About Us

WORK PLAN

September 2002

Background

1. When the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) was established in June 2000, one of our first tasks was to draw up a Work Plan. We consulted widely on our proposed priorities and approaches, and then submitted the revised plan in January 2001 to Ministers in the UK Government and the devolved administrations. The Work Plan was welcomed and endorsed by Ministers. The AEBC’s terms of reference and membership are at Annexes C and D.

2. The original Work Plan proposed three primary areas of study: a case-study of decision-making on the Farm-Scale Evaluations of GM crops; animals and biotechnology; and horizon scanning. It also proposed the commencement of initial work on consumer choice and public attitudes; bioremediation, and liability.

Remit and working methods

3. Our remit is to provide Government with independent strategic advice on developments in biotechnology which impact on agriculture and the environment. We have freedom to determine our own Work Plan, subject to wide consultation, and subject also to responding to any specific request to us from Government for advice on particular issues. An example of this is the request for advice on a public debate about possible commercialisation of GM crops.

4. We have sought to work openly. Most Commission meetings are open to the public, and minutes of those meetings, together with minutes of sub-group meetings and related papers, including working drafts of reports, are posted on our web site.

Work undertaken to date

5. The Commission has made good progress in taking forward that work. Annex A summarises progress so far. The first major stream of work culminated in the publication of Crops on Trial [i] in September 2001, the Commission’s case study of decision-making in the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs). As part of its response, [ii] Government asked for our advice on how and when to promote an effective debate on possible commercialisation in the United Kingdom of the GM crops in the FSEs, and how to make best use of the results of the debate. This led to a major new stream of work to a tight timetable: the AEBC gave its further advice to Government this April. Government’s response to our further advice, given in July and August this year, will involve a very substantial input from AEBC Members over the coming year. This will inevitably limit our ability to undertake major new work.

6. We published our second major report, on animals and biotechnology, on 3 September. We aim to publish our next report, on liability, in spring 2003. A horizon scanning review was also completed in April this year. The study of consumer choice has moved from developmental to mainstream status following publication of our animals and biotechnology report.

7. The primary purpose of the horizon scanning exercise to identify relevant developments in modern biotechnology was to assist in identifying priorities for future AEBC work. A number of issues emerged from the exercise and discussions around it as potential areas for further study. Several have synergies with work we already have in hand. Our resources are limited, and this is a real constraint on our ambitions.

8. We propose to continue and complete the work we have underway (see Annex A) on:

• Liability;
• Supporting the public debate about GM issues in the UK;
• Consumer choice - including co-existence and gene flow; and
• Working with Government on baseline research on the environmental impact of different agricultural management regimes.

Consultation on a new Work Plan

9. published a draft revised Work Plan this April, identifying that the time had come for the AEBC to revise its programme of work, in the light of progress on the priorities set out in the first Work Plan. The draft revised Work Plan set out possible new topics, and priorities for tackling them. The Commission particularly invited peoples’ views on:

• the proposed topics;
• other topics they would wish to draw to our attention;
• possible approaches to AEBC work on each new topic;
• their sense of the relative priorities of the new topics.

10. We are very grateful for the thoughtful and helpful responses to our consultation. [iii]

11. Since the AEBC launched the Work Plan consultation, the Government has announced a study on the economics of GM by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. This seems likely to cover among other things competitiveness of the agricultural biotechnology industry and of farming in the UK. This suggests that the AEBC should not launch a separate study of competitiveness at this stage but should await the outcome of that work.

New topics for the Commission to study

12. The Commission has revised the priority order for studies, following the consultation and Commission discussion. This revised and updated Work Plan, which the Commission is sending to Ministers for their approval, covers the next phase of the Commission’s activities. Our proposals for areas of possible future work encompasses a substantial set of issues. In order of priority, these are:

1. The comparative environmental impact or ‘environmental footprint’ of GM and non-GM agricultural regimes, which would be considered in the context of the recently-published four strategy documents for the future of agriculture in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland [iv];



2. Trans-boundary regulation of potential modern biotechnology developments;



3. Privately and publicly funded research agendas on agricultural and environmental biotechnology; and



4. Impacts on other countries of UK biotechnology decisions.

13. The order in which the topics are listed above reflects the Commission’s current assessment of priority order. However we would find it desirable to have flexibility in determining our Work Plan priorities, since issues raised during the forthcoming public debate on GM issues could influence the Commission’s future priorities. Further descriptions of the topics are at Annex B. We would also need to undertake initial scoping work before deciding on precise terms of reference and on the remit of studies. A number of respondents also suggested further topics which the AEBC could usefully consider, and the Commission will keep these in mind in taking the Work Plan forward.

