*{ BULLETIN Friends of the Earth Europe  July , 2002 }

*{ FOOD AND FARMING: TIME TO CHOOSE! 

MEPS BACK GMO FOOD LABELS

(WSSD)                             3 Friends of the Earth Corporate  Giant on official visit to EU  decision-makers in the  run-up to the World  Summit on Sustainable  Development

STOP THE GATSastrophe!             4

THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT:             5 A STEP BACK  FROM RIO VIA DOHA TO                    6 JOHANNESBURG:  Counterbalancing the  WTO with strong  environmental and  social rules

COUNTDOWN TO                            7 JOHANNESBURG ­ Our key demands for the  World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 8 TO BE RIGHT AT THE HEART OF EURO MEDITERRANEAN  PARTNERSHIP CONTENT }

 *partie=titre FOOD AND FARMING: TIME TO CHOOSE! *partie=nil 

A step forward in CAP  reform On July 10th, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Franz Fischler, presented the long awaited mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and his proposals for change. Those that believed that this review of the current reform process scheduled to run until 2006 would bring only minor adjustments were clearly taken by surprise. To the delight of Friends of the Earth Europe and others campaigning for an urgent and radical mid term review towards a sustainable, quality and locally diverse food and farming system, Commissioner Fischler took the opportunity to propose a fairly substantial shake up of the CAP and the subsidy system.  

Rewards for eco-performance In the future, support to farmers will be de-coupled from production and become more dependent on environmental performance. And more money will be spent on rural development.  These measures have been welcomed by Friends of the Earth Europe, who had urged these long needed changes in a letter to Mr. Fischler just a few weeks ago. But it remains to be seen just how radical the reform proposals really are. Are they instead an attempt to justify and green-wash the current system? The big political battle will now begin as EU Agriculture Ministers start discussions in order to adopt these proposals in the Autumn. 

Export subsidies must be banned Friends of the Earth Europe will continue to argue against the continued export orientation of CAP, which is damaging for farmers in Europe as well as for farmers in developing countries. Breaking news One of the largest meeting rooms of the European Parliament was filled to the brim when Commissioner Fischler talked for the first time in public about his ideas on how to reorient the CAP. Leaked documents from his department had been passing around journalists, MEPs and other stakeholders in Brussels during the days ahead of the formal announcement.  Everyone knew that CAP reform would be given the push it so long needed.

People's priorities to come first Arguing that support to farmers' incomes could no longer be the only aim of the CAP, Fischler made it clear that subsidies had to become more justifiable by making sure farmers better meet consumer needs. He cited a recent Eurobarometer survey that clearly showed consumers want safe, high quality food, preservation of the environment and a high standard of animal welfare from farmers. To meet the new CAP goals, the Commission proposes: 1) to cut the link between production and direct payments 2) to make payments conditional on environmental, food safety, animal welfare  and occupational safety standards 3) to substantially increase EU support for rural development via a modulation of direct payments with the exemption of small farmers 4) to introduce a new farm audit system 5) to introduce new rural development measures to boost quality production, food safety, animal welfare and to cover the costs of the farm audit. 

Reform is urgently needed Will these proposed changes actually come into being to halt the years of damage caused by farmers being encouraged to produce more just to get more subsidies? Subsidy chasing has created massive overproduction and intensive industrial farms that have seriously harmed the European environment ­ water, soil, air, biodiversity - for decades.  

Eco-conditional subsidies By de-linking subsidies from production and instead making subsidies conditional on environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards, farmers will have higher incentives to switch from industrialised farming, where high productivity is the only aim, to more quality farming. To replace production related payments, the Commission proposes a single de-coupled income payment per farm, based on historical payments. In a first stage, this payment will cover the arable crop, beef and sheep sector, as well as grain legumes and starch potatoes. Other sectors will follow later. All direct payments will be reduced progressively in arithmetic steps of 3% per year to 20%. The smallest farms will be exempt from this reduction of direct aid. The maximum sum paid to a farm will be EUR 300.000. Direct aids beyond this amount will be capped and transferred to the second pillar in the Member State concerned.

More money for Pillar 2 of the CAP The extra money (saved above) will be transferred to the second pillar of the CAP to be used for rural development, to promote sustainable agriculture or used as alternative income sources for farmers. Today this consists of just 10 % of CAP money. 

Member States divided on reforms These proposed fundamental changes to CAP provoked a strong reaction from Member States.  Those that strongly benefit from the current CAP system are strongly opposed. The French President Jacques Chirac even mentioned the reform proposal during his speech on July 14 when he promised "not to sacrifice French agriculture". Ireland's Agricultural Minister Joe Walsh had already described the Fischler plan as worrying and pointed out that his absolute priority in the upcoming negotiations would be to protect previous gains Dublin had secured for its farmers. Other beneficiaries of the CAP like Italy, Spain and Portugal are expected to join this anti-reform coalition. On the other hand, most member states welcomed the proposals. In Germany, Agriculture Minister Renate Künast is a strong supporter of reorientation towards a more sustainable agriculture but she faces much opposition in her own country. The huge farms in former Eastern Germany, leftover from the era of collective farms, fear income losses. Countries likely to join the pro-reform coalition are the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Friends of the Earth Europe takes action While Commissioner Fischler presented his mid term review proposal to the press inside the Commission's Breydel building, activists supporting Friends of the Earth Europe caught the eye of journalists outside the building with a colourful banner which read "Food and Farming: Time to Choose!" A number of activists dressed as animals to catch the eye of the cameras. 

