*{ BULLETIN Friends of the Earth Europe October , 2001 } July 21st, 10.30 AM, Bonn, Germany. An unusual atmosphere has descended upon the Münster Platz: hammer strokes, hundreds of multicoloured paint brushes busy at work, a sea of smiling people clothed in blue or as sailors, or fishes... and a background multilingual hum with faces from every corner of the world... What's going on? Once again, Friends of the Earth has come up with a spectacular idea to symbolise peoples' concern about climate change: more than 3000 activists gathered to build a colossal "Lifeboat" with small planks bearing their hand painted messages. The Lifeboat stood for public support for an effective climate treaty, calling on politicians to save the Kyoto Protocol whilst, inside the Bonn conference center of the UN Climate Talks (COP6bis), world leaders were busy trying to water it down. The Lifeboat symbolised the dangers we will face as a result of global warming such as, amongst them, sea level rises and more flooding, but .it was also a symbol of hope to rescue the Climate Talks. More than 2000 colorful messages on wooden planks showed the negotiators that a broad base of global civil society demands real action on climate change: "Honour Kyoto", "Change politics ­ Not the climate!", "Texan Climate For All? No Thanks!", "We like it hot... but not that hot!". Many thousands of supporters who could not attend had also contributed photographs, drawing and letters. Activists from Friends of the Earth and other groups came by bus or train from more than 30 countries: UK, Denmark, Sweden, France, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic... The Baltic Countries' participants travelled for 3 days to come to this action. Activists from US, South America, Japan, Australia, Africa and Canada were also present. To the rhythm of a samba band, the 30-meter long `Lifeboat' sailed around the city of Bonn, finally positioned outside the UN conference centre on view to delegates during the final rounds of negotiations. The 4km parade was characterized by an entertaining atmosphere and by peaceful cooperation between police and protesters, in line with the FoEE campaign "Protest is a right ­ Violence is wrong!" (see previous FoEE Bulletin). Even the local police lent a hand when the boat got a puncture! *{ THE LIFEBOAT ARRIVES TO 1 SAVE UN CLIMATE TALKS! THE KYOTO PROTOCOL 1 SURVIVES GMO NEWS 2 `DITCHING THE NUCLEAR 4 DINOSAUR TREATY': NEW CAMPAIGN ON EUROATOM SALE OF THE CENTURY 4 THE 4TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE EIB INFORMATION POLICY ­ 6 THE NEVER ENDING STORY THE SUSTAINABLE 7 DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SDS) OF THE EU AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS MEDNET UPDATE ON THE 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME FOR THE EUROMEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP CONTENT THE LIFEBOAT ARRIVES TO SAVE UN CLIMATE TALKS! } At the conference site, Klaus Töpfer, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, came on the stage to thank all the participants and expressed his support for our action. It was then time to hoist the sail, and deliver our strong message to the negotiators inside the conference venue: "Don't Sink The World, Save The Climate Treaty". A historic agreement was finally reached by negotiators two days after Friends of the Earth's action, certainly the sight of the Lifeboat served as a reminder to all present in the UN talks that failure in Bonn would be unacceptable (see following article from Kate Hampton about the agreement). ... And what happened to the Lifeboat after the action? Some of the planks went to two museums in Germany. Several of the planks were presented to the German Environment Ministry. The rest were given (together with the wood of the superstructure) to a youth project in Bonn, the planks will be used to decorate their barns and huts. The messages thus will be visible for the coming years. *{ Contact: Céline Bernard, FoEE Event manager/ Administrative assistant celine.bernard@foeeurope.org http://www.foeeurope.org/lifeboat/built/ index.htm } After months of headlines proclaiming the Kyoto Protocol dead, many climate negotiators and environmentalists arrived in Bonn for the resumed COP 6 in mid-July feeling understandably depressed. Despite the gloomy start, the mood a week later was little short of triumphant. The political agreement reached at Bonn weakened the original Kyoto targets, yet was heralded as a major victory for environmental rule making. So, Kyoto is not dead. But why does the seemingly weak Bonn deal matter so much? *partie=titre The Evolution of Enforcement *partie=nil The original climate treaty signed in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), had an emissions target. However, the FCCC lacked individual targets for which nations could be held accountable, and incentives for action. Above all, it lacked an enforcement mechanism. All the Convention really provided was a basis for further international cooperation, with emissions targets viewed by many countries as simply something to aspire to. *partie=titre THE KYOTO PROTOCOL SURVIVES Battered, Bruised, but Still Important *partie=nil By contrast, the Kyoto targets are enforceable. If a country fails to comply with its 20082012 emissions target, it will be penalized in the next commitment period by 1.3 tonnes for every tonne by which the original target was exceeded. On the assumption that everyone wants to remain part of the system, and that targets for the next commitment period are negotiated before the beginning of the current commitment period, this system can work reasonably well. In addition, countries in non-compliance must produce a plan explaining how they will meet their new targets. All this will occur under the supervision of the Enforcement Branch of the Compliance Committee, which will have relatively strong Southern government participation. It may not sound watertight, but it's the best compliance regime ever attached to a multilateral environment agreement. *partie=titre No More Business As Usual *partie=nil While falling far short of what is needed, the Bonn deal on Kyoto is a significant improvement on the business-as-usual emissions trajectory of several countries, including Japan. Action in the form of climate policies and measures must be undertaken in order to meet the Kyoto targets. Furthermore, with a limit placed on the amount of emissions entering the atmosphere, there is now a politically negotiated price for carbon in industrialized countries. Loopholes Too Large Unfortunately, many nations may still avoid domestic emissions reductions by taking