Greenpeace EU: agriculture

Monsanto signals partial withdrawal from EU

edavitt — Wed, 29 May 2013 14:00:00 +0200

Brussels – Monsanto will no longer actively push their products within the EU, except in countries where there is political support, according to a story from Danish media service Investigative Reporting Denmark [1]. The news comes after over two million people worldwide came out onto the streets over the weekend to protest against political interference and environmental damage by one of the world’s biggest biotech companies.

A Monsanto representative is quoted in the report as saying that the company decided in 2011 to stop pushing its untested and potentially dangerous products within the EU, except in those countries where it “enjoys broad farmer support” and “broad political support”. The representative concluded that Monsanto will therefore restrict its genetically modified (GM) crops to only Spain and Portugal. However, he noted that existing field trials will continue. There is no indication that Monsanto will drop its pending applications to market new GM crops in the EU.

German chemical company BASF withdrew its biotech operations from Europe in January 2012 [2].

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “This is a good day for science and innovation in Europe. With their obsession on GM, Monsanto and other biotech multinationals have been hindering progress for too long. Genetic engineering is a crude and outdated technology. It threatens the environment and health, and it cannot provide the solutions that farming desperately needs. Other cutting-edge biotechnologies and ecological methods should now be given the space to deliver real benefits for European farmers and consumers [3].”

Notes

[1] ‘GMO lose Europe – victory for environmental organisations’, Investigative Reporting Denmark, 29 May:http://www.ir-d.dk/gmo-lose-europe-victory-for-environmental-organisations/.

[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/BASF-retreats-from-Europe-as-GM-crops-rejected/

[3] ‘Chemical giant BASF flees Europe’, Greenpeace blogpost, January 2012: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/blog/chemical-giant-basf-flees-europe/blog/38759/

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0) 477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace. Greenpeace does not accept donations from governments, the EU, businesses or political parties.

EU food agency links fourth pesticide to bee decline

edavitt — Mon, 27 May 2013 13:21:00 +0200

Brussels – In the latest scientific warning against the impacts of common pesticides on bees, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today released a scientific assessment linking a pesticide known as fipronil to harmful effects on bees. Three other bee-harming pesticides have been partially banned in Europe following similar damning reports from EFSA published in January.

EFSA concluded that fipronil, produced by German chemical company BASF, poses a “high acute risk to honeybees when used as a seed treatment for maize” [1]. EFSA’s assessment also identified large information gaps in scientific studies, preventing it from assessing risks to pollinators other than honey bees and dangers from exposure to residues of the chemical (for example in soil and non-targeted plants). Given the information available, EFSA found lower risk levels for fipronil use on some vegetables.

In light of the evidence, Greenpeace is calling on the EU to ban fipronil and to develop a comprehensive plan to tackle the collapse in bee populations in Europe.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “The fact that fipronil and other pesticides toxic to bees were authorised at all shows that EU safety testing is in dire need of an overhaul. These pesticides have been building up in our environment for a decade, so limited, temporary bans won’t be enough to give bees a breather, particularly while other similar chemicals are still being used. The Commission should develop a comprehensive plan for the protection of insect pollinators, starting with a solid ban on fipronil and other bee-harming substances.”

Last month, a majority of EU countries backed a two-year partial ban of three other pesticides, classified as neonicotinoids, which EFSA said were causing harm to bees [2]. On 24 May, the European Commission formally enacted the ban, which will take effect in December 2013 [3]. Greenpeace’s recent report on the chemical threats facing bees in Europe, Bees in Decline, shows the effect that the three neonicotinoids, and four other common pesticides, including fipronil (which is not itself a neonicotinoid), are having on the health of pollinators [4].

While an important first step, the partial ban of the three neonicotinoids - clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – is insufficient to help Europe’s pollinators stage a recovery. The EU should spearhead further research into the connections between Europe’s most widely used pesticides and the decline of pollinators, and shift funding from the current chemical-intensive agricultural system to modern ecological farming practices.

Bees and other pollinators play a crucial role in food production. Around a third of the world’s food crops directly depend on natural pollination from bees and other animals [5].

Notes

[1] EFSA assesses risks to bees from fipronil:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130527.htm

[2] Greenpeace, Majority of EU countries support partial ban of bee-killing pesticides, 29 April 2013: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Majority-of-EU-countries-support-partial-ban-of-bee-killing-pesticides

[3] Bee Health: EU-wide restrictions on Pesticide use to enter into force on 1 December, 24 May 2013: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-457_en.htm

[4] Bees in Decline, (March 2013) Greenpeace Research Laboratories technical report: http://bees-decline.org/

[5] Kremen C, et al (2007), Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change, Ecology Letters, 10: 299-314.

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0) 477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Edward.Davitt@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Majority of EU countries support partial ban of bee-killing pesticides

edavitt — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:58:00 +0200

Brussels – A clear majority of EU countries have supported the European Commission proposal to temporarily ban three pesticides that are scientifically shown to be harmful to bees: imidacloprid and clothianidin, produced by chemical company Bayer, and thiamethoxam, produced by Syngenta.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “Today’s vote makes it crystal clear that there is overwhelming scientific, political and public support for a ban. Those countries opposing a ban have failed. Now, the Commission must draw the only conclusion possible and immediately halt the use of these pesticides as a first step to protect European food production and ecosystems. Any further delay would mean giving in to the lobbying muscle of Bayer and Syngenta.”

The three pesticides are all neonicotinoids, pesticides that are used to coat seeds before germination, added to soil or sprayed on plants.

