The latest contributions on Transport policy in Europe.

With more than 7,500 aircraft entering service in Europe over the next two decades, the European Union has to move fast into the next phase of the Single European Sky.

A few days ago the Commission adopted two new regulations to advance the implementation of both the SES and the deployment phase of SESAR, the programme to develop the technology to implement and support the SES.

The Commission announced that it will use four mechanisms to support the SESAR deployment strategy. The deployment programme will provide clear directions for implementation. Governance mechanisms will ensure that all the key stakeholders are involved in the process and together can define and drive the deployment roadmap. Common projects will help to ensure that member states collaborate successfully. And targeted incentives will support the implementation of SESAR’s common projects. The first common project is set to be adopted early in 2014.

When fully deployed, SESAR will undergird a modernised air traffic management system that is intended to triple current airspace capacity, increase safety by a factor of 10, cut airline costs by 50 percent, and reduce air travel’s environmental impact by 10 percent – as the Commission points out in its press release.

Also the Commission laid out the framework for the next phase of SES performance target negotiations in 2015 to 2019. The negotiations will set binding targets for member states to deliver better ATM services under SES. These targets are intended to reference the four benchmarks (capacity, safety, costs, and environmental impact) and must focus on outcomes rather than inputs to ensure ATM progress is being made.

Boeing believes that SESAR’s implementation will be most successful with industry-wide collaboration and partnership. Therefore, the process should include participation by all stakeholders, including airlines, air navigation service providers, manufacturers, and military operators. As an active SESAR participant itself, Boeing fully supports the development of the Single European Sky. It also emphasizes the importance of cooperation between the EU SESAR and the US Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen ATM modernisation program — the two systems must be interoperable to meet the needs of the 21st century economy and air travellers. Both SESAR and NextGen should be deployed and linked in such a way as to ensure competition and cost-efficiency for all users across the airspace.

 

I’m going to stray a bit from my usual topics, on account that this is a subject close to me. The subject at hand being the loss Romania is going to suffer from failure to understand the geographical and geo-political situation it is in, and the opportunities this entices.

4 years ago, roughly about the same time as now, I came up with an analysis and strategy to use all the above mentioned opportunities to spark development in Romania on a larger scale than anything I had done before – a 25 year investment strategy with 50 years of associated growth. It was the foundation on which I built my thesis and my diploma project, albeit at a smaller scale due to academic restrictions. However, it was this strategy that enabled my project. At the time I postulated that Romania had a very good chance of providing the Europort of the East – Constanta, the largest port to the Black Sea had definitive advantages in this respect, especially since it is connected to the Danube by a canal that would allow for a very good connection to Central Europe. Romania also has the advantage of more than one major Pan-European transport routes going across it’s territory connecting South and North, East and West. At the time, my strategy involved a list of priority investments that were meant to validate this routes and create a new cargo lifeline from the East to the heart of the Union – goods from India for example could be shipped by boat trough Suez, the Bosporus then Constanta and then by train or significantly cheaper up the Danube to Central Europe. The same would apply for goods coming across the Black Sea. You get the general idea. At the same time I identified a list of problems, or temporary circumstances that needed to be adressed and a list of circumstances that will most likely change within the next decade and that would undermine the validity of the entire strategy should action not be taken.

Presenting this entire strategy to my professors at the University, same people who at large are responsible with Romania’s development strategies, it became obvious that parts of my strategy had already been taken into account at a smaller or larger scale.

The 4 years that passed in-between that moment and today I kept hoping that all these ideas would migrate from the strategy part and move into the implementation phase, or that at least it would become an object of public policy or agenda. None of that actually happened. Instead, my if not scenario started to become reality, faster than expected, as follows:

1. Infrastructure projects in Romania – railways and highways – stalled or disappeared, most of them under shady circumstances.

2. Romania did not enter accede to the Schengen Area – this rendered Constanta’s ability to become a serious Europort useless, since all goods going into the Schengen area will not be checked here, but at Romania’s western border, albeit EU membership – it was important that checks, validation and Schengen customs would be done at the entry point – in Constanta. Conspiracy aficionados would see here a different reason why Holland (where Rotterdam is, the EU’s largest port) vetoed Romania’s accession to the Schengen area.

3. There is still no pan-European Danube strategy – at the EPP summit in Bucharest last year, president Băsescu of Romania adressed this subject in his speech, so it is not with out importance.

4. The Serbian counter-scenario – Serbia is the biggest problem in this scenario – if Serbia was to join the EU (which is quite possible in the near future – within a decade), and if Serbia was to develop it’s infrastructure faster, then Romania could loose most advantages. Earlier tonight I read an interesting article on Serbia’s plans for it’s infrastructure: a canal to link the Mediterranean Sea to the Danube (effectively short-circuiting Constanta by activating Piraeus in Greece), high speed railway to Budapest, and extended network of highways to connect Serbia to pan-European transport routes – from Hungary to Bulgaria and Greece. As Serbia is not a member of the EU, it can do this with Chinese money, something that would be less possible in Romania, which is a member of the EU, and where increased Chinese investment would not be taken as lightly.  Kosovo was the biggest issue in Serbia’s accession to the EU, but it seems this will be soon resolved, as under EU pressure Belgrad seems to seek agreement with Kosovo.

Looking to these 4 points above, it is clear that my initial scenario would no longer constitute a valid choice, as we missed the opportunity to have it well underway today. A consolidated Romanian positive scenario would make it a lot more costly for the Serbian scenario to be implemented. Romania has failed in achieving that upper hand.

It is a bit sad to me to see my strategy play the if not scenario, but on the other hand recent developments validate it, which makes me happy that it was correct in it’s larger scale. All is not lost for Romania just yet, as it can still develop it’s capacity to concentrate Black Sea traffic. But, firstly it must understand that this bet was lost.