Member States must support reform "Fischler's plan is a step forward but more is needed and faster," Joanna Dober, Friends of the Earth Europe Food and Farming Campaigner told journalists. "We are happy that the Commission understands that radical changes are needed.  For decades taxpayers money has been used by CAP to encourage unsustainable, industrial agriculture producing poor quality food while destroying the environment. The reform proposals are a step in the right direction. We urge member states to support the reforms and to resist a watering down of the proposals."

Towards localisation of the food chain "While more cross compliance and more money for the second pillar show that Fischler wants to tackle the worst effects of the current policy, he must realize that a true shift towards sustainable farming can only work if the EU gives up its export orientation in agriculture and starts to support a localisation of food production and consumption. A true reform of the CAP has to include the abolition of export subsidies and a reorientation towards producing food for the local market, with a decent price for the farmer, provided the food is produced in an environmental way." added Kees Kodde, Campaign Coordinator. 

Local activists will take to the streets Member groups of Friends of the Earth Europe are organising a common action week from 19-26 October in towns across Europe to raise awareness of the CAP and the problems it has created for the environment, for food, for small farmers  and for the developing world.  People will be encouraged to get involved in CAP reform and to write to their national Agriculture Minister in support of real reform. We want Ministers to know that people want urgent and radical CAP reform towards a policy of sustainability, quality, diversity and localisation. 

www.choosefoodchoosefarming.org

The Friends of the Earth Campaign `Food and Farming: Time to Choose!' has scored a victory so far in getting real reform proposals out of the European Commission.  But the challenge is now with member groups to say loud and clear to their Agriculture Ministers `It's time to choose a food and farming system that benefits the environment, improves people's health and safety and supports sustainable farmers.' Check out the Campaign website for how you can help Friends of the Earth Europe score the final goal for CAP reform. 

*{ Contact: joanna.dober@foeeurope.org; kees.kodde@milieudefensie.nl;  manfred.mader@foeeurope.org }

On the 3rd of July, the European Par-liament voted for an extension to the labelling and traceability obligations for foods and animal feeds derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The Parliament endorsed two legislative proposals tabled by the European Commission. These proposals call for the labelling of all foods and animal feeds derived from GMOs, even if no DNA or protein is detectable in the final product. The Parliament also rejected the Commission's proposal to allow unauthorised GMOs in food and feed products up to a threshold of 1 %. 

The vote by MEPs paves the way for new EU legislation to give consumers and farmers the ability to avoid GMOs if they choose. This is a major victory for civil society groups which have fought hard to ensure that food products derived from GMO crops are properly labelled. A Eurobarometer survey in December 2001 showed that 94% of the European public want the right to choose whether or not to eat GM foods.

The proposals will now go to the Council of Ministers for approval. A further two votes are likely to be needed by the European Parliament over the coming year before the proposals would become law. It is expected that the biotech industry and the United States will fiercely lobby the Council of Ministers to reject the MEP decision.  Right after the vote a US official said to the Financial Times: "Regrettably, Parliament has chosen to ignore our repeated expressions of concern that the Commission's proposal were unworkable, costly and subject to fraud."  

On the other hand, not only environmentalists but also consumers organisations welcomed Parliament's vote. They point to the fact that traceability is already part of  European food safety law. The principle of traceability ­ meaning the "ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance to be incorporated into a food or feed through all stages of production, processing and distribution" ­ is already laid down in Regulation 178/2001. So then why make an exception for GMOs? Also the major supermarkets in Europe and their representative organisations have declared support for a system of labelling based on the origin of the product and not its content. A common sense argument in support of such a system is that of consumer information. It would be misleading to consumers that a product (eg maize oil) derived 100 % from genetically engineered maize was not clearly labelled as a GMO product.

Luckily, Members of the European Parliament clearly understood and voted in favour of consumer choice and environmental protection on the following five points:                                         

1. Full traceability and labelling of foods (and ingredients) derived from GM crops. It is estimated that 30,000 products may contain GMO-soya and GMOmaize derived ingredients such as vegetable oil or maize syrup. While under current EU law only a small minority of these products (restricted to the ones in which GMO DNA or protein is detectable) have to be labelled, the MEP vote will assure full traceability and labelling.

2. Labelling of GMO animal feeds. MEPs voted for GMO animal feeds to be labelled. At present they are not.

3. No contamination of GM food by unapproved GMOs. The Commission had earlier proposed that GMOs not yet approved in the EU should be allowed into human and animal food up to a level of 1%. The Parliament has now rejected this proposal.

4. Lower threshold of contamination defined. The Parliament voted that foods or feeds that are contaminated with GMOs up to 0.5 % would not have to be labelled. Friends of the Earth Europe believes that contamination is unacceptable and that any  threshold should be as good as the testing (detection) technology which is currently 0.1%. 

5. No to a `GMO-free' label. The biotech industry was pushing for a GMO-free label. This would increase the cost of GMOfree food thus making consumers pay more for something they've always previously had. This proposal was not supported by the Parliament.