In scientific reports published earlier this year, which triggered the Commission proposal, the European Food Safety Authority said the three neonicotinoids posed “high acute risks” to honeybees in certain crop uses [1]. Extensive peer-reviewed scientific research has linked even low doses of neonicotinoids with neurological and other physiological damage on bees, as well as with disrupted foraging patterns and damage to immune systems [2]. The European Environment Agency also recently issued a report warning against the consequences of inaction on these pesticides [3].

Ignoring scientific evidence on the toxicity of such pesticides, companies like Syngenta and Bayer have been running an intensive lobbying and public relations campaign in an attempt to delay a ban [4], said Greenpeace. Other pesticides produced by these and other companies also pose a severe threat to bees and other pollinators. A recent Greenpeace report, Bees in Decline, identified seven bee-killing pesticides produced by Syngenta, Bayer, BASF and other companies, four of which are not neonicotinoids [5]. Greenpeace is campaigning to remove these pesticides from the market as a crucial first step to start a move away from industrial farming in Europe.

Partial bans of neonicotinoids are already in place in Italy, France, Germany and Slovenia, with no significant negative impacts on agricultural production.

Greenpeace European bees campaign coordinator Matthias Wüthrich said: "Bee decline is one of the most obvious and visible effects of a failed industrial farming model, which contaminates our environment and destroys farmers' smartest natural ally - pollinators. European policymakers should shift funding away from chemical-intensive agriculture and promote ecological farming."

Notes:

[1] European Food Safety Authority, ‘EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids, January 2013.

[2] Science: Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production, A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees; Nature: Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees.

[3] European Environment Agency, January 2013 , Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation II, Chapter 16, Seed‑dressing systemic insecticides and honeybees.

[4] Corporate Europe Observatory, Pesticides against pollinators; ‘Private letters reveal Syngenta and Bayer’s furious lobbying against EU measures to save bees’, 11 April 2013.

[5] Greenpeace Science Unit, April 2013, Bees in Decline.

Contacts:
Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Bees in Decline

edavitt — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:30:00 +0200

Zurich – Greenpeace released today a comprehensive scientific review [1] of the factors that put pollinators and agriculture in Europe at risk. The study highlights the ecological and economic importance of healthy bee populations and stresses the urgent need for the elimination of bee-harming pesticides from agriculture. Such elimination would be a crucial and effective first step to protect the health of bee populations and to safeguard their pollination value that is vital for the ecosystem and food production in Europe.

The study “Bees in Decline” shows that the dramatic overall global decline in bee populations is the result of multiple factors such as diseases and parasites, climate change and wider industrial agricultural practices. Among the latter, scientific evidence highlights the deadly role of some pesticides, including the mass-killer neonicotinoids. Besides acute poisoning that leads to immediate bee death, the observed sub-lethal, low-dose effects of such pesticides range from physiological effects, perturbation of the foraging pattern, interference with feeding behaviour and neurotoxic impacts on learning processes. The ability of bees to resist diseases and parasites seems to be directly influenced by their exposure to such toxic chemicals, with catastrophic consequences for the health and survival of honeybees and other wild pollinators. Without bees, entire ecosystems, agriculture and food production would be at risk.

Matthias Wüthrich, ecological farming campaigner and European bees project leader at Greenpeace Switzerland says: “The science is clear: the negative impacts of bee-harming pesticides by far exceed any presumed benefits. Our bees and wild pollinators are too precious to lose: EU countries simply can’t wait any longer and must take immediate action with a complete and immediate ban on these bee-killers.”

Greenpeace identified seven priority bee-killer pesticides that should be banned due to their extremely high toxicity, sub-lethal and/or systemic effect on bees. The list includes Bayer’s imidacloprid and clothianidin, Syngenta’s thiamethoxam, BASF’s fipronil, and clorpyriphos, cypermethrin and deltamethrin produced by other agrochemical companies, all of whom earn significant profits from these chemicals’ widespread application in agriculture.

The publication of the scientific report marks the launch of a new European-wide campaign to save the bees and to promote ecological agriculture which produces food without chemicals and provides healthier habitats for domesticated and wild pollinators. Greenpeace urges policy makers across Europe to:

as a first step, support the ban on three bee-killer neonicotinoid pesticides, as proposed by the European Commission on 15 March [2];

endorse ambitious Europe-wide action plans to ban all pesticides that are harmful to bees and other vital pollinators and

shift funding away from chemical-intensive agriculture and promote ecological farming.

“The dramatic decline of bees is just a symptom of a failed agricultural system based on the intensive use of chemicals, serving the interest of powerful corporations like Bayer and Syngenta. We need to urgently embrace modern ecological farming. This is the only long-term solution to save the bees and agriculture in Europe,” adds Matthias Wüthrich.

Notes:

[1]: “Bees in decline – a review of factors that put pollinators and agriculture in Europe at risk”, Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Report, April 2013. Can be downloaded at bees-decline.org

[2]: Technical experts from EU countries failed to reach the necessary majority in March to put a ban on clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam in place. Nine countries voted against the ban and five abstained. A new vote is expected by early May.

Press contact: Cédric Gervet, +33 613 070 429 / cedric.gervet@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Bees in Decline

edavitt — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0200

Bees in DeclineBees in Decline

A review of factors that put pollinators and agriculture in Europe at risk.

13 EU countries back ban of bee-killing pesticides

mbreddy — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:00:00 +0100

Brussels – Government representatives from 13 EU countries have voted in favour of a temporary ban of three pesticides (neonicotinoids known as imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam) that have been shown to harm bees. The vote follows months of intense lobbying by the pesticides industry.

