9 Coexistence of genetically modified
crops with conventional and organic farming
| (30533)
8420/09
+ ADD 1
COM(09) 153
| Commission Report on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 2 April 2009
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 9 April 2009
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 April 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 According to the Commission, the coexistence of genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) with conventional and organic agriculture
gives rise to a number of issues affecting both the segregation
of production chains and consumer choice. It notes that GMOs (as
well as food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from
them) have to be labelled accordingly, and that this also implies
that such products have to separated from non-labelled products.
9.2 It further notes that, although there are no
specific Community requirements relating to coexistence, Directive
2001/18/EC now enables Member States to take appropriate national
measures, in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in
other products. However, it points out that in May 2006 it was
invited by the Council to take the following actions in this area:
- make proposals as soon as possible
for Community labelling thresholds for adventitious GM presence
in conventional seeds;
- develop more detailed crop-specific guidelines
for coexistence segregation measures;
- intensify use of the existing forum (COEX-NET)
which enables Member States to discuss and exchange information
on coexistence issues;
- explore ways to minimise potential cross-border
coexistence problems;
- explore solutions for areas where coexistence
might be difficult to achieve because of prevailing farm structures
and conditions;
- strengthen Community research on coexistence;
- study Member States' civil liability regimes
in relation to economic damage that might arise from unwanted
GM mixing with non-GM crops;
- explore whether further steps towards common
coexistence principles should be taken.
The current document
9.3 The Commission has now sought in this document
to report on the progress so far. It says:
- that it is currently carrying
out an impact assessment for establishing labelling thresholds
for seeds, and that these will be reflected in a forthcoming
legislative proposal, which will also take into account the Council's
conclusions in December 2008 that any such thresholds should be
set at the lowest practicable, proportionate and functional levels;
- that it has created the European Coexistence
Bureau to develop crop-specific best practice documents,
and that the Bureau will also address possible ways of minimising
potential cross-border problems and develop recommendations for
areas where agricultural structures and farming conditions make
farm-level coexistence difficult to achieve for a given crop;
- that three research projects relating
to coexistence were supported under the Sixth Framework Programme;
- that liability for any economic damage
to non-GM crops resulting from GMO admixture is a matter
for civil law, which is the responsibility of Member States, and
that each of them provides a minimum of protection in such cases
under general conditions of tort law (though some are fault-based
systems, whilst others involve strict liability): there have however
been no court cases in any Member State involving the actual application
of the different rules;
- that insurance products covering the risks
of GMO admixture do not at present appear to be available, though
some Member States have established compensation funds for such
damage, financed by a levy on GM crop cultivation: however, as
no such compensation has been paid, it cannot be assessed whether
the levies raised are appropriate;
- that currently no instance of economic damage
resulting from cross-border admixture of GMOs has been reported;
- that 15 Member States have so far adopted specific
national measures on coexistence, with a further three
having notified draft measures to the Commission: in the absence
of GM crop cultivation in most Member States (see below), programmes
to monitor the effectiveness of these measures have not been implemented,
but existing programmes have not revealed any problems of non-compliance,
and no Member State has indicated that the rules in place would
be insufficient to ensure appropriate levels of segregation;
- that national provisions for informing public
authorities, third parties and the general public on GM cultivation
differ in detail, with some Member States requiring case-by-case
approval, whilst others only require farmers to notify the competent
authorities;
- that the majority of Member States have designed
their technical segregation measures so as to prevent the
labelling threshold of 0.9% for GMOs in food and feed from being
exceeded, though some have striven for admixture levels to be
as low as possible, and in six Member States segregation measures
between GM crops and organic fields are more stringent than those
between GM crops and conventional fields;
- that the species addressed so far by such measures
include maize (and, in some Member States, potato, sugar beet,
fodder beet, wheat and oilseed rape);
- that many Member States have specific procedures
for, or prohibit, the cultivation of GM crops in areas under environmental
protection (though the Commission notes that these do not
relate specifically to coexistence), and, although some provide
for the definition of regions in which GM crop cultivation could
be prohibited for socio-economic reasons, no such regions have
been set up yet;
- that the only GM crop currently cultivated
within the Community is maize MON810, which is resistant to certain
insects: such cultivation is, however, prohibited in four Member
States, and the area cultivated in the six Member States[47]
where it took place in 2008 was about 100,000 ha, equivalent to
about 1.2% of the total maize acreage in the Community;
- that, so far, only a few Member States have started
collaboration with others to develop possible cross-border
issues, but there have so far been no documented cases of
cross-border admixture of GMOs.
