ARCHIVE Comments on EU policy (FOEE/Food and Water Watch) – REPORTS ngo’s (2011-2013)

Share Button

Brussels conference 5 Sept 2013 – Full programme http://frackingfreeireland.org/fracking-free-europe/
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Voting results Plenary Vote 9 October 2013

The votes are in and we know how MEPs voted on key provisions related to unconventional fossil fuels.

Attached, you can the voting results (pp. 13-14) and the roll-call votes (pp. 59-74). Also available here.
 What did we learn?
All votes to make an EIA mandatory for all unconventional fossil fuel extraction were overwhelmingly adopted (524/118/15 for shale and 533/118/11 for CBM).
As to a broad application of an EIA to all unconventional fossil fuel exploration, we came very close to a majority (305/335/12 for shale and 304/340/13 for CBM).
We came within about 30 votes of a majority!
A last-minute amendment AM 126 by the rapporteur – under pressure from UK MEPs / ALDE/ Liberal-Democrats and MEP Chris Davies in particular – included unconventional exploration, but only required an EIA “limited to the phase involving the application of hydraulic fracturing”.
This amendment 126 did receive a majority (364/292/9 for shale and 355/297/10 for CBM).
Who in voted in favour of AM 126?
  • All Greens
  • All GUE
  • S&D (minus all the Poles and Luxembourgish climate change denying MEP Goebbels)
  • ALDE … unanimous … Zanoni’s last-minute AM clearly worked.
  • Miscellaneous: Bonanini, Brons, Childers, Ehrenhauser, Gollnisch, Le Pen Jean-Marie, Le Pen Marine, Martin Hans-Peter, Morvai, Mölzer, Obermayr, Severin, Sosa Wagner, Stoyanov, Zamfirescu
  • EPP MEPs … 36 of them … a great success!
    • All Belgian MEPs
    • All Dutch, except Wortmann-Kool
    • All Austrians thanks to Seeber, I suspect (Rubig not present)
    • Lithuania: Morkunaite
    • Germany: Hohlmeier, Niebler, Liese, Posselt, Verheyen, Weber, Weisgerber
    • Sweden: Hokmark, Ibrisagic, Svensson
    • France: Boulland, Striffler
    • Romania: Antonescu, Marinescu, Matula, Stolojan, Winkler
    • Finland: Essayah, Pietikainen
    • Italy: Angellili, Bonsignore
Lithuanian S&D MEP Balcytis  and Spanish ALDE Tremosa voted first against including exploration for SG, followed by a vote in favour of including CBM exploration … let’s assume they pressed the wrong button!
Who voted against?
  • ECR
  • EFD
  • PPE
 So, a pretty clear left-right divide! Some good material for the 2014 elections!

shale gas new fracking projects must pass environmental test

Shale gas new fracking projects must pass environmental testhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131004IPR21541/html/Shale-gas-new-fracking-projects-must-pass-environmental-test  (FMN 124)

Meps recognise dangers of fracking

MEPs recognise dangers of frackinghttp://www.foeeurope.org/european-parliament-recognise-dangers-fracking-091013

The Plenary vote of the EIA Directive has just happened.
First, here are the main outcomes (presented by the Greens):

Good Results on points put to plenary vote
+ shale gas exploitation (RCV 79 14a: 524/118/x) and exploration (limited to the fracking phase RCV 126:364/292/x) were included in the Annex I, i.e. Subject to mandatory EIA
+ open cast mining was also included in Annex I (RCV 79/2 364/281/x)
+ access to justice including injunctive relief was strengthened
 
Bad Results
– Some amendments to water down the committee report, including corrective mitigation and compensation were adopted. Overall the main improvements of the proposal were still maintained.


To cut one long story short and avoid complicated and technical explanation, that basically means that during the Plenary vote, the AM 79 didn’t entirely go through (exploration activities were rejected) but the AM 126 was accepted (which means that all the other really bad AMs on the unconventional fossil fuels issue were rejected).
It is therefore quite a good news because it means that MEPs voted to ensure that shale gas, shale oil, tight gas and coal bed methane extraction and exploration involving fracking would be subject to mandatory. environmental impact assessments.
But it is however, to my views, not perfect because it limits the scope of the EIA during the exploration phase only to the use of fracking. That means that an operator could prepare the pad, drill, take samples, wireline log with large radioactive sources, move all the compressors on to the pad, the condensate tanks, the separators, the generators, the lighting, the chemicals, silica sand, do the seismic tests – then move to fracking and need to ask for a EIA. So that’s quite a lot of activities which won’t be subject to an EIA and that could also generate some important damages.

You can find here the press release that we’ve just published: http://www.foeeurope.org/european-parliament-recognise-dangers-fracking-091013

It is therefore a victory for us as it gives some important tools to local communities to fight against a possible development of this industry, but it’s still quite imperfect.
Please also keep in mind that this is not the end of the process. The text will now have to be discussed at the European Council level (so basically between member states), so it is crucial to continue our advocacy work but at the national level this time.

A MASSIVE THANK YOU TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR GREAT WORK, MOBILISATION, HELP AND COMMITMENT. Many votes were obtained with a tight majority, so every votes counted and I doubt we would have had these results without your active participation.

More to come very soon with the Roll Call votes (so that you can see which MEP voted what).

All the best,

Antoine Simon
Economic Justice Programme
Extractive Industries Campaigner

Friends of the Earth Europe
TEL: +32 2 893 1018
Mobile: +32 486 685 664
FAX: +32 2 893 1035
antoine.simon@foeeurope.org
Skype: antoine.foee

www.foeeurope.org
www.facebook.com/FoEEurope
www.twitter.com/foeeurope

FOOD AND WATER WATCH – Geert Decock

 

Greetings from Strasbourg. 

Still confused about what the final text of Annex I of the EIA Directive now reads like.


For sure, the extraction part of AM79 was widely approved, both for shale and tight gas (565 in favour) and for CBM (533 in favour)

“14a. Extraction of crude oil and/or natural gas trapped in gas-bearing strata of shale or in other sedimentary rock formations of equal or lesser permeability and porosity, regardless of the amount extracted.