While a relative majority of countries (including France, Italy, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands and Belgium) supported the ban proposed by the European Commission, they fell short of the necessary qualified majority to make the decision binding. Nine countries voted against the ban (including Romania, Hungary and Finland), while five abstained (including the UK, Germany and Bulgaria). The Commission can now table a new proposal or refer the matter to a higher body of national representatives.

Reacting to the news, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “While this vote isn’t binding, it remains true that a majority of countries have backed a ban of these pesticides toxic to bees, despite a fierce propaganda campaign by the pesticides industry. The scientific evidence is clear, but pesticides companies like Syngenta and Bayer will continue to lobby to delay a ban as much as possible. It is important for the European Commission not to drag its feet but to act quickly to pursue a complete ban that is in line with scientific advice.”

For more background on the vote, please see:

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/Europe-must-ban-bee-killing-pesticides/

Contacts:
Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

EU pressdesk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Europe must ban bee-killing pesticides

edavitt — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:00:00 +0100

Brussels, 14 March 2013 – EU government representatives are meeting today and tomorrow in Brussels to consider a partial ban of three neonicotinoids that have been shown to harm bees. Greenpeace urges European governments not to bow to pressure from the pesticides industry, but to protect European agriculture by banning these substances, in line with scientific advice.

Following the publication of a series of distressing scientific studies on the negative effects of neonicotinoids, the European Commission proposed in January the ban being discussed today by EU member states. The European Food Safety Authority and the European Environment Agency have both issued reports [1] arguing for drastic action. The proposed ban would relate to imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam that are acutely toxic to honeybees and which are produced by Syngenta and Bayer.

In response, chemicals and pesticides corporations have rolled out public relations and lobbying campaigns in an attempt to ward off any likelihood of a ban. Government representatives are unlikely to reach the qualified majority necessary under EU rules to confirm or reject the ban. It will then be up to the Commission to table a new proposal or to refer the matter to a higher body of national representatives.

Greenpeace EU agricultural policy director Marco Contiero said: “The European and global scientific community have warned repeatedly that neonicotinoids and other pesticides are contributing to the dramatic decline of bees. To ignore these warnings would be irresponsible and damaging to European farming, which relies on the work of bees and other pollinators. The Commission and EU governments must introduce and enforce bans on neonicotinoids”.

The pollination of crops in Europe by bees and other pollinators is estimated to be worth around €22 billion to EU agriculture [2]. Partial bans of neonicotinoids are already in place in Italy, France, Germany and Slovenia [3], with no real negative impact for agricultural production.

Neonicotinoids are sprayed on leaves, applied to the soil or used as a seed coating, from where they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant as it grows.

Notes:

[1] European Food Safety Agency assessment of neonicotinoids: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm; European Environment Agency ‘Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation’, Part B: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2/late-lessons-chapters/late-lessons-ii-chapter-16

[2] European Commission, Beekeeping and honey production: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/index_en.print.htm

[3] APENET project report (2011) "Effects of coated maize seed on honey bees" http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/7181

Contacts:
Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org

Ed Davitt – Greenpeace EU communications officer: +32 476 988584 (mobile), edward.davitt@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Commission acts on bee-killing pesticides but stops short of complete ban

mbreddy — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:30:00 +0100

Brussels – The European Commission will today ask EU member state representatives to consider imposing restrictions on certain pesticides because of their harmful effects on bees. Greenpeace welcomes the move by the Commission, which follows the publication of several scientific studies linking the use of neonicotinoid pesticides to the disappearance of bees [1].

Earlier this month, three opinions by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [2] identified significant risks to bees from the three most common neonicotinoids when used to coat seeds of certain crops, including sunflowers, rapeseed, cotton and maize. However, the Authority warned that it was unable to determine the risks of many other uses in conjunction with other crops, where abundant ‘data gaps’ existed. The Commission’s discussion paper acknowledges the evidence collected by EFSA, but stops short of recommending a precautionary ban on the use of neonicotinoids with all crops where EFSA could not assess risks.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “The Commission’s plan is a welcome first step to address the harmful effects of pesticides on bees. However, the Commission has stopped short of recommending a wider precautionary ban covering the use of neonicotinoids in cases where EFSA identified a crucial data gap. Decisive action is needed to protect our natural environment and Europe’s food production, which depends largely on pollinators like bees.”

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 84% of the main 264 crops cultivated in Europe rely on animal pollination, chiefly by bees, while the great majority of wild plants (about 90%) rely on bee pollination [3]. Neonicotinoids are already subject to partial bans in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia. After several years, the farming industry’s claims that neonicotinoids are needed to prevent crop losses remain unfounded.

Greenpeace sustainable agriculture campaigner Matthias Wüthrich said: “In many parts of Europe bee populations are declining rapidly. A ban on a few hazardous pesticides is only a very limited safeguard. The disappearance of bees is just a symptom of a failed agricultural system based on the intensive use of chemicals, serving the interest of powerful corporations like Bayer and Syngenta. The only solution is a paradigm shift to sustainable agriculture and modern eco-farming practices.”

Notes to editors

[1] A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees, Science, April 2012: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.abstract; and Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production, Science, April 2012: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/351.abstract

[2] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm

[3] UNEP Emerging Issues: Global Honey Bee Colony Disorder and Other Threats to Insect Pollinators, United Nations Environment Programme, 2010: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Global_Bee_Colony_Disorder_and_Threats_insect_pollinators.pdf

Contacts

Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034 (mobile), marco.contiero@greenpeace.org
Ed Davitt – Greenpeace EU communications officer: +32 (0)476 988584 (mobile), edward.davitt@greenpeace.org

This press release is also available on www.greenpeace.eu
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

To unsubscribe from this media list, please email pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

Greenpeace comment - EU denies GM freeze

mbreddy — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:00:00 +0100

Brussels – Media reports have quoted a Commission spokesperson declaring that EU approvals of new GM crops are unlikely soon [1], but denying that the authorisation process was frozen [2].