advantage of unlimited international emissions trading, reduction projects for developing countries and tree-planting initiatives. *partie=titre Bush Left Out in the Cold *partie=nil Yet the Bonn agreement spells the end of voluntary action as a legitimate approach to regulating the global commons. Furthermore, the US was clearly isolated despite its best efforts to exert pressure on key countries. One hundred and seventy eight countries agreed that mandatory targets are the only way forward. Final plenary speeches attended by ministers focused on the triumph of international cooperation over unilateralism; the US delegate's speech was met with silent disapproval on the conference floor and booing from the balcony. *partie=titre Southern Aid Package Insufficient *partie=nil However, negotiations yielded only a weak financial package to assist developing countries meet their adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building needs. The US refused to participate. Thus the sum promised by the North was a voluntary contribution of approximately $0.5 billion annually. Japan remains reticent about contributing new funds. *{ Contact: Kate Hampton, FoE EWNI, FoEI Climate Change Campaign Coordinator } The European Commission has invited Member States to a meeting in Brussels on 16th October 2001 to discuss the `de facto' moratorium on approvals of GMOs. The Commission suggests re-launching GMO approvals by applying the key provisions of the revised directive on the release of GMOs in the environment (2001/ 18/EC), as well as the key provisions of the Commission's recent proposals on Traceability/ Labelling of GMOs and GM Food/Feed, before any of these new laws come into force. The Commission's strategy, outlined in a Working Paper, is to request biotech companies to accept the new requirements on the basis of `voluntary agreements'. This attempt to lift the moratorium is similar to a proposal already adopted by the Commission in July 2000. At that time, Commissioners Byrne (Consumer Affairs) and Wallström (Environment) proposed to Member States "a strategy to regain public trust in the approval procedure for Genetically Modified Organisms" with the objective of resuming the authorisation process in the near future. The Commission proposed to apply the main provisions of the revised deliberate release directive to all new GMO approvals after agreement on its content had been reached between the Council and the European Parliament. In that respect, the difference with this initiative is that the Commission proposes restarting GMO approvals before the European Parliament and the Member States have even reached agreement on the proposed Regulations for Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed. *partie=titre The new initiative *partie=nil The "Working Paper of DG-Environment and DG-Health and Consumer Protection ­ Resumption of the Authorisation Procedure for GMOs" therefore proposes to lift the current de facto moratorium on GMO approvals, based on `voluntary commitments' by biotech companies that they will promise to adhere to: · the new rules of the deliberate release directive (not yet in force) and · the Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed Regulations (not yet even debated by the European Parliament). The Commission says that it has "met its commitments in terms of the measures demanded by Member States as a pre-requisite for the authorisation of new GMOs". Furthermore, it believes that applications to market GMOs which contain `voluntary commitments' in line with the above should be considered for authorisation and "maintains its objective to restart the authorisation procedure for pending products". This move by the Commission is rather surprising since a Commission official was quoted in the press, following the recent Informal Agriculture Council, as saying that: "one cannot envisage lifting the moratorium before the EU has a sound legal basis on authorisation of dissemination and marketing of GMOs" (i.e. not before 17th October 2002, the date when Directive 2001/18/EC will become law). Furthermore, when EU Commissioners Byrne and Wallström presented the Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed proposals on 25th July, Mrs. Wallström was specifically questioned about the moratorium and demurred, saying that it was premature to talk about lifting the moratorium since the Commission was involved in a "confidence-building exercise". The revival of the voluntary `gentlemen's agreements' with industry initiative, however, is an unwelcome but not unexpected move as far as NGOs are concerned since it was likely to get pulled out of the drawer at some stage given the pressure from biotech companies and the US administration. *partie=titre Unworkable and an unwarranted concession to the biotech industry *partie=nil Some of the measures suggested in the Commission's Working Paper are frankly ludicrous. For example, "until the Proposal on traceability and labelling of GMOs and the Proposal on GM food and feed have been adopted by Council and the European Parliament and enter into force, Member States are responsible for ensuring labelling and traceability of GMOs". In other words, until the Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed Regulations become law ­ probably sometime in the first half of 2003 ­ Member States are supposed to manage as best they can with the complicated procedure of ensuring traceability and labelling of GMOs! Also, the Commission proposes, as a first step in kickstarting the GMO approval process again, to put back on the table 3 applications which have consistently failed to gain Member States' approval, one of which is a GM fodder beet resistant to Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp. This beet also contains an antibiotic-marker gene conferring resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin, whereas the new deliberate release directive says that GMOs containing ABR genes must be phased out by 2004! FoE Europe and member groups in the EU issued a press release on 5th October denouncing the Commission's initiative. It is actually highly unlikely that it will gain the support of a majority of Member States anyway, in particular that of the countries supporting the moratorium. *partie=titre GMO NEWS COMMISSION MOVES TO LIFT GMO MORATORIUM *partie=nil The Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers in Alden Biesen on 18th September demonstrated that Member States are still divided over the question of lifting the GMO moratorium. Even if, generally speaking, the Ministers welcomed the new Commission proposals for EU Regulations on Traceability/Labelling of GMOs and GM Food/Feed, many