*{  BULLETIN Friends of the Ear th Europe

 March, 2002

 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY        1 GMOS: THE POLLUTER DOES  NOT PAY!

ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY: 2 NUCLEAR DOES NOT PAY!

GMO CONTAMINATION              3 `PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE' IS  NOT POSSIBLE`

EIB: NO REFORM ­               3 NO MONEY!

WINDS OF CHANGE                4 FROM THE EAST

EURO-MED FREE TRADE            5 ZONE WATCH UPDATE VALENCIA: 6 EUROPEAN COMMISSION  HIGHLIGHTS NEED FOR  ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRATION STRATEGIES  FOR EURO-MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP

MEDITERRANEAN 6 ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS ARE  SET TO INCREASE THEIR  INFLUENCE WITHIN THE  EUROMED PARTNERSHIP

THE BARCELONA EUROPEAN  7 COUNCIL MEETING:  MORE EUROPE OR LESS ENVIRONMENT? CONTENT }

 *partie=titre ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY GMOs: The polluter does not pay! *partie=nil 

Liability for damage caused by the release of genetically modified organisms GMOs) is not covered in any EU legislation.  At the time of the revision of the Deliberate Release Directive (90/220/EEC repealed by 2001/18/EC), the European Commission argued energetically (as did the biotech industry) to prevent liability for GMO producers being included, promising that the issue would be covered in forthcoming horizontal legislation. When the Commission finally presented (on 23.01.2002) its long-awaited Proposal for a Directive on Environmental Liability, however, those assurances were shown to be little more than empty words. The text, which has been unanimously condemned by environmental NGOs, is so weak and full of loop-holes that GMO producers and operators could escape liability in a majority of cases.

Fundamentally flawed The Commission's Proposal (COM2002) 21) is fundamentally flawed on a number of key issues:

The definition of biodiversity, which is limited to include only sites and species protected under the EU's Habitats Directive and Birds Directive (plus anything covered by under national legislation in the Member States, e.g. national parks).  Under this definition, it is estimated that the directive will apply to only 13% of the EU's territory and will be irrelevant to the remaining 87%.  This is clearly unacceptable since most activities concerning GMOs, e.g. planting, growing and handling GM crops, would take place outside the scope of the Directive. Exemptions are foreseen in the draft Directive that would let GMO producers and operators off the hook for any damage to the environment (or human/animal health - see below).   According to the

 Commission, liability is precluded for any events or activities which have been authorised or which were not considered harmful based on scientific knowledge at the time. These exemptions are necessary, says the Commission, as a measure that "safeguards incentives for innovation".  In reality it would mean that any harmful effects caused by a GMO that has been authorised for market release would never be subject to environmental liability.  Even worse, it could also mean that even unauthorised GMOs would escape liability since companies can argue that "it was not possible to foresee the damaging effect of the GMO".

Damage to property and public health is not covered in the draft Directive.  Instead, so-called `traditional damage' should be dealt with under the national laws of the Member States, according to the Commission.  This is despite the fact that GMOs are authorised for release at EU-level,  and it is very unclear to what extent national legislation actually exists in the MS or would cover such damage.  Therefore, for example, damage and loss of income to organic or conventional farmers whose livelihood is compromised by contamination from GM crops is excluded from the scope of the draft Directive.

The limited time frame and exemption for activities already carried out provide even more loopholes for GMO producers and operators to avoid liability. Under the draft Directive, any activities that took place before the Directive enters into force (bearing in mind that it is likely not to be transposed into Member States' law until 2004-2005) are excluded.  Even in cases where competent authorities could prosecute an operator for damage, they are hampered by a time restriction under which they may only initiate action for compensation and redress during a fiveyear period.  Given the unpredictability of the long-term effects of GMOs, that is clearly not acceptable.

No financial obligations are foreseen under which GMO producers would have to ensure adequate insurance or compensation funds in order to be able to pay for repair of damage.  The Commission just says that the Member States should "encourage" operators to take measures regarding financial security.  In the case of so-called orphan damage, where the operator can either not be identified or is unable to pay for the redress of damage, Member States should consider creating "safety nets".  In other words, the tax-payer should fund these safety nets.

NGOs cannot initiate action according to the Commission's Proposal.   Instead the responsibility for taking action against an operator who causes environmental damage lies with the national competent authority (which may also be the body that delivered the licence to conduct the activity in the first place).  Third parties, such as citizens and NGOs, can only submit observations and request the competent authority to take action, and may initiate a judicial review if they consider that the CA does not act appropriately.

Broken promises To say that the draft Directive on Environmental Liability falls short of expectations is an understatement.  Whatever polluting activity is concerned, it is clearly not a legal instrument that will go very far towards either deterring operators from causing environmental pollution or making them liable for damage they cause.  As far as GMOs are concerned, the Commission has clearly failed to live up to the commitments it made when it argued against liability being included in the revised Deliberate Release Directive.  It stated then that: "a horizontal approach to liability is the most efficient way to guarantee a comprehensive responsibility regime for environmental damage.  This will provide clarity for complainants and prevent loopholes".  It is apparent now, however, that the Environmental Liability proposal is neither `comprehensive', nor does it `prevent loopholes' - on the contrary.