What the Parliament didn't vote for:

MEP's rejected the labelling of animal products from animals fed on GMO feeds eg milk, meat and eggs by 3 votes. Friends of the Earth will continue to press for these products to be labelled. FOE will also try to convince the Council of Ministers to follow the position of the Parliament on the five points mentioned above and not to bow to the pressure from the US and the biotech-industry.

*{ Contact:  geert.ritsema@foeeurope.org }

On 24th of June with the help of Friends of the Earth Belgium `Les Amis de la Terre' the Corporate Giant stood outside the European Commission Roundtable on Corporate Social Responsibility, where numerous business representatives and EU civil servants were meeting for yet another round to promote voluntary initiatives as the `most effective' approach for ensuring responsible behaviour by business. Obviously the Giant and the `Don't let big business rule the world!' slogan on the banners and the tee-shirts worn by activists were not the most welcome distraction to the participants of the roundtable.

The following day, with the help of Friends of the Earth Luxembourg `Mouvement Ecologique', the Corporate Giant stood opposite the entrance of the building on Kirchberg, Luxembourg, where the EU Environmental Council was meeting to discuss, among other issues, the outcome of the Bali Prep Com IV. Friends of the Earth Europe took the opportunity to express disappointment towards the overall EU position for the WSSD that the European Council had adopted two days before in Sevilla (4), and to call on the EU Environment Ministers to take urgent action to avoid the Summit being seen as a backward step for the environment, and becoming dubbed `RioMinus-10'.  Friends of the Earth had a short and friendly exchange of points of view with Mr Goerens, the Luxemburg Environment Minister, and presented him with Friends of the Earth Europe key demands to the EU for the Johannesburg Summit. For later in the day, the press was invited to follow a content discussion between the Friends of the Earth representatives and Mr Origer, chief negotiator of the Luxemburger delegation at the different UN preparatory meetings (5). 

Over the two days, the local activists who encircled the Corporate Giant also took to the streets for public awareness raising activities and provided information to local people on the issues at stake at the Johannesburg Summit.  As well as distributing information leaflets, the local activists also collected messages from individual citizens to Heads of State in writing, on postcards, as well as in sound recorded messages. All the messages from ordinary people collected during the tour of the Corporate Giant, at Friends of the Earth actions or via the Friends of the Earth International website will be delivered directly to decision-makers in Johannesburg. Each person that sent a message will be represented by a small figurine as part of a huge art installation directly outside the Conference Centre in Johannesburg. This will serve as a reminder to Heads of State before they enter the Summit in whose name they are actually going to speak (6).   

 The EU has a long way to go to make a success of the WSSD The Environment, Development, Ecofin and General Affairs (GAC) Councils each produced their own set of Conclusions concerning WSSD, which formed the basis of the overall Conclusions adopted by Heads of State at the Sevilla Summit (4). It is important to note that aside from sweet sounding rhetoric on sustainable development and poverty alleviation, all the Council texts refer repeatedly to the so-called `Doha Development Agenda' and strongly promote trade liberalisation as the vehicle for sustainable development. The GAC Council Conclusions from 17th June underline `that globalisation should be treated in a specific chapter in Johannesburg and be addressed in a manner that helps make it work for sustainable development, and ensures that it benefits and creates new opportunities for all, especially the poorest.'  These Conclusions also stress `the need for renewed commitment and responsibility... recalling that sustainable development is an overarching aim for the international community.' In the light of these words, one wonders why the European Commission is reluctant to support two particular demands concerning WSSD advocated by environmental groups and many others representing civil society.

Firstly the EU has not given its support to a statement in the Johannesburg Political Declaration which would clarify the autonomy and authority of Multilateral Environmental Agreements over WTO rules. Yet in parallel to the WSSD preparations the EU has been very active in pushing forward negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in (WSSD) 

*partie=titre FRIENDS OF THE EARTH CORPORATE GIANT ON OFFICIAL VISIT TO EU  DECISION-MAKERS IN THE RUN-UP TO THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT *partie=nil 

On 24th and 25th of June, Friends of the Earth Europe held two actions in Brussels and Luxembourg, the two capitals where most of the European Institutions and EU-wide decision-making are concentrated. In the context of the Friends of the Earth International WSSD campaign and related world wide action days (1), the Corporate Giant travelled from the headquarters of Friends of the Earth Germany `BUND' to stand face to face with EU decision makers.  The Corporate Giant - an enormous, fat, inflatable businessman with a cigar in his mouth and pockets bulging with euros ­ was an illustration to EU decision makers and to the wider public that a global framework for binding corporate accountability is a pre-requisite for sustainable development (2). The Corporate Giant is now following a busy travel schedule all over the European continent providing a visual backdrop to Friends of the Earth Europe member groups' awareness raising activities during meetings of governments, international institutions and businesses in the run up to the WSSD (3).

Services. It is interesting to note that even though the EU Council has repeatedly called for sustainability to be the overarching aim for the international community, the EU has steadfastly refused to address this unclear relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and WTO rules in the adequate forum of the UN.  Instead the EU continues to insist that these discussions be dealt with under WTO rules.  Even though the integration of social and environmental issues into WTO rules is an absolute necessity, it is wholly inadequate of the EU to suggest that this relationship be considered exclusively by a body in which trade negotiators dominate. This will certainly not be a helpful approach to `upgrade multilateral rules to harness globalisation', as says the outline of the EU agenda for the WSSD (7).