I wrote this primarily to explain why the scenario I presented 4 years ago is from this point on unsuccessful. And why we need a new one.

Because if we were in a Bond movie, this is where the strategist would tell Romania (sort of Bond, if you accept my paralel) – ” No, mr. Bond, I expect you to die!”. It remains to be seen if Romania, as Bond, safely escapes this and moves on. I hope it will.

The proposal to address the issue of indirect land use change (ILUC) in European biofuel policy has advanced in the European Parliament, as MEP Corinne Lepage of France released her draft report in the Environment Committee. ILUC refers to unintended consequences of making biofuels—for example, if a policy preference for corn ethanol creates incentives for farmers to replace carbon-absorbing forests with cornfields, or to raise food prices by diverting corn to fuel. Some biofuels—often called “second generation”—made from non-edible crops like jatropha and algae that can thrive on currently non-productive land, avoid many of these ILUC effects.

Lepage’s proposal will incorporate specific ILUC “factors” into the sustainable criteria of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive. This will account for differences in biofuels performance, while the Commission suggested to cap at 5 percent the share of conventional biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport under the Renewable Energy Directive. Public subsidies for these biofuels will end by 2018.

To promote second-generation biofuels, the report calls for a carveout for woody biomass and agricultural residues. Lepage sought to protect prior investments, so she would delay until 2018 the ILUC factors on each member state’s share of biofuel consumption in the year 2010—provided that the grandfathered biofuels result in greenhouse gas reductions of at least 45 percent.

The grandfathering would benefit biodiesel, which accounted for 80 percent of European biofuel production in 2010. According to some news reports, however, bioethanol performs better on Lepage’s ILUC factors than biodiesel, evening out the advantage.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms that reduce ILUC effects of biofuels. SAFUG has called for the EU to limit the share of food crop-based fuels; its members are committed to biofuels that do not displace food crops. SAFUG also calls for the European Parliament to establish incentives for biofuels that are certified as low-risk for ILUC effects, using a model like the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) standard. SAFUG members also support incentives for biofuels made from waste, algae, and ligno-cellulosics — but no further incentives for feedstocks.

The aviation industry is committed to developing high-efficiency, second-generation sustainable biofuels. These fuels can reduce the sector’s carbon footprint, provide a more diverse (and thus resilient) supply of energy, and develop a new, environmentally progressive industry. And as the industry develops these fuels, it is taking care to ensure they avoid ILUC effects.

For example, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines took a bold step for sustainable aviation last month by launching the first in a series of “Optimal Flights” using a 777 between New York and Amsterdam. Boeing is proud to be their partner in this effort that combines renewable fuels with advanced technology. This means not only using sustainable biofuels, but other smart technologies and concepts to improve the airplane’s operational efficiency while saving fuel and reducing carbon and noise emissions. Basically, we’re taking multiple flight efficiency projects and rolling them into one program to create the most environmentally progressive flight possible.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (or SAFUG, a consortium of airlines and aerospace firms of which Boeing is a part) is of the view that, because of the potential negative impact, ILUC must be addressed in government policies promoting the production of sustainable fuels. SAFUG has called for policymakers to consider mechanisms to lower the contribution of high ILUC risk biofuels and create incentives for sustainable biofuels that have been certified as low risk of ILUC. Any legislation addressing ILUC should consider the possibility of project-level mitigation approaches, including, but not limited to, the Low Indirect Impact Biofuels (LIIB) methodology currently under development by Ecofys, EPFL and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

In my opinion, one of the key momentums which will be decisive not only for 2013 but also for the medium-term future of the European Integration is the final outcome of the 2014-2020 budget discussions. It is not just about money although the financial stability of the EU integration is crucial. This budget contains also other important hidden messages. Three of them are the followings:

1. the real opinion of Member States about the ‘Europe-project’;

2. the understanding of the European dimension of the crisis and the need for a common European answer; and

3. the institutional re-shape of the EP-Council balance

Let’s have a closer look on these ‘hidden messages’ from a pro-European perspective!

1. In international politics, the practice describes better the real intention of decison makers than rhetoric does.

Almost all European politicians are pro-European in rhetoric (except the usual ‘blaming Brussels for every unpleasant common decision made by ourselves’ effect). But during the negotiations, all negotiators will show ‘the white of their teeth’. If ‘cuts’, ‘savings’ and ‘rebate‘ remained the main buzzwords, it would show how important our common European project is in the reality for them.

Without serious concessions, without crucial financial contribution to the European project no one will believe that the EU Member States have a real interest in having a strong EU. And if this is the image the public opinion receives, the financial markets will punish not directly Europe but the single Member States, especially those whose currency is the euro and have serious economic problems.

2. Did Member States understand the European dimension of the financial crisis?

Let’s start with an evidence: this crisis is European and not only national. Therefore, only a European-wide crisis-management can be an effective answer.

Having a ‘weak’ European budget will be another sign that Member States did not understand anything about the true nature of the financial crisis. The financial turmoil has already passed long ago national borders and single Member States are simply not strong enough to overcome it alone.

A strong European budget could help Member States in this regard, but a weak and greedy budget will make the situation even worse.

Yes, some reductions of the EU budget could be communicated at home as a ‘victory’ of the national soveregnity against the ‘evil Brussels bureaucrats’ but it would not contribute to the European answer to the dept crisis at all.

Relevant decision makers must simply understand that European policies (agriculture, environment, transport, consumer protection, public health, energy, competition etc.) have a real added value to the national ones. Each euro spent at European level mean indirect benefits for national economies. Having a strong Europe is in everyone’s interest but – apparently- no one wants to make real sacrifices for that purpose.