According to various reports, a majority of Member States is also sceptical about the Proposal.  At the recent Council meeting on 4.03.2002, 8 countries ­ Austria, Finland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Sweden, France, Belgium and Germany ­ said that GMOs pose particular problems to the environment which are not covered in the draft Directive, several called for traditional damage to be covered, others do not want licences to exempt operators from liability, and some argued in favour of mandatory financial security for companies.  In general, most Member States seem to think that the draft Directive undermines the Polluter Pays principle.  Let us hope that the European Parliament and the Member States drastically improve the Commission's Proposal.

*{ Contact: Gill Lacroix,  Biotechnology Coordinator, gill.lacroix@foeeurope.org For more information, see: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/ Liability.htm and  http://www.foeeurope.org/ biotechnology/vol8no1.pdf }

 *partie=titre ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY:  Nuclear does not pay! *partie=nil 

Asmentioned in the previous article, the Commission has, at last, presented its `Proposal for a Directive on Environmental Liability. But nuclear industry is an exception: It is completely exempt from liability for environmental damage caused by nuclear activities.

It is important to note that while the title promises `environmental liability' the directive actually only covers damage caused to biodiversity, water and land. As stated on page 1, biodiversity is defined as areas and species under the EU's Habitats Directive and Birds Directive or by national legislation of Member States. 

The European Commission's argument for excluding nuclear from its proposal for an environmental liability directive is that damage caused by nuclear activities is already covered by other international conventions. The Commission claims further that these conventions foresee a `very strict liability regime and do not cover only traditional damage, but also environmental damage [and] ...almost all Member States (13 out of 15) are signatories to the Paris Convention' (European Commission news release: Memo/02/10: Jan 24, 2002). As the arguments below show, the reasoning of the Commission is misleading and amounts to nothing more than another attempt to give preferential treatment to the nuclear industry.

`very strict liability' of current conventions While it is true that there are several international conventions on nuclear damage in force (see quote at the end of this paper), none of them serves the purpose of making operators or owners of nuclear facilities liable for damage they cause. On the contrary, they serve to protect the operators from paying compensation. Since damage caused by a large scale nuclear accident can almost be unlimited, the industry needs the guarantee not to have to pay whatever damage it might cause. All international conventions have limited and very low compensation schemes.  Under the above mentioned Paris Convention, for example, the operator has to guarantee that he can pay a minimum of ca. EUR 5.5 million in compensation for damage to be distributed between all victims that suffered loss of life, health and property. For instance, the French nuclear industry would compensate each of the 58,6 million inhabitants of France with EUR 9,3 (!) after an accident on any scale. (States that also ratified the Brussels Supplementary Convention have increased this amount up to EUR189 million from state budget). In any case, it is obvious that amounts at these levels can compensate only a ridiculously small fraction of the damage caused by a nuclear accident in Europe. 

`environmental damage [is already covered]' Nuclear damage is according to the Paris Convention only damage to life and health of humans and loss or damage to property. All other damage, e.g. environmental damage, is not covered under the Paris Convention. 

`almost all Member States (13 out of 15) are signatories to the Paris Convention' First, only 12 EU states are signatories to the Paris Convention ­ Austria, Ireland and Luxembourg have not signed. Secondly, the fact that three states have not signed shows that the nuclear liability question within the EU is not solved and cannot be used as an argument for excluding nuclear damage from the liability directive. The fact is that none of the three countries intends to sign any of the `nuclear support conventions'.

The current proposal amounts to yet another subsidy for nuclear! No other energy form receives the preferential treatment nuclear does. The others ­ coal, sun, wind etc. ­ will be forced to get insurance and face potential compensation claims. By excluding damage from nuclear activities, it will once again be cemented that the nuclear industry is the big exception in the free market.

FoE Europe's recommendation:  Nuclear damage must be included in the EU directive on environmental liability so that it is subject to compensation like other damage to health or environment. Therefore we propose to delete the provisions referring to nuclear energy.

On 4 March 2002, the EU environmental ministers exchanged views on the Commission proposal. Ireland, Luxembourg and Austria demanded that nuclear damage be included. But these three small countries alone will not be able to withstand the pressure from the larger countries with nuclear facilitates. The nuclear industry is worried about the position of the European Parliament, which could prove to come out in support of including nuclear damage in the directive. 

The FoEE antinuclear campaign will coordinate antinuclear activists and NGOs in their efforts to convince the Council of environmental Ministers and later on the European Parliament to include nuclear damage in the EU directive. 

