FROM Mara Silina <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Dear Friends,

The European Commission, the Biotech Industry and some European Union (EU) countries, in particular France, do not want to provide the public an adequate right to participate in decision-making related to GMO activities, within the Aarhus Convention. Countries from Eastern Europe, Caucus and Central Asia (EECCA), all Parties to the Aarhus Convention (AC), have clearly expressed the need for a pan-European common approach that grants the public with clear and equal rights to participate in decision-making related to GMO activities throughout Europe. The lack of adequate public participation provisions in the Aarhus Convention will facilitate the entrance of GMOs without public scrutiny in the Pan-European region, a situation favoured by the biotech industry and major GMO exporting countries.

The Aarhus Convention (AC), an international agreement adopted in 1998, grants the public rights to access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental issues. The AC is a Convention which covers Parties from the Pan-European region, including Europe, Caucus, and Central Asia region (EECCA). All 25 European Union (EU) Member states and the European Community as such have signed the AC, and more and more of them have already ratified.

1-4th February 2005 the Parties and Signatories of the AC met to prepare the Second Meeting of the Parties of the Convention to be held in Kazakhstan in May this year. Over 10 non-EU countries present from Eastern Europe, Caucus and Central Asia, reaffirmed the need for granting the public in the region the right to participate in decisions related to GMOs. Countries from this region believe in the need for a common pan-European approach to public participation. The EU, despite having in its own legislation legally-binding provisions on public participation, was unable to express any position, creating once again a de facto blocking of the discussions.

Countries from the EECCA region have clearly expressed the will to grant the public the right to participate in GMO related activities in an international agreement that covers the whole European region, Caucus, and Central Asia. These countries have expressed the desire to adopt an amendment to the AC which guarantees such right. The EU must respect and listen to their request, and support the adoption of such an amendment. EU countries have already legally binding provisions on GMOs in the EU, and do not have substantial reasons to deny countries from the EECCA region similar rights. The EU must not let it happen that the pressure from biotech industry and pro biotech countries blocks the progress in the AC.

The EU will be discussing this topic at the next Council meeting on March 10th. The EU must take a position, which is in line with the demands of the EECCA countries, so that in May, in Kazakhstan a comprehensive amendment can be adopted. If the EU adopts a position against the will of those countries, or fails to adopt any position, it will send an extremely damaging signal to the EECCA region. If this occurs the EU will have betrayed the public of the pan-European region.

We urge you to send letters to your National Ministers urgently before the 9th of March and ask them to support a position in line with the demand of EECCAs countries. Please find attached a sample letter, and a briefing with more details.

Sincerely,
Mara Silina

Mara SILINA - Enlargement Co-ordinator
European Environmental Bureau/EEB
Federation of Environmental Citizens Organisations and
Coordinator Public Participation Campaign
European ECO Forum
34, Boulevard de Waterloo,
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
ph.:+32.2.289 13 05; fax:+32.2.289 10 99
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
http://www.eeb.org
http://www.participate.org
------

EU MUST NOT DENY THE PUBLIC ITS RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN GMO DECISION MAKING
February 2005
ECOFORUM BRIEFING PAPER

The European Commission, the Biotech Industry and some European Union (EU) countries, in particular France, do not want to provide the public an adequate right to participate in decision-making related to GMO activities, within the Aarhus Convention. Countries from Eastern Europe, Caucus and Central Asia, all Parties to the Aarhus Convention (AC), have clearly expressed the need for a pan-European common approach that grants the public with clear and equal rights to participate in decision-making related to GMO activities throughout Europe. The lack of adequate public participation provisions in the Aarhus Convention will facilitate the entrance of GMOs without public scrutiny in the Pan-European region, a situation favoured by the biotech industry and major GMO exporting countries.

1. EECCA call for the right of the public to participate in GMO decision-making

The Aarhus Convention (AC), an international agreement adopted in 1998, grants the public rights to access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental issues. The AC is a Convention which covers Parties from the Pan-European region, including Europe, Caucus, and Central Asia region (EECCA). All 25 European Union (EU) Member states and the European Community as such have signed the AC, and more and more of them have already ratified.

1-4th February 2005 the Parties and Signatories of the AC met to prepare the Second Meeting of the Parties of the Convention to be held in Kazakhstan in May this year. Over 10 non-EU countries present from Eastern Europe, Caucus and Central Asia, reaffirmed the need for granting the public in the region the right to participate in decisions related to GMOs. Countries from this region believe in the need for a common pan-European approach to public participation. The EU, despite having in its own legislation legally-binding provisions on public participation, was unable to express any position, creating once again a de facto blocking of the discussions.

2. The need to solve the anomaly of the Aarhus Convention

The Aarhus Convention is a UN legal instrument whose objective is to guarantee the public rights of access to information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice in environmental matters. The Aarhus Convention has a set of comprehensive provisions on public participation which apply to a broad range of activities which can have an impact on the environment in the sectors of energy, production and processing of metals, mineral industry, chemical industry, waste management, etc.

