11 Cultivation of genetically modified
crops
(a)
(31798)
12371/10
COM(10) 380
|
Commission Communication on the freedom for Member States to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops
|
(b)
(31799)
C(10) 4822
|
Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops
|
(c)
(31800)
COM(10) 375
|
Draft Regulation amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOS in their territory
|
Legal base | Article 144 TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
Documents originated | 13 July 2010
|
Deposited in Parliament | 16 July 2010
|
Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
Basis of consideration | EM of 19 July 2010
|
Previous Committee Report | None
|
To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
Committee's assessment | Politically import
|
Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
11.1 Authorisation of the cultivation and use of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), and of food and feed products containing them,
is laid down in EU legislation. More specifically, Directive 2001/18/EC[48]
deals with the environmental release of GMOs, whilst Regulation
(EC) No 1829/2003[49]
governs the marketing of related products, and Regulation (EC)
No 1830/2003[50] sets
out rules on their traceability and marketing. Requests for approval
are assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and
by the scientific authorities in Member States in order to consider
any risks to human and animal health and the environment, and,
where formal approval has been granted (following a legislative
proposal from the Commission), the provisions apply throughout
the EU. However, Directive 2001/18/EC does enable Member States
to take safeguard measures to prohibit or restrict the cultivation
of GMOs on their territory if they can produce new evidence to
demonstrate that an approved product presents a risk, and a number
have chosen to do so from time to time (though in each case the
Commission has sought unsuccessfully to persuade
the Council to repeal the measures on the grounds scientific assessment
had shown that no evidence had been produced to support the course
of action taken). Directive 2001/18/EC also enables a Member State
to take measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other
products.
The current documents
11.2 Despite this, concerns have been expressed by the Council
over the way in which this legislation has been implemented, and
some Member States subsequently called on the Commission to prepare
proposals to give them freedom to decide whether GMOs should be
cultivated on their territory, whilst retaining an EU system based
on science. As a result, and in the light of the political guidelines
issued by President Barroso in September 2009 on the application
of the subsidiarity principle to this area, the Commission has
now brought forward these three documents (a) a background
Communication, (b) guidelines for the development of national
co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs
in conventional and organic crops, and (c) a draft Regulation
which would amend Directive 2001/18/EC to provide a greater measure
of national discretion as regards the cultivation of GMOs.
11.3 In considering whether there should be greater flexibility
in this area, the Commission says that it has always considered
that measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional
and organic crops should be developed and implemented by Member
States, and that it published in 2003 a Recommendation (2003/556/EC)[51]
providing guidelines for the development of national strategies
to ensure co-existence between GM and other crops, so as to avoid
the potential economic impact of admixture, particularly in the
case of organic crops where an associated price premium could
be put at risk. At the same time, it comments on the extent to
which Member States have adopted different aims and approaches
regarding the permitted level of unintended GMOs in other crops,
and it says that it would be appropriate to replace its 2003 Recommendation
with a new one (document (c)) reflecting the experience gained
and incorporating greater flexibility. Among other things, this
would address transparency, cross-border cooperation and stakeholder
involvement; proportionality; the level of admixture to be attained
through national co-existence measures; the establishment of larger
"GM-free areas"; and liability rules.
11.4 The Commission then considers the case for providing Member
States with greater freedom to regulate the cultivation of GM
crops on their territory. It suggests that, although the existing
EU-wide authorisation system is based upon a scientific risk assessment,
it is possible in principle for such an assessment to differentiate
between regions, and it says that, if it is then concluded that
the cultivation of a GMO raises particular regional concerns,
these must be addressed in the EU authorisation, including restrictions
or prohibitions, if these can be scientifically justified. At
the same time, it notes that there are a number of other diverse
reasons why Member States impose a ban varying from agronomic
(and land use) justifications relating to difficulties of ensuring
co-existence, to political or economic considerations (including
consumer preference), and to national policies on biodiversity
(or other broad nature conservation goals) but that the
current legislative framework does not provide them with the necessary
freedom to take these into account.
11.5 It therefore believes that the relevant EU legislation
on GMOs should be amended to provide an explicit legal base authorising
Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of all or
particular authorised GMOs in part or all of their territories
on the basis of their specific conditions (though it stresses
that this would not apply to the movement within the EU of GM
seed, of food and feed produced from GM crops, or of imported
material, which would remain subject to EU-wide rules relating
to their free circulation). It also stresses that, since the conditions
which seek to protect human and animal health and the environment
are based on the assessment made by the EU in granting an authorisation,
these cannot be amended. Consequently, any discretion exercised
by Member States as regards cultivation would have to rest on
other grounds, and would also need to conform both to the provisions
in the Treaties, notably as regards non-discrimination on national
grounds and the free movement of goods, and to the EU's international
obligations, such as those under the World Trade Organisation.
11.6 The Commission adds that, in addition to these
measures, it is analysing how to reinforce post-market environmental
monitoring of GM crops, and is addressing a request from the Council
to provide a report on the socio-economic implications of GMOs
(which it will seek to finalise by the end of 2010), whilst the
EFSA is updating its guidelines on environmental risk assessment.
The Commission has also launched two major evaluations of the
EU legislative framework, covering respectively GM food and feed
and the cultivation of GMOs, which will be finalised in the last
quarter of 2010, and followed by an analysis of possible policy
changes by mid-2012.
The Government's view
11.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 July 2010,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs (Lord Henly) notes that the proposal
is consistent with the subsidiarity principle, in that it seeks
to enable Member States to make their own decision on the commercial
cultivation of GM crops. He also says that his Department and
the devolved administrations are considering the implications
of this proposal, following which an assessment of its impact
on business will provided in a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum.
Conclusion
11.8 This is an interesting proposal, and a somewhat
unusual one, in that it seeks to return to Member States certain
powers in relation to the cultivation of GM crops which are currently
exercised by the EU. To that extent, it is of course consistent
with the principles of subsidiarity, and thus to be welcomed in
principle. On the other hand, the UK in particular has consistently
placed considerable emphasis on the need for decisions of the
kind involved here to be taken with strict regard to scientific
assessment, and, if that approach is not to be undermined in a
way which could set an unfortunate precedent for other areas,
it will be important to be quite clear on what basis Member States
would in this instance be free to take their own decisions. In
our view, the Commission's proposal leaves some room for doubt
on this point, and we would therefore be glad if the further material
which the Minister has promised to provide could address this
particular concern.
11.9 Pending receipt of this further information,
we propose to hold these documents under scrutiny, but in the
meantime, we are drawing them to the attention of the House.
48 OJ No. L.106, 14.4.02, p.1. Back
49
OJ No. L.268, 18.10.03, p.1. Back
50
OJ No. L.268, 18.10.03, p.24. Back
51
OJ No. L.189, 29.7.03, p.36. Back
|