The new fact sheet on environmental liability for nuclear including our demands and information on the international liability conventions for nuclear can be ordered from FoEE: 

*{ Contct: Patricia Lorenz FoE Europe, Anti-Nuclear coordinator, patricia.lorenz@foeeurope.org }

In late January, FoE Europe organised the visit of two American farmers to Brussels and Paris to talk about their experiences with GMOs at public debates in the European and French Parliaments, meetings with the European Commission, farmers organisations, research institutes, etc.  The aim was to highlight issues of GMO contamination, liability and patent infringement when conventional (or organic) farmers' fields are polluted by GM crops.  The farmers in question, Percy Schmeiser from Saskatoon, Canada, and Tom Wiley from North Dakota, USA, are both victims of GMO contamination and have suffered severe financial penalties as a result.  Their experiences emphasise the legal vacuum that exists as far as GM crops are concerned, and highlight the problem that contamination makes co-existence between GM and conventional crops impossible.

In Schmeiser's case, he discovered that his oilseed rape crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Roundup Ready rape.  When Monsanto discovered "their" seed on his land, they sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.  Although the contamination was involuntary on Schmeiser's part, the judge ruled that how the GM seed had arrived on his land - blown by the wind, cross pollination, whatever - was not the issue; Monsanto's patent had been infringed and Schemiser's crop was their property.  As well as being fined for patent infringement, Schmeiser was forced to give Monsanto his profits on the crop as well as his oilseed rape seed and plants.  

In Wiley's case, his conventional soya bean crop was polluted by GM soya.  Because of high protein content, good colour and size, Wiley had secured a contract to sell his soya to Japan. However, tests showed 1.37% contamination with GM soya and Wiley consequently lost the contract.  The difference between the "identity preserved" contract for export and selling the soya on the open market cost him about $10,000.

GM crops have been commercially grown in North America for some 6-7 years and, according to the American farmers, this has seriously restricted the options for farmers to obtain seed that is not GM.  Schmeiser said that it is now practically impossible to buy rape seed in Western Canada that is not GM. In North Dakota, Wiley said that 2002 is the last year that his agricultural university (a major seed supplier) will guarantee being able to provide farmers with GM-free soya.

European Environmental Agency confirms the  problem The problem of GM contamination has been confirmed yet again by a report published in March by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) ­ the EU's own agency working on sustainable development and improvement in Europe's environment.  As environmental groups have been warning for years, the EEA singles out two of Europe's indigenous crops ­ oilseed rape and beet - as being particularly high risk with regard to gene flow.  According to the EEA: "oilseed rape can be described as a high risk crop for crop-to-crop gene flow and from crops to wild relatives ...  It is predicted that plants carrying multiple (herbicide) resistance genes will become common postGM release ...  Oilseed rape is cross compatible with a number of wild relatives and thus the likelihood of gene flow to these species is high".

In the case of beet, the EEA warns that: "Sugar beet can be described as medium to high risk for gene flow crop to crop and from crop to wild relatives. Pollen from sugar beet has been recorded at distances of more than 1 Km at relatively high frequency"'.  "The possible implications of hybridisation and introgression [of transgenes] between crops and wild plant species are so far unclear because it is difficult to predict how the flow of genetically engineered genes will be expressed".

None of this is new, but it is significant that it is confirmed by an EU institution that the European Commission and Member States' governments cannot ignore.  The EU has already experienced several cases of seed contamination by GM oilseed rape, maize and cotton. Experimental plots of GM beet have been found to contain "stacked genes", i.e. beet that was engineered to be tolerant of one herbicide was actually tolerant of two.  In Canada, research has shown that GM oilseed rape has cross-pollinated to the extent that plants are now multiple-tolerant to three different types of herbicides.

Conventional and organic crops under threat The EEA's report is further evidence that conventional and organic farming in Europe is seriously at risk if GM crops are cultivated.  There is no consensus in Member States about measures to prevent contamination 

 While the European Investment Bank (EIB) is seeking an increase in capital, environmental groups, led by CEE Bankwatch and Friends of the Earth, are calling for reforms of the Bank in the four main areas where it lags behind the World Bank and other international financial institutions (IFIs). The 15 EU member states that own the Bank are being asked to lay down conditions for an increase of EIB capital.  Notably the conditions that should be met are: ˇ Transparency ­ a reform of the degree of access to information ˇ Standards ­ a reform of environmental standards ˇ Development ­ a reform of the development mandate   ˇ Controls ­ a reform of the supervisory processes 

Last June, the EIB announced that it would seek a substantial increase in its subscribed capital, in order to expand its lending. Currently its capital is Euro 100 billion. The Bank is seeking a 50% increase in so-called subscribed capital ­ a sort of guarantee for the EIB from the 15 member states. The EIB needs the capital increase in order to operate legally, because a statutory limit on outstanding loans will be reached in 2003. The decision on the capital increase is planned for the next Annual meeting in June this year. 