European Funds are good examples to demonstrate Europe’s potential since these financial instruments make possible useful investments which would not be imaginable in some countries without European contribution due to the lack of adequate national resources.

We shall not forget: without a strong European budget, no economic growth can be reached at all.

Taking a simple example, the European budget can be described with the characteristics of the general term of ‘infrastructure’. Infrastructural investments (highways, digital connections, built environment, safe and clean environment, etc.) do not contribute directly to the productivity, but no high quality product can be achived without them.

3. Finally, the third hidden message is the institutional effect of the EU budget talks

Although we are talking about the importance of the democratically elected European Parliament, the real-decision makers are still the Member States through the Council and most importantly, through the European Council.

However, by accepting the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has got much more power in budget talks than it had before. And this could be a real opportunity to use this power to underline the importance of the democratic legitimacy in the European decision making process.

The 2014-2020 budget deal would be the test of that power, since the quality of the final outcome might be an indicator of the European Parliament’s real power: the budget compromise will show if the EP is powerful enough to represent the interests of the European people. In other words, if the EP was strong enough to get real concessions from the Member States, it could re-shape the unequal institutional balance between the Council and the EP, which currently still favorises the Council.

We are looking forward to have a typical European compromise in that regard with great interest.

“He who loses wealth loses much; he who loses a friend loses more; but he that loses courage loses all.” ~Cervantes

I remain at your disposal.

Zoltán MASSAY-KOSUBEK

► EU Hemicycle: facebook updates on EU affairs

► Follow @EU_Hemicycle on Twitter

► Join the ongoing EU Hemicycle discussions on LinkedIn

Das Parlament hat am Mittwoch neue Regeln für Entscheidungen über den besten Schutz der Wohnbevölkerung vor Fluglärm und eine bessere Nutzung von Start- und Landezeitnischen verabschiedet. Ein Vorschlag zur weiteren Öffnung des Wettbewerbs bei Bodenabfertigungsdiensten von Hauptflughäfen wurde zurück an den Verkehrsausschuss verwiesen, da zusätzlicher Diskussionsbedarf über die Steigerung der Effizienz von Dienstleistungen auf Flughäfen besteht. Anstatt den Kommissionsvorschlag über die Bodendienste abzulehnen, so wie es der Verkehrsausschuss vorgeschlagen hatte, forderte das Parlament den Ausschuss auf, weiter daran zu arbeiten, um die Effizienz und Qualität von Flughäfen mit jährlich mehr als 5 Millionen Passagieren zu steigern. Said El Khadraoui (S&D, BE) forderte eine Ablehnung: “Wir sollten die Entscheidung über eine weitere Marktöffnung den Mitgliedstaaten überlassen”. Ähnlich Wolf Klinz (ALDE, DE): “Nicht die Anzahl der Unternehmen, sondern die spezifische Situation vor Ort, die Qualifikationen der Arbeiter und die Arbeitsbedingungen sind entscheidend”, meinte Klinz. Schutz der Anwohner vor Flugzeuglärm Lärmminderungsziele müssen für jeden Flughafen eigens festgelegt werden, doch um sie zu erreichen, müssen gemeinsame Vorschriften beachtet werden, laut einer neuen Verordnung für lärmbedingte Betriebsbeschränkungen, die mit 501 Stimmen angenommen wurde, bei 155 Gegenstimmen und 8 Enthaltungen. Damit lokale Behörden die kosteneffizientesten Lärmminderungsmaßnahmen auswählen können, haben die Abgeordneten eine Vorschrift eingefügt, nach der gesundheitliche, wirtschaftliche und soziale Aspekte berücksichtigt werden müssen, und zwar im Einklang mit dem von der Internationalen Zivilluftfahrt-Organisation (ICAO) festgelegten “ausgewogenen Ansatz”. Die Europäische Kommission sollte in der Lage sein, vorgeschlagene Betriebsbeschränkungen zu prüfen, doch “es wäre der falsche Weg, der Kommission zu ermöglichen, Entscheidungen der Mitgliedstaaten aufzuheben”, sagte der Berichterstatter Jörg Leichtfried (S&D, AT) vor der Abstimmung. Die Abgeordneten überließen es den lokalen Behörden, den Standpunkt der Kommission zu berücksichtigen. Faire Zuweisung von Zeitnischen zur optimalen Nutzung der Flughafenkapazität Das Parlament stimmte auch für gemeinsame Regeln für die Zuweisung von Zeitnischen (“Slots”) auf Flughäfen und deren Tausch (Sekundärhandel), damit nicht genutzte Zeitnischen interessierten Luftfahrtunternehmen schnellstmöglich und auf transparente Weise zur Verfügung gestellt werden, ohne jedoch die Verbindungen zwischen den regionalen Flughäfen und den großen Drehkreuzen zu beeinträchtigen. Die Abgeordneten lehnten den Vorschlag der Kommission ab, die Schwelle bei der „Use-it or Lose-it“-Regel (eine internationale Regelung, dass Zeitnischen bei Nichtnutzung verfallen) von 80% auf 85% der zugewiesenen Zeitnischen anzuheben, und forderten stattdessen, Bußgelder einzuführen, um die Luftfahrtunternehmen davon abzuhalten, Zeitnischen nicht zu nutzen oder zu spät an den Zeitnischenpool zurückzugeben. “Die Zuweisungen müssen unparteiisch sein”, erklärte der Berichterstatter Gioammaria Uggias (ALDE, IT), und fügte hinzu: “Deshalb haben wir dafür gesorgt, dass die Slots-Koordinatoren vollkommen unabhängig von Flughafenbetreibern oder Luftfahrtunternehmen sind”. Der Bericht wurde mit 565 Ja-Stimmen gegen 155 Nein-Stimmen und 8 Enthaltungen angenommen.

