38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 1

CONTENTS
I. FOREWORD 2

II. SAFEGUARDING THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH MANAGEMENT 5

SOIL 5
WATER 7
CLIMATE CHANGE 8
BIODIVERSITY/ NATURE 10
AWARDS FOR ENVIRONMENT 15
BIOMASS/BIOFUELS 16
PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS 19
GREEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES 21

III. PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE AND ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AREAS 23

THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE CAP AND THE HEALTH CHECK 23
RURAL DEVELOPMENT 26

IV. FORESTRY 28
SPECIFIC ACTION  EUROPEAN FOREST ENERGY NETWORK  EUROFORENET 28
INTERNATIONAL, PANEUROPEAN AND EUROPEAN PROCESSES 29
EUROPEAN FORESTBASED SECTOR TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FTP 30
ILLEGAL LOGGING 30
CERTIFICATIONS 30
BIODIVERSITY  STREAMLINING THE EUROPEAN BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS  SEBI 2010 30
LIFE+ 31
FOREST FIRES 31
FINAL REMARKS  CONCLUSION 32

V. ENLARGEMENT 32

VI. STATUS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 32

DEBATE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY 33
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS – ECHR 33
FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES – REDUCED VAT AND EU REITS 33
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY WEEK AND REVISION OF THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS DIRECTIVE - EPBD 34
HISTORIC HOUSES 34

VII. CONTACT WITH THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 35

URBAN AND HOUSING INTERGROUP 35
SUSTAINABLE HUNTING, BIODIVERSITY AND COUNTRYSIDE ACTIVITIES INTERGROUP 36

VIII. PUBLICATIONS AND TOOLS 36

EU framework for real estate investment trusts – EU REIT 36
EUROFORENET 38
COUNTRYSIDE 40

