|
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE European governments fudge crucial issues in negotiations on new Geneva, 8 March 1998 - As negotiations over the new UN ECE Convention on Public Participation drew to a close at the end of last week, environmentalists expressed their dismay at some of the outcomes. Among the most controversial issues of the tenth and final session of the Working Group drafting the Convention were genetically modified organisms (GMOs), commercial confidentiality, defence interests and the question of a non-compliance mechanism for the Convention. A weakly worded provision on GMOs only requires Governments to ensure public participation in decisions on the deliberate release of GMOs "to the extent feasible and appropriate". Although references to GMOs are included in the draft preamble to the Convention and in the draft Ministerial resolution to accompany the signing of the Convention, the Convention itself completely fails to address the issue of contained use of GMOs. A provision preventing public authorities from withholding "information on emissions which is relevant to the protection of the environment" on grounds of commercial confidentiality was agreed, subject to a rather confusing and ambiguous qualifier. "This falls well short of the demands of environmental groups. Given that pollutants are emitted into the public domain, it follows that information on emissions into the environment should also be in the public domain", said Jeremy Wates, Co-ordinator of the delegation representing Environmental Citizens’ Organisations (ECOs) on the drafting group. A broad exemption allowing governments to deny the right of public participation on grounds of national defence was included, despite the efforts of ECO representatives who argued that this issue was already covered in the 'information' pillar of the Convention. One of the most disappointing outcomes of the week - and indeed of the negotiations as a whole - was the extremely weak text on a non-compliance mechanism for the Convention. Several recent international Conventions include such mechanisms to ensure more effective implementation. "It is because this Convention is about public participation that we had hoped that that any proposed non-compliance mechanism would contain a strong element of public participation", explained Peter Roderick, legal expert with Friends of the Earth and a member of the ECO delegation on the drafting group. However, during the final afternoon of the negotiations, the Russian delegation vehemently opposed any binding obligation in this area and called for the entire mechanism to be optional. They even wanted to have a veto over other countries establishing an optional non-compliance mechanism at a future meeting of the Parties, insisting that the adoption of any such mechanism only be done by consensus. Even the UK delegation, which while claiming to favour a non-compliance mechanism has actually proposed deferring any strong commitments on the subject, was clearly dismayed at what it described as the weakest text on the subject in any international environmental law. "Russia's obvious unwillingness to have its level of compliance with the future Convention open to public scrutiny is an ominous sign", said Wates. "It has succeeded in diluting the text almost to the point of meaninglessness. This must surely be one of the weakest parts of the entire Convention", he added. The draft text of the Convention will now be transmitted to the UN ECE's Committee on Environmental Policy for endorsement at its meeting on 16-18 March. It will then be forwarded to Environment Ministers for adoption and signing at a major Environment Ministers conference to be held in Arhus, Denmark, 23-25 June 1998. For further information: ENDS mara.silina@foeeurope.org - Public Participation Campaign - webmaster |