Commenting on the reports, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “EU testing is not currently able to assess the safety of GM crops for the environment and health. For this reason, European countries unanimously called on the Commission to fix the authorisation system in 2008. The logical next step would be to freeze approvals of GM crops and to reform the way risk assessments are carried out. Unfortunately, so far the Commission's attempts at reform have been far too timid and its refusal to declare an outright freeze on new approvals is determined by its fear of the biotech industry.”

Note to editors:
[1] Le Nouvel Observateur/AFP (in French), 22 January 2013: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/ogm-le-scandale/20130122.OBS6226/ogm-bruxelles-gele-le-processus-d-autorisation-de-culture.html
[2] Reuters, 22 January 2013: http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL6N0ARCX620130122?irpc=932

Contacts:
Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org
Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

New report presents alternatives to harmful biofuels to decarbonise EU transport

edavitt — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0100

Brussels – Europe can effectively replace oil with renewable energy in transport without resorting to harmful biofuels, according to a new report by Dutch research institute CE Delft [1], commissioned by environmental groups. The report, Sustainable Alternatives for Land-based Biofuels in the European Union, explores scenarios that recommend a major EU policy shift, prioritising energy efficiency and speeding up the adoption of renewable electricity and sustainable biofuels such as those produced from waste and residues.

Under current EU obligations, 10 percent of the European transport sector should be powered by renewable sources by 2020, while fuel suppliers are also required to reduce the carbon intensity of transport fuels by 6 percent. EU governments plan to meet these targets through extensive use of biofuels made from agricultural crops, ignoring their wide environmental and social impact including the displacement of food production to new land and the resulting carbon emissions. According to a Commission study [2], most biofuels currently marketed in Europe offer no or limited carbon emission savings compared to conventional fuels when emissions from this indirect land use change (ILUC) are taken into account.

The CE Delft report, commissioned by Greenpeace, BirdLife Europe, the European Environmental Bureau and Transport and Environment, shows what a real shift in policy would look like, instead of the wholly unsatisfactory compromise offered by the Commission in October. The Commission’s proposal [3], if adopted, would mean that at least half of the 10 percent fuel transport target would still be met using destructive biofuels in 2020 and their overall consumption would be allowed to grow.

Greenpeace EU forest policy director Sebastien Risso said: “This report shows just how wrongheaded current EU policy is and how transport can become cleaner without using harmful biofuels. The easiest and most secure way to minimise the climate impacts of road and rail transport is to reduce energy use and accelerate the electrification of our transport system.”

The environmental groups urge the European Parliament and EU governments to focus on the solutions offered in the report’s alternative scenario to put EU green transport fuels policy back on track. It would lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions in 2020, while supporting the development of innovative industries that are a great source of jobs. Crucially, member states could meet their obligations under the existing policy framework with no or a substantially lower share of biofuels made from crops grown on land.

T&E fuels programme manager Nusa Urbancic said: “This scenario won’t be achieved overnight and starts with changes to the Commission’s current proposal. The proper accounting of the full carbon footprint of biofuels, including emissions from ILUC, is the first step towards more sustainable alternative fuels. We therefore call on the European Parliament and Council to include ILUC factors in the EU biofuel policy”.

The Commission proposal will be discussed by EU ministers at the energy and environment Councils in February and March and by the European Parliament in the coming months.

Notes to editors:

[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/CE-Delft-Report/. Link to press briefing http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/CE-Delft-Briefing/.

[2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2012:0343:FIN:EN:PDF.

[3] http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/com_2012_0595_en.pdf

Contacts:

Sebastien Risso – Greenpeace EU Forests Policy Director: +32 (0)2 274 1901, +32 (0)412 127009 (mobile), sebastien.risso@greenpeace.org

Nusa Urbancic – Transport & Environment Fuels Programme Manager: +32 (0)2 893 0846, +32 (0)488 574418 (mobile), nusa.urbancic@transportenvironment.org

Trees Robijns – BirdLife Europe Agriculture and Bioenergy Policy Officer: +32 (0)478 88 73 02, trees.robijns@birdlife.org

Faustine Defossez – European Environmental Bureau Agriculture and Bioenergy Policy Officer: + 32 (0) 4 87 244 270 (mobile), faustine.defossez@eeb.org

Bettina Kampman - CE Delft Senior Researcher, Transport & Climate Policy: +31 (0)15-2150171, kampman@ce.nl

Report: Sustainable Alternatives for Land-based Biofuels in the European Union

edavitt — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0100

European countries are ramping up biofuel use in an effort to meet their obligations under EU objectives to decarbonise energy in the transport sector. But green transport targets for 2020 in the renewable energy directive (RED) and fuel quality directive (FQD) have largely served to incentivise damaging technologies, in particular unsustainable “land-based biofuels” [1].CE Delft Report

The RED requires EU countries to replace 10 percent of the energy used for road and rail transport from renewables, while the FQD requires fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon intensity of fuel by 6 percent by 2020.

Greenpeace, Transport & Environment, the European Environmental Bureau and BirdLife Europe have commissioned environmental research institute CE Delft to examine genuinely sustainable solutions for the decarbonisation of Europe’s transport energy sector. The report examines a range of scenarios to meet the RED and FQD targets without or with significantly less land-based biofuels than currently in use, including conservative estimates of the potential of sustainable biofuels.

