NETHERLANDS/BIOTECH: DUTCH PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 000387 SIPDIS SENSITIVE STATE FOR EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT - JBOBO STATE FOR EUR/ERA - JKESSLER STATE PASS TO USTR FOR A/USTR JAMES MURPHY, MCLARKSON USDA FOR FAS - LJONES, JKOWALSKI, MDWYER USDOC FOR 4212/USFCS/MAC/EURA/OWE - DCALVERT E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON EAGR ETRD PREL NL SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/BIOTECH: DUTCH PROPOSAL TO CONSIDER SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS IN GMO CULTIVATION APPLICATIONS Ref: BRUSSELS 860 THE HAGUE 00000387 001.2 OF 004 ¶1. (U) This cable is sensitive but unclassified; please handle accordingly. ¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY: On June 22 and 23, Embassy officers met with representatives of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality and the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning to discuss the Dutch proposal to formally consider socio-economic factors when reviewing applications for the cultivation (not/not importation) of genetically modified organisms(GMOs). This proposal would not change the EU's current application process; rather, it would add a step at the end -- after a cultivation application had been approved at the EU level -- whereby individual Member States (MS) could evaluate socio-economic factors and decide whether to approve the product for cultivation in that country. The Dutch assert that this additional step would enable the EU approval process to remain focused on scientific criteria and risk analysis, while giving MS an opportunity to consider socio-economic criteria separately; ideally, this would result in a more transparent discussion and allow the EU to achieve a qualified majority for approvals. While Post has some concerns about the viability of this proposal, it could be in USG interests to give it our qualified support, since some of the alternatives floated (such as renegotiating the SPS Agreement) would definitely work to our disadvantage. End summary. -------------- BACKGROUND -------------- ¶3. (SBU) In 2008, the French EU Presidency instituted a process of formal consultation with civil society on key environmental issues, mainly GMOs and nuclear power. The French Presidency asked MS to prepare lists of the socio-economic factors they considered relevant to GMO applications by January 2010, with the goal of creating a consolidated EU list by summer 2010. (Note: The Dutch doubt that the process will be completed by this time. End note.) ¶4. (SBU) When the French Presidency presented its proposal to the European Commission, the Dutch volunteered to take the lead on compiling the master list of socio-economic factors. According to the Dutch, they did so because they are well aware that the EU's GMO approval process, which is supposed to consider only scientific data and risk factors, has been sidetracked by MS who have no other recourse for considering socio-economic factors. The Dutch consider compliance with EU legislation essential to the success of the EU; ignoring or abusing EU processes weakens the union. The Dutch believe that they have an impartial perspective that can help resolve the divide between individual MS and the EU's often differing positions on GMOs. ¶5. (U) The GMO approval process involves several steps. The first is the application for approval of the GMO, either for the importation of the product for food/feed use, or for its cultivation within the EU. Next, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluates whether the GMO is safe for the environment and human health. Once EFSA submits its report, the European Science Committee votes; approval or rejection requires a qualified majority. If there is no qualified majority, then the decision devolves to the European Council. If the European Council cannot Qdevolves to the European Council. If the European Council cannot obtain a qualified majority, then the issue moves to the European Commission (EC) for a final decision. ¶6. (U) The reality of the process is that there is never a qualified majority for or against approving a GMO cultivation application; as a result, the decision devolves to the EC, which consistently votes in favor of approval (32 approvals so far for GMOs for feed/food, 1 for cultivation). To get around the EC's decision, many MS which oppose the cultivation of GMOs obfuscate the problem by challenging the EC decision using environmental arguments that mask the MS' underlying socio-economic concerns. -------------- THE DUTCH PROPOSAL -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The Dutch cabinet is generally supportive of GMO applications; it fully supports a science-based review of GMO applications and MS adherence to EU regulations and decisions. The THE HAGUE 00000387 002.2 OF 004 Netherlands has voted "yes" on most GMO applications submitted in recent years. However, the Dutch public and some factions in parliament remain unsupportive of GMOs, particularly their cultivation. For example, the Christian Union party, one of the three parties in the current coalition government, opposes GMOs on the religious grounds that science should not attempt to alter genetics. ¶8. (SBU) In an effort to bridge the divide between the cabinet and public/parliamentary opinion, and to address the broken EU approval process, the Dutch developed a proposal with respect to GMO cultivation applications. The proposal does not concern applications for the import of genetically modified (GM) food or feed and thus would not directly impact U.S. food and agricultural exports. Its main purpose it to enable MS to formally consider socio-economic factors when reviewing cultivation applications. The proposal would not change the EU's current application process; rather, it would add a step at the end -- after a cultivation application had been approved at the EU level -- whereby individual MS could evaluate socio-economic factors and decide whether to approve the product for cultivation in that country. The Dutch argue that MS are already using socio-economic criteria to evaluate cultivation applications, resulting in continued deadlock, refusals to accept EC rulings, and, most importantly, the undermining of the EU's authority. Their proposal would enable the EU approval process to remain focused on scientific criteria and risk analysis, while giving MS an opportunity to consider socio-economic criteria separately; ideally, this would result in a more transparent discussion and allow the EU to achieve a qualified majority for approvals. ¶9. (U) EU regulations dictate that the discussions in the Science Committee and the European Council should consider scientific and risk factors only. However, socio-economic factors such as maintaining small farms, providing for farmer returns, and addressing consumer concerns about GMOs are important to many MS, and the present system does not provide for consideration of those factors. By providing MS the opportunity to weigh the socio-economic costs and benefits at the end of the process - after the scientific