Timetable

14. After publication of the animals and biotechnology study this September, there is major work underway on the public debate, and on liability. The consumer choice work is well in hand – with the aim of reporting around spring 2003. The ad hoc group reviewing the DEFRA research will complete its work around the end of 2002.

15. The Commission aims to focus on no more than two main areas of work at any one time, though to work concurrently on initial development of other subject areas to prepare for their becoming main work streams. And throughout the year ahead, there will be considerable input to the public debate on GM issues.

16. Given the demands of existing and envisaged work, any future studies are unlikely to become a major area before early 2003, with more capacity by the middle of 2003, although we may be able to start initial developmental work on one or more of the new topics before those times. Our current aim, therefore, would be to start developmental work on two priority areas of work, in sequence or in parallel, provisionally on environmental footprints and trans-boundary regulation, early in 2003. At that time we would also be better placed to reassess our priorities and capacity for new work in the light of experience.

ANNEX A

Progress on AEBC work underway

Areas of work identified in our original Work Plan

1. The sub-group on strategic decision-making in biotechnology completed its work in 2001, which culminated in the Commission’s report Crops on Trial.

2. The horizon scanning study of emerging biotechnology developments with implications for agriculture and the environment has been completed. It was designed to help the full Commission to keep up to date with possible developments influencing our subject area. The study has been a basis for assessing our priorities for future work to include in the Work Plan, and is being distributed alongside this draft Work Plan. We would expect to periodically update the study in the light of future developments.

3. The study of animals and biotechnology has been completed, with publication of the Commission’s report on 3 September 2002.

4. The liability developmental group became a full sub-group in September 2001 and AEBC aims to report to Government on this main area of work around the end of 2002. The study will be relevant to Government decision-making on possible commercialisation of any genetically modified crops, and for European Commission proposals for a Directive on environmental liability, which were published in January 2002.

5. Bioremediation has been included in the horizon scanning study, and the Commission has decided not take it forward as a separate substantive area in the proposed Work Plan.

6. Consumer choice and public attitudes work has been separated into two distinct work-streams.

7. The public attitudes developmental group took forward the request from Government to provide further advice by the end of April 2002 on how and when a public debate about possible commercialisation of GM crops might be initiated.

8. The consumer choice sub-group is approaching the issues from two angles: what consumers want now and may want in the future; and how this could be delivered in practical terms by producers. It will analyse consumer decision-making and existing social research on consumer preferences. It will also look at the regulatory provisions that will impact on consumer choice. It will consider the significant practical and economic implications for the co-existence of different GM and non-GM crops on the farm and elsewhere in the supply chain, including scope - what materials are covered by the labelling regulations - and the thresholds set for adventitious presence of GM material in food, feed and seeds. The group will examine the practical and economic implications of different models of co-existence for producers (seed producers, the agricultural biotechnology industry, on the farm, elsewhere in the supply chain) and for consumers in a representative range of food and non-food crops: beet, oil seed rape, wheat and trees. The implications of gene transfer from GM crops to other crops or wild relatives will be considered as part of this.

9. Consumer choice became one of the two main workstreams (along with liability) following completion of the animals and biotechnology report.

Other work

10. Crops on Trial recommended an independent baseline review of information that will need to be considered in addition to the results from the FSEs. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has commissioned literature reviews of research on the environmental impact of GM and non-GM agricultural management regimes, with input from the AEBC.

ANNEX B

Outline scope of proposed AEBC studies

‘Environmental footprints’

1. We want to consider comparative impacts on the environment of different GM and non-GM crop management regimes: the ‘environmental footprint’ of different regimes. Several respondents to the horizon scanning scenarios consultation commented that both GM and non-GM techniques could be directed towards the goals of sustainable agricultural production, provided those goals were clearly articulated. They suggested that a system for assessing the relative sustainability of all new crop varieties and the systems within which they are grown was needed, and not only for GM crops. This seems to us to be a useful subject for AEBC to consider. It would take account of the baseline research commissioned by DEFRA on environmental impacts of crop and livestock production systems.

2. An environmental footprint study could include an examination of the implications of management of pests and diseases which affect crops and livestock in GM and non-GM systems, including the impact of herbicide tolerance on crop rotation patterns. It might also provide a framework for assessing the very different benefits and risks around herbicide tolerance, insect, fungal, bacterial and stress resistance and look at the emerging issues around developments such as ‘smart’ plants. A further related area is that of diffuse long-term impacts on the environment of GM and non-GM agricultural management systems.

