Making sense of France’s policy on GM crops

A bill which lays down the terms under which GM crops can be cultivated in France and creates a body to oversee its use is making its way painfully through the French legislature. This bill has generated a lot of fuss in parliament and the media. What is it all about? The bill seeks to align France’s legislation on the issue with a 2001 European Union directive, and in time for France to take over the rotating EU presidency this summer. That directive compels Member States to create a legal framework for GMO open-field cultivation - notably to legislate on the distances that must be maintained from non-GMO crops and the responsibilities when contamination does occur. The bill - which was conceived in the spirit of the Grenelle on the Environment and in the respect of the precautionary principle - came before parliament on April 1, after adoption in the Senate, where it was considerably watered down. For instance, the original provision for a High Authority on GMOs has been morphed into a High Council on Biotechnology where scientists and civil society are separated into two groups.

Senator Jean-Francois Legrand, who was the former head of the Provisional High Authority on the GMOs created shortly after the Grenelle, has pointed out that the pro-OGM lobbies have been working the corridors of parliament intensely of late. Referring to the conclusions of the IAASTD report that GMOs were not a solution for development, he said: “When I cited these sources, I saw the incredulity and the surprise. No-one was familiar with this international expertise.”

Who are the main actors in this drama? The European Commission, (executive arm of the European Union) which despite fierce opposition among Member States to GMO cultivation, is continuing its authorizations at a fast clip. In March, Brussels gave the green light to imports of Sygenta’s GA21 corn, which means that this transgenic corn may be imported into the Union’s 27 countries, but not cultivated. (NB: Syngenta share price: Up 35% in the past year). The same rule currently applies to transgenic colza, soya, carnations, chicory and tobacco. Then there are the politicians in France - with the ruling right-wing UMP party deeply divided on the issue and the opposition left staunchly opposed. Finally, there is civil society, which is overwhelmingly against GMOs.

How to account for the big gap between public opinion in France and the pro-GMO stance of the European Commission? Friends of the Earth Europe summed it up a report released last year: “It is no secret that the EU political class has embraced the neoliberal agenda. In food and farming this translates as high-technology intensive farming with patented inputs (pesticides, genetically modified seeds, etc) that generate wealth for the European industry. The basic aim, clearly stated in EU policy objectives such as the Lisbon Agenda, is to make Europe a leader in the global economy. This has been expressed in different policy slogans - the ‘Biosociety’ in the 1980s, the ‘knowledge-based economy’ in the 1990s, and the “Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) in the current decade.”

The report notes that the main lobby group on GM food and crops at the EU level is EuropaBio, and highlights the fact that the biotech industry is skilled at constructing myths which are pumped through the mainstream media to prop up its case. The current myths are, of course, that GM technology will save the world from climate change and global famine. The counter-argument is articulated in the IAASTD report released earlier this year, which calls for a more holistic, less productivist approach to agriculture which is less dependent on fossil fuels, and stresses that corporate control of seeds can undermine the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. In case anyone missed it, here is a video:

via Rue 89 and Friends of the Earth, Europe

 

 

 

 

Carbon Weevils

Brilliant and very dark. Reminds me of the wonderful children’s illustrated story by Jeanne Willis “Dr Xargle’s Book of Earthlets”.

from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod

Paris studies big geothermal heating project for Aubervilliers

A feasibility study is currently underway in Paris to provide geothermal heating for 20,000 apartments and offices in the new Canal-Aubervilliers district currently under development in the northeast of Paris. The Compagnie parisienne de chauffage urbain (CPCU), which manages hundreds of public buildings, hopes to capitalize on the very hot water (70 degrees C) which lies 1,200 metres underground.

“Around 49 to 50 percent of the heating produced in Paris already comes from waste incinerators and not fossil fuels like petrol,” said the CPCU, quoted in an article in Le Parisien. The geothermal well would be located on the edge of the boulevard périphérique and the Saint-Denis canal in the 19^th arrondissement and is expected to be operational by 2011 or 2012.

