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

A piece of somewhat better news. Version 2.0.

Image
I have written a post with a similar name  and this is indeed something linked both in substance and in form. The two stories form an interesting pair of mosaic mirror images, where some aspects are almost identical and some more or less precisely opposite. Several chemicals, including many biocides and pesticides can disrupt the endocrine system. Such effects have been documented long ago and are now considered a major hazard. European Parliament held a vote on the subject of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the beginning of October. The Commission had, after long delay finally adopted a delegated regulation on EDCs – something that the European Court of Justice had demanded it to do long ago. The delegated regulation, however, fell short of what is necessary to protect our health and environment from the hazards of EDCs, and as such was not in accord with the delegated powers given to the Commission by the existing regulations on pesticides and biocide
Read more

Milline finantsraamistik tagaks Euroopa Liidu kestliku arengu pärast 2020. aastat?

Üle-eelmisespostituses kirjutasin Euroopa Komisjoni üllitatud aruteludokumendist ühenduse rahanduse tuleviku teemal. Vaadates otsa seal pakutud võimalikele tulevikustsenaariumitele leidsin, et ainus üldse pikemat arutelu vääriv lahendus on neljandana pakutav, millele oli pandud ambitsioonikas nimi „põhjalikud ümberkorraldused”. Siiski on ka selle näol tegemist pigem pisikeste sammudega õiges suunas kui tõelise tulevikuvaatega. Sestap siis võtan pakutud neljanda stsenaariumi aluseks ja sellest lähtudes visandan mõned mõtted tõeliselt jätkusuutliku Euroopa jaoks sobiva finantsraamistiku kohta. Nimetagem siis seda stsenaariumiks 4.1. „Säästva Euroopa rahandus. Põhjalikud ümberkorraldused – päriselt”. Kuivõrd käesoleva blogi eesmärk on töötada eelkõige säästva põllumajanduse nimel, on põllumajanduspoliitikaga seonduvad kulud veidi põhjalikumalt lahti kirjutatud võrreldes muude valdkondadega. Üldine suundumus 1. Maksed kavandatakse ainult sinna, kus need on vajaliku turu poolt mitt
Read more