THE RURAL INVESTMENT SUPPORT FOR EUROPE RISE FOUNDATION 40

PERSPECTIVES 41

ABBREVATIONS & ACRONYMS 43

1
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 2
Dear Members,
Dear ELO Friends,
It is once again a great pleasure for me to present to
you, our actions, our achievements and our hopes
and to introduce the challenges we have to face.
2007 is over; a year during which ELO has been
efficiently promoting the crucial role of private
businesses and property for a prosperous country-
side all over Europe in the framework of a balanced
approach to social, environmental and economic
considerations. It is not one at the expense of the
others; it is a global approach which allows the
countryside to develop its own richness and to be a
unique asset for society as a whole.
The livelihood of the countryside is only possible
because some private managers are delivering this
service.
It is our belief that the future of Europe’s countryside is
dependent on the individual management decisions
of its millions of entrepreneurs and landowners.
Burdensome regulations make little sense. Through-
out European history they have demonstrated their
total inefficiency when private enterprise and
property are the best guarantee for economic, social
and environmental protection and development,
especially at a time when we are facing the first food
crisis in decades.
As a matter of fact the discussions about halting the
loss of biodiversity or mitigating climate change are
leading reasonable people to understand that
without the voluntary contribution of millions of
European landowners and rural users it will be
impossible to make a success of these crucial
challenges.
As a landowner, on the one hand it is relevant for my
production’s ability to keep my freedom of action as
flexible as possible, on the other hand, due to my
commitment to my corporate social responsibility,
I like to see my management being recognised, as far
as it will not set my activities in aspic and as a
consequence destroy the nature the public authority
was hoping to protect.
2
We recognise that without land management,
society and nature are in trouble. This works in both
directions: land management and society need na-
ture; and in crowded areas such as ours, nature needs
the care of land management, farming and society.
We are seeking to jolt the already outdated philoso-
phy that the best way to tackle environmental
problems is through more and more regulation. We
suggest it isn’t, and that a far more effective way is to
engage all the good volunteers from the private
sector. It is not a coincidence that in 2007 ELO has
been officially recognised for the first time as an
environmental NGO by the European Commission.
The role of the private manager as the key provider
of environmental services in the countryside is, at
last, publicly acknowledged at the EU level.
Combined with the tremendous developments in
food processing, retailing and food service, European
land managers can meet the arising worldwide food
deficit.
However, not surprisingly, we have to recognise that
modern science-based agriculture may have resulted
in some loss of biodiversity and some damage to
natural resources, soil water and air.
This sets an even greater challenge for the modern
land managers. We are asked to continue to innovate
and produce the high quality food required, and in
addition to reduce pollution as well as to increase the
delivery of the environmental services of biodiversity
and landscape. In addition to this, civil society ex-
pects us to produce more of Europe’s energy supplies
without creating exaggerated tensions on the world
food markets, and maybe even some additional
flood protection and carbon sequestration too!
Just to make this more interesting there is a drift in
agricultural policy towards reducing the public
financial support that this sector has enjoyed for the
last half century and to expose Europe to more
import competition from areas of the world which
appear to have less concern for the environment.
These are indeed major challenges, and it is clear that
they can only be met by the efforts of private land
managers working within a public policy framework
suited for the task.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 3
To tackle those challenges we advocate one should
initially understand three considerations:
First, land management is like no other sector of the
economy, it provides a complex, and constantly
changing balance of private goods and environ-
mental services.
Second, these activities are spatially defined and cli-
matically and biologically determined. Each plot of
land is a unique mix of soil, water, climatic and eco-
logical characteristics and is set into business struc-
tures defined by the local social and legal structures.
Third, private businesses are delivering both private
and public goods, and because of this securing pay-
ment for public goods.
At least eight principles should underlie sustainable
land management and should guide public food and
environmental policies. These principles are:
1. An intergenerational time view,
2. A science-based approach,
3. Voluntary participation,
4. Working in partnership,
5. Proportionality,
6. A decentralised approach,
7. Working with natural cycles,
8. Securing property rights and responsibilities.
We do not say that land managing owners are never
responsible for environmental harm. We do however
say that property rights can be developed to tackle
this problem.
Tradable emissions rights are an example. They
can bring down overall levels of pollution, but also
reward efficiency and innovation, unlike monolithic
regulation.
The challenge is to harness the behaviour that
protects property rights at a time when new chal-
lenges such as the food crisis are arising.
But let’s be clear, the economic, social and political
framework has dramatically changed over the past
half century. There are mounting concerns about
global trends in population and economic growth,
western consumption patterns, agricultural land
availability, crop yields, soil and water availability,
environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and
the threat to the cultural landscape, and their
combined effects on food and the environment, with
their economic, social and political implications.
We might be entering into the worst food crisis since
World War II.
The President of our Consultative Committee, Cor-
rado PIRZIO-BIROLI, is expressing the view that such
food crisis is accompanied by growing environmen-
tal stress. Britain’s chief scientific adviser has just de-
fined food security as an enormous problem on a par
with climate change. The World Food Program is
unable to meet requests for increasingly expensive
food aid. FAO Director General Jacques DIOUF has
called for a coordinated response and a long-term
solution to a structural food demand-supply gap,
warned about growing social unrest and rising global
hunger, and convened a conference in June to discuss
the links between food, biofuels and climate change.
Food supply and environmental security are
interacting challenges threatening the future of our
planet and its people. Climate change is happening, is
man made; it’s global, and intensifies the food and
environmental challenges, in particular in the
developing countries, the majority of whom are net
importers of food, catching up with western
consumption patterns, and loosing agricultural land
and top soil. As they seek to avoid food riots feeding
internal insecurity and political opposition, these
governments act to freeze internal retail food prices
on staples, slashing import duties, and/or resorting to
export taxes or embargoes, and/or food subsidies,
and causing major budgetary costs and foreign debts.
What happens with these countries, their soils and
forests, their rural economies and their budgets will
have an even greater impact on the world than what
happens with ours.
There is a distinct risk that Malthus will eventually
prove right. We must therefore ask whether and how
the world’s farmers and agricultural industry can
double food production by 2030 to meet world de-
mand using less water and less energy, and slashing
gas emissions. To do this it is essential to protect the
long-run food production capacity of the EU without
avoidable environmental degradation.
Advocates of scrapping the CAP ignore the risks this
would involve. These include production intensifica-
tion with increased pollution, land abandonment
with rural desertification (nature needs caring) and
3
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 4
reduced farm output, accelerated urbanization with
additional infrastructural and environmental costs,
potential difficulties for the internal market, higher
world food prices with serious humanitarian, eco-
nomic and political consequences. The same holds for
the end of agricultural support elsewhere in the world.
But, after the Health Check, CAP reform needs to con-
tinue step-by-step after 2013. As European
Agriculture is becoming ever more market driven,
appropriate tools need to be put in place to address
widespread market failures. These market failures,
partly related to technology shortfalls, are reflected in
the looming world food imbalance, growing water
shortages, and rising energy prices, as well as in the
damage caused by competitive farming. Moreover,
the delivery of public goods such as low-impact farm-
ing and maintenance of landscapes and wildlife habi-
tats cannot just emerge from the market system. They
require farmers to take specific actions that carry
extra costs, which the market does not cover. They
need to be remunerated by specific and targeted pub-
lic payments if society is to enjoy those public goods.
There is a case for a European Food & Environmental
Security Policy; it is based on the Single Market, on
evolving EU food and environment policies, on envi-
ronmental directives, on the Göteborg declaration
and the Lisbon process, and on the transboundary
character of nature and climate change.
The objectives of such a policy should be to provide
incentives for private sector rural resource managers
to produce socially optimal quantities of nutritious,
high quality food and fibre, renewable energy,
biodiversity, landscape, heritage, and soil, water and
air management.
Such a new policy is a world responsibility of the Eu-
ropean Union and other countries that are
relatively less affected and better placed to deal with
climate change, and have the financial means to lead
by example.
The process towards a new approach cannot start
from a budgetary framework. Europe must firstly
agree upon the challenges that European and world
agriculture, farmers and land managers, food indus-
4
try and the agrifood system, and the rural areas will
face over the coming years. Secondly, we must
establish the tools to meet those challenges, starting
from those that exist, but adding to them. Only after
that can we assess the budgetary means required.
These means notably concern Budget Heading 2 on
the Protection and Management of Natural
Resources. They need to respond to the fact that the
CAP and environmental policy face bigger challenges
in the first half of this century for an enlarging EU, and
a more interdependent world community than they
did in the last century.
To sum up, we send out a call for new policy objectives
for the next half century, and for special action af-
fecting food supplies and environmental improve-
ments. The demands on what we want from our land
managers are increasing, they have a critical role in
helping secure food and environmental security, there
are pervasive market failures surrounding these ac-
tivities, dealing with these market failures is part of EU
policy. This requires the further development of the
CAP, as well as the budgetary resources appropriate
to meet the food and environmental challenges and
produce the required security on both accounts.
Wider and more challenging tasks cannot be met
with shrinking budgetary means or even by all kind
of burdensome regulations.
It is our job to tackle it: the ELO is getting this message
across to the EU institutions, the NGOs, the academic
world and national representatives. The ELO is lead-
ing the debate on the relationship between owner-
ship, business and environment both in terms of the
concept and in order to develop prosperous country-
side businesses and to fulfil its ethical mission. While
the task is huge, we strongly believes the society is
increasingly accepting this message The ELO could
not achieve its goal without its members, its partners
and you, who ever you are when you are sharing this
conviction, in order to convey our message from
European to national, regional if not local levels.
Thierry de l’ESCAILLE
CEO & Secretary General
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 5
II. SAFEGUARDING THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH
MANAGEMENT
2007 was important in terms of general public
awareness on climate change and environmental
concerns. Good stewardship of land has always
taken into account biological aspects of land as
rural activities are probably the economic sector
which is most strongly dependent on the natural
conditions, including climate. The landowners ap-
proach is based on the long term perspective, the
production of biomass, energy and various serv-
ices depending on the capacity of land. The envi-
ronmental quality of the land is clearly part of its
value for the present and the future generations.
Most of the rural activities fall under the scope of
environment legislations, and ELO ensures that the
interests of rural enterprises are taken into account
during the elaboration or interpretation of the
legal instruments. Among the recent tools devel-
oped by the European Union are the Environmen-
tal Thematic Strategies covering seven areas, and
the contribution of the EU to biodiversity through
programmes and actions. ELO of course partici-
pated in the various consultations launched by the
Commission.
The 6th Environmental Action Programme requires
the European Commission to prepare Thematic
Strategies covering seven areas:
1. Air Pollution
2. Prevention and Recycling of Waste
3. Protection and Conservation of the Marine
Environment
4. Soil
5. Sustainable Use of Pesticides
6. Sustainable use of Natural resources
7. Urban Environment
The Thematic Strategies take a longer-term per-
spective in setting clear environmental objectives
until around 2020 and will thus provide a stable
policy framework. ELO participated in the consul-
tation processes in order to ensure that the policy
tools chosen have an added value, are cost effec-
tive and are the least burdensome for its members,
while reaching the objectives. It is important that
the new tools address the problems in a holistic
manner, based on sound science, while clarifying
existing legislation. ELO also underlined the need
for proportionate and workable legislation.
ELO notably focused in 2007 on the environmen-
tal legislation affecting the main media and their
interrelation on rural property: soil, water, air. Bio-
diversity was also a main concern, especially as it
relates to rural multifunctionality and diversity.
This includes of course forestry, agriculture, hunt-
ing, fishing and the production of environmental
services
SOIL
What is Soil ?
Soil is a most valuable but finite resource under en-
vironmental pressure performing many functions
vital to life such as food and biomass production,
storage, filtration and transformation of many sub-
stances including water, carbon, and nitrogen, etc.
Besides its role as raw materials provider, it also
serves as a habitat and gene pool, as well as a plat-
form for human activities, landscape and heritage.
These functions involve complex interactions
within the soil itself, between the soil and the
crop/grazing animal and between the soil and the
wider environment.
A need for protection ...
For ELO, there is no doubt that the functions of soil
are worthy of protection thanks to their socio-eco-
nomic as well as environmental importance.
Sustainable rural development can be reached
through adequate soil management, combined
with the protection of water and further natural
resources. Both the European Commission and our
organization recall that there is a need of better
understanding and more research to be done in
this respect. Besides, land managers and landown-
ers are very well aware of the fundamental aspects
of sustainable soil management.
5
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 6
The intervention of man into this natural set of
inter-relationships has provided the basis for much
of modern life from food production to infrastruc-
ture grounds.
The point is not to forbid human activities on
soil, but to minimise their negative effects on its
functions.
Some European soils are facing major threats,
reversible or not, enhanced by unsustainable use
of soils and climate change.
... Addressed at EU level ...
These threats were addressed during the Working
Groups preparing the Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection in which ELO actively took part,
focusing on erosion, contamination, sealing,
compaction, reduced organic matter, salinisation
and landslides.
In direct line with its policy,
ELO enhances awareness
with regard to environ-
ment and soil manage-
ment in the rural world
with its “Environment
and Soil Management
Award” in close coopera-
tion with the scientific
world and the European
Union Services.
The 2007 Soil award will
be presented in 2008 on
the occasion of the gala
dinner that follows the
First forum on the future
of agriculture (27 March
2008) to Eugenio SE-
QUEIRA, Liga para a Pro-
tecção da Natureza
for its outstanding contri-
bution to soil recovery in a
rural threatened ecosys-
tem in Portugal.
This Strategy, which has been the subject of
intense discussions between the European Institu-
6
tions, the Members States and the numerous stake-
holders during 4 years, has as its main objective to
ensure the protection and sustainable use of soil in
the EU by preventing soil degradation, preserving
soil functions and restoring degraded soils.
So far, only nine EU Member States have imple-
mented specific legislation on soil protection.
However, different EU policies such as water
(including floods and droughts), nitrates, waste,
chemicals, industrial pollution prevention, nature
protection, pesticides or agriculture, are already
contributing to soil protection. ELO agrees with
the EU Commission that there needs to be a more
holistic approach to the coordination of soil
protection policies.
... Trough the Soil Thematic Strategy ...
The Commission adopted a Soil Thematic
Strategy (COM(2006) 231) and a Proposal for a
Soil Framework Directive (COM(2006) 232) on
22 September 2006 with the objective to protect
soils across the EU.
The Strategy and the proposal have been sent to
the other European Institutions.
The European Parliament adopted the Directive on
Wednesday 14 November 2007, with 501 votes in
favour and 160 against under the codecision pro-
cedure (first reading). The Rapporteur Cristina
GUTIERREZ-CORTINES said that the text takes into
account “the enormous differences existing among
soils and leaves the national authorities with the
choice of the forms and the methods to protect
them“. She also said that “this Directive is the first
piece of Community law that recognises the positive
role of agriculture on soil protection and tackles the
issue of climate change“.
The report has indeed redrafted the original
proposal of the European Commission to concili-
ate the views of those who think this rule is neces-
sary and those who think the existing rules in the
Member States are enough to protect soils.
It contains for example a provision stating that
within five years of the transposition date,
Member States will have to identify the “priority
areas” which need special protection against
erosion, organic matter decline, soil biodiversity
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 7
loss, compaction, salinisation, landslides, desertifi-
cation or acidification. It indicates that the choice
of measures to combat these phenomena will be
left to the MS. It states also that MS which already
have national legislation in place will be exempted
(Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, France, Germany, United Kingdom).
However, in December 2007, in spite of the various
attempts of the Presidency to present compromise
proposals in order to meet delegations’ concerns,
it was not possible, at this stage, to attain the qual-
ified majority needed to reach political agreement
on a draft directive establishing a framework for
the protection of soil. Negotiations between MS on
the subject have been very difficult.
A group of MEPs lead by the Rapporteur Cristina
GUTIÉRREZ-CORTINES have called for the contro-
versial soil directive to return to the EU agenda as
soon as possible and the Commission is also will-
ing to overcome the political blocking alliance that
prevent the MS to agree on the proposal.
ELO has been and will continue to actively lobby
the EU institutions and national governments to
make sure that the new Thematic Strategy and its
Framework Directive will be consistent with the
existing policies and contribute to the elaboration
of workable tools. The Organisation also partici-
pated in the Internet Consultation launched by the
Commission on the subject.
... But a need for a sustainable approach,
leaving room for subsidiarity
ELO has welcomed the Strategy but has been
calling to the Commission’s attention the question
of whether the approach to sustainable soil
management wouldn’t be better tackled through a
guidance document linked to maintaining good
agricultural and environmental conditions rather
than via a regulatory framework such as a Soil
Framework Directive. Through its lobby actions, the
Organisation has also informed the Commission
and the EU Parliament that Member Sates who
already have the ad hoc legislation in place should
not be subject to additional administrative
requirements.
In any case, ELO has been and, in 2008, will be thor-
oughly monitoring the whole adoption process to
make sure that it will be based on sound science,
and that no additional burden will be imposed on
land managers and owners, or at least, ensure that
these constraints will be remunerated. The main
barrier to the adoption of improved soil manage-
ment practices in agriculture is indeed their cost.
ELO has been constantly advocating in favour of
incentives for environmental services provided by
land businesses, such as agri-environmental pay-
ments, which is a very good way to encourage
land businesses to mitigate the threats.
The Soil Thematic Strategy entails:
­ A Communication from the EU Commission
(COM(2006) 231) explaining why further action
is needed to ensure a high level of soil protec-
tion, sets the overall objective of the Strategy
and explains what kind of measures must be
taken. It establishes a ten-year work program for
the European Commission.
­ A proposal for a framework Directive
(COM(2006) 232) setting out common princi-
ples for protecting soils across the EU.
­ 2 Impact Assessment (SEC (2006) 1165 and
SEC(2006) 620) containing an analysis of the
economic, social and environmental impacts of
the different options that were considered in
the preparatory phase of the strategy and of the
measures finally elected by the Commission.
WATER
Europe, in general terms, is characterized by
abundant water resources. Nevertheless, due to
the growth of Europe’s population and its needs,
the demand for water is rising. Various human
activities, such as agriculture, industry, urbanism
or tourism, if unbalanced, can lead to an overex-
ploitation of water resources.
For that reason, ELO is actively participating in
different meetings and actions, to promote and
maintain a long term sustainable use of all natural
resources, to ensure water security and environ-
mental sustainability, and preventing water
quality deterioration, loss of natural habitats or
desertification.
7
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 8
ELO believes that the future of European agricul-
ture and forestry, as well as of the landscape, is
without doubt linked to a sustainable water man-
agement. Therefore, to follow the setting of envi-
ronmental objectives and their implementation,
having significant economic and social impacts,
ELO is involved in different activities organised by
the European Commission – DG Environment,
under the umbrella of CIS. At present, ELO is also
full member of the Strategic Coordination Group,
the Strategic Steering Groups “WFD and Agricul-
ture”, “WFD and Hydro-morphology”, the Working
Group on Flood Risks Management and Stake-
holder Forum on Scarcity and Droughts.
In all these groups, ELO seeks to improve the per-
ception that other stakeholders have of landown-
ers’ activities and their impacts on water. Taking
into account the available resources and relevant
timeframes, ELO also plays a key role in identifying
instruments and measures within the CAP and the
Rural Development Programme which can be
used to help landowners and managers achieve
the WFD objectives. At present is also taking part
in the preparation of the forthcoming guidance
document on “Land Use & Groundwater”, aiming
to clarify land use pressures on groundwater in the
light of the current legislative framework.
ELO promotes best practices and incentives, and
provides its expertise on other European policies
linked to water resources, for example the Nitrates
Directive, pesticides or Natura 2000 network.
Participation in such events as the European Water
Conference (March 2007) and the launch of the
WISE (Water Information System for Europe,
www.wise.eu), or in the preparation of the 5th
World Water Forum (to be held in 2009 in Istanbul),
allows ELO to anticipate the requirements for
water management in the EU.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change was the hottest topic in 2007,
mainstreamed in the main policies at EU level, and
culminating with the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Bali in December 2007,
where the Bali Roadmap was adopted. As a result
of the Conference, the EU’s top priority is to come
8
to a comprehensive and ambitious new interna-
tional agreement on climate change by the end of
2009.
For land managers and landowners, the impacts
of climate change are mixed (a little warming does
not necessary harm), but mostly negative, such as
higher CO2 concentration, increase of droughts,
floods and storms, often accompanied by an
increased spread of plant and animal diseases, the
combination of factors hence leading to greater
volatility to manage.
Context:
The EU produces around 22% of global green-
house gas (GHG) emissions.
In order to address climate change, the Kyoto
Protocol (agreed on 11 December 1997 at the 3rd
Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, entered into
force on 16 February 2005) establishes an interna-
tional policy context for the reduction of carbon
emissions (the EU has agreed to a cut by 8% from
its 1990 emission levels by 2008-2012) and in-
creases in carbon sinks. It entails the principle of
financial and technological transfers to land man-
agement projects and initiatives (through forestry
and farming) that sequester and protect carbon
stocks through the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) and Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
Mechanisms (LULUCF).
In December 2002, the EU created an emissions
trading scheme (EU-ETS, became operational in
2005) in an effort to meet these tough targets
through the first and biggest market enabling
companies to trade carbon dioxide emissions into
the atmosphere.
It means that quotas were introduced in six key in-
dustries (energy, steel, cement, glass, brick mak-
ing, and paper/cardboard) as well as a system that
punishes MS that fail to meet their obligations,
starting from a fine amounting €40/ton of carbon
dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 9
Towards a low carbon economy:
At a time where the term “low carbon economy”
(i.e. an economy which has a minimal output of
GHG emissions into the biosphere) is at everyone’s
lips, all sectors of society have the responsibility to
reduce their own GHG emissions and to think care-
fully about their potential impacts on climate
change and conversely what impact will climate
change and global warming have on their activi-
ties. European landowners and land managers
therefore have a crucial role to play!
In 2007, the EU Commission proposed an Energy
package including a Renewable Energy Roadmap
that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2020 and a separate Strategic Energy
Technology Plan (SET Plan) was also proposed in
order to support the 20% targets by increasing the
use of 'clean' or low GHG-emitting energy tech-
nologies. Financing issues related to this Plan have
been delayed until November 2008.
On 23 January 2008: the EU Commission
proposed a new bouquet of measures: the so-
called Climate change and energy package,
which includes
­ An updated Emissions Trading System to create
a borderless ETS to drive cuts in GHG emissions
from big industrial emitters with an EU-wide
CO2 cap
­ Specific, binding national targets so that
Member States know exactly what they have to
do outside the ETS, in sectors like transport,
buildings, agriculture and waste.
­ New rules to stimulate carbon capture and
storage (CCS)
­ A new approach through a Directive proposal
to actively promote renewable targets, again
including binding national targets.
­ New state aid rules.
The rural world is aware of its share of responsibil-
ity in terms of contribution to climate change - as
farming is the source of 2 powerful greenhouse
gases (methane and nitrous oxide) which must be
reduced-, but also of its unique role in mitigat-
ing climate change through good land man-
agement practices (i.e. leverage effect).
Special focus on carbon sequestration: CALM
For ELO: Carbon Sequestration has to be re-
warded in accordance with its significant contri-
bution to emission reduction targets.
In 2005, ELO, the CLA together with the Univer-
sity of East Anglia launched a research project
monitoring the greenhouse gas impact of land
management activities: the CLIO/CALM project.
This study, which was published in 2006, investi-
gates more specifically the carbon sequestration
capacities of farms and forests on private estates
in Europe.
CALM means Carbon Accounting for Land Man-
agers. It is a publicly available, fully-free, on-line,
business-based calculator of annual flows of GHG
emissions and carbon sequestration from a de-
fined land-based business. It follows the widely
used and internationally agreed Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method-
ology for business to understand, quantify and
manage their GHG emissions. The methods used
for the national GHG inventory have thus been
adapted for application to individual businesses.
CALM will enable farmers and land managers to
assess their level of emissions and sequestration
and then consider remediation measures taking
into account for example energy efficiency, fer-
tiliser use efficiency, manure systems, renewable
energy.
ELO already actively promotes concrete meas-
ures :
­ Enhance water resources through building of
reservoirs
­ Adapt cultivation practices (no-tillage) and
cropping
­ Livestock management through prevention of
heat stress and diseases
­ Mitigation of soil erosion by maintaining vege-
tation cover
­ Conversion to uneven-aged, mixed species
forests with continuous cover and replacement
of individual tree species (better suited to the
site and climate)
­ Greater investment in sea defences and coastal
management techniques
9
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 10
­ Careful management of native biodiversity and
effective control of alien invasive species + man-
agement and creation of habitats at lower alti-
tudes (including wetlands and along the
migration routes)
­ Economic and sectoral diversification (i.e.
tourism, sustainable hunting/angling…)
These management systems are public goods and
environmental services which should be supported
by the EU.
The carbon calculator is available on ELO’s web-
site.
The rural environment and European forests are
significant tools for climate change mitigation
thanks to the production and supply of carbon-
saving renewable energy (including “2nd genera-
tion and beyond” biofuels) and of sustainable
building materials (timber or hemp for eco-build-
ing), as well as their carbon storage capacity in soil
and trees (see CALM project).
Unfortunately, the interest in carbon sinks varies
between countries. For ELO there is a clear need
for developing a common position taking into
account the wide range of social and economic
benefits that land-use projects could provide.
For the past few years, ELO has been - and still is -
actively promoting the use of alternative energies,
through for instance converting estates’ use of fos-
sil fuels energy to renewable energy sources such
as biomass, wind turbines, hydro electrical, solar,
etc. It important to recall that there is not only
one type of renewable energy but a real bou-
quet enabling combinations.
During 2007, ELO actively promoted these activi-
ties on the occasion of the various events that it
organized in the EU 27, namely on the occasion of
ELO’s participation at the Irish National Ploughing
Championship that took place in Tullamore (Ire-
land) on 25-27 September 2007, in the tent of the
EU Commission, during the Green Week in Brus-
sels (May 2007), etc, as well as through its position
papers and various articles published in the press.
ELO has also worked in collaboration with its part-
ners to find environmentally friendly low carbon
solutions.
10
BIODIVERSITY / NATURE
Over the generations the countryside has pre-
served the environmental riches we currently
enjoy in Europe since it is the foundation for pro-
ductive services and a storehouse of food and
non-food resources. Sustainable development re-
quires the 3 pillars – environmental, social and
economic – to be balanced. Excessively burden-
some transposition of Community texts can hin-
der the viability of rural businesses. Natura 2000
and the preservation of biodiversity must not lead
to a long list of short-sighted bans. The imple-
mentation of the network must be based on sci-
entifically established needs so that the
management plan can protect those species
which are in need of protection.
A good understanding of what Natura 2000 im-
plies an ongoing dialogue between the different
administrations, scientists, environmental bodies
and the users of the land. Conservation objectives
can only be achieved in partnership with the man-
agers and users of the land. Interaction between
man and nature is fundamental.
The recent enlargement of the European Union
and the growth of the Natura 2000 network that
ensued demonstrate that there is still a need to in-
form and communicate with rural stakeholders
Aware of this problem, ELO has once again begun
a programme intended to respond to this demand.
A/ Natura 2000 Networking
Programme (NNP)
Launched on 13 March in Brussels, co-organised
with EUROPARC and EUROSITE and with the sup-
port of the European Commission - DG Environ-
ment - the Natura 2000 Networking Programme
(NNP) was the next step of the Natura Networking
Initiative, organised in 2006. Covering several top-
ics, the three partners demonstrated their com-
mon will to reflect the commitment of their
members and partners to conservation and Euro-
pean biodiversity. The Train the Trainers seminar
(23-27 April, near Vienna) was followed by 15 na-
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 11
tional workshops and a final conference ( 28 No-
vember in Brussels) plus ‘technical’ support such
as guidelines, practical cases, survey, the Twinning
Lite project and the website www.natura.org.
The Austrian seminar, organized on the shores of
the Danube delta, brought together over 30 ‘am-
bassadors’ representing almost all the EU coun-
tries. For five days people who work with Natura
2000 on a daily basis were able to network (an idea
copied in the Twinning Lite project with a sort of
sponsoring scheme among the various members).
This seminar enabled them to share their experi-
ences and perceptions of the problems and thus
communicate more efficiently with a broader pub-
lic. Cooperating, supporting each other and ulti-
mately contributing to a better understanding of
Natura 2000 were some of the keys to the success
of this meeting on the Danube. The future chal-
lenges were also examined, the biggest one being
the funding of environmental policies. The fact is
that with the exception of LIFE+, environmental
policies are not directly funded as such but are
part of integrated systems and thus use funds
available to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy),
rural development, structural funds, research
funds or even fisheries funds, which shows how
complicated it can be even for the informed user.
Apart from the question of fund accessibility, the
need for information to be accessible is the most
pressing one for rural stakeholders. With a network
composed of 25,000 sites, i.e. 20% of the EU’s ter-
ritory (April 2007, but the EU data was for 25 Mem-
ber States), today with the EU’s 27 countries the
network covers 9 biogeographical zones. To re-
spond to that DG Environment has drafted spe-
cialist documents, such as management models,
targeted workshops and on-line helpdesks etc.
However, the implementation and management
of these environmental policies is the responsibil-
ity of the Member States.
Each partner in the NNP project organized 5 work-
shops and ELO was responsible for 5 national sem-
inars taking place in Latvia (12 July), Romania (4
September), Luxemburg (12 September), Poland
(9 November) and Portugal (14 November). All
workshops were co-organised with the support of
our respective members, in the presence of repre-
sentatives of the ministries of the environment
and agriculture, the European Commission, local
and regional authorities, businesses, NGOs and our
members and local partners.
It is interesting to note that their conclusions co-
incide. The most important of these is the issue of
who should fund environmental services. Manag-
ing the land requires long-term perspectives and
five year management plans have been judged
too short if we take into account the two major Eu-
ropean reforms underway – that of the CAP via the
2008 health check, and that of the budget in-
tended to prepare the 2008-2020 perspectives.
The need to draw up the right specifications as
part of detailed legislation was also mentioned as
a primary point.
The participants also highlighted the need to be in-
cluded in the designation and adjustment process
of environmental legislation. This is in order to
avoid the landowner discovering that his estate is
part of the Natura 2000 network and not having a
clue how it works. This active participation builds
trust between the different users of the natural en-
vironment and promotes knowledge of everyone’s
needs. Such a ‘bottom up’ approach on a local and
national level prevents the wrong message getting
through and means problems can be anticipated
in the field and more readily settled in the event of
a dispute. This consensus, backed up by explicit
and transparent rules, is vital to clearly identify the
advantages for the users and managers of the
Natura 2000 sites. By pooling examples of good
and bad practices, they can find new activities and
thus adjust better to market demand.
The final NNP conference took place on 28 No-
vember 2007 in Brussels. As ELO strongly under-
lines, private owners have been protecting nature
and biodiversity for decades. They adapt as nature
evolves, with the intention of transferring it to fu-
ture generations. However, it is indispensable to
find the right balance between economic needs,
environmental conservation and social impera-
tives in order to continue this approach on a daily
basis. This is only possible if economic conditions
are reliable.
11
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 12
B/ SUSTAINABLE HUNTING
and ANGLING
ELO believes that for hunting and angling to be
sustainable they need to be well integrated into
all the activities of the countryside as well as ac-
cepted by the public while respecting biodiversity
(in part through the Natura 2000 management
plans).
Wildlife territory managers, hunters and anglers
have every interest in preserving the habitats and
diversity of the species living on their territories
and must therefore be considered capable of pro-
viding solutions to the challenges of biodiversity.
Sustainable hunting and angling, together with
the appropriate management of wildlife territories
provide undeniable added value to our common
heritage.
However, these truths must be explained to soci-
ety which all too often is unaware of them and
misunderstands their vital function.
Throughout 2007, ELO has been spreading the
message, thanks to a vast communication cam-
paign with the publication of articles in numerous
periodicals, that communication is an essential
part of conservation; the lack of it often leads to
paralysis and even hostility. A constructive dia-
logue between wildlife managers and the differ-
ent rural stakeholders is fundamental, requiring
honesty and transparency. Sterile battles where
both sides lose out are pointless, not to mention
harmful to biodiversity.
The ELO’s “Pilot Wildlife Estates” and “Sustainable
Hunting” Initiatives are in line with the whole set of EU
environmental legislation, as well as with the Guid-
ance Documents on Hunting of the EU Commis-
sion and with the Agreement between BirdLife and
FACE, the Federation of the EU Associations for Hunt-
ing and Conservation. ELO runs the Secretariat of the
European Parliament Intergroup on Sustainable
Hunting, Biodiversity and Countryside activities in
partnership with FACE.
12
I. “Pilot Wildlife Estates” Initiative (PWEi)
It is in this spirit that ELO and its partners launched
the ‘Pilot Wildlife Estates’ (PWEi) initiative in 2003.
This new management and communication in-
strument sets up a network of hunting territories
which are considered to be exemplary. This
network acts as a catalyst for initiatives which are
designed to lead to new management formulae.
Apart from a highly beneficial exchange of experi-
ence, the initiative has established simple but
precise principles for the good management and
conservation of ‘wild life’ territories throughout
Europe, divided up according to the different
biogeographical regions of the European Union.
This initiative is currently being orchestrated by
ELO in cooperation with ONCFS (National Office of
Hunting and Wild Fauna), ANPC (Association of
Portuguese Hunting Producers), IIMA (Iberian
Institute for the Environment) and the European
Commission.
Creating a set of principles, criteria and indicators
means hunting and fishing grounds can be
managed transparently and objectively, taking
into account the three pillars of sustainability, i.e.
conservation, economics and socio-cultural
aspects.
The idea is to produce guidelines for each biogeo-
graphical region and a ‘label’ promoting the
concept of ‘sustainable hunting’ in these areas. This
label is to be based on good practice, using
criteria and indicators identified in the exemplary
territories selected.
To apply for a label each territory must follow a
two-speed procedure. The first stage consists in
signing a Charter listing the founding principles
and concepts of the PWE initiative. Then to obtain
the label the candidate territory fills in a question-
naire to prove it fulfils the eligibility criteria and
other general requirements, as well as a series of
specific criteria assessed against a grid for each
biogeographical region. The specific criteria and
assessment grids proposed by the first pilot terri-
tories were approved in full by the European work-
ing party during the plenary in Spa at the end of
August 2007. These territories, which apply the
concept of sustainable hunting fully according to
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 13

