*{ BULLETIN Friends of the Earth Europe } EU-leaders met on December 14-15th 2001 in Belgium at the Laeken Summit to conclude the six months of Belgian Presidency. The event took place much in the aftermath of the events of September 11th. Beside discussions on issues such as common security and defence or immigration and asylum policies, the most important result of the summit was the adoption of the Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union in the Council Conclusions (see also article on page 2 of this Bulletin). The inability of the European leaders to agree on the allocation of some of the 13 special European agencies, for instance the European Food Safety Authority and the European Maritime Safety Agency, is directly related to our environmental concerns and attracted a lot of attention. This was a further demonstration of the inefficient decision-making in the European Union. Unanimity, for example, often proves to be a barrier to progress. The Laeken Declaration thus opens the road for the discussion about the need and possibilities for an institutional reform before EU enlargement with ten new Member States. Three documents, which are relevant to the environmental field and have previously been adopted by the Environment Council, were submitted to the Laeken European Council: the Conclusions on the Strategy for sustainable development *{ (http://register.consilium.eu.int/ pdf/en/01/st15/15280en1.pdf) }, on international environmental governance { (http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st15/152 81en1.pdf) }, and on environment-related headline indicators for sustainable development ({ http://register.consili um.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st14/14589 en1.pdf )}. The Environment Council Conclusions on the Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) did not bring much new input into the debate. They were mainly recalling the general lines for the Strategy that have already been set up in Gothenburg, but the phrasing could reflect some positive approach by the EU Environment Ministers. The document `recognises the importance of giving practical and early effect to the Strategy through the adoption of concrete policies and measures'. It also stresses the `complementarity of the co-ordinating role of the General Affairs Council and the role of the Environment Council, which should therefore address the priorities and the targets and timetables to be referred to' for the SDS. The document stresses the need for environmental integration into the other internal and external EU policies, and underlines the importance of developing the external and global EU sustainable development policies, to complete the agreed EU SDS, before August 2002 for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. The Commission Communication as regards to the `external SDS' is expected to be published during January 2002. *{ NEWS FROM THE EU­OLYMP: 1 THE EU SUMMIT IN LAEKEN, BELGIUM A NEW DIRECTION FOR THE 2 EUROPEAN UNION? US GOVERNMENT THREATENS 3 CROATIA'S GMO MORATORIUM WITH WTO ACTION GMOS A CONSOLIDATED 4 MORATORIUM BUT US PRESSURE INCREASES FIRST MEETING OF THE SAFE 5 CAMPAIGNERS IN AMSTERDAM COMMON NUCLEAR SAFETY 5 STANDARDS FOR EUROPE? PRE-ACCESSION FUNDING 6 TIME TO CHANGE ­ NGOS 7 CALL FOR CONCRETE STEPS IN EIB REFORM NEW WTO AGENDA PUTS 7 SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES AT RISK CONTENT NEWS FROM THE EU­OLYMP: THE EU SUMMIT IN LAEKEN, BELGIUM } Following up the Sustainable Development Strategy of the EU, reference is made in the European Council Conclusions to the set of Structural Indicators which have been agreed during the Belgian Presidency (see both publication No.11 and article in FoEE Bulletin No.2 at *{ http://www.foeeurope.org/publications } ), and which will be used to asses the progress in the European Union during the Spring Councils (for the first time in Barcelona in March 2002). Seven key environmental indicators (see box 1) have been added to an already existing set of economical and social indicators. The relatively small number of environmental indicators shows that the environmental aspects of sustainability are still marginalised. In addition, the restriction to such a small number of indicators means that important issues, such as total resource use, biodiversity, land-use or soil and water quality are not yet covered and will not be considered when the EU evaluates its progress towards sustainability. Fortunately this list will not be a definite one and a reserve list has been set up containing indicators `to be developed', which will fill some of the gaps as regards environmental issues. It is interesting to note that the Environment Council Conclusions have identified the `further development of the indicators in the areas of public health, in particular chemicals, and of sustainable natural resources management, in particular water, biodiversity and resource use' as a priority. It remains however to be seen if these indicators will be added ­ The Presidency conclusions from the European Council meeting ­ to the overall list or if they will replace existing environmental indicators. Box 1: Environment-related Headline indicators selected for the 2002 Spring Review Combating Climate Change 1.Greenhouse gases emissions (6 gases), in absolute terms (related to the Kyoto target) 2.Share of renewables in electricity consumption Ensuring sustainable transport 3.Volume of transport vs. GDP (passengers -km, freight in tonne -km) 4.Modal split of transport (passengers -km, freight in tonne -km) Addressing public health 5.Urban population exposure to air pollution Managing natural resources more responsibly 6.Municipal waste collected, landfilled and incinerated, in kg/inhabitant General economic background 7.Energy intensity of the economy (energy consumption/GDP) For viewing the open list of environment-related headline indicators to be further finalised and developed see Council document 14589/01 at *{ http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/01/st14/14589en1.pdf } Concerning international environmental governance, the Environment Council Conclusions bring forward the Council's appreciation of the importance of having sustainable development governance, of which international environmental governance is part, on the agenda during the preparations for the Johannesburg Summit. The document is more or less just a first draft of reflections on the possible roles of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF), and synergies and interlinkages between GMEF and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), as much as of MEAs with international organisations. It also addresses the Council's interest in `having a strategic partnership between the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)' whose gradual adaptation to the new requirements could lead to a `World Environment Organisation'. The question of