AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
TWENTY-FIRST COMMISSION MEETING
11 DECEMBER 2003
THE HOLIDAY INN
22 ORMEAU AVENUE
BELFAST, BT2 8HS
UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
Members
Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Ms Anna Bradley
Ms Helen Browning
Dr Dave Carmichael
Dr Matthew Freeman
Mr John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Dr Rosie Hails
Dr Derek Langslow
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Ms Justine Thornton
Secretariat
Dr Paul van Heyningen
Miss Emma Knox
Mr Craig Johnson
Mr Pat Wilson
THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION
Apologies for Absence
1. Apologies had been received from Dr David Buckeridge, Professor Phil Dale, Dr Ed Dart, Ms Judith Hann, Dr Sue Mayer, Dr Paul Rylott and Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa.
Introductory Matters
2. The Chair opened the meeting by thanking Liz McCullough and her colleagues in the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland Executive (DOENI) for their generous hospitality and support on making the arrangements for the Commission meeting in Belfast.
3. The Chair announced the appointment of Professor Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy and Public Policy at Lancaster University. Professor Lee sent apologies for her absence.
Matters of Report
GM Crops? Coexistence and Liability Report
4. The coexistence and liability report was published on 25th November, marking the last key piece of advice for the Government to take account of in its forthcoming policy decision on the commercialisation of GM crops. The Government would be responding in the New Year.
FSE Results
5. The results of the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs) were published on 16th October. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) had held two open meetings to discuss the results, and would be preparing its advice to Government on the implications of the FSEs for any releases of GM crops. Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) would be carrying out an inquiry to evaluate the FSEs.
GM Science Review
6. The GM Science Review Panel’s second report, which was due to be published this month, had been postponed to the New Year. The Deputy Chair, also a member of the panel, informed the Commission that the panel was aiming to publish their report in January and their final meeting would be 22nd December.
Efra Committee
7. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report on Conduct of the Public Debate was published on 20th November. The Committee viewed the debate as “an imaginative and innovative attempt” and “modestly successful in some areas”, but overall “an opportunity missed”. It said that the principal blame for this lay with two Government decisions and asked the Government to explain why it did not allocate sufficient resources to the debate, and why it did not have a longer time frame. The Government would respond in due course. The Committee had also been critical of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for its decision to hold its own “public debate” and its failure to engage its work with the three strands of the GM Dialogue.
Meetings/Conferences
8. The Innogen conference on Precaution and Progress: Lessons from the GM
Dialogue, co-sponsored by the AEBC and the Scottish Executive, was held on 13th November. A note of the proceedings, by Richard Heller, would appear soon and a link would be put on the AEBC website.
9. The University of Nottingham would be coordinating an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) seminar programme on approaches to sustainable farmland management, with six seminars to take place between January 2004 and summer 2005.
Animals and Biotechnology
10. The Farm Animal Welfare Council’s (FAWC) report following the recommendations in the AEBC’s
Animals and Biotechnology report was now expected in the spring.
EU/International Business
11. The European Union’s (EU) scientific committee on food had rejected a proposal by the European Commission to approve Syngenta’s GM Sweetcorn (Bt11 maize) for import. Six countries voted in favour, three abstained and six voted against. The approval would now be put to ministers who would have three months to make a decision. If they failed to decide the question would be passed back to the Commission.
12. The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) GMO panel had concluded that Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant GM maize NK603 was safe for human consumption. The debate and vote on NK603 would probably be taken up by one of the EU’s specialist committees early next year, in a similar way to Bt11.
13. The region of upper Austria had appealed to the European Court of Justice over the European Commission’s decision, following advice from the EFSA, to block its declaration as a GM-free zone.
14. In New Zealand, a two-year moratorium on GM crops had been lifted at the end of October, although the first crops were unlikely to be planted for at least 18 months. Similarly, a ban in Brazil on growing GM soybeans was lifted in October for a temporary period of one season. The ban was widely ignored in some parts of the country and GM soya already accounted for 10-20% of Brazil’s output.
15. A zebrafish, genetically modified to be fluorescent by injecting eggs with sea anemone DNA, was set to go on sale as a pet in the USA in the New Year. The fish were originally created to act as indicators of water pollution in Singapore.
Secretariat
16. Paul van Heyningen had taken over a secretary from Richard Abel. The Chair thanked Richard for all his hard work, emphasising his gratitude for his outstanding service and professionalism and wishing him luck in the future.
17. Two new members had been recruited to replace Matt Hughes and Laura McMahon (who was on maternity leave and the Chair wished well); they would start in the New Year. One of them, Patrick Erwin, was present to observe the Commission’s proceedings.