both European and international regulations,
received their labels on this occasion as recogni-
tion for exemplary management. They are the
Crown Hunting Grounds in Belgium (Hertogen-
wald and St Michel-Freÿr) for the region of conti-
nental Europe, La Garganta in Spain and Herdade
da Raposa in Portugal for the Mediterranean, and
the Chambord Estate for the Atlantic regions.
good practices and management in hunting es-
tates will be produced. This handbook will consist
of guidelines based on the different experiences
of all partners involved today in the PWE initiative.
In 2008, it will be then proceeded to the extension
of the labellisation to other estates

PWEi is an integrated initiative which does not sim-

ply focus on conservation of biodiversity but also
accommodates socio-economic aspects. In partic-
ular it allows diversification of income in the coun-
tryside by creating a ‘wild life products’ economy
such as hunting, bird-watching, marketing local
produce or landscape conservation. This is crucial
at a time when cuts to the Community budget will
inevitably affect farming and the financing of rural
development.

Turning now to the socio-cultural aspects of PWEi,

they too clearly have a positive impact on the in-
volvement of the local community as well as cre-
ating jobs in managing wild life and its habitats.
Wild habitats possess considerable potential for
society, in part due to the show-case effect they
have in raising awareness about the quality and
variety of wild life and its habitats.
Thanks to their exemplary management, the first
areas with PWEi labels will serve as a model for
many other territories.
In November 2007, the initiative was presented at
EU level on the occasion of the business and bio-
diversity conference that took place in Lisbon, or-
ganised by the Portuguese Presidency.
The next steps foreseen in 2008 for the initiative
are the adaptation of the evaluation grid and the
labellisation of test cases for the Nordic, Boreal and
Alpine regions, followed by the setting-up of the
national evaluation committees.
In a first period, labellisations will take place upon
invitation of the members of the EU PWEi Evalua-
tion Committee and through the various national
Evaluation committees.
On the basis of these test cases a handbook of
II. Sustainable Hunting and Angling Initiative
(SHAI)
ELO has launched the SHAI project, in partnership
with FACE and IUCN and with the support of the
European Commission. ELO had previously partic-
ipated in the Sustainable Hunting Initiative (SHI)
aiming at addressing the controversy and con-
frontation between hunters and other conserva-
tionists by facilitating dialogue on issues raised by
the interpretation of the Birds Directive. The ra-
tionale behind this initiative was that these stake-
holders share a common interest in preserving
wild birds and their habitats.
Building on the achievements of SHI, the SHAI pro-
gramme seeks to identify and assess the pro-
gresses and weaknesses in reaching the hunting
community and explore the possibilities of ex-
tending the SHI to non-bird species covered under
the Habitats Directive (mainly mammals) and en-
gaging other wildlife recreational users particularly
anglers.

