richest in biodiversity. This is a complex task, and since 2008 WWF has been working in collaboration with scientists and key actors in the food system – businesses, policy makers, consumer organisations and other non-governmental organisations – to understand the impacts of the food consumed in the UK, whether grown here or imported from abroad.
• The way we live is leading to environmental threats such as climate change, species extinction, deforestation, water shortages and the collapse of fisheries. WWF’s One Planet Future Campaign is working to help people live a good quality of life within the earth’s capacity. For more information visit www.wwf.org.uk/oneplanet
• The Food Climate Research Network www.fcrn.org.uk is a UK research council-funded initiative based at the University of Surrey. Its aim is to understand how the food system contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and to research and promote ways of reducing them. Its focus is broad, encompassing technological options, behaviour change and the policy dimension.
• In 2008, the Food Climate Research Network published Cookng up a Storm (http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrnPubs/index.php?id=6 ), which estimated that our consumption of food in the UK, from agriculture through to consumption, accounts for 19% of all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated through the goods and services we consume. It also argued that a reduction of up to 70% should be possible if we deployed a mix of technological improvements and changes in consumption. The report recommended that Government should commit to reducing emissions by this amount, by 2050, and should set out a road map for how it intends to do so, stating what proportion would be achieved through technological and managerial improvements; and what from changes in the balance of what people eat. This recommendation and WWF-UK’s desire to understand what approaches are needed to reduce GHG emissions from food by 70% provided the impetus for WWF-UK and the FCRN to join forces in commissioning this new report.

Plans published today for the future of rivers in England and Wales will let the big polluters off the hook, say campaigners.

Today sees the publication of the Environment Agency’s ten River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs). These set out how the river network in each region will be cared for over the next five years to meet targets for wildlife set by the European Water Framework Directive.

But the Our Rivers campaign – a coalition formed by the RSPB, WWF-UK, the Angling Trust and the Association of Rivers Trusts – have criticised the plans saying they lack ambition and fail to lay the cost of cleaning up our rivers on those most responsible.

Although two of the main causes of environmental problems on rivers in England and Wales are agricultural pollution and badly planned urban development, the farming industry and local planning authorities are bearing a tiny fraction of the costs of repairing the damage. 85 per cent of the costs are to be paid for by water companies – a cost that will eventually be passed on to the consumer.

Because the plans fail to tackle major polluters, the rivers that people and wildlife rely on will take decades to improve. The Our Rivers campaign is calling for better targeting of farm subsidies to tackle diffuse pollution, measures to treat run off from roads and car parks and, where incentives fail to improve our rivers quickly enough, a clear commitment from government to use tougher regulation to force action.

Rob Cunningham, head of Water Policy at the RSPB, said: “Three quarters of our rivers are failing European targets that are meant to ensure our rivers, lakes and coasts are thriving with wildlife. These plans will only bring an extra five per cent up to standard. They are facing threats like polluted run off, over abstraction and invasive species which are putting native river wildlife under increasing pressure.

“It’s great that the Environment Agency has made a commitment to carry out over 8,500 investigations to try and fill the gaps in the plans, but after ten years of working on this directive the scale of improvement they are committing to by 2015 is very disappointing.”

Rose Timlett, WWF-UK freshwater policy officer, said: “The plans clearly show governmental failure to protect and restore the majority of English and Welsh rivers, much loved by millions of people across the country.

“This is not only bad news for our rivers, lakes and wetlands but also the unique diversity of wildlife that depend on them. WWF has been working on the Water Framework Directive for a decade and to us it is clear that government has missed a unique opportunity to implement the most significant piece of environmental legislation ever to come from Europe.”

-Ends-

Notes to editors:

The Defra press release on the publication of the River Basin Management Plans can be found here – http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=409833&SubjectId=2

A recent Environment Agency assessment listed 26 per cent of rivers in England and Wales as ‘Good’ status. This means 74% of rivers are failing – including 117 rivers (2%) which are classified as ‘Bad’ making them among the worst in Europe. The EU Water Framework Directive requires the UK to bring all of its rivers up to ‘Good’ status or above by 2015. Current draft plans mean the UK will fail to reach this target.