GM and coexistence policy in the Republic of Ireland
18. The Chair welcomed Republic of Ireland (ROI) officials Ronnie Devlin from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) and Gerry Lohan from the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAF). Ronnie Devlin thanked the Commission for the opportunity to build on existing contacts and make new ones.
19. DEHLG was responsible for policy in relation to EU Directive 2001/18 and its approach was based on a Ministerial policy statement issued in 1999. The statement followed a consultation process on GMOs and the environment. The key message in the statement was that
”Ireland would pursue a positive but precautionary national position on the release of GMOs into the environment, based on scientific risk assessment”.
20. It was important for Northern Ireland and ROI to liaise closely and go beyond the terms of Directive 2001/18 with regard to sharing information, particularly in relation to the possibility of crop trials or marketing proposals.
21. Gerry Lohan described a working group that had been established to produce guidelines (and possibly some legislation) on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. The group first met in September 2003 and planned to report by April 2004. It comprised officials from DAF, DOEHLG, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (an independent body) and members of a research body, and had a brief to consult others with an interest in coexistence.
22. The Irish ministers and departments viewed coexistence as largely an economic issue and once GM crops had been approved and accepted on safety, health and environmental grounds guidelines would be necessary for the actual growing of GM crops. The issues being considered in devising the guidelines included: species biology of GM varieties likely to be grown in ROI; possible management practices and training requirements for GM growers; GM-free zones; post-release monitoring; and liability for economic loss (which was being considered by a separate sub-group).
23. Bearing in mind that organic farming was not widespread in Ireland, the group would be aiming for a threshold of 0.1% adventitious presence for organic crops. ROI did not intend to introduce more rigorous post-release monitoring than that required by EU legislation, but measures for monitoring whether coexistence was working had not yet been decided. A system for checking for adventitious presence had also not yet been developed. The working group’s remit did not extend to environmental impacts and liability.
24. The Chair thanked Ronnie Devlin and Gerry Lohan and wished the ROI well with their coexistence study. There were close parallels between the ROI study and the AEBC’s report on coexistence and liability. It was important that the reality of commercialisation was considered as well as the technical study.
Mid Term Review and World Trade Organisation and Implications for UK agriculture (AEBC/03/11)
25. John Gilliland thanked the chair for the opportunity to reflect on activities outside of the British Isles and introduced paper AEBC/03/11. He described the drivers for change in European Agriculture.
26. The implications of the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) through the Mid Term Review (MTR) were described. The United Kingdom (UK) was the only Member State that had used voluntary modulation, with 3½% of all direct payments to farmers withheld to fund rural development. From 2005 it would be compulsory to implement this in all member states: 5% would be removed initially and this would increase to 7% from 2007. To reduce the impact on small farmers, the first £5000 of payments would be exempt from modulation
27. Through decoupling EU farmers would receive a “single farm payment” regardless of how extensively or intensively the land was being used, provided they could demonstrate “cross compliance” with eighteen EU directives specified in the agreement. There would be inspections taking place to ensure compliance and a penalty system in place. Member States had been incentivised to enforce penalties; they would keep 25% of all fines.
28. While it was anticipated that cross compliance conditions would be moveable and changeable, it was not clear how easy this would be post EU-enlargement and with capping of the budget. It was therefore suggested that it was crucial to get these conditions right first time.
29. The National Envelope was an option not detailed in paper AEBC/03/11, but which Scotland was considering. With this option, 10% of farmers’ direct payments could be put aside to spend on issues specific to a Member State or region.
30. The MTR would be implemented between 1 January 2005 and 1 January 2007, depending on Member States’ preferences. Member States could also choose various partial decoupling options. The UK and Republic of Ireland planned to implement full decoupling from 1 January 2005.
31. John Gilliland described the failed WTO talks held at Cancun, Mexico in September 2003. The aim of the talks had been to reach a draft agreement on the Doha Development Round (which addressed issues of concern to Developing countries) to be finalised by December 2004.
32. In preparation for Cancun, the EU Commission had taken action by reforming the CAP and by negotiating a trade deal with the 48 least developed countries, “The Everything But Arms Deal”, which allowed these countries un limited free access to the EU for any indigenous products, bar armaments. At Cancun, the next poorest countries were offered a deal to give them market access for their sensitive commodity products including sugar, rice and cotton. This proposal was a particular problem for the USA, as it was at odds with their recent Farm Bill. The EU also needed to reform its sugar policy to meet its commitment fully,
33. A draft compromise paper had been tabled to settle the agriculture debate and was close to agreement, when the Chairman moved the debate onto the Singapore issues and the talks collapsed before returning to agriculture.