14b. Extraction of natural gas from coal beds, regardless of the amount extracted.

But not sure about the text of AM 126 … as it is essentially the same text as AM 79. Maybe the references to extraction get dropped? On shale and tight gas, the majority in favour was quite narrow (364/292). The same for CBM (355/297)

14a. Exploration, limited to the phase involving the application of hydraulic fracturing, and extraction of petroleum and/or natural gas trapped in strata of gas shales or other sedimentary rock formations with similarly low or lower permeability and porosity, independently of the quantity extracted.

14b. Exploration, limited to the phase involving the application of hydraulic fracturing, and extraction of natural gas from coal seams, independently of the quantity extracted.

 
So maybe, we get 4 extra points on unconventional gas in Annex I:
  • 14a (extraction of shale and tight gas)
  • 14b (extraction of CBM)
  • 14c (exploration of shale and tight gas, limited to phase involving fracking)
  • 14d (exploration of CBM, limited to phase involving fracking)
Whatever the final text, a great accomplishment for the anti-fracking movement. A great collaborative effort!
 
Rapporteur Zanoni also got support from MEPs to go back to the Environment Committee and change some parts of his report that failed to win a majority and see where compromises might be possible. From my understanding, the AMs that were adopted in Plenary will not be reopened for discussion. After that, Zanoni will be able to enter negotiations with the Member States.
 
Geert Decock
Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe
Tel: +32 (0)2 893 10 45
Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491

Comment
The texts copied by Geert were both adopted without the modification. The political intent is to cover also exploration projects, but for the aspects that involve hydraulic fracturing. The wording is perfect or completely clear, but this will all be discussed with the Council in negotiations. What is important is that both aspects can be pushed by the EP in the negotiations with the Council.

Meps puting the breaks - Geraldine

 

Article from a campaigner from Fracking Free Brussels – http://www.ejolt.org/2013/07/meps-putting-the-brakes-on-fracking-in-europe/

FOOD AND WATER WATCH EUROPE

Press release: Press release_FWE_ENVI vote on EIA Dir_FINAL

The position from the MEP’s – reply to our lobby

Nessa Childers
Thank you for your recent e-mail and the issues raised therein, which will be brought to Nessa’s attention. Please be assured that Nessa shares your concerns and will endeavour to take them into consideration at this week’s vote.
Thank you once again for bringing this important issue to our attention.
Sincerely,
Pauline Ngury
Parliamentary Assistant
Nessa Childers- www.nessachilders.ie

Linda McAvan
Thank you for your email on the proposal for a revised Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). I am replying on behalf of Labour MEPs as the spokesperson on the environment.

Labour MEPs agree with the need to update this legislation in line with policy developments. Its aim should be to ensure that a range of criteria are taken into account when assessing a project with broad implications on the surrounding environment, and that this process should be effectively streamlined and robust.

It is important that biodiversity, the use of natural resources, climate change and natural and man-made disaster risks are included among the factors to be assessed. Transparency and public participation in the assessment should be strengthened, and the independence of the competent authority vis-à-vis the developer ensured.

With regards specifically to the inclusion of all unconventional fossil fuels (such as shale gas) in the framework of the EIA, this was proposed by the Parliament’s lead MEP or rapporteur Andrea Zanoni.  Labour MEPs will support that position and the compromise amendment you cite in the committee vote, which has been moved to next week. It is important that any exploration and extraction involving fracking is subject to a mandatory EIA. Such a step would follow the clear lead given by the Parliament’s report on the Environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities which I led on for the Socialist and Democrat Group when it went through Parliament last year.

Yours sincerely,
Linda McAvan MEP

Martina Anderson –  As a full member of the Environment Committee Martina will be voting on this report on Thursday 11th July and will of course support the compromise amendment which adds the production of unconventional fossil fuels to the Annex 1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
Martina and Sinn Féin have always taken a very strong stance against shale gas operations. In November, Martina and her GUE/NGL colleagues (from the group she sits with in the European Parliament) co-signed an amendment to another report urging Member States not to authorise any new hydraulic fracturing operations in the EU.
Martina would like to extend her support to those who are campaigning against fracking. Hopefully the vote in the Environment Committee will be a triumph for anti-fracking campaigners

Marian Harkin MEP – I will be in touch with colleagues on the ENVI Committee to inform them of this important issue, and when the proposals are brought before the plenary session of Parliament to be voted on by all MEPs, I will be supporting it fully and urging colleagues to do the same.

Today, I spoke  at the industry-sponsored and Polish-MEP hosted Roundtable on Shale Gas in the European Parliament. The event served as the launch of the European version of FrackFocus, called NGSFacts.org, to demonstrate industry’s commitment to chemicals disclosure. Or Natural Gas From Shale Facts (NGS Facts).

I pointed out some of the flaws in FrackFocus as well as ongoing concerns about gas and fluid migration due to (in our view, pervasive) poor cementing practices and casing failures in unconventional gas projects. This is the statement that I made.

At Food & Water Watch / Europe, we took the liberty to buy the URL NGSFacts.com to offer our view on the ugly reality of shale gas activities. It redirects to our fracking web page.

Please check it out and share on Facebook and Twitter (#ngsfacts), linking to our site. Would be great to rain on the oil and gas’ industry transparency PR effort on transparency.

Our press release is here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/ngsfacts/

One last thing: Czech MEP Pavel Poc asked a question to the representative of the Commission about the farmers protesting in Zurawlow. A spokesperson for Chevron took the floor insisting that Chevron is not doing anything illegal.