Using the opportunity presented by the increase in capital, which has worked well in past efforts to obtain agreement on reforms at the World Bank, more than 30 NGOs from all over Europe have joined in a call for important reforms to the EIB in four main areas:  ­ Transparency and access to information: The demand is for full, timely public access to all relevant project information. ­  Environmental standards: The demand is for establishment of clear environmental standards to underpin the EIB's role in promoting the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and in meeting the requirements of major treaties such as Kyoto Protocol on climate change. ­ Development: The demand is for acceptance by the EIB that it does have a development mandate and for there to be clarity about what that mandate is. Connected to this is a related demand for an agreement with civil society on how its activities outside the EU should be carried out in a transparent way to avoid causing social and environmental problems. 

*partie=titre EIB: NO REFORM ­ NO MONEY! GMO CONTAMINATION `Peaceful Co-existence' is not possible *partie=nil

By GMOs ­ what isolation  distances should be around GM crops, barriers to prevent pollen transfer, etc.  Rather than address these problems, EU legislation is moving in a direction that would allow contamination both in food and feed and even in seed.  Draft Regulations from the European Commission propose a 1% threshold for "adventitious" or "technically unavoidable" contamination even by unauthorised GMOs.  The Commission is also working on the revision of the EU's Seeds Marketing Directives that would allow thresholds for contamination of conventional seed by GM varieties.

It is clear that Europe is approaching a crossroads on the issue of GM crops.  Does European farming go down the GMO route or not?  Any systems needed to ensure that GM and nonGM can grow alongside each other appear to be practically impossible.  The logistical, bureaucratic and legal situation is far from clear and needs resolving before widespread growing of GM crops is allowed in Europe.  If not, consumer and farmer choice will be severely restricted to the point that the GM-free option may become a thing of the past.

*{ For more info, contact: gill.lacroix@foeeurope.org See also: http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/ Co-existence.htm The EEA's report "Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): "The significance of gene flow through pollen transfer" is available on: http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2002_28/en }

­ Accountability and supervision: The demand is for greater supervision of the EIB, including enhancing the roles of the European Parliament, European Court of Auditors, and the European Ombudsman, in order to promote greater public accountability. 

Whenever major projects are funded for infrastructure, energy, or transport, inevitably there are significant and longlasting environmental impacts for the region. By agreeing to Article 6 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which calls for a high level of environmental protection and integration of environmental concerns into other policies, the European Union recognised the importance of "sustainable development" and made it the framework for all its actions. The EIB is supposed to follow EU legislation in its activities both in and outside EU, at least in the Accession countries, but does not seem to do so. 

EIB operations show a lack of professional accountability and oversight in managing projects. This is due largely to: (1) the "rubber stamp" approval process of its organisational hierarchy, (2) low number of staff with environmental or social expertise (that enables low-cost loans but precludes professional environmental and social  oversight),  (3) increased numbers of operations outside the original EU charter, where it is largely exempt from the overall policy direction of the European Union.

Several case studies are available that describe the problems mentioned above. Some cite examples of mishandling or misappropriating funds in the EIB's funded projects. Several cases show how environmental degradation has resulted. All the case studies show how there has been a consistent disregard for the rights of civil society to have access to basic information. Each case study demonstrates the unwillingness of the EIB to respond to specific critiques concerning violations of relevant laws and consideration of alternatives.  

The case studies and other campaign materials can be found on: www.bankwatch.org

Campaign EIB: NO REFORM ­ NO MONEY! is coordinated by Friends of the Earth International and the CEE Bankwatch Network. 

*{ Contact: Magda Stoczkiewicz, Accession project coordinator CEE Bankwatch Network, FoEE magdas@foeeurope.org Billions for Sustainability? Third briefing }

In the framework of a joint project between the Friends of the Earth Europe and the CEE Bankwatch Network on monitoring pre-accession funds we have just finished our third briefing. This report provides information on the stage of the pre-accession aid mechanisms in eight accession countries, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia. Our main focus remains public participation and access to information, as well as the environmental consequences of implementing of the pre-accession aid. 

*{ The third briefing (as well as the previous two reports) is available on our website: www.foeeurope.org or contact the office to obtain a copy at  magdas@foeeurope.org }

 What the European Commission is offering the Accession Countries from the rich pickings of the CAP agriculture budget is quite modest and won't really satisfy the wishes of the farmers in the region.  While this is not such a big surprise, a closer look at the Commission's proposal shows that it also includes measures which can be highly appreciated from an environmental point of view. But will these measures only be a short interlude before the new Member States will be fully included in the current CAP system or are these the first signs of a major WINDS OF CHANGE FROM THE EAST change of the European Agriculture Policy? 

How to manage ten new countries along with the existing fifteen within the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) is one of the big questions of the Accession Process. The CAP is already known as the mad monster that swallows about half of the EU budget and causes a lot of problems ­ food safety concerns, a damaged environment, polluted water, protesting farmers, just to mention a few. We don't need any particularly sophisticated analyses to realise that these problems would only get worse if the same CAP system was applied to countries like Poland, where 25 % of the labour force works in agriculture. 