Activities involving GMOs were not included in the list of activities, which are subject to the public participation requirements of the AC, and were deferred to national legislation. This exclusion was an anomaly, and that is why immediately after the adoption of the AC in 1998 the Signatories requested that the First Meeting of the Parties further develop the application of the Convention in the field of GMOs. A Task Force on GMOs was created in 2000, followed by a Working Group in 2001, and a second Working Group in 2002.

3. The situation today: EU de facto blocks the discussion

For four years Parties and Signatories to the Convention, NGOs and industry have been discussing how to solve this anomaly. A big majority of countries from Eastern Europe, Caucus and Central Asia have manifested unequivocally since 2001 the desire to establish in the framework of the Aarhus Convention a legally binding provision that will grant the public the right to participate in decisions related to GMO activities. The articulated this in a precise text for an amendment to the AC. Other countries like Norway have also expressed clearly the support to that approach. In contrast, in 4 years the EU has never managed to back any position, due to internal division and an almost iron discipline in the EU-co-ordination, preventing that individual Member states would choose sides in the public debate under the Convention. France is the only country that did not stick with this discipline in the February meeting, and has made it very clear that it opposes the AC to arrange any adequate public participation obligation related to GMOs.

Over four years of discussions should have granted the EU enough time to take a position. Despite some EU countries have manifested their flexibility and constructive spirit, the attitude of the EU commission and some EU countries, in particular France has prevented any progress and created a de facto block in the discussions. The European Commission and France have always opposed the position of the EECCA countries. The biotech industry, which is opposing binding obligations for public participation on GMOs, and which is actively present at the meetings, has openly supported the views of the European Commission and France.

4. Why the European Commission and some EU member States are opposing the right of the public to participate in GMO decision-making within the context of the AC?

The European Commission is subject of huge pressure from the biotech industry and major GMO exporting countries over the GMO situation in Europe. The strong opposition of the European Commission to any positive outcome of the AC process has a strong political nature within the bigger debate surrounding the Cartagena Protocol and the WTO case currently ongoing on the EU moratorium and the national bans. The European Commission wants to avoid further dispute with the US and other pro-biotech countries, and does not want to extend the issue of GMOs in any other international forum. This despite the general agreement of which they were part, in October 2002, to develop a legally binding solution for GMO decisionmaking under the Aarhus Convention.

The European Commission and the French delegation have constantly been arguing that any comprehensive legislation on public participation on GMOs within Aarhus will damage the Biosafety Protocol process. Apparently there has been pressure from the biotech industry and some of the major GMO exporters that if the public participation requirements of the Aarhus Convention are extended to the GMO activities, pro-biotech countries will consider it a huge affront that will make the current discussions on the implementation of the Biosafety Protocol, and the GMO WTO case even worse for the EU. It has even been mentioned that the Aarhus issue could complicate the Biosafety Protocol ratification of major GMO exporters like Canada.

This argumentation about the incompatibility between the AC and the Biosafety Protocol is false and has been artificially built. A letter from Mr. Zedan, the Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to the Secretary of the Aarhus Convention completely clarifies the issue, and underlines the mutually supportive character of both international instruments. Mr. Zedan described “the important role that the Aarhus Convention was playing in promoting public participation in decision-making on GMOs and agreed that the Cartagena Protocol and the Aarhus Convention could complement each other and be mutually supportive”. The Secretary of the Convention went even further expressing his “belief that the outcome of the processes under the Aarhus Convention, in particular discussions in the Working Group on GMOs, would contribute significantly to the consideration of the subject matter under the Cartagena Protocol”.

5. The way forward

Countries from the EECCA region have clearly expressed the will to grant the public the right to participate in GMO related activities in an international agreement that covers the whole European region, Caucus, and Central Asia. These countries have expressed the desire to adopt an amendment to the AC which guarantees such right. The EU must respect and listen to their request, and support the adoption of such an amendment. EU countries have already legally binding provisions on GMOs in the EU, and do not have substantial reasons to deny countries from the EECCA region similar rights. The EU must not let it happen that the pressure from biotech industry and pro biotech countries blocks the progress in the AC.

The EU will be discussing this topic at the next Council meeting on March 10th. The EU must take a position, which is in line with the demands of the EECCA countries, so that in May, in Kazakhstan a comprehensive amendment can be adopted. If the EU adopts a position against the will of those countries, or fails to adopt any position, it will send an extremely damaging signal to the EECCA region. If this occurs the EU will have betrayed the public of the pan-European region.

Ecoforum contact persons
Juan Lopez, ECO Forum GMO expert
John Hontelez, Secretary General European Environmental Bureau
Serhiy Vykhryst, ECO Forum GMO expert