Cheers,
Geert

Fracfocus – http://www.ngsfacts.org/

Fracfocus European version: The URL from Food and Water Watch – http://www.ngsfacts.com/

Statement FWE at Shale Gas Roundtable

————————————————————–

STAKEHOLDERS MEETING 7 JUNE BRUSSELS
(visit also http://frackingfreeireland.org/fracking-free-europe/)


Stakeholder event – Unconventional fossil fuels (e.g. shale gas) in Europe – http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/uff_event_7june2013_en.htm  (FMN 111)


Presentation_07062013 – eu stakeholders meeting results

As advertised last week, the European Commission organised last Friday a stakeholders meeting aiming at presenting the first results of the European public consultation that took place beginning of the year but also aiming at putting everything on the table and discussing about the main risks associated with UFF activities and about the way to best mitigate them (if this can ever be done, of course…).
The meeting was quite well attended but not as much as expected. Much more interesting, the people in the room represented very diverse actors potentially interested or affected by the possible development of the UFF business in Europe. Industry representatives, NGOs were there but also several members of local and national groups of resistance (notably from Ireland, Sweden, Flanders and Australia), representatives of the food sector, of the trade unions, of the water sector, permanent representation of European member states, people from petrochemical and cement sectors, etc.

The meeting started with a presentation of the first results of the European public consultation and these results are actually extremely interesting. You can find there HERE.
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/Presentation_07062013.pdf)

First, around 23.000 people responded. A large majority came from private individuals, but 783 answers were sent on behalf of organisations (companies, NGOs, industry and trade associations, intergovernmental organisations, national, regional and local authorities and academic institutions).
Half of these answers came from… Poland, thanks to national campaign coordinated by the Polish government, which of course significantly influence the final results.
Because this Polish participation gives quite a misleading overview of the general perception of what people think about shale gas in Europe, the European Commission presented an interesting additional slide (look at the slide n°27):
The results as they were received (with half of the answers from Poland) show that:
– 31% of participants think UFF “should be developed in Europe anyway”.
– 30% think UFF “should be developed in Europe only if proper health and environmental safeguards are in place”
– 34% think UFF “should not be developed in Europe at all”
However, when these results are weighted by population (under the assumption that each respondent would represent an equal share of the population of his country of residence), they show that:
– 12% of participants think UFF “should be developed in Europe anyway”.
– 20% of participants think UFF “should be developed in Europe only if proper health and environmental safeguards are in place”
– 64% of participants think UFF “should not be developed in Europe at all”
You can find more information about the stakeholders meeting HERE (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/uff_event_7june2013_en.htm)
and in this EurActiv article. (http://www.euractiv.com/energy/shale-gas-eldorado-europe-reach-news-528443)

This is of course a significant result and a clear sign that a large majority of the European population doesn’t want UFF no matter how “well” regulated this industry can be. This is of course a result that the European Commission will not easily deal with. Despite these promising results, the European Commission still doesn’t have the competence to draft a legislation banning fracking or shale gas or UFF. However, with such results and also with the accumulation of arguments about the environmental, climate and social impacts associated with this industry, presented during that meeting, it seems more and more likely that the European Commission will have no other choice than coming up with a strong proposal.

 

Consultation finds strong backing for shale gas rules
ENDS Europe
Friday 7 June 2013   (FMN 111)

A major consultation on shale gas has found overwhelming support for some sort of EU guidelines or legal framework governing extraction of the controversial fuel.
Doing nothing at EU level was the least favoured option among over 22,000 responses from individual citizens, consultancy Bio Intelligence Service told a meeting of industry representatives and anti-fracking campaigners in Brussels.
The consultation conducted by the European Commission’s environment department is part of a more comprehensive analysis of gaps in EU legislation. Assessments from other commission departments are also being conducted.
Around half of respondents were from Poland, the EU country where development is most advanced. But even when results were weighted by countries’ population ‘do nothing’ was still the least favoured option, preliminary findings show.
Among both citizens and organisations, there was roughly equal support for the development of a “comprehensive and specific piece of EU legislation for unconventional fossil fuels” and for an approach encouraging voluntary actions by industry along with non-binding guidance.
Many organisations were also strongly in favour of clarifying existing legislation.
One third of respondents believed shale gas should be developed only if environmental safeguards are put in place. A further third thought the resource should be exploited anyway, while the rest thought it should not be exploited at all.
The highest numbers of respondents in favour of developing shale gas came from Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania and Hungary, while the member states where citizens were least in favour where France, Sweden, Austria, Ireland and Spain.
Responses from industry and other stakeholders were polarised along familiar lines, with environmental NGOs saying shale gas should not be exploited at all, while industry associations and companies were in favour of development.
Regional and local authorities identified more challenges than central governments, whose views were more in line with those of industry.
A representative of water industry association Eureau told the meeting that directives on environmental impact assessment and environmental liability do not take into account the risk to groundwater from shale gas.
A representative of the EU’s Committee of the Regions, a local government association, said the administrative burden of shale gas regulation will put an “extreme amount of pressure on the resources” on his members.
The consultation also found that the most widely perceived benefits of exploiting shale gas were reducing energy dependence, strengthening Europe’s negotiating position towards external suppliers, and diversifying the energy mix.
Many respondents also talked up shale gas’ potential to boost the EU economy, particularly by reducing the cost of implementing climate policy. Environment commissioner Janez Potočnik has cautioned about overhyping its benefits.
A potentially inadequate legal framework and lack of public acceptance were among the most widely perceived challenges to developing shale gas in Europe.
The full results of the consultation have not yet been released. A separate Eurobaramoter study on public opinion on shale gas will also be conducted. Commission proposals will be put forward later this year.

 


EU official: shale gas el dorado out of Europe’s reach – http://www.euractiv.com/energy/shale-gas-eldorado-europe-reach-news-528443  (7 June, FMN 111)

———————————————————————————————————————

Financing of shale gas FoEE_PNiG

Unconventional hydrocarbon projects subject to an EIA – Precautionary Principle
Guidance note –
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/Annexe%202.pdf.pdf
Annexe 2.pdf
Comment by a campaigner

“The services of the European Commission are of the opinion that both
the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons fall
within the scope of the EIA Directive.

The fundamental objective of the EIA Directive is to ensure that
projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by
virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location, are made subject
to an assessment of their environmental effects prior to development
consent.

An EIA is mandatory for projects falling within Annex 1.14 of the
Directive, i.e. extraction of natural gas where the amount of gas
extracted exceeds 500.000 m3 per day.