The report shows how EU transport energy policy could reduce its reliance on damaging biofuels. This alternative vision for the transport sector in 2020 would cut CO2 by 205 million tonnes, compared to just over 60 million tonnes under a recent proposal [2] from the European Commission to adjust existing policy. It would allow EU countries to meet their targets while avoiding the displacement of food production to new land, increased carbon emissions and continued habitat destruction caused by land-based biofuels.

A pathway to greener transport includes:

Energy savings in the transport sector of 15 percent by 2020, through measures such as improved vehicle efficiency and a shift of transport from road to rail. Reducing energy demand will also lower the amount of renewable energy required to fulfil the renewable transport target.

The immediate accounting of indirect land use change emissions from biofuels under the EU’s renewable energy directive and fuel quality directive.

A robust cap limiting the use of land-based biofuels to current levels and a pathway towards near zero usage by 2020.

An increase in the use of renewable electricity in road and rail transport to over 1 percent (152 petajoules) of overall demand by 2020.
- The consumption of about 3 percent of non-land-based, sustainable biofuels from waste and residues in 2020 (350 petajoules), consisting mainly of biomethane from agricultural waste and biodiesel from waste fats.
- In the production of oil-based transport fuels, a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas flaring and venting.

[1] Land-based biofuels are produced from crops or fruits that are grown on agricultural or silvicultural land, as opposed to biofuels produced from waste and residues.

[2] http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/doc/biofuels/com_2012_0595_en.pdf

Briefing: Sustainable Alternatives for Land-based Biofuels in the European Union

edavitt — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0100

Report on sustainable alternatives for land-based biofuels in the European Union: Briefing materialsCE Delft biofuels report briefing

Greenpeace, Transport & Environment, the European Environmental Bureau and BirdLife Europe have commissioned environmental research institute CE Delft to examine genuinely sustainable solutions for the decarbonisation of Europe’s transport energy sector. The report [1] examines a range of scenarios to meet the RED and FQD targets without or with significantly less land-based biofuels than currently in use, including conservative estimates of the potential of sustainable biofuels.

See the briefing below for further details

[1] CE Delft, December 2012. Sustainable Alternatives for Land-based Biofuels in the European Union: Assessment of options and development of a policy strategy. Authors: Bettina Kampman, Anouk van Grinsven and Harry Croezen. Report commissioned by Greenpeace, Transport & Environment, BirdLife Europe and European Environmental Bureau. Available at http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2013/CE-Delft-Report/, press release available at http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2013/CE-Delft-PR/ .

Greenpeace comment on EFSA study on effects of pesticides on bees

edavitt — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:09:00 +0100

Brussels – A report released today by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [1] has linked commonly used pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, to serious effects on bee populations. EFSA indicates “high risks” in the use of neonicotinoids and stresses that there are major gaps in available data. These gaps raise fundamental questions about the ability of current safety testing to assess risks posed by pesticides on the environment and health, said Greenpeace.

Commenting on the findings of the report, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “The report by the European Food Safety Authority confirms that neonicotinoids are the mustard gas of the insect world and should be banned before it is too late. One third of our food could not be produced if bees and other pollinators were to disappear. The writing is on the wall: the EU can no longer delay action and should follow the examples of France, Germany and Italy, who already have bans on neonicotinoids.”

Greenpeace calls on European policymakers to support policies that promote sustainable pest management and encourage ecological farming practices.

Note to editors:

[1] EFSA study on bee health: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130116.htm?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=infocus&utm_campaign=beehealth

Contacts:

Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org

Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

CE Delft additional memo

edavitt — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:00:00 +0100

.DE Delft Report additional memo

A brief assessment of the proposed methodological changes for the RED and FQD of the Commission's October 2012 biofuels proposal

Irish government unveils ‘trio’ EU presidency programme

mbreddy — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:45:00 +0100

Brussels – Today the Irish government laid out plans for its presidency of the Council of the European Union, which is due to begin on 1 January 2013. Statements today by Irish Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) and foreign minister Eamon Gilmore highlighted the need to focus on ‘jobs and growth’, but Greenpeace is concerned that the plans as outlined today still lack direction and fail to address the drain on the economy from expensive imports of natural resources. They also fail to recognise the opportunity for greater prosperity from the greening of the European economy across all sectors, warned Greenpeace.

The six-month presidency will allow Ireland to direct much of the policy focus of the Union for the first half of next year, within an 18-month joint 'trio' programme with the subsequent presidencies of Lithuania and Greece.

Greenpeace welcomes that the Irish presidency, as part of the trio programme, recognises that "the challenges posed by the current economic and financial situation cannot be addressed effectively in the long term without a continuing emphasis on green growth and resource efficiency" [1].

However, in a letter to Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Enda Kenny last week, Greenpeace joined nine other leading environmental NGOs in expressing concern about the lack of focus on how greening the economy can shape Europe's recovery and highlighting some of the areas where the Irish government needs to focus special attention [2]. Europe's energy policy is central to its economic future – the EU currently spends €1 billion a day on fossil fuel imports from places like the Middle East and Russia, despite the fact that the OECD and the EU's own 2020 strategy specifically underline the need for greater energy efficiency and independence if the EU is to stabilise its economic position. The recent EU Energy Revolution report from Greenpeace highlights the potential for 1.5 million jobs in a new, modern European energy system based on renewables, energy efficiency and sustainable, independent energy [3].

Greenpeace adviser for the Irish presidency Dónall Geoghegan said: "What Ireland promotes as its themes and priorities for the presidency is important. There needs to be focus on a more sustainable direction for Europe's economy. We hope that as detailed plans are worked out by the Irish presidency, emphasis will go into ways to pursue lasting economic benefits and sustainable employment from clean and efficient economic systems that produce sustainable jobs. There is a risk that without such focus, EU countries would once again subsidise old polluting technologies that will do nothing to solve the underlying problems in the European economy. The Irish presidency needs to focus on things that work and benefit everyone, not just the banks: paying less for fuel, saving energy and creating jobs with better insulation, and cutting food and resource waste."