Secondly the EU has not responded to the demands of Friends of the Earth and many other groups representing civil society, for support to a legally binding Convention on Corporate Accountability. The EU and the various Councils have limited themselves to supporting voluntary initiatives such as OECD guidelines for foreign investors, Global Reporting Initiatives, OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises and the UN Global Compact. Whether or not such voluntary initiatives play a role, they cannot credibly be presented as a serious alternative to internationally agreed binding rules of corporate accountability. After ten more years of environmental destruction and increases in poverty since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, a coherent framework is now needed to ensure that business finally has a legal obligation to meet minimum environmental and social standards necessary for sustainable development. Such standards are the only way to secure rights for citizens and communities to help provide them with sustainable livelihoods.

The EU has recently stated its willingness to support action inside the framework established by Doha, Monterrey, the Millennium Declaration and the World Food Summit, with a strong interest in developing socalled Type II Partnership Initiatives with a clear link to the political goals established at WSSD. Beside the five key areas of attention proposed by the UN Secretary General, the EU wants to achieve progress in following issues: access to clean water and sanitation, energy, health, sustainable production and consumption, biodiversity, trade globalisation, ODA, debt sustainability and an improved institutional framework for sustainable development. On 1st of July the EU published its agenda for the WSSD which can be found on the Commission website:  *{ http://europa.eu.int/comm/wssd }

Friends of the Earth Europe has made a summary of key demands to the EU for WSSD and has made them available at a range of meetings with EU Institutions. (see box or more detailed version at  *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/FoEEWSSDdemandsJuly2003.pdf) }

The EU very business approach to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) In 2001 the EU published a green paper on CSR and called for comments from different stakeholders in view of the publication of a white paper, which frequently forms the basis for future EU legislation. Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI), which leads the Friends of the Earth International campaign on Corporate Accountability, had at that time sent a number of comments to the EU (8). The white paper was perceived by many as an important opportunity for the EU to develop an regulatory instrument which could help to limit big business scandals that we have witnessed all too frequently.

At the beginning of July the EU published its eagerly awaited white paper on CSR, which proposes to make business responsible for regulating itself.  This caused deep frustration among many actors in civil society. The paper firmly rejects a regulatory approach for ensuring responsible corporate behaviour. In so doing the EU has  simply ignored the many calls from environmental and social organisations for binding corporate accountability, including important measures such as mandatory social and environmental reporting, which according to Friends of the Earth is the very minimum required. This particular demand has the support of the European Parliament. How does the EU imagine making progress with its plans to give momentum to sustainable consumption and production and to change unsustainable production and lifestyles without providing any legislative back up to encourage good corporate behaviour? 

The EU sees its role instead in promoting research on the business case for CSR, improving best practice sharing and encouraging CSR in management, and introducing CSR elements in EU public procurement. In view of having a balanced debate on the white paper (and hopefully to address the missing elements), the EU will establish a `multi-stakeholder forum on CSR', comprising a limited number of representatives from businesses, trade unions, consumer groups and non-governmental organisations, and will review the forum's progress in 2004. Obviously much debate will be needed...and Friends of the Earth will argue hard throughout the process for legislative teeth to be given to EU policy on CSR.

*{ Contact:  frederic.thoma@foeeurope.org }

*{  Notes : For further information on FoEI activities related to the WSSD, visit http:// www.rio-plus-10.org The FoEI position on Corporate Accountability: http://www.foei.org/publications/corporates/accountability.html To find out when the Corporate Gaint is going to appear in your region, town or country, visit  http://www.rio-plus-10.org/en/action.php?lang=en Have a look at the different EU Council Conclusions related to the WSSD : ­ Development Council, 30th May : http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/dev/70867.pdf ­ Ecofin Council, 4th June : http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/ecofin/70905.pdf ­ General Affairs Council, 17th June : http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/gena/71044.pdf ­ European Council Sevilla, 22nd June : http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/ec/71212.pdf For more information on both actions and FoEE demands to Environment Ministers, visit : http://www.foeeurope.org/events/giant.htm To send your message to the Heads of State for the Summit, visit : http://www.rio-plus10.org/en/action.php?a=a1&lang=en To see the EU agenda for WSSD: http://europa.eu.int/comm/wssd FoE EWNI comments on the EU CSR green paper: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/consultation_responses/corporate_social_responsibility.pdf }

On the 30th of June the EU made official requests to a total of 109 countries asking them to liberalise their service sectors.  The EU is specifically asking countries to open up their service sectors to the world marketplace. This includes environmentally sensitive sectors of extraction and production of energy and water services. Such requests to mainly developing countries to open up markets could bring benefits to transnational corporations but at heavy cost to local environments and local communities. Current talks take place as a follow up of agreements reached at the Doha Ministerial in November 2001 on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).  Irreversible damage to local communities Services is now big business accounting for 61% of global GDP. The GATS covers more than 160 service sectors and all local and national government rules, regulations, practices and procedures that affect the supply of a service. Under the GATS, more than 140 WTO member states are obliged to continue further  trade liberalisation and remove barriers to trade that might affect for example the operations of big water companies, oil companies, tourism chains and waste disposal companies.  The environmental and social consequences could be irreversibly damaging for local people. 

