In Brief

CRAFTING OF PROCESS ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCE TREATY BEGINS

The second session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), acting as the Interim Committee for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR), convened from 15-19 November in Rome, Italy. The session, which focused primarily on procedural issues, agreed to set up two groups to prepare for the first meeting of the ITPGR Governing Body, scheduled to meet in Spain in 2005 or 2006. The ITPGR (available here) is a legally binding instrument that targets the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources and equitable benefit sharing for sustainable agriculture and food security. At the November meeting, countries agreed to establish an open-ended inter-sessional working group to address the procedural and financial rules for the Governing Body, the funding strategy and procedures for compliance. The decision followed extensive discussion on a text on procedural and financial rules. The meeting heard a report on the standard Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) from the Expert Group, which will facilitate transfer of genetic resources by setting minimum standards for access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) held in the Multilateral System for Access and Benefit sharing set up by the treaty (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 21 October 2004). Countries agreed on Terms of Reference for a contact group to develop a draft standard MTA for consideration by the Governing Body.

The ITPGR came into force on 29 June 2004 and is centred upon a Multilateral System for Access and Benefit Sharing, which would allow plant breeders, farmers and research institutions to access 64 important crops and forages from around the world more freely and share the benefits derived from these resources (see BRIDGES Weekly, 7 July 2004). It aims to allow better access to key resources, but at the same time is constrained by lack of funds, limited negotiation capacity among participants and difficulties deciding exactly what the benefit-sharing scheme would look like.

For a full report of the meeting, see IISD's Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

ICTSD reporting; ENB Vol. 9 No. 300.

OZONE MEETING APPROVES LIMITED USE OF METHYL BROMIDE

Meeting in Prague from 22-26 November, parties to the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting substances were unable to agree on exemptions to a ban on methyl bromide. The US and other developed countries sought exemptions from the full phase-out of this ozone-depleting pesticide and fumigant, originally set for 2005, citing "critical use" needs. Methyl bromide is applied to cut flowers, strawberries and tomatoes. To resolve the methyl bromide issue, an additional, extraordinary meeting will be held in mid-2005.

Parties to the Montreal Protocol also considered trade in products and commodities treated with methyl bromide. Kenya introduced a draft decision urging parties not to restrict trade in these products, given their significance to the agricultural sectors of developing countries. Switzerland, however, noted that trade barriers may be desirable in that they encourage the phase-out of methyl bromide, and also cited implications for international law. The language in the decision finally adopted on this topic "invites" parties not to restrict trade in products from parties in compliance with the Montreal Protocol just because they have been treated with methyl bromide. The decision also welcomes efforts at developing alternatives to methyl bromide.

For daily updates and a full summary of the meeting, see IISD's Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

ICTSD reporting; "Rich states' demands threaten environment treaty," REUTERS, 25 November 2004; "Use of Ozone Destroying Methyl Bromide Will Continue," ENS, 29 November 2004.

SIMPLER COST-SHARING REACH PROPOSAL MEETS SUPPORT

At a meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council on 26 November a majority of EU Member States supported a "one substance, one registration" proposal that would share the costs of registering chemical substances in the EU. The proposal from Hungary and the UK seeks to address concerns that the proposed EU system of Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) would place undue burdens on small and medium enterprises in both the EU and developing countries, disrupt international trade, and pursue a "particularly costly, burdensome and complex approach" (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 8 July 2004). Under the proposal, only "core" information would be required for chemical registration with the European chemicals agency, companies would be able to share the costs of registration with the European chemicals agency and multiple registration of similar substances or products would be avoided.

Supporters of the system suggest that it would alleviate competitiveness concerns by avoiding the necessity for companies to share sensitive data with competitors and government regulators. The proposal is supported by UEAPME (the European Association Of Craft, Small And Medium-Sized Enterprises), which says that the new system "should guarantee access to all the necessary data since it focuses primarily on non-sensitive information" and would "simplify the registration procedure for smaller businesses". The Dutch Presidency said that at the meeting, "the views of the member states differed significantly on the subject of mandatory sharing of non-animal test data." As well, further work is expected on the legal details of the cost-sharing process and on a possible extension of REACH to cover low volumes substances (between one and ten tonnes per year).

Debate over the scope and requirements of the REACH chemical regulation process has been fierce in the last two years, with environmental groups, governments and industry all over the world reacting to perceived trade-offs between public safety, environmental goals, cost and bureaucratic concerns (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 3 October 2003). The original proposal would have involved a shift of the burden of proof for the safety of chemicals from public authorities to companies that produce, import and use chemicals.

ICTSD Reporting; "REACH: 'one substance, one registration' proposal gathers momentum," EURACTIV, 30 November 2004; "REACH: EU ministers examine 'one substance, one registration' proposal," EURACTIV, 26 November 2004; " Ministers back simpler Reach registration rules," ENDS ENVIRONMENT DAILY, 26 November 2004; "Simpler Reach registration proposal out," ENDS ENVIRONMENT DAILY, 26 July 2004.