remain sceptical. In addition to those countries which have been supporting the moratorium over the past months - Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg - it appeared from articles in the press that Germany is also leaning towards the moratorium position, judging by the reticence of Green Agriculture Minister Renate Künast. *partie=titre The pro-GMO agenda *partie=nil Back in spring this year, before Belgium assumed the Presidency of the European Union (on July 1st), the then Belgian Agriculture Minister Jaak Gabriëls made some very proGMO statements during and after a visit to the United States. Among other things, he announced that he would use the Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers to re-open the debate on GMOs with the aim of softening the current EU approach. His speeches and comments were widely reported in the media and Belgian NGOs reacted furiously. They formed a coalition denouncing Gabriëls' position in a press release as completely unrepresentative of Belgian citizens, and accused him of brushing aside health and environmental concerns in the interests of profit-seeking trans-national corporations. Within days of Belgium taking over the Presidency, Jaak Gabriëls was removed from his post (no real explanation was ever given) and his responsibilities were transferred to another minister, Annemie Neyts, until the end of 2001. Nevertheless, the agenda for Alden Biesen was already set as up Mr. Gabriëls had planned it - the Informal Council would be entirely devoted to two topics ­ GMOs for the most part, and biofuels. As part of this agenda, the EU Agriculture Ministers would hear presentations from four worldwide experts on GMOs. Again, the Belgian NGOs reacted furiously - in a joint media release they condemned the fact that, in light of all the other problems facing agriculture, the Council would be devoted entirely to propaganda about agricultural biotechnology. The invited experts, they said, were representative only of those who vigorously defend the questionable applications of genetic engineering, for example Professor Chen, "the most emminent defender of genetic engineering in China" and Professor Dale "director of an institute funded by, among others, by Zeneca, Dupont and AgrEvo". The Belgian Presidency, they said, had failed to use the Council as an occasion to address the real problems of sustainable agriculture at a time when the industry was in crisis following a succession of serious problems, and when consumer confidence in food production was at an all time low. In the end, the Council of Alden Biesen turned out to be a bit of a non-event rather than the well-planned push for GMOs that it was designed to be by Mr. Gabriëls. Following the terrorist attacks in the United States just a few days previously, thoughts and minds were focussed on those events. Not even all the EU Agriculture Ministers (e.g. Jean Glavany of France) turned up for the meeting and part of the agenda was cancelled. The NGOs also cancelled any demonstrations and actions they had planned around the event. *{ (For more information on this item, see FoEE Biotech Mailout, Volume 7, Issue 5, 1.10.2001, available on www.foeeurope.org/ biotechnology/vol7no5.pdf) } *partie=titre Regulations on Tracelability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed *partie=nil As reported in the last FoEE Bulletin, on July 25th the Commission finally tabled its proposals for future EU Regulations on Traceability/Labelling of GMOs and GM Food/Feed. The first is designed to ensure that GMOs can be traced throughout the food chain `from farm to fork' and labelled appropriately; the second is an authorisation procedure for approving GMOs to be allowed as food and feed. *partie=titre NGOs gain ground *partie=nil During the months and weeks preceding the finalisation of these proposals, it appeared that some very dangerous concessions were going to be made, i.e. that contamination by GMOs approved in third countries would be allowed (bearing in mind that some 50 GM crops are authorised in the US and Canada), and that contamination from experimental crops (i.e. only approved for testing but not for market release) would also be tolerated. In the end, however, some intensive work by environmental and consumer groups paid off and neither is included in the final proposals. On the positive side, there are some good developments : the notion of `substantial equivalence' between and GM and non-GM food has been disgarded as a means of getting fasttrack approval, and labelling will no longer be based on whether a GMO can be detected in the final product, e.g. a vegetable oil. GMO contamination will be tolerated On the negative side, however, contamination will be tolerated for those GMOs that are pending approval in the EU against the deliberate release directive. The threshold for such contamination is set at a maximum of 1% and it should be `adventitious' or `technically unavoidable'. The Commission's justification for this is that some contamination, for example through pollen transfer or comingling after harvest is inevitable, and that the pending products (of which there are 13) have all received positive assessment from the EU's Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP) and are, therefore, `safe'. NGOs like FoE are obviously thoroughly opposed to this `licence to pollute' and have accused the Commission of making concessions to the biotech industry which cannot keep its own house in order by preventing GMO contamination. Rather than legislating on how to accommodate contamination, the Commission should be addressing the problem of how to ensure it doesn't happen the NGOs say. Also, the fact that the SCP's opinion appears to be what counts, more than that of the Member States, has been described as undemocratic and a travesty of the EU authorisation procedure which requires a majority of MS to vote in favour. *partie=titre What happens next? *partie=nil Now the European Parliament has to debate and amend the two proposals. It has just named the two rapporteurs ­ one an Austrian Socialist and the other a Greek conservative. No date has yet been set for the discussions to start in the Environment Committee. Environmental and consumer groups have their work cut out during the next 12-15 months to defend what has been gained in the proposals and to strive to improve them further by, for example, reducing the contamination thresholds for unauthorised GMOs as described above. *partie=titre The Informal Agriculture Council *partie=nil The animal feed industry not only backs GM crops unreservedly, but it also wants (unbelievably) to get meat-and-bone meal back on