Since the Our Rivers campaign launched at the end of April, 217 regional river action groups and more than a thousand individuals have adopted local rivers and have been providing information during the consultation phase on the pressures they face. The campaign has also been backed by eight Parliamentarians who are concerned about the state of the water courses in their constituencies. For more information visit the campaign website – www.ourrivers.org.uk

Feedback from supporters of the Our Rivers campaign during its first six months indicate that the three biggest threats to rivers in England and Wales are chemical and sediment pollution from agriculture, over abstraction by water companies, and run-off water from urban areas.

Our Rivers is supported as part of the HSBC Climate Partnership (HCP). The HCP is a US$100 million, five-year partnership funded by HSBC, working with the Climate Group, the Earthwatch Institute, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and WWF. Launched in May 2007, the HCP will:
Help to protect four of the world’s major rivers – the Amazon, Ganges, Thames, and Yangtze – from the impacts of climate change, benefitting the 450 million people who rely on them.
Make some of the world’s great cities – Hong Kong, London, Mumbai, New York and Shanghai – cleaner and greener, which the partners will promote as models for the world;
Create ‘climate champions’ worldwide who will undertake field research and bring back valuable knowledge and experience to their communities;
Conduct the largest ever field experiment on the world’s forests to measure carbon and the effects of climate change.
For more information, please visit www.hsbc.com/committochange

Plans for new skiing areas in the region around the Carpathian Mountains and the Balkans threaten to harm major protected areas that house some of Europe’s last remaining untouched wilderness.

New developments and expansion plans for existing facilities for downhill skiing are in the works across many parts of the region, particularly in Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Ukraine.

In theory, potential conflicts between nature conservation and development – including for ski tourism – should be mediated by procedures such as Environmental Impact Assessments and the European Union’s Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, which provide a system for evaluating potential impacts on nature and identifying solutions and measures to mitigate negative impacts.

In practice, however, these safeguards are of limited effect, and in the face of intense pressure from economic and political forces, nature conservation is often given short shrift.

The Carpathian Mountains are Europe’s last great wilderness area – a bastion for large carnivores, with some two-thirds of the continent’s populations of brown bears, wolves and lynx. They are also home to the greatest remaining reserves of old growth forests outside of Russia.

Meanwhile, the Balkan Mountains and the Rila-Rodope Mountain Range in Bulgaria contain outstanding natural features that are of global importance, including the Rila and Pirin National Parks, which have been recognised, respectively, as a certified PAN Parks wilderness area and a UNESCO World Heritage Park.

“It is striking how little climate change and sustainability appear to be entering calculations for many of the new ski area,” said Andreas Beckman, Director of WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme. “Already, rising temperatures and decreased precipitation and snow cover is causing problems for many facilities, with some poor recent ski seasons.”

A glance at the Alps should raise questions about the wisdom of pouring investments into ski areas in the Carpathians. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, as many as two-thirds of Alpine ski areas could go out of business according to current projections for climate change, while Alpine areas lower than 1,500 m are facing a very uncertain future. In fact, a 2004 report concludes that alpine ski regions in Slovakia at 1,150-1,500 meters above sea level may be uneconomic by 2030.

Ski resorts being developed across the Carpathians and Bulgarian mountain ranges are already including adaptation measures to climate change in the form of snow cannons. But ironically, through their huge consumption of energy snow cannons only contribute to accelerating the rise in temperatures. The estimated 3,100 snow cannons in Europe consume per year and hectare roughly 1 million litres of water and 260,000 kWh of electricity – i.e. roughly as much energy per year as a city of 150,000 inhabitants and as much water as a city the size of Hamburg.

Construction of ski facilities of course can have very significant impact on habitats and species, not only due to removal of forest cover and other vegetation to make way for ski runs, access roads and infrastructure, but also due to fragmentation of habitats and wildlife avoidance. Secondary effects such as the abstraction of water for artificial snow production and deterioration of environmental conditions due to heavy tourist flow concentration can also have heavy impacts for biodiversity and nature values.

“EU support must not be given for any problematic developments, including those that clearly contravene EU and national legislation as well as projects that are likely to be unviable over the medium-term, e.g. as the result of climate change,” Beckmann said. “In addition relevant authorities must be pressured to fully apply EU legislation in their countries, including especially Strategic and Environmental Impacts Assessments as well as the EU’s Habitats and Birds Directives, for projects at the planning stage.”