international environmental governance is however not addressed in the European Council Conclusions. Overall, the Summit produced only few results from an environmental point of view. The discussions about the transport sector have been frozen due to difficulties to find a compromise how to manage with the Austrian `ecopoint' system, which also has temporarily interrupted the corresponding negotiations with the accession countries. On energy, France rejected a request by Austria for the Commission to present proposals on common standards for nuclear safety. In the final version of the Conclusions, the Council committed itself to maintain `a high level of nuclear safety in the Union'. The European Council Conclusions also welcome the outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference, where ­ according to the document ­ a new round of global trade negotiations has been launched `based on an approach balanced equally between liberalisation and regulation, taking account of the interests of developing countries and promoting their capacity for development', certifying that the Union is determined to promote the social and environmental dimension of that round of negotiations. Nevertheless, much criticism was made of the EU's refusal to conduct a sustainability assessment of the Uruguay round of trade negotiations, and its pressing for a range of trade liberalisation measures that will have detrimental impacts for people and the environment (see related article, on page 7 of this bulletin). Similarly, the outcome of the Marrakech Conference on Climate Change is welcomed in the Conclusions. The Union states its determination to honour its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and confirms its desire that it should come into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which would be good news indeed even if many compromises were made to keep the Protocol alive. As regards Development Cooperation, the environmental aspects do not appear but the Conclusions express satisfaction concerning the Council's efforts to examine the means and the timeframe for each Member State's achievement of the UN official development aid target of 0.7% of GDP, as well as its commitment to continue its efforts to improve development co-operation instruments. The ambition to improve co-ordination of European and international policies to promote development shall be fulfilled in view of the next Development Conference in Monterrey and the Johannesburg World Summit. On Africa, Louis Michel (Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister) said that the EU has shown `the will to take the leadership in international co-operation in the fight against poverty.' Positive wording again, now we only have to wait for the actions... Frederic Thoma During the Summit, the Laeken Declaration on the Future of the European Union (available on the Consilium website: *{ http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm } ) was adopted. The declaration opens a wide debate about the European Institutions and potentially even a European constitution. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said the Declaration `marks the start of a debate on the future of Europe with no taboos'. Indeed the Declaration sets out the challenges and questions, with a strong emphasis on bringing Europe closer to its citizens, increasing the effectiveness of the Union and strengthening the EU's influence in a globalised world. The Declaration says the EU should be `able to play both a stabilising role world-wide and to point the way ahead for many countries and peoples'. It also says that the EU citizens want it to achieve certain objectives including a greater role in justice and security and results in the fields of employment, and combating poverty and social exclusion, while finding a common approach on environmental pollution, climate change and food safety. Furthermore it states that there is a need to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competencies between the Union and the Member States. In particular, it asks whether powers not assigned by the Treaties to the Union should fall within the exclusive competence of the Member States. *partie=titre A NEW DIRECTION FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION? ­ THE LAEKEN DECLARATION OF THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN UNION ­ *partie=nil Addressing the need to increase the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the present EU institutions, it raises the question of how to appoint the President of the European Commission. It asks whether the President should be chosen by the European Parliament or directly elected. It also talks about whether the role of the European Parliament should be extended, including greater use of co-decision. On external relations, it asks how to develop a more coherent common foreign and defence policy. On the question of a constitution, it stresses the need to simplify the existing Treaties and asks whether it might be possible to split the Treaties into two parts with the possibility of different ratification and amendment procedures. The Declaration asks whether the number of legal instruments should be reduced, and the question ultimately arises if, in the long run, simplification and reorganisation of the Treaties might lead to the adoption of a constitution for the Union. On the issue of simplification of EU legislation, environmental NGOs will have to watch out that such a process will not be misused to reduce strict environmental regulations or to make it more difficult to introduce new ones. Moreover, NGOs will need to monitor the trend of replacing legally binding Directives and Regulations by voluntary agreements. The revision of the Treaty should be one more reason to question the Euratom Treaty which still obliges the EU to promote nuclear power even though the vast majority of Member States are either phasing out nuclear power or do not have it anyway. Commentators in the press did not give the Laeken Declaration `a place in collections of glorious political texts', but there was a general agreement that the right questions about reform of the EU were asked. As so many past experiences have proved, the vote by unanimity has stopped progress in many cases, and the EU is in danger of paralysis after enlargement takes place ­ definitely a good reason to discuss institutional reforms. The overall aim of the Declaration was certainly not to give an immediate answer to those questions, but to create a special body ­ the Convention ­ where they could be asked, analysed and the different approaches could be discussed. The Convention The Declaration foresees the setting up of the Convention, which will have 105 members and will meet from March 2002 in Brussels, its debates being held in public. It will have to consider the various issues raised, and its central mandate is to draw a final document which