But:

The screening procedure is necessary for projects below the daily
extraction threshold of 500.000 m3 (Annex П.2.е of the Directive) or
for exploration projects listed involving deep drillings (Annex IL2.d
of the Directive).
• It should be recalled that Annex II.2.d refers to “deep drillings”
and includes some indicative examples of deep drilling (i.e. geothermal
drilling, drilling for the storage of nuclear waste material, drilling
for water supplies). The text of the EIA Directive uses the term “in
particular”, which implies that the enumeration of examples is
indicative. Hence, unconventional hydrocarbon projects, even
exploratory ones, which use deep drillings, are covered by Annex II.2.d.

the screening decision on whether an EIA is needed should also take
into account the precautionary and prevention principles. In the light
of these principles, unconventional hydrocarbon projects would be
subject to an EIA if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective
information, that the project will have significant environmental
effects.

The PRECAUTIONARY and PREVENTION PRINCIPLES also imply that IN CASE OF
DOUBTS as to the absence of significant effects, an EIA must be carried
out.


EU energy pathway  – http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/05/eu-energy-pathways-and-2030-emissions-targets-no-surprises  28 May 2013)

BUSINESSEUROPE position on shale gas – 20130524 – BUSINESSEUROPE position paper on the exploitation of shale gas in Europe

Dear ITRE, INTA and ENVI members,

The large scale development of shale gas and oil in the US is significantly reshaping energy markets worldwide, with huge impacts on the competitiveness of many industrial sectors in Europe.

Europe too must take advantage of technological game-changers like shale gas to improve its competitive position relative to its key trading partners. Shale gas has the potential to be a positive addition to Europe’s energy and feedstock mix and to contribute to the competitiveness of European industry.

® Attached you will find BUSINESSEUROPE’s views on the exploitation of shale gas in Europe.

The EU needs to adopt a constructive strategy to exploit shale gas in a sustainable way to benefit from economic advantages. European companies call for a science and fact-based debate including all stakeholders to outline the benefits of shale gas for the economy, for security of energy supply and for the climate.

Director General Markus Beyrer has presented BUSINESSEUROPE’s view on the importance of shale gas in Europe at an event of the European Commission on 28 May. Main points included:

– Shale gas could offset the decline in conventional European natural gas production foreseen for the post-2020 period, thus reducing the import dependence of the European Union.

– Shale gas could contribute to reverse the trend of increasing energy prices in Europe and to reduce the price differential with the US.

-Shale gas would have a spill-over effect on jobs creation and growth, spurring new investments in the European economy.

ü Natural gas offers attractive opportunities to achieve large carbon emission reductions at low carbon avoidance costs compared to other CO2 mitigating measures.

We thank you for taking our views into account and remain at your disposal to discuss them in greater detail.

Kind regards,

Christian Feustel
Senior EP Adviser

BUSINESSEUROPE
Tel: +32 (2) 237 6519
c.feustel@businesseurope.eu
www.businesseurope.eu

EU Transparency register: 3978240953-79

COMMENTS
a quick rebuttal to BusinessEurope’s position on shale gas

Why BusinessEurope is wrong on shale gas  pdf

JASON ANDERSON | Head of European Climate and Energy Policy | WWF European Policy Office | 168 Avenue de Tervurenlaan, Box 20, 1150 Brussels, Belgium | Email: janderson@wwf.eu | Mobile: +32 474 83 76 03 | skype: jandersonwwf | www.wwf.eu/climate | http://twitter.com/climatepanda | blog.wwf.eu 

 

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

 

Hotspot68-May2013-FINAL1

Press release from Corporate Europe Observatory:

EU leaders will meet tomorrow (May 22nd) to discuss how to lower energy prices and this way ‘improve’ European industrial competitiveness. However, the undersigned
organisations warn that under the rhetoric of boosting growth, productivity and employment, lays the intention of furthering fossil fuel extraction including shale gas.
http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/europe-cannot-drill-its-way-low-carbon-economy-say-climate-justice-groups

PRESS RELEASE

 

 Europe cannot drill its way to a low-carbon economy, say climate justice groups

The European Union (EU) and their national governments are set to discuss increased shale gas extraction in Europe which will increase environmental and social harm as well as dangerous climate change

 Brussels, May 21, 2013. – EU leaders will meet tomorrow (May 22nd) to discuss how to lower energy prices and this way ‘improve’ European industrial competitiveness (1). However, the undersigned organisations warn that under the rhetoric of boosting growth, productivity and employment, lays the intention of furthering fossil fuel extraction including shale gas.

Climate justice groups urge the EU and the national governments to implement energy transition policies towards post-fossil and post-nuclear economies. As Maxime Combes from ATTAC France says, ”EU governments and institutions are not considering the growing resistance of communities in Europe against new explorations of fossil fuels, and in particular of unconventional sources such as shale gas and of techniques such as hydro-fracking. France and Bulgaria have already put up a ban that prohibits such exploration and practices in their territories.”

Groups also denounce efforts by BusinessEurope and other powerful corporate lobby groups, to pressure the Commission to radically shift the EU’s energy policy away from climate change mitigation towards polluting industry-friendly cost-competitiveness and supply security (2).

As Tom Kucharz from Ecologistas en Acción, Spain says, “by focusing to “secure” more energy technologies like hydro-fracking, these policies would obscure increasing inequalities linked to fossil fuel extraction, divert attention from the real need to slow global warming and further dead end policies linked to the carbon market”.

The hype surrounding shale gas in Europe follows the US shale gas boom. However, a closer look reveals its shaky foundations that side-line health and the environment, and is reliant on unsustainably low prices driven by speculation and industry overestimates (3).

A hard look at the historical production from shale gas wells in the US shows that unconventional gas cannot provide a long-lasting – never mind environmentally sustainable – answer to European low-carbon energy needs”, says Geert De Cock from Food & Water Watch Europe. “Europe cannot drill its way to decarbonisation by 2050”.

If Europe and its member states are serious about addressing energy issues, they should move away from further extractivism and from market fixes that only increase the climate and energy crises as well as social conflicts – in Europe and beyond its borders – where severe environmental and human rights violations are taking place.

In this regard, the “Time to Scrap the ETS” declaration (4), signed by over 140 organizations and groups around the world, also calls for policies and action to transform the EU’s energy infrastructure and an end to the industrial use of fossil fuels. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been an obstacle for this transition as it allows and subsidizes dirty energy.