The European Commission’s proposals to cut back on the biofuels section of its renewable energy policy is a wise move. In an atmosphere of undoubtedly increasing tension over global food security such policies operated without flexibility are inevitably going to be a political liability. To the politically simple-minded converting food and feed grains into motor fuel when a billion or more people are starving appears immoral. The fact that European and world agricultural industries are well able to absorb both the demand for biofuel use and for food is beside the point. Food availability is not the problem. Mass starvation can only be cured by the provision of cash – to move food from surplus to serious deficit areas.  But what matters is the apparent political unacceptability of the conversion of food crops into fuels. In reality the policy is both economic and environmental nonsense.  In terms of GHG emissions  and distortions of agricultural product and farm input markets,  maintaining inflexible EU and US  mandates for minimum levels of biofuel use is both environmentally and economically unsound. GHG emission reduction compared with fossil fuel use is minimal and subsidising farmers to convert maize, wheat, rapeseed oil  and palm oil into petrol and diesel will inevitably compete with food demand and raise prices unnecessarily when harvests are substandard. The use of imported vegetable oils for  biodiesel also raises unresolved questions on the indirect land use change (ILUC) issue. Inevitably, there has been pressure from both environmental and humanitarian NGOs on both Brussels and Washington to cut back their biofuels policies. The Commission has responded with a recommendation to limiting the use of food crop origin biofuel to 5% of the renewable energy requirement by 2020. This effectively means a halving of the original target, since almost all of any biofuel contribution during the next eight years is likely to come from what are essentially food crops. The bulk of the EU’s production of biofuel is biodiesel , produced from oilseed crops, both home grown and imported. A much smaller proportion comes from ethanol produced from cereals and sugar. It is probable that the Commission action was prompted by a number of analyses of the role of biofuels in the recent food price crises and also by work that has shown minimal environmental gain from their use. A recent study on the biofuels issue by the Institute for European Environment Policy (IEEP)  suggested  removal or reduction of the EU’s 10% target for renewable energy in transport; enforcement of  stricter sustainability standards, includingthe removal of subsidies for unsustainable biofuels and/or the promotion of more sustainable biofuels and making biofuel mandates more flexible. The IEEP report not only confirms that the current dominance of biodiesel over ethanol in the European biofuel market will continue, but also that  first-generation biofuels produced from traditional food and feed crops would  continue to predominate , translating into a significant additional demand for these crops and contributing to increasing prices. It is worth bearing in mind that in the longer run the global energy market will take encouragement or otherwise of biofuel production out of the hands of governments.  As the oil price rises so biofuel production will became profitable in its own right,without the aid of government subsidies or market protection. <19/11/2012>

Immigration flows in the European continent are increasing with incessant rythms. Thousands of people are crossing the seas from Africa and Minor Asia to find their way in the so-called prosperous societies and achieve to ameliorate their lives. The problem is that it has been years now that immigrants cannot finally meet their needs, find a job or establish their new life into a completely different setting. The crisis aggravates conditions, but is it only this? Inflows of immigrants deciding to step in the European continent are mainly economic immigrants. Usually their first station is Greece, Italy and Spain, three countries with large sea borders that facilitate means of transport. Most of the immigrants are illegal, having already mortgaged their property in homeland in order to afford the “journey” from hell to paradise. Respectively most of them, while having to cope with hardship, continue to send positive feedbacks to their relatives and friends back to their countries of origin about the conditions they met and how things are much better in order to avoid realizing that the paradize they were expecting to see does not exist. While this behavior is completely comprehensable, it creates additional problems as many potential immigrants take courage from expatriates and further decide to follow them to their new lands. Therefore, more and more immigrants decide to migrate in Europe in order to find a job and be in position to earn money and send a considerable part of it back home. As the wave of immigrants is increasing, Europe cannot manage immigrants’ inclusion and social cohesion is damaged, especially now that economic recession ends up with additional wage cuts, unemployment, and few investments. A great part of immigrants is resorting to grey economy, lacks legalization, while many times in shortage of basic needs, a part of them ends up in theft and criminal acts. And as recession, joblessness and fear augment, locals resort to violent and discriminative acts against immigrants blaming them for aggaravating current conditions. This vicious circle is contantly reproduced and no solution seems to be viable. Excessive and uncontrolled immigration flows have finally perplexed European societies with additional outcome the rise of racism. There are no concrete polices assumed -other than the disputed Doublin I and II Agreements about asylum- and consequently what we see is a European Union being the shelter for millions of illegal and desperate immigrants. A serious debate has to be launched from the responsible Commissioner and the respective Ministers of the EU so that actions to be retrieved. I personally believe that the stepping point in the process should be the fact that nobody can impede or block immigration flows. And as economic conditions are getting even tougher globally, migration circles will continue running and intensifying. EU member-states should undertake joint actions to leave space for free movement of persons inside the EU borders, but with limits of stay. If EU is to be considered as a federal state, immigrants should be allowed to move freely with the fundamental condition that they will find an occupation or resort to social works, thus receiving an initial stipend to get along with basic needs. Moreover, for illegal immigrants, EU member-states should start being more reluctant in issuing green cards and leave space to travel inside Europe and start building their lives. The final point is that we all need to realize that we are all entering a new stage of global diffusion where nothing is guaranteed and no home is safe. Global economic recession is circling, migration is circling, jobs are circling, and the only thing someone could think of as “certain” is the fact that wherever in the world conditions are better, there it is the place where someone could endeavor to build its life. No matter how hard is this conclusion, I deeply believe that this is the way people can survive in our vulnerable state of being.