“Ski developments must not be permitted in protected areas, especially in national parks and core areas of any other protected area, in High Conservation Value Forests and High Nature Value Farmlands,” said Erika Stanciu, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, Forest and Protected Areas Team Leader. Careful consideration should be given to valuable natural and traditional landscapes. Developments in Natura 2000 sites must respect provisions of EU’s Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.”

“In the meantime we can all avoid ski areas that do not comply with basic criteria for environmental safeguards and legislation”, she adds.

For example, Bansko, in the heart of Pirin National Park in Bulgaria, is a popular ski destination that has become infamous for being the first of a series of illegal ski developments in Bulgarian protected areas. The project received approval from authorities in 2000 and was built in subsequent years. Half of the ski runs in Bansko have no environmental permits, while those ski runs which do have permits have violated each requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment decision. These violations include for example the width of ski runs – instead of the permitted 30 m they actually are 60 to 100 m wide. The European Commission has initiated penalty procedures against Bulgaria because of violations of environmental law in the case of Bansko.

The development has caused significant environmental problems, including landslides in Pirin National Park, but has also had social and economic implications. Bansko was once a popular summer resort, but visitor numbers have dropped in recent years due to higher prices and over-development of the once picturesque town. And as if this is not enough, earlier this year the Consultative Council of Pirin National Park submitted to the Ministry of the Environment a proposal to alter the park management plan in order to permit the construction of two huge new ski zones inside the park.

The epidemic nature of the problem is also in Slovakia where authorities have essentially opened the Tatras National Park to development – a marked change as the area has been relatively strictly protected for the past thirty years.

As a result, the country’s flagship protected area is facing intense pressure. Five ski areas are being developed around the park, including development of ski runs and expansion of tourist facilities, with little if any state control or proper assessments. As a result, the area could lose its international recognition as a national park by IUCN, the world conservation union. The European Commission has also begun investigating impacts of the developments on Natura 2000 protected areas.

Despite international recommendations and pressure, Slovak authorities have yet to adopt clear zoning and management plans for communities in the area. Zoning and planning could guide development and management of the area, ensuring opportunities for development while maintaining the natural values that are the area’s chief attraction. The lack of any planning or guidelines, together with the hands-off attitude of relevant authorities, has essentially given developers free rein to develop the area.

In Ukraine, one of the 20 largest ski areas in the world has been stamped out of the ground in the Ukrainian Carpathians, not far from the city of Ivano-Frankivsk. Development of the Bukovel area is continuing, with total investment in the area reportedly planned eventually to reach €3 billion.

A total of 66 lifts, 400 km of ski runs, and 100,000 beds, an airport and 15 million annual visitors are planned overall. The development counts on significant artificial snow production, including 500 snow production sites, 300 snow lances, 40 mobile propeller snow cannon and a 100,000 m3 artificial lake to provide water for snow production. The Ukrainian government weighed in behind the project as a site to host the 2018 Winter Olympic Games, although in the end it did not make the bid.

Unfortunately, many of the existing and planned ski developments in Romania are also in areas of high natural value, including within existing protected areas and often in areas included in the Natura 2000 network of specially protected sites. Many of these areas are of outstanding natural value, not only of national, but also EU and even global importance.

Some 40 percent of the 45 areas with proposed ski facilities that have been identified in a Romanian country study are inside or next to proposed Natura 2000 sites and 17.8 percent will be located in the strictly protected areas from nature and national parks.The most striking examples are the planned ski resorts Pestera Padina, in the Bucegi Nature Park and Padis – 12 km of ski pistes in the strictly protected area of Apuseni Nature Park. The parks are not only flagship parks for Romania and indeed Europe, but also contain key Natura 2000 areas.

These projects enjoy very considerable public sector support, both in terms of legislation and approvals as well as direct support for investment. Development of ski tourism is given priority in many planning documents for regional and local development. Many of the projects in EU countries, e.g. Slovakia and Romania, expect to receive very significant support from the EU, especially through co-financing from regional development funds.

The €772 million in EU Structural Funds that Slovakia will receive in the period 2007-13 for supporting “Competitiveness and Economic Growth” will include substantial investment in constructing, modernizing and extending ski centres. But for many of the projects, the long-term profitability and public interest is questionable.

Little of substance has been decided in the texts now being passed to ministers and soon to go before Heads of State in Copenhagen, WWF warned today.