Damage potential exposed in leaked EU papers The damage potential of the EU action to open up the world marketplace in services became clear when trade campaigners obtained leaked papers of 29 requests by the European Commission to WTO member states in April. The documents revealed the real threats the EU proposal could pose to people, the environment and democracy. On water, the EU request to open up the water sector to include water collection and distribution to international competitors would endanger the basis human right for people to have access to water sources. On energy, the focus is on fossil fuel exploration, extraction and distribution and no distinction is made between different type of technologies that cause severe damage to the environment. 

Countries would have to put environment second to trade The scale and scope of the EU intentions is alarming, since GATS can restrict or remove a country's ability to maintain regulatory measures to protect the environment and/or the public interest in all sectors covered by agreements.  This would remove the option for countries to decide for example the size or number of oil pipelines because quantitative restrictions on service operators would be forbidden. Governments would no longer have the right to retain preferences for local service suppliers. Under GATS regulations must `not be more burdensome than necessary' to ensure the quality of the service. There are no clear exceptions for regulations that serve to protect the environment or local communities. In practice, that means that a government must prove to a WTO panel that its environmental and social protection rules are the least burdensome possible.  

Open protest letter to EU Trade Commissioner Lamy On the 9th of May, more than 90 civil society groups from across Europe sent an open protest letter to Trade Commissioner Lamy and to EU member States (2). Groups criticise that despite the fact that the services negotiations will have profound implications for citizens everywhere, `this process has so far been undertaken entirely by the European Commission and Committee 133 in conditions of total opacity'. 

*partie=titre STOP THE GATSastrophe!  EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS CALL FOR GLOBAL TRADE  TALKS TO BECOME TRANSPARENT AND DEMOCRATIC *partie=nil 


*partie=titre More than 20 years of global commitments to eliminate hunger *partie=nil 

In 1974, governments attending the World Food Conference proclaimed that "every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop their physical and mental faculties." It was set as a goal the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition within a decade, but that goal was not met. In this context it was decided to organize in 1996 a World Food Summit in response to the continued existence of widespread under-nutrition and growing concern about the capacity to meet future food needs. At the Summit more than 180 country representatives met with the aim of finding solutions to eradicate hunger. They all committed to reduce by half the number of undernourished people by no later than 2015, and a Declaration and a Plan of Action was adopted. 

Empty commitments: Hunger still acute Six years later, at the Second World Food Summit celebrated in Rome in June 2002, another official Declaration was made by the Heads of State in which the global commitments made in the Rome Declaration at the World Food Summit in 1996 in particular to halve the number of hungry in the world no later than 2015, was reaffirmed. They resolved to accelerate implementation of the WFS Plan of Action. The reality shows that despite the written and oral commitments at those global forums very few results have been accomplished, with more than 800 million people still hungry. The facts indicate that despite all the commitments the goal of halving hunger by 2015 will not be achieved. 

More than 700 NGOs gathered in Rome under the umbrella of the NGO Forum made a Political Statement rejecting the Declaration.  Obviously the pledge to halve hunger is not enough, since the goal was set at a similar summit in 1996 and yet the number of hungry people has remained the same. The lack of representation of western heads of state at the Summit in June underlines also the lack of serious commitment to solve hunger, particularly from Western governments. From 74 heads of state that attended the Summit in Rome, only two were from the West, those of Italy and Spain.

Real causes of hunger not addressed: US promoting biotechnology as the solution to hunger The United States choose the venue of the World Food Summit to attempt to sell their GM crops as the solution to famine. And they were successful in making the World Food Summit formally endorse biotechnology as a way to address hunger. The Declaration of the Second World Food Summit stated openly that "We are committed to study, share and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in addressing development needs." It also asks for advancement of "research into new technologies, including biotechnology". 

The US delegation did not hide their reason for attending the Summit.  They came to promote biotech food. The US Agriculture Secretary, Ms. Ann Veneman said that "Biotechnology has tremendous potential to develop products that can be more suited to areas of the world where there is persistent hunger". The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) launched a 10 year 100 million dollar Collaborative Agriculture Biotechnology Initiative to invest in research of GM varieties in developing countries. 

Six years after the 1996 World Food Summit where no reference to biotechnology was made in the Declaration, the delegation of Friends of the Earth deeply regretted that once again world agriculture and food policies did not address the real causes of hunger and instead remained locked in mythical policy solutions that have no chance of ever bringing benefits to the world's hungry. 

The Biotech industry has been constantly claiming that GMOs are essential to feed the world and reduce poverty in developing countries, but the solution to ending hunger is not based upon technology, but in the political will to make real change and enable people to feed themselves. In this sense Uganda's President, Yoweri Juseveni dismissed the US claim that world hunger was due to lack of technology. "The main causes of food shortages in the world are really three: wars, protectionism in agricultural products in Europe, the USA, China, India and Japan, and protectionism in value-added products on the part of the same countries" he said. 

