Friday

22nd Sep 2017

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.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now and get 40% off for an annual subscription. Sale ends soon.

  1. €90 per year. Use discount code EUOBS40%
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

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).

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.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Mission of China to the EUGermany Stands Ready to Deepen Cooperation With China
  2. World VisionFirst Ever Young People Consultation to Discuss the Much Needed Peace in Europe
  3. European Jewish CongressGermany First Country to Adopt Working Definition of Antisemitism
  4. EU2017EEFour Tax Initiatives to Modernise the EU's Tax System
  5. Dialogue PlatformResponsibility in Practice: Gulen & Islamic Thought
  6. Counter BalanceHuman Rights Concerns Over EIB Loan to the Trans Anatolian Pipeline Project
  7. Mission of China to the EUChina Leads the Global Clean Energy Transition
  8. CES - Silicones EuropeFrom Baking Moulds to Oven Mitts, Silicones Are a Key Ingredient in Kitchens
  9. Martens CentreFor a New Europeanism: How to Put the Motto "Unity in Diversity" Into Practice
  10. Access MBAGet Ahead With an MBA Degree. Top MBA Event in Brussels
  11. Idealist QuarterlyIdealist Quarterly Event: Building Fearless Democracies With Gerald Hensel
  12. Mission of China to the EUPresident Xi Urges Bigger Global Role for Emerging Economies

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. EU2017EEAre We Socially Insured in the Future of Work?
  2. European Jewish CongressFrench Authorities to Root Out "Societal Antisemitism" After Jewish Family Assaulted
  3. European Federation of Local Energy CompaniesClean Energy for All? On 10.10 Top-Level Speakers Present the Clean Energy Package
  4. UNICEFUp to Three Quarters of Children Face Abuse & Exploitation on Mediterranean Migration Routes
  5. Swedish EnterprisesEurope Under Challenge; Recipe for a Competitive EU
  6. European Public Health AllianceCall to International Action to Break Deadlock on Chronic Diseases Crisis
  7. CES - Silicones EuropePropelling the construction revolution with silicones
  8. EU2017EEEU 2018 Budget: A Case of Three Paradoxes
  9. ACCAUS 'Dash for Gas' Could Disrupt Global Gas Markets
  10. Swedish Enterprises“No Time to Lose” Film & Debate on How Business & Politics Can Fight Climate Change
  11. European Free AllianceSave The Date!! 26.09 - Coppieters Awards To... Carme Forcadell
  12. European Jewish CongressEJC Expresses Grave Concern Over Rise in Antisemitism in Poland