European Union

Europe and Pesticides p Bare facts Europe is the world’s largest producer, user and exporter of pesticides. i h ld’ l d d f i id The European Union (EU) has 600 companies manufacturing pesticides  worth 9.9 billion Euros ($12.50 billion).

Truth  is  Out Out 

Though the EU has only 8% of the world’s agricultural area, it accounts  for nearly 30% of world’s pesticides market. Europe has 60% share in  world’s pesticides  trade.  The consumption of pesticides in the EU is steadily increasing.  For  example, small countries like Italy and France consume more pesticides  than India (both in volume and value).  While countries like India and China mainly produce low priced generic  pesticides, the Europe leads in production of high priced proprietary  pesticides. Low priced generic pesticides from low cost producing countries like India  and China threaten market leadership of the Europe.

EU’s Trade Promoting tools Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam Convention are two  chemical trade related Conventions with strong focus on pesticides. EU uses these Conventions as tools to eliminate competition from  low priced generic pesticides.  Pesticides proposed by the EU for inclusion in these trade  restrictive Conventions are all off patent, low priced generic  pesticides that were initially invented, manufactured in Europe but  later turned off patent generic and less profitable to Europe later turned off patent, generic and less profitable to Europe. Environmental protection is just an alibi to eliminate low priced  generics. In almost all the decisions taken at these Conventions, one could  see the handwork of the EU. The EU submits a proposal, the EU  reviews its own proposal and finally decides on its own  proposal. reviews its own proposal and finally decides on its own proposal. It is unilateralism in the garb of multilateralism – to hoodwink WTO.

PAN et al‐ Puppets of the EU  pp PAN                     PAN

Happy to be hung?

The countries in the EU and European Commission (EC) heavily finance environmental activist organizations to run smear campaigns against select generic pesticides. Between 2002‐2008, the European Commission’s funding to environmental NGOs (ENGOs) increased from 3.9 million Euros to 8.5 million Euros. (Source: EC) “Internationally, European NGOs…. have been reported to be useful in reaching out and supporting EU position through their network” says a document of European Commission. (SEC 2633 of 9th Oct 2008)

This is an open acknowledgement of a hidden agenda. These environmental NGOs are paid handsome amount to work “generating support to EU position”. Plainly put, these activist NGOs are paid lobbyists to work for the EU in various countries. Pesticides Action Network (PAN), is a prime beneficiary of EU/EC funding PAN Europe, funding. Europe has a campaign budget of 2 million Euros. Euros (Source: SIG Watch, Watch Germany) “European governments pay hundreds of millions of Euros annually to [activists] groups which export Europe’s attitudes to governments overseas”. ‐‐ GMO belus

He who pays the piper calls the tune! PAN’s chorus at the Chemical Conventions and global media is linked to the funds provided by the EU/EC.

Bending Backward EU’s power game at UNEP UNEP’s annual report (2008) shows that out of $89 million environment fund received, $75 came from the Europe.

2.Amending/altering g/ g submitted proposal after its initial screening by the Stockholm Convention’s Secretariat.

Being B i the th major j donor d t UNEP, to UNEP the EU finds it very easy to violate the procedures and rules in UNEP operated chemical C Conventions. ti N No questions ti asked.

3. Using a POPRC member to be the 3 spokesperson of EU/EC to seek postponement of examination of the EU proposal in brazen violation of article 8 of the Stockholm Convention and rules and procedures of the Convention.

Most recent violations by the EU include, but not limited to, the following:

4. Allowing an “observer” to officially introduce & explain the EU proposal before POPRC violating Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention.

1.

Submitting notification beyond the time limit stipulated in article 5 of Rotterdam Convention. Convention The Convention’s secretariat silently accepted it.

5. Unilaterally reviewing its own proposal and ensuring its subsequent acceptance by the POPRC.

6. Preparing draft risk profile by European Commission for and on behalf of POPRC.‐ using an ex POPRC member as a consultant – unmindful of the conflict of i t interests t involved. i l d 7. Lobbying to reject scientific data submitted by developing countries from tropical environment. Objections raised by developing countries merely remain in papers. All these evidently show the hegemonic powers of the EU at the UNEP. It’s true agenda is to progressively bring about global ban of low priced generic pesticides and promote sale of high priced proprietary pesticides in which the EU is the global leader.

Funding frauds,  distorting scientific truth &  hatching conspiracy hatching conspiracy Few years ago, the European Commission, German and Swedish government agencies funded an ENGO in India called Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). CSE published a study claiming to have found 108 ppm to 196 ppm of Endosulfan residues in the blood samples of people who are still alive. This is more than 15000% the lethal levels ‐‐ scientifically impossible! The study also claimed to have found 9.19 ppm of Endosulfan from filtered water samples. This is 3000% higher than Endosulfan’s water solubility of 0.32 ppm. Clearly, this is a scientifically fraudulent report. PAN widely publicized this fraudulent report worldwide even as the donors, EC and EU chose to remain silent to the panic and public outcry it generated. Stigmatizing Endosulfan, a popular generic pesticide, served the trade interests of EC/EU.

?

The way out The way out  There is an urgent need to ensure that all   There is an urgent need to ensure that all decisions taken at the chemical Conventions  are fair, unbiased and uninfluenced by EU. Countries need to  question the abuse of dominance   by the EU at the trade related  chemical Conventions. Procedural abuse  at the chemical Conventions must  Procedural abuse at the chemical Conventions must be brought to the notice of Committee on Trade and  Environment at the WTO. The nexus between environmental NGOs and the  EU/EC must not be allowed to  steer agenda at the  chemical Conventions. All the controversial decisions taken till now  must be probed and reversed.

Sources: Published documents at EC SEC 2633 dated 9 Oct, 2008 SIG Watch, Germany 2006 data, FAO,etc