Sub Groups

NOTE OF MEETING

These minutes represent the views of the sub-group, not the full AEBC

Present :

Dave Carmichael
Phil Dale
Robin Grove-White
Rosie Hails
Jeff Maxwell
Sue Mayer
Justine Thornton (convenor)

Linda Smith DETR (11am – 12.30pm)

Judith Harris (secretariat)

1. The group’s main task at this meeting was to plan for the evidence taking for the case study on FSE’s which was to take place at the next full Commission meeting on 5/6 February.  It considered two papers: one from Rosie Hails and Phil Dale on the science of the FSE’s and one from Linda Smith giving further background on their history.  A portfolio of press cuttings supplied by Sue Mayer was circulated and preliminary consideration given to the format and content of the draft report that the group was due to present to the Commission in April.

2. Rosie Hails explained that the paper on the science was intended to  be completed by various annexes. FSE’s were at the cutting edge of science and, when complete, should significantly increase the understanding of the way in which agro-ecosystems operated.  There were, however, various questions which should be explored such as the interpretation of terms such as ‘biodiversity’ both in a scientific context and in the understanding of the general public.  Expectations as to what might be known at the close of the trials appeared to differ.  This raised both scientific issues and questions as to the communication of the purpose of the trials.  It was agreed that the paper should be more explicit about the scientific limits of the trials, and about the associated scientific uncertainties.

3. A number of scientific issues might be pursued:

• the null hypothesis referred to biodiversity in general terms, masking the fact that it is a very broad term, and only a subset of all biodiversity indicators can be monitored;
• what would happen in the case of ‘mixed’ results (eg increase in some species and decrease in others);
• to what extent was the experimental design generic.  For example, could these experiments provide information on the design of future experiments assessing the biodiversity impacts of other crops (GM and non-GM).

4. Non-scientific issues included the place FSEs might have in any future regulatory system and the extent to which the need to communicate in a variety of circumstances might lead to misunderstandings as to the import of any statement (eg the conflation of messages into soundbites might cause essential information to be lost). 

5. The group also felt it needed a better understanding of the reason why a study of geneflow had been added to the project and of the separation distances used.  The question as to when a non-gm crop might be said to have become ‘contaminated’ was important to this last issue.  Organic standards announced after the commencement of the trials did not allow for any tolerance level for gm.

6. Linda Smith (DETR) joined the group for part of the meeting to discuss her paper giving further information on the FSEs.  This was accompanied by a briefing ‘pack’ which included copies of Ministerial statements, press reports and notes of meetings. 

7. In answer to questions from the group, Linda explained that the three herbicide tolerant gm crops that were under evaluation had in 1998 already been given (or were about to receive) EU marketing approval.  This meant that they had been assessed for safety including the environmental impact of the plants themselves.  Concerns remained, however, about the potential impact of the associated herbicide management regime on biodiversity (which was not one of the criteria specified under EU law).  A voluntary moratorium had therefore been agreed with the industry to allow the current evaluations to take place.  These were Government funded but, in the case of herbicide tolerant crops coming through the system in future, it would be for the applicant companies to provide evidence on the effect of the use of the herbicide in question on biodiversity.

8. Linda further explained that a risk assessment of geneflow was already required under the procedures laid down in EU Directive 90/220.  Monitoring of geneflow had been included in the current evaluations to verify the assumptions made.  She confirmed that the concepts such as acceptability or socio-economic risk did not form part of the assessment required under EU law.  The group and Linda then went on to discuss the Government’s role in providing the public and other groups such as NGOs with information on the trials.  Linda’s offer to revise her paper to take account of the group’s discussions with her was accepted.  Action Linda Smith

9. Linda then left the meeting and the group moved on to discuss the evidence taking session on 6 February.  It agreed that this should be kept informal and with the proposal from Malcolm Grant (Chair of the Commission) that members of the group should lead the questioning.  Other members of the Commission could then follow up. The session should be taped so that a verbatim record was available.

10. After discussion the group agreed that, subject to availability, the following should be invited to give evidence:

• Linda Smith DETR and Alan Gray (Chair of ACRE) on the reasons for the FSEs;
• Chris Pollock (Chair of the SSC) and Les Firbank (Project Co-ordinator) on the science;
• representatives from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth on the NGOs role and views;
• representatives from National Farmers Union and the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops on the industry’s role and views.

Members agreed to share the drafting of the line of questioning and to circulate to others in the group for comment before Justine Thornton finalised.  Action secretariat (to organise invitations), members (to draft and circulate questions)

11. In addition to taking evidence the group also wanted to meet with local groups in some of the areas where trials were taking place.  Various groups it might try to meet after the main Commission meeting in Norwich were local councillors and farmers, women’s groups and schools (sixth formers and teachers).  The secretariat was asked to follow this up. The group also agreed to accept Highland Council’s offer to host a meeting with local groups and that 19 February would be its preferred date. The Scottish Executive (Derek Bearhop) should be asked if it wished to be represented at this meeting.  Action secretariat to follow up with Norwich groups and HC officials.  Justine Thornton to follow up format of HC meeting.

12. The group considered a revised draft of the letter to Michael Meacher and agreed that this should now be passed to Malcolm Grant who would write on behalf of the Commission.  It also asked the secretariat to follow up the commissioning of a report on media coverage of the FSEs as a matter of urgency. Consideration of draft consultation letter to Commission stakeholders was put on hold until after the February evidence taking session. Action secretariat to forward draft letter to Malcolm Grant and to commission report on media coverage

13. Future meetings

Monday 5 February 1pm – 3pm at the John Innes Centre; final preparation for evidence taking

Tuesday 6 and Wednesday 7 February – meetings with local groups

Monday 19 February Highland Council

Monday 26 February 10am –4pm meeting in London

AEBC secretariat
February 2001