A piece of somewhat better news. Version 3.0.

Third time this year EU decisions regarding pesticides provide a positive surprise – after initial shock of appearing completely ignorant. I have written already two posts with similar name (find the posts here and here).



This time it is about glyphosate. We all know that International Agency for Research on Cancer has found it to be a probable carcinogen. EU official process however dismissed these findings and the Commission was proposing to allow use of this chemical for another ten years. Everyone who cares for environment was upset.

The Parliament’s COMENVI thus decided to block this move. The Parliament has no legal power to veto an implementing act but passing a resolution against it carries a significant political message. All the major European environmental NGOs did their best to secure this outcome. People wrote, phoned, tweeted and used all possible means to reach out to the MEPs. I did my small bit as well and am as happy as the rest of the environmental camp that the vote supported the resolution.

Next day the Commission carried out the vote on renewal of licence to use glyphosate for ten years in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. The vote was close: the Commission actually had a simple majority. Regrettably also Estonia supported the Commission in spite of all our efforts. However, in order to have the decision passed the qualified majority was needed and since Belgium, Greece, Croatia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden voted against, and Germany and Portugal abstained this was not achieved. Without the qualified majority and with the Parliamentary resolution in place the unilateral renewal of the licence has become highly unlikely. The Commission will most probably now have to work on the licence  again, and this time secure better protection for our health and environment – a small battle won.


The environmental NGOs can sigh a relief. The small victory however is only about one agrochemical. In order to seriously deal with risks to our health and environment caused by the pesticides we need a radical reform of the CAP.  

Post author: Aleksei Lotman, ELF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PRESS RELEASE: European Union’s agricultural policy needs a significant change

Image
Environmental and agricultural organisations, farmers, scientists, officials and other participants attended a conference on 1st and 2nd of September in Tallinn and Matsalu to discuss the future of the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP). Despite their versatile background, most speakers found that the CAP requires significant changes. Multiple participants signed an open letter addressed to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of the European Union and other relevant EU decision-makers with their proposals how to repair the policy. Speakers at the conference stressed the importance of agriculture in providing food and various public goods. At the same time negative sides of the present-day agriculture like impact on water, problems with pesticides, biodiversity loss, hardship faced by family farms and land grabbing were discussed. Positive examples of dealing with these problems were also presented. The overall conclusion shared by most speakers, however, was that CAP does secur
Read more

European Commission briefing on CAP future in Tallinn

The Commission presented the CAP future communication “The Future of Food and Farming” in Tallinn on 14 th of December. Not much new info compared to what one can get from the reading of the document could be obtained. Some minor clarifications and indeed confirmation of the initial impressions did result from attending the meeting though. The commission wants to maintain the two-pillar structure and seems to have support from the member states on that. This does not mean that environmental NGOs should stop saying that this system is obsolete and needs a radical reform but the real question at this stage seems to be how much money will go into which pillar. Since the financing is part of MFF, the Commission was adamant not to give a hint about this matter. For the NGO community there seems to a clear case for a strong stance on MFF: all the cuts resulting from Brexit must happen in Pillar I – no cuts to Pillar II. Meeting shed some additional light on programming bo
Read more

EKO: The near future must bring a turn towards greener agriculture

Image
Yesterday, on April 27th, the Estonian Chamber of Environmental Associations (EKO) sent a set of proposals to the Minister of Rural Affairs for the next seven-year cycle of agricultural policy. EKO emphasizes that Estonian agricultural subsidies of the new funding period must focus more on organic farming, preserving landscape biodiversity, preventing of water pollution and conservation of soil's good health and restoration of carbon sequestration. Edges of fields, which are rich in blooming plants, help to preserve the biodiversity of landscapes and the natural benefits that are important to farmers. Often, however, the field edges look the opposite as in this photo, made by Aveliina Helm (University of Tartu) EKO's proposals for a new period in agriculture are based on expert knowledge and increasing volume scientific analyzes of the environmental impact of European and Estonian agriculture. EKO acknowledges that many of the activities and grants planned for the new period ar
Read more