Posted on

Democracy Threatened in Belgium

In a few days the verdict is due in one of the biggest challenges to democracy in Belgium in recent memory.  The ‘Potato 11’, the people charged with the destruction of a GMO potato test field I posted about before, are facing disproportionately serious charges for what was little more than exercising their rights to free speech.  In addition, during their trial, they were denied the right to present their own defence.

The following is from their own website:

Belgium – Judges deny anti-GMO activists a fair trial

Debate on GMOs refused by court

Dendermonde/Brussels, 15/01/2013 – In the presence of a huge crowd of supporters from a range of organisations, the court of Dendermonde (Belgium) has denied 11 anti-GMO activists the legal right to a defence in court. The court refused to allow defence witnesses to give their statements, and also refused to allow video footage to be shown. This is in violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees defendants the right to a fair trial. In response, the 11 field liberators and their lawyers decided unanimously to leave the court room.

In contrast to the vast majority of Belgian court cases, no independent investigating judge was appointed. This is despite the fact that the prosecution has politicised the trial by introducing the charge of forming a criminal gang. The summons to appear was issued directly by the public prosecutor. The investigation was therefore only conducted for the prosecution. In order to be a fair trial, the investigation should also be conducted for the defence. In order to ensure a fair trial, the defence lawyers wanted at least an investigation during the trial, including a number of defence witnesses and video clips. This was refused by the court. At this point the defendants and their lawyers left the courtroom, let the case continue in their absence, and took no further part in the trial.

The civil parties to the case – including ILVO (The Flemish Institute for Agricuture and Fisheries Research), VIB (Flemish Institute for Biotechnology), University of Gent, Hogeschool Gent – put forward their case, and demanded damages.

The judgement is expected on 12th February: in the event of a guilty verdict, the activists will appeal.

The court has refused to allow a debate about sustainable agriculture, the role of GMOs, and pubic research. The struggle for freedom of expression, justice for activists, and a sustainable agricultural system will continue.

See you again soon in Dendermonde.

This is what the executive director of Greenpeace International has to say about the case:

Kumi Naidoo – Support the Wetteren 11 from Michael Claerbout on Vimeo.

 

Posted on

Quick Update on EU Seed Legislation (Update 6 Feb)

There’s not much news, but I did get a reply to my letter to the EU commission that I mentioned here.

The long and short is that the final draft is expected the end of 1st quarter 2013, which says to me they’ll miss the 2013 planting season.  This means any changes aren’t likely to be felt until 2014 at the earliest.  It’s also always possible they won’t meet their self imposed deadline, and might still be escalated within the Commission.

The reply I got from the commission did mention many major points in my letter, which suggests they are thinking about them.  I talked with some others who sent similar letters as mine, and it seems we all got word for word identical replies.  Probably all NGOs who wrote letters got the same reply.

What I hear via-via is that while DG SANCO is proposing the new regulation, DG AGRI opposed their final draft.  This means the legislation needs to go to the College of Commissioners to resolve the differences.  DG AGRI seems to be mostly on ‘our’ side, but it remains very unclear what any sort of compromise will look like.

It might be possible to follow some of this here or here.

If you notice something on the Commission website, or anywhere else, please let me know!

————————————————————————————————————————–

Further update 6 February:

I have now heard DG ENVI has also objected to the draft regulation.

DG ENVI in particular is trying to exclude open pollinated seeds, for individuals and farmers’ networks, from the scope of the regulation.  DG AGRI is opposing the proposed regulation on a number of grounds, in particular to exclude networks of farmers and seed savers as well as making it easier to register varieties.  In general, it sounds like DG AGRI is working on a number of the points in my letter linked to above.

DG SANCO and DG AGRI in particular are reported to be strongly at odds, and the matter is expected to be escalated to the Commissioners’ level, causing possible further delays.

The ESA (Seed Industry) is reported to be intensively lobbying for the draft regulation to be passed unchanged.

If you hear anything else, please let me know!

Posted on

EU Commission Legislating Hunger and Poverty

A month ago I mentioned new EU legislation is being drafted to replace the current infamous ‘seed laws’.  It’s time for an update, and it’s not good news I’m afraid.

The normal procedure on this sort of thing is the EU agriculture ministers meet in a secret location, behind closed doors, and amend EU law with a secret voice vote, all totally immune to public opinion or accountability.  This time at least the legislation is following more formal procedures, and is being drafted under some public scrutiny.  Otherwise it seems like business as usual.  The legislation currently being considered is very draconian, represents a major set back for biodiversity, farmers rights and consumers rights, and the EU Commission doesn’t seem very concerned with any opinions from the pro-biodiversity side.

Two drafts have been tabled so far, and the trend is for a reaffirmation of the existing system, but with the removal of the few existing derivations (elements of flexibility).  There’s really nothing in this legislation to benefit biodiversity, with the exception of a non-binding introductory statement on the cover page.  The outcome of this legislation can only mean a continuing and acceleration of the process of spreading hunger and poverty around the world via EU trade policies.

In the past EU agriculture has been regulated with a series of patchwork directives, all interpreted a little differently under national legislation.  The measure being considered is a regulation, meaning it will come into force directly as EU law, without any flexibility of local interpretation.  In addition there are many pending elements of the regulation, ‘delegated acts’, which basically means they are to be decided later by committee.  This means we’re currently discussing a very abstract piece of legislation.

What we’ve all heard in the past is that politicians don’t want to spread famine and poverty around the world.  They say they themselves are not experts on this sort of thing and have to take the word of seed companies.  They say they never get any input from seed savers, as incredible as that seems.  It’s as if we’re all invisible or don’t exist.

Here’s my latest input, on behalf of all of you.  It’s proof this time we’re at the table, ready to talk.  This time they won’t be able to claim they haven’t heard from us.  They can’t say we didn’t warn them.

If anyone is interested in following the details of the legislation and/or participating in lobbying efforts, let me know and I’ll get more information to you.