Notes:

(1) http://static.euractiv.com/sites/all/euractiv/files/Council Conclusions Energy.pdf

(2) http://www.euractiv.com/priorities/business-tells-barroso-balance-e-news-519506

(3) http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/wishful-thinking-debunking-the-myths-of-the-shale-gas-boom

(4) http://scrap-the-euets.makenoise.org/english/. Groups, networks, NGOs and collectives that want to sign to the Scrap the ETS declaration, please send an email to scrap.the.ets@gmail.com

Organizations:

Aliança RECOs – Redes de Cooperação Comunitária Sem Fronteiras, Brazil
ATTAC, France
Carbon Trade Watch

Centre for Civil Society, Durban, South Africa

Centro de Referência do Movimento da Cidadania pelas águas florestas e Montanhas Iguassu ITEREI, Brazil

Ciel Voilé, France

Corner House, UK

Corporate Europe Observatory

Earth Peoples

Ecologistas en Acción, Spain

EcoNexus, UK

FERN

Food and Water Watch Europe

Green Cross Society, Ukraine

Indian Social Action Forum, India

Indigenous Environmental Network

ITEREI- Refúgio Particular  de Animais Nativos, Brazil

JA!Justiça Ambiental (Friends of the Earth), Mozambique

Jubilee South – Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development  (JSAPMDD)

Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth), France

Movimento Mulheres pela P@Z!, Brazil

Observatori del Deute en la Globalització (ODG)

Ongd AFRICANDO, Spain

Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Phillipines

Philippine Network on Climate Change, Philippines

Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo

Re: Common, Italy

Sanlakas Philippines

School of Democratic Economics

Taller Ecologista, Argentina

Terræ Organização da Sociedade Civil, Brazil

Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa

Transnational Institute

VZW CLIMAXI, Belgium

Woodland League, Ireland

For more information please contact:

Belen Belanyá (Corporate Europe Observatory, The Netherlands): +31 (0)6330 903.86

Geert De Cook (Food and Water Watch, Belgium): +32 (0)484 629.491

Joanna Cabello (Carbon Trade Watch, Belgium): + 32 (0)493 829.459

Maxime Combes (ATTAC France): +33 (0)624 512.944

Tom Kucharz (Ecologistas en Acción, Spain): +32 (0)619 949.053
————————————-

FACT SHEETS

Fact sheet US – Fact Sheet – Myths of the US Shale Gas Market_Final
Fact sheet  EU – Fact Sheet – Myths of the European Shale Gas Market_Final

Tthe final designed versions of the two new fact sheets that Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) very recently developed for its campaign on shale gas.

These two fact sheets are very related to the event FoEE and Food and Water Europe organised last week at the European Parliament as they gather the most recent science and studies from key industry sources, economic experts and business consultants which show that shale gas will not be this economic miracle heralded by its proponents. They present why the infamous US economic success is actually not such a success (gas prices artificially low and driven by speculation and industry overestimates) and why its repetition in Europe will be impossible (more complex and difficult geology, population density, pace of development, low level of infrastructure…etc).

At times when economic arguments seem to be prevailing over any environmental ones, we thought it was also important to be active on that field and explain why shale gas is not only a danger for our environment, health and climate, but actually also a threat for the sustainability of the European economy.

FOLLOW UP: BEYOND THE HYPE
In his recent message, Antoine Simon of FOEE already referred to our joint recent event in the European Parliament: Beyond the hype: The economics of shale gas in Europe.

After yesterday’s European Council meeting discussed energy issues, Euractiv published an article about shale gas by drawing on our event:
http://www.euractiv.com/energy/expert-cheap-shale-gas-bubble-bu-news-519931

It sums up nicely how the link between shale gas and cheap energy in the US is unlikely to last in the longer term. And how the EU would be ill-advised to pursue shale gas for BOTH environmental and economic reasons.

The minutes of the May 14 event as well as a basic video recording of the event are available on the Food & Water Europe website:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/wishful-thinking-debunking-the-myths-of-the-shale-gas-boom/

Geert Decock
Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe
Tel: +32 (0)2 893 10 45
Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491
Email: gdecock@fweurope.org
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter @FoodWaterEurope
Website: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/


Energy as usual at EU leaders summit http://www.foeeurope.org/energy-as-usual-at-EU-leaders-summit-220513

Beyond the hype – FRIENDS OF THE EARTH  and
Wishful thinking
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/wishful-thinking-debunking-the-myths-of-the-shale-gas-boom/

STATEMENT  food and water watch/foee – http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Statement_FOEE_and_FWE_Shale_gas_event.pdf
http://frackingfreeireland.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Statement_FOEE_and_FWE_Shale_gas_event.pdf

Sceptics – http://interfaxenergy.com/natural-gas-news-analysis/european/sceptics-shatter-european-shale-gas-hopes/


Whisful thinking – Debunking the Myths the of Shale Gas Boom – http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/wishful-thinking-debunking-the-myths-of-the-shale-gas-boom/

EIA Directive Review – Shale Gas – Policy proposal_[FoEE-FWW] – AM

EIA Directive Review – Shale Gas – Policy proposal_[FoEE-FWW] – ANNEXES

Foot on the gas – http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/Shale_Gas_Lobby_final.pdf
(December 2012)

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE

http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_shale_gas_unconventional_and_unwanted_0.pdf

A view from the Green side … http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/friends-of-the-earth-europe-shale-gas  (4 Oct 2012)