At the end of January, the Commission presented a proposal on how the new Member States should be slowly included in the EU agricultural policy after their accession. It offers a gradual introduction of direct payments over a transition period of ten years. In the first three years after accession, direct payments equivalent to 25, 30 and 35 % of what the current EU15 receive. Moreover, the Commission stated in a press release: "In order to ensure simplicity and to ensure adequate controls from the first day, the Commission has proposed a simplified direct payments system for the first three years, with the option of prolongation for two more years. The new member states should have the option of granting direct payments in the form of an area payment, de-coupled from production and paid per hectare."

While the CEECs will get less money from the so-called first pillar which includes direct payments and makes up about 90% of the CAP budget, they will be given a 50 % top up from the second pillar, which includes rural development measures. Moreover, the Commission proposes to fix production quotas for sugar and milk.

First of all, this proposal from the Commission means less money for the farmers in Eastern Europe compared to the farmers in the West. The Commission argues that if direct aids are introduced too quickly in the candidate countries, there is a significant risk that badly needed restructuring would be slowed down or even stopped. Excessive cash injections through direct payments in favour of specific segments of one professional group would also risk creating considerable income disparities and social distortions.

But besides that, the proposal also shows a new attitude by the Commission towards the agriculture subsidy system. In the current system, the first pillar, which mainly guarantees production related direct payments, makes up 90% of the budget. This has encouraged intensified production and has led to overproduction, environmental damage and the disappearance of small family farms. In the new Member States, these direct payments will be reduced and could be de-coupled from production through what is known as `a basic area payment' to be applied to the whole agricultural area. Additionally, the second pillar, which includes agro-environmental measures, support for less favoured areas and forestation was upgraded by 50 %.  In the current CAP system, the EU co-finances these measures from the second pillar at a maximum level of 50 %, which over the years has prevented many initiatives in this field. In the future Member States, the maximum level of co-financing will be 80 %. So from an environmental perspective, the model, which will apply to the new Member States, is a clear step forward. 

But... in order to change the whole European Agriculture Policy from top to bottom and remove inconsistencies, the Commission has to do much, much more. It has to change the CAP that applies for the current Member States and clearly this will be a huge task.  But better start now than wait. It is clear that the Commission is environmentally braver with countries that are not yet members of the EU and therefore do not have a vote in the Council.  Although, there have been heavy protests from the governments of the Accession Countries, in the end the Commission knows that they will have to accept the proposal. A "two-tier CAP" is better than not getting any subsidies from the EU.

With the fifteen Member States, the Commission is much more careful. It is now the official line that CAP reform will only start after enlargement - 2006 - and that the midterm review of the Agenda 2000 reform process will not bring any major changes. This is a wasted opportunity on the part of the Commission. While reform will be tough with fifteen countries, expecting it to be easier with twenty-five is an illusion. That would mean that 25 Members would have a say in the Council when and how to green the CAP.  With so many new states, which all are netbeneficiaries, the reform process will come to a standstill.  That would mean, the environment, food quality and safety, and damage to nature and biodiversity will continue to be sanctioned by the European Union. 

In order to avoid an impending disaster for the environment, for food and health, and for farmers, FoEE is calling for a major reform of CAP during the midterm review of the current Agenda 2000. The Commission should propose a shift away from production related payments towards payments for environmental and rural development measures thereby utilising current funds. This would be a clear sign towards the future Member States that a common CAP is a target in the near future and that there is solidarity and equity between the EU and its new members.  It is also a window of opportunity towards a more sustainable Agriculture Policy in Europe. One that cannot be missed. 

*{ Contact: Manfred Mader, Campaign Assistant manfred.mader@foeeurope.org }

 FoEE addresses trade and environment on Middle East mission  FoEE participated in a parliamentary mission to the Middle East at the beginning of March to address environmental threats posed by the Euro-Med Free Trade Zone with key decisionmakers in the region. The mission was organised by Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), a unique federation of environmental groups from Jordan, Israel and Palestine and Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE EU). From Europe, Per Gahrton, member of the European Parliament's trade and foreign affairs committee and FoEE's trade and sustainability coordinator Alexandra Wandel travelled together to the Middle East.

Several events and workshops were held in light of the upcoming Euro-Med Trade, Foreign Affairs and Environmental Ministerial under the Spanish presidency.  The mission trip included:   ­ A joint Israeli/Palestinian workshop in Amman, Jordan with presentations from Prince Ra'ad Bin Zaid, FoEE, representatives of the Jordanian and Palestinian trade ministries and FoEME;  ­ Meetings with the Jordanian minister for municipalities and the environment Mr. Abdel Razaq Tbaishat, the head of the upper house of Jordan, Mr. Zaid Rifai'i and chair of environmental committee Environment, Health, and social development, Mr. Aref Bataina ­ A hearing on the MFTZ in the economic committee of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset.