3. As part of this study, AEBC could also consider the way in which the several recently published reports on the future of agriculture in the different parts of the United Kingdom might inform decisions on the role of new biotechnologies within agriculture. The dimensions of greatest relevance would be projections of or aspirations for long-term patterns of land use; the role of alternative, particularly non-food, crops; how far the countries concerned are aiming to be self-sufficient in food production; and priorities for environmental protection. The four reports are the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming report, “Farming and Food – A Sustainable Future”(England) www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming, “A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture”, www.scotland.gov.uk), “Vision for the future of the agri-food industry” in Northern Ireland www.dardni.gov.uk “Farming for the Future” (Wales) www.wales.gov.uk. These reports would be a useful starting point for the consideration of biotechnology in the environmental footprints study.

Trans-boundary regulation

4. The Commission is interested in examining the potential for trans-boundary effects from modern biotechnology developments, looking initially at how well regulations as they stand can be implemented. Other countries may release and commercialise GM plants and animals that might not be given consent under European regulations, but nonetheless have the ability to cross national boundaries. Fish and insects are the most obvious examples. International regulations will be needed to deal with any potential problems. The AEBC animals and biotechnology report has flagged up this issue, which is likely to remain significant. In advance of launching work on this issue, AEBC will keep a close watch on developments.

Privately funded and publicly funded research

5. The balance between publicly and privately funded research into agricultural and environmental biotechnology in terms of delivering 'public goods' is a recurrent theme in AEBC studies and elsewhere. Crops on Trial records some of our concerns on this point, as did the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. Issues around the ownership and control of the technology, in particular the consequences of a shift from public to private control over research agendas and intellectual property, were also themes which emerged from the horizon scanning scenarios consultation.

6. One of the main recommendations from an OECD Conference ‘New Biotechnology Food and Crops’ chaired by Lord Selborne in Bangkok in July 2001 was "the need for high quality, accessible, relevant science throughout the world", [v] noting that “several speakers drew attention to the decline in publicly funded research, and the increasing dependence that society has on research data that might not be considered impartial. More publicly funded research would provide greater confidence and might be easier to channel into regions for which no financial return on the research investment can be expected". [vi]

7. We propose that we should undertake a study of this issue insofar as it affects agriculture and the environment. It might include a review of the research agendas of the major private interests and those with public funding to develop a better understanding of where priorities lie. The study might consider in what ways the identifiable shift from publicly funded research to privately funded research in agricultural and environmental biotechnology affects what is researched, including the social and ethical implications. We might do this through a study and a Commission-run public debate.

Competitiveness

8. Competitiveness of the biotechnology and farming industries in the United Kingdom emerged as a theme in the horizon scanning group’s consultation in summer 2001 about possible scenarios for the future of uptake of genetic modification in agriculture [vii]. This theme links with issues for the consumer choice study (see Annex A), and the study by the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.

The impact of UK decisions internationally

9. Finally, the Commission proposes to consider the impact of United Kingdom and European Union decisions about the development and implementation of agricultural and environmental biotechnology elsewhere in the world. Relevant aspects include capacity building for risk assessment and risk management; protocols for the on-the-ground management of biotechnology developments; how relevant specific developments in the UK and Europe are to other countries; who benefits from the developments; and how the developments are regulated. This could be a subject either for AEBC or for organisations with a more explicit international focus.

ANNEX C

List of respondents

Ben Ayliffe for Greenpeace

David Buckeridge, Director, Advanta BV

Josephine Craig for the Royal Society

Professor Ian Crute, Director, Institute of Arable Crops Research

Dr Carey Cunningham, FRS Marine Laboratory

Duncan Dallas, Café Scientifique

Dr Keith Duff, Chief Scientist, English Nature, for the British statutory nature conservation agencies

Federation of Small Businesses (Northern Ireland)

Caroline Fenwick for Terrestrial and Freshwater Sciences team, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

Mike German OBE AM, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Rural Development and Wales Abroad, Welsh Assembly Government

Dr David Goodman, IT Architecture

James Grant, Roskill

Ian Harris (private citizen)

Sue Hattersley for the Food Standards Agency

Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Elizabeth Hogben for National Farmers Union

Rudolf Kirst, Hemel Hempstead GM Action Group

Martin Livermore, Ascham Associates

Dr James Reeves for NIAB

John Sloss, Moy Park Ltd, for Northern Ireland Poultry Federation

Harold Stephens, Planning Inspector

Dr Telford, Director of Public Health

Professor Andrew Miller for the Royal Society of Edinburgh

ANNEX D

AEBC AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

History

The need for independent strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment emerged from the Government’s review of the advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology [viii]. The main concerns expressed during wide consultation were that the current arrangements were complex and difficult for the public to understand, did not properly reflect the broader ethical and environmental questions and views of potential stakeholders, and were not sufficiently forward-looking for a technology which was developing so rapidly.