The CPCU also hopes to drill another site in Ivry-sur-Seine, just south of Paris. “We are also looking at a system which would allow us to inject into the sub-soil the excesses of summertime heat,” it said.

 via Le Parisien

 

Self-destructing eco-bib made from potato starch

Here is a nice baby gift: an eco-bib made out of potato starch which self-destructs after two years. Waterproof, sponge-washable and guilt-free disposable! Made by cocoboheme.

via Le Figaro

Dreaming about a house in the vineyards? Think again…

A recent European study put the spotlight on pesticide content in wine. This study failed to generate any public debate in France. According to Dominique Techer, owner of Chateau Gombaude-Guillot in Pomerol and member of an assocation of wine-growers who want to see a kinder form of grape growing for the environment, the subject is taboo in the industry. Quoted by Le Nouvel Observateur, he said: “When you put these questions on the table, you are seen as a traitor. The profession cloaks itself in declarations of principle on agriculture raisonnée (agriculture which uses slightly lower-than-usual pesticide inputs) - in substance, we spray advisedly - and don’t care about the impact of these molecules on the environment and public health.” A recent study published by the Institut de Veille sanitaire (InVS) showed that during the May-August spraying period, air in the Gironde and Champagne regions is saturated with products such as the fungicide folpel (up to 1,200 ng per cubic metre), trifluraline, pendimenthaline and the highly toxic endocrine disrupter, endosulfan (around 1 ng per cubic metre). There are also traces of lindane - an organochloride pesticide which has been banned in France since 1998. No serious epidemiological study on this issue has been undertaken to date in France.

Every year, France uses 80,000 tonnes of pesticides. Wine-growing represents just 3 percent of the cultivated land area, but consumes 20 percent of the pesticides, according to the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, INRA.

Ironically, the heavy application of all these pesticides poses a serious threat to terroir - a sacred notion in France which roughly translates as a certain sense of place and the qualities embodied by a product which are the result of local, site-related characteristics. Microbiologists warn that the massive use of pesticides could destroy those qualities of the French soils which underly the inimitable bouquets of its finest wines. Only last year, UNESCO proclaimed that the French notion of terroir - impossible to translate with one word in English - could be used as a model for site-specific sustainable development which could be applied in countries all over the world. 

 

via Le Nouvel Observateur

 

Update on the Grenelle

Six months after the Grenelle de l’Environnement, its conclusions have finally been translated into a legislative bill which was unveiled in parliament on April 30. The text has been welcomed by NGOs as a more or less faithful rendition of the spirit and the letter of the Grenelle but there is concern about how to finance the stated goal of “making France the most carbon-efficient economy in the European Union” by 2020. The bill will be presented to the Council of Ministers at the end of May, and then go before parliament before the summer.

The first law to go before a parliamentary vote concerns construction and transportation. The second, which concerns agriculture and governance, will be heard in the autumn. The bill consists of 47 articles grouped under five headings – climate change, biodiversity, health and environmental risks, the state and legislation which is specific to the overseas territories.

The biggest concern is over funding. Les Echos reported that earlier versions of the bill gave precise figures such as 24 billion euros for the renovation of state-owned buildings, but such figures were excised for the final text. Similarly for the goal of building 2,000 kilometres of high-speed train lines – an earlier estimate of 69 billion euros was also struck from the final text.

Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, for his part, has said that the state will finance 16 of the 69 billion euros earmarked for high-speed train lines, as well as more than one billion of the 4.5 billion needed for a wide canal which will link the Seine with northern Europe.

Environmental NGOS are also concerned that the bill will be significantly watered down during its passage through parliament. On the plus side, they applauded the fact that the text contained a strong commitment to biodiversity, and the government’s decision to drop the European Union target of shifting to 10 percent biofueld by 2020.

Highlighs of the bill:

1. Tax policy

the state will study the creation of a carbon tax, with the caveat that this new tax “will be strictly compensated by reductions on other obligatory taxes to preserve householding spending power and competitiveness of enterprise.”

From 2011, all trucks which are not on highways will be taxed.

2. Construction

New buildings will have to respect a “low energy consumption” norm starting from the end of 2012. From 2020 onwards this will become a “positive energy” norm

The state has set a goal of cutting energy consumption of its buildings by 38 pct by 2020

3. Housing

Renovation and insulation of 800,000 low cost housing units by end-2020

4. Town planning

Regions, departments and communes with more than 50,000 inhabitants will have to craft climate-energy plans before 2021

5. Transport of merchandise

The state will allocated up to 400 million euros per year to improve the upkeep of the railroads

Launch of three auto-highways, development of “sea highways” and the launch of a wide canal Seine-North Europe

6. Travel

Conatruction of 2000 kms of high-speed train lines before 2020

7. Biodiversity

creation of three new national parks, acquisition of 20,000 hectares of wetlands

8. Water

Ban on phosphates in all detergent products starting from 2012, and starting from 2015 for industrial usage

9. Agriculture

Doubling of tax credits from 2009 in favour of organic agriculture - goal is to increase cultivated land for organic agriculture to 20 pct by 2020. Cut by half pesticide use. Set up emergency plan to safeguard bees in 2009.