may comprise either different options, indicating the degree of support they received, or recommendations if a consensus is reached. This final document shall, together with the outcome of the national debates, `provide a starting point for discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference' (that will come to a conclusion in 2004), and which will take the ultimate decisions. The Convention shall comprise a Praesidium of 12 members, of which Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (former President of France) has been appointed as President and Giuliano Amato (former Prime Minister of Italy) and Jean-Luc Dehaene (former Prime Minister of Belgium) as Vice-Presidents. Furthermore the Convention shall comprise representatives of governments and national parliaments (including the candidate countries), the European Parliament and the European Commission. Civil society organisations will also be invited to contribute to the Convention's debates through a special Forum. Regions with legislative powers will have observer status as part of the delegation of the Committee of the Regions. If the Convention functions the way it should, its conclusions could provide a springboard for the new Treaty. It is actually not being asked to elaborate a few ad hoc institutional reforms (like the modest, half-successful outcome of the last inter-governmental negotiations in Amsterdam and Nice), but to answer vital questions about the future of Europe, its responsibilities, tasks and ambitions. The Civil Society Forum `In order for the debate to be broadly based and involve all citizens, a Forum will be opened for organisations and networks representing civil society (social partners, business, non-governmental organisations, academia, etc...). It will take the form of a structured network of organisations receiving regular information on the Convention's proceedings. Their contributions will serve as input into the debate. Such organisations may be heard or consulted on specific topics in accordance with arrangements to be established by the Praesidium.' Implications for Friends of the Earth Many of the questions that have been raised in the Declaration obviously touch the work of environmental as well as other NGOs. A key question will be how representatives of civil society are going to be appointed for the Forum and how much influence civil society will have on the process. Several NGOs addressed Mr Verhofstadt (Prime Minister of Belgium) in a letter before the Laeken Summit, proposing that the Praesidium of the Convention should organise regular meetings with the representatives of a NGO co-ordination, in which the Green-8 network (of which FoEE is part) would participate. NGOs also suggested that public hearings should be organised in the Member States and candidate countries by members of the Convention, together with representatives of national and regional parliamentary assemblies. Another point of concern might be how strongly the environmental groups will be represented and to what extent environmental concerns will be taken into consideration in a Forum where so many different interests are going to be embodied. Finally, it remains to be seen how much the input provided by the Forum will be taken into account by the Convention. *{ Contact: Frederic Thoma FoEE, Programme assistant, frederic.thoma@foeeurope.org } *partie=titre US GOVERNMENT THREATENS CROATIA'S GMO MORATORIUM WITH WTO ACTION *partie=nil In December Friends of the Earth and ANPED participated at a Roundtable on Biosafety organised by the Croatian Environment Ministry in Zagreb denouncing the US bullying of the Croatian Government about its plans to adopt a moratorium on GMOs. In June 2001, four Croatian ministries agreed on the text of a draft law to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products thereof until more specific regulatory framework is in place. Since September, Croatia has been under increasing US pressure to drop the draft law as shown by a leaked memo obtained by FoE Croatia. In the memo, dated November 28 and addressed to the Ministry of Environment from the U.S. Embassy in Zagreb, the US tries to put trade before environmental protection stating "if such a ban is implemented, the US Government must consider its rights under WTO." The memo from the US Embassy also asserts that biotech food products "have been demonstrated to be as safe as conventional food products in the US and elsewhere." However, U.S. groups acknowledge in a letter addressed to the Croatian Minister of Environment in response to this memo, that the US regulatory framework and monitoring policies are inadequate, as confirmed by the ongoing scandal with StarLink GMO corn. The US memo to Croatia also discourages other countries from adopting legal frameworks on GMOs similar to the European Union (EU). The US Embassy "suggests caution in implementing EU biotech directives, which require substantial infrastructure and institutional capacity to carry out". At present, the US is trying to undermine proposed EU legislation on labelling and traceability and is pressuring the EU to lift its moratorium (see realated article on page 4 of this bulletin). At present Croatian competent authorities seem to have resisted US pressure. Croatian Environment Minister Bozo Kovacevic said on January 14th that Croatia will draft legislation to ban production and limit imports of food containing GMOs, despite lobbying from the United States. He said that "The US government is lobbying for the interests of US companies, and that is their right. Our duty is to protect our interests and follow the legislation of the European Union". The Croatian case shows that the World Trade Organisation is the instrument that the US and biotech corporations are using to force countries around the world to accept GMOs. The US interference is outrageous since it imposes their trade priorities over the environment and health priorities of Croatia. Every country in the world should have the right to establish moratoria on the introduction of GMOs until adequate regulatory frameworks, effective monitoring and enforcement capabilities are in place to ensure sound biosafety regulation. *{ Contact: Juan Lopez FoEI, Adviser on Genetic Engeneering juan.lopez@foeeurope.org } "December 1st. An Activist from Green Action FoE Croatia, posing as an American, giving GM seeds to delegates attending a Round Table organised by the Croatian Environmental Minister in Zagreb." Two more Member States support the moratorium Despite increasing pressure from the United States and the biotech industry, the EU's moratorium on GMO approvals has been consolidated by recent positive developments in Belgium and Germany, both of which can now be considered as part of the moratorium countries. Germany had never officially pronounced itself in favour of the moratorium but the government had deferred commercial cultivation pending discussions with