Fracking resolution _ European Greens

http://europeangreens.eu/news/egp-council-adopts-strong-resolution-shale-gas

—————————————————————

Shale gas benefits not worth the risk’ – report

Thursday 15 September 2011

It is not worth extracting shale gas in Europe given the environmental risks and damage done by hydraulic fracturing, according to a report for the European Parliament. These downsides outweigh the potential benefits of the EU’s limited reserves, it says.
The report, which will be presented to the parliament’s environment committee on 4 October, also says shale gas enjoys regulatory “privileges” it does not deserve.
Gaps in EU legislation could be putting people and the environment at risk, and the European Commission should consider introducing a dedicated shale gas directive, the report says. It recommends banning, or at least restricting, the injection of toxic chemicals during fracturing, and mandatory disclosure of the substances used.
The risks posed by fracturing – also known as fracking – are not properly assessed at the moment because the threshold above which an environmental impact assessment is required is too high, according to the report, published during the summer.
Its authors, consultancy firm LBST and the Wuppertal Institute, believe the water framework directive should address fracking’s impact on surface water. Water flows and air emissions must also be monitored in areas where fracking permits are granted.
The US experience with fracking shows accidents are common and can have serious impacts, the report notes. Many are due to improper handling or leaking equipment.
The industry insists the practice is safe and that shale gas can reduce emissions by replacing coal supplies. But the report suggests the appearance of cheap shale gas will delay energy efficiency improvements and a switch to alternative sources of energy.
Estimates of EU shale gas reserves vary considerably. In Poland, thought to have the biggest supply, the government puts total reserves at about 150 billion cubic metres. The US Energy Information Administration is much more optimistic, estimating reserves at 5 trillion cubic metres, enough to meet Poland’s gas needs for 300 years.
While Poland has embraced shale gas, concerns have grown in other European countries. In France for example, a law banned the use of fracturing in July.
Comment by ENDS- Europe
http://www.endseurope.com/

__________________________________________________________________________

FRACKING  AND CHEMICALS

___________________________________________________________________________

Companies are urged to start preparing for the 2013 REACH registration deadline – http://echa.europa.eu/news/pr/201109/pr_11_21_2013_reach_deadline_campaign_20110922_en.asp –     (and more links)

Chemicals review of Reach 2012  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/documents/reach/review2012/index_en.htm

EC: fracking chemicals not REACH registered

Friday 23 September 2011

None of the chemicals used to hydraulically fracture rocks for shale gas extraction are registered for that use under REACH, a top European Commission official warned on Friday. This could trip up project developers, Karl Falkenberg said.
Shale gas may well be a promising source of energy, “but the way in which we dig it out of the ground will have to be solidly assessed,” the head of the environment directorate told a REACH conference jointly hosted by the commission in Brussels.
“We have to know which substances are being used”, Mr Falkenberg added.
There are fears over the impact of fracking, which is already commonplace in the US. Poland is keen to make use of the technology and large shale gas reserves were revealed in the UK this week, but the French government banned fracking in July.
Companies using a chemical for an application not registered under REACH must compile their own chemical safety report. They have a year to do this from when they are sent the new extended safety data sheet (eSDS) required under the regime.

Much of the rest of the conference was spent discussing lessons learnt in the run up to REACH’s first registration deadline in November 2010, and ECHA launched a new publicity campaign urging firms to prepare for the next deadline in November 2013.
Meanwhile, the commission tried to relieve industry concerns over the current review of REACH. Some of the guidance surrounding the regime changed shortly before the 2010 deadline, causing additional headaches for the chemicals industry. Delegates were keen to make sure the same thing does not happen again.
The review was written into the original REACH legislation and will finish in June 2012. A commission official admitted it could recommend legislative changes, but said there was no chance of these being implemented in time for the 2013 deadline.
And, where possible, the commission will concentrate on procedural improvements to help make REACH run more smoothly, rather than fundamental changes, he said.
On Tuesday, the EU executive also published a report from the directors’ contact group established to help overcome some of the registration problems encountered in 2010. The contact group will continue to operate in the run up to the next deadline.

Comment by ENDS – Europe  on fracking chemicals not REACH registered –http://www.endseurope.com/27194/ec-fracking-chemicals-not-reach-registered

91 substances face scrutiny under REACH – Friday 21 October 2011
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published the names of the first substances to be evaluated under the REACH regime. The three-year plan, which includes confidential listings, is expected to be adopted in February.
It is the draft version of the first Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP), which covers the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 and includes 91 substances suspected of posing health and environmental risks. The assessments will be conducted by member states.
The substances could be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, endocrine disruptors, or carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic, and are widely dispersed or used by consumers. Several of the substances on the list are available in nano-scale forms.

The list for 2012 includes the solvent toluene, biocide triclosan and silicon dioxide. ECHA has not yet said which country will evaluate each substance or why the substances have been included in the list. Member states are given €50,000 for each evaluation but ECHA has raised concerns over staffing levels in the wake of the recession.In May, the agency said it expected about 50 substances a year to be evaluated once the system is fully up and running – less than two per member state – but the final list would only see about 30 substances evaluated in each of the first three years.Member states have a year to evaluate each substance and prepare a draft decision requesting any further data needed to clarify suspected risks. The decisions will be agreed with other member states before the registrants are asked to supply the data.

Companies urged to phase out toxic chemicals – Monday 17 October 2011
Swedish NGO ChemSec has called on 389 companies to phase out the production of dangerous chemicals, which it says are being produced in large amounts. These chemicals are likely to face restrictions under the REACH regime.
The NGO wants chemicals on its ‘substitute it now’ (SIN) list, which contains 378 substances, to be included on the EU’s official list of substances of very high concern (SVHC). So far, only 46 substances have been labelled SVHC. Six of those have been moved to REACH’s authorisation list, which allows certain uses.The companies named by ChemSec include BASF which, according to ChemSec, produces the most chemicals on its SIN list with 65, followed by Bayer (45) and Clariant (25). These chemicals are produced in annual volumes of 10 tonnes or more. The NGO says this production level is significant given the toxicity of the substances.
The producers list is based on the European Chemical Substances Information System, a database maintained by the European Commission. But this data has not been updated since 2008. ChemSec has filed a lawsuit asking ECHA to provide an updated list of producers based on REACH registrations, but this has not yet been received.

