Progress since the AEBC September meeting

New remit for confirmation by the Commission

During the previous discussion, in Edinburgh in September, the Commission gave the liability sub-group a clear steer towards considering possible solutions extending beyond legal liability - widening the group’s remit, to give an emphasis on potential means of redress for damage that might be caused by GMOs if things were to go wrong, in addition to considering legal liability for GMOs.

As a result, the group provisionally agreed a new remit. This is: “To explore issues of liability in agriculture and the environment relating to GMOs. To consider whether the existing liability regime is sufficient, to consider whether it needs revision, and to consider whether there are other better ways of addressing potential issues raised.” The full Commission’s confirmation for the remit is sought.

During September, the group finalised its consultation paper, using hypothetical scenarios to test the liability of the current laws if GM crops were grown commercially. This was very much on the lines seen and discussed by the full Commission in July. The closing date for comments was formally 12 November. Additional comments have been received since then, and the response has been substantial. The most consistent response - and one the group had largely expected - was that the scenarios described were not unique to GM crops – they could equally apply to conventional breeding and to other non-GM biotechnologies. Where respondents differed substantially was in assessing what this should mean for possible commercialisation of GMOs, for liability and other provisions. This paper includes a detailed secretariat summary of responses at Annex A.

On 5 November the liability sub-group had an all day meeting, to take a broad range of evidence in public. During the morning, the group took evidence from three lawyers: Professor Richard Macrory, Professor of law at University College London, Professor Stephen Tromans, barrister specialising in environmental law and research professor at Nottingham law school, and Phil Michaels, lawyer with Friends of the Earth. In the early afternoon Claire Marris from the French national agronomy research institute (INRA) gave evidence from the social research perspective, and Richard Macrory gave further evidence, about public participation, from experience with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The final sessions were from farming perspectives. Peter Melchett gave evidence for the Soil Association, and Archie Montgomery and Bob Fiddaman gave evidence for the National Farmers Union (NFU). The secretariat note of that meeting is at Annex B.

On 15 November the sub group meeting had a particular focus on brainstorming some key headlines for the group’s work to date. The purpose was to share and discuss these headlines with the Commission, and for the secretariat then to use them to take forward drafting of the report on liability and redress. The relevant extract from the secretariat meeting note is at Annex C. A brief summary of ‘headlines’ was:

The importance of co-existence and tolerance. The scope for a way forward, given the specific GM crops on the horizon, the gradual nature they would be introduced, and the relative geographic locations of organic farms and those which might include GM crops.
That zoning was not appropriate.
That economic and environmental liability raised distinct issues and should be considered separately. Any environmental provisions should have a broader scope that GM alone.

The full Commission saw an outline of the draft liability working paper some while ago: at the July meeting. The sub-group has now undertaken a large amount of research, and heard and read a wide range of valuable evidence. The group has now reached the stage of taking forward preparing the working paper/draft report as quickly as possible. The aim is for the full Commission to have a draft to review in February, and to sign off a revised draft liability report in May, for publication soon afterwards. The group may well also have discussions with stakeholders within this timetable, in the spring of 2003, to discuss the emerging conclusions while still at a formative stage.

During a number of liability group meetings, and in Commission and other sub-group deliberations more widely, discussion has gravitated to whether genetic modification is ‘different’ from other agricultural technologies. If so, from what, how, in what circumstances, and what effect any ‘difference’ should have on regulation and policy. The liability sub-group has concluded that having a general discussion of ‘difference’ and ‘similarity’ would be relevant as part of the Commission discussions on 12 December.

Sue Mayer has prepared a discussion paper, ‘Genetic modification – is it different?’ which is at Annex D. Phil Dale is also preparing a note from his perspective, which will be available in draft at the meeting.

10.05-10.30am Themes emerging from the liability scenarios consultation and respondees’ proposals.

10.30-10.50am Highlights emerging from the liability group evidence-taking meeting covering law, social research and public participation, and farming perspectives.

10.50-11.10am Main themes from group’s brainstorming meeting. (Discussions led by Justine Thornton and Matthew Freeman.)

11.10-12.00 noon Genetic modification – is it different? (Discussions led by Sue Mayer and Phil Dale)

AEBC Secretariat
December 2002