the GM seed industry. These discussions were later expanded to a broader-based stakeholder consultation process. In October 2001 Agriculture / Consumer Affairs Minister Renate Künast and Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin wrote to the European Commission stating that the moratorium should remain in place until the revised GMO deliberate release directive enters into force (October 2002) and future Traceability/Labelling regulations are clarified. In December, it was announced that the first round of consultations between government and stakeholders (industry, scientists, farmer organisations, trade unions, NGOs and church representatives) had been completed, with new meetings planned during 2002. A government spokesperson said that overall the consultations are expected to take approximately another year. A public meeting is scheduled for the summer to review the progress of different working groups set up under the consultation process. In Belgium, Environment and Public Health Minister Magda Alvoet issued a press release at the beginning of December, clarifying her government's position on GMOs. The clear message was that firm regulations must be in place before the moratorium can be lifted. In particular, Minister Alvoet said that "Belgium has decided that two conditions will have to be met before any move can be made to lift the moratorium: ­ the Belgian government must undertake to transpose EU Directive 2001/18/EC into national legislation (the revised EU deliberate release directive) , ­ regulations concerning traceability and labelling will have to be formally approved (Proposals tabled by the European Commission in July 2001 which yet have to be discussed/amended by the European Parliament) ". On the other hand, recent elections in Denmark, one of the original `moratorium five' Member States (Denmark, France, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg), changed the political situation with the arrival of a more right-wing government. It is anticipated that the new administration will be much less radical in its opposition to GMOs. Although it is fortunately not expected that Denmark will leave the moratorium, the demands of the previous government (former Agriculture Minister (and EU Environment Commissioner) Ritt Bjerregaard and former Environment Minister Svend Auken) are likely to be severely watered down. This means that Denmark will no longer push for labelling of food produced from GMO-fed animals, will give up its demand for liability of GMO producers, and is likely to accept the Commission's proposals to allow 1% `adventitious' contamination of food by unapproved and unlabelled GMOs. *partie=titre The US puts up the pressure *partie=nil Meanwhile, the Bush administration is increasing its demands that the EU lifts the moratorium and speeds up the GMO approval process. Among others, US Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs Alan Larson, in particular, has built up his air miles considerably over the past few months by making frequent visits to Brussels to put pressure on the European Commission. The Commission is playing the "between a rock and a hard place" game. On the one hand, they claim that the moratorium is illegal and indeed, under the old deliberate release directive 90/220/EEC which is technically still in force, the Commission has the final say if Member States fail to reach agreement on a GMO authorisation. On the other hand, however, the Commission knows that it is political dynamite for them to act against the will of the Member States and, since the GMO approval process ground to a halt in spring 1998, it has never dared take that step. Consumer Affairs Commissioner David Byrne is on record as saying that he would "never go against the will of the Member States" on a political issue such as this. So the Commission is playing a waiting game ­ when the new deliberate release directive comes into force in October 2002, the decision-making procedure changes putting the onus of the final decision in the lap of the Member States (as it should be) rather than with the Commission. At that time, the Commission will feel that the pressure has been lifted from its back ­ it can metaphorically throw its hands in the air when faced by American politicians or biotech industry executives and say that the fault lies with the Member States. This will provide relief from repeated demands by the US government and biotech companies that the Commission take Member States to court for not allowing more GMO authorisations or for imposing national bans on particular GMOs. Another threat that the US government is waving in the face of the European Union is the possibility of a trade war under the WTO. In August 2001, the Commission notified the WTO's Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade of its Proposals for future EU Regulations on Traceability/Labelling of GMOs and GM Food/Feed. WTO members had until 28th December to file comments on the Proposals and the US comments are, unsurprisingly, very critical (impracticable, too costly, etc.). The Commission is expected to publish its response to the comments received in the WTO in the coming weeks. *partie=titre The Spanish Presidency *partie=nil It remains to be seen how the GMO situation will evolve under the Spanish Presidency. Spain is considered one of the most pro-GMO Member States and is the only country in the EU where any significant amounts of GM crops are grown (about 25,000 hectares of Bt maize). There is, therefore, a potential risk that during its presidency, the Spanish government might push for the moratorium to be lifted by supporting the re-launch of the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" initiative with the biotech industry. This initiative, first put forward by the Commission in July 2000, proposes that GMO approvals could start again if the biotech companies commit, under voluntary agreements, to adhere to the conditions of both the revised deliberate release directive (before it is officially in place) AND the future EU Regulations on Traceability/Labelling of GMOs and GM Food/Feed. This, of course, is a ridiculous proposal for a number of reasons, not least because the European Parliament has not even started to discuss the Traceability/Labelling and GM Food/Feed proposals yet, so noone knows what the final regulations will look like. This procedure, under Co-Decision between the Parliament and the Council, will not be completed until the latter part of this year, with the Regulations not actually entering into force until early 2003. Contact: Gill Lacroix gill.lacroix@foeeurope.org To keep up-to-date with developments on the moratorium, GMO regulation and other biotech news, consult the FoEE Biotech Mailout on: *{ www.foeeurope.org/biotechnology/about.htm } *partie=titre GMOS A CONSOLIDATED MORATORIUM BUT US PRESSURE INCREASES *partie=nil At the last Annual General Meeting in Gothenburg