13
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 14
The establishment of the Natura 2000 network is a
major achievement for the conservation of biodi-
versity and of biological resources in the EU and it
is now a priority to ensure that there is sufficient
expertise, local knowledge and resources for the
management of these Natura 2000 sites.
ELO believes that one of the key obstacles in the
creation of the network has been local opposition,
often stemming from misunderstanding about the
aim and implications of the network. For the fu-
ture management of sites this problem is likely to
persist. In this process, all concerned stakeholders
– such as private rural actors, public authorities,
conservation NGOs – must be involved. This is why
raising awareness through the provision of clear
and reliable information and by open and con-
structive dialogue between these stakeholders is
essential to the success of the network. In this re-
spect, hunters and anglers together form a stake-
holder group which is highly representative of
rural communities, with close links to land use
practices, and covering a broad spectrum of socio-
economic backgrounds. Raising awareness of
hunters and anglers is therefore an efficient way
to transmit the aims of the network to our rural ac-
tors at local level, living in and around Natura 2000
sites.
Therefore ELO’s ambition in the SHAI programme
ambitions is to further ameliorate the sound im-
plementation of the Natura 2000 network to the
benefit of the countryside and nature.
C/ ELO participation in various
European Commission meetings
ELO lobby action during 2007 was also focussed
on technical aspects of the elaboration of the en-
vironmental legislation related to biodiversity pro-
tection or interpretation of existing legislation.
Indeed, the potential pressure on the rural activi-
ties depends on the interpretation of the concepts
defined in the directives and their national imple-
mentation. Therefore ELO participated in the Eu-
ropean Commission expert groups such as the
Habitats Committees, the biodiversity expert
14
group SEBI-Streamlining European Biodiversity In-
dicators, the Invasive Alien Species and the Busi-
ness and Biodiversity initiative. During theses
meetings, the ELO members’ viewpoints were reg-
ularly expressed either orally or via written contri-
butions. These groups are particularly interesting
as in addition to the representatives of the Com-
mission, the participants come from the European
Environmental Agency (EEA), national ministries
and other NGOs.
D/ ELO synergy with other lobby
groups on biodiversity: the Natura
2000 Users Forum
ELO during 2007 also worked in close collabora-
tion with other lobby groups involved in biodiver-
sity management via its Natura 2000 Users Forum.
This platform enables us to share information with
other groups acting at the European level and to
create synergies on common concerns. The core
task was focussed on the articles of the Natura
2000 Directives, notably article 6.4, article 8, arti-
cle 12 on strict liability and article 17 on reporting,
and the maritime designation process.
E/ ELO support to its members
ELO during 2007 provided information and sup-
port to its members on specific cases related to
Natura 2000 and biodiversity protection, notably
concerning the local interpretation of the Direc-
tives and the relation with the local stakeholders
and administrations. These cases not only have a
local interest but also underline the difficulties of
an adequate implementation in the field and be-
come show cases for our network.
F/ ELO Participation in Green Week
2007
ELO actively participated on behalf of its members
in Green Week 2007 organized in Brussels by the
European Commission, having two stands, in the
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 15
Charlemagne building and - for the 1st time in the
Green Week edition- also in the Parc du Cinquan-
tenaire. As on previous occasions, FCS and ELO
wanted to share the experience of the manage-
ment of private properties, via best practices, to
better respond to the new needs of the European
citizens: protection of biodiversity and human ac-
tivities, man and nature, scarcity of natural re-
sources such as water etc. One of the drivers was to
involve the next generation, via its daughter or-
ganization (Young Friends of the Countryside),
which gathers members between 18-35 years old,
to develop and link the environmental spirit with
the economic viability, to connect the countryside
“lifestyle” and the technology innovation (such as
renewable energies, use of water resources, air
protection, Climate Change etc). The ELO and FCS
members’ action was particularly well perceived
and the stand received a lot of visitors asking ques-
tions and details.
AWARDS FOR ENVIRONMENT
ELO, its sister organisation Friends of the Country-
side, and their partners have created a series of Eu-
ropean Awards in order to promote sustainable
development in rural areas. These aim at reward-
ing innovative, environmentally friendly and en-
trepreneurial achievements in the European
countryside.
ELO, its sister organisation Friends of the Country-
side, and their partners have created a series of Eu-
ropean Awards in order to promote sustainable
development in rural areas. These aim at reward-
ing innovative, environmentally friendly and en-
trepreneurial achievements in the European
countryside.
1. Anders WALL Award
Since 2002, the Anders WALL Foundation (Swe-
den), Friends of the Countryside, DG Environment
and the Royal Agriculture Academy of Stockholm
have been presenting an annual award to encour-
age and promote efforts made by creative entre-
preneurs who have contributed to the creation of
a “positive rural environment”: landscape preser-
vation, biodiversity enhancement, cultural her-
itage conservation and contribution to the rural
economy. The Anders WALL Award 2007 was pre-
sented to the Jarras-Listel estate, represented by
Paul-François VRANKEN, who understood very
early on the role of environmental protection com-
bined with sustainable use of landscape for wine
production on a relict sandbank from the Rhone
river included in the Natura 2000 network.
http://www.friendsofthecountryside.net/
award.htm
15
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 16
2. Belleuropa Award
The Belleuropa project, was launched in Italy in the
late 1990’s, thanks to the initiative of Giuseppe
NATTA, a leading environmental figure, with the
cooperation of ELO. Belleuropa is based on the
principle that in much of Europe, the rural territory
is highly degraded, and a quality environment is
thus a scarce resource upon which much value is
placed today. The Belleuropa Award is presented
to a rural property, which thanks to agri-environ-
mental measures has developed into an important
example of Third Generation agricultural produc-
tion, achieving significant results from an environ-
mental point of view. In 2007, the Belleuropa
Award was presented to les Salins du Midi (France).
C. PIRZIOBIROLI and B. GAUTHIERDARCET
3. Environment and Soil
Management Award
Created by ELO, under the patronage of Commis-
sioner DIMAS, with the cooperation of DG Environ-
ment, the Universities of Vienna and Ljubljana, the
EU Joint Research Centre of Ispra and Syngenta In-
ternational, the Environment and Soil Manage-
ment Award recognizes outstanding management
achievements contributing to the improvement of
environmental quality and to the protection of soil
and land. The 2007 award was given to Eugénio SE-
QUEIRA, President of the Liga para a Protecção da
Natureza for its outstanding contribution to soil re-
covery in a rural threatened ecosystem in Portugal
http://www.elo.org/index.php?page=pages/soi
l.php
16
K. KOSTOPOULOS, E. SEQUEIRA, T. de L’ESCAILLE
BIOMASS/BIOFUELS
Today’s world is undeniably facing climate change.
The dramatic consequences of the latter, when
combined with the rising demand in food follow-
ing the steepening of the population curve above
all in developing countries, and with a global en-
ergy demand forecast to increase by 50% by 2025-
hence two factors really not likely to improve the
situation-, imply that we need to find measures to
mitigate global warming, namely in reducing
greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.
ELO promotes sustainable agricultural non food
production when it is implemented through good
practices and agri-environmental measures which
most of the time require incentives to help
landowners and land managers to provide the en-
vironmental services that society expects from
them.
The EU also has to decrease its energy depend-
ency, namely through the diversification of fuel
supply sources thanks to renewable energies. In
addition, global production has been growing
worldwide involving the increase of waste and by-
products which need to be taken care of. Besides,
it is important to diversify the agricultural market
outlets as well as employment opportunities in
rural areas in order to avoid abandonment of land,
which is very detrimental for the environment.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 17
The EU Commission has set up energy and climate
change policy objectives: to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by 20% and ensure 20% of renew-
able energy sources in the EU energy mix; in order
to reduce EU primary energy use by 20% by 2020.
It would save the EU some € 100 billion and cut
emissions by almost 800 million tonnes a year. To
that end, there is a strong need to develop cost-
effective low carbon technologies, including the
use of biomass and sustainable biofuels.
With this mind, in 2007 ELO organised and at-
tended numerous conferences and events
throughout the EU 27, such as the Sustainable En-
ergy week that took place in Brussels, as well as
meetings with MEPs, national and EU high-level of-
ficials, in order to explore partnership opportuni-
ties with ELO on this matter.
3 main types of biomass
• Agricultural resources (flax, rape, chicory, beet-
root, perennial grasses, miscanthus, etc)
• Forestry resources (forest residues, wood in-
dustry sub-products, very-short-rotation cop-
pices) see ELO’s EUROFORENET programme.
• Waste (manure, agro-alimentary industries, etc)
Uses
• Biomass for heat
• Biomass for transport fuels (biodiesel form
oilseed rape, bioethanol from wheat, sugar beet..,
ETBE, etc)
• Biomass for electricity
• New products from Biomass research (biochem-
icals, solvents, biopolymers, biolubricants, bio-
materials , etc)
• Building materials
Processes
combustion, gasification, cogeneration, bio-
methanisation, plant chemistry, etc
Biomass is all renewable raw material of plant or
animal origin destined for non-food use, and can
be considered as one of the most important re-
newable energy sources thanks to several benefits
including large savings in GHG emissions. Its sus-
tainable use is part of a virtuous circle that enables
the efficient management of waste, supporting an
integrated approach, and when produced locally
allows minimising fossil fuel use in processing and
fuel transport.
It is nevertheless crucial to remember that biofuels
widely vary in terms of their impact; it is hence
necessary to monitor the whole life cycle of each
type of biofuel, i.e. how they are produced (inten-
sive v. extensive production, use of fossil-based
fertilisers, fossil fuels, etc.) and their impacts on
soil, water resources, biodiversity etc. Energy Effi-
ciency is a key word: 2nd (and 3rd) generation bio-
fuels have a bigger potential than 1st generation
crops, which are limited and can compete directly
with food production, even though they prepare
the way for the next generations.
However these new alternative materials are faced
with the technical challenges of being converted
into high-performance fuels and to ensuring that
life-cycle CO2 production is low, performance of
the fuel is high and manufacture can be commer-
cially viable. In addition, they are expensive to
produce. More research, adequate policy and legal
framework are needed, as well as deeper
involvement of the decisions makers and of the
investors.
EU support for bioenergy:
The use of biomass for energy receives support
from the Common Agricultural Policy through
the CAP reform (decoupled income support, en-
ergy crops on set-aside areas, energy crop pre-
mium, sugar reform – with sugar beet for ethanol
eligible under both regimes, exempt from quotas,
etc), from the Rural development Regulation
(2007-2013) with its set of measures in support of
renewable energy (e.g. biomass supply chains, pro-
cessing capacity, bioenergy installations, including
energy use of forest material), and from funds ded-
icated to Research through technology Platforms
(industry-led co-operation to develop Strategic Re-
search Agendas (SRAs) which set R&D goals and pri-
orities such as forest-based Sector Technology
Platform (www.forestplatform.com); biofuels Tech-
nology Platform (www.biofuelstp.eu), plants for the
future (www.epsoweb.org), sustainable Chemistry
(www.suschem.org) and the 7th RTD framework
programme as well as Intelligent Energy for Eu-
rope.
17
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 18
Main EU legislation regulating the use of bio-
mass/biofuels:
– Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of elec-
tricity produced from renewable energy sources
in the internal electricity market
– Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance
of buildings
– Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the
use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for trans-
port
– Directive 2003/87/EC on a scheme for green-
house gas emission allowance trading within the
Community
– Directive 2004/8/EC on the promotion of cogen-
eration based on a useful heat demand in the in-
ternal energy market
– EU Biomass Action Plan 7/12/2005: COM(2005)
628 final
– EU Strategy for Biofuels 8/02/2006: COM(2006) 34
final-adopted by Council 8/06/2006
– EU Forest Action Plan 15/6/2006 (COM(2006)302
final)
- Proposal to revise Directive 98/70/EC relating to
the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amend-
ing Council Directive 93/12/EC, 31 January 2007
- Communication Towards a low carbon future – A
European Strategic Energy Technology Plan
Com(2007) 0723
In 2008:
23 January: “Climate and Energy package” includ-
ing a new approach to actively promote renewable
targets, again including binding national targets
- Proposal for a Directive of the EP and of the Coun-
cil on the promotion of the use of energy from re-
newable sources {COM(2008) 30 final}
ELO and the RISE Foundation jointly organised in
January 2008 a Seminar entitled “food, feed and
bioenergy: priorities and dilemmas” where ELO
Consultative Committee Chairman and RISE Foun-
dation CEO Corrado PIRZIO-BIROLI delivered a key
note address explaining that escalating prices and
environmental degradation are signs that the pop-
ulation explosion, urbanization, economic devel-
opment and that changes in consumption
patterns are progressively causing food, feed and
energy shortages, and leading the world towards
eventual environmental collapse. Food-, energy-
18
and environmental security have become major
policy challenges for our planet and its people,
and biofuels influences all of them. The conclusion
of the Seminar highlighted that the development
of sustainability criteria and carbon certification is
necessary in order to provide the framework for
decisions as to which plants and what production
methods provide an acceptable net contribution
to GHG reduction and should therefore play a part
in target implementation.
For ELO, the key question for Europe is whether it is
justified to establish strict biofuels targets - such as
the 10% obligation of transport fuel by 2020 as ad-
vocated by the Commission in the EU Climate and
Energy Package- and provide incentives for biofu-
els to enable an emerging industry. Biofuels are a
key part of our current and future energy mix. Di-
versification into biofuels can bring many benefits
with it, especially as technology and research allow
increasing use of second (and beyond) generation
sources. It can lead to a win-win situation which
could be beneficial universally for the rural world,
governments, the environment and investors.
However, it is important to ensure that any action
taken is properly researched, targets are realistic
and, most of all, sustainable. In making these deci-
sions, ethical and political issues, in relation to food
security and the competition between food and
fuel must be carefully considered, as well as the
geopolitical consequences and impacts on the de-
veloping world.
In addition, ELO, strongly concerned by the irre-
versible effect of intensive energy crops produc-
tion caused by massive deforestation in third
countries such as Brazil, would welcome the cre-
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 19
ation of certificates to ensure that biomass im-
ported from such countries respect environmental
standards, such as cross-compliance requirements.
It could also avoid the risk of distortion of compe-
tition for EU farmers, who have to respect these re-
quirements to receive their direct payments.
PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS
The primary function of the rural world is to feed
an ever growing population through the use of
safe products. Food safety is indeed a major re-
quirement that Europeans consider the responsi-
bility of the agricultural sector. This has been made
possible thanks to the development of pesticides,
principally composed of the plant protection
products (PPPs) and the biocidal products to man-
age pests, diseases and weeds.
This synergy between agriculture and food also
means quality and control over production
processes and final products, hence representing
one of the main strengths of European agriculture.
The 21st Century sees the development of another
crucial function which will help to reduce energy
dependency on fossil fuels: the production of fos-
sil fuel alternatives.
Future generations of land managers will thus face
an enormous challenge. To that end, they need to
have the means necessary to carry out their tasks,
while making sure that fulfilling these vital needs
will not adversely affect biodiversity. Modern farm-
ing is hence inextricably linked to environmental
protection and the enhancement of local
economies and communities.
In 2007, ELO through its lobby and awareness rais-
ing actions has been constantly recalling that rural
entrepreneurs and landowners are responsible
stewards of their land, strongly convinced that
business, social and environmental perform-
ances are mutually dependent.
Accordingly, in October 2007, ELO, together with
the NFU (UK National Farmers Union) has sent a
position paper to the European Parliament as its
Environment Committee has voted in favour of
overly restrictive legislation, namely as regards the
replacement of Directive 91/414. This action
aimed to ensure that the proposed revision of the
Directive will maintain a high level of protection
for health and the environment whilst being con-
sistent with the rest of the environmental leg-
islation package (i.e. on water, soil, nitrates, etc),
and promote sustainability through proper scien-
tifically based risk assessment, and not hazard
based cut-off criteria. It should not lead to a radi-
cal reduction in the use of PPPs which would ad-
versely affect the activities of land users.
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use
of Pesticides
In 2006, the Commission presented its proposal on
future European policy on the authorisation and
use of plant protection products. It was adopted in
July 2006.
This Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
aims to address the threats posed by the use of pes-
ticides to human health and the environment,
whilst maintaining crop productivity. Its objectives
are twofold in targeting both the issue at source
with regards to PPPs producers on the one hand,
and PPPs users on the other.
Together with the Strategy, the Commission has in-
troduced a proposal for a Regulation revising the
1991 Directive on the placing of plant protection
products on the market, and a proposal for a
Framework Directive that sets out common objec-
tives and requirements aiming to ensure coherence
throughout the EU between the MS which have al-
ready adopted measures to address these threats
and the MS which have not yet done so. It also pro-
vides for measures intended to keep users and the
general public better informed and measures en-
abling the impact of pesticides on public health
and the environment to be reduced
It includes proposal of measures such as:
• a ban on aerial spraying, except in special
cases;
• national action plans with the necessary
flexibility for adapting measures to the spe-
cific situation of the various Member States;
• regular inspection of application equipment
and measures governing the handling and
storage of pesticides, their packaging and
remnants;
19
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 20
• protection of the aquatic environment and
of areas with "sensitive" groups in line with
i.e. the Water Framework Directive, the Birds
Directive or the Habitats Directive,
• measuring progress in risk reduction
through harmonised indicators;
• establishment of a system of information ex-
change for continuous development and
improvement of appropriate guidance, best
practices, and recommendations.
The strategy contains two additional legislative
proposals: one on the requirements to be met by
new pesticide application equipment and the other
on the collection of statistics on PPPs.
The relationship between the competitiveness as
well as the quality of European agriculture and the
evolution of the regulatory framework for the plac-
ing of PPPs on the market is obvious.
In the same vein, in January 2008, ELO jointly with
the CLA and the UK National Gamekeeper Organ-
isation sent a position paper advocating for a rea-
sonable use of burrows baiting, indicating to DG
ENVI that they were seriously concerned that de-
cisions arising out of the implementation of the EU
Biocidal Products Directive would lead to a ban on
the use of rodenticides (rat poisons) within rat bur-
rows.
The regulatory framework should ensure proper
controls of parallel products and guard against the
traffic of dangerous imitations/counterfeited prod-
ucts, and ensure competitiveness as well as har-
monisation of authorisation where possible. It
should also encourage innovation together with
Intellectual Property Protection of data and a rapid
evaluation of new safer products.
In addition, individual measures should be evalu-
ated in taking into account the economic and ad-
ministrative burden for farmers and regulatory
authorities and there should be flexibility afforded
to Member States to adapt individual measures to
local conditions and practices without compro-
mising the end result.
The current approach is based on the strict appli-
cation of environmental criteria. ELO condemns
the current trend to “delist” certain active sub-
stances without satisfactory alternatives. This cre-
20
ates a risk for our members who face serious avail-
ability problems for certain categories of pesti-
cides such as insecticides and rodenticides and
this is very likely to cause a distortion of competi-
tion at a global level.
If approved in their current form, the modifications
to Pesticides market-access legislation will gener-
ate significant negative impacts. A shrink in the ca-
pacity for self-sufficiency in the rural world would
create inevitable negative repercussions, not only
in terms of food supply, but is also likely to impact
the whole supply chain composed of the other
economic actors (such as agri-food industries,
wholesale and retail trade, storage and transport
services, etc.), hence ignoring the objectives of the
Lisbon Strategy, which aim at “making the EU the
most competitive economy in the world and achiev-
ing full employment by 2010”.
We are carefully following this process to best pro-
tect the interests of our members.
Specific Basic Legal Framework
• Plant protection products (PPPs) are covered by
Council Directive 91/414/EEC defining strict
rules for their authorisation. The Directive re-
quires very extensive risk assessments for effects
on health and environment to be carried out, be-
fore a PPP can be placed on the market and used.
Community rules also exist that define maxi-
mum residue limits (MRLs) on food and feed-
stuffs. MRLs are set at Community level for about
150 plant protection products and at Member
State level for any other unharmonised products.
• The Biocidal Product Directive (98/8/EC) aims
to provide a high level of protection for humans,
animals and the environment and targets the
harmonisation of the European market for bioci-
dal products and their active substances.
• Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides (COM(2006)327 final, adopted
12/07/2006)
• In December 2007 the Council reached political
agreement on a common position on a Directive
on the sustainable use of pesticides and took
note of the state of play on the draft Regulation
concerning the placing of plant protection prod-
ucts on the market (11755/06).
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 21
ELO believes that new products are developed for
use according to food and sanitary safety require-
ments within sustainable agriculture and inte-
grated pest management. They have been placed
on the market in order to mitigate the threats to
natural resources and soil and are part of good
practices when combined with appropriate culti-
vation techniques such as conservation tillage or
use of environmental-friendly machinery. PPPs
contribute to high agricultural yields, helping to
ensure that good quality food is available at rea-
sonable prices, and biocides/rodenticides are use-
ful for public health protection. Nevertheless,
when not used sustainably, some pesticides may
have possibly negative effects on human health
and biodiversity, which is why a balanced ap-
proach based inter alia on training for PPP
users is necessary:
In this respect ELO is part of the TOPPS EU project
(Train Operators to Prevent Point Sources).
This project is aimed at identifying the “Best Man-
agement Practices” and disseminating them
through advice, training and demonstrations on a
larger co-ordinated scale in Europe with the in-
tention of minimising PPP contamination in water
through agriculture
ELO is also a Friend of the pan-European Sense
+ Sustainability Campaign launched by its part-
ner ECPA (European Crop Protection). Initiatives
such as these campaigns aim to raise standards of
agricultural production and reflect the industry’s
commitment, together with other partners in the
food chain. It encourages farmer training and ed-
ucation, and promotes integrated farming as one
of several ways in which sustainable crop protec-
tion can be achieved.
GREEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES
The EU Commission defines GMOs as « organisms
in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered
in a way that does not occur naturally by mating or
natural recombination ». The most common types
of GMOs that have been developed and commer-
cialised are genetically modified crop plant species,
such as genetically modified maize, soybean,
oilseed rape and cotton varieties.
Basic legislation/useful documents:
Directive 90/219/EC on contained use activities
with GMOs
Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of
GMOs into the environment
Regulation 1829/2003 on GM food/feed
Regulation 1946/2003 on the transboundary
movement of GMOs
Regulation 1830/2003 traceability and labelling
of GMOs
Second Report from the Commission to the Coun-
cil and the European Parliament on the experience
of Member States with GMOs placed on the market
under Directive 2001/18/EC. (COM(2007) 81 final)-
Annexes to the Report SEC (2007) 274
-Authorisations
List of products authorised under Directive
90/220/EEC
List of products authorised under Directive
2001/18/EC
List of pending products under Directive
2001/18/EC
-List of safeguard clauses
The dramatic consequences of climate change and
loss of biodiversity, when combined with the ris-
ing demand in food following the steepening of
the population curve above all in developing
countries, and with a global energy demand fore-
cast to increase by 50% by 2025, imply that the de-
mand in natural resources will put the rural world
under huge pressure to increase productivity
while sparing natural resources, notably water. At
the same time, consumers are demanding higher
and higher food quality. ELO believes that within
the context of a balanced approach, green
biotechnologies, and especially GMOs, are a
powerful tool that can be used to help meeting
these needs.
The number of Member States (MS) cultivating GM
crops and their total area of cultivation is increas-
ing. It’s visible: in 2007, GM crops represented
110,000 hectares in 8 EU MS: Portugal, Spain, Ger-
many, France, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland
and Romania.
As a matter of fact, biotechnology is being ex-
ploited at an accelerating rate by Europe’s com-
petitors. Planting in Europe has however been
21
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 22
much slower, but is increasing as farmers further
realize the benefits of biotech crops.
GMOs can provide clear benefits for agriculture
and the society as a whole. They include sustain-
able benefits for farmers as they increase global