34. Robin Grove-White was invited to comment on the WTO process. As one of a group of academics compiling an
amicus curiae brief to the WTO disputes panel on the current US case against Europe on GM, he felt that the dispute raised a number of issues about risk assessment and the outcome was difficult to predict. More generally, increasing global free trade would trigger significant cultural responses in the UK and elsewhere.
35. The MTR of the CAP and a final WTO deal would mean that UK agriculture was no longer shielded from market volatility, and would be particularly exposed in some areas. Sugar, dairy, beef and lamb products could not be produced in the UK at globally competitive prices and this would produce fundamental impacts in the agrirural economy and society with attendant effects on the environment.
36. Members thanked John Gilliland for his illuminating presentation and commented that CAP reform removed significant disincentives that had previously discouraged farmers from responding quickly to market developments and from farming sustainably.
The UK Government agenda for promoting sustainable agriculture
Wales (AEBC/03/13)
37. In the absence of a representative at the meeting, the Welsh Assembly Government had produced paper AEBC/03/13 on the Drive for Sustainable Agriculture in Wales.
Northern Ireland
38. Ian McKee from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland Executive (DARDNI) presented the agri-environment scenario in Northern Ireland. In the last thirty years agriculture in Northern Ireland had moved from being diverse to being more selective - the CAP had driven agriculture towards grass-based intensive livestock farming. The CAP’s distortive financial incentives meant that more animals were being kept than the market required.
39. Agricultural policy developments in recent years had changed the emphasis of the CAP from support for production towards protection and enhancement of the environment. There had been a move towards the “Second Pillar” of the CAP - supporting rural development and agri-environment schemes.
40. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Scheme aimed to maintain and enhance species diversity by positive management of habitats. 65% of eligible land (20% of agricultural land in Northern Ireland) was under agreement. The countryside management scheme, introduced in 1999, had the same principles as the ESA scheme but applied to land outside ESAs. It included a training programme comprised of an awareness campaign, practical workshops and individual visits. Northern Ireland also planned to introduce an entry-level agri-environment scheme, which would be open to all farmers. It would be aimed at attracting more intensive farmers, especially in the dairy sector and would be a five-year scheme with farmers receiving a flat rate payment of £30 per hectare, with a £3000 ceiling.
41. Nearly 7,000 farms of the 29,000 in Northern Ireland currently had an agri-environment agreement. With the introduction of modulation to help fund the entry-level scheme it was hoped to have 18,000 farms under agri-environment schemes by 2006.
42. So far cross-compliance had not been a great success in the UK, but it was hoped that this would change under new arrangements following the MTR of the CAP.
43. The chair thanked Ian McKee for his contribution.
Scotland
44. Robin McKendrick of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) presented the Scottish Executive’s agenda for promoting sustainable development. The Scottish Executive coalition partnership agreement included environmentally sustainable farming, land management contracts and the implementation of an organic action plan to create an infrastructure to increase Scotland’s share in the organic market. Around 57% of UK organic farmland, or land in conversion, was in Scotland.
45. In Scotland 85% of agricultural land was designated as being in Less Favoured Areas. 45% of farms belonged to agri-environment schemes, however there was no entry-level scheme. Spending on agri-environment schemes had increased from £15 million to £27 million last year.
46. The Scottish Executive was conducting a consultation process on CAP reform and would be reporting in January 2004. A specific working group had been set up to examine agri-environment changes over the next five to ten years.
47. A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture had been published in 2001. This led to the establishment of an Agriculture and Environment Working Group, whose report,
Custodians of Change, supported the use of land management contracts. The report also asked for research activity to be focused on practical management techniques and on improving knowledge transfer. They asked for a new farm business advisory service, substantial revision of the main agri-environment scheme in Scotland and a reform of the organic farming scheme.
48. Jeff Maxwell, who had chaired the Agriculture and Environment Working Group, commented on recent legislation that would have a major impact on Scottish agriculture, including the Nature Conservation Bill, the Land Reform Bill, and the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The water framework directive would also be key, as would the possible introduction of two new national parks.
49. The chair thanked Robin McKendrick for his contribution.
England
50. Linda Smith of Defra reiterated the Government’s commitment to change in farming and to delivering a better future for farming, including reconnecting farmers with customers and adopting a “whole-farm” approach to farm management.
51. The Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy (SFFS) implementation group, chaired by Sir Don Curry, was building on the work of the Curry Commission by helping farmers to add value to their produce and giving them training and advice, among other things. Ten different work streams had been established and each implementation group member was leading on one of these, along with senior officials in Defra.
