Publication date: 29 June 2006

Summary
The European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is intended to allow the EU member states reduce their CO2 emissions in the most cost effective way and in doing so fulfil their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The scheme covers nearly half of Europe's CO2 emissions, and is seen as a key plank of both European and member states policy to tackle climate change. Launching the 2006 UK Climate Change Programme, Tony Blair suggested that "the scheme remains the most important mechanism for stimulating international investment in low-carbon technology."

Solution - Go Organic!

As European Commissioners gather to debate the future of Genetically Modified (GM) crops and food tomorrow, environment and consumer representatives have exposed an EC Recommendation, guiding member states on GM crops, as legally and fundamentally flawed. The NGOs are calling for the Recommendation to be withdrawn and are calling for an urgent meeting to discuss its legal status and content.

Paul Lasok QC, a leading European Lawyer, was asked by Which? (the UK consumers' association), Friends of the Earth, The Soil Association, Greenpeace, the Five Year Freeze Campaign and GeneWatch UK to advise on the EC Recommendation on the growing of GM crops alongside non-GM and organic crops (co-existence).[1]

The Recommendation says that co-existence measures should not go further than to keep GM contamination of non-GM and organic crops below the threshold set down in European GM labelling legislation (currently 0.9 percent). It also says that measures should ignore environmental concerns and be limited to economic issues. If member states put in place measures, like separation distances, based on this guidance, widespread GM contamination of crops and food is likely to occur.

However, the legal opinion [2], presented to the EC Commissioners for Agriculture, Environment and Consumers, condemns the EC position as "fundamentally flawed" and criticizes the UK government for following this approach, which has no basis in community legislation and is legally incorrect. The opinion concludes:

"...the Recommendation is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant legal provisions, and risks advising Member States to adopt coexistence measures that are incompatible with the aims of the legislation or which would result in preventing, in practice, the use of the "organic" label and the reliance on the GM labelling exemption."

Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, Clare Oxborrow said:
"This legal opinion destroys the European Commission's position on GM crop co-existence with non-GM crops. Countries around Europe are already putting in place laws to control contamination from GM crops, but they are being misguided by flawed advice. There is a growing movement for GM free areas in Europe, and consumer demand for GM free food remains as strong as ever. The Commission must now ditch its misleading guidance and replace it with tough, EU-wide laws that will truly protect our choice for GM-free food, our health and the environment from the threat of GM crops."

Sue Davies, Chief Policy Officer, Which? said:
"The EC's Recommendation on coexistence takes GM contamination of up to 0.9 percent as its starting point and therefore restricts people's ability to have meaningful choice between GM, non-GM and organic crops. The legal advice offered today suggests that the European Commission and member states should be aiming to minimize contamination when establishing rules for how GM crops should be grown."

Peter Melchett, Policy Director of The Soil Association said:
"One reason consumers choose organic food is to avoid eating GM products, yet the European Commission is trying, we believe illegally, to impose rules that could mean almost one in every hundred mouthfuls of organic food was actually GM food, with no requirement to tell people what they are really eating."

Sarah North GM Campaigner for Greenpeace said:
"The European Commission may have to go back to the drawing board with GM crops now. If their assumptions about how to stop contamination between GM and normal crops are wrong, then it follows that subsequent decisions to allow some GM crops to be grown in Europe and proposals for permissible levels of GM contamination of regular seeds may also be flawed. Our legal opinion could stop the Commission disregarding their own legislation and forcing GM crops into Europe on a remiss premise."

At today's meeting in Brussels, European Commissioners will discuss GMO policy, current applications for the import of GM food and feed and the national bans on GMOs in Austria, France, Greece and Italy.

Contacts:
Peter Melchett (Soil Association) 07740 951066
Sarah North (Greenpeace)0207 865 8163
Coman Kenny (Which?)0207 770 7567
Clare Oxborrow (Friends of the Earth)0207 566 1716
Sue Mayer (GeneWatch UK)07930 308807
Pete Riley (GM Freeze)07903 341065

Notes to editors:

1. European Commission Recommendation on "guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified with conventional and organic farming" 23rd July 2003

2. Advice - In the matter of Coexistence, traceability and labeling of GMOs. K.P.E. Lasok QC and Rebecca Haynes, Monkton Chambers, 21 January 2005 available at 11am Monday 21st March

Download a pdf of Summary of Advice of Paul Lasok in relation to Coexistence, Traceability and Labelling

Download the full report EC RecommendationIn the Matter of Coexistence, Traceability and Labelling of GMOs as a pdf

Paul Lasok is one of the English Bar's most pre-eminent practitioners in European Law, having practised in the field since 1979. His diverse European practice covers all manner of areas including, in particular: agriculture, trade law and environmental issues. Notably, he led the team for Greenpeace that successfully got the European Commission to examine the granting of aid to British Energy. This was a landmark case in the field of State aid and the environment.

Rebecca Haynes is a barrister practising in European Community law and judicial review with a particular focus and specialism in environmental issues. She has acted for and advised extensively both governmental and non-governmental bodies in relation to diverse issues ranging from State aid, WTO and trade law to freedom of information, habitats conservation and GM.

Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant

The European Commission is expected to begin an investigation on December 1st into whether the UK will contravene European competition rules through establishing the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).

On 1st April 2005 all of British Nuclear Fuel's (BNFL's) assets - including reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants, the Magnox reactors (and the Drigg radioactive waste dump) - are due to be transferred to the ownership of the NDA.

It is the transfer of assets from BNFL to the NDA, and how commercial operations may be helped by state aid, which will be main focus of the EC investigation.

Last year Greenpeace first challenged the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) over the possible state aid implications of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. In May, Greenpeace presented a legal opinion to the Commission, which argued that the NDA could not be established or operate without prior EC approval, because it breaks EC rules which prevent governments providing state aid to industries under competition laws. For example, the provision of state aid by the NDA might disadvantage competitor nuclear companies in Belgium and France.

Since May another major problem with the NDA has emerged. Even though when it was originally proposed the Government claimed the NDA's focus would be "squarely on [dealing with] the nuclear legacy", it has since emerged that the Authority will face a conflict of interest, as it will itself be partly dependent on revenue generated by plants that generate nuclear waste.

The government's spending review of 2004 states that half of the NDA's annual budget of £bn is planned to come from commercial activities such as:

• Reprocessing at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing and Magnox plants at Sellafield;
• Operating the loss-making Magnox reactors; and
• Possibly operating the controversial Mixed Oxide (MOX) plant at Sellafield

It is not clear exactly how the Competition Commission will structure its investigation, but it is known some key facilities will come under special scrutiny. For example, the commissioning and operation of the controversial Mixed Oxide Fuel plant - which has cost an estimated £00m but which has not yet produced one consignment of fuel - will be investigated in order to establish if state aid will be used to support the plant's operations

It is expected the inquiry will take between 9-12 months. In the meantime the NDA will be funded from the Nuclear Liabilities Investment Plan. The EC will not be investigating the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which runs sites such as Dounreay. This is because the UKAEA is now purely a decommissioning and clean up company.

For more information contact Jean McSorley Greenpeace nuclear campaigner on 07801 212959 or Pete Roche on 07 821 378 210.