EU'S LACKLUSTER PROGRESS ON BIOTECH NOT WORRISOME

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 VILNIUS 000828

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/ERA:SGRAY;EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT:JBOBO;
USDA/FAS:EJONES;
PASS TO USTR FOR MCLARKSON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/16/2017
TAGS: EAGR ETRD LH
SUBJECT: EU'S LACKLUSTER PROGRESS ON BIOTECH NOT WORRISOME
FOR LITHUANIA

REF: SECSTATE 153542

Classified By: CDA DLeader for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d)


1. (C) Begin summary. In separate meetings on November 13
and 14 we met with Environment, Foreign Affairs, and
Agriculture Ministry officials to deliver reftel demarche.
Our GOL interlocutors support the introduction of biotech in
some cases. However, they all cited negative public opinion
as preventing the launch of biotech in Lithuania. In
addition, all felt that any sanctions that might result from
EU reluctance to introduce biotech crops would not directly
impact Lithuania. End summary.

Attitudes Toward Biotech
--------------


2. (C) Darius Lygis, the head of the Genetically Modified
Organisms Division within the Ministry of Environment,
claimed that from a scientific standpoint there is support
for the introduction of biotech in Lithuania, and cited
Lithuania's pharmaceutical biotech companies, Sicor and
Fermentas, as proof of Lithuanian prowess and interest in the
biotech domain. However, Lygis said it is politically
impossible to introduce biotech crops in Lithuania. He laid
the blame for the situation on Lithuanian Greens, who are not
numerous but effectively use the media to create public
support for their arguments. (Note: We are highly skeptical
about Lygis's assessment of the Greens' effectiveness. They
have no political party, no elected officials, and claim a
membership of "some 500 members" throughout Lithuania.)


3. (C) Albinas Zananavicius, Director of the MFA's Foreign
Trade Policy Office (Assistant Secretary-equivalent),said
that the MFA's position is that the GOL always has and should
respect WTO rules. However, he acknowledged that the
Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment make
decisions regarding biotech without input from his office.
Zananavicius was unfamiliar with the recent announcement by
French President Sarkozy and the Italian proposal calling for
a moratorium on biotech product authorizations (reftel).


4. (C) Laimonas Ciakas, Director of the Ministry of
Agriculture's EU Affairs and International Relations
Department, told us that the GOL position is still very
cautious regarding biotech. Ciakas reiterated points he has
made in previous meetings with us regarding biotech: the GOL
wants to see data on the predicted effects of multiple
generations consuming these products, buffer zones would be
difficult to establish in Lithuania's small farm environment,
and the citizens of Lithuania are against such products. He
emphasized, though, that products that contain biotech are
already in Lithuanian markets and if the EU ruled a product
was approved Lithuania would have to comply.

What if there are retaliatory actions?
--------------


5. (C) Lygis said the GOL is aware retaliatory actions are
possible if the EU does not permit the marketing and planting
of biotech crops. He agreed this would be a negative
development. Lygis stated that if the EU were to pass a
directive permitting the planting and marketing of biotech
crops, the GOL would follow it without objection.
Zananavicius echoed Lygis's comment that the GOL is aware of
the possibility of sanctions. However, he added as an
"off-the-record" observation, that any country such as
Lithuania, where 80 percent of the population would oppose
such a decision from an international body, can withstand any
sanctions.


6. (C) If the EU is sanctioned due to the events described
in reftel, Lygis postulated that the GOL would have no
reaction. He argued that the sanctions would be at the EU
level and not against the GOL. Zananavicius's comments
paralleled those of Lygis, as he said that sanctions usually
target countries that are sources of problems, i.e., not
Lithuania. Ciakas also believed that sanctions would apply
at the EU level and would be unlikely to affect Lithuania
directly.

COMMENT
--------------


7. (C) We have heard the argument before that Lithuania
cannot support cultivation and marketing of biotech crops

VILNIUS 00000828 002 OF 002


because of public opposition. However we find the degree to
which GOL officials can dissociate their Member State from
the actions of the EU (and the penalties it may face) to be
truly remarkable. We will continue to remind the GOL that it
has a vote in EU affairs equal to those of other Member
States, and that it can influence Brussels if it chooses to.

LEADER