Un peu de prospective : Quelles son les principales tendances qui vont marquer l’évolution de la vie des entreprises dans les années qui viennent ? Thomas Frey, un futurologue américain, s’est prêté, comme d’autres à l’exercice. Le blog Smart Company a reprise quelques unes des plus saillantes de ses prédictions. Si certaines sont prévisibles, d’autres montrent que le terrain se prépare dès aujourd’hui. Florilège de quelques unes de ces tendances émergentes marquantes :

1. Ne dites plus « quel est mon emploi », mais « quel est mon projet »

Dans les pays industrialisés, il n’est plus rare, aujourd’hui, que les personnes de plus de trente ans aient déjà exercé une dizaine d’emplois différents. Mais d’ici une dizaine d’années, selon Frey, il est possible que nous ne parlions plus de l’emploi que nous exerçons mais du projet sur lequel nous sommes actifs. En 2022, un trentenaire pourra déjà avoir cumulé près de 200 projets différents… L’économie moderne évolue vers un modèle basé sur la mise sur pied de projets. Le lien contractuel avec un employeur spécifique, même sur une courte période, perdra encore de sa pertinence. Internet permetra d’aligner en temps réel les besoins des entreprises avec l’offre de talents individuels spécifiques. Plutôt que d’engager un employé à plein temps, il sera beaucoup plus aisé de le mobiliser sur des projets spécifiques, qu’ils soient de deux heures, deux jours, deux semaines, par exemple. De leur côté, les employés constitueront par eux-mêmes des pools de compétences disponibles pour intervenir sur les projets. Cette évolution est déjà facilitée aujourd’hui par la volonté d’une part croissante de la nouvelle génération de s’éloigner du modèle professionnel vécu par ses parents : carrière de longue durée dans la même entreprise et la difficulté de se remettre en route quand un licenciement survient.

2. Des colonies d’entreprises

Dans dix ans, nous parlerons moins d’un lieu de travail centralisé. Pour Thomas Frey, nous pourrions assister à l’émergence de « colonies d’entreprises« . Pour le futurologue, ces colonies seront une évolution des espaces de Coworking que nous connaissons aujourd’hui. Elles permettront aux entreprises classiques d’adopter le mode de fonctionnement de l’industrie du cinéma, par exemple, avec des actions et des équipes constituées ponctuellement. Certaines de ces colonies d’entreprises et/ou de professionnels seront parfois virtuelles. D’autres seront centrées sur une discipline précise, telle que les nanotechnologie, l’agro-alimentaire ou le développement de jeux vidéo. Les grandes entreprises placeront des project managers dans ces colonies.

3. L’essor et l’impact des imprimantes 3D

Les imprimantes tridimensionnelles (3D) se multiplient partout. A l’avenir, il devrait être possible de fabriquer n’importe quel objet dans une infinité de matériaux possibles, estime Thomas Frey. Les vêtements ou les chaussures, par exemple, pourront être manufacturés à l’unité, à partir de plans sous format digital.

« Imaginez que vous entriez dans un magasin de vêtements. Vous avancez jusqu’à l’appareil qui scanne votre corps puis vous attendez qu’une imprimante vous fabrique le vêtement choisi sur mesure…, illustre Thomas Frey. Vous pourrez aussi scanner vos pieds, avant de faire fabriquer sur place votre paire de chaussures ».

Il est possible d’envisager la même chose, à terme, en médecine, avec des tissus humains (peau, os…), des aliments ou des médicaments… Bref, dans toute l’industrie.

4. La voiture sans chauffeur

Google a déjà diffusé plusieurs exemples de son prototype de voiture sans chauffeur. La firme californienne espère ainsi pouvoir développer, à termes, le système opérationnel qui gèrera les voitures sans chauffeur du futur. Google n’est toutefois pas la seule active sur ce terrain. De grandes percées sont à attendre dans les années qui viennent chez les constructeurs automobiles traditionnels. Le groupe Mercedes, par exemple, est l’auteur de plusieurs initiatives dans ce sens. Ces nouveaux véhicules et la technologie qu’ils incorporent auront un gros impact sur des centaines de métiers différents nécessitant occasionnellement ou de façon permanentes l’utilisation d’un véhicule. Sans compter le gain de productivité dû au temps d’attention regagner sur les temps de trajets.

5. L’enseignement sans professeur

Il s’agit bien sûr d’une rupture majeure par rapport au modèle historique d’éducation. Mais à l’heure où des étudiants du monde entier peuvent, à distance, assister au cours d’une professeur d’université à l’autre bout de la planète, cette évolution n’est que naturelle. Nous entrons dans une ère d’apprentissage et de ré-apprentissage permanent. Le besoin est tellement grand pour tout le monde que le nombre d’enseignants risque, à un moment d’être trop limité, pour répondre à l’immense demande de formation des jeunes et… des seniors. Dans le monde, dit Frey, il manquerait aujourd’hui déjà près de 8 millions d’enseignants. L’enseignement digital sans professeur pourrait donc s’avérer, à terme, une nécessité, y compris pour les formateurs professionnels dans les entreprises.