crop productivity in improving food feed, fibre, en-
vironmental and energy security.
Some concrete non-exhaustive examples: pre-
venting insect feeding damage, improving weed
control programs, preventing crop loss to plant
disease, using less pesticides, mitigating loss of soil
organic matter, fighting erosion and compaction
through less ploughing, and a crucial sparing of
water resources, as well as direct benefits for con-
sumers such as improving the quality and nutri-
tional benefits of food crops, hence contributing
to the alleviation of poverty and hunger.
In addition, they allow a much more efficient pro-
duction of “green fuel.” Besides, green biotech-
nologies have already reduced the global
environmental footprint of production agriculture
by 14% including reductions of CO2 emissions
equivalent to taking 5 million cars off the road for
one year.
ELO is in favour of research which would produce
genetically enhanced plants able to increase
yields, make industrial processes more efficient
and cleaner, while providing safer, healthier and
better-tasting food for consumers. In addition, this
new generation of « biotech products » could also
be used to develop pharmaceutical products for
human health or proteins for life-saving drugs.
The European Commission has developed a leg-
islative framework based on the precautionary
principle to ensure that GMOs that are grown,
marketed and imported meet the highest stan-
dards of safety for the environment, and for
human and animal health, subject to risk assess-
ment.
In 2007 special attention was dedicated to the
concept of coexistence.
22
What does coexistence mean?
Directive 2001/18/EC covering the deliberate re-
lease into the environment of GMOs allows MS to
establish coexistence measures.
The coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to
choose between conventional, organic or GM-
based crop production, in compliance with EU leg-
islation on labelling and-or purity standards to
avoid commingling and cross-pollination, and re-
lates to the economic consequences of farmers
complying with the coexistence measures as well
as dealing with adventitious presence (AP) of GM
trait in non-GM crops. A major concern when
adopting GM crops in agricultural systems relates
to the possibility of unwanted GM inputs into non
GM crops.
The EU regulations have introduced a 0.9% la-
belling threshold for the AP of GM material in non-
GM products.
ELO participated in the 3rd edition of the confer-
ence in coexistence between GMOs and non GM
agricultural supply chain (GMCC07) that took place
in Seville, on 20-21 November 2007.
The upshot of the conference showed that coexis-
tence raises questions such as harvest purity, crop
transformation, transport and segregation effi-
ciency.
National measures adopted or proposed in the
MS regarding coexistence:
Draft coexistence legislation has to be notified to
the EU Commission. In August 2007, 15 MS noti-
fied theirs. In some cases, the competence for co-
existence measures lies at the regional level.
In 2007, the legislation had already been adopted
after notification in 7 MS: Austria, Czech Republic,
Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Hungary and Slova-
kia.
Romania adopted coexistence legislation before
its accession to the EU. In some cases, framework
legislation was adopted or proposed, with detailed
good agricultural practices still to be developed.
Technical strict coexistence measures include iso-
lation distances between GM and non-GM fields,
in some specific cases for crop and seed produc-
tions. They are key segregation measures.
It is up to MS to provide for flexible measures such
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 23
as buffer zones, which can be additional or substi-
tuting isolation distances, temporal isolation
measures (cultivation intervals), volunteer control,
cleaning of equipment (harvest, transport, stor-
age), etc.
In addition, some MS oblige GM crop growers to
undergo specific training. Specific information
procedures have been established to ensure a flow
of information to public authorities, and in many
cases, neighbours.
The EU coexistence bureau is in charge of elabo-
rating crop specific guidance for coexistence
measures. It aims to have EU-wide application
while taking into account the diversity of agricul-
tural systems.
ELO strongly believes that the coexistence
should be left open to the choice of producers
and pave the way for more research. The Euro-
pean Commission should ensure that, for biotech
products authorized in the EU, Member States do
not restrict farmers’ access to such products
through the use of arbitrary and illegal bans or
through the adoption of discriminatory national
or local coexistence rules.
In 2008 a study from the ISAA (International Serv-
ice for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applica-
tions) showed that in 2007 GM crops increased by
12% i.e. 12.3 millions hectares, hence amounting
114 millions hectares in the world. This increase
has been followed by 2 million more GM farmers.
However, at EU level, clear political decisions are
still expected as regards authorisation of new
plants…
Some MS are very hostile to GMOs, as illustrated
by the brand new German law allowing certain
products such as meat, eggs and milk to be la-
belled « GM free ». This label should appear in a
near future in the food department stores.
It is crucial to demonstrate to public opinion as
well as to the decision makers the difficult situa-
tion in which land managers and farmers will be
(and to some extent, already are), in a globalized
economy not really favourable to EU farmers, if the
EU doesn’t get to grips with adopting a more
courageous attitude towards biotechnologies.
The EU is indeed already far behind its competi-
tors who could increase their yields thanks to
biotechs.
III. PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE
AND ECONOMICALLY
VIABLE AREAS
THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE CAP
AND THE HEALTH CHECK
2007 was a busy year for the ELO in getting ready
for the Health Check. In November the European
Commission unveiled its Communication on the
Health Check of the CAP. The so-called ‘Health
Check’ is build on the approach which began with
the FISCHLER reforms, and seeks to improve the
way rural policy operates, based on the experience
gathered since 2003, and to make it fit for the new
challenges and opportunities in EU 27.
The Communication examined the possibility of
further policy adjustments to take account of mar-
ket and other developments in focusing in partic-
ular on the Single Payment Scheme, market
support instruments and new challenges. The
Communication was designed to kick off a wide-
ranging six-month consultation which took the
form of a questionnaire to which ELO responded.
Also part of this broad stakeholders’ consultation,
the DG AGRI organised on 6 December 2007in
Brussels a conference which dealt with all the top-
ics covered by the Health Check. It brought to-
gether experts, including ELO, representing the
various social and economic interests (producers
and cooperatives, trade, industry, workers, con-
23
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:51 PM Page 24
sumers, environmentalists, animal welfare inter-
ests) as well as Members of the European Parlia-
ment, the Economic and Social Committee, the
Committee of the Regions and the Court of Audi-
tors. Another special Seminar on the future of the
dairy sector, which ELO also participated in, took
place in Brussels on 11 January 2008.
In its answer to the Health Check questionnaire,
ELO constantly recalled that it did not consider
that the Health Check should introduce new re-
forms, stressing the need for stability. It accepted
the Health Check could and should bring simplifi-
cation and streamlining, but not fundamental re-
form. Both Pillars of the CAP have been radically
reformed since 2004 and many of these reforms,
including the new Rural Development Pro-
grammes, have just been approved by the Com-
mission for implementation, while some remained
to be approved.
ELO stressed that whilst it was right to discuss the
correct balance between the two Pillars and the
mechanisms for changing this balance, it was very
hard to see how the outcome of such discussions
could be implemented before 2013.
In responding to the consultation, ELO was willing
to insist about the fact that ELO members were ex-
pecting more clarity about the way the CAP would
evolve in the longer run and particularly on the fu-
ture financing of measures dealing with long term
market failures.
The questionnaire was dealing with a couple of is-
sues such as:
-On simplifying the Single Payment Scheme (SPS),
ELO answer was that the elimination of the Fruit,
Vegetable and Potato authorised entitlements was
already a sensible simplification. Provided set-
asides were abolished for good, the removal of set-
aside entitlements would be another welcome
simplification of the Single Payment System. Like-
wise the simplification of the 10 months rule al-
ready underway was a welcome move. Set-aside
have no place in the ‘decoupled’ CAP, however for
those Member States who wish to have voluntary
set-aside, this should be possible and imple-
mented under an EU-wide voluntary arrangement,
paid-for and arranged by amending Pillar 2 agri-
environmental schemes.
24
ELO indicated that it believed in decoupling pay-
ments from production and recoupling them to
the delivery of environmental and cultural land-
scape services, and this should apply to all prod-
ucts and in all regions. Retained product-specific
coupled payments seemed unfair competition to
other producers within the single market.
-As regards the adjustment of the Members States’
Single Payment Scheme model towards a more
flat rate of support, at national or regional level,
ELO thought that Member States should be al-
lowed to make these adjustments, but it should be
an optional, not compulsory move.
Besides, ELO supported a close relationship be-
tween the payments and the land, this was the
best way to ensure the land was kept in Good Agri-
cultural and Environmental Condition.
-On cross-compliance, ELO made it clear that if
there were to be an enduring case for substantial
payments to private land managers for their de-
livery of public environmental and cultural land-
scape services, then the real debate was in which
form and through which instruments to make
these payments. What mix of Pillar 2 payments, for
example in Agri-environment and Less Favoured
Area schemes, and Pillar 1 payments for respect-
ing tough EU standards would be optimal? ELO
had no clarity on this but if tougher EU standards
– e.g. for water management – would to be ap-
plied then this would provide further justification
for farm payment. Simplification may lighten the
administrative burden but should not undermine
the effectiveness of the Cross-Compliance meas-
ures in delivering high standards.
-On capping, the Organization firmly said that if
the payments are to move towards a flat-rate or
Regional Average Payment, then it makes no sense
to counter this simplification with a complication
to differentiate payments per hectare and digres-
sivity of payments according to farm payment size,
and urged the Commission to drop it.
-On price intervention, ELO believed that the best
way to maintain the safety-net role of intervention
was to maintain it as a measure of last resort in ex-
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 25
treme conditions, i.e. a as a true safety net. The
Commission should not use the current high grain
and oilseed prices to remove the legislative basis
of intervention. Agricultural markets could col-
lapse as well as boom and in such circumstances it
would be wise to have tools at the rural world’s dis-
posal which may be modified to suit the circum-
stances but do not have to be reinvented from
scratch.
-On milk quotas, ELO answered that it was a thing
of the past, and had no place since the introduc-
tion of decoupled payments. There is no need for
the EU to decide how much milk should be pro-
duced, even though ELO acknowledged that cer-
tain marginal regions (e.g. mountainous regions)
may face difficulties when the protection offered
by milk quotas is removed. If there were environ-
mental and cultural landscape problems in certain
regions associated with livestock agriculture, then
these would be best dealt with Pillar 2 measures.
-On risk management, ELO had been saying for
some time that coping with the extra volatility in
markets, the international economy (i.e. exchange
rates and interest rates), coupled with physical fac-
tors affecting food production, animal and plant
disease spread and evolving climatic conditions
(drought, flood, fire), would require more atten-
tion. ELO did not consider the Commission’s cur-
rent stance that dealing with volatility should be
left to the Member States and dealt with in Pillar 2
was an adequate position. Although as an Organ-
isation it did not have a prepared tool-box of
measures to offer to deal with this problem, ELO
stressed that more discussion was required about
the development of crop insurance and revenue
insurance and on who would pay for it.
-As regards new challenges such as Climate
Change, bio-energy, water management and bio-
diversity, ELO’s position was that as these chal-
lenges were relatively new areas, with many policy
instruments impacting on these, especially re-
newable energy; it was hence not clear what spe-
cific role the CAP should play. It was too soon to
pronounce on the correct adaptation of the CAP
to the new challenges but it is not too soon to start
debating on how the major part of the current
CAP which is concerned with the delivery of pub-
lic environmental services should adjust to strong
changes in market conditions.
-On increased modulation, the answer was that
given the challenges already manifest, it may well
be necessary to shift more CAP resources to en-
sure the appropriate delivery of the public goods
and services. ELO was currently debating whether
this was best done in Pillar 1, for example using a
suitably amended Article 69 (now 58) of Regula-
tion (EC) No 1782/2003, or whether it should be
done in Pillar 2. There were many questions which
had to be answered about the operation of Pillar 2
as many Member States found the co-financing
impossible while in some of them the scarcity of
resources had forced them to limit the eligibility of
Pillar 2 schemes to farms below a certain thresh-
old... This would surely preclude larger farms from
delivering the public services society expected
form them.
ELO nonetheless pointed out that there must be a
stronger debate in the context of the Health Check
about the problems of moving funds towards
dealing with market failures – which was generally
accepted as the right way for the CAP to evolve.
Many MS were thoroughly disenchanted with Pil-
lar 2. There were concerns that getting the funds
through Pillar 2 measures were too bureaucratic
and too much was thought to leak out away from
private sector land managers.
25
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 26
Throughout the year, ELO has been thoroughly ad-
vocating during various meetings with EU repre-
sentatives and national senior officials that it was
not too soon to start reflecting on the future adap-
tations which may be required for Pillar 2. Whilst
there was a general acceptance that Pillar 2 meas-
ures for rural development and for paying for pub-
lic environmental and cultural landscape services
were the right general direction, there were many
problems surrounding the present arrangements,
such as the financing of Pillar 2, the complexity
and administrative costs of some of the schemes,
the accessibility of the measures for all farmers and
potential beneficiaries, measures to deal with the
continuing flight from the land, and the current
problem of the rising opportunity cost of environ-
mental delivery as commodity prices rise.
These are complex matters that will not be quickly
resolved. This is why the Commission should be
encouraging debate on these matters during the
next two years. The ELO is very keen to participate
in this debate and will be submitting its own
thoughts in a near future.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The strengthening of EU rural development policy
is and should remain an overall EU priority. ELO
agrees that both traditional farming and forestry
together with the multitude of other rural activi-
ties remain crucial for land use and management
of natural resources in the EU’s rural areas. Rural
development plays an increasingly important role
in helping rural areas to meet the economic, social
and environmental challenges of today’s society.
Therefore providing support for the development
of rural areas is a key tool for the restructuring of
the agricultural sector, and it also encourages di-
versification and innovation in these areas.
During 2007, ELO was actively engaged in efforts
to support a rural development policy and partic-
ipated in the EC’s Rural Development Advisory
Committee as well as attending many other meet-
ings in the field of rural development to represent
it members.
26
The focus of the rural development policy 2007-
2013 is in line with three thematic axes laid down
in the new rural development regulation. These
axes are:
1. Improving competitiveness for farming and
forestry;
2. Environment and countryside;
3. Improving quality of life and diversification of
rural economy;
4. and the fourth axis, the LEADER axis, should
contribute to the priorities of the other 3 axes
and introduces possibilities for locally based
bottom-up approaches to rural development.
Rural
Development
2007-2013
“LEADER” Axis
Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3
Competi- Environment Economic
tiveness • Divers.
Land •
Management Quality of
Life
Single set of programming, financing, monitoring, auditing rules
Single Rural Developing Fund
After last years budget allocation, the main issues
in 2007 were the approval of the Rural Develop-
ment Programmes presented by the different
Member States and/or Regions. The European
budget for the period 2007-2013 is €90.8 billion
(€67.6 billion as a core fund and the rest under Bul-
garia and Romania Accession & (Voluntary) Mod-
ulation from Pillar 1). ELO was able to actively
contribute to the elaboration of an optimum rural
development funding allocation in cooperation
with the Commission which would better enable
landowners to adjust to a changing market. ELO
has also reacted that this is far too little to achieve
the increasingly challenging needs of the rural
areas. As a result, European areas, including agri-
culture, forestry and other rural activities, are con-
tinuing to come under significant pressure.
About 2/3 of the rural development programs
were approved at the end of 2007. On average the
relative distribution of the funds according to the
Axes was:
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 27
Axis 1 (Improving competitiveness for farming and
forestry) 34%,
Axis 2 (Environment and countryside;) 44%,
Axis 3 (Improving quality of life and diversification
of rural economy) 13%,
Axis 4 (Leader) 6%,
Technical Assistance 3%.
Within each axes rural programs could choose for
a whole set of measures. About two-thirds of the
budget under axis one will go to three measures
which are: farm modernisation, increase of the
added value of production and investments in
agricultural and forest infrastructures. Under Axis
2, the majority of the budget (89 %) will be used
for the following measures: agro-environmental
payments, payments for less-favoured areas and
first afforestation of agricultural land. Under Axis
3, 66% of the budget will be used for the follow-
ing measures: renewal and development of vil-
lages, basic services and development of
micro-enterprises.
Now that national and regional Rural Develop-
ment Programs are being finalized we continue to
emphasize that landowners and managers should
be able to touch funds in all 4 axes for the multi-
tude of public services they deliver for the rural
areas and the high added value to rural develop-
ment. Land is the crucial factor in developing rural
areas. The Rural Development Regulation enables
land managers and rural territories to define ac-
tivities tailored to their local needs.
In 2007, the implementation of the European Net-
work on Rural Development has already been also
realized by several MS. The Commission also an-
nounced the creation of a Coordination Commit-
tee of the European Network on Rural
Development with representatives of the national
rural networks and 12 organisations (4 among each
axis) working in Rural Development at European
Level. ELO has submitted a strong candidature to
be included in this Coordination Committee.
The Commission has started to review the delimi-
tation of areas under Less Favoured Areas (follow-
ing the Council Regulation EC 1698/2005). The
objectives are to avoid depopulation (keeping
farmers and managers in the areas) and preven-
tion of land abandonment and sustainable land
management. ELO welcomes the revision to pro-
vide a solution which will fit the new objectives
and tackle the problems in areas with an excess of
criteria or those without-of-data criteria and
maybe not describing handicaps to production. In
2008 a consultation will be held in which ELO will
react to position the importance of landowners
and rural businesses in LFA areas and the handi-
caps they have in these areas. We will also empha-
size the crucial role land owners and managers
play in avoiding land abandonment and sustain-
able land management.
Within the CAP Health check debates ELO will em-
phasize the new challenges in Rural Development
including renewable energy, effects on environ-
ment, water management and risk management
and the problems of having to adapt to these new
landowners and managers challenges in the fu-
ture. ELO continues to emphasize that land man-
agement and ownership contribute to the
economic, ecological and social dimension repre-
senting the overall viability and development of
the rural areas (all 3 axes of RD).
Rural landscapes, which are highly valued in the
EU today, are the result of agricultural activities.
Besides producing marketable products, land
owners and land managers have to face changing
contexts and their impacts (globalisation, climate
change, competition, food safety, - quality and -
availability, society’s demand for non-marketable
goods like landscape, biodiversity and other rural
amenities). All these factors confront rural com-
munities with threats and opportunities as well.
Rural areas also remain crucial in the renewable
energy debate whether this is from biomass (in-
cluding bioenergy) or other sources (water, wind,
sun,…). Regional biomass programs are important
assets for land and forest owners and managers.
It remains clear that much more needs to be done
to improve rural development in the future and
the start of the new programming period should
be the right moment to turn policies into actions
on the ground.
27
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 28
IV. FORESTRY
In 2007, ELO focussed on one of the hottest inter-
national topics: climate change and wood-energy.
ELO performed outstanding work in this domain
being the project leader of the European Forest
Energy Network (EUROFORENET), an action sup-
ported by the European Commission, Directorate
General of the Environment. EUROFORENET is an
experts’ platform aimed at supporting and pro-
moting the production and use of wood, coming
from private forests in Europe, for energy genera-
tion.
Alongside the creation of the wood-energy plat-
form, ELO continued to work to represent the in-
terests of private land and forest owners and
producers at the International, pan-European
and European level. ELO organised and attended
a series of meetings and conferences, such as the
5th Ministerial Conference for the Protection of
Forest in Europe, the Forests Dialogue (an inter-
national platform of exchange) and the Forestry
and Cork’s Advisory Group. The ELO also joined
the Forest Technological Platform created in
2005.
SPECIFIC ACTION  EUROPEAN
FOREST ENERGY NETWORK 
EUROFORENET
– www.euroforenet.eu
From November 2006 onwards ELO was the proj-
ect leader of a 1-year action called EUROFORENET
(European Forest Energy Network). This work was
done in collaboration with the FECOF (European
Federation of Forestry Communes) the IFFC (Insti-
tut de Formation Forestière Communale) and the
EOMF (European Observatory on Mountain
Forests). EUROFORENET is a direct application of
the European Forest Action Plan Key action n°4:
“Promoting the use of forest biomass for energy gen-
eration”. (www.euroforenet.eu)
28
The EUROFORENET’s mission was to stimulate co-
operation between both private and public stake-
holders, in order to improve the local level
efficiency of forest-wood-energy supply chains in
various Member States of the European Union.
EUROFORENET’s two main objectives were:
• To propose a set of recommendations, tools
and guidelines for local private and public de-
cision-makers, aimed at promoting energy-ori-
ented sustainable forest management
• To promote the benefits of bioenergy, in rela-
tion to the environmental conservation, eco-
nomic viability, social capital and cultural
respects.
In order to achieve these objectives, EURO-
FORENET used two tools:
• A communication campaign and awareness
raising campaign, developed on the one hand
by means of a dedicated website and on the
other hand by means of monthly thematic ar-
ticles aimed both at experts and non special-
ists.
• A platform for study and analysis of the
wood-energy supply chain, composed of 4 dis-
tinct working groups that engage profession-
als and specialists from France, Belgium, Italy
and Slovenia, with the intention of developing
a practical guide to be downloaded on the
website.
Experiences, practices and principles within the
EUROFORENET action have been selected based
on three criteria:
sustainable forest management, local and rural de-
velopment and reduction of GHGs
Moreover, the action created the opportunity for
an important extension of the ELO network in Eu-
rope by creating and consolidating links from the
local to the international level. ELO strengthened
its image and its recognition as a major player on
the European and international scene in the field
of forestry and energy.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 29
INTERNATIONAL, PANEUROPEAN
ANDEUROPEAN PROCESSES
A/ International Process
ELO continued to work with the UNECE (United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe- and
the FAO in the field of land & forest tenure and for-
est & energy.
Land and forest tenure is an important issue for
which a clear understanding needs to be devel-
oped in Europe. ELO is thus a major partner for the
FAO and the UNECE in bringing together sound
experience and efficient analysis. For this reason,
• In 2006 and 2007, ELO participated in the Eu-
ropean enquiry led by the UNECE, the FAO and
the MCPFE on: “Private Forest Ownership in Eu-
rope”.
• ELO presented the results of its own study at
the FAO Technical Meeting: « Understanding
Forest Tenure: toward supporting forest tenure
diversification » in Rome in February 2007 and
at the 18th Session of the FAO Committee on
Forestry (COFO) in Rome in March 2007.
• Outcomes of this enquiry were presented at
the EUROFORENET final conference in Novem-
ber 2007.
In the field of wood and energy, the UNECE or-
ganised two major international conferences;
“Workshop on the mobilization of Wood” in Jan-
uary 2007 and “Opportunities and Impacts of
bioenergy policies and targets on the forest and
other sectors“ in October 2007.
ELO participated in both events to provide inputs
from the EUROFORENET and to integrate out-
comes in the ELO daily work to increase the effi-
ciency of the EUROFORENET.
B/ Pan-European Process - www.mcpfe.org/
ELO contributed to the preparation of and partic-
ipated in the 5th MCPFE - The Pan-European con-
ference took place in Warsaw during 2 days in early
November. 76 statements were given by Ministers
in charge of forest affairs, or their representatives,
from 46 signatory countries, international and Eu-
ropean observers, and observer countries in favour
of two Resolutions:
• Resolution I, “Forests, Wood and Energy”:
recognizing that forestry biomass and wood-
based products are important sources of re-
newable energy and contribute to the fight
against climate change. It focuses on enhanc-
ing the role of the forestry sector in the pro-
duction of energy and on the conditions for
harvesting wood to that end.
• Resolution II, “Forests and Water”: recognizes
the importance of forests for protecting the
quality and quantity of water. It focuses on sus-
tainable management of our forests and its
positive impact on water resources, on the
need to coordinate policies on forests and
aquatic resources, on the importance of cli-
mate change for forest and water resources
and finally on the economic benefits of forest
services related to water.
C/ European Processes
ELO continued to participate in the Forestry and
Cork Advisory Group. Major topics discussed this
year were the ongoing European Forest Action
Plan, the wood-energy, Forest Fires, Green Public
Procurement, and Climate Change.
In order to analyse in details some forest issues,
such as the mobilization of wood-energy and the
valorisation of forest non-wood market products, 2
29
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 30