the menu for farm animals. So said Robert Gilbert, secretary general of the International Feed Industry Federation in an interview with Dow Jones Commodities Services (25.09.2001). "Genetically modified cereals, oilseeds and other forms of raw materials are completely safe", Gilbert said. "Here in Europe we have got to do whatever it takes to get meat-and-bone meal accepted back into livestock rations" he went on. "We see meat-and-bone meal as a very valuable protein source. It's one of the key protein sources we have, and we have to do everything we can to protect its continued use in those countries that are still using it". (He did at least qualify his statements by saying that MBM should only come from human food grade animals and not from fallen, diseased or unfit-for-human-consumption animals). Meat-and-bone meal has been banned by the European Union since the beginning of 2001 in recognition of its link to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). European consumers and farmers are unlikely to share Mr. Gilbert's view, as are officials in Member States and in the EU. Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler announced earlier this year that he would be looking at ways to take farmland out of `set aside' (required under the Blair House Agreement between the United States and the EU which limits oilseed production in the Union) in order to allow farmers to grow more protein fodder crops for livestock such as peas, lupins, etc. Other measures, such as limiting the number of animals per farm are also under review. *{ Contact: Gill Lacroix, FoEE Biotechnology Coordinator, gill.lacroix@foeeurope.org www.foeeurope.org/biotechnology/ about.htm & www.foeeurope.org/ } Halt-GMO-Pollution/index.htm The `Safer Energy For Europe' Campaign is gathering momentum with a special focus on the new EURATOM campaign. Whilst waiting for the European Commission to table a proposal for new EURATOM money, Friends of the Earth Europe has identified two key points to campaign on: The very persistance of EURATOM as such, to show how anachronistic it is and so to contest its usefulness. We want to stop all new money for EURATOM, targeting the EU Commission and ECOFIN. EU member states should put this relic of a Treaty into the museums where it belongs. Stop the building of the planned Cernavoda II nuclear power plant in Romania. The only way to change an EU Treaty is through the Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) process. We lobby for EURATOM to be on the agenda of the next IGC in 2004; the 15 member states are already preparing and discussing which elements of the EU pie are in need of reform. The second focus is the planned Cernavoda II plant in Romania. This is EURATOM's only project in the pipeline, which makes it a very concrete campaign target. EURATOM and Italy both push politically for the project and seek to secure the financing. The plant itself is completely unnecessary for Romania: the electricity would be produced solely for export to the EU. So-called `joined-up governance' may be a buzz phrase but it is far from the reality of the EU's conflicting policies with regards to sustainability and energy supply. Whilst the EU on the one hand has adopted the Renewables Directive that aims to achieve 12% renewable energy supply by 2010, the nuclear promotion mechanism EURATOM does everything in its power to increase the share of nuclear power in Romania, an EU accession country. The EU ­ Russia Energy Dialogue further presents a picture of `ecological dumping'; efforts to green Europe's internal energy supply marred by EU support for dirty external supply. FoEE's current activities involve gathering information for a background paper on Cernavoda II. Moreover, press conferences will be arranged in several EU countries over the next two months to build an efficient NGO network and media awarenesss against EURATOM both on the European and the national level. This new network has already taken root in Germany and Italy: it is hoped that many more will join the Anti ­ EURATOM coalition. Many more groups have expressed an interest, so the campaign is really taking-off. Please contact FoEE (energy campaigner: patricia.lorenz@foeeurope.org) if you want to join or you know someone who would like to find out more and contribute to a nuclear-free Europe. *{ Contact: Patricia Lorenz, FoEE, Anti-Nuclear Coordinator, patricia.lorenz@foeeurope.org } *partie=titre `DITCHING THE NUCLEAR DINOSAUR TREATY': NEW CAMPAIGN ON EURATOM *partie=nil On11thSeptember the Financial Times featured as headline news the `Fair Trade Flotilla' planned to set sail for the Gulf State of Qatar, the host of the next WTO Ministerial. This was a boat project coorganised by Friends of the Earth International, Via Campesina, the International Forum on Globalisation, Public Citizen, Oxfam International, Focus on the Global South and the World Forum of Fisherpeople. The terrorist attacks in the US on that same day changed everything. It was soon clear that the international political situation was altering at a rapid pace, with severe and unpredictable consequences for the global economy. The emergence of a tentative international political coalition against terrorism, new security threats and a potential worldwide economic downturn all amount to the need for a major re-think and readjustment for all who are political active, including the Trade, Environment and Sustainability (TES) Programme at Friends of the Earth. While Trade Commissioner Lamy and US trade representative Zoellick were fast to argue that terrorism should be countered with trade liberalisation and a new trade round to be launched in Qatar, FoEI's vision and understanding of what is needed for the present situation with regards to the WTO agenda look very different. For the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference ­ that as the Bulletin went to press was still set to be held from 9-13 November - FoE is calling for an evaluation of the impact of existing trade rules on poor local communities and ecological sustainability, a fundamental reorientation and reformulation of the rules and regulations governing world trade in order to promote social justice, equitable development, and environmental sustainability, the cessation of any proposals to expand the scope and power of WTO rules and for food and agriculture to be removed from the jurisdiction of the WTO and subjected to a new and alternative multilateral forum under the auspices of the United Nations. In addition, there are a number of steps required to be taken outside of the WTO including the nullification of bilateral and multilateral debt for all developing