US policy on farm subsidies and food aid criticized Is the US really promoting biotechnology because they believe it will solve  hunger problems or was the US approach  a deliberate strategy to re-engineer hunger politics in support of the biotech industry? Being (really committed to solving hunger implies a comprehensive policy to eradicate the causes of poverty and hunger. Yet the new US Farm Bill subsidizing US farmers at 15-20 billion dollars per year for crops alone will work directly against the interests of the developing world where hunger problems are most acute. The US Farm Bill was subject to a lot of attack at the Summit. As the Brazilian Agriculture Minister Marcus de Moraes said: "If we could eliminate all these subsidies for just 24 days, we would eliminate hunger in the world". Thozo Didiza, agriculture minister for South Africa, said "The signal they (United States) have indicated does not bode well for developing countries and reducing hunger in the world". 

The EU was very critical of the US Farm Bill because it will keep using US food surpluses as food aid which disrupts local food infrastructures and depresses food prices for local farmers. The French Agriculture Minister in a Press Conference at the Summit said that "food aid should not serve to regulate the market of donor countries nor to manage their surpluses". He said that EU Policy in that subject is that food aid in general should not be given in nature, only in exceptional cases. 

Southern NGOS denounced GMO Food Aid The US policy on food aid and the shipment of GMOs as food aid to developing countries was a very controversial issue at the Summit. Southern NGOs revealed the discovery that food donated by USAID to Bolivia contained GM corn StarLink not authorized for human consumption anywhere in the world. It was also denounced that corn seed sent as food aid to Guatemala has been confirmed to contain GMOs not authorized in the European Union. In Nicaragua the presence of GMOs was also confirmed in corn seed as food aid in a donation made by Germany. 

"The fact that Germany is financing corn seed contaminated with GMOs and has sent it to a center of origin of corn such as Nicaragua is another proof of the irresponsible management of this technology" said Julio Sanchez from Centro HumboldtFriends of the Earth Nicaragua. 

Other discoveries of genetic contamination in food aid have also happened in several Latinoamerican countries in the last months.  "Food Aid programmes when used systematically in impoverished countries serve as instruments for the dumping of production surplases from Northern countries and contribute to the destruction of local production and create dependency" says Ana Lucia Bravo Acción Ecológica-Friends of the Earth Ecuador. 

Increasing numbers of organizations have been expressing concern about the promotion of biotechnology as a solution for developing countries. The international development organization, Oxfam International, recently announced a moratorium on GMOs and the need for improved enforcement of monitoring systems to stop GMOs from entering countries in food aid.

*{ Contact : juan.lopez@foeeurope.org }

 *partie=titre THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT: A STEP BACK   *partie=nil 

The Second World Food Summit took place in June 2002 in Rome. Since 1996 there have been very few results in hunger erradication, with more than 800 million people still hungry and current data indicating that the commitment to halve hunger by 2015 made in 1996 will not be accomplished. The strong promotion and support of modern biotechnology at the Summit as the solution to tackle hunger is an example of the misplaced direction of hunger politics and a clear step back since 1996. Once more the real causes of hunger and real solutions have not been properly addressed.  

Five months after the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha and four months before the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), the public hearing organised by Friends of the Earth Europe under the patronage of Caroline Lucas MEP and Harlem Désir MEP and with the support of Heinrich Böll Foundation attracted over 200 participants including Members of the European Parliament, officials from the European Commission as well as Ministries of trade, environment and foreign affairs of Member States, representatives of NGOs, research institutes and universities, and other stakeholders.

The issues at stake: 

1) Following the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992, governments have shifted their priorities in favour of more trade and investment liberalisation and global competitiveness. Transnational Corporations have acquired a significant amount of economic and political power and strongly influenced the conclusions of the Uruguay round of trade negotiations as well as the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995. 

2) The World Trade Organi-sation with its powerful enforcement mechanisms has given rise to a new type of global governance, while UN agreements on environment, development, human rights, labour, women and children lack adequate implementation procedures.

3) A number of international and EU policies promoting sustainable development are currently threatened by WTO rules. The decision at the 4th WTO Mi-nisterial in Qatar in November 2001 to expand the WTO agenda by launching new trade negotiations raises further concerns. These new negotiations are predicted to have widespread effects on environmental sustainability, development, and de-mocracy in both industrialised as well as developing countries

 *partie=titre Groups state `We refuse to be confronted with a "fait accompli".'  *partie=nil 

GATS is undemocratic In the open protest letter the groups reiterated their call for halting the GATS negotiations and called for an independent economic, social and environmental review of the process before proceeding with further negotiations. Groups asked for all EU requests in the WTO to be made public in time to allow public and parliamentary debates.  Groups demanded that a transparent and democratic process for GATS negotiations be institutionalised.

 *partie=titre The public has the right to know  *partie=nil
  
Despite the controversial nature of the negotiations, the European Commission has so far stated that these documents will not be made available to the public.  In a reply by Commissioner Lamy to the open protest letter and in a public meeting on the 4th of July, he made clear that negotiations would continue behind closed doors but that the concerns of NGOs would be taken into consideration. 

 The report of the FoEE Public Hearing held on 17 April 2002 in the European Parliament is now available

 *partie=titre FROM RIO VIA DOHA TO JOHANNESBURG:  COUNTERBALANCING THE WTO WITH  STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL RULES F  *partie=nil 

Unfair corporate influence However, evidence gathered by Friends of the Earth Europe affiliate group Corporate Europe Observatory sheds more light on the reality of the process. There is a real and heavy influence in the process by the European Service (ESF), a powerful corporate lobby group. The ESF has actually assisted in drafting the current EU requests (1) and has given strong support to the EU submissions.  