review is complete - the Dutch hope that the Science Committee and European Council discussions will be more transparent and focused on health and environmental risk assessments, thus speeding the process. -------------- THE JUNE 9 WORKSHOP -------------- ¶10. (U) The Dutch organized a workshop in The Hague on June 9 for Dutch stakeholders in the GMO debate, including government, industry, NGOs, and academia. According to our Dutch interlocutors, the idea for the workshop grew out of earlier discussions between the Dutch cabinet and parliament on the role of socio-economic factors in the GMO approval process. The Dutch ministries of agriculture and environment took the lead in organizing the event, but only after close coordination with the Prime Minister's office and others in the cabinet. Its purpose was to develop stakeholder consensus on what socio-economic, environmental, and health criteria Qconsensus on what socio-economic, environmental, and health criteria should be considered in reviewing cultivation applications. ¶11. (U) Our interlocutors reported "mixed reactions" to the workshop. Many parties reacted favorably, and the conference did raise local awareness of the issue. Some expressed concern, however, that the Minister of Agriculture Gerda Verburg might use the workshop to claim she had consulted fully with all parties and not seek further input. One afternoon was not enough time to allow parties to express their views and develop stakeholder consensus. The first half of the event consisted of a series of speeches by government officials. The second half consisted of working groups to consider 4 case studies. One contact said the size of the working groups was too large, and the groups never really considered the socio-economic factors. However, the ministries learned some lessons about improving the process which they hope to apply to the Netherlands' next planned conference on November 25-26 (see below). ¶12. (U) Interlocutors also noted that this workshop was not the Netherlands' first attempt to define the socio-economic factors that should be associated with GMO applications. In September 2008, the GONL hosted a conference on GMOs and sustainability. The GONL also charged the EU's Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM) to draft THE HAGUE 00000387 003.2 OF 004 socio-economic indicators to be used in assessing GMO applications. A first draft of those indicators has been prepared, but much work remains. -------------- THE NOVEMBER 25-26 CONFERENCE -------------- ¶13. (U) The next major step will be an international conference hosted by the Dutch government at the World Forum in The Hague on November 25-26, 2009. (Meanwhile, the government will continue consulting with stakeholders on its proposal and their views on which socio-economic factors are important, taking into account lessons learned from the June 9 workshop.) At the November conference, the Dutch hope to inspire other MS to develop an EU consensus on socio-economic criteria for the January 2010 deadline set by the French Presidency. (According to one contact, MS have expressed a lot of interest in developing a master list of socio-economic criteria, but precious little work has actually been done.) The Dutch expect 300-400 participants from the EU and other countries to attend. Invitees will include experts from a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups. For example, the Dutch will invite experts on GMOs from China and Latin America to talk about their experiences with GMO cultivation. AgCouns offered that USDA has a large cadre of specialists in all areas of GM technology and application, and that USDA would likely be willing to share expertise and experience if the Dutch wished. AgCouns asked for an invitation for the U.S., which the Dutch said they would gladly provide. -------------- A HIDDEN AGENDA? -------------- ¶14. (SBU) At Post's July 4 reception, Frans Claasen, Director of the Margarine, Fats, and Oils Product Board, discussed the Dutch proposal with AgCouns. Claasen said the proposal is only part of the plan by Minister of Agriculture Verburg to reform the EU's GMO approval process. He said that Verburg is strongly in favor of GMOs, and she is tired of the current roadblocks in the approval process. Verburg hopes to amend the process so that imported GMOs for food/feed may be used immediately once EFSA has declared them safe, thus eliminating the political process of Science Committee and Council votes. Her plan is to first gain MS support for the Dutch proposal to allow MS to consider socio-economic factors in cultivation applications. According to Claasen, once enough MS are on board, Verburg will propose that imported food/feed GMOs be granted immediate entry into the EU once EFSA has approved them. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶15. (SBU) The Dutch are concerned about the ongoing problems with the GMO approval process for several reasons. They see MS attempts to manipulate or disrupt the process as a threat to the unity and success of the EU. Anti-GMO MS positions also grate against the pragmatic, consensus-oriented Dutch character. Moreover, continued uncertainty regarding GMOs is a barrier to international trade -- an anathema to the anti-protectionist, trade-dependent, open Dutch economy. It also limits access to low-cost feeds for the Netherlands' important livestock sector. ¶16. (SBU) Post sees two problems with the Dutch proposal. One, it essentially legitimizes the present dysfunctional reality. Instead Qessentially legitimizes the present dysfunctional reality. Instead of prodding MS to abide by EU legislation, it would change the legislation so that it conforms to MS behavior. Two, the Dutch proposal, if enacted, would create a legal means for opponents of GMOs to thwart the will of the EU as a whole. Considering the success that anti-GMO forces are having with the present practice, we see only more mischief ahead by giving them yet another tool to block GMOs. (One of our Dutch interlocutors admitted as much, but said one must make a start.) ¶17. (SBU) Despite these concerns, the fact remains that MS are blocking GMO cultivation for socio-economic reasons regardless of U.S. or other pressure and even EU legislation. The Dutch proposal could be a way to separate those MS that want to cultivate GMO crops from those that do not, thus creating at least some opportunities THE HAGUE 00000387 004.2 OF 004 for cultivation within the EU. Further, it would create a separate process by which MS could evaluate socio-economic, environmental, and health factors -- all of which most MS insist upon considering -- rather than the current distorted process in which MS bring these non-scientific criteria into the Scientific Committee and the European Council votes. ¶18. (SBU) The USG might benefit from offering our guarded support to the Dutch. Given that MS are already using socio-economic criteria in the approval process, we gain little by disavowing the Dutch proposal. On the contrary, by staying at the table, we maintain some amount of leverage to protect our interests. End comment. GALLAGHER