countries by the year 2002. *partie=titre SALE OF THE CENTURY? THE 4TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE Animal Feed - Will They Ever Learn? *partie=nil On 22nd September FoEE presented its policy paper to the European Commission criticizing how the EU still sticks to its pre-Seattle mandate and appears to have ignored concerns raised by people all over the world about the EU's new round agenda. FoEE called on the EU to take the lead in calling for fundamental change to the world's trading system, in line with its own sustainable development and human rights objectives. *partie=titre WTO draft declaration: a FOE critique *partie=nil In the meantime, a 7-page draft WTO declaration was released by the chair of the WTO General Council on 26th September. The declaration which is supposed to be adopted at the next Ministerial is currently being fleshed out at preparatory meetings in Geneva. These are some of the major concerns from the FoE perspective: 1) Assessment of the Uruguay Round Agreements: The draft text makes no mention of the call by civil society and many developing countries for a full assessment of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the Uruguay Round Agreements. Even worse, the draft text assumes the benefits of trade liberalisation promised by Uruguay Round agreements have been realised and spread widely and equitable among all countries and that there is thus a need to maintain further trade liberalisation per se. 2) Investment, competition and government procurement: The draft WTO Ministerial declaration that was released on 26th September incorporates two options for investment, competition, government procurement and trade facilitation as 1) either negotiating areas to be included in the post 4th WTO Ministerial Work Programme or 2) areas of further study work. Many developing countries and civil society groups continue to oppose the inclusion of these new issues. Under pressure from corporate lobby groups, the EU remains the strongest advocate of a scaled down version of multilateral rules on investment and competition. FOE continues to oppose these issues given the likely negative impacts. We need a binding regulations on TNCs in the form of a multilateral corporate accountability mechanism under the UN - certainly further deregulatory efforts would worsen the current imbalances and democratic deficit of corporate-led globalisation. The plurilateral agreement on public procurement could become a fully integrated WTO agreement. This could further limit the possibilities for local authorities to promote environmentally/socially friendly contracting of goods and services. 3) Relationships with other Organisations: The preambular text seeks to limit inter-institutional cooperation to that with the IMF and World Bank. United Nations Programmes and Organisations such as UNEP, UNDP or UNCTAD are not listed. On the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and trade rules, the Committee on Trade and Environment, according to FOE a talkshop with no results, is instructed to conduct further studies ad infinitum. 4) Environment: Given that trade and environment issues such as the WTO's problematic approach to the precautionary principle, ecolabelling and the relationship of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and trade rules continue to be hotly contested among the 142 WTO membership, it is not surprising that the environment language is very weak. Under pressure from civil society, various member states and parliamentarians the European Commission openly maintains a strong stance on the environment. Disappointed by the first draft declaration that was too weak on environment, animal welfare and food security, the EC tabled on 8th October a new paper that outlines two options for the declaration: 1) outlining negotiations on clarifying existing WTO rules under the ineffective Committee on Trade and Environment or 2) a deeper set of negotiations that includes references to precaution, multilateral environmental agreements and the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the TRIPS agreement. EC chief trade negotiator Peter Carl mentioned that environment is a quid pro quo a `deal breaker' - with regards to the developing countries' demand of other groupings, such as the EU, to eliminate export subsidies. 5) Agriculture: Apart from the new issues and environment, agriculture is the most controversial area from the European perspective. While the first draft declaration did not flesh out a text yet in agriculture, the chair of the WTO General Council has in the meantime tabled a draft text on 8 October. The EC and the Cairns Groups of agriculture exporting countries expressed reservations about the text. The draft text commits members to `reductions of, with a view of phasing out, all forms of export subsidies and substantial reduction in domestic support'. While the EC objects to the wording `phasing out' and argues that the use of export credits to agribusiness also needs to be targeted, a further point of criticism was the insufficient mentioning of non-trade concerns, food security, animal welfare and environment. 6) TRIPS: While a separate declaration on the issue of access to medicines is likely to be adopted at the Ministerial, the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the TRIPS agreements is supposed to be addressed in the TRIPS Council. Most importantly, although unsurprising, the need to ban the patenting of all life forms, the protection of traditional and indigenous knowledge and the right to regulate in pursuit of national health, safety or environmental protection policy objectives is not mentioned. The draft text's statement on `keeping the TRIPS agreement abreast of new technological and other developments' leaves the door open for the introduction of biotech products as commodities subject to TRIPS rules. 7) Services: As GATS negotiations continue independently as part of the built in agenda of already committed negotiations, the declaration welcomes the high amount of proposals being submitted by WTO members. At the last session of the Services Council proposals on energy and environmental services were addressed. At the moment, the EC advocates that the trade in nuclear energy services be left outside the realm of the WTO, but supports a string focus on trade in fossil fuels. On water, the EC advocates the inclusion of the collection and distribution of water services under WTO jurisprudence. 