EC TRIES TO PRESSURE MEMBER STATES TO LIFT GM BANS

The European Commission attempted to pressure Austria, France, Germany, Greece, and Luxembourg to repeal their national bans on specific genetically modified (GM) foods at a regulatory committee meeting on November 29 but failed to make a formal decision. Since the committee failed to reach the qualified majority required for the adoption of the Commission's draft proposal, which would have challenged the sovereignty of the five EU states by telling them to repeal bans on a ban on three modified maize varieties and two types of oilseed rape, a decision is now expected to be taken by the EU Council of Ministers. The GM foods were approved by the EC before the GM ban in 1998 but have been banned by the countries because of strong public opposition to biotechnology in foods. The ban uses the EU's so-called safeguard clause, which permits the imposition of national restrictions when there is new evidence of risk. However, their claims have been dismissed by the European Commission, which says no new information that demonstrates risk has been presented.

Diplomats suggest that the European Commission is urgently trying to lift the bans owing to a WTO case filed against the EU by the United States, Canada and Argentina which challenges the EU's GM regulations (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 10 September 2004). "Instead of protecting the rights of countries to halt genetically modified foods, they have decided to cave in to the pressure of the World Trade Organization and the Bush administration," said Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth Europe regarding the European Commission. "Any attempt by the Commission to overturn the bans is pure political bullying," Greenpeace advocate Christoph Then said.

At the same meeting, EU member states debated for the second time the approval of Monsanto's MON863 GM maize and were unable to take a decision for or against, with eight countries voting in favour of approving the maize, 12 voting against and five abstaining As a result, the matter passes to ministers, who will have three months to debate the Commission's proposal. If they also fail to agree, the Commission may adopt the proposal.

ICTSD Reporting; "Member states resist pressure to lift GMO ban," EURACTIV, 30 November 2004; "EU experts fail to authorise new biotech maize," REUTERS, 30 November 2004; "EU to Tackle National GMO Bans From Moratorium Era," REUTERS, 26 November 2004; "European Commission Pushes Five Member-States on Biotech Bans," FOOD CHEMICAL NEWS, 26 November 2004.

NEW REPORT STRESSES ENVIRONMENT, POVERTY LINKAGES

On 1 December the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) released its latest report, entitled "World in Transition: Fighting Poverty through Environmental Policy", to German ministers and the general public. The report says that successful environmental protection is a prerequisite for effective poverty eradication, suggesting that the prospects for developing countries "will only improve if more intensive mitigation and adaptation measures are adopted in response to ongoing environmental changes." Concretely, it notes that industrialized countries must make contributions to overcoming the crisis by establishing more sustainable consumption and production practices domestically, supporting sustainable modernization in developing countries, and eliminating the gap between "wealthy countries' rhetoric and their actual policies." Developing countries, on the other hand, must practice good governance, improve the rights of the poor and take environmental issues seriously. To improve these linkages between poverty and the environment, the report suggests that the UN's lack of policy coherence could be overcome by the establishment of a "Council for Global Development and Environment" as a lead UN agency coordinating the institutions working on development and the environment. As well, funds could be raised by diverting expenditure from the OECD countries' agricultural subsidies and environmentally harmful subsidies worldwide, increasing official development assistance and by public-private partnerships.

The report can be accessed here.

ICTSD Reporting; "Report 'Fighting Poverty through Environmental Policy': Effective Environmental Policies are Key to Global Poverty Reduction," WBGU Press Release, 1 December 2004.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CALLS FOR AVIATION TO BE INCLUDED IN KYOTO

The European Parliament presented a resolution this week calling for the inclusion of aviation and shipping within the Kyoto Protocol. The Parliament has urged the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, to bring up the so-called "wish list" at the Tenth Climate Conference on Global Warming (COP-10) being held on 6-17 December in Buenos Aires, Argentina and in particular to press Kyoto signatories into "incorporating emissions from international flights and shipping into the emission reduction targets of the second commitment period from 2012." International aviation and shipping are currently excluded from the Protocol, which is set to take effect in February (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 19 November 2004), despite the fact that international flights account for at least 3.5 percent of global emissions of greenhouse gases. "The only reason why planes and ships were not included in Kyoto is that the political will was lacking," Karsten Krause, policy officer at Transport & Environment, a federation of organisations working for sustainable transport, told IPS. "The subject would have made negotiations too difficult."

Civil society groups responded positively to the European Parliament's proposal but were doubtful about tangible results given the difficulty of regulating transnational flights and significant industry interests. According to Friends of the Earth International, between 1995 and 2020 transport demand will increase 55 percent that could contribute "an even greater share to global greenhouse gas emissions if no action is taken".

The proposal is available here.

ICTSD Reporting; "New Take-Off Proposed for Kyoto," IPS, 29 November 2004.