in June 2001, it was agreed that "food and agriculture" would be FoE Europe's main campaign in 2002. The working title of this campaign is SAFE (Sustainable Agriculture and Food for Europe). Milieudefensie/FoE Netherlands is the lead group. On the 6th ­ 8th December 2001, Milieudefensie/FoE Netherlands organised the first coordination meeting of the SAFE campaigners in Amsterdam. During very constructive plenary sessions, the main problems of European agricultural policy and possible campaign strategies were discussed. The 2002 midterm review of the CAP reform process This year the European Commission will review the Agenda 2000 reform process of the CAP (Common Agriculture Policy). This provides a good possibility for FoEE to address the outstanding problems that CAP presents for the environment and European citizens. Although there have been several reforms of the CAP since its establishment in 1957, the main paradox still remains unsolved. It is still based on the assumption that food scarcity exists in Europe. Article 33 (exArt. 39) of the EU Treaty still defines the CAP's first aim "to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour". This emphasis on the aim to increase productivity is also reflected in the budget of the CAP. Approximately 90 % is spent on direct payment and market measures and only 10 % in rural development or agroenvironmental measures. This encourages farmers to intensive forms of agriculture the negative effects of which are well known all over Europe. BSE and the dioxin scandal are the most obvious recent examples of misguided agriculture policy. Water pollution by nitrates and pesticides, air pollution by nitrogen and ammonia, water shortages due to groundwater extraction for huge mono-crop cultivation, soil erosion and saliniation, and the loss of biodiversity are other effects of intensive agriculture. In addition, the CAP is causing huge inequalities among farmers. Small farmers and farmers in less favourable areas are unable to make a living from farming and are squeezed out of business. Pressure increases Recently, the EU has come under increased pressure from various sides to launch a further reform of the CAP towards more sustainable agriculture. First of all, there is public opinion. Food quality has become a more and more important issue for European citizens. Each year EUR 44 billion of taxpayers` money is spent by the EU to support the farming industry. The CAP costs 100 times more than the EU's youth, culture and education budgets combined, 300 times more than the EU's environment budget and 2000 times more than the EU's consumer protection budget. With that in mind, at the very least good quality of food can be expected. The forthcoming enlargement of the EU is another strong argument for reform of the CAP. Nobody can want to extend our problems eastwards by adopting the same policies in the accession countries and creating the same environmental and social problems all over again. In particular, the many small-scale family farms of the CEE countries would be threatened by the existing CAP and many of them would vanish. Pressures from the WTO are another argument for further reform i.e. agricultural support will sooner or later have to be decoupled from production, and thus payments to farmers will have to be increasingly for environmental or social benefits. What has to change? Given that Europe's food supply has already been secure for many decades, it is high time to change the aim of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. Productivity is no longer the key-word, but sustainability. This means that the aim of the CAP should be to ensure a broadly scoped, diverse development of sustainable ways of living and working in rural areas. Agriculture is a multifunctional sector that involves much more than producing food and other agrarian products. It also implies non-food functions like the preservation of rural landscapes for which farmers should also be rewarded. Therefore it is essential that financial support for farmers should be moved away from price support measures towards financial support for environmental and rural development measures. Moreover, certain environmental criteria for receiving financial support have to be obligatorily introduced in all Member States. The midterm review of the CAP reform process will show if the EU is willing to make a substantial shift in its agriculture policy or not. Let's hope so ­ in the interests of future sustainable agriculture and food in Europe. n Contact: Manfred Mader, Campaign Assistant manfred.mader@foeeurope.org *partie=titre FIRST MEETING OF THE SAFE CAMPAIGNERS IN AMSTERDAM COMMON NUCLEAR SAFETY STANDARDS FOR EUROPE? *partie=nil While most products are being standardized and regulated within the EU, safety or unsafety of nuclear power plants remains solely within the jurisdiction of Member States. Some nonnuclear EU countries and several NGOs have been considering calling for common nuclear safety standards to finally make national nuclear authorities accountable to someone. However, harmonising nuclear safety could result in the development of standards according to the lowest common denominator and might even hinder efforts to argue for higher standards. Who is Checking Safety? The only "external regulator" of nuclear safety is the IAEA (UN special body: International Atomic Energy Agency). While the IAEA is being sold by the nuclear industry as an independent body, the fact is that the IAEA would never declare any installation unfit for operation. The IAEA's main function is to promote the safe use of nuclear energy worldwide. To this end, the IAEA issues recommendations on minimum nuclear safety standards but adequate standards are very hard to attain since they must be accepted by all 132 member states. The EU is not responsible for nuclear safety,that is there are no regulations on nuclear power plants in the acquis communautaire. The mandate of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) Treaty only ensures adequate supply of uranium to member states, radiation protection and safeguards against theft of nuclear materials. The attempt at Laeken At the Laeken Summit in December, non-nuclear Austria tabled a proposal calling for common nuclear safety standards. The outcome was vague at best with final language stressing that the Commission has no jurisdiction on nuclear safety: "The European Council undertakes to maintain a high level of nuclear safety in the Union. It stresses the need to monitor the security and safety of nuclear power stations. It calls for regular reports from Member States' atomic energy experts, who will maintain close contact with the Commission". In practice nothing has to change because each country already hands in a yearly report to the IAEA under the Nuclear Safety Convention. At Laeken, France, UK and Sweden were strongly against the Austrian initiative. The opposition by nuclear states