ad hoc working groups were set up. ELO is rep-

ILLEGAL LOGGING
resented within the one on the mobilization of
wood-energy. A third ad hoc working group, on
ELO strongly believes that SFM (Sustainable Forest
forests and climate change, was proposed to the
Management) should also be supported by pro-
European Commission, DG Agriculture.
tecting the European wood market from illegally
logged wood and supports SFM in regions and
ELO also participated in the Forests Dialogue. On
countries where forest management and related
June 26th –27th, The Forests Dialogue (TFD) con-
laws are less developed by participating in the For-
vened for a scoping dialogue entitled “Small forest
est Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Ac-
owners and Sustainable Forest Management in Eu-
tion Plan (FLEGT).
rope”. The primary objective was to share and dis-
cuss strategies and tools currently available for
To make the FLEGT Action Plan a success, ELO sup-
enhancing small/family forest owner’s practice
ports the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA)
and recognition of sustainable forest management
and the measures to increase the demand of
on their lands and to improve access to markets.
legally sourced timber. In this way, public pro-
The dialogue brought together 35 leading actors
curement is a mechanism for support. In addition,
working in this area representing government, for-
ELO supports the actions undertaken by the pri-
est products companies, environmental NGOs, for-
vate sector and the wood and carton beverage in-
est certification schemes, customers, academics,
dustry in particular. In this field, Tetra Pak and
European forest owners European organizations.
several ACE partners have committed to work on a
voluntary basis involving a third-party Certified
Traceability System.

EUROPEAN FORESTBASED SECTOR

TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM FTP
www.forestplatform.org/
ELO recently joined the “European Forest-Based
Sector Technology Platform”. This platform aims
at defining and implementing the sector’s R&D
roadmap for the future and is supported by a wide
range of stakeholders. The FTP is an industry-dri-
ven process, embedded in industry reality, and
supporting the sector’s strategy
The FTP’s vision for the year 2030 is: “The European
forest-based sector plays a key role in a sustainable
society. It comprises a competitive, knowledge-based
industry that fosters the extended use of renewable
resources. It strives to ensure its societal contribution
in the context of a bio-based, customer-driven and
globally competitive European economy.”
ELO will contribute its expertise and knowledge to
the working group on Research and Development
and will participate in the Advisory Committee as
an observer.
CERTIFICATIONS
ELO strongly supports SFM and related efforts, in-
cluding the concept of certification as a means to
promote the use of wood from forests managed in
a sustainable way and to improve competitiveness
on the global market. ELO is supporting the certi-
fications systems in Europe; the Programme for En-
dorsement of Forest Certification Schemes (PEFC)
and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Forest
owners have to make their own choice and iden-
tify market opportunities.
BIODIVERSITY  STREAMLINING
THE EUROPEAN BIODIVERSITY
INDICATORS  SEBI 2010
biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/information/indi-
cator/F1090245995
Experts from the 6 SEBI groups have worked on
the preparation of a first set of indicators, to mon-