Secret talks continue Negotiations continue in bilateral secretive talks between the European Commission and targeted countries.  By the 30th of March 2003 countries will have to submit their offers in which they have to list specific sectors which they agree to open up and regulations which they will change. Civil society gaining strength In the meantime a new worldwide movement of civil society is coming together to challenge and halt the negative impacts of the current trade talks on people, the environment and developing countries. Friends of the Earth Europe co-organised on 11-12 July a European GATS strategy meeting in Brussels together with Attac France, Corporate Europe Observatory and World Development Movement. A series of joint activities for the coming months was planned. Calls for democratic procedures, a transparent process and special safeguards for environmental protection and social needs will only get  louder.

For further information, see  1) CEO/FoEE/WDM: Urgent need for transparency in EC trade talks. What the EU needs to understand.  2) Open protest letter to Lamy and EU member states.  Available at  *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/trade }

*{ Contact :  alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org }

The nature of the debate: The event aimed to foster a dialogue among EU officials and civil society representatives from the North and South on controversial WTO matters and stimulate discussions on positive alternatives in light of future WTO negotiations and the WSSD in Johannesburg.

1) Environmental Governance:  Amongst the new issues to be negotiated under the WTO is the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and WTO rules. The following questions were considered. Would the EU succeed in maintaining that Multilateral Environmen-tal Agreements are the best way to tackle international environmental problems and must therefore be preserved from WTO threats, ratified and effectively implemented? Or would trade interests undermine MEAs by means of the new WTO negotiations as we approach the WSSD? Which political steps in the run up to Johannesburg would be needed to put in place an effective system of environmental governance? 2) Alternatives to Trade and Investment Liberalisation: The EU push for trade and investment negotiations in the WTO was hotly debated. While global rules are needed, civil society groups argued that instead of further trade and investment liberalisation measures, different regulations would be needed, such as a binding set of rules for Transnational Corporations to be drawn up under the auspices of the UN.  MEPS and NGOs representatives called for a political statement in Johannesburg which would clarify that Multilateral Environmental Agreements should not be subordinate to WTO rules and also serve to strengthen multilateral environmental agreements. 

An overview over the results, presentations as well as discussions is given in the report of the public hearing.  Copies can be ordered from *{ info@foeeurope.org } or can be  downloaded at *{ http://www.foeeurope.org }

Leadership in the international process The EU must take a lead role in the international process and push immediately for a drastic improvement in the negotiations, arguing for vision, meaningful action plans with clear targets, timetables, dedicated funds, institutional requirements, monitoring, reporting enforcement and compliance measures. So far all these critical elements are missing. FoEE welcomes the EU's renewed commitment to the Rio Principles and Agenda 21 but asks the Union to reinforce its support for two of these key principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and common but differentiated responsibilities.

Measure success based on  merits of Type I outcomes Any outcome needs to be judged on the merits of the Type 1 results. Partnership agreements (Type 2 outcomes) make little sense without a strong political declaration and action programme (Type 1) and can not replace them. We are opposed to any process that could result in a further increase of corporate influence over the United nations.  

Affirm that trade must be subservient to sustainable development, and not the opposite Ministers must ensure the primacy of sustainable development over the global trade regime is established and that references to the outcomes of the Doha Ministerial Conference are deleted. A full and independent review of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations as well as of proposed trade liberalisation measures in view of concerns about the impact of trade liberalisation on equity and sustainability must also be delivered by Heads of States and Governments. The development of new economic and political policies that will lead to fair and sustainable economies fit for the 21st century must be initiated.  

Strengthen sustainable  development governance and reaffirm the authority and  autonomy of Multilateral  Environmental Agreements vs trade rules Ministers must ensure that the Political Declaration affirms in a clear statement the authority and autonomy of MEAs, and clarifies that the objectives, principles, and obligations of MEAs shall not be adversely affected by the rules of the multilateral trading system.  Governments must also commit to improving global governance structures in general including through strengthening the UN Environment Programme, so that environmental, health and social policies are developed and implemented swiftly and effectively.   Launch negotiations for a  corporate accountability convention The EU has so far limited itself to supporting merely voluntary initiatives These initiatives cannot credibly be presented as an alternative to internationally agreed binding rules of accountability. 

A coherent framework is needed which ensures that business meets the minimum environmental and social standards necessary for sustainable development and which secures rights for citizens and communities to help provide them with sustainable livelihoods. We therefore urge Ministers to demand that a process of negotiation is set in place at Johannesburg for a binding global corporate accountability (including liability) convention. Insufficient corporate control is one of the key reasons why unsustainable development has continued in the last decade.  

Commit to meaningful action for sustainable water and energy policies On energy, we especially support initiatives to launch an action programme to enable access to clean, affordable and reliable energy services for the poorest part of the world's population and to establish a global target of 10% of primary energy supply from new renewable sources by 2010 whilst enhancing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Environmentally harmful energy subsidies in the fossil fuel and nuclear sector need to be phased out. The idea promoted by the European Commission ­ to contribute to nuclear programmes in the developing world ­ is absolutely unacceptable, because of the unsolved nuclear safety problems and the ever growing risk of proliferation of nuclear material for bomb use by terrorist and state actors. On water, we also urge governments to take serious steps to reach the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number people without access to safe drinking water and sanitation. It is the duty of the industrialised countries (recognising the ecological debt) to provide the necessary funds for these programmes.  Environmental and socially harmful subsidies should be eliminated and funding be di rected towards environmental on and socially viable activities. 

