 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
LIABILITY SUB-GROUP NOTE OF SEVENTEENTH MEETING 20 JANUARY 2003 1 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON SW1 Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission Present Phil Dale Matthew Freeman John Gilliland Derek Langslow Sue Mayer Roger Turner Anne Packer (Secretariat) Matt Hughes (Secretariat) Apologies 1. Justine Thornton and Malcolm Grant were unable to attend and sent their apologies. Minutes of the previous meeting on 15 November 2. Members had previously agreed these in circulation and they were confirmed. Follow up to the 12 December full AEBC discussions on liability 3. Members noted that from an economic liability perspective, co-existence was identified as a key issue in the full Commission meeting. Members agreed that discussion of co-existence in the draft liability report should explain that this was an issue regardless of UK commercial GM crop growing in the future, and should clarify that discussing a co-existence regime did not imply an AEBC assumption of commercial growing. The group also noted that the full AEBC meeting concluded that liability issues go wider than GM crops, to include GM animals, fish and insects, and that this would need to be covered in the liability report. 4. Members noted the discussion of the papers “Genetic Modification – is it different?” and “A comparison of GM and non- GM plant breeding methods” at the full AEBC meeting. Members agreed the importance of this particular issue for the full Commission to discuss in depth and take a view. To complement the papers discussed in December, Jeff Maxwell would draft a paper for the May AEBC meeting, to look at how people approach a transforming technology. Phil Dale might also extend his note. Since the question of ‘difference’ or otherwise was not specific to liability issues, the group aimed to come to conclusions and recommendations that would hold good regardless of individual perspectives. This would be drawn out in the draft report. Action: secretariat Consideration of draft liability working paper 5. The draft working paper was reviewed and members raised the following general points. (Further detailed drafting comments will be taken into account by the secretariat in the revised paper.)
Consideration of draft paper on the current legal/liability framework 6. Members agreed the paper provided a useful and informative oversight of the current legal framework, sections of which should be incorporated into the liability document, with the full paper in an annex. Members noted the reference to possible defences in the proposed EU Directive on Liability for Environmental Damage and asked for clarification on the current position on the defence of compliance with statutory consent. Members then discussed the scenario of the conditions of a consent being adhered to, but damage still occurring. The secretariat agreed to liase with Richard Burnett-Hall to tie up loose ends and outline how the paper will feed into the liability report. Action: secretariat Emerging conclusions and recommendations 7. Members agreed that the current legal framework does not address all the liability issues surrounding environmental or economic impacts of growing GM crops, and that potential economic liability as a result of the possible commercialisation of GM crops is causing concern amongst sectors of the farming industry. 8. Members agreed that the objectives of the report will be to recommend how the legal framework covering the release of GMOs has a role in firstly preventing environmental/economic harm occurring and secondly making sure that any environmental damage as a result of a release is remediated, as well as ensuring there is provision for compensation. There was consensus that most of the impacts from growing GM crops raise issues that are not unique to GM crops, but arise in other farming practices. However, the potential economic impacts of growing GM crops do most to set GM crops apart from other farming practices. 9. The report should set out to Government what would be the advantages and disadvantages of a liability regime, highlighting the priorities of any regime and the stages over which it should be implemented – particularly the implications of choices about timing in relation to any decision over commercialisation. Sue Mayer would write a short note for circulation to group members ahead of the February full AEBC meeting on this last point. Action: Sue Mayer Possible stakeholder seminar 10. Members agreed that it would be useful to hold a meeting with stakeholders to inform the development of the report, and the date of Friday 21 March was agreed. Action: secretariat to arrange Future meetings 11. The next meeting of the group would be on 26 February at 3pm in London. AEBC secretariat January 2003 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