30
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 31
itor the biodiversity in Europe by 2010. It is ex-
pected now that this set will be recognised within
the European Union and at the Pan-European level
by the end of 2007.
As the first step is now over, 3 new working groups
are supposed to be established. They will be fo-
cused on the interlinkages between the indicators,
climate change and biodiversity and communica-
tion. ELO has been selected to be a member of the
Climate Change and Biodiversity Working Group
that starts in 2008. Therefore, ELO will continue to
support the European Environment Agency’s work
and contribute to the biodiversity indicator work-
ing groups.
LIFE+
- ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life-
plus.htm
The new European funding instrument for the En-
vironment LIFE+ was adopted in May 2007. It pro-
vides specific support for developing and
implementing EU environmental policy and legis-
lation and in particular the priorities of the 6th En-
vironment Action Programme which are climate
change, to halt the decline of the biodiversity, to
minimise negative environmental effects on
human health, and to deal with natural resources
and waste in sustainable ways.
It comprises three components: LIFE+ Nature &
Biodiversity, LIFE+ Environment Policy & Gover-
nance and LIFE+ Information & Communication.
At least 78% of LIFE+ (€2.143 billion for the period
2007-2013) will be for the co-financing of project
action grants, of which at least 50% will be for na-
ture and biodiversity projects. ELO follows this
funding instrument very closely in order to sup-
port initiatives from local stakeholders and its
members which meet the environmental interests
of the European Union.
FOREST FIRES
2007 has once again been a dramatic year for
southern European countries (Greece in particu-
lar). For this a two-fold action is needed: on the
one hand, the prevention of forest fires is re-
quested. Urgent measures must be taken at na-
tional and local levels, and by the European
authorities.
Raised by the EUROFORENET and the ENERSILVA
actions, the use of forest biomass in the most
threatened countries should be considered as an
effective prevention measure. Forest biomass is a
local source of renewable energy for rural areas
and the entire society. The use of this biomass can
help Europe in reaching its energy objectives and
in creating local added value from the forest.
ELO strongly supports national, regional and local
programmes and actions developed and man-
aged on the initiative of land and forest owners’ as-
sociations, in managing woodfuel to prevent fires
and raising awareness of land and forest owners
and users.
ELO supports a new Resolution on forest fires pro-
posed to the European Commission, through the
Forestry and Cork Advisory Group. The requests are:
• The re-establishment of independent financing
for forest fire prevention to protect the environ-
ment
• The consultation of the advisory group on
forestry and cork prior to taking any initiatives in
the field of forest disasters in general and forest
fires in particular
• The reform of the European Union Solidarity
Fund in order to allow for direct compensation
to victims of natural disasters
31
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 32
FINAL REMARKS  CONCLUSION
2007 has certainly been a crucial year for ELO with
the success of EUROFORENET, thanks to which ELO
has consolidated its recognition by the interna-
tional and European community and has provided
a framework for linking the scientific community
with the local forest stakeholders.
As climate change and related issues (e.g. wood-
energy) remain high on the political agenda, pri-
orities in 2008 will be to consolidate the policy
work in Brussels. ELO will maintain existing suc-
cesses such as EUROFORENET through a long-term
experts’ platform - focusing on climate change and
highlighting the business and biodiversity chal-
lenges for the future- and start NEW projects in the
fields of forestry, biomass and climate change.
V. ENLARGEMENT
On 1st January 2007 Bulgaria and Romania became
full members of the European Union, which now
has 27 Member States. Their accession after seven
years of preparation closes the Union’s sixth en-
largement. However this is not an end in itself but
a stage, albeit a decisive one, part of a long process
launched after the transformations of 1989.
“This enlargement has strengthened peace and
has brought greater prosperity to Europe. This is
the right decision for Bulgaria and Romania and
the right decision for Europe”, declared José
Manuel BARROSO. The European Parliament also
welcomed the new Members of Parliament, which
has increased the number of MEPs from 732 to
785.
At present, the share of rural territories in the EU
increased to 90%; and sustainable development as
well as the implementation of environmental leg-
islation, including NATURA 2000 became one of
the main issues of the EU agenda to ensure a bal-
anced development of EU 27.
For a long time ELO has been developing its net-
work of member organisations in the New Mem-
bers States (NMS) and Candidate Countries (CC)
32
helping them to prepare for enlargement and as-
sisting them on daily basis in the implementation
of the Acquis Communautaire. Welcoming new
members and partners in our organization, ELO
continues to recruit in advance, as the EU consid-
ers further expansions.
To help raise awareness of European legislation in
the enlarged EU, as well as to strengthen and ex-
tend the synergies between various rural actors of
EU 27 and CC, ELO organised a series of confer-
ences in 2007. Feedback from those programmes
is widely published through printed and electronic
media at local, regional, national and European
levels.
More information is available on the ELO website
www.elo.org under the heading “conferences” or
“newsletter”.
VI. STATUS OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY
ELO and its sister organisations - GEFI and
UEHHA - are clearly promoting the property rights
and its uses as the basis or our modern societies.
ELO believes that not only the fundamental right
itself is to be promoted, but also its concrete ap-
plications, in order to avoid having an empty shell
at the end of the day. It therefore focuses on all the
issues which could have an impact on its mem-
ber’s activities.
The situation differs from one Member State
to another, despite the fact that most of the na-
tional constitutions refer to property rights as
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 33
stated in the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights. The question of repossession is dealt with
at national level and while some Member States
have solved the issue via legislation, such as
Poland hopefully in the near future, some other
Member States have opted for a case by case ap-
proach, leading to delays and lots of difficulties,
such as Romania. From an ELO perspective, it is
fundamental that each Member States solves the
difficult issue of repossession as this is the only
way forward, and as there is a societal demand to
solve this issue. A proper legal framework that
safeguards the principles of private ownership can
help to achieve sustainable development of EU
cities and rural areas, representing 90% of the ter-
ritory, as well as contributing to the competitive-
ness of EU rural economy, while protecting social
cultural and historical heritage.
DEBATE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY
ELO actively lobbied during the period of elab-
oration of the Constitutional Treaty especially on
property rights issues. The inclusion of the Euro-
pean Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty
was a key element of ELO’s support for the Consti-
tution. Since the end of 2006, after the ratification
process was blocked by the French and Dutch ref-
erenda, were some attempts to relaunch the de-
bate on the Treaty without success. The
discussions were mainly at intergovernmental
level.
On the 12th December 2007 in Strasbourg, the
3 institutions jointly proclaimed the European
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The “Union recog-
nize the rights, freedoms and principles of the
Charter”, with a special exception for UK and
Poland. As a consequence, their citizens will not
have direct access to the European Court of Jus-
tice – ECJ on the basis of a breach of their funda-
mental rights (the option of the ECHR remains for
them). The Lisbon Treaty was signed on the 13th of
December 2007.
From an ELO and GEFI perspective, this is not
a “mini treaty” as the Charter is part of it and the
core question of better functioning of the Union
is solved. The ratifications should intervene before
the 1st January 2009 and most of the Member
States have this time opted for a parliamentary rat-
ification.
EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS – ECHR
ELO is closely following the ECHR court cases
and it is to be underlined that a large part of the
cases remains related to property rights. Since
2005, one case particularly interested ELO and its
sister organisation GEFI (Groupement Européen
des Féderations intervenant dans l’Immobilier –
Real Estate Private Owners): the court case HUT-
TEN-CZAPSKA vs. Poland, (35014/97 – 22.02.2005)
on rent blockage. Poland was condemned (viola-
tion of Article 1 of Protocol 1 – protection of prop-
erty) as the rent was too low to even enable the
maintenance of the building by the owner. Poland
appealed and in 2006 the Grand Chamber upheld
the decision. This pilot case is particularly interest-
ing as it clearly condemned the rent blockage. On
the 24th of April 2008, the ECHR notified the
friendly settlement which promises both to re-
solve fundamental problems with Polish housing
legislation – affecting some 100,000 property
owners and to provide redress for the applicant.
FISCAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES –
REDUCED VAT AND EU REITS
Reduced VAT is an important issue for ELO and
its sister organisations for housing and repairs. A
seminar was organized for our French members in
Brussels the 26th February 2007 on the need to
maintain reduced VAT applied to housing repairs.
The issue is regularly raised on many occasions,
notably in the context of the European Parliament
Intergroup on Urban Housing, and reduced VAT is
recognised as an important element for the oper-
ators, should they be private or public. The inde-
33
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 34
pendent evaluation published on the 21st June
2007 by the Danish consultancy Copenhagen Eco-
nomics Aps, favourable to reduced VAT applied to
repairs, was followed by a Communication of the
Commission on the 5th of July 2007 and by a pro-
posal of a Directive modifying the 2006 Directive.
2007 was a crucial year for VAT and ELO is hopeful
to see its members viewpoints taken into account
in the new text to ease the VAT process and its con-
crete implementation when undertaking repairs
on real estate in cities, rural areas and historic
houses or places of worship.
The ELO and its sister organisations joined a coali-
tion lead by European Property Federation on the
need of an EU REIT – real estate investment trust.
Our European real estate industry organisations in
2007 lobbied the European Union to consider
plans for an EU REIT, a cross-border real estate in-
vestment company structure that would have sim-
ilar tax advantages to those in national
jurisdictions. The EU is already consulting on pro-
posals for cross-border open-ended real estate
funds, and should also consider a similar close-
ended investment alternative. Most large EU mem-
bers already have some form of REIT legislation,
although considerable differences between Mem-
ber States exist, particularly concerning opera-
tional and leverage restrictions and whether stock
market listing is mandatory. This REIT vehicle could
enable fairer competition across Europe and en-
hance market security and stability. The coalition
viewpoints were elaborated on the basis of the re-
sults of a study made by Maastricht University
(available on the ELO website). ELO will pursue its
work on this issue in 2008 aiming at a favourable
scheme for real estate investment.
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY WEEK AND
REVISION OF THE ENERGY
PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
DIRECTIVE - EPBD
ELO and its sister organisations partici-
pated in the Sustainable energy week
organized at the beginning of January
2008 under the auspice of the Com-
34
mission. This was the occasion notably to debate
on the contribution of the real estate sector to the
objectives of reduction of our environmental foot-
print. The core discussion was on the revision of
the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Several elements of the proposal are of high im-
portance for our members and we are notably fo-
cusing on the 1000 m² threshold abandonment,
the need of a special attention to buildings which
are not listed and which are likely not to perform
the same as modern buildings, but are neverthe-
less highly contributing to the historical and socio
cultural link of rural and urban communities, the
need for adequate incentives, the need for profes-
sional training and the need for a clear process of
the energy labelling of buildings (A, B, C etc) as it
could adversely hamper the market. ELO wel-
comes the Commission’s initiative and works to-
wards inclusion of its members viewpoints in the
future text.
HISTORIC HOUSES
ELO works in close cooperation with the
Union of European Historic Houses Asso-
ciations (UEHHA), to identify common
problems and solutions for private owners, partic-
ularly regarding the fiscal and legal framework for
the conservation and restoration of buildings with
a historic, architectural and natural importance.
UEHHA positioned itself on a number of policy is-
sues that have a direct impact on historic houses.
As regards the cultural dimension of heritage,
UEHHA has been selected to be a partner to the
European Commission’s European Year of Intercul-
tural Dialogue 2008. The UEHHA General Assem-
bly this year focused on education as a means to
contribute to a better society by exploring the pos-
sibilities of social integration by heritage and in-
tercultural dialogue.
ELO and UEHHA also published their position as
regards the EU policy on Plant Protection Products
which affect historic gardens and surroundings.
Whilst acknowledging the need to reach a high
level of health and environmental protection,
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 35
UEHHA warned of the lack of alternative products
which can harm biodiversity by altering ecosys-
tems and questioned the economic feasibility of
the policy implementation.
In addition, in the context of the EU’s sustainable
energy policy and the fight against climate
change, ELO and UEHHA have also been reflecting
on the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
as regards the role of Historic Houses in creating a
more energy efficient built stock. Indeed, it
claimed that financial and tax incentives would be
useful to reach the energy efficiency goals in order
for owners to be able to reduce CO2 emissions.
Also it pointed out that policies need a higher level
of coherence by conciliating for instance the need
to keep the Historic character whilst implement-
ing energy efficiency requirements. ELO and
UEHHA have together been fostering the integra-
tion of energy efficient methods and technologies
into private historic monuments with the aim of
achieving sustainable energetic profiles as an an-
swer to the upcoming clean energy challenges.
Finally ELO and UEHHA have been examining the
state of play regarding the VAT policies across Eu-
rope so that they correspond to the expectations
of society as regards the services rendered by pri-
vate owners to the society as a whole. The conser-
vation of heritage needs regulatory and taxation
support without which the sector cannot fulfil its
aims.
VII. CONTACT WITH THE EURO-
PEAN PARLIAMENT
ELO dedicates substantial attention to Parliamen-
tary affairs. It is expanding its contacts within the
Parliament but also participates in official meet-
ings such as Intergroups.
The participation in the EP process is of increasing
importance as the Parliament gains power. Indeed,
the Lisbon Treaty signed on 13 December 2007
and which needs to be ratified by the 27 EU Mem-
bers States, is expected to give Europe more
democracy and transparency and enhanced effi-
ciency in the decision-making process. In this con-
text, the European Parliament sees its powers
reinforced notably through the extension of the
scope of the codecision procedure, which puts it
on equal footing with the Council in policy-mak-
ing. One can hence measure the significance of ad-
vising the European Parliament elected members
on all policy areas covered by ELO.
URBAN AND HOUSING INTERGROUP
ELO, via its sister organization GEFI
(Groupement Européen des
Fédérations intervenant dans l’Im-
mobilier) actively participated in
the intergroup Urban and Housing chaired and co-
chaired by Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (ADLE) and Alain
HUTCHINSON (PSE) respectively. The intergroup
firmly established itself as part of the Parliament
stakeholder scene, bringing together various as-
sociations involved in urban planning and re-
structuring, as well as representatives of public
housing groups, service-providers and private
property managers. The various meetings of the
intergroup and subgroup lead to the elaboration
of a European Charter for Housing. ELO has con-
sistently emphasized the role of private owners in
a sustainable and affordable property mix but we
fear that the current text is mainly focusing on
public housing and not addressing the housing
issue on an holistic basis.
A series of side events co organized by or under
the auspices of the Intergroup took place in rela-
J.M. BEAUPUY, J.P. GAUZES, J. DEVERGNE
35
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 36
tion to housing, reduced VAT, sustainable devel-
opment of cities and urban areas, raising also the
issue of urban sprawling, social cohesion funding,
and the contribution of housing to the energy tar-
gets.
GEFI organized a workshop on taxation and re-
duced VAT in collaboration with the intergroup in
February 2007 for its French member’s delegation
of 100 representatives lead by its President Jean
PERRIN. The Members of the European Parliament
Jean-Marie BEAUPUY (President of the Intergroup,
ADLE), Jean-Paul GAUZES (EPP), the Commission
DG TAXUD and the French representation had an
opportunity to exchange views on housing related
taxation issues.
SUSTAINABLE HUNTING,
BIODIVERSITY AND COUNTRYSIDE
ACTIVITIES INTERGROUP
The ELO is particularly involved in this Intergroup
founded in 1985, reconstituted in 2004 and
chaired by MEP Michl EBNER (EPP-IT) and co-
chaired by Véronique MATHIEU (EPP-FR). ELO con-
tinues to run the secretariat of the Intergroup
jointly with FACE – the Federation of European
Hunters. The Intergroup is very active in address-
ing issues related to the countryside, sustainable
hunting and biodiversity. With regular meetings
usually held six times a year often interpellates the
European Commission and gives the necessary
political impulse to take action.
The Intergroup is a recognised forum for a variety
of land users who are given the opportunity to
share experiences and develop joint actions with
ELO’s support. The sessions are essential to be able
to maintain a genuine connection with the rural
reality and to raise the awareness of the EU politi-
cal and technocratic circles but also to stimulate
the interest of the other members of the European
Parliament. Indeed, the Intergroup often adopts
declarations or recommendations with significant
political weight and this year, the Intergroup met
Commissioner DIMAS to discuss important biodi-
versity matters. The Intergroup is undoubtedly a
key link to EU rural policy and contributes to en-
36
hance the European Parliament concrete demo-
cratic value. Thanks to this activity, ELO expands its
networks and confirms its reputation as an essen-
tial actor of the countryside.
The aims of the Intergroup are, among others, to
• promote the sustainable management and
use of wildlife and ecosystems,
• defend the interests of countryside citizens,
• maintain discussions in the European Parlia-
ment on national, regional and local issues re-
lating to biodiversity and countryside
activities,
• stress the socio-economic, cultural and envi-
ronmental value of rural activities.
In 2007, important topical matters have been
raised such as the EU rules on game meat and an-
imal by-products, the balance of ecosystems in re-
lation to predation, the methodology for
sustainability assessment, the relations between
hunting, public opinion and education, the man-
agement of wildlife diseases or the call to set up a
European Green Day. Case studies are presented
by experts to illustrate interesting experiences and
highlight the needs and concerns in the regions
and localities of Europe.
The Intergroup also often joins forces with other
Intergroups such as the joint meeting with the
“Sustainable Development” Intergroup to discuss
the role of sustainable use of wildlife and CITES
convention (international trade in endangered
species of wild fauna and flora).
VIII. PUBLICATIONS AND
TOOLS
EU FRAMEWORK FOR REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT TRUSTS  EU REIT
Executive summary
The coalition of the European real estate in-
dustry asks the Commission for an EU frame-
work for real estate investment trusts – EU REIT
would overcome obstacles to cross-border
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 37

property investment and enhance market se-
curity and stability
The leaders of the European Landowners Organi-
zation, the European Property Federation, the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, The Eu-
ropean Group of Valuers’ Associations and the
Urban Land Institute Europe have asked the Euro-
pean Commission to take an initiative to overcome
obstacles to cross-border property investment in
the EU and enhance market security and stability:
an EU Real Estate Investment Trust or EU REIT.
The REIT is a vehicle under which investment can
be directed in a tax efficient manner into the real
estate sector. A Maastricht University study high-
lights five main drivers for an EU framework:
1. the need to address increasing distortions of
competition as national REITs multiply;
2. the opportunity to buttress market safety and
security. Simply by ensuring a properly func-
tioning Internal Market for real estate invest-
ment, the EU can make a major contribution to
the control and stabilisation of property mar-
kets;
the EU REIT Coalition, said:
“Creating an EU REIT would turn the current
fragmented EU market for property companies
into the largest and likely most efficient prop-
erty market in the world. Investors, small and
large, private and institutional, would greatly
benefit from that.”
Piet EICHHOLTZ, Professor of Real Estate Finance
at Maastricht University and leader of the research
team said:
“The academic literature and additional empir-
ical evidence presented in our report highlight
the very arbitrary nature of differences in na-
tional REIT structures in Europe and provide
strong and fundamental arguments for the cre-
ation of an EU REIT. The EU REIT does not have to
be created from scratch. Both in the EU and out-
side of it, there is a lot of experience with these
regimes, and careful analysis of this experience
provides direction towards an optimal pan-EU
structure.”

