Europe and Pesticides

p
Bare facts
Europe is the world’s largest producer, user and exporter of pesticides.
i h ld’ l d d f i id

The European Union (EU) has 600 companies manufacturing pesticides 
worth 9.9 billion Euros ($12.50 billion).

Though the EU has only 8% of the world’s agricultural area, it accounts 
for nearly 30% of world’s pesticides market. Europe has 60% share in 
Truth  world’s pesticides  trade. 

is  The consumption of pesticides in the EU is steadily increasing.  For 
example, small countries like Italy and France consume more pesticides 
than India (both in volume and value). 
Out
Out  While countries like India and China mainly produce low priced generic 
pesticides, the Europe leads in production of high priced proprietary 
pesticides.

Low priced generic pesticides from low cost producing countries like India 
and China threaten market leadership of the Europe.
EU’s Trade Promoting tools
Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam Convention are two 
chemical trade related Conventions with strong focus on pesticides.

EU uses these Conventions as tools to eliminate competition from 
low priced generic pesticides. 

Pesticides proposed by the EU for inclusion in these trade 
restrictive Conventions are all off patent, low priced generic 
pesticides that were initially invented, manufactured in Europe but 
later turned off patent generic and less profitable to Europe
later turned off patent, generic and less profitable to Europe.

Environmental protection is just an alibi to eliminate low priced 
generics.

In almost all the decisions taken at these Conventions, one could 
see the handwork of the EU. The EU submits a proposal, the EU 
reviews its own proposal and finally decides on its own  proposal.
reviews its own proposal and finally decides on its own proposal.

It is unilateralism in the garb of multilateralism – to hoodwink WTO.

PAN                     PAN
Happy to be hung?
PAN et al‐ Puppets of the EU 
pp
The countries in the EU and European Commission (EC) heavily finance
environmental activist organizations to run smear campaigns against
select generic pesticides. Between 2002‐2008, the European
Commission’s funding to environmental NGOs (ENGOs) increased from
3.9 million Euros to 8.5 million Euros. (Source: EC)
“Internationally, European NGOs…. have been reported to be useful
in reaching out and supporting EU position through their network”
says a document of European Commission. (SEC 2633 of 9th Oct 2008)

This is an open acknowledgement of a hidden agenda. These environmental NGOs are paid handsome
amount to work “generating support to EU position”. Plainly put, these activist NGOs are paid lobbyists to
work for the EU in various countries. Pesticides Action Network (PAN), is a prime beneficiary of EU/EC
funding PAN Europe,
funding. Europe has a campaign budget of 2 million Euros.
Euros (Source: SIG Watch,
Watch Germany)
“European governments pay hundreds of millions of Euros annually to [activists] groups which export
Europe’s attitudes to governments overseas”. ‐‐ GMO belus

He who pays the piper calls the tune!

PAN’s chorus at the Chemical Conventions and global media is linked to the funds provided by the EU/EC.
 Bending Backward
EU’s power game at UNEP
UNEP’s annual report (2008)
shows that out of $89 million 2.Amending/altering
g/ g submitted 6. Preparing draft risk profile by
proposal after its initial screening European Commission for and on
environment fund received, $75 by the Stockholm Convention’s behalf of POPRC.‐ using an ex
came from the Europe. Secretariat. POPRC member as a consultant –
unmindful of the conflict of
Being
B i the
th major
j donor
d t UNEP,
to UNEP 3. Using a POPRC member to be the
3 i t
interests
t involved.
i l d
the EU finds it very easy to spokesperson of EU/EC to seek
violate the procedures and rules postponement of examination of 7. Lobbying to reject scientific data
the EU proposal in brazen violation submitted by developing countries
in UNEP operated chemical of article 8 of the Stockholm from tropical environment.
C
Conventions.
ti N
No questions
ti Convention and rules and Objections raised by developing
asked. procedures of the Convention. countries merely remain in papers.
Most recent violations by the EU 4. Allowing an “observer” to All these evidently show the
include, but not limited to, the officially introduce & explain the EU hegemonic powers of the EU at the
following: proposal before POPRC violating UNEP. It’s true agenda is to
Article 8 of the Stockholm progressively bring about global ban
1. Submitting notification beyond Convention. of low priced generic pesticides and
the time limit stipulated in article
promote sale of high priced
5 of Rotterdam Convention.
Convention The 5. Unilaterally reviewing its own proprietary pesticides in which the
Convention’s secretariat silently proposal and ensuring its EU is the global leader.
accepted it. subsequent acceptance by the
POPRC.
 Funding frauds,  distorting scientific truth & 
hatching conspiracy
hatching conspiracy
Few years ago, the European Commission, German and Swedish government agencies funded
an ENGO in India called Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). CSE published a study
claiming to have found 108 ppm to 196 ppm of Endosulfan residues in the blood samples of
people who are still alive. This is more than 15000% the lethal levels ‐‐ scientifically impossible!
The study also claimed to have found 9.19 ppm of Endosulfan from filtered water samples. This
is 3000% higher than Endosulfan’s water solubility of 0.32 ppm. Clearly, this is a scientifically
fraudulent report.
PAN widely publicized this fraudulent report worldwide even as the donors, EC and EU chose to
remain silent to the panic and public outcry it generated.

Stigmatizing Endosulfan, a popular generic pesticide, served the trade interests of EC/EU.

?
 The way out
The way out 

There is an urgent need to ensure that all  
There is an urgent need to ensure that all
decisions taken at the chemical Conventions 
are fair, unbiased and uninfluenced by EU.
Countries need to  question the abuse of dominance  
by the EU at the trade related  chemical Conventions.
Procedural abuse  at the chemical Conventions must 
Procedural abuse at the chemical Conventions must
be brought to the notice of Committee on Trade and 
Environment at the WTO.
The nexus between environmental NGOs and the 
EU/EC must not be allowed to  steer agenda at the 
chemical Conventions.
All the controversial decisions taken till now 
must be probed and reversed.
Sources:
Published documents at EC
SEC 2633 dated 9 Oct, 2008
SIG Watch, Germany
2006 data, FAO,etc