The year 2012 is likely to constitute a turn-around for the European automotive market: producers will have to confront a 7 percent fall in sales. This decline is a continuation of the gentle downward trend that has started in 2009. Aggravated by the economic crisis that has gripped Europe, it is likely to become a structural phenomenon. European car makers can no longer expect selling some 15 million cars in the domestic market as they have done during the boom years 2001-09. They should be more than happy to sell 12 million and brace for even worse scenarios with sales falling to 10 million or below. Indeed, Europe’s streets are crammed with vehicles; parking space is getting rare and expensive, finally forcing citizens to switch to public transport, especially in very big cities where car traveling speed is slowing down, compared to subways and trams. The car is losing its superiority: it no longer guarantees unrestricted freedom of mobility and ceases to be a “status symbol”. Manufacturers will try to cope with the situation with three main strategies:

• make up for the stagnation/decline of domestic sales by export and outsourcing strategies;
• cut costs by closing the least productive plants;
• focus on luxury brands or energy-efficiency.

The European automotive industry will hardly overcome the decline of sales without another round of concentration/mergers and lay-offs. The sooner it wakes up to the long-term structural challenge the smoother the necessary adjustments will be. Higher fuel efficiency should be a key component of any strategy. The next generation of vehicles should target at a consumption of less than four liter/100 km: In an era of rising fuel prices low fuel consumption will increasingly determine the competitiveness. Diesel and hybrid technologies, combined with weight reductions still offer unexploited potential for lower consumption. There is no urgency to promote electric cars by government premiums, whatever the pressure from the industry. It is irrelevant if by 2020 the German car industry will produce 1 million electric cars or only 600 000. As long as electricity does not come from wind or solar generation, which will not be the case by 2020, electric cars do not offer any environmental advantages. The European car industry is, of course, of pivotal importance as an employer and source of technological innovation. But that cannot justify efforts to prevent it from shrinking or protecting it against intensive international competition. Like any other industry it has to constantly reinvent itself. The EU and member state governments should actively assist this permanent adjustment process. Eberhard Rhein, Brussels

Vielleicht zeugt es ja von Weisheit, wenn sich ein Mann wie Ramsauer nichts zutraut, was ohnehin nicht zu schaffen wäre, und sich stattdessen darauf besinnt, was vielleicht gelingen könnte. Dass dabei ziemlich viel überflüssiger Kleinkram herauskommt, ist eine bedauernswerte Nebenerscheinung, die Ramsauer offenbar gerne in Kauf nimmt. Es ist ja nicht so, dass der Mann nichts anderes zu tun hätte. Er könnte versuchen, im Berliner Flughafenchaos das Allerschlimmste noch zu verhindern… Er könnte Ernst machen mit der Sanierung des Straßennetzes oder endlich die energiesparende Sanierung von Miethäusern geregelt bekommen… Es ist für Ramsauer dringlicher, dass Haselünne… oder sonstige Örtlichkeiten… mit nicht ganz so großer externer Bedeutung ihre eigenen Autokennzeichen bekommen. Das ist vielleicht nicht ganz genau das, was diesen und anderen Orten bisher gefehlt hatte, aber bitte: Für Ramsauer ist das ein Anfang… Da fühlen sich die Einwohner doch gleich viel bedeutender und rumpeln gleich viel weniger verärgert über die marode Dorfstraße und freuen sich, wenn sie im Autobahnstau ihr schickes Kennzeichen ein paar Stunden länger präsentieren können. Das scheint die tiefere Logik des Ministers zu sein: Wenn schon nichts mehr geht und fährt, sollen die Menschen wenigstens großen Spaß dran haben – so wie Ramsauer an seinem Ministeramt mit all seinen lustigen Möglichkeiten.

Europe’s anti-crisis measures include efforts to increase private investments in public infrastructure. Yet, a backlash against public-private partnerships in Portugal is a warning against putting too much faith in this approach.

Many reactions to the solutions proposed by Europe’s political leaders to the deepening and spreading eurozone crisis seem to revolve around two things: scepticism towards their effectiveness and increasingly harsh criticism of the so stubbornly pursued approach – carrots (bail-outs) for banks and sticks (austerity) for the people.

It is more than a reasonable suspicion (which, after Corporate Europe Observatory appealed to the EU Ombudsman, has even tainted Mario Draghi) that corporate interests have powerful influence on these and other political decisions.

Yet, apart from ‘revolving doors’ or outright corruption, there are also other ways in which the public interest can be outwitted to the benefit of big business. One of them opens up when public-private partnerships (PPP) are used to build public infrastructure, for example by poorly allocating investment risks, which mostly end up on the public’s shoulders.

This has happened also in Portugal. But as irony has it, the government’s efforts to cut public spending – as part of its bail-out deal with the EU and the IMF – have now boomeranged back on the private companies themselves.

Portugal has signed about 30 PPP contracts, mostly for the construction of transport infrastructure, which, according to Reuters, “contributed to the economic imbalances that forced Portugal to seek an international bailout”. Apparently, and no novelty for a motorway PPP, the concessionaires “used overly optimistic projections for traffic volumes, interest rates and profitability”, which force the state – and eventually tax payers – to pay unrealistic usage fees for several decades.

In 2010, Carlos Moreno, a former judge of Portugal’s Court of Auditors and author of a book criticising PPP schemes, estimated that “Portugal will have to pay some €48 billion in PPP liabilities between now and 2049, […] almost twice the €28 billion in liabilities recorded by the government.”

In the same year, the Portuguese government started considering renegotiations of its PPPs, and just a few days ago, it successfully negotiated a cut in payments for a motorway PPP called Pinhal Interior with concessionaire Ascendi (a joint venture between a Portuguese bank and a construction company).

Bankwatch has collected similar examples of failed PPPs on the website Overpriced and underwritten – The hidden costs of public-private partnerships, which also includes information on why this and other costly blunders appear time and again under PPP schemes.

In spite of the increasingly negative evidence, however, PPPs continue to be suggested as a means to help mitigate the economic and fiscal crisis, most recently as part of the EU’s project bonds initiative. And, again ironically, the European Investment Bank, which extended a loan to the very Pinhal Interior PPP renegotiated in Portugal will have a key role to play in it.