9.4 Overall, the Commission says that Member States
have made significant progress in developing coexistence legislation,
but that GM crop production remains a niche activity within the
Community. It adds that, notwithstanding the continuing controversy
over the cultivation of such crops, there is no concrete indication
of any practical difficulties arising from their introduction
into Community agriculture.
9.5 Its key conclusion is that there is no need to
change the approach of coexistence measures being determined nationally,
and to develop further Community harmonisation in this area. Similarly,
it does not think it would be appropriate to develop Community
legislation on liability for economic damage that might be caused
by GM admixture. Beyond that, it proposes to finalise its economic
impact assessment on potential thresholds for GM presence in conventional
seeds; to continue to use the COEX-NET forum for the exchange
of information with Member States; to continue to develop crop-specific
guidance on coexistence measures, through the European Coexistence
Bureau; and to support further appropriate Community research
on coexistence. It will also provide a further report on the coexistence
situation in Member States in 2012.
The Government's view
9.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 24 April 2009,
the Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife
and Rural Affairs at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Mr Huw Irranca-Davies) says that
the UK is not among those
Member States where coexistence legislation has already been adopted.
He points out that domestically GM issues are devolved, and that
the relevant authorities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland are therefore responsible for determining their own coexistence
policies. He summarises the current situation in the UK as follows:
- DEFRA issued a consultation
paper on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM and non-GM
crops in England in 2006, and published a summary of the responses
in 2007: this was followed in November 2007 by a Parliamentary
written statement,[48]
confirming that the department would await further developments
(e.g. receipt of further research evidence) before finalising
its coexistence plans, but adding that, although no commercial
GM cultivation was expected in England for several years, it remained
the Government's intention to have appropriate coexistence measures
in place beforehand;
- the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland
issued a coexistence consultation paper in 2007 on broadly similar
lines, and is also awaiting various developments before finalising
its plans;
- the Welsh Assembly Government is expected to
issue a coexistence consultation paper within the next couple
of months;
- the Scottish Government has no current plans
in relation to the coexistence issue, and opposes the cultivation
of GM crops in Scotland.
9.7 The Minister adds that this report has no immediate
policy implications for the UK, but he says that the Government
agrees with the Commission that Member States should develop their
own coexistence regimes, taking account of the guidance which
the Commission has issued and is developing further. However,
it supports the establishment of practicable and proportionate
Community thresholds for adventitious GM presence in conventional
seeds, and therefore would welcome the Commission making progress
in this area.
Conclusion
9.8 Since this document deals with an area of
public interest, we think it right to draw it to the attention
of the House. However, it is that clear that the cultivation of
GM crops within the Community is at present limited to one maize
line in six Member States, that there is thus very little practical
experience on which to assess the effectiveness of those national
measures which have been adopted in relation to coexistence, but
that the Commission has not seen any concrete evidence of any
practical difficulties having arisen. We are therefore content
to clear the current document, bearing in mind also that the Commission
proposes to produce a further report on this subject in 2012.
9.9 In the meantime, we note that the UK is not
among the Member States which have adopted coexistence legislation,
but that the intention — at least in England and Northern
Ireland — is to await further information before finalising
any such plans. We also note that the Government said in November
2007 that, although no commercial GM cultivation was expected
in England for several years, it remained its intention to have
appropriate coexistence measures in place beforehand.
47 Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Romani
and Slovakia. Back
48
HC Deb, 8 November 2007,
col. 16W. Back
|
