European Union uses NGOs to push for endosulfan ban

The European Union (EU) seems to be using a dual strategy to enforce a ban on a low- cost pesticide called endosulfan, used by a large section of India’s farming community.

Apart from directly lobbying for a ban on endosulfan through conventions like Stockholm and Rotterdam, which work on chemicals and of which India is a member (as reported by DNA Money on December 1, 2009), the EU is propagating its policies through environmental NGOs (ENGOs) by funding them in large numbers.

The campaign to ban endosulfan, which is ten times cheaper than other pesticides, started from 2007, after the EU, the world’s largest user, producer and exporter of pesticides, stopped the production of endosulfan in 2006. Between 1955 and 2006, Germany, an important EU member, had produced and supplied nearly 50% of the world’s consumption of endosulfan.

Statistics from the European Commission (EC) show that, between 2002 and 2008, the funding to ENGOs from the EC increased from €3.9 million to €8.5 million. The ENGOs also include the UK-based Pesticides Action Network (PAN), which has been primarily campaigning against endosulfan for a long time. Data from SIGWatch, Germany, a network specialising in activist and NGO tracking and analysis, says that PAN Europe has a campaign budget of €2 million.

The report by the European Commission on the funding of ENGOs (a copy of which is with this newspaper) says that without funds, it would not be possible to guarantee the presence of ENGOs as stakeholders in the European Union’s policy process.

Moreover, the report explains that ENGOs help promote EU’s environmental leadership in the global political arena and promote the region’s environmental policy beyond EU borders. Also, ENGOs are involved in policy formulation and interactions with EU institutions and their research relating to environmental policy has been directly used as inputs to the policy processes.

The maximum limit for contribution from the European Commission to ENGOs is 70%, while the balance comes from membership fees and funds from donors.

A source closely associated with the Indian government says that, funded by the EC, ENGOs become proxy spokespersons for the commission and run campaigns against generic pesticides like endosulfan, force regulatory decisions and serve the trade objectives of the 27-member EU bloc.

“EU has been lobbying for a ban on endosulfan to maintain its leadership in the pesticides arena and thus weed out low-cost pesticides,” says the source. Data by agrochemical industry consultant Phillips McDougall shows that in 2007, the global crop pesticides markets was worth $33.19 billion, of which the EU alone accounted for $10.42 billion, while India accounted for $1 billion.

S Ganesan, chairman, International Treaties Expert Committee, says that ENGOs are not neutral civil service organisations but are fiercely loyal to their fund providers.

Satyabroto Banerji, who works on the area of pesticide safety, says any pesticide can be abused. “Every pesticide can deliver benefits to farmers if used correctly. Farmers’ interests should be of utmost importance in such matters.”

Endosulfan is a cheap pesticide costing Rs 220 per litre, against imidachloprid (which EU is pushing) which costs an exorbitant Rs 2,000 per litre, says Rakesh Kalani, a cotton and wheat farmer from Ramsara district in Punjab. Other pesticides like thiamethoxam cost approximately Rs 3,200 per litre, while coregen costs about Rs 700 for 60 ml.

According to an environmental chemist working with farmers in Saurashtra for 25 years, endosulfan is effective against a large number of pests and over a large number of crops. “Farmers need not purchase different pesticides for different pests or crops. This proves economical for the farmers.”