 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
LIABILITY GROUP NOTE OF 19th MEETING, AT 3.30pm 21 MARCH 2003 1 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON SW1 Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission. UNCONFIRMED Present Phil Dale John Gilliland Malcolm Grant Derek Langslow Sue Mayer Justine Thornton (Convenor) Roger Turner Richard Abel (Secretariat) Anne Packer (Secretariat) Matt Hughes (Secretariat) Apologies for Absence 1. Apologies had been