Friday

12th Aug 2022

Opinion

Ceta and pesticides: A citizens' rights issue

  • Arial spraying of a banana plantation. Contrary to EU law, Ceta does not provide any guarantee of access to environmental information. (Photo: Nick Shaw / Banana Link)

The EU and Canada will begin provisionally applying the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (Ceta) on 21 September 2017.

The EU’s obligation for data protection under this agreement is in conflict with EU law on public access to information, particularly in relation to pesticides. Therefore, the EU will soon be forced to choose between honouring its trade commitments and abiding by the law on public access to environmental information.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Before pesticides can be marketed, companies must conduct tests and studies to assess their safety and efficacy, which entails significant financial investment.

On one hand, the information generated from these studies can be considered valuable intellectual property belonging to the company and therefore subject to protection and confidentiality. But, on the other hand, it can also be considered important health and environmental information to which the public should have access.

Providing public access to the studies can help the public to make informed choices related to their health and the environment.

It is also necessary for allowing independent researchers to assess the validity of the results - to ensure that the studies have been conducted independently, objectively and transparently as required by the regulation for the marketing of these products.

At the international level, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has oscillated in its position on the importance of protecting the proprietary rights of regulatory data, but has most recently encouraged governments to develop “legislation that permits public access to information about pesticide risks and the regulatory process, while safeguarding intellectual property.”

Aarhus Convention

While not addressing the issue of pesticide test data directly, the Aarhus Convention - to which the EU is a party but Canada is not - guarantees public access to information for environmental matters. In contrast, Ceta protects regulatory data related to pesticides and undermines EU law on public access to information.

The Aarhus Convention is incorporated into EU law through the EU Aarhus Regulation. Under the regulation, the “overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment” and “the grounds for refusal shall be interpreted in a restrictive way.”

When Greenpeace Netherlands requested information from the European Commission about studies submitted in support of an application for the approval of the pesticide active ingredient glyphosate, the Commission refused, stating that the request fell within the intellectual property exception for disclosure.

However, the EU's Court of Justice overturned this decision, finding that the disclosure of information about glyphosate was an overriding public interest when balanced against the interest of protecting intellectual property. Thus, EU law guarantees the right of access to regulatory data containing environmental information about pesticides.

Contrary to EU law, Ceta does not provide any guarantee of access to environmental information, but instead obliges the parties to protect confidential commercial information without exception.

The joint interpretative instrument, which elaborates on the general intent of the Ceta parties, also emphasises the right of the parties to protect data, but is silent with regard to public access to information.

This is in contrast to the Trips Agreement of the World Trade Organization, which allows the disclosure of test data “where necessary to protect the public,” as well as to Ceta's provisions regarding pharmaceutical test data, which also allows for disclosure to protect the public, suggesting that the absence of a similar exception for pesticides was done by design.

Canada-EU conflicts

Under EU law, regulatory data for “classic” pesticides can be protected for ten years, while data related to low risk pesticides can be protected for up to 13 years, and data for minor use pesticides can be protected for up to 15 years. The EU pesticides regulation explicitly prohibits periods of data protection exceeding these limits.

Ceta, however, requires the parties to protect data related to tests and studies on pesticides for “at least 10 years” and provides no upper limit on the number of years data can be protected. Thus, under Ceta, Canada can protect regulatory data indefinitely, while in the EU, data must, in all circumstances, be made public after 15 years.

This threatens the health of European citizens, who will be exposed to pesticide residues on products coming from Canada without any guarantee that the risks of these products will eventually be disclosed.

In addition, as international agricultural association CropLife points out: “Providing an inconsistent period of protection between trading partners creates market distortions and an uncertain regulatory environment for investment.”

Ceta's regulatory cooperation provisions provide a number of forums where Canada will have the opportunity to challenge the EU’s approach to data protection and to seek the EU’s approval - and perhaps adoption - of Canada’s approach.

Ceta’s failure to recognise the difference between low risk and classic pesticides is also a potential basis for dispute between Canada or a Canadian company and the EU.

For example, if a Canadian company provides data in support of registering a pesticide that it believes is low risk and the EU makes that data public after 10 years because it believes the pesticide is not low risk, the Canadian company could potentially challenge the EU under Ceta's investment arbitration provisions.

The possibility for disagreement over risks is a real one, as Canada and the EU approach risk analysis in different ways.

Ceta is likely to undermine the right of access to environmental information on pesticides as provided in EU law; provide a commercial advantage to companies registering pesticides in Canada; and threaten the health and environment of European citizens.

While most of these issues will arise as soon as provisional application begins, member states may still decide to reject the agreement altogether, while it passes through national parliament ratification.

Layla Hughes is a staff attorney, and Elise Vitali is a trainee at the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

EU declines to renew glyphosate licence

Member states did not agree on conditions to renew the permit for the chemical used in pesticides, amid contradictory evidence on a possible cancer link.

Investigation

EU weed-killer evidence 'written by Monsanto'

The EU's favourable opinion of the weed-killer chemical glyphosate was partially based on scientific evidence heavily influenced by weed-killer manufacturer Monsanto.

Doubts over EU chemical agency after weedkiller study

Green MEPs and health pressure groups said the European Chemicals Agency could be suffering from conflicts of interest, after it said there wasn't enough evidence to prove that the world's most widely used weedkiller causes cancer.

Ratifying CETA after 'Achmea scandal' is anti-European

While few people in Europe have heard of the 'Achmea' ruling, the case will have far-reaching consequences. Member states must understand the implications of the case quickly - especially those considering ratifying the EU-Canada trade agreement.

EU must beware Beijing's new charm offensive

The EU needs to be clear eyed about China's new diplomatic charm offensive, as it's more likely driven by short-term necessity than any fundamental policy re-assessment.

Column

Global hunger crisis requires more than just the Odessa deal

International donors are playing hide and seek. Instead of stepping up their assistance programmes, richer nations are cutting overseas aid, or reallocating funds from other parts of the world towards the Ukraine crisis.

Exploiting the Ukraine crisis for Big Business

From food policy to climate change, corporate lobbyists are exploiting the Ukraine crisis to try to slash legislation that gets in the way of profit. But this is only making things worse.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Canadian ministers join forces to combat harmful content online
  3. European Centre for Press and Media FreedomEuropean Anti-SLAPP Conference 2022
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers write to EU about new food labelling
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersEmerging journalists from the Nordics and Canada report the facts of the climate crisis
  6. Council of the EUEU: new rules on corporate sustainability reporting

Latest News

  1. Defying Russian bombs, Ukraine football starts 2022 season
  2. Sweden to extradite man wanted by Turkey
  3. EU must beware Beijing's new charm offensive
  4. Forest fire near Bordeaux forces over 10,000 to flee
  5. Estonia and Latvia sever China club ties
  6. Russian coal embargo kicks in, as EU energy bills surge
  7. Only Western unity can stop Iran hostage-diplomacy
  8. Kosovo PM warns of renewed conflict with Serbia

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us