All night sessions failed to produce a financial framework for assisting developing nations to adapt to climate change and reduce emissions. The debate on strengthened emission reduction targets for the historically biggest emitters from industrialized countries has not progressed beyond the utterly insufficient offerings made by the developed world before Copenhagen.

“In many ways the final sessions have produced more disagreement rather than less on key issues as national negotiators dig in,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s global deal. “As the really hard decisions go forward to higher levels, it becomes more likely we will end up with high words on principal and less likely we will get detailed words that will work in tackling climate change.”

Carstensen said the competitiveness and intransigence of large powers was largely responsible for the mess the talks had become.

“At the higher levels, it is lawyers building loopholes for the sake of large interests rather than nations negotiating the moral and effective ways to enact the measures that science says are necessary,” Carstensen said. “The world is currently on track for runaway climate change, with commitments put forward by parties adding up to levels of global warming that may well reach 4 degrees C above pre-industrial levels – a recipe for disaster.”

“Large nations can bully and spin their way out of effective climate action, but there will be no way to spin or bully our way out of climate change. The world will look back on this conference from a state of climate chaos or from a state of narrowly averted climate crisis. When we look back, will we be talking of the cure of Copenhagen or the curse of Copenhagen.”

“Texts in almost all crucial areas of the negotiations – such as technology cooperation, adaptation and forest protection – has been seriously stripped of anything firm over the last 24 hours”, said Carstensen.

“Negotiators from the US have been trying to hold the line on too many things big and small and in the process the big picture has been lost – it is time for the moral leadership of US president Barack Obama to assert itself in line with the hopes and expectations of the world,” Carstensen said. “China also has to take a higher moral ground and face the contradiction between it requiring international scrutiny of the greenhouse gas inventories of other nations while declining it for itself.”

“Europe could act boldly in line with the scientific imperatives rather than act incrementally on the basis of what others are doing. We have three days left. Our planet can’t afford delay, so leaders have to take over and rescue the process.”

For further information:
Jo Sargent, Senior Press Officer, WWF-UK
44 7867 697 519

As talks heat up in Copenhagen, several countries put forward additional fast-start financing proposals to help broker a deal, but the important missing component remains long-term finance. Today, Japanese Environment Minister Sakihito Ozawa announced USD15 billion for fast start funding by 2012, under the Hatoyama Initiative. Earlier in the day, Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States announced that they will commit USD3.5 billion of public finance to reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries (REDD).

“We welcome these new commitments as they show a desire to reach a global agreement to address climate change,” said Kim Carstensen, the leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative. “Unfortunately, the core ingredient that remains on the shelf is a solid proposal for reliable long-term finance. This is one key element that is needed to break down the wall between developed and developing countries.”

Japan’s commitment is for USD 15 billion with stipulations that USD 11 billion of that would be from public financing. This represents a clear increase from previous reports estimating Japan’s financing proposal at USD 9.2 billion.

“Japan is clearly trying to move the negotiations forward,” added Carstensen.

In addition, Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States announced they will commit USD $3.5 billion of public finance over three years to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in developing countries.

“The commitment from these industrialized countries to provide $3.5 billion in fast-start public finance is a welcome start to the much bigger effort to reduce and ultimately stop the loss of forests, and it is good to see a broad coalition of countries getting behind it,” said Carstensen. “We still need to see, however, exactly how much of the financing from both of these announcements today is new and additional to other development aid already promised.”

This falls short of the need identified by the recent informal working group on REDD, which found that nearly USD $9 billion would be needed over the next 3 years. “We urge more countries to come forward with commitments and fill this funding gap,” added Carstensen.

“Although fast-start funding is critical to build up capacity, it must not be seen as any substitute for secure, predictable and additional finance for the medium and long term, which is necessary both for mitigation actions, like deforestation, and for critical efforts to help vulnerable countries adapt to the dangerous impacts of climate change,” said Carstensen. “The need for this long-term money is not negotiable. The deal and the planet depend on it.”

ends

For further information please contact Jo Sargent, +44 (0) 7867 697519, jsargent@wwf.org.uk

Debbie Chapman
Senior Press Officer
WWF-UK
tel: +44 (0) 1483 412397
BB: +44 (0) 7900 670282
dchapman@wwf.org.uk