Fracking Chemikalien fehlt europaische Zulassung  translated from German to English
http://www.unkonventionelle-gasfoerderung.de/2011/09/29/bruessel-fracking-chemikalien-fehlt-europaeische-zulassung/

 

 

Hydraulic Fracturing Report 4 18 11 chemicals

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MAGAZINE
________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Shale gas a burning question  – http://www.theparliament.com/digimag/issue337
Article from Lisette van Vliet in the European Parliament magazine page 58

More fracking related articles a.o. Tamboran on page 52-60

Parliament Magazine extract

__________________________________________________________________________________________

EMISSIONS
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Ireland releases draft allocation for 3rd ETS phase
– Wednesday 19 October 2011
A draft allocation plan for the third phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS), published by Ireland’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, shows cement makers set to receive the most free allowances.The EPA has drawn up the plan according to the benchmarking rules for free allocation agreed in April. It is consulting on the draft until 4 November.
Member states were meant to submit their allocation plans for phase three – known as national implementation measures – to the European Commission for checking by the end of September. Only Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland have so far done this.
The EPA said it had not met the deadline “because the complexity of the rules and guidance finalised by the commission [in] April meant that some of the data reports submitted by operators had to be reworked and re-verified”.
Around 65 installations in Ireland are due to receive free allowances in 2013, with the largest allocation of 1.28 million allowances going to Irish Cement’s Platin works followed by Quinn Cement’s Scotchtown works


Decarbonising Europe’s energy supplies 
http://www.endseurope.com/26954/decarbonising-europes-energy-supplies?referrer=indepth 24 August 2011  

________________________________________________________________________________________

RENEWABLE ENERGY
_________________________________________________________________________________________

EC may propose green energy target for 2030 – 18 October 2011
The European Commission is considering setting an EU renewable energy target for 2030, according to a leaked copy of its energy roadmap. All scenarios envisaged predict a share of about 30% that year.
This is far less than the target of at least 45% of final energy consumption proposed by trade association EREC earlier this year. This would bring fossil fuel demand down by 556 million tonnes of oil equivalent each year from 2030, says EREC.
Energy and environment commissioners Günther Oettinger and Connie Hedegaard have already confirmed support for an interim target, while commission president José Manuel Barroso announced plans for a post-2020 strategy on renewable energy in September.

The draft energy roadmap also foresees the possibility of setting interim targets in other areas, such as energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage (CCS), to give more investment certainty and to help achieve 2050 decarbonisation goals.The roadmap is an offshoot of the low-carbon plan published in March, which foresees over 90% CO2 reduction in the power sector by 2050. It considers several scenarios based on varying public acceptance of technologies such as CCS.
Energy use drops by 2050 in all scenarios, ranging from a 32.2% cut compared with 2005 levels in the ‘delayed CCS’ scenario to 40.6% in the ‘high energy efficiency’ scenario. The renewables share in electricity for that year ranges 59.1% to 86.4%. This is also far less than NGOs and the renewables sector say is feasible.
All scenarios predict an increase in electricity prices, although these are expected to drop from 2030. Average prices are by far the highest in the ‘high renewables’ scenario. The ‘high energy efficiency’ scenario has the lowest prices.
The costs associated with the decarbonisation of Europe’s energy supplies are estimated to be about €2.5trn a year between now and 2050. There are no major differences between the energy scenarios, with annual costs ranging from 14.06% to 14.56% of GDP. This is slightly less than under a ‘current policy’ scenario.
The roadmap lists a number of necessary actions, most of which have already been announced. This includes achieving full market integration by 2014, as agreed by the European Council in February, as well as using demand response measures.

UK ponders cuts to green energy subsidies- 20 October 2011
The UK government has announced plans to cut subsidies for onshore wind farms, and landfill gas, incinerator and biomass schemes from April 2013. It hopes to increase support for offshore wind, wave and tidal projects.
The plans, put to consultation on Thursday, cover support levels under the renewables obligation (RO) in England and Wales for 2013-17. The changes follow a review of the economics of different technologies and are intended to cut costs for consumers.
A further review of the feed-in tariff for solar energy is expected shortly and the Scottish government will reveal on Friday future plans for subsidies in Scotland.

Commission launches sustainable investment drive – 19 October 2011
The European Commission’s enterprise and industry department has launched a programme aimed at encouraging investors to take social, environmental and governance (ESG) information into account in their decision-making.
Run by the International Corporate Governance Network (ICGN) and the secretariat of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), the programme will develop guidance on the use of non-financial information in investment decisions.
“It will enable investors to calculate the long-term value of companies more accurately, and generate greater recognition… for sustainable… business practices,” said EU industry commissioner Antonio Tajani.
The European Federation of Financial Analyst Societies (EFFAS) will also be involved. It represents about 16,000 investment professionals in the EU. The European Commission will finance half of the programme’s estimated €450,000 cost.
*Meanwhile, a group of sustainable investment bodies, including the UN’s PRI secretariat and UNEP’s finance initiative, has reiterated a call for a clear, credible and long-term policy framework which encourages investment in low-carbon technologies.
A report published by the group highlights the importance of “investment-grade policy” that gives investors the confidence to finance low-carbon technologies. It also makes a number of recommendations for policy at national and international levels.
**The group’s Global Investor Statement will be followed on Thursday by a business call for a “robust, equitable and effective” climate change agreement ahead of December’s Durban meeting in South Africa. The call for action will be made by more than 175 global cy

______________________________________________________________________________________________

 2050 ENERGY ROADMAP
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Tuesday 20 December 2011 

2050 Energy Roadmap Ignores Major Environmental and Health Risks Associated with Shale Gas, Including Risks to Climate

Brussels – The much-anticipated publication of the European Commission’s 2050 Energy Roadmap has identified shale gas and other unconventional gas sources as “potential important new sources of supply in or around Europe” for reducing carbon emissions from the energy sector. However, recent studies reveal that widespread shale gas development may actually worsen global climate change. Food & Water Europe today conveyed disappointment that the Roadmap not only ignored these scientific findings, but also failed to acknowledge the many other environmental and public health risks associated with the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract shale gas. The organization cited examples of problems from fracking in the U.S., where now over 100 state and local governments have passed resolutions to ban the dangerous practice.

“Drilling and fracking for shale gas not only endangers our precious water resources, it also threatens our climate. Inexplicably, the Energy Roadmap fails to acknowledge these threats.”