3. the need to correct a situation where savers in

small Member States cannot access good qual-
ity property investment in other Member States
or even the prime property investments in their
own countries;

4. the opportunity to reverse the current trend of

initiators of property companies to resort to tax
havens;

5. the chance to boost specialisation in cutting

edge real estate and investment in social prop-
erty that both require development on a Euro-
pean scale.

The report goes further, outlining a preferred

structure for an EU REIT with no need for invasive
tax harmonisation as no approximation of tax rates
on shareholder dividends is required.

Commenting on the initiative, Joaquim RIBEIRO,

Head of Finance at Sonae Sierra and Chairman of

37
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 38
EUROFORENET
Executive summary
The EUROFORENET programme was entered into
in order to identify and analyse the various trends
within the wood energy sector, based on a bot-
tom-up approach and concrete practical cases
around Europe.
Where does the wood energy sector stand?
• Wood energy is an important means of achiev-
ing the Kyoto Protocol 2020 target of 20% of
the total energy consumption in the EU and
beyond, coming from renewable sources.
However the question in this context is how
can this be done whilst also addressing the im-
portant issues of maintaining/enhancing bio-
diversity and not competing with other
industries such has the paper industry? Sus-
tainability is a fundamental parameter in this
equation. The importance of developing part-
nerships with businesses to create awareness
and finding ‘tailor made’ solutions is clearly rel-
evant here.
• A key concern for the wood energy industry
lies in its fragmentation, which in the EU lob-
bying sector is the enemy of influence.
• Wood energy systems are complex in that they
are inter-sectoral, inter-disciplinary, location-
specific, there are heterogeneous supply
sources and there is a lack of recognition, i.e. a
lack of reliable statistics. There have been a
number of detailed studies, but that the
broader picture is missing.
• The absence of workable statistics. Potential
players within the industry need access to
clear facts and figures representing the viabil-
ity of the industry in terms of investment and
business plans. For example the total amount
of biomass in Europe is an unknown. The way
in which the energy created is measured in
terms of volume of wood used and energy
output seems to vary from project to project
and country to country. For example, what is
38
the meaning, in terms of energy content, of 1
cubic metre of woodchips? These kinds of is-
sues need clarifying in order to create better
understanding of the viability of the sector.
Various scenarios could be proposed to sup-
port the wood energy sector and mobilization
of wood but the question of subventions
and/or market-based approach are to be an-
swered because this could lead to a distortion
of competition.
• For the future the main concerns will be eco-
nomic, environmental, national and political
security of energy production and supply.
Clearly in the future the demand on all energy
resources will increase, and with that, the com-
petition. As a result, bio-energy will be priced
on its energy content. Consequently the effi-
ciency in terms of resource, energy, environ-
ment and cost need to be increased.
Operational conclusions
• The sustainable removal of forest biomass to
produce bio-energy, can bring benefits by re-
ducing forest fires risk and valorising forest by-
products and residues. Intensification and
aforestation are not favoured when they lead
to increased pressure on biodiversity. Small
scale local developments ensure best overall
environmental performance. In any case envi-
ronmental safeguards are needed to avoid in-
creases in bio-energy production resulting in
additional environmental pressures on agri-
cultural and forest land, which are a scarce re-
source in Europe. Wood energy is not seen as a
threat to other forest functions, such as fibre
production.
• The discussion during the conference made
clear that some ‘homework’ needs to be done,
i.e. better statistics are required in order to be
more transparent and provide an improved
overview of the market, in reference to mobi-
lizing wood and supplying woodchips. There
needs to be standardization of final product
throughout the chain so that the consumer
can rely on access to the best information.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 39

• Toolkits available to private or public bodies • The platform of exchange of knowledge and
were presented during the final conference case studies showed great results. For instance
and are represented in more detail in the the 4 main case studies led to additional ex-
Guidelines on Local Forest Energy Networks amples which were presented and can be
for better mobilization and supply of wood. found on the website platform - www.euro-
Woodfuel Integrated Supply/Demand forenet.eu.
Overview Mapping – WISDOM - methodology
was one such method, which identifies two • The importance of being able to project the in-
main planning levels: strategic and opera- dustry, to be transparent was a clear response
tional. Strategic aims are: during discussions. The industry needs a rep-
resentative structure in Brussels. EURO-
Identify and outline woodfuel surplus and
FORENET is currently a network. It should be
deficit areas, i.e. areas with positive or neg-
the beginning of something more. To consti-
ative woodfuel supply/demand balance,
tute a ‘roadmap’ for the future, i.e. to build a vi-
for the entire country.
sion for the sector with industrial choices
Identify administrative units and forest dis- balance and arbitration for the uses of wood.
tricts with high bio-energy potential (sur- There is also a need to follow technological de-
plus areas) velopments – and ways of promotion (like the
solar industry has done so successfully).
Outline the potential sustainable supply
zones of selected location in consideration
of urban/rural woodfuel consumption and
suitable/accessible production capacities
Support strategic planning and policy for-
mulation aiming at the establishment of
sustainable wood energy systems
Objectively define priority areas of inter-
vention within which in-depth studies and
operational planning should be carried out
with precedence.

Operational aims

Guiding policy and decision makers to address

bio-energy demand and woodfuel production
chains in relation to sustainable management of
landscapes and forests

Support the sustainable management of

private and public forests within defined
supply zones, and beyond bio-district
boundaries in response to woodfuel de-
mand.
Other tools were also identified, such as Uni-
fied Wood Energy terminology (UWET) , Inter-
active Wood Energy Statistics (I-WESTAT),
Wood Energy Information Systems (WEIS), and
the SWOT analysis.
There is clearly space for the evolution of EURO-
FORENET as a platform to go further in the repre-
sentation of interests. It could become a forum for
equipment/buyers/resources etc. In this vain ELO
welcomes any contributions to the platform in
order to raise the profile of this vital sector.

39
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 40
COUNTRYSIDE
CountrySide Magazine is a European newsletter
for entrepreneurs and political decision makers
working for the future of the EU rural world. Issued
in five different languages, English, French, Ger-
man, Italian and Spanish, it informs its readers
about the latest developments of European poli-
cies, and is a platform for ELO members and part-
ners to present their local, regional and national
viewpoints. Numerous experts contribute to its ar-
ticles and give the magazine a sharper perspec-
tive.
The CountrySide is read throughout the EU and
beyond, by members of European Institutions as
well as national decision makers, landowners and
land managers.
40
The Rural Investment Support
for Europe (RISE) Foundation
2007 has been a successful year for RISE, one de-
voted to spreading its message whilst getting the
Foundation up and running.
In March 2007, Franz FISCHLER presented the RISE
Foundation before a packed audience in Madrid,
organized by the Grupo de Empresas Agrarias –
ELO’s Spanish Member, and sponsored by the BNP
Paribas. His presentation on “The Changing Cli-
mate for Rural Development and its Financing in
Europe: The RISE Foundation” led one present to
claim that FISCHLER was the Al GORE of Europe!
The speech was focussed on the double food and
environment challenge. Reworked and updated, it
has since been used on various occasions, notably
before the Centre for European Policy Studies, at a
working dinner at the European Parliament, and
at a dinner speech at Westminster, and has been
published in Politica Agricola Internazionale and
in Countryside magazine. RISE was also instru-
mental in organising and leading the conference
‘Food, Feed and Bio-energy; Priorities and Dilem-
mas’, which was held at the Renewable Energy
House, Brussels in January 2008. Since then both
debates, on food and energy security on the one
hand, and on bio-fuels on the other, have been
hard to miss thanks to good (and lucky) timing for
these two subjects. RISE Chairman FISCHLER as
well as its CEO have thus been in great demand on
the conference circuit. Preparation for the input to
the 1st Forum for the Future of Agriculture, which
was devoted to food and environmental security,
formed a substantial part of the Foundation’s work
at the end of 2007.
A contract had been signed by RISE with Factary
Consultants for the first phase of a capital cam-
paign. Accordingly, 106 priority prospects have
been identified, and a number of requests have
been made for advice regarding our capital objec-
tive. A capital objective over a five-year period of
€15m by 2012 has been set, devoting 50% of an-
nual donations to projects, 35% to capital and up
to 15% to administration. For larger donations,
RISE will benefit from negotiated fees under the
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 41
Transnational Giving Europe Network. The amount
kept for the service will be only 5% for gifts up to
€50,000; for the next €100,000 only 2% is charged;
for the next €500,000 another 1% is withheld, with
an overall ceiling beyond that of €9,500, whatever
the size of the gift.
RISE has obtained seed money from the BNP
PARIBAS for €100.000 and private contributions
amounting to a quarter as much. It has invested
€10.000 for a land reclamation project north of
Madrid. It has indications that it may obtain fur-
ther donations totalling €1.2 million, and possibly
€2.1 million, and has raised interest with a number
of companies with whom the possibilities of part-
nerships are being assessed. Work has been ham-
pered by lack of staff time, but the CEO is now
assisted by one junior staff and is about to obtain
the free part-time collaboration of a senior staff. A
letter has been sent to friends to be contacted
with a request to help the take off of a small regu-
lar team to manage the foundation and pursue the
capital campaign. This should markedly improve
its capacity for action on all fronts.
A Task Force for a study on rural development pri-
orities has been launched in order to produce a
paper on the public goods farmers can provide
and their remuneration, as well as the priorities for
a foundation such as RISE for the 2nd Forum on
Agriculture to be scheduled for Spring 2009. Work
has restarted on the creation of a Rural Investment
Fund to be placed in Luxemburg, which would
provide a regular inflow of money to the Founda-
tion. The market is being tested in order to assess
prospects for success.
With its impressive Board of Directors who share
the sentiment of the Founders there is confidence
that RISE will not only obtain the necessary phil-
anthropic funding, but also select the most mean-
ingful projects and encourage exciting new
initiatives through which it can operate.
As the only pan-European independent founda-
tion devoted to sustainable rural development,
this initiative is particularly timely as public funds
for the sector diminish. The neglect of rural inter-
ests has huge negative effects on rural life. Rural
depopulation leads to decreased voter power and
economic globalisation marginalizes rural interests
in the public decision making process. Capital col-
lection is so far developing nicely. The exposure of
RISE in the public debate has been quite beyond
expectations and should be of help in future fund-
ing.
Therefore, we look forward to 2008 with the belief
that there will be sufficient funding for our first
projects, and that the profile of RISE will continue
to grow.
Corrado PIRZIO-BIROLI
CEO
PERSPECTIVES
2007 has not only been a consolidation year, but
even more than expected, a year of progression. It
would be naïve to say now that 2008 will be the
time for full consolidation. Instead, it would be
more truthful to say that the many challenges that
lie ahead of us leave none of us time to rest.
We have been supportive but also carefully scep-
tical on the biofuels issue, today we could say,
rightly so, as there is a need for considerable re-
search in order to prepare the policy field.
We have been challenging the future of agricul-
ture through food and environmental security for
over a year now. In March 2008 we organised a
major conference aimed at promoting this double
challenge, which was called “First Forum for the Fu-
ture of Agriculture” as it is the first of a long series
of conferences in the same vein that will take place
annually. Besides this, there are several working
meetings with Ministers in the pipeline.
41
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 42
By reconciling food, fibre and environment, we are
focusing the scope of ELO’s action on the essential
role of landowners managing their land.
Mitigating climate change and halting the loss of
biodiversity are core concerns for 2008. This is why
we will place a link on our website to the carbon
calculator system, described previously.
Rural actors have a unique role to play in mitigat-
ing climate change through good land manage-
ment practices.
ELO, together with Friends of the Countryside, our
partner organisation representing rural and fam-
ily businesses, provides a platform for exchanging
42
views and experiences. Also, with the support of
Franz FISCHLER’s RISE Foundation and Corrado
PIRZIO-BIROLI’S Consultative Committee, the ELO
is apt to develop a vision on how to meet the chal-
lenges the future has in store for us.
As usual, the ELO will promote truly sustainable
land management , and thus will defend property
rights against the inadequate use of legislation
which threatens to undermine the economic via-
bility of rural businesses, upon which the conser-
vation of the countryside we cherish, along with
its rich biodiversity and wealthy economy all de-
pend.
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 43

ABBREVATIONS & ACRONYMS

CAP : Common Agricultural Policy

CC : Candidate Country
CDM : Clean Development Mechanism
CIS : Common Implementation Strategy
CMO: Common Market Organisation
DG: Directorate General
EC: European Commission
ECCP: European Climate Change Programme
EFSA: European Food and Safety Agency
EISA: European Initiative for Sustainable development in Agriculture
ELO: European Landowners’ Organization
ENA: Europe and North Asia
EP: European Parliament
ETS: Emission Trading Scheme
EU: European Union
EUROFORENET: European Forest Energy Network
FAO: Food and Agriculture Organisation
FLEGT: Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade
FCS: Friends of the Countryside
FSC: Forestry Stewardship Council
GHG: Green House Gas
GMO: Genetically Modified Organism
IFM: Integrated Farm Management
LULUCF: Land-Use Change & Forestry Mechanisms
MCPFE: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe
MS: Members Sates
NMS: New Member State
NNi: Natura Networking initiative
NNP: Natura Networking Programme
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PEFC: Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes
PPP: Plant Protection Products
RDR: Rural Development Regulation
SEBI: Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators
SFM: Sustainable Forest Management
SPS: Single Payment Scheme
UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
WFD: Water Framework Directive
WTO: World Trade Organization

43
38334 Report 2007 ok:Layout 1 5/9/08 1:52 PM Page 44

44