Throughout the events, Friends of the Earth highlighted the urgent necessity to conduct Sustainability Impact Assessments and to develop a Euro-Med Sustainability Strategy. 

In Israel, the Economic Committee of the Knesset (Parliament) called upon the Israeli Commissioner for Future Generations to advise the Knesset on whether to now launch an independent sustainability assessment. The Commissioner will submit his opinion in several weeks time. Positive responses were also received by Jordanian and Palestinian Ministries willing to now investigate more closely the environmental concerns of the Euro Mediterranean partnership. The mission generated a lot of interest among the various stakeholders involved.

*partie=titre EURO-MED FREE TRADE ZONE WATCH UPDATE *partie=nil 

It was the first time that trade and environment issues had been addressed with an Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian audience and this was a wake up call for many to engage in developing a Euro-Med sustainability strategy. Such a strategy would contribute to environmental protection, poverty eradication and economic sound development. Per Gahrton MEP and FoEE challenged the mainstream approach that trade liberalisation is good `per se', taking into consideration the impacts on natural resource use, air, soil and water pollution, and possibility of relocation of polluting industries to the region. 

Instead of free trade, fair trade should be developed and local and regional economies strengthened in order to lead to a `zone of shared prosperity` in the region, as promised in the founding document of the Euro-Med Partnership, the Barcelona Declaration. 

Open letter to politicians: Euro-Med Trade Ministerial must address sustainable development On 18 March 2002, FoEE and Friends of the Earth groups from around the Mediterranean sent open letters to Commissioner Lamy as well as to trade ministers from the EU and 12 Southern Mediterranean partner countries in light of the Toledo Ministerial which was held on Tuesday 19 March 2002. In the letter the environmental groups (from Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia, Malta, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Territories) urged ministers and the European Commission to take every possible step to avoid negative environmental implications from the proposed EuroMediterranean Free Trade Zone.

FoE MedNet welcomed the proposal and recommendation of the European Commission to the Valencia Foreign Ministerial in April to develop sectoral environmental integration strategies.  In addition, FOE demanded: ˇ the long awaited Sustainability Impact Assessment of the regional free trade zone of the European Commission should be undertaken immediately; ˇ an assessment of all concluded and future bilateral agreements; ˇ a guaranteed principle that partners agree not to lower environmental and health standards in order to attract investment in any concluded and future trade agreement. The EU should give incentives for upward movement of environmental standards; ˇ no reduction or elimination of tariffs and non tariff barriers if the reductions are likely to lead to environmental damage;  ˇ avoiding environmentally harmful service liberalisation in the field of energy, transport, water, tourism, mining and sewage and waste disposal; ˇ using impact assessments as well as the existing Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Development (MCSD) and FoEME reviews in developing a clear action and strategy for a sustainable Euro-Mediterranean Area in the light of Rio +10 with specific targets and objectives. 

*{ Contact: Alexandra Wandel,  FoEE Trade and Sustainability Coordinator  alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org, mftz@foeeurope.org}

 In the light of the next Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Foreign Ministers in Valencia, the European Commission has urged EU Member States and Mediterranean partner countries to reaffirm the political commitment to the Barcelona EuroMediterranean process. A communication by the Commission presented on 13 February 2002 to prepare the meeting of EuroMediterranean Foreign Ministers proposes a number of measures to the ministers for adoption in Valencia. For the economic and financial partnership the Ministers should endorse the need to develop environmental integration strategies for the different sectoral priorities in order to promote sustainable development. A commitment by the Partnership to environmental integration would be a valuable contribution to preparations for the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the Commission states.  The forthcoming 2nd Conference of Euro-Mediterranean Environ-ment Ministers in July 2002 is proposed as the forum in which to devise a framework for environmental integration for submission to a future Foreign Ministers' meeting. Friends of the Earth has welcomed the Commission's proposal however notes with concern that the communication does not refer anymore to the development of a sustainable development strategy, as originally anticipated. In addition to environmental integration strategies for all sectors, an overall Sustainability Strategy is urgently needed, according to FoE. 

*{ See also MFTZ Monitor, March Issue, www.foeme.org/mftz }

*{ Contact: Alexandra Wandel VALENCIA: European Commission highlights need for environmental  integration strategies for Euro-Mediterranean Partnership }

 Friends of the Earth MedNet has joined forces with the World Wildlife Fund European Policy Office and the Heinrich Böll Foundation in order to strengthen NGOs from the Mediterranean Partner countries that seek deeper involvement in the Euro Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). A pilot project has been launched entitled "Euro Mediterranean Partnership, sustainable development  and civil society participa tion". The objectives of the project are:  ˇ build the capacity of key Mediterranean NGOs to carry out research, policy, advocacy and communication work in the framework of the Euro-Med partnership ˇ foster and facilitate dialogue between the community of Mediterranean NGOs and the relevant institutions of the EMP