to In the series of meetings within the framework of the CEE NGOs consultation with the DG-Environment, a seminar on Pre-accession Funding was organised by the Centre for Environmental Policy in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 10th November 2001. Fifteen participants from Central Eastern European NGOs and the Lithuanian team took part in the discussion and made recommendations to the European Commission (EC) regarding pre-accession funding. A paper was presented to the Commission on the subsequent meeting on December 10th in Brussels. Four national coordinators of the CEE Bankwatch/FoEE project "Billions for Sustainability?" were present at the seminar providing participants with their 1,5 years long experience in monitoring the funds. NGOs pointed out the major deficiencies in the implementation of the pre-accession funds. These are: a. The process is not transparent; b. Civil society is not involved in the phase of project preparation and decision-making; c. Environmental concerns are lagging behind the rhetoric of sustainable development. More concretely the bottlenecks mentioned were as follows: · Lack of institutional capacity in candidate countries; · Lack of guidance for the use of pre-accession funding from the EC side, misleading procedures for economic analysis; · Absence of external costs calculation requirement; · Outdated ISPA strategies in many countries; · Lack of Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of the funding programmes; · Lack of monitoring of the funding; · Lack of transparency of bank processes and information on the funding process (EIB, ISPA, SAPARD); · Lack of public consultation on projects; · Lack of regional development policies in candidate countries. Surveys made by NGOs revealed: a substantial lack of information on ISPA funding opportunities, limited access to the main ISPA documentation and a wide range of problems municipalities encounter with preparation of ISPA applications. Bird Life International prepared a comprehensive evaluation study on impact of development of Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment (TINA) transport network in 10 candidate countries for Important Bird Areas (IBAs). There is a serious danger the implementation of TINA projects would destroy or significantly affect one in five IBAs, which calls for revision of some TINA development plans and application of more complex impact evaluation tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment. It also was realised that in many cases the `end-of-pipe' attitude is prevailing and, in particular, waste minimisation has not played a priority role in the waste sector. It was concluded that the main problem in pre-accession funding is ineffective fund management or even sometimes misuse . This is evident from the experience with many projects and transport related projects in particular (TINA). NGOs present at the meeting prepared a set of recommendations to the European Commission on how to improve the preaccession funds process. 1. Improvement of legal basis and institutional work: · Easing and clearing of the procedures and administration of SAPARD funds at farm level, thus providing access to funds for small and family farms; · Encourage national governments to provide Technical Assistance (TA) to local authorities and to support inter-municipal co-operation re ISPA; · Include an affordability analysis in the project planning; · Specify requirements to public transport related projects for ISPA; · Encourage Candidate Countries (CC) to revise ISPA Strategies and to include air quality improvement related projects in the funding pipeline; · Set a procedure to check the compliance of all proposed projects against the EU environmental legislation, though it is not officially in effect in CC; · Propose the measures to strengthen EIAs and SEAs role in investments processes funded through pre-accession funds: fully scrutinise EIA from the EC side; · Encourage the CC governments to accelerate the SEA process in accession countries; · Encourage the CC governments to provide transport related investment project proposals that focus on modernisation of existing infrastructure and not on new construction; · Establish a discussion on the decentralising of CFCUs, providing more powers to the national ministries; · While planning investment projects, take into consideration potential NATURA 2000 sites; · Sustainable development should be the overall framework within which all the processes and pre-accession funded projects are prepared and implemented. *partie=titre PRE-ACCESSION FUNDING NGO POSITION PAPER ­ EU-NGO DIALOGUE NOVEMBER 2001 *partie=nil 2. Access to information, public participation and involvement into the decision-making process (see also recommendations from the seminar `Role of NGOs in pre-accession and capacity building') · Demand the better performance of governments in informing local authorities about the alternatives of common standards can have several reasons. Some players like EDF (the utility owning all nuclear power plants in France) are against non-nuclear states having any say in nuclear affairs, which common EU standards would lead to. On the other hand, according to some EU diplomats, the plant construction industry is pushing for common EU safety standards in order to get new commercial orders. Another player not to be forgotten is the nuclear industry's prolonged arm: WENRA, the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association. WENRA is a private club of nuclear regulators in Europe, where, of course, no non-nuclear EU states or independent research institutes are represented. WENRA is already preparing a study on the methodology for the development of harmonisation of nuclear safety standards for the EU. The first draft was presented to the European Commission and Member States in November in Rome. It's not the first time WENRA uses this type of backdoor politics. Last year WENRA presented a proposal for minimal safety standards in EU candidate countries. The study was very weak in many respects and FoEE was successful in preventing the report from being adopted as a EU position at the summit in Nice. It is unlikely that developing common EU safety standards will lead to closures of old reactors or even improve safety in the foreseeable future. What's more, it could even have a boomerang effect: The EU Member States will be able to agree only on the lowest common denominator so that even the most rotten MAGNOX reactors will be cleared as "EUSAFE". As a consequence, it could get more difficult to lobby for higher safety levels in e.g. Germany. Furthermore, these new standards will serve as arguments for not upgrading plants. *{ Contact: Patricia Lorenz, FoE Europe, Anti-Nuclear Coordinator, patricia.lorenz@foeeurope.org } On November 23rd environmental and development groups met in London with representatives of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in