This looks like a serious case of making the same mistakes over again and expecting different results. A disputed source once said that this is a sign of insanity. At the very least it is a sign of corporate influence at European level that is prevailing over evidence-based decision-making and needs to be urgently tackled.

Arriving in Almedalen, the political arena in the summer city of Visby, Gotland, Sweden.

The city of Visby change its character from a summer city to a crowd hot political arena with 17.000 people involved. This year the Almedalen week counting record of events (1800) but also the number of organisers (900). Each party in the parliament have one day in the week to perform from the main stage in Almedalen. The majority of events are held in the area around Almedalen and the  harbour.

Other co-organisers, (Media, NGO:s, corporations and business organisations, trade unions, regional and local governments, authorities) arrange events including early breakfast meetings, seminars, debates, hearings, speeches, lunch meetings, afternoon seminars, short programmes and networking events before and after the evening speeches. The main theme for this years debate is the future of the welfare state. You will also find specific discussions regarding Sustainable cities and the outcome of the Rio Summit. 23% of all event are green certified.

Respect, a values based consultancy will do ranking of the Almedalen week top sustainability issues. You can also follow me on twitter to see whats going on in Almedalen. If you visiting the Almedalen week you will meet some of Swedens top sustainability figures

See also the interview with Ulf Troedsson, CEO of Siemens Sweden, talking about the transport sector and electric highways. New pilot test project are under development in Sweden. Infrastructure investments for Sustainable Development have dominated some of the political discussions in Almedalen the first day.

Kaj Embrén

 

 

It is a common misconception that sustainability in air travel is just about curbing CO2 emissions from airplanes. Of course this helps but the aviation industry’s responsibilities are far wider than this. The sector is responsible for about 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emission but it also has a pivotal role to play in driving forward sustainable urban development. Airports are hubs that provide for the various needs of our cities and they rely on numerous different modes of transport that operate in and around them. These networks require extensive coordination between airplanes, airports, buses, trains, passenger cars, ships and ports. Regional and municipal decision-makers must support this coordination with incentives, green procurement and smart regulation if they are to create the right conditions for development. But innovation can come from the aviation industry itself. As competition in the battle for air passengers grows ever fiercer, all of the industry’s players are driving to increase efficiency. But as airports are shared resources, this can promote both cooperation as well as competition. Around the world, airport operators can be doing far more to achieve better integration between economic, ecological and social objectives. To get a better understanding of both policy and practice I visited an airport that has attracted considerable international attention for its sustainability efforts – Arlanda Airport in Stockholm. Beneath the surface of the airport a carbon neutral aquifer has been developed. It cools the terminals in the summer whilst storing warmth for the winter that is used in ground heating systems at aircraft parking stands and to heat air in the buildings. Not only does this help reduce the airport’s carbon footprint, it also saves money according to the CEO of the airport operator Swedavia, Torborg Chetkovics. “We could write that investment off in five years time” she told me, “and then after that it’s just savings on the energy costs of the airport.” “We have worked very hard to decrease our environmental effects. We have minimized COs emissions by 50 percent and reduced our energy use by about 30 per cent. By 2020 we will have zero emissions of CO2 from our own activities” Swedavia is responsible for 11 of Sweden’s airports that have been at the forefront of sustainable practice for years. It’s so green-conscious that only environmentally-friendly taxis are allowed in to collect passengers. What’s more, Swedavia takes an admirable level responsibility for the wider network that it forms a part of. “We also have a CO2 restriction that is linked not only to our activities but also to how you are coming to and from the airport.” Chetkovics said. “This means that if you take your dirty car and travel to the airport and fly to Zurich, for example, then your CO2 emission is calculated from when you leave you home.” “I think we all need to understand that we need to work together and between the different modes of transportation. Politicians are primarily interested in discussing rail and road and that’s not bad, but they are missing the rest of it.” Swedavia’s record suggests that this isn’t just talk. Right on cue, as I leave Arlanda after the interview I see the new charging stands for electric cars being installed and a counter showing visitors how much electricity is stored and how much CO2 has been saved. Global urbanization means that we now have more than 400 cities with populations over 1 million people and about 44 000 airports served by 1700 airlines. Airports are an increasingly important hub that link cities and promote development, particularly those in Africa, China and India that interconnect emerging powers with Europe, USA and South America. But this growth, whilst enhancing commercial potential for the aviation industry, seems to have strengthened resistance to change. Sector-based lobbies (in this case from the airlines) and national government representatives are almost always the biggest threat to efforts to resolve environmental issues. Let’s look to Arlanda Airport as a shining example. Its model breaks away from the traditional sector-based interests and instead shows that collaboration can result in competitive advantage. The numerous international awards that the Arlanda has won are tangible proof the airport is on track. In Sweden there is evidence that successful collaborative models can be designed. A partnership involving airlines, airports and other transport operators have impressed internationally. Let us expand on these ideas and create the levels of interaction needed to bring about such sustainable urban development. Kaj Embrén Also check out Airlines look for a new landstrip  

The 100-year old internal combustion engine will be phased out in the coming six decades or so. This is bound to happen for two concurring reasons:

• Oil will become so scarce and expensive that driving vehicles on gasoline or diesel will no longer be affordable.
• In order to successfully combat climate change, for which mobility accounts to the extent of one quarter, Humanity must find alternative energy sources.

But as long as most of our electricity demand is covered from fossil sources there is no ecological urgency for implementing the necessary technological revolution of land transport. Nor is there an economic urgency as long as e-vehicles are substantially more expensive, while being less convenient in terms of range and loading energy.

In order to reach the EU 2050 climate target of reducing C02 emissions by 80 per cent, the European transport sector will have to reduce emissions by 60 per cent.

This will be achievable by a combined approach of

• further enhancing fuel efficiency of combustion engines
• combining efficient diesel and plug-in electric engines;
• improving battery technology in view of making them lighter, cheaper and doubling their range without recharging.

Presently the average newly admitted car in Europe must emit less than 127 g C02/km. This compares to 50 g/km for the latest models of hybrid plug-in diesel cars. That big difference demonstrates the huge potential for higher fuel efficiency through diesel and hybrid engine technology.

The EU should therefore fix much stricter emission standards for new cars, while leaving manufacturers the necessary respite for adjustment and technological improvement, say 95g by 2020, 70 g by 2025 and 50 g by 2030. By implementing such a medium-term road map the EU would dispose of a completely renovated vehicle stock by 2030 that would enable it to roughly halve its C02 emissions from road transport.

Fully electrical cars will most likely remain the exception until 2030, essentially used as a city and special purpose vehicles. Their market share is unlikely to exceed 10 per cent for new vehicles which is fine considering that more than half of EU power will still be generated from fossil plants

This analysis leads to five policy conclusions for the EU:

• Toughen fuel efficiency standards for passenger and commercial vehicles. These will offer powerful incentives for improving battery, storage and engine technologies.
• Target a 40 per cent share of electricity generated from non-fossil sources by 2030.
• Negotiate comparable targets for automotive fuel efficiency and non-fossil electricity generation with USA, China, Japan, Korea and Brazil, to make EU measures globally climate-relevant.
• Abstain from granting specific research support, let alone purchase premiums for electrical vehicles. Member states should be free to do so, if necessary to keep up with the technological developments in competing countries, especially China.
• Promote effective public transport systems as the overriding priority, as e-mobility will not offer the answer to the ever growing urban and high-way congestion.

Um den innerstädtischen Fahrradverkehr zu vereinfachen, dürfen Radfahrer
künftig an einigen Kreuzungen mit dreifarbigen Ampeln bei rot nach rechts
abbiegen oder weiter geradeaus fahren.

Um den innerstädtischen Fahrradverkehr zu vereinfachen, dürfen Radfahrer
künftig an einigen Kreuzungen mit dreifarbigen Ampeln bei rot nach rechts
abbiegen oder weiter geradeaus fahren.

Um die Nutzung des Fahrrades in den Städten intensiv zu fördern, wurde im
Rahmen der ersten nationalen Fahrradkonferenz im Januar 2012 ein
nationaler Radverkehrsplans vorgestellt, der die Menschen in Frankreich
zur häufigeren Nutzung des Zweirads ermuntert – sowohl als
Fortbewegungsmittel als auch zu Sport- oder Freizeitzwecken.

Mit Blick auf das Ziel des so genannten “Plan National Velo” den
Radverkehr flüssiger zu gestalten und Staus an Kreuzungen zu vermeiden,
wurde per Verordnung vom 12. Januar 2012 ein neues Verkehrszeichen
eingeführt, das es Radfahrern an bestimmten Kreuzungen erlaubt, an einer
roten Ampel rechts abzubiegen oder geradeaus zu fahren, sofern keine
Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert. Sie haben dabei die Vorfahrt der anderen
Verkehrsteilnehmer zu beachten.

Die Verordnung legt fest, dass die Installation neuer Verkehrszeichen
nicht automatisch erfolgt. Laut Verkehrssicherheitsbehörde entscheidet der
Bürgermeister, an welchen Strecken oder ausgewählten Knotenpunkten, die
den entsprechenden Sicherheitsbedingungen entsprechen, die Schilder für
Radfahrer installiert werden.

Die Gebietskörperschaften können zwischen zwei Signalformen wählen:

Ein blinkendes Ampelsignal an der dreifarbigen Verkehrsampel, wie für das
Rechtsabbiegen für Autofahrer. Das neue Signal ist gelb und genauso groß
wie die anderen. Blinkt es, erscheint ein Piktogramm in Form eines
Fahrrads, das es dem Radfahrer erlaubt, die Ampelkreuzung bei roter bzw.
gelber Ampel zu überqueren. Ein Pfeil verweist auf die freigegebene
Fahrtrichtung, entweder nach rechts oder geradeaus, sofern keine
Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert.

Ein an der dreifarbigen Ampel angebrachtes dreieckiges Schild. Es zeigt
ein gelbes Fahrrad auf weißem Untergrund und ist rot umrandet. Ein gelber
Pfeil weist dem Radfahrer die freigegebene Fahrtrichtung, entweder nach
rechts oder geradeaus, sofern keine Rechtsabbiegerspur existiert. Dieses
einfachere Verkehrszeichen wurde von zahlreichen Kommunen bzw.
Departements angefordert, da es technisch leichter umzusetzen ist,
berichtet die Verkehrssicherheitsbehörde.

Das Zeichen “Rechtsabbiegen” wird seit zwei Jahren getestet

Diese neue Regelung unterstützt die Gebietskörperschaften beim Ausbau des
innerstädtischen Radverkehrs. Das neue Ampelzeichen wurde bereits zwei
Jahre lang in Bordeaux, Nantes und Straßburg getestet.

Ist noch keines dieser beiden neuen Verkehrszeichen installiert, müssen
sich die Radfahrer nach wie vor nach der Ampelschaltung richten. Außerdem
sind die Radfahrer vor dem Überqueren der roten Ampel angehalten
vorsichtig zu fahren und den anderen Verkehrsteilnehmer, insbesondere den
Fußgängern, die Vorfahrt einzuräumen.