8) Implementation: The draft provides unclear and non-committal text with respect to the concerns of developing countries. Language referring to trade, debt and finance, transfer of technology and capacity building, least developed countries and small economies all basically do not specify the conduct of negotiations on binding commitments from WTO members. In general, unbalances and negative impacts of the Uruguay Round agreements are not acknowledged and there is nothing concrete in the proposal to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable and economically equitable. FoEE speaks at ATTAC Congress, Berlin FoEE presents reply to the open letter to the anti globalisation movement of Prime Minister Verhofstadt at the international conference on globalisation, Gent Week of actions around the WTO Ministerial, for a full list contact *{ alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org } FoEE at WTO Ministerial Conference, Qatar (to be confirmed) FoEE speaks at Conference on Globalisation and Sustainable Development, Gent Seattle to Brussels Network Strategy Meeting, Brussels, organised by FoEE *{ 20-21 October: 30 October: 3-13 November: 9-13 November: 21 November: 12-13 December: } *partie=titre UPCOMING FOEE TRADE RELATED EVENTS: *partie=nil 9) Democracy and Institutional Reform: The treatment of transparency and democracy issues is completely unsatisfactory in the draft text. A coalition of groups including FOEI, Oxfam, WWF, CIEL, IATP and Actionaid have published an open letter calling for a decision by Ministers at the Ministerial Conference to instruct the General Council at its first meeting to develop a comprehensive work programme on institutional reform, covering both internal issues (capacity building, meetings, decisionmaking, reform of dispute settlement measures) and external issues (NGO accreditation, cooperation mechanism with IGOs, parliamentary oversight, national consultation guidelines.) 10) NGO events around the WTO Ministerial While the NGO flotilla was put on hold due to security concerns, NGOs will hold public events whether or not the Ministerial will be held from 9-13 November. One example is the Trade Justice Carnival on 3 November: FoE EWNI are one of the organisers and, FoE Netherlands, FoE Switzerland and the FoEI and FoEE secretariats will participate. In addition, if the Ministerial is pushed through FOEE will be represented both in terms of advocacy and media work. In Beirut, the World Forum on the WTO will be held as part of the international `Our World is Not for Sale' Coalition. For more information see *{ http://www.worldforum2001.org } For the FoEI's position paper for the WTO Ministerial, the `Sale of the Century? The 4th WTO Ministerial Conference Series, the FoEI statement on the 4th's WTO Ministerial Declaration and up to date information check *{ www.foeeurope.org/trade/ about.htm } NEW: What is wrong with the WTO? Brochure available from the FoEE office. *{ Contact: Alexandra Wandel, FoEE Trade and Sustainability Coordinator alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org, } The European Investment Bank (EIB) is still going through the agonizingly slow process of revising its information policy. This has now lasted for more than a year and little has been concretely achieved aside from vague pledges. In June this year, the Bank organised a meeting with NGOs to discuss the issue. FoE, CEE Bankwatch, WWF and others presented their input to the process and the policy itself, these comments can found at *{ www.bankwatch.org. } The meeting was followed by a letter to President Maystadt outlining the key issues. A full copy of the EIB's response to the NGO input is available on request, but it makes for depressing reading. The Bank likes to flaunt its "flexible" and "pragmatic" approach, unfortunately in reality this translates into the EIB's refusal to consider most of the NGOs' suggestions; such as interested civil society groups being able to obtain a comprehensive draft of the new info policy or information about the timeframe for when it might be adopted by the EIB Board. At the same time, an "everything but" policy brings about the situation whereby a project promoter, usually a private company, can decide what any affected citizens are and are not allowed to know about the projects in their communities. At present it appears likely that the EIB wants to continue its vague approach and outright reject any binding and concrete guidelines for access to information. *partie=titre Do EU citizens really want to finance increased pollution in Bulgaria? *partie=nil EU pre-accession funds have to change their policy and objectives in the area of waste management. As a part of the `Billions for Sustainability? 'project, coordinated by FoEE and the CEE Bankwatch Network, our Bulgarian partner group sent an open letter to the Director of the ISPA1 program and the Commissioners from DG Environment, Enlargement and Regional Policy demanding a change in the objectives and policy of financing projects in the area of waste management in Bulgaria. The letter was supported by 74 non governmental organizations from 28 countries. The appeal arose due to plans for the construction of a National Center for Hazardous Waste Treatment in Bulgaria, which is an applicant for ISPA funding. The project utilizes incineration as a method for treatment of hazardous waste. In Bulgaria there are still many opportunities that need to be acted upon for changing production and energy generation processes so that they are cleaner and result in less waste. This is what the accession countries need the EU money for, not to build an incinerator plant. Projects implemented under the Enlargement process need to heed lessons already learned, not repeat past mistakes. NGOs, supported by 408 residents from the affected region, criticized the incineration project for three key reasons: 1. the project gives priority to waste incineration, 2. public participation in the projects until now, under the feasibility study financed by PHARE, has been minimal, 3. studies on the health risks and the dioxin contamination of the environment and people have not been conducted in Bulgaria. The construction of a waste incineration plant - without a well-developed infrastructure of municipal services and adequate systems of hazardous waste monitoring - can only contribute to an abandonment of actions aimed at waste reduction at the source, while hampering proper development of services connected with the recovery of secondary raw materials. Moreover, waste incineration technologies will not contribute to environmental improvement, as they themselves are a big source of emissions of persistent organic pollutants and other toxic substances. Monitoring the pre-accession funds in 8 CEE countries, we can witness over and over again that the current set up of EU aid for