*{ Contact: Eugene Clancy,  FoE MedNet coordinator,  mednet@foeeurope.org }

 *partie=titre MEDITERRANEAN ENVIRONMENTAL NGOS ARE SET TO INCREASE THEIR INFLUENCE WITHIN THE EUROMED PARTNERSHIP *partie=nil 

 A little over a year ago, the Heads of State and Government met in Gothenburg, Sweden, for the Spring Summit.  During their meeting, they decided to complete the economic and social renewal agenda with a third - environmental - dimension, to strike a balance between the 3 economic, social and environmental - pillars, and thus establish the new approach to European policy making.  In the Council Conclusions, the Heads of State adopted a few of the proposals of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) and invited the Council to further `examine' the Commission Communication.  In other words, to develop it further, including concrete steps following from proposals in the Communication (see FoEE Bulletin July 2001 at  http://www.foeeurope.org/publications).

In addition, the European Council asked the Commission to evaluate the implementation of the SDS and the progress of policy integration in its annual synthesis report during the Spring Council based on a number of headline indicators that was agreed during the Laeken Summit in December 2001 (see FoEE Bulletin October 2001 & January 2002 at  http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/publications.htm).  In that way, the European leaders put the responsibilities and a mandate on themselves and the European Institutions to promote sustainable development as a priority for future policymaking in the Community, as established in the Treaty, and created high expectations from civil society.  

Sustainability was supposed to be the keyword at the Barcelona Summit, and several parallel events were planned in that regard.  Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson had to present his report on SD to the meeting of the European Socialist Party and, just before the Summit, on 13-14th March, the European Environment Bureau (EEB), together with the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the Platform of European Social NGOs, co-organised a conference to present their joint contribution to the Barcelona European Council, entitled `Making the Economy Work for Sustainable Development'.  This represented a symbolic first step to bring together the social and environmental movements and strengthen their voices in the debate on SD.

Spanish Presidency not keen on Sustainability During the weeks preceding the European Council meeting in Barcelona (15-16th March 2002), however, rather negative signals were made by the Spanish Presidency which led the environmental organisations in Brussels to step up pressure on institutions and governments.  Obviously this did not bring much change - the Heads of State and Government completely sidelined the integration of the environmental dimension into the socio-economic agenda of the Lisbon Strategy. Environment was tackled as a formality only, taking stock of what is going on anyway in the environmental field.  No new decision to implement the SDS was taken, nor were new incentives given to the institutions to balance economic development with particular environmental conditions. 

The Barcelona Conclusions and the environment In the Barcelona Conclusions the environmental or sustainability issues are directly mentioned in the part titled `Sustainable Development' *{ (See paragraphs 9-14  http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm). }

A positive move is the Council's request to Members to complete their ratification procedures of the Kyoto Protocol by June 2002 and, in that way, together with its own ratification, ensure the EU's contribution to entry into force of the Protocol before the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg.

As regards the Oversee Development Aid (ODA), the EU committed to reach an overall EU average of 0.39% ODA/GNI by 2006, with the individual lower limit set to 0.33% ODA, within the Member's respective budget allocation.  Needless to say, this looks rather miserable in light of the 0.7% ODA target already committed to long ago under the UN. 

In addition, the Council undertook to reach an agreement on the adoption of the energy tax by December 2002, but connected it unfortunately to agreement on the - still disputed opening of energy markets.  The liberalisation of this market, especially in light of the Kyoto Protocol and the risk of new promotion of nuclear energy, will be very important to follow.  The liberalisation of the energy market can only be beneficial for the environment if it goes hand-inhand with more availability of clean energy on the market and a requirement for full disclosure of all electricity sources on electricity bills.  There again, the Barcelona Conclusions only contained soft words about `the need for the EU to show substantial progress in enhancing energy efficiency by 2010', which does not really inspire much confidence. 

Also interesting is the request of the Council to the Commission `to include before the end of 2002 a sustainability dimension in the impact assessment'. What this means in practice remains to be seen.  Moreover, the exercise is made dependant of another process, the `wider efforts in the field of better regulation'. 

 *partie=titre THE BARCELONA EUROPEAN COUNCIL MEETING:  ­ More Europe or Less Environment?  *partie=nil  

Friends of the Earth is the largest grassroots environmental network in the world, campaigning to protect the environment and create sustainable societies. Firends of the Earth Europe unites more than 30 national member organisations with thousands of local groups. The Friends of the Earth Bulletin informs our member groups and other interested parties about our activities. It provides an informal overview of environmental issues at the European level, especially those covered by campaigners and staff at the FoEE office in Brusssels.

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 

The EU and the WSSD The major disappointment of the `sustainable development' part of the Council Conclusions is the paragraph referring to the preparations of the EU position for the WSSD.  The Council shall `determine the overall position of the European Union for the Johannesburg Summit at its meeting in June in Seville, and in spring 2003 will review the comprehensive strategy for sustainable development with a focus on putting into practice the outcome of the WSSD'.  For this, it shall base itself on the Commission Communication `Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development' and the Conclusions of the Environment Council of the 4th of March 2002.

