|
ENVIRONMENTAL
LIABILITY DEVELOPMENTAL GROUP
pdf
version 
(11Kb)
WEDNESDAY
13 SEPTEMBER 2001 - 10.00AM
QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE CAMPUS
NEWFORGE LANE BELFAST
THESE
MINUTES RECORD THE DEVELOPMENTAL GROUPS' PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS NOT
THE VIEWS OF THE FULL AEBC
Present
Matthew Freeman
John Gilliland
Malcolm Grant
Derek Langslow
Justine Thornton (convenor)
Richard Abel
Anne Packer
Discussion of Justine Thornton’s paper
1. Group members discussed Justine Thornton’s useful paper on the objectives for the group.
2. Some of the points raised in discussion were:
* It would be helpful to start with informal briefing to get a firm grounding on ‘first principles’, before thinking about liability regimes, and this could be achieved by informal, rigorous discussions. These could include discussions about how society ought to pay for damage, both diffuse, long-term damage and more specific damage,
then consideration about insurance and about compensation or liability regimes. (Diffuse effects were also an issue with pesticides for example. Compensation funds tended to be most relevant in a centralised industry rather than one with a network of small companies.)
* Members would want to understand the current liability framework and how current rules apply to GM/ biotechnology, including whether there were aspects not covered by existing regimes.
* One of the issues was the extent to which biotechnology should be treated differently from other technologies – the European White Paper approach was not to distinguish between technologies.
* In order to add value, AEBC’s role might be to point to gaps or additional areas that need consideration.
* The liability of a regulator was also important, as were enforcement mechanisms for effective implementation of legal frameworks.
* A useful approach could be to start from the White Paper and follow it through to check its implications for biotechnology issues - looking at a number of specific issues. The extent to which the group would consider whether intensive farming was adequately covered would need consideration, as in the animals and biotechnology sub-group.
* The report would need to discuss harm, damage and adverse impacts, and also fault and responsibility. Work on harm would need to follow on from ACRE work on this subject.
* It would be important to have discussions with key people in Brussels.
* Further AEBC members would be welcome to join the group, though now that it was established practice to ensure all members had a substantial input to final reports regardless of sub-group membership, the group might well continue at its present size.
* DEFRA were preparing a paper on liability for consideration by the Cabinet Committee on biotechnology. It would be important for the group to be briefed on DEFRA’s work.
Work programme
3. The first stage would be for oral briefings on the current system/position, with a lawyer, industrialist, philosopher and insurer. With biotechnology industry representatives it would be useful to talk through how they work with product liability at present and how this maps onto diffuse impacts, perhaps using contaminated land as one analogy. Action: Malcolm Grant, secretariat to invite speakers
4. The second stage would be to consider the extent to which biotechnology was different from other areas, and if there are differences, whether they matter enough to create different liability regimes.
This would include input from NGOs and from key players in Brussels. The group would take evidence in Brussels, and include time for deliberative discussions within the group. Prior to discussions with the European Commission in Brussels the sub-group would ensure that it was briefed on the present stae of US and European law on liability. This aspect could be covered in the oral legal briefing (paragraph 3 above). The secretariat would seek an NGO view, from a strong agricultural policy base. Action: secretariat.
5. The third stage would be to prepare the outline paper identifying major issues for the future, for the full AEBC meeting in May 2002.
Meeting dates
6. Members agreed future meeting dates. The next meeting would be on 7 December in London, followed by a two-day meeting in Brussels on 17-18 January 2002, and a meeting in London on 28 February.
AEBC Secretariat
September 2001
|