10. Health and environment

Reinforcement of the follow-up on the professional exposure to dangerous substances. Reinforcement of efforts on improving air quality, and the policy on reducing waste. Launch before April 2009 of a public debate on nanomaterials.

 

 via Les Echos and official website of the Grenelle

How did Sarkozy do on the environment in his first year?

France Nature Environnement (FNE), a federation of environmental NGOs, delivers a mixed score card on Sarkozy’s efforts on the environment during his first year in office. It is worth recalling that Sarkozy was rated the least environment-friendly of all the candidates in the presidential election campaign, well behind his Socialist rival Segolene Royale. But he surprised everyone by delivering the Grenelle de l’Environnement, a bold and innovative political exercise which for the first time brought together all stakeholders to collectively craft the country’s policies on the environment for the next decade.

Sebastien Genest, president of FNE: “By acknowledging the role of associations, initiating the Grenelle de l’environnement, taking strong commitments, Nicolas Sarkozy took a risk: creating immense expectations! Failure would be absolutely dreadful. For now, the Grenelle is not dead and its pursuit is the guarantee that our country is on the right track. However, we must be cautious. All the ecology-sceptics are standing on the brakes and we must not help them.” 

On the plus side:

- designating the Environment Minister as the number two in the government

- the Grenelle

- acknowledgement, at the highest level and for the first time in the history of the 5^th Republic, of the existence and the role of NGOs in protecting the environment

- the shelving of a project for a gold mine in Guyana

- the ban on GM corn MON 810

-  Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo’s promise to not touch the law on France’s coastlines

- the creation of a scientific foundation for biodiversity

On the minus side:

- the relentless defence of commercial interests of the nuclear industry

- an economic policy grounded in quantitative growth

- a carbon tax which is still hypothetical

- a vote against the European soil protection law

- authorization of the creation of a new airport near Nantes

- authorization of “Cruiser” pesticide

-  calling for a rethink of the European Union fishing quotas

- authorization of the construction of a highway around Strasbourg, putting at risk the Grand Hamster d’Alsace 

- failure to act quickly on the catastrophe of PCB pollution in the Rhone river

- failure to make the ‘ecopastille’ tax (a bonus/malus system with 130 g CO2 as a breakeven point) on new cars a yearly tax

 

via Les 4 Elements

 

 

 

 

Evils of laundry detergent

 

from www.planete-terra.fr posted with vodpod

What needs to be done

“Weathercocks and Signposts” is such an awesome report that I had to excerpt a bit more from it. This part focuses on the complexity and challenges associated with building an authentic, values-based approach to the inevitable consumption descent. The report invokes Churchill: “It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”

“It is WWF’s experience that many public figures are privately voicing concerns that the ‘business case for sustainable development’ and ‘decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation’ will not offer sufficiently far-reaching responses to the challenges we face. Often these voices are submerged by dominant establishment discourse.”

The report concludes:

• there is an urgent need to introduce a broader set of values into public policy debate
• the dominant marketing approach currently adopted falls far short of what is necessary

“Increasing numbers of senior business people are recognising the limitations of green consumption as a response to the environmental crisis, and the ultimate imperative for society to consume less rather than differently.”

“As this report outlines, recourse to consuming greener products, buying fewer and more expensive products, or sharing products, will not be sufficient. Moving beyond these models will require the creative engagement of people in business, NGOs and marketing agencies.”

 

 

On values, communications and thinking for ourselves

 

 

A new report from WWF has put both “green” marketers and “post-environmentalists” on notice. Entitled “Weathercocks and Signposts: The Environment Movement at a Crossroads”, the report demonstrates that it is no longer sufficient to rely on marketing techniques to promote behaviour change for the environment. Instead, it argues that any effective strategy for tackling environmental challenges will require engagement with the values that underlie the decisions we make as well as our sense of who we are. Primarily aimed at NGOs who are seeking to re-define themselves in the era of “green” consumption, the report is a dense, but thought-provoking read and well worth the effort. 

In particular, it highlights the fact that communication campaigns for environmental change should “avoid focus on ‘things you can do’” and instead “urge the audience for a particular communication to begin to think for themselves about what they can do. Prompting such reflection may facilitate the integration of these external reflections into a person’s sense of self.” This is wonderful news! No more editorials from Thomas Friedman about the pointlessness of changing lightbulbs because unsustainable behaviours in China will wipe out our efforts! No more “10 easy ways to go green” from the mainstream media? No more discussions around the water cooler on the futility of buying a Prius because of the battery issue?