EU COMMISSION GMO CO-EXISTENCE SYMPOSIUM IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 VIENNA 000546

SIPDIS



NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: EAGR ETRD TBIO AU
SUBJECT: EU COMMISSION GMO CO-EXISTENCE SYMPOSIUM IN


AUSTRIA STIRS DEBATE


1. Summary: The EU Commission hosted a Symposium on Co-

Existence of GMO Seeds and Agricultural Production at the

ParkHotel in Vienna, Austria, February 22-23, 2005. More

than 100 EU biotech experts and policymakers attended the

symposium. Participants said that most Member States

have established or are in the process of establishing

co-existence legislation. They concluded that

implementing co-existence measures could be complex and

costly according to the measures taken. Also, Member

State participants said that the EU Commission needs to

address liability issues and problems concerning

conflicting national co-existence legislations in

neighboring countries. Participants concluded that most

Member States are expected to have co-existence

legislation in place by the end of the year. End

Summary.


2. On February 22-23, 2005, the European Commission

hosted a 'Symposium on Co-existence of GMO in Seeds and

Agricultural Production' in Vienna, Austria. The EU

Commission's Technical Assistance Information Exchange

Unit organized the symposium in cooperation with the

Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and the Austrian Agency

for Health and Food Safety. The aim of the meeting was

to inform and discuss the legal framework on co-

existence, exchange experiences on the implementation of

the EU recommendations on co-existence, exchange views

concerning transboundary co-existence between Member

States or between Member States and third countries, and

to establish a network of European experts and

policymakers committed to co-existence in agriculture.


3. More than 100 EU biotech experts and policy makers

from the following countries attended the symposium:

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,

Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,

Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,

Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Also, representatives

from EU candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia,

and Turkey attended. Quintin Gray, AgCounselor, U.S.

Embassy Vienna, and several seed company representatives

were allowed to attend as observers.


4. Symposium speakers were from the EU Commission and

Member State Governments. The speakers discussed the EU

framework/guidelines for co-existence, the current co-

existence situation in member states, provided co-

existence case studies from several EU Member States and

developed general conclusions.

Please find below a summary of the topics discussed and

general conclusions:


5. EU Legislation/Guidelines

--------------

Conference participants agreed that the following EU

legislation/guidelines serve as the basis for co-

existence:

- Directive 2001/18/EC on the release of GMOs.

- Regulation 1829/2003 concerning GMO food and feed.

- For seeds and plant varieties, special EC Directives

are applicable.

- Regulation 1830/2003 deals with the traceability and

labeling of GMOs.

- Regulation 2092/91 on organic farming.

- Guidelines of the Commission 2003/556/EC. No form of

agriculture, be it conventional, organic or using

genetically modified organisms, should be excluded in the

EU, including implementing regulations issued by the EU

Commission.


6. In general, participants agreed that Members States

are required to establish coexistence legislation

consistent with EU regulations. However, a few

participants pointed out that there is no legal basis in

EU legislation for 'GMO-free zones'. Participants cited

that GMO-free zones are a local matter decided by

farmers, consumers, and local government officials.


7. Moreover, there was animated discussion concerning

the lack of clear rules on liability. For example, if

one farmer's GMO crop caused an organic farmer's crop to

test positive for GMO, who should pay? Similarly, who

would pay if the conventional farmer's crop tested above

the EU 0.9 per cent threshold because of the GM crop

produced on a neighboring farm. Participants said that

the EU needs to assign liability in these cases.


8. Also, participants debated the lack of legislation

concerning neighboring countries. Participants noted

that most EU countries border several different

countries. As a result, participants said that the EU

should establish co-existence guidelines to address this

problem.


9. Co-existence Situation in Member States

--------------

Participants made the following points concerning

coexistence in Member States:

- Only a few Members States have co-existence measures or

at least co-existence strategies in place.

- A number of Member States have drafted national

legislation and in a number of cases the Commission has

issued a detailed opinion.