order to discuss environment and development issues related to the EIB operations. This is the latest in a series of NGO-EIB consultations held since 1995. NGOs have been highly critical of the EIB's failure to embrace serious reforms, starting with an open information policy. Under the pressure coming from NGOs and partly the European Parliament in the last two years, the Bank finally accepted that a change in the Institution is needed. However, the activities one can observe are more like painting the facade of a house while the rooms inside are still dirty and the roof is leaking. What we see is still more PR strategies than a real change. The EIB is owned by the 15 EU Member States with the UK, Germany, Italy and France contributing the biggest portion of the Bank's capital. It is an institution of great importance with its operations covering more than 150 countries worldwide, having a portfolio size bigger than the World Bank and supporting controversial projects such as the Chad-Cameroon pipeline in Africa and the Lihir gold mine in Papua New Guinea. Founded in 1958, the EIB is the major financing institution of the European Union and should work within the remit of the EU Treaties. The EIB should be a leader in complying with the principles of representation, participation, public accountability and sustainable development so eloquently set out in various EU treaties, directives and other official documents. Yet the EIB remains one of the most untransparent international financial institutions. During the last year, NGOs led by the CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth have released a series of reports and held Roundtables about the EIB with decisionmakers and parliamentarians around Europe. According to those roundtables and reports the main areas of change should be: · Full public access to all relevant project information in a timely way. · Establishment of clear environmental standards to underpin the EIB's role in promoting the EU Sustainable development Strategy. · Acceptance by the EIB that it does have a development mandate, and agreement on how its activities outside the EU should be carried out in a transparent way. · Greater supervision of the EIB, including the roles of the European Parliament, European Court of Auditors, and the European Ombudsman, in order to promote greater public accountability. For more than a year the EIB has been reviewing its information policy. However, until now, it did not release any new draft policy which the public could comment on. The EIB is not willing to make public any information on projects it supports if their promoters, usually private companies, oppose it. Such assumption in favour of non-disclosure of EIB documents is unacceptable and breaches major international recognised standards on access to information. European citizens have a right to know how their money is going to be spent. The full statement signed by 18 NGOs from all over Europe can be found on the web site: *{ www.bankwatch.org } For more information about the meeting in London contact Magda Stoczkiewicz. Magda Stoczkiewicz *partie=titre TIME TO CHANGE ­ NGOS CALL FOR CONCRETE STEPS IN EIB REFORM *partie=nil *{ partie de phrase manquante? } funding and the selection of the projects; · Encourage CC governments to involve NGOs in the early project development stage (e.g. including them in ISPA evaluation commission). · Encourage the CC to increase the role of NGOs in spreading of information at local and regional level; · Allocate certain funds in the EC for spreading of information on pre-accession funding; · Facilitate preparation of a practical plan for public information about pre-accession funding; · Establish the monitoring and assessment mechanism for pre-accession funding and ensure that NGOs are included in it; · Disseminate and consult with the public the reviewed strategies for pre-accession funds. Organise information meetings with NGOs to discuss the investment process and facilitate public participation in the funding process; · Prepare and disseminate to the governments and consult with the public the strategies of cohesion and regional funds, in order to create efficient legal, institutional and organisational system. *{ Contact: Magda Stoczkiewicz, Accession project coordinator CEE Bankwatch Network, FoEE magdas@foeeurope.org } Environmentalists in Europe need to be alert for the upcoming 3 years of trade negotiations to ensure that our global, national and local environmental rules will not be further undermined by the WTO. The first meeting of a new trade negotiation body in the WTO that will supervise the newly agreed package of negotiations will be held on 28 January 2002 in Geneva. Governments agreed at the 4th WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar in November 2001 to pursue a broad spectrum of trade liberalisation negotiations in the next three years (20022004). The new set of negotiations will include dismantling trade barriers in agriculture, services, non-agricultural products, subsidies, anti-dumping and trade and environment. Due to strong opposition from developing countries, work on investment, competition, government procurement and trade facilitation will be confined to study work with a view to launching negotiations after the next Ministerial in 2003. However the EU already aims to start pre-negotiations on the scope of an investment agreement now. While many more people than in Seattle went onto the streets in decentralised actions on 10 November, only 100 NGO representatives were allowed to travel to the Ministerial in Qatar as accredited NGOs. Alexandra Wandel of FoEE was one of the privileged NGOs representatives who followed the negotiations and, in particular, the role of the EU in Qatar. While the EU claims to have succeeded in putting sustainable development at the heart of the negotiations, FoEE highlights a wide range of potential negative implications. Here is why concerned environmentalist will have to watch out for future trade talks in the WTO: World Trample Organisation: Is the Future of Kyoto and Biosafety Protocols at Stake? Despite much opposition, the EU got its way to finally launch trade and environment negotiations. Among one of the hot issues to be discussed is the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and WTO rules. At stake are MEAs with trade components such as the Kyoto and Biosafety Protocols. While the EU pushed hard with good intentions, various NGOs concluded that the final Doha agreement offers more threats than opportunities. Campaigners need to ensure in the coming months that MEA trade provisions will not effectively be undermined and environmental considerations not be subordinated to trade concerns. As this important issue is on the WTO agenda and not yet much debated in the context of the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, campaigners should call for a discussion about