Notes to editors:
[1] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st17/st17426.en12.pdf
[2] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2011%20pubs/2012%20Nov-Dec/201212%20letter%20to%20Irish%20Taoiseach%20Enda%20Kenny.pdf
[3] http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/ER-PR/

Contacts:
Dónall Geoghegan - Greenpeace adviser for the Irish presidency: +353 87 222 5691
Greenpeace EU pressdesk: +32 (0)2 2741911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

This press comment is also available on: www.greenpeace.eu
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Green NGO letter to Taoiseach Enda Kenny on the Irish EU presidency

mbreddy — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:57:00 +0100

Letter on behalf of the Green 10.201212 letter to Irish Taoiseach Enda Kenny

The Green 10 is the group of leading environmental NGOs active at EU level, with a combined membership of over 20 million citizens.

Report: new GM crops would cause dramatic increase in EU herbicide use

mbreddy — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:53:00 +0100

Brussels – The cultivation of new GM crops in Europe could increase herbicide use by up to 15 times, warned an agricultural forecast commissioned by Greenpeace and presented in Brussels today. Activists took this 'toxic warning' to the doorstep of the European Commission, concluding an eight-city tour of Europe alerting citizens, farming communities and decision-makers of the impending threat [1].

Twenty-seven activists (one for each EU member state) displayed a banner reading "toxic warning" outside the Commission headquarters. The activists, wearing hazmat protective gear, sprayed the banner with mock fumigators to reveal another hidden message: "GM crops = more agrochemicals".

The Commission is considering authorising the cultivation of 26 new GM crops, 19 of which are genetically modified to be tolerant to herbicides – mostly glyphosate, the active ingredient in many herbicides sold throughout the world. Many similar crops are already being grown in North and South America, with devastating environmental and social consequences on rural communities, as documented in Growing Doubt, a new documentary by Greenpeace.

The report, produced by agricultural economist Dr. Charles Benbrook [2], reveals that the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would lead to substantial increases in the use of glyphosate and other pesticides, sharp increases in seed prices and the spread of corporate domination of food production.

The report predicts increases of over 800% – up to 1500% in the case of GM soy – in the use of glyphosate in the EU over a period of 14 years (2012-2025) for herbicide-tolerant GM maize, soy and sugar beet.

"Europe has a chance to learn from the mistakes made in my country," said Wendel Lutz, a US farmer in Brussels today. "Every time I've described the difficulties I've experienced on my farm, farmers in Europe have sympathised. And when they hear that the same corporate model could be employed here, they are naturally apprehensive about their own futures. We hope the Commission will recognise these concerns and heed the warning we are here to deliver."

"Farmers in the US are already struggling, as they try to spray their way out of the corner they're backed into. The reliance on herbicide-tolerant crops in the US has triggered the emergence and rapid spread of nearly two dozen glyphosate-resistant weeds, driving up farm production costs, as well as the volume and eco-toxicity of herbicides needed to prevent major yield loss," said Dr. Benbrook.

"This study should act as a wake-up call. Given the toxic legacy of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, it would be utterly irresponsible for the European Commission to allow their cultivation on our fields," said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director.

"Today we bring the voices of US farmers and concerned Europeans to Brussels. The European Commission must decide: are they going to protect the farmers and consumers or are they going to side with the agrochemical industry breathing down our necks?" said Lasse Bruun, Greenpeace International sustainable agriculture campaigner.

---

The report, its summary and the Growing Doubt documentary (in 12 languages) can be downloaded at www.growingdoubt.org

For photos of the action at the European Commission, click here, and for a video edit (including b-roll), click here. Photos from the tour can be accessed here.

All material can be obtained from the Greenpeace EU pressdesk: +32 (0)2 274 1911 or pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

Contacts:
Marco Contiero – Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org
Lasse Bruun – Greenpeace International campaigner for sustainable agriculture: +31 (0)65 381 9121, Lasse.Bruun@Greenpeace.org

Notes:
[1] The 18-day tour included public screenings of a documentary on the effects of herbicide-tolerant GM crop monocultures on the economy, the environment and local communities in the United States and Argentina. The tour visited cities in Poland, Denmark, Germany, Romania, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, before arriving in Belgium.
[2] Dr. Benbrook is a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University (USA). He recently published the first ever peer-reviewed estimate of the impacts of herbicide-resistant GM crops on herbicide use, based on an exhaustive analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agriculture Statistics Service. Greenpeace commissioned Dr. Benbrook to produce a forecast for the EU, assessing the effects of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, should the Commission allow their cultivation.

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Growing herbicide-tolerant GM crops: lessons from the agricultural blunders of the United States and Argentina

mbreddy — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:13:00 +0100

The vast majority of genetically modified (GM) crops currently awaiting approval for cultivation in the European Union – 19 out of 26 – are engineered to tolerate herbicides. Such crops are already widely grown in the United States and Argentina.

Renowned agricultural economist Dr. Charles Benbrook has developed the first ever forecast of how much the use of herbicides would increase in the EU if the European Commission authorised the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, soy and sugar beet.

The press conference will reveal the alarming findings of the study and present the real-life testimonies of two farmers, featured in our documentary Growing Doubt, filmed in the US and Argentina, who are touring Europe to describe how herbicide-tolerant crop monocultures have affected the economy, environment and health.

When: Wednesday 7 November at 10:30 am.