- Most of the Member States are working on appropriate

measures for their countries or regions.

- In all Member States, discussions are ongoing and in

some Member States legal actions are planned for the

coming year.

- In many Members States, stakeholders (i.e. farmers,

consumers etc.) are directly involved in developing co-

existence legislation.

- Some Member States have proposed training courses for

farmers who want to grow GM crops.

- A few Member States have already started to cooperate

with other Member States either to establish GMO-free

regions or exchange experiences.

- Liability is a very important issue and several Member

States are investigating national legislation and some

participants have pointed out concerns for differences in

neighboring countries.

- Several Member States have provisions for funding and

compensation.

- It may be noted that there is already some experience

with the cultivation of GMO crops in the EU (namely

Spain). Most other countries have GM products under

cultivation for research projects.

- Some Member States have projects for GMO-free regions.


10. Case Studies:

--------------

Speakers from the following Member States presented the

status of co-existence in their countries:


11. Lithuania: On June 29, 2004, the Minister of

Agriculture approved a co-existence working group; draft

rules have been approved, co-ordination among other local

institutions and companies on the rules, and notification

has been sent to Member States.


12. Hungary: The Ministry has established a

professional working party to prepare national

legislation on co-existence. The committee consists of

the competent Ministries, the National Inst. Quality

control, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Association of

Seed Producers, the Association of the Plant Breeders,

the Biokontroll Hungaria Ltd, and other NGOs from gene-

technological science and the green movements.


13. The Czech Republic: Presently co-existence rules

cover only GM corn. Isolation distance between GM corn

and conventional non-GM corn is 100 meters; and between

GM corn and organic corn is 600 meters. The grower must

notify the Ministry of Agriculture two months before

sowing GM corn and must notify the neighboring farmer two

months before sowing. Eight GM corn varieties (MON810,

release C) in National Listing process (5 in second year

of testing). GMO corn crop production should be a

reality in 2005 (about 40 hectares in a limited region).


14. Denmark: The establishment of co-existence

legislation has taken about two-three years as follows:

In January 2002, the Minister of Agriculture established

three co-existence working groups: a group of experts;

of stakeholders i.e. farmers, consumers etc.; and a third

group of government officials. In January 2003, the

groups started reporting their findings. In February

2004, the proposed law on co-existence was presented to

the Danish Parliament. In June 2004, the Danish

Parliament with 144 out of 179 votes adopted the Act on

Growing Genetically Modified Crops. In March 2005, the

co-existence rules should enter into force.


15. The United Kingdom: The government announced the co-

existence policy in March 2004. GM growers are to apply

measures to minimize GM presence in non-GM crops

consistent with the EU 0.9 per cent threshold. The

government envisions a code of practices with statutory

backing to be in place before any commercial GM

cultivation. And finally, the government will propose a

managed introductory period followed by a review to

monitor performance and build confidence.


16. General Symposium Conclusions

- Implementation of coexistence can be complex and costly

according to the measures taken.

- Information and transparency is very important.

- With regard to conventional/organic farming, some

participants mentioned that the EU needs to establish a

EU-wide legally binding framework for liability while

others do not see the necessity.

- In seed production, the EU needs to establish a EU-wide

GMO threshold.

- Participants said that with respect to neighboring

countries, Member States and the EU should do the

following: 1) strengthen cooperation and exchange

information and experiences; and 2) the EU needs to

develop clear rules to avoid conflicts due to different

country strategies. No legally binding provisions exist.

- As for GMO detection, participants felt that the EU has

to establish methods for sampling and detection. They

noted that PCR quantification analysis is costly.

- Participants said that the EU should establish a task

force on co-existence and should continue scientific

research on the impact of GM crops on organic and

conventional farming.


17. The discussions during the symposium were lively and

reflected a wide range of diverse views on co-existence.

Participants gave the impression that more EU

coordination is needed in this area especially concerning

farmer-to-farmer liability issues and co-existence

legislation between neighboring countries.

BROWN