The group cited the following:

  • Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed that fracking most likely explains widespread groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming. Overall, more than 1,000 cases of water contamination have been reported near fracking sites in the U.S.;
  •  Many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and some are carcinogenic. Scientists at the Endocrine Disruption Exchange found that 25 percent of fracking fluids can cause cancer; 37 percent can disrupt the endocrine system; and 40 to 50 percent can affect the nervous, immune and cardiovascular systems;
  • Each shale gas well results in millions of liters of toxic fracking wastewater. Accidents, spills, and inadequate treatment of this wastewater further endangers water resources;
  • Beyond impacts on water, shale gas development increases heavy-duty truck traffic, noise pollution, and air pollution at the expense of local communities, negatively impacting tourism and agriculture;
  •  Recent scientific studies, from Cornell University and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, demonstrate that methane emissions from shale gas development are likely to accelerate climate change in the coming decades. This is despite shale gas being a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel.

“The dubious benefits and poor environmental record of shale gas development in the U.S. serve as a cautionary tale for Europe,” said Wenonah Hauter. “It is worrying that the European Commission’s Energy Roadmap perpetuates the myth of shale gas as viable bridge to a low carbon future.”

Food & Water Europe advocates for aggressive investment in the deployment of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, alongside investment in research and development to further these technologies and deliver a sustainable energy future for the EU.

Food & Water Europe works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

 Contact: Geert De Cock tel. +32 (0)2 893 10 45, mobile +32 (0)484 629.491, gdecock(at)fweurope.org

Geert De Cock

Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe

Tel: +32 (0)2 893 10 45

Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491

Email: gdecock@fweurope.org

Website: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/

 

 

 

Greetings from Strasbourg. 

Still confused about what the final text of Annex I of the EIA Directive now reads like.

For sure, the extraction part of AM79 was widely approved, both for shale and tight gas (565 in favour) and for CBM (533 in favour):

 

“14a. Extraction of crude oil and/or natural gas trapped in gas-bearing strata of shale or in other sedimentary rock formations of equal or lesser permeability and porosity, regardless of the amount extracted.

14b. Extraction of natural gas from coal beds, regardless of the amount extracted.

But not sure about the text of AM 126 … as it is essentially the same text as AM 79. Maybe the references to extraction get dropped? On shale and tight gas, the majority in favour was quite narrow (364/292). The same for CBM (355/297)

14a. Exploration, limited to the phase involving the application of hydraulic fracturing, and extraction of petroleum and/or natural gas trapped in strata of gas shales or other sedimentary rock formations with similarly low or lower permeability and porosity, independently of the quantity extracted.

14b. Exploration, limited to the phase involving the application of hydraulic fracturing, and extraction of natural gas from coal seams, independently of the quantity extracted.

 
So maybe, we get 4 extra points on unconventional gas in Annex I:
  • 14a (extraction of shale and tight gas)
  • 14b (extraction of CBM)
  • 14c (exploration of shale and tight gas, limited to phase involving fracking)
  • 14d (exploration of CBM, limited to phase involving fracking)
Whatever the final text, a great accomplishment for the anti-fracking movement. A great collaborative effort!
 
Rapporteur Zanoni also got support from MEPs to go back to the Environment Committee and change some parts of his report that failed to win a majority and see where compromises might be possible. From my understanding, the AMs that were adopted in Plenary will not be reopened for discussion. After that, Zanoni will be able to enter negotiations with the Member States.
 
Geert Decock
Policy Officer – Food & Water Europe
Tel: +32 (0)2 893 10 45
Mobile: +32 (0)484 629 491
On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Antoine Simon wrote:

 

Dear all,

The Plenary vote of the EIA Directive has just happened.
First, here are the main outcomes (presented by the Greens):



Good Results
on points put to plenary vote
+ shale gas exploitation (RCV 79 14a: 524/118/x) and exploration (limited to the fracking phase RCV 126:364/292/x) were included in the Annex I, i.e. Subject to mandatory EIA
+ open cast mining was also included in Annex I (RCV 79/2 364/281/x)
+ access to justice including injunctive relief was strengthened
 
Bad Results
– Some amendments to water down the committee report, including corrective mitigation and compensation were adopted. Overall the main improvements of the proposal were still maintained.

To cut one long story short and avoid complicated and technical explanation, that basically means that during the Plenary vote, the AM 79 didn’t entirely go through (exploration activities were rejected) but the AM 126 was accepted (which means that all the other really bad AMs on the unconventional fossil fuels issue were rejected).
It is therefore quite a good news because it means that MEPs voted to ensure that shale gas, shale oil, tight gas and coal bed methane extraction and exploration involving fracking would be subject to mandatory. environmental impact assessments.
But it is however, to my views, not perfect because it limits the scope of the EIA during the exploration phase only to the use of fracking. That means that an operator could prepare the pad, drill, take samples, wireline log with large radioactive sources, move all the compressors on to the pad, the condensate tanks, the separators, the generators, the lighting, the chemicals, silica sand, do the seismic tests – then move to fracking and need to ask for a EIA. So that’s quite a lot of activities which won’t be subject to an EIA and that could also generate some important damages.

You can find here the press release that we’ve just published: http://www.foeeurope.org/european-parliament-recognise-dangers-fracking-091013

It is therefore a victory for us as it gives some important tools to local communities to fight against a possible development of this industry, but it’s still quite imperfect.
Please also keep in mind that this is not the end of the process. The text will now have to be discussed at the European Council level (so basically between member states), so it is crucial to continue our advocacy work but at the national level this time.

A MASSIVE THANK YOU TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR GREAT WORK, MOBILISATION, HELP AND COMMITMENT. Many votes were obtained with a tight majority, so every votes counted and I doubt we would have had these results without your active participation.

More to come very soon with the Roll Call votes (so that you can see which MEP voted what).

All the best,

Antoine Simon
Economic Justice Programme
Extractive Industries Campaigner

Friends of the Earth Europe
TEL: +32 2 893 1018
Mobile: +32 486 685 664
FAX: +32 2 893 1035
antoine.simon@foeeurope.org
Skype: antoine.foee

www.foeeurope.org
www.facebook.com/FoEEurope
www.twitter.com/foeeurope