Promote localisation and diversity in the food chain, realise food security through food sovereignty; protect sustainable and healthy communities through non-intensive (sustainable) agriculture;  reject genetically modified crops and reject patents on life/nature. Governments must commit to and implement measures to eliminate export subsidies and export credit guarantees and stop dumping. There is a danger that type 2 outcomes will be used to force genetically modified crops on farmers under the guise of sustainable development. No type II outcomes that involved genetically modified organisms should be launched. In addition, the patenting of life forms needs to be stopped.   

 *partie=titre COUNTDOWN TO JOHANNESBURG  *partie=nil
  
Our key demands for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Friends of the Earth Europe has closely followed and participated in the preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and has developed and urged Governments to take account of the following key demands in order to reach a successful outcome in Johannesburg.

 *partie=titre The EU responsibility for a successful outcome of Jo'burg:  *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

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 }

Mediterranean environmental NGOs have called on EuroMed ministers of the environment to put environmental integration at the heart of the EuroMed partnership. Environmental Ministers meeting in Athens this week for the 2nd EuroMed Environmental Ministerial have a unique opportunity to place sustainable development at the heart of the Euro Mediterranean Partnership.

Environmental NGOs meeting in Athens on the eve of the Ministerial have pointed out that efforts to incorporate environmental and sustainable development issues within the partnership (which was established in 1995) have largely failed up until now. In the meantime, the quality of the Mediterranean environment has deteriorated in all aspects.

An urgent response to the building environmental crisis in the region needs to be adopted by the gathering Ministers. In an NGO meeting in Athens, co organised by FoE MedNet and hosted by the Mediterranean Information office, NGOs urged Ministers to amend the original Barcelona agreement by explicitly including sustainable development as the guiding objective of the Barcelona Process. 

The NGOs cautiously praised the Ministers intention to adopt a framework strategy for environmental integration in the EuroMed partnership. However, the Friends of the Earth MedNet Coordinator, Eugene Clancy, expressed his concern about the how successful the strategy would be in protecting the Mediterranean environment. He said  "the strategy will only bring positive benefits to the region, if EuroMed Ministers take personal responsibility for its proper implementation and transparent review mechanisms are clearly defined"

The 2nd Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on the Environment took place on 10 July in Athens. It was preceded by a broad NGO Preparatory Meeting on 7 July, corganised by FoE MedNet and the Mediterranean Information office, and by the 3rd Preparatory Meeting for the Ministerial on 8 July, and by a Forum of Stakeholders on Sustainable Development on 9 July. Ministers endorsed a report on the first 5 years of the Euro-Mediterranean Regional Programme on the Environment ­ SMAP, and adopted a Declaration. The Declaration is based on the report's conclusions and recommendations, and proposes a process and a strategic framework for environmental integration within the EuroMediterranean Partnership. The Declaration also refers to synergies with other major Regional Programmes, and related Conventions.

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

Acknowledge the ecological debt and cancel the financial debt of the global South Governments need to acknowledge the ecological debt that the global North owes the global South in the action program. While we support an action programme on sustainable consumption and production, the Global North must urgently take further steps to address this constantly growing debt. The financial debt of the South needs to be abolished as a necessary precondition for sustainable development.

Commit to continuity and strengthening of EU processes for sustainability beyond the WSSD, and adapt key EU policies to objectives of sustainable development FoEE urgently asks for the Ministers' commitment to the continuation and strengthening of the different EU processes dedicated to sustainable development. Within the Sustainable Development Strategy we urge the environmental ministers to give special attention to a reduction in the total amount of resources used in the EU. An indicator for measuring progress (such as Total Material Requirement) should be developed for the next Synthesis Report. Moreover FoEE urges the Ministers to push for the reform of EU-policies to make Europe sustainable. Among these urgently needed steps are: a European energy tax (Monti proposal); the phasing out of subsidies that are harmful to the environment; reform of the EU CAP to make EU subsidies work for environmentally friendly agriculture, providing people with safe and healthy food; reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; the reform of the European transport policy with the aim of decoupling transport growth from economic growth and developing a policy aimed at the reduction in transport in the European Union in general.  

*{ Contact : alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org }

*partie=titre SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TO BE RIGHT AT THE HEART OF EURO MEDITERRANEAN PARTNERSHIP *partie=nil 

*{ Additional reading: FoEI's detailed comments on the Bali chairman text http://www.rio-plus-10.org/en/positions/59.php FoEI's position paper on corporate accountability: http://www.rio-plus-10.org/en/positions/26.php Civil Society Statement: WTO rules must respect Multilateral Environmental Agreements, http://www.rio-plus-10.org/en/positions/32.php }

 FoEE is preparing the EURATOM conference "After 45 years of nuclear promotion: time for change" on Thursday 12th September European Parliament, Eastman Building, Rue Belliard 135, Brussels

*{ For more information go to http://www.foeeurope.org/activities/Nuclear/Euratom_conference.htm and have a look at the programme and register there! For further information on the content contact:  Patricia Lorenz patricia.lorenz@foeeurope.org }