the implementation, improvement, strengthening and better coordination of MEAs, as well as for a political declaration by heads of states that MEAs take precedence over trade rules. *partie=titre NEW WTO AGENDA PUTS SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES AT RISK *partie=nil A Disservice to the Environment? The Acceleration of Energy, Waste, Tourism, Transport Talks Under the trade and environment negotiations, the US and EU managed to get agreement to further open markets for `environmental goods and services'. Trade in services is big business and trade talks could minimise obligations of TNCs. The EU has defined environmental services as a broad spectrum of water and waste management. Water liberalisation is supposed to be as far-reaching as collection and dissemination of vital (ground) water resources, if big European corporations such as Vivendi and Suez Lyonnais des Eaux get their way. Governments will also intensify their rule-making on eliminating barriers to trade for energy (including exploration of fossil fuels and potentially nuclear energy), tourism, transport, construction services and reducing domestic regulatory measures. Effective strategies are needed to avoid them becoming rules that serve TNCs rather than people and the environment. Already by 30 June 2002 governments will submit requests for specific commitments and submit offers by 31 March 2003. Revival of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment? The Doha agenda was agreed with an additional note of the chairman that clarifies that negotiations on investment as well as on competition, government procurement and trade facilitation (the Singapore issues) is postponed until the 5th Ministerial where an explicit consensus on the modalities of talks is needed. The EU claims, however, that pre-negotiations will already take place in Geneva on the scope and definition of investment. A revived Multilateral Agreement on Investment could be on the horizon that could include investor to state disputes. In other words, transnationals could get the right to sue governments in court and challenge environmental regulations as happened frequently in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is time for NGOs to review their strategies that led to the collapse of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in the OECD. Agriculture: Business as Usual? One of the biggest fights in Doha was about agriculture and in particular the elimination of export subsidies. With several EU head of states resisting pressure from the CAIRNS and US group, a deal was struck whereby governments agreed to reductions, with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidies. In addition, the other common WTO agricultural objectives of increased market access and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support were reiterated. Governments failed both to address the key issue of export dumping and to give support for a development box and more sustainable ways of farming. The development box would allow developing countries to design farming policies that allow food security and rural development policies. Non-trade concerns that might include environment, landscape and biodiversity protection will be taken into account in the negotiations and can offer a window of opportunity. A real danger for the livelihoods of farmers, women and indigenous people, is the influence of big agribusinesses that push for industrial and export-led farming policies in povertystricken countries. A threat for farmers could also be the `commodification' of water resources through the acceleration of liberalisation of water collection and distribution (see above). TRIPS: Patents over People While access to medicines was a key issue in Doha and was partly resolved with the adoption of a political declaration, biopiracy and the patenting of life forms was sidelined. The WTO has, however, been instructed to look into the relationship between the WTO`s TRIPS agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as the protection of tradition knowledge and folklore. `New developments' to be discussed hint at increased discussions on biotechnological inventions. Threats to Forests, Climate and Conversation Measures Governments also agreed to discuss the elimination of trade barriers for ALL non-agricultural goods. While this concerns 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. The 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 acknowledges. *{ 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 } 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 mostly industrial goods, it also includes `commodities' such as timber, mining and other products. This can lead to increased natural resource extraction, the destruction of precious forests and threats to conservation measures. What are called nontariff measures can entail conservation measures such as labelling requirements. It will also lead to the further unsustainable export-led development in forestry, mining, fossil fuels and fisheries and other natural resources. US Threatens with WTO Action against GMO Rules Other environmental issues such as the compatibility of WTO rules with environmental labels as well as the effect of environmental measures on market access will be simply discussed in the Committee on Trade and Environment with a possibility to launch negotiations at the 5th Ministerial in 2003. Aside from the ongoing negotiations, the US continues to threaten the EU on the basis of taking legal action against the EU's strict GMO regulations (see related article on page 4). While this transatlantic dispute has been going on for several years, the US administration has submitted a legal study to the WTO that hints at the incompatibility of GMO rules. So will the US soon lose patience and dare to file a complaint again the EU's strict GMO regulations at the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body or continue to break down the EU's regulation more quietly in behind closed doors negotiations? In a nutshell: if NGOs had much concern and work before Doha, they even have to increase the time spent on these global trade rules now. *{ Contact: Alexandra Wandel, FoEE Trade and Sustainability Coordinator alexandra.wandel@foeeurope.org } FoE in co-operation with Via Campesina, Focus on the Global South and Public Citizen invited over 110 NGO activists from more than 50 countries to gather for a post Qatar and post September 11 strategy meeting of the `Our world is not for sale' coalition in Brussels in December 2001. The meeting offered an opportunity to assess the outcome of Doha and to develop joint action proposals and strategies. In addition, FoEE organised a meeting with a high level delegation of the European Commission to discuss concerns of the EU's position and negotiation tactics in the WTO. For further information on the outcome of the meeting, please contact Alexandra Wandel.