52. Anna Bradley, a member of the implementation group, commented that a substantial infrastructure had been set up to implement the Strategy. This was needed given the scale of the challenge, but not much visible progress had been made so far. Some stakeholders had been more involved than others; it was proving challenging to keep people in touch with what was happening. Another big challenge had been engaging the Department of Health with links between agriculture and diet and other Government departments with the agri-environment strategy. Now the implementation group had all the necessary pieces in place, they were well placed to start to make a real difference.
53. Helen Browning, a member of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (the “Curry Commission”), agreed and commented that initiatives such as the Food Chain Centre, the English Food and Farming Partnership and the Red Meat Industry Forum had been put it place. It was not possible for English farmers to compete in a global marketplace, therefore the emphasis had to be on adding value to product. Agriculture was heading for a period of huge change and uncertainty, the outcome of which no one could predict. There had been huge losses of employment from agriculture. A continuous push was needed to achieve to the right balance between productivity, environmental protection, health and social concerns.
54. The Chair gave his thanks to all for the clear picture given of a complex area.
Difficulties in sourcing non-GM feed
55. Michael McAree and Willis Mackey of the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association gave a presentation on importing soya from Brazil and the difficulties of sourcing non-GM feed.
56. Currently, GM-derived components were in the food/feed chain in the form of soyabean meal, soyabean oil, corn by-products, enzymes, amino acids and vitamins. There were numerous problems with trying to remove GM sources from the feed chain.
57. Retailers had responded to negative public perceptions of GMOs and since 1998 had been taking steps to remove GM ingredients from animal feed. Retailers could assure poultry as non-GM as a non-GM version of the poultry macro diet was available and an integrated supply chain existed. The non-GM poultry feed was fully traceable.
58. Over 60% of global soyabean production was already GM and Brazil was the only significant exporter of non-GM Soya. Non-GM soya farms in Brazil were large and well organised, with identity preservation and testing for adventitious presence at all stages. However, not all Brazilian soya was non-GM (GM varieties smuggled from Argentina were grown in the Southern states) and only a small proportion was certified to fulfil the UK multiples’ requirements. World production of non-GM soya was already insufficient to meet the total European demand for soya.
59. It was likely that GM soya would soon be grown legally in Brazil. In this case, it would become very costly to source non-GM soya (e.g. to keep the transportation system uncontaminated) and it might no longer be possible to meet demand. It would be very difficult for supermarkets to maintain their resistance to GM if non-GM products were not available at a sensible price for the volume they require. If the public remained unconvinced about GM food then consumers might have to bear the costs.
60. The future of the livestock industry in Northern Ireland would be vulnerable if it became impossible to source non-GM feed.
61. Supermarkets had not yet expressed a desire to lower the threshold for labelling products as non-GM below 0.9%. . Although trade associations were currently able to meet a 0.1% threshold, the costs and risks of lowering it would be large and the benefit to consumers small.
62. The Chair thanked Michael McAree and Willis Mackey for their presentation.
Defra and Devolved Administrations Perspectives on future AEBC work
63. Linda Smith thanked the Commission for their report on coexistence and liability and said that the Government was giving it serious consideration.
64. Numerous regulatory changes had taken place recently, including the food and feed and traceability and labelling directives, which would come into force on 18 April 2004.
65. The Government would respond formally to all three strands of the GM dialogue. Together with the Commission’s report on coexistence and liability, the Government would use these to decide how to go forward, with an announcement in the first months of the New Year.
66. The European community needed to make decisions on the crops used in the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs). Furthermore, the implications of the FSE results for wider agriculture were being examined by Defra.
67. Before Defra could make suggestions about the AEBC’s future work, a period of reflection was needed. The future policy environment was unclear and it was difficult to say what strategic issues would remain after policy decisions on GM crops had been made.
68. Other biotechnological issues, aside from GM, were important. Defra had a working group looking at agri-environment issues as a whole. The balance between agriculture and environment goes beyond the remit of the AEBC, however anything done by the Commission could contribute to the debate. At this time it was difficult to see what areas the AEBC would add value to where other advisory bodies could not.
69. There were strategic issues around the use of GM crops and the maintenance of a sustainable food chain that delivers consumer choice that the AEBC might want to look at. Members expressed concern that this might come under the remit of the Food Standards Agency.
70. The devolved administrations were interested in the environmental footprints/sustainability workstream already proposed by the AEBC, although they would have questions around the specifics it this were taken forward. The Welsh Assembly Government also welcomed the public-private research proposal.