Where: Malbeek room, Residence Palace - IPC, Rue de la Loi 155, 1040 Brussels.

Who: Dr. Charles Benbrook (scientist);
US farmers Wes Shoemyer (former Missouri State Senator) and Wendel Lutz;
Moderated by Marco Contiero (Greenpeace).

You can watch the documentary by visiting www.growingdoubt.org

Please RSVP by sending an email to pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org with the word 'confirmed' in the subject line.

For more information, including biographies of the speakers and a copy of the scientific report, please contact: Mahi Sideridou on +32 2 274 1904 or msiderid@greenpeace.org

energy [r]evolution

jhunter — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:00:00 +0200

The 2012 EU Energy [R]evolution report, carried out for Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council by the German National Centre for Aerospace, Energy and Transport Research, demonstrates how Europe would gain nearly half a million extra energy sector jobs by 2020 if it prioritises a system largely made up of renewables and energy efficiency over nuclear power and fossil fuels. Other benefits include long-term savings for consumers and improved climate stability.E[R] 2012 lr

The expert consensus is that a fundamental shift in the way we consume and generate energy must begin immediately and be well underway within the next ten years in order to avert the worst impacts of climate change. The scale of the challenge requires a complete transformation of the way we produce, consume and distribute energy, while maintaining economic growth.

The five key principles behind this Energy [R]evolution will be to:

• Implement renewable solutions, especially through decentralised energy systems and grid expansions
• Respect the natural limits of the environment
• Phase out dirty, unsustainable energy sources
• Create greater equity in the use of resources
• Decouple economic growth from the consumption of fossil fuels

Decentralised energy systems, where power and heat are produced close to the point of final use, reduce grid loads and energy losses in distribution. Investments in 'climate infrastructure' such as smart interactive grids and transmission grids to transport large quantities of offshore wind and concentrated solar power are essential. Building up clusters of renewable micro grids, especially for people living in remote areas, will be a central tool in providing sustainable electricity to the almost two billion people around the world who currently do not have access to electricity.

The Reference scenario is based on the Current Policies scenarios published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in World Energy Outlook 2011 (WEO 2011). It only takes existing international energy and environmental policies into account.

As the IEA's projections only extend to 2035, they have been extended by extrapolating their key macroeconomic and energy indicators forward to 2050. This provides a baseline for comparison with the Energy [R]evolution scenario.

European food agency issues preliminary review of GM maize rat study

mbreddy — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:10:00 +0200

Brussels - The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) today delivered a preliminary review of a new two-year French study which aimed to research potential long-term health impacts of a genetically modified (GM) maize, Monsanto’s NK603, and the herbicide it is engineered to tolerate, Roundup.

Since its publication, the debate surrounding the French study has brought into sharp focus the fact that no suitable, universally agreed protocols to conduct such long term tests so far exist. This raises fundamental questions on why the current EU safety regime does not include testing of the long-term effects of GM crops, said Greenpeace.

All GM crops currently consumed by humans and animals in the EU have been approved on the basis of testing by the biotech industry lasting between 28 and 90 days. This is not sufficient to identify problems which might emerge during the lifetimes of humans and animals consuming these crops or across generations.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: "There is an unacceptable gap in current EU safety testing which largely ignores potential long-term health and environmental impacts of GM crops. This is yet another reason to immediately freeze approvals of new GM crops. The EU needs to redesign safety testing so that it routinely assesses impacts over the long term."

"EFSA recognises that appropriate methodology is crucial for serious scientific research, but omits to mention the fact that no agreed methods currently exist to carry out comprehensive testing of long-term exposure to GM food. This is why suitable methodologies must be developed and the French study should be replicated according to these agreed methods," Contiero added.

Notes to editors:
[1] For more information on the potential health risks of GM crops, see the concise Greenpeace briefing on the environmental and health impacts of GM crops.

Contacts:
Marco Contiero – Greenpeace agriculture policy director: +32 (0)477 777034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org
Janet Cotter – Senior Greenpeace scientist: +44 (0)781 2174783, J.Cotter@exeter.ac.uk
Greenpeace EU press desk: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

This press release is also available on www.greenepeace.eu
For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Green groups: no medals in sight for Barroso II

jhunter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:30:00 +0200

Brussels – Halfway through its term in office, the European Commission is falling behind in the race to create sustainable long-term prosperity in Europe, warn Europe’s leading green groups in a critical assessment of the Commission’s environmental performance since 2010.

The report released today finds that the Commission has so far acted to protect the environment even less than the first Barroso Commission [1], according to environmental organisations.

Unless it changes track, the Barroso II Commission could have one of the worst ever environmental records, said the Green 10 coalition [2].

The report, inspired by a topical Olympic theme, assesses progress in nine EU policy fields with impacts on the environment and reviews the track record of 13 European Commissioners and Commission President José Manuel Barroso. Each policy field is given a mark out of ten based on two main factors: environmental ambition and the extent of environmental issues that the Commission has addressed.

Faced with the breakdown of an economic system operating beyond planetary limits, the Commission has so far lacked the courage to propose legislation for a new, sustainable economy and has continued to favour short-term fixes over long-term solutions for people’s health and the planet, said green groups. Despite encouraging statements on the need for a smart, inclusive and sustainable economy, the Commission has so far failed to harness the potential for environmental policies to create jobs, improve health and reduce energy and resource use. Industry lobbyists have continued to pull the strings on many political files, leading to woefully inadequate policies, according to the Green 10.