The Government concluded that the existing regulatory and advisory committees should continue to consider whether to grant approvals for individual products or processes, in the context of protecting the health of the public and protecting the environment. But there was also a need for a strategic framework for the overall development of the technology in the UK, to reflect the broader ethical and environmental concerns of society and to consider the future implications of biotechnological developments. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was set up to help provide this.

Terms of reference

The Commission’s terms of reference state that it will:

• offer strategic advice to Government on biotechnology issues which impact on agriculture and the environment;
• liaise closely with but not duplicate the work of the other two bodies which together with the AEBC form a new strategic advisory framework ie:
• the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) which will advise on genetic technologies and their impact on humans; and
• the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which will include within its responsibilities all aspects of the safety and use of genetically modified food and animal feed;
• keep under review current and possible future developments in biotechnology with actual or potential implications for agriculture and the environment;
• advise Government on the ethical and social implications arising from these developments and their public acceptability; and
• consider and advise on any specific issues relating to relevant aspects of biotechnology as requested by the Government.

As part of this process the Commission is expected to:

• identify any gaps in the regulatory and advisory framework;
• consider the wider implications of the lessons to be learned from individual cases requiring regulatory decision;
• advise on any changes which should be made to Government guidelines which regulatory bodies are required to follow;
• make recommendations as to changes in the current structure of regulatory and advisory bodies;
• co-ordinate and exchange information with the relevant regulatory and advisory bodies;
• seek to involve and consult stakeholders and the public on a regular basis on the issues which it is considering; and
• operate in accordance with best practice for public bodies with regard to openness, transparency, accessibility, timeliness and exchange of information.

The Commission will:

• in carrying out its work take into account European and global developments;
• nationally, adopt a UK perspective taking appropriate account of legal and other differences between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and
• draw up a work programme.

The Government may also ask the Commission for advice on a particular issue and, if necessary, direct it not to become involved in an area if this could be better handled elsewhere.

NOTE: In the context of the work of the Commission, "Government" comprises the UK Government and the devolved administrations.

ANNEX E

AEBC MEMBERS

CHAIR
Professor Malcolm Grant
Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Cambridge

DEPUTY CHAIR
Ms Julie Hill MBE
Programme Adviser and former Director of Green Alliance

MEMBERS

Professor Michael Banner
Professor of moral and social theology at King's College, London

Ms Anna Bradley (Convenor of the Animals and Biotechnology sub-group)
Director of the National Consumer Council

Ms Helen Browning OBE
Tenant Farmer, Eastbrook Farm; Founder and Director of Eastbrook Farm Organic Meats Ltd

Dr David Carmichael
Arable farmer with an interest in non-food crops

Professor Philip Dale
Leader of the Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group at the John Innes Centre, Norwich

Dr Ed Dart CBE
Chairman of Plant Bioscience Ltd

Dr Matthew Freeman
Senior Researcher at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Mr John Gilliland
President of the Ulster Farmers Union and arable farmer with a particular interest in sustainable production systems and the pioneering of non-food crops

Professor Robin Grove-White
Professor of Environment & Society, and Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University

Dr Rosemary Hails MBE
Ecologist, and Principal Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Oxford and lecturer at St Anne’s College, Oxford

Ms Judith Hann
A Freelance broadcaster and writer who presented Tomorrow's World for 20 years

Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa

Dr Derek Langslow CBE
Scientist specialising in nature conservation/biodiversity and former Chief Executive of English Nature

Professor Jeff Maxwell OBE
Former Director, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

Dr Sue Mayer
Executive Director of Genewatch UK

Professor Ben Mepham
Director of the Centre for Applied Bioethics at the University of Nottingham and Executive Director of the Food Ethics Council

Ms Justine Thornton
Barrister specialising in environmental law

Dr Roger Turner
Chief Executive Officer, British Society of Plant Breeders

[i] Crops on Trial, A Report by the AEBC, September 2001, available on the AEBC website.

[ii] Government responses to Crops on Trial (joint response from UK Government, Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland Department of the Environment and response from the National Assembly for Wales) available on the AEBC website.

[iii] Anyone who would like to see a copy of the responses should contact the AEBC secretariat: Bay 479, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET. Telephone 020 7215 6508. e-mail aebc.contact@dti.gsi.gov.uk A list of the people who responded is at Annex C.

[iv] Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming report, "Farming and Food - A Sustainable Future" (England) www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/farming, "A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture", www.scotland.gov.uk), "Vision for the future of the agri-food industry" in Northern Ireland www.dardni.gov.uk "Farming for the Future" (Wales) www.wales.gov.uk.

[v] www.oecd.org/bangkok

[vi] ibid

[vii] Available on the horizon scanning group pages of the AEBC website.

[viii] Cabinet Office, Office of Science and Technology, The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology: Report from the Government’s Review, May 1999.