European Commission sued over “biofuels cover-up”
Wednesday 10 March 2010
 |
| The European Commission is witholding information on the negative environmental impacts of biofuels, according to the environmental groups |
Four environmental groups have this week (March 8) launched legal action against the European Commission for "refusing to release" 140 documents which allegedly detail the negative environmental impacts of biofuels use in the EU.
The lawsuit is being brought by ClientEarth, Transport & Environment - an umbrella organisation representing the UK's Environmental Transport Association (ETA) and others - the European Bureau and BirdLife International.
According to the applicants, the Commission is "withholding time sensitive and critical environmental information necessary for meaningful public participation in biofuel policy-making."
The group is seeking to uphold its right to access Commission documents and has taken the case to the General Court of the European Union. It claims the Commission has violated several European laws designed to promote transparency, democracy and legitimacy in EU policy making.
European member states are required by law to use renewable sources to meet 10% of their transport needs by 2020. The 140 documents which are said to have been withheld by the European Commission allegedly reveal the impact of the indirect land-use change (ILUC) associated with this target.
ILUC refers to the release of greenhouse gas emissions when forests and other natural areas are converted into cropland to replace those croplands lost to biofuel production.
Commenting on the need for transparency on this issue, director at the ETA, Andrew Davis, said: "There must be complete transparency if biofuels are to be seen as credible.
"It is the responsibility of the European Commission to accurately assess the true environmental impact of biofuels. Motorists cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of every fuel that is or could be on offer. We need a clear, simple and open method to work out the impact that any action makes on the environment and then tax it to reduce its impact."
Tim Grabiel, staff attorney at ClientEarth, the public-interest legal organisation representing the coalition, said: "The public's right to this information is a fundamental principle of European law. That the Commission should choose to deny our rights on such a critical issue as the science underpinning our climate policies is astounding.
"It is regrettable that the Commission's consistent obstructionism compels us to go to court."
James Thornton, lawyer and chief executive of ClientEarth, added: "The Commission might not be seeking to hide the truth, but the result of its stance is that crucial information is being withheld until it's no longer relevant. Its own access laws and work to mitigate climate change are being compromised by its inaction.
"The Commission's delaying tactics are totally against the spirit of the law."
The Commission's delaying tactics are totally against the spirit of the law
According to the legal document, efforts to gain access to this information began on 15 October 2009.
Following what it claims were several delays and denials, the Commission allegedly refused to turn over the documents by the statutory deadline, 9 February 2010 and instead informed the coalition of its right to sue.
Commission
However, the European Commission claims it is still dealing with the request and has not refused to grant access to the required documents.
A spokesman for the Commission said: "The action of the 4 NGO's is premature as we have not refused to grant access to the requested documents.
"The Secretary-General has not yet taken a final position on the request, but a first consignment of documents, covering more than half the requested documentation (over 8,000 pages) was sent to the applicant on 24 February. The analysis of the remaining documents is currently ongoing."
He added: "The issue is whether the Commission can be expected to handle such bulky and complex requests within the normal time frames set by the Regulation.
"Formally, the applicant is entitled to bring these proceedings. However, we made it perfectly clear that we are not rejecting her application, but are carrying out a concrete and individual assessment of the requested documents. Therefore, she cannot sustain in good faith that we rejected her request."
The coalition's application will be reviewed by the Registrar of the General Court of the European Union, and later served upon the Commission, after which it will have two months to respond. A hearing date has yet to be set.
Ariel Brunner, head of EU policy at BirdLife International, said: "We continue to hope that the Commission will finally opt for full transparency. Sound climate policies require an open, inclusive and science-driven debate."
Print
