Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06BRATISLAVA375
2006-05-11 09:08:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Bratislava
Cable title:  

NEW GMO LAW LOOKS GOOD, SO FAR

Tags:  EAGR ECON ETRD SENV TBIO TSPL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0021
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSL #0375/01 1310908
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 110908Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 9821
UNCLAS BRATISLAVA 000375 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD SENV TBIO TSPL
SUBJECT: NEW GMO LAW LOOKS GOOD, SO FAR

UNCLAS BRATISLAVA 000375

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD SENV TBIO TSPL
SUBJECT: NEW GMO LAW LOOKS GOOD, SO FAR


1. (U) Summary: Slovakia adopted new "co-existence"
legislation for genetically modified organisms in April 2004,
and is now in the process of drawing up regulations to
enforce the new law. The law will enable the Ministry of
Agriculture to establish conditions for growing genetically
modified crops, which would permit commercial planting in the
near future. Monsanto, which is currently testing its GM
corn in Slovak test fields, hopes to be able to use this law
as a springboard for commercial production of genetically
modified crops in 2007. Pioneer Hybrid, which is not yet in
the test field stage, hopes to enter the local GM market
shortly thereafter. The new law is vaguely worded at many
points, however, which leaves open the possibility that GOS
regulators may issue guidelines that signifcantly restrict GM
production. In any case, the potential market for
genetically modified agricultural production in Slovakia
appears to be limited in the near future.

The Law
--------------


2. (U) On March 16, the National Assembly passed, by a margin
of 86-18 with 23 abstentions, new co-existence legislation
for genetically modified organisms. The legislation was
published in April, and officially takes effect on June 1.
The new law updates the existing GM law of 2002, which
established standards for assessing the safety of new GMO
products but did not set up a regulatory framework for
planting. Without regulatory guidance under the 2002 law,
planting GMOs had not been expressly illegal but was
non-viable in practice. The new law authorizes the
Ministries of Agriculture (and, to a much lesser extent,
Environment) to establish specific conditions for growing
genetically modified plants, including isolation distances,
liquidiation, cleaning standards, separate storage
facilities, and other technical standards, using European
Union recommendations as a benchmark. On some of these
issues, the legislation clearly outlines technical standards,
but in most cases there is no binding guidance, leaving the
Ministry of Agriculture considerable leeway to set up
regulatory procedures. Most major regulations are not

expected to be finalized until after the June 17 elections,
which makes it even more difficult to analyze the impact of
the new law. (Note: The ruling coalition parties and Smer,
the leading opposing party, all supported the legislation.
GMOs are not a campaign issue.)

Reactions
--------------


3. (SBU) GM-producing seed and chemical companies support the
new law in general, but express reservations about the
implementation process. Local Monsanto representative Milusa
Kusendova expressed to Emboff concern about the co-existence
language, which requires the Minister of Agriculture to
inform the public of all sites where genetically modified
crops are grown. Ms. Kusendova believes this may be
interpreted in such a way that the exact locations of
agricultural fields will be publicly available, which may
cause a security concern for farmers and the company. This
year Monsanto is planting its first test fields for its
MON810 version of BT corn -- three total, 10 hectares apiece,
two near the Hungarian border in Komarno, and one in Eastern
Slovakia. Ms. Kusendova has concerns about the Ministry of
Agriculture regulators in general and would be more
comfortable if Ministry of Environment Director of Biosafety
Igor Ferencik had been given a greater role in the process.


4. (SBU) Both Monsanto and Pioneer Hybrid also were concerned
about the set aside distances that may be proposed by the
Ministry of Agriculture. They point to the Czech Republic's
GM corn proposals -- 70 meter set asides from conventional
crops, and 200 meter from organic -- as a cumbersome but
reasonable compromise position. They feel, however, that
there is considerable risk that Slovakia will adopt rules
comparable to Hungary's draft position of 400 meter set
asides from all crops. Set asides of that length would
effectively make GM corn production impossible on most Slovak
fields. Each company rep perceives that influence from
Slovakia's anti-GMO neighbors Austria and Hungary is quite
strong. Jozef Frco, the Pioneer representative, pointed out
to Emboff that the Ministers of Agriculture and Environment
are both members of the Hungarian party, SMK, and listen
carefully to the opinions of their cousins to the south.


5. (U) Public reaction from GM opponents has been relatively
mute. Greenpeace, with a rapidly growing membership in
Slovakia, had been actively lobbying the government to
disallow commercial planting, but was not especially visible
in protest of the new law. Apart from its basic
philosophical objection to the new law, Greenpeace has
criticized legislators for giving the Ministry of Agriculture
too much leeway to establish set-aside distances without
reasonable guidance and oversight -- a mirror image of the
complaint made by Monsanto and Pioneer.


6. (SBU) Farmers and processors remain either unconvinced or
uncommitted. Genetically modified crops have not yet been
approved for human consumption in Slovakia, and, even if
approved, food processors will remain wary of purchasing GM
crops. Amylum Boleraz, Slovakia's largest processor of corn
with over 220,000 tons of annual production, stated in April
that it will not purchase any GMO-corn because it does not
want to threaten consumer confidence in its sugar, children's
nutritional, and pharmaceutical products. Farmers appear to
be somewhat more open. On May 4, Ambassador Vallee visited
several prominent farmers and asked them their views on
genetically modified organisms. The general consensus was
that they would be open to planting GM crops if they would
indeed lead to lower pesticide usage and higher profit
margins, and they believed that in the future they would be
growing GM crops. At the same time, they seemed more
resigned to the concept than enthused about it, and in no
hurry to make the switch anytime soon.


Potential GM Market
--------------


7. (U) Farmers have several reasons for withholding judgment,
among them an uncertainty about the potential market for
their product. Since food processors will not be accepting
GM crops anytime soon, the emerging biofuels industry appears
to be the most logical place for much of Slovakia's 700,000
hectares of grain production. This is especially true since
oil refiners are now required to include a 5% biofuel
component in their fuels. In response, two major biofuel
plants are in construction, including a plant in the western
town of Leopoldov, owned by the Slovnaft subsidiary Enviral.
When it opens in 2007, the plant will become the largest
consumer of grains in Slovakia, processing the equivalent of
35% of Slovakia's corn crop. The company has expressed that
GM crops are appropriate for biofuel production, and few
observers expect any regulatory roadblocks to producing GM
crops for biofuels. Slovnaft has already committed itself to
securing 60% of production for its Leopoldov plant from
Hungary, however, with a significant percentage also coming
from the Czech Republic, leaving limited space open for local
production.


8. (U) The market appears small from the GM distributor's
perspective as well. Mr. Frco expressed doubt that food
processors will be accepting GM anytime soon. The majority
of Slovakia's 240,000 hectares of corn production is used for
human consumption, whereas the majority of Slovakia's overall
grain production is used for animal feed, biofuels, and other
uses. This suggests that BT corn is not a particularly good
fit for Slovakia's market needs at the moment. Seen from the
company's perspective, Slovakia is more important as a
potentially positive model for GMO regulation in Europe than
as a market for GMOs.

VALLEE