AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
AEBC NEW WORKSTREAMS
Background
With the publication of the Coexistence and Liability report on 25 November, the AEBC now
has no work ongoing. This meeting is therefore, in effect, a re-launch of the Commission
and a chance to take a fresh look at our objectives and to set a new direction for
the future.
A future work programme was agreed in September 2002, after extensive consultation.
However, it is over a year since the work programme was agreed and things have moved on in
biotechnology, as well as more broadly in agriculture, at the national and international
level. Priorities need to be re-examined to take account of recent developments, including
external factors as well as the Coexistence report and GMNation?.
Linked to the question of work topics are working methods. The 2002 work programme stated
that the Commission would aim to focus on no more than two main areas of work at any one time.
However, now would also be a good time to re-examine working methods, and to think
innovatively about how the AEBC might be able to improve its delivery of advice
to Government.
The 2002 work programme set out four main priorities:
The comparative environmental impact or ‘environmental footprint’ of GM and non-GM
agricultural regimes;
Trans-boundary regulation of potential modern biotechnology developments;
Privately and publicly funded research agendas on agricultural and environmental
biotechnology;
Impacts on other countries of UK biotechnology decisions.
Scoping notes on the first two of the work topics above were produced for the last AEBC
meeting in September (AEBC/03/09 and /10), but there was no time to discuss future workstreams
at that meeting. Feedback from members was sought afterwards, and the main messages from this
are summarised below.
Feedback Received on New Workstreams
Environmental Footprints / Sustainability
Welcome the concept in general but find it hard to identify a clear remit, where the AEBC’s broad expertise could add
value.
The project as set out in the scoping note might become very unwieldy and could duplicate other work already done or
being done.
As a first step, need to consider what farming will look like in the future.
Then look at the role that biotechnology could play in delivering sustainability in the future (though this leads to
questions about the definition of sustainability).
Should not be restricted to arable farming – e.g. should consider growing feed for livestock, biofuels etc.
Farming systems need to be studied for a full rotation rather than short term.
Need to take into account regional variation in farming systems.
Trans-boundary regulation
General feeling that this is not an area for a major AEBC workstream.
However, variable coexistence arrangements in different EU Member States may lead to
intra-EU transboundary incidents as well as across other borders.
Other
For all work, should not be restricted to GM, but look at biotechnology more broadly
(tissue culture, marker assisted breeding etc.).
Continuing interest in the public/private sector research project.
Interest in the area of “plant factory” technology/pharma crops.
Suggestions for discussion
Taking into account the feedback summarised above on the new workstreams, as well as feedback from others, the
secretariat, with the Chair and Deputy Chair, have put together some suggestions for a revised workplan, set out below.
Each of these is set out as a series of questions to consider on the topic. They should be used as stimulus for discussion
rather than firm plans.
Biotechnology and Sustainability (formerly Environmental Footprints)
The consensus of comments on this topic seems to suggest the following, simple questions:
What is the future agenda for agriculture in the UK? What is the current view on what is wanted from farming, in terms
of sustainability? (See Annex for a list of drivers of the future agenda.)
How is this going to be delivered, and how can delivery be measured accurately (indicators)?
In what ways can biotechnology (in the broad sense) contribute to this delivery?
Agricultural issues to examine:
Crop varieties.
Crop management systems (protocols).
Management of other land - headlands, woodlands.
Organic agriculture and non-food crops (incl. bioenergy and biomass).
Public/private research
The question of delivery of sustainability objectives for agriculture through biotechnology, leads naturally to the
public/private research topic. The aim of this topic would not be to question the research agendas of private companies,
but rather to look at the respective contributions that privately and publicly funded biotechnology research (in the broad
sense of biotechnology) can and should make towards a new agenda for agriculture. This could become a complementary
workstream to the Biotechnology and Sustainability topic discussed above.
What are the public institutions and private sector companies involved?
What are the perceived needs and markets?
Public attitudes and consumer choice
Different needs of developed and developing countries
Intellectual property issues
What is the role of political influence – Government policy goals, pressure from other countries etc.?
What is the proper allocation of research responsibilities to public and private companies?
How should the agendas of public and private sectors therefore adapt? How can they co-operate or work in
partnership?
Pharma Crops/”Biopharming”
“Pharming” is the use of crop plants to produce pharmaceutical substances such as drugs and vaccines, the genes for
which have been inserted using GM techniques. It is a subset of “plant factory” technology, and a study could extend to
this category more generally. Questions to look at include:
Which pharma crops are being developed now and what is their current status?
UK/Europe
USA
Are the issues around pharma crops different to those raised for other GM crops (e.g. in the AEBC’s
coexistence report)?
Food safety – possible adventitious presence in food crops
Environmental
Possible containment – physical or biological
What are the key uncertainties in assessing risks and benefits and how might these be tackled?
What future developments are on the horizon?
Transboundary Effects
Questions to look at include:
How will the implementation of different coexistence measures (within and outside the EU) affect trade?
What provision already exists for testing of products at borders for adventitious presence, and is more needed?
Might differences in methods and standards of testing in different countries cause problems? How could economic loss
caused by errors in testing be compensated for?
What major agricultural commodities are imported to/exported from the UK that have a global exposure to GM technology?
Will resistance to GM in the UK and elsewhere affect global food-supply chains?
Potential for accidental transboundary transfer of GMOs (e.g. fish, insects, micro-organisms, viruses)?
Working methods
It will clearly not be possible to pursue all the work described above at full pace, although all topics could be taken
at least to the initial scoping stage. It has been suggested that topics such as pharma crops and transboundary effects
could be taken forward initially as a “briefing paper” rather than a full workstream. This would mean two or three members
of the Commission, rather than a full subgroup, working to produce a shorter report that summarises the state of play.
These papers would not necessarily need to make any recommendations, but could be used to make decisions as to whether or
not further work is needed on the issue. Producing such “briefing notes” could increase the output of the Commission,
without involving a great deal more work.
Working methods could also be taken into account when looking at the lessons learned from the process of producing the
Coexistence report. Issues to consider include:
Ensuring “ownership” of terms of reference by all members.
Handling the balance of work between sub-groups and full Commission.
The possibility of splitting the process into two separate stages – (1) fact finding/evidence gathering until an agreed
body of evidence is reached; (2) before moving on to consider recommendations.
Holding stakeholder seminars at an earlier stage.
Different ways of reporting conclusions to Government, especially in the case of divergent views within the
Commission.
AEBC SECRETARIAT
December 2003
ANNEX
Drivers of the future agricultural agenda (in rough order of importance?):
Mid-term review of CAP
Impact of the accession countries
Consumer demand, as expressed through retailers
Curry Report (and devolved administration equivalents) and follow-up
Research (Rural Economy and Land Use programme, RELU, £20m over three years for BBSRC/NERC/ESRC; Defra’s Sustainable
Farming and Food Research Priorities Group, RPG)
Shake up of land management agencies
Biodiversity Action Plan targets
Bringing agricultural wastes within waste framework
Producer responsibility for food (Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment, ACCPE, looking at
this).
Defra’s “Sustainable Seeds” initiative
Unknowns:
WTO – progress stalled
Climate change – predictable?
Definition of sustainability - the answer to Les Firbank’s question: “What is the required balance of production and
biodiversity?”
Indicators of success (SCRI and others investigating this?)
Thoughts from Julie Hill in the wake of the Innogen Conference in Edinburgh.