accession is not at all promoting environmentally sustainable solutions, even under ISPA, which supposedly deals with environment itself. The current model for these countries is a trap, a status quo that leaves little room to accommodate future EU developments acknowledged in the 6th Environmental Action Program or the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development. The signatories of the letter demand that the ISPA program change its policy objectives in the area of waste management in Bulgaria, as well as in other EU candidate countries which may apply for similar projects. ISPA should support projects aimed at preventing waste generation at the source and using waste treatment technologies which are environmentally safe and can be an alternative to incineration. Ultimately, the participation of local communities and non-governmental organizations at all stages of project planning and implementation has to be a precondition for ISPA funds allocation. We are waiting for a response. See also Billions for Sustainability? Second Briefing, *{ www.foeeurope.org } *{ Contact: Magda Stoczkiewicz, Accession project coordinator CEE Bankwatch Network FoEE magdas@foeeurope.org www.foeeurope.org } 1 ISPA - Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-accession Aid, EU financial mechanism for sectors of transport and environment. EIB INFORMATION POLICY ­ THE NEVER ENDING STORY InJune 2001 the European Council agreed on the so-called `SDS', a strategy for sustainable development with four priority areas: climate change, transport, public health and natural resources. These issues are to complement the social and economic aspects of sustainable development, which are being dealt with in the so-called "Lisbon process" of Spring Summits. The Gothenburg European Council asked the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the SDS in its annual synthesis report during the Spring Council, on the basis of a number of headline indicators, to be agreed by the Council in time for use at the European Summit in Barcelona, March 2002. In the framework of the Lisbon process, started in 2000, the Commission had already produced 35 so-called `Structural Indicators' for use in synthesis reports. These cover the issues of employment, innovation, economic reform and social cohesion. The Lisbon process has the potential to become a high level driving force for sustainable development, but it is crucial to clearly define the environmental objectives and timetables to which all EU policies must contribute, and to define the appropriate indicators for monitoring future trends. Under the current Belgian Presidency, the attention as regards sustainable development is put very much on the preparation of the `environmental headline indicators', which are intended to cover the third dimension of the SDS, and must be prepared for approval by the December 2001 Laeken Summit. In general terms, the set of `environmental headline indicators' should be composed by a relatively small number of key indicators that have clear political and public interest. It should cover a mix of clear environmental and biodiversity objectives, as well as sectoral objectives, in order to steer the process of change required. Until now the Commission has organized a discussion meeting, to which NGOs were invited, where a set of six headline indicators for the environmental dimension were proposed. For various reasons the NGOs present at the meeting did not agree with the Commission's approach. First, the number foreseen for the environmental component is too restricted to permit the covering of essential environmental issues for sustainable development; moreover the balance is not in relation to the 35 structural indicators for social and economic issues. Furthermore that the scope of the proposed indicators also addresses the other dimensions, whilst this is not the case for the 35 structural ones. These proposed environmental indicators are simply taken over from "Lisbon", which had a relatively short-term horizon and rather specific and limited goals. In view of this, it is questionable whether these really relate to sustainability. At present, NGOs have identified a double marginalisation of the environmental dimension in the proposed set of indicators that are intended to assess yearly EU progress towards sustainable development. Therefore the European Environment Bureau (EEB), Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE), and Friends of Nature International (FNI) reacted with a letter and position paper, addressed to the Ministers for Environment and senior officials in the Ministries. This was done in view of influencing further discussion between the EU Environment Ministries and the Commission on 8th of October, in the so-called Environmental Policy Review Group, as well as in an expert group meeting on the 10th. (See *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/press/09.10.01_NGOs_ call.htm) } *partie=titre THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SDS) OF THE EU AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS *partie=nil ( 1 ) Total CO2 and five other greenhouse gas emissions (CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) ( 2 ) CO2 and two other greenhouse gas emissions (CH4, N2O). % of green energy in total energy consumption Total passenger- and ton-kilometres travelled, related to: - GDP or - total energy use by transport sector ( 1 ) An index of used hazardous substances weighted according to human and eco-toxicity (has yet to be developed) ( 2 ) % of the OSPAR chemicals still on the European market for unknown or open system application. ( 1 ) Emissions of 5 pollutants (SOx, NOx, NH3, VOCs, Particulate Matter) ( 2 ) emissions of 4 pollutants (as long as data for Particulate Matter are incomplete) ( 1 ) Biodiversity index based on genetic and habitat variety (has yet to be developed) ( 2 ) % of original indigenous species extinct or under threat ( 1 ) Pesticides usage (active ingredients weighted according to human and eco toxicity) ( 2 ) treatment frequency excluding those pesticides agreed for organic farming methods Amount of built-up areas compared to total area. (Including total area used by the EU outside EU) ( 1 ) Total material use (Total Material Requirement) and waste production incl. percentage of reused or recycled material. ( 2 ) waste production with recycling percentages Percentage of all water bodies reaching the good/high status or in the case of heavily modified or artificial water bodies good/maximum ecological potential and good chemical status as defined in the Water Framework Directive Climate change: Energy sector: Transport: Chemicals: Air Quality: Biodiversity: Agricultural sector: Land Use: Material use: Water Quality: Climate Transport Public Health Natural Resources Table 1. The environmental headline indicators - If the proposed 'ideal' indicator is not available an interim indicator is proposed under ( 2 ): *{ This Bulletin is available on our web site: www.foeeurope.org/publications To register or send us comments, please contact info@foeeurope.org You are welcome to redistribute this Bulletin and copy articles on condition that the source is acknowledged } *{ Friends of the Earth Europe Rue Blanche, 29 B-1060 Brussels BELGIUM Tel: 32-2 542 01 80, Fax: 32-2 537 55 96, e-mail: info@foeeurope.org web: www.foeeurope.org } The NGO position paper proposed 10 indicators for discussion organized according to the 4 central topics of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy: climate, transport, natural resources and health and environment. For each issue there is a proposed `ideal' indicator, and in case of a temporary lack of the required data or scientific knowledge, a proposed interim indicator, which we consider being a good alternative in the meantime. The objective of the proposed set is to combine environmental quality with sectoral policies, and to put them in a framework of targets and timetables. The core of the position paper is still based on the `Ten benchmarks for environmental policy integration', published in 1999 by the EEB, while some changes were made in order to adapt the paper to recent developments. The 10 headline indicators proposed by the NGOs are listed in table 1. (For timetables and targets or further details see *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/indicators_for.htm) } Friends of the Earth ensured that `Total Material Requirement' was proposed as an indicator for natural resources use, an indicator to monitor material flows, and so assess the efficiency of resource use. This choice would be an important tool to assess the reduction of total resource use in Europe, a crucial precondition to move towards sustainable development. (See FoEE's background work on this issue during the project `Sustainable Europe', see *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/press/ integration.htm) } The next step for the NGO input to the indicators process will be to take part in the discussion after the outcome of 8th and 10th of October meetings is known, and so once the Commission has presented its proposal. The `environmental headline indicators' must be recognized as a major element to any comprehensive debate on sustainable development. The environmental dimension must be strongly represented at Barcelona in order communicate that going from "Lisbon" via "Gothenburg" to "Barcelona" will involve a real shift in priority setting, not just adding some indicators to an otherwise unchanged policy approach. Accordingly, the number and nature of the indicators accorded to the environmental dimension should reflect this new balance ­ enabling the spring summits to sincerely address the major issues of sustainable development for the EU. In that context it is also interesting, but hopefully not significant, to note that the Commission had intended to present its proposals officially the day after the October Environment Council (meeting of the EU environmental ministers), so that this Council would only have been able to discuss any proposals at its December meeting, immediately before the Laeken Summit. The NGOs had expressed their concern about this in their letter and position paper, and had called for stronger involvement of the Environment Council, which should play a major role in making the 'Lisbon process' compatible with the environmental objectives and requirements as discussed in Gothenburg this June. Following the latest information, the 'environmental headline indicator' issue has since then been added to the preliminary agenda of the Environmental Council of October 29th. *{ Contact: Martin Rocholl, Director and Frederic Thoma, Project Coordinator martin.rocholl@foeeurope.org frederic.thoma@foeeurope.org } The Short and Medium-Term Priority Environmental Action Programme for the Euro Mediterranean Partnership was adopted in November 1997 as a framework to give practical expression to the Euro Mediterranean Partnership in the field of the environment. It constitutes an operational tool and forms the common basis for environmental purposes, at national and regional levels, as regards both policy orientation and funding in the Mediterranean region. In this context, the European Commission is currently preparing country profiles of the Euro Mediterranean partner countries of the South and East Mediterranean. The profiles will be based upon work carried out in the region by institutions such as the blue plan and Eurostat. Furthermore government officials charged with SMAP coordination ­ SMAP correspondents - will receive a questionnaire asking for additional information to complete the country profiles and to be used for the regional interim report which is expected to be ready for the second EuroMed ministerial on the environment in Athens in July 2002. The European Commission is also looking at ways of promoting closer interaction between different development fields and environmental ministries within the Euro Mediterranean partner countries, a key necessity to bring the Mediterranean a step in the right direction towards sustainable development. The MEDA committee approved the financial proposal for the SMAP 2000 regional projects in September, thus making available 30 million Euro for the SMAP financial instrument. 20 million Euro will be used in eight selected projects, a further 5 million Euro for a METAP project, 2.5 million Euro to strengthen the role of SMAP correspondents and finally 2.5 million Euro for the establishment of a monitoring unit to assist the Commission in implementing the environmental element of the Euro Mediterranean partnership. *{ Contact: Eugene Clancy, Friends of the Earth MedNet Coordinator, mednet@foeeurope.org } *partie=titre MEDNET UPDATE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME FOR THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP *partie=nil the first preparatory meeting for environmental ministerial. 4th SMAP correspondents meeting and second preparatory meeting for environmental ministerial. 2nd EuroMedministerial on the environment (including a forum of stakeholders on the first day). In the next six months the following important meetings will take place in the scope of the Euro Mediterranean partnership: *{ 19­20 February 2002, Malta: 23­25 April 2002, Brussels: 4­4 or 8­10 July 2002, Athens: }