This is a very confusing statement. On the one hand, there is the Commission Communication which is not credible as a sound strategy to promote SD. Actually it contains almost no deadlines, most of the actions are not measurable commitments (only 7 on 40 can be measured), and in particular it promotes what the paper calls 'the Doha Development Round' as a solution to global sustainable development.  This Communication, also called the External Sustainable Development Strategy, has been criticised by all the environmental organisations since it has been published. *{ (See  http://www.panda.org/resources/programmes/epo/publications/Final_SDS_Jan.pdf)  }
 On the other hand, the Environment Council Conclusions from 4th March have rather positive wording, reaffirming the need to deliver a strategy as a package of complementary internal and external dimensions, in view of tackling SD at all levels in accordance with the principles of the 1992 Rio declaration.  Moreover, it reaffirms the importance of continuing and intensifying the process of integrating environmental concerns into sectoral policies as one of the main and complementary processes to achieve sustainable development along with the SDS and the 6th EAP.

The Environment Council also encourages the Member States to complete work on their national SDS before the WSSD summit, prioritises EU actions for halting decline of Biodiversity, and calls upon the Community and the Member States to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety before the WSSD.  As a concluding paragraph, the Environment Council agrees to adopt yearly conclusions setting guidelines on the environmental dimension of the sustainable development strategy for submission to the Spring European Council. 

In short, these Conclusions should actually have been a reminder for the Heads of State meeting in Barcelona on what needs still to be done before the Johannesburg Summit, but actually concerning the EU level, and FoE would have liked to see all those elements in the Barcelona Conclusions themselves. In the end it will therefore be interesting to see which of the documents will be given priority and which points will be present in the final EU position.

Delaying a clearer EU position until the Sevilla Summit has a negative implication on the coordination of the UN and EU preparatory agenda.  The last Preparatory Meeting will take place on 27th May-7th June, while Sevilla will take place on 21-22nd June only.  This means that the EU will define its position only after the agenda for the Summit has been decided, and therefore will have a very passive approach to the process. Moreover that this does not really facilitate the participation of civil society in the debates during the preparatory process. FoE and other environmental groups have been urging the EU to take a lead role in the process if anything is to be achieved this autumn in South Africa.  Domingo Jiménez-Beltrán, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency, stated that `the Barcelona Conclusions could even call into question the EU global leadership on environment issues and SD and could affect the achievements and future of the Johannesburg World Summit, whose full potential can be realised only with the EU's leadership in view of the US's critical position'.  He also said that `only a miracle at the Sevilla Summit can bring us back to the promising situation we had in Gothenburg' and that `Sevilla is offering an opportunity to the Spanish Presidency to catch up the lost opportunities to work out the solid EU position that has a global impact' for Johannesburg.  NGOs will have to push and pray very hard to make this miracle happens...

Another interesting element from the Barcelona Conclusions is the decision by the Council on a reinforced Euro-Mediterranean Investment Facility within the EIB.  This is worth tracking as former experiences with the EIB have shown problems with lack of transparency in decision-making, access to information, lack of clear environmental standards, non-recognition of their development mandate, accountability and supervision. (See separate article in this Bulletin)

Reforming the EU Institutions A final point to be noted from Barcelona was the presentation of a report to the Heads of State and Governments by Javier Solana on the problems of the current way of functioning of the Council and providing proposals for reforms.  On the other hand, the Convention, which was appointed in Laeken, has to present a first report for the Sevilla Summit, with specific measures to improve the way the Council operates and reforms to make it more efficient, ensuring greater transparency of the legislative process.  At the Barcelona Summit, the new president of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, gave a speech to the European Council in which he pointed out that `the success of the Lisbon process depends on the adoption of legislation under co-decision, in other words where the Treaty gives the EP an equal say with the Council'. He recalled `that an overall strategy for sustainable development is badly needed and it must not be treated as an appendix to economic and social reform.  An environmental mainstreaming approach must be developed...maybe even see if it is possible to make a `sustainability analysis' of all legislative proposals'.  The debate on the future functioning of the European Institutions has been launched, and might, in the not-too-distant future, have important implications for the future work of the environmental movement ­ a development to be closely followed!

A closing anecdote: a foreign minister of one of the smaller EU Member States said in a press briefing that she and her colleagues were annoyed to find, each time they meet, so many people in the streets, and more and more security measures.  In effect, several days before the Summit, some 400,000 people marched to protest against the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, followed by a demonstration of 100,000 people from the Trade Unions on Thursday 13th March, and a massive manifestation of 250,000 people on Saturday 16th (the closing day of the Council meeting).  On Saturday night a free open-air concert was organised where anti-globalisation rock-star, Manu Chao, made all these people in the streets forget for a while that nobody seemed to want to listen to them...

*{ Contact: Frederic Thoma FoEE, Programme assistant, frederic.thoma@foeeurope.org }