Review of the emissions trading scheme
The EU emissions trading scheme is about to be revised for its operation after 2012. The Council will adopt conclusions on this issue, ahead of a Commission legislative proposal expected later this year. The scheme has put a price on carbon dioxide produced by large installations in an attempt to encourage cost-effective emission reductions. So far it has not been fully successful in meeting its objectives.
The emissions trading scheme could be significantly improved, namely by:
- Setting an emissions cap in line with a 30% overall greenhouse gas cut by the EU by 2020: a 30% cut is consistent with keeping mean temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius;
- Requiring all emission permits to be auctioned, rather than given out for free, as is mostly the case today. Auctioning would apply the polluter-pays principle and ensure that all installations covered by the scheme are subject to the same rules (thus eliminating distortion of competition among them). It would also create a truer price for carbon than at present.
- Continuing to exclude land use, land-use change and forestry activities from the scheme. Claiming credit for carbon stored in forests and other vegetation ('sinks') is one of the most problematic issues in the Kyoto Protocol. Sinks are not permanent and can easily turn into a carbon time-bomb.
Decision on a genetically modified potato (may be removed from agenda)
The Council will vote on a Commission proposal to allow the cultivation of a genetically engineered potato developed by BASF. Greenpeace argues that the potato application should be rejected for the following main reasons:
- The potato contains a gene which confers resistance to several antibiotics. EU law required the use of any such genes that may have adverse effects on human health and the environment to be phased out by December 2004, as they can compromise the ability of antibiotics to treat infection. Both the World Health Organisation and the European Medical Agency have said that two antibiotics for which the potato confers resistance, kanamycin and neomycin, have "an important place in medicine". The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) brushed these objections aside.
- The potato has not been subject to an environmental impact assessment as required by law. EFSA's approval of the application was informed by studies carried out by BASF, which examined the effects of surrounding wildlife on the potato rather than the impact of the potato on the environment. The ecological implications of cultivating this potato remain, therefore, unknown.
- If authorised, the GM potato would be allowed for cultivation in all 27 countries of the EU, including those which have no coexistence measures to protect other crops against contamination.
Preparations for the Biodiversity Convention
Environment Ministers will adopt Council conclusions in preparation for the 9th Conference of the Parties (COP 9) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Bonn in May 2008. The 190 countries party to the Convention have committed, among other things, to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 as well as to establish a global network of protected areas on land by 2010 and on sea by 2012.
Oceans The EU is years behind schedule in implementing marine protected areas and is certain to miss its target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The implications are serious. Several hundred European scientists from 26 countries warned, earlier this month, that "the lack of progress in establishing marine reserves is aggravating the already perilous state of many marine ecosystems [...and ] undermines [...] a better scientific understanding of the composition and functioning of marine ecosystems" (1).
Germany, as the host nation of the CBD and current holder of the EU Presidency, needs to make a commitment, along with other EU Member States, to address the under-representation of marine ecosystems in protected area networks, and call on COP9 to do the same.
Forests Greenpeace is concerned about the destruction and degradation of the world's rainforests, which result in a substantial and largely irreversible loss of biodiversity and vital ecosystem services (soil fertilisation, water and food supply, carbon storage), and release vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To ensure a sustainable future for all peoples of the world, the EU and its international partners need to:
- Apply a precautionary approach to prevent the destruction of the last remaining rainforests, including by using moratoria on industrial activities.
- Advance discussions towards agreement for an international financing mechanism aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and biodiversity loss.
- Elaborate principles for sustainable timber harvesting, traceability of wood products and good forest governance; and - in Europe - put forward EU legislation against illegal and destructive logging and related trade.
- Speed up the implementation of a global network of forest protected areas; and ensure that energy produced using biomass, including biofuels, is sustainable in terms of biodiversity, has a (considerable) positive energy and carbon balance, and is not produced at the expense of food security.
Risk Assessment of GMOs, in particular GM maize MON 863
Ministers will discuss the limits of the EU risk assessment process applied to genetically engineered (GE) products, prompted by a recent report (2) showing negative health impacts observed in laboratory rats that ate Monsanto's GE maize MON863. The maize was approved by the EU Commission in 2006 for use in food and feed.
The MON 863 case highlights the unexpected detrimental effects of GMOs, and confirms that the current method of risk assessment, which tests for acute toxicity over a short period, is inappropriate to evaluate a GMO's potential long-term or chronic effects.
EU environment ministers have previously (March 2006) criticised the flaws in the EU risk assessment of GMOs, responsibility for which lies with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA bases its risk assessments mainly on data supplied by an applicant company (in this case, Monsanto), and has repeatedly failed to call for further investigations into a GMO's safety even when test data has shown potential negative health effects (most recently for another Monsanto GE maize, NK603).
EU law on the standards and legal requirements for GMO risk assessment is not being respected at present by either the European Commission or EFSA. This could be rectified by:
- Enforcing a strict, independent and transparent risk assessment of GMOs;
- Suspending all earlier authorisations until the current system is reviewed;
- Withdrawing the authorisation granted to MON863 maize, pending further investigation and a re-evaluation of Monsanto's dossier.
Notes:
1. http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/eeem/gsp/mem/marine_reserves_consensus.pdf">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/eeem/gsp/mem/marine_reserves_consensus.pdf ">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/eeem/gsp/mem/marine_reserves_consensus.pdf">http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/eeem/gsp/mem/marine_reserves_consensus.pdf
2. Seralini, G.E., et al, 2007, 'New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity', published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52, 596-602