Alice Klein, The Telegraph 30 May 08;
Campaigners have said they will fight a UN decision that could see plantations of genetically modified trees grown in the wild.
The 150 countries that are members of the Convention on Biological Diversity - the leading international agreement for ecological governance - refused to ban the controversial trees during their conference in Bonn, Germany.
The decision means that trees whose genetic traits have been manipulated to make them more suitable for the paper making and biofuel industries, can be grown in field trials with a view to being grown on a commercial scale.
Under the decision, members are allowed to ban the controversial trees in their own countries but with no international agreement, they would not be protected by contaminated pollen blown across national borders from neighboring countries.
The conference comes amid growing commercial pressure from the biotechnology industry which wants to grow GM trees in large-scale monocultures.
The amount of cellulose in trees can be increased to make them more suitable for paper and ethanol, which can be used as a biofuel. Simultaneously, the level of lignin - the substance that gives trees their rigidity - can be reduced.
And an insect-killing gene, taken from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, can be added to trees which produces toxins that are poisonous to insects.
But campaign groups are concerned these traits could kill insects living off the trees - such as butterflies, moths and potentially their predators - and make them vulnerable to wind damage.
Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, a geneticist and co-founder of science watchdog Econexus, said the decision was a disappointing one for forests and ecosystems around the world. She said: "Trees are highly complex organisms and forests are highly complex ecosystems. Trees live a long time, their pollen can travel long distances - over 1000 kilometers - and their seeds are carried far by wind, water or animals.
"This means trees that, for example, are genetically modified to constantly produce their own insecticides would be putting this insecticide into the environment. While it might kill pests, it would also kill non-target organisms and beneficial organisms, such as predators of pests.
"Yet insects are a crucial component of the food chain within forests, thus impacting on bird populations and other animals. So if trees spread and live a long time, by the time you find a problem it would be too late and the impacts could already be quite significant; the potential impacts of GM trees could be many times that of GM crops.
"Many indigenous peoples are dependent on forests and their rich and complex ecosystems. If GM trees disrupt this ecosystem, it will affect their ability to make their livelihoods from the forests."
An umbrella group Stop GE Trees, comprised of 137 civil society organisations from 34 countries, criticised the decision.
Anne Petermann, a co-director of Stop GE Trees, said: "This paves the way for the commercialisation of GE trees with all of the irreversible and trans-boundary, social and ecological impacts that will be borne by the local communities and indigenous peoples in those regions where GE trees will be released. I think that is unconscionable."
The environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth said the decision was bad news as native forests could be contaminated with the altered genes from nearby GM trees.
The group's GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "If GM trees contaminate wild tree populations the results could be devastating.
"GM trees pose unique risks because of the complex interaction between trees and their environments, their long life cycle and the potential for long distance pollination.
"This decision must put a stop to the commercial rush for GM trees and instead encourage countries to invest in sustainable solutions that protect forests and the communities that depend on them."
Countries that blocked a proposed moratorium banning GM trees included Brazil, Columbia, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. The European Commission is thought to be the driving force behind the EU's refusal to ban the trees.