While the Commission has in some measure recognised the environmental, health and economic impact of enduring problems linked to resource depletion, pollution and ecological destruction, swifter action is required. Its flagship reform proposals on EU fisheries and agriculture policies would not put an end to industrial overfishing, nor halt animal and plant extinctions, nor soil, water and food pollution from pesticides. The Commission therefore only scores a 3.5/10 on agriculture and a 4.5/10 on fisheries.

The Commission has acknowledged the economic and environmental rewards offered by clean energy and transport and an end to fossil fuel subsidies. But its mixed record on energy policy has not delivered clear measures to bring Europe closer to a modern energy system built around renewables and efficiency, and free from expensive energy imports and polluting greenhouse gases. Failure to live up to its own rhetoric has contributed to another low score of 4.5/10 for energy policy.

The Green 10 assessment includes a series of policy-specific recommendations for the remaining two-and-a-half years of the Commission’s term that will help Europe successfully tackle the economic, climate and resource challenges facing the continent.

To download the Green 10 report, click here.

Versions of this press release are available in French and German.

Notes to editors:
[1] To view the Green 10 assessment of the outgoing Barroso Commission in 2009, click here.
[2] The Green 10 is an alliance of ten of the largest European environmental organisations and networks, with a membership of over 20 million people. www.green10.org

For media enquiries: +32 (0)2 274 1911, pressdesk.eu@greenpeace.org

Off Their Game

jhunter — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:30:00 +0200

This report is a mid-term assessment of the environmental performance of the Barroso II European Commission, covering the period from early 2010 to mid-2012. It is issued by the Green10, a platform of environmental organisations active at EU level, with a membership of over 20 million EU citizens.

Individual sections in this report summarise the Commission’s activities in different policy areas and set out our recommendations for the remainder of its term in office. We have also briefly assessed the performance of many European Commissionersand the Commission President.

For a print version, click here.

For a screen version, click here.

Further delay as Commissioners fail to agree biofuels clean-up plan

jhunter — Wed, 02 May 2012 09:55:00 +0200

Brussels - European Commissioners today failed to agree how to close a major loophole in EU biofuels policy. The lack of progress adds to years of delay while the climate impact of harmful biofuels continues to grow, Greenpeace said.

Sustainability rules for biofuels currently ignore greenhouse gas emissions from the indirect destruction of forests, peatlands and other habitats linked to fuel production from crops - the indirect land use change (ILUC) effect [1].

In a debate this morning, the EU’s 27 commissioners were unable to agree a common approach on how to account for ILUC.

Greenpeace EU forests policy director Sebastien Risso said: “Despite an unstoppable tide of scientific evidence proving just how polluting some biofuels are, the Commission still can’t bring itself to grab the bull by the horns and take decisive action. The Commission must resolve its internal disagreements and put forward a robust plan on biofuels before the summer recess.”

A Commission ILUC impact assessment found that habitats more than half the size of Belgium are set to be destroyed to meet EU demand for biofuels by 2020, increasing Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than the total annual emissions of Italy or France [2].

Ends

Notes
[1] Food crops are now being used to meet the EU’s growing demand for biofuels, with the result that new farmlands are needed, destroying vital ecosystems and carbon stores such as forests, savannahs and peat lands globally. This releases millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases, accelerating climate change and undermining the climate benefits Europe’s biofuels policy are meant to deliver.
[2] Assessing the Land Use Change Consequences of European Biofuel Policies http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148289.pdf

Contacts
Greenpeace EU forests policy adviser Sebastien Risso: +32 (0) 496 127 009 Sebastien.Risso@Greenpeace.orgGreenpeace media officer Jack Hunter: +32 (0)476 988 584 Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU

Briefing on the European Citizens' Initiative

jhunter — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:00:00 +0200

A concise two page briefing on the European Citizens' Initiative.

201203 BR ECI

The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in December 2009, enshrines the right for a million Europeans to petition the European Commission and require it to draft legislation on the basis of their demands (or justify its refusal to do so). This right is known as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI).

In December 2010, Greenpeace and Avaaz submitted a one million signature ECI in accordance with the rules established by EU treaties (http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2010/first-citizens-initiative/). The ECI was in response to the first authorisation by the Commission in March 2010 for the cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) crop in Europe in 12 years. This authorisation was in direct breach of a request by all 27 member states for a review of the approval system for GM crops. It also raised serious health and environmental concerns. The ECI therefore called for a moratorium on all new authorisations and a review of the GM approval process.

On 1 April 2012, new operating rules on the work-ings of the ECI will come into force. This briefing clarifies Greenpeace’s position on the ECI and the status of the initiative on GM crops.

Half-baked compromise on GM law rejected by EU environment ministers

jhunter — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:10:00 +0100

EU environment ministers have today rejected a compromise, coined by the Danish presidency, on a new law setting out how countries could ban genetically modified (GM) crops from being grown in their territories.

Greenpeace welcomed the decision, saying the proposed compromise was flawed since it only offered legally weak grounds to ban GM cultivation and because it gave biotech lobbyists a formal role in negotiations on national bans.This would have side-lined valid scientific concerns around GM crops, Greenpeace said.

Greenpeace EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero said: “Fortunately, EU ministers today rejected a flawed deal on a new GM law. Countries must have a solid right to ban GM cultivation in their own territory because of environmental concerns. The European Parliament hit the nail on the head in their vote on this last year. Ministers will have another chance to get it right.”

The Danish presidency will now try to strike a new agreement on this law at the next Environment Council in June.

Contacts:

Marco Contiero - Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser: +32 (0) 477 777 034, Marco.Contiero@Greenpeace.org
Jack Hunter - Greenpeace media officer: +32 (0)476 988 584, Jack.Hunter@Greenpeace.org

For breaking news and comment on EU affairs: www.twitter.com/GreenpeaceEU