Discussion of new workstreams (AEBC/03/12)
71. The Deputy Chair introduced paper AEBC/03/12 on new workstreams. Following written feedback from Members on scoping papers AEBC/03/09 and 03/10, the paper set out some revised proposals for discussion. These included:
· Biotechnology and sustainability, a re-working of the environmental footprints proposal, which would ask how biotechnology (in the broad sense) could contribute to delivery of the sustainable agriculture agenda of the future: this had been proposed in the light of comments on the original proposal from Members and others that welcomed the concept but felt that the suggested work was potentially unwieldy and duplicatory;
· Public/private research, which had been strongly favoured by some Members, though others were sceptical, and would ask what was the proper allocation of research responsibilities to public and private funding;
· Pharma crops/‘biopharming’, or the more general area of ‘plant factory’ technology and other non-food crops (and on which a paper had recently been published by Genewatch - copies to be circulated to all Members);
· Transboundary regulation, which was originally conceived to tackle accidental transfer of GMOs across boundaries, but could also encompass issues created by the implementation of different coexistence and testing measures in different countries and by the global food trade.
72. The paper also suggested some areas to consider in looking at working methods for the future.
73. In discussion of the paper, it was noted that the aim of the proposed work on
public/private research was to examine the drivers behind different research agendas, rather than to look at the integrity of research or the peer review process. The AEBC should examine what was the proper allocation of responsibilities between publicly- and privately-funded research.
74. While some Members questioned the value that the AEBC could add to the public/private research theme and whether it could be delineated in way to clearly fall within the Commission’s remit, others felt that it would address a crucial question in the biotechnology field, where there was little research being done in some very important areas. For instance, it was suggested that privately-funded research tended to concentrate on the big commodity crops and neglect others, and that perhaps public research funding should address areas of market failure by being directed towards these other, smaller crops.
75. It was noted that the public/private research agendas proposal was embedded in the wider topic of
biotechnology and sustainability, as were some of the other proposed workstreams. It was suggested that biotechnology and sustainability could be chosen as an overall theme for the future work of the AEBC, acting as an umbrella under which specific questions or case studies, such as public/private research agendas, could be identified and developed. Biotechnology would be interpreted widely, for instance embracing marker-assisted selection and aspects of soil science.
76. The AEBC could add value to this theme by looking at all facets of sustainability – taking into account environmental, economic, social and ethical issues, and wider public concerns. While the concept of sustainability was a well-worn one, it was useful in allowing a consideration of ‘trade-offs’ between its different elements in the real world. And, although pending decisions on Government policy on GM crops meant that there was uncertainty in that specific area, the broader future direction of agriculture had been quite clearly set out, with the main drivers such as CAP reform agreed, as described in John Gilliland’s earlier presentation.
77. Another area that was identified as a possible a case study under the biotechnology and sustainability umbrella was non-food crops, which could encompass the
pharma crops proposal, as well as energy crops/biofuels and the use of plants to produce other commodities such as plastics and essential oils.
78. The question of working methods and how to tackle future work was discussed. It was agreed that the AEBC should avoid embarking on another long report without first defining the new work topics carefully and consulting and reconnecting with stakeholders. One possibility would be to explore new themes initially through stakeholder workshops or seminars, perhaps led by small groups of Commission Members. This would help to refine and elaborate ideas, allowing short reports to be produced that would point the way towards further investigation if appropriate – the ‘briefing note’ concept.
79. As well as looking to the future, several Members commented that the AEBC should not lose sight of the work it had already done. For example:
· after Crops on Trial, the AEBC might be well-placed to respond to the Farm Scale Evaluation results, adding value to the ACRE advice;
· a symposium could be held to examine various public engagement exercises on GM in the UK and abroad, looking at their relative strengths and weaknesses;
· Animals and Biotechnology could be revisited in the light of the forthcoming Farm Animal Welfare Council report.
80. It was agreed that the AEBC Away Day on 8 January would be used to elaborate ideas on future work and working methods, with a view to agreeing a format for a productive and stimulating Commission meeting on 25-26 February 2004. To promote discussion at the Away Day, each Member would be asked to write one side of A4 giving their views on future work, based on the note of the discussion at the Belfast meeting and the scoping note (AEBC/03/12).
Action: all Members
81. The secretariat would ask for Members’ views by 5 January. These would be consolidated into a paper for discussion at the Away Day. It was agreed that there should be no external participation or facilitation on the Away Day itself, but short written contributions might be sought from some stakeholders. The secretariat would seek advice on how to structure the day.
Action: secretariat
Any Other Business
82. The draft AEBC Annual Report for 2002-3 was being finalised. The text would be circulated to members for clearance before being published.
Action: secretariat
83. The next full Commission meeting would be 26 February 2004 in London.
The meeting closed at 15:50
AEBC secretariat
December 2003
