Voog website building platform



Taking action to move towards a low(er) carbon footprint Erasmus+ programmeThe Erasmus programme is major success of the European Union with nearly 10 million learners and professionals carrying out a learning mobility in 34 participating countries and beyond since 1987. This success is strongly supported by the decision-makers with a prospect to increase the number of participants, to reach 12 million between 2021 and 2027 for the next generation of Erasmus+.Yet, in the context of global warming and the dramatic forthcoming impact on societies all over the World, there is a new challenge the programme needs to address: travelling to other countries, mostly by plane, is a major source of greenhouse gas emission. The European Union has set the base for ambitious objectives in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030 among which at least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (GGE) from 1990 levels. Why is there an issue?Two NAs have already made some rough calculations:NA AT has calculated that in 2017, Austrian Erasmus+ participants had travelled some 23 million kilometers;Based on MT+ distance bands, NA FR01 has approximated the overall distance travelled by E+ participants since 2014: some 600 million kilometers – of which an estimated 500 million by plane. This has resulted in approximately 292.000 teq CO2. Helped by a specialized consultancy and project developer firm in the sector, the FR01 NA has also calculated their own staff travels: 1,26 million km travelled over 2017, ? of which by train and ? by plane. This resulted in total in more than 122 teq CO2 released, out of which 118 due to the sole use of airplane. The calculation is still to be made for the whole programme. Yet, there is no doubt that the travelling due to Erasmus+ over one year corresponds to several hundred million kilometers and is responsible for thousands of tons equivalent CO2 released in the atmosphere. In other words, also the Erasmus+ programme contributes to the global warming.This alone can be considered an issue. However, as the media in general show more and more concern on the subject, there is a risk that the reputation of Erasmus would be affected if no action is taken to tackle the question of the programme’s greenhouse gas emission. Hence there is a strong reputational issue for Erasmus+ in the short run. Considering recital 32 of the regulation proposal of the future Erasmus 2021-2027 states: “Reflecting the importance of tackling climate change in line with the Union's commitments to implement the Paris Agreement and achieve the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, this Programme will contribute to mainstream climate action in the Union's policies and to the achievement of an overall target of [25%] of the Union budget expenditures supporting climate objectives. Relevant actions will be identified during the Programme's preparation and implementation and reassessed in the context of the relevant evaluations and review process.”This recital responds to articles 191 to 193 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which drives the EU to contribute to “preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, protecting human health, [being] prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources and promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change”.This provides the baseline for acting now.At EC level, there is a need to set up an overarching strategy for a low(er) carbon footprint Erasmus+ programme. The aim should not only be to avoid negative publicity, but also/rather to use the Erasmus+ programme as a good example on how climate objectives can be addressed. Below we list some examples that could be part of the strategy.What can be done at programme level in order to lower the Erasmus programme carbon footprint?Taking stock of the reality of greenhouse gas emission (GGE)A calculation of the overall programme’s GGE should be made based on the participants’ travels. This can be made thanks to MT+ data on the city of departure and the city of arrival. This process could be made in 2 steps:In the current programme, because the transportation mode is not known in the existing database, a methodology is to be determined on the basis of the ones used by NA AT and FR01. In the next programme, an additional question should be included into MT in order to define the mode of transportation. With the help of the EC distance calculator API, the distance between cities could also be automatically calculated at mobility level.From there on, existing methods to calculate the equivalent CO2 emission apply. The ability to take stock of the actual level of GGE due to the programme is probably an essential step into the awareness raising process. Encourage low carbon footprint practices in programme activitiesThe biggest share of the Erasmus+ carbon footprint is created by beneficiaries flying from one country to another.Beneficiaries should be encouraged to use, where possible and as much as possible, low carbon transportation means, e.g. train instead of airplane. For Continental Europe countries, this would be easier. But also from more remote countries, e.g. Finland, a boat-train trip instead of flying could be fully realistic for students leaving for mobility periods of several months – a longer travelling time could in fact be beneficial in giving a concrete “feeling” of Europe.In practical terms, this would require changes in programme rules and incentives for the beneficiaries. programme funding rules should be changed so, that daily allowance for several day travels would be eligible. Furthermore, the higher expenses of low carbon travelling by train (and ship) should be taken into account in funding.The incentive for the beneficiaries/participants could be e.g. higher daily allowance (with the exception of oversea territories residents who do not have such choice). Non flying mobile participants could further get a “Environmental-friendly Erasmus” certificate.An “Eco-responsible” kit, displaying in a simple and user-friendly manner the main gestures to limit one’s impact on the environment, could be elaborated – from existing material nationally or from a potential E+ project to be developed – and distributed to every programme participant. Such a kit could be made eventually available through a smartphone app – as an extension of the existing Erasmus+ app for instance. A general priority should be set in the programme guide to encourage beneficiaries to adopt low carbon transportation and pay attention to environmental issue in general. At EC level, a strategy for a low(er) carbon foot print programme should be established, involving DG CLIMA, possibly with the help of a specialized organization, to work on concrete measures to be included in the programme rules – without making them more complicated. Compensate for GGE due to the programme operational activityCompensation solutions do exist. For instance, they consist in subsidizing projects aiming at diminishing CO2 emissions. The cost for compensation ranges from 15€ to 23€ per teq CO2 according to the projects. In terms of compensation, two options seems open:Encourage the beneficiaries or participants to compensate by themselves. Advantages: it gives a responsibility to the participants through a dedicated budget line in projects (on exceptional costs or a specific budget line). Disadvantages: 1) except for some airplane companies which offer to compensate when buying the tickets, schemes for compensating are still quite complex; 2) NAs may have to control the use and traceability of the expenses at beneficiary level which adds to administrative pensate at programme level: Advantages: simple process at centralized level, traceable and a lot of impact at reputational level.Disadvantages: none really. The cost amounts to about 1% of the proposed budget by the EC for the programme, but this is probably not a higher figure than if the same budget was to be distributed through a dedicated budget line to participants. The programme budget at EC level should include a dedicated line in order to compensate the overall GGE based on the calculation for the year before.Encourage low carbon footprint practices in programme administrationAt NA level, encourage virtuous practices for NA staff: use low carbon emission transportations wherever possible; extend the use of video conference; avoid unnecessary traveling and introduce virtual cooperation whenever it is feasible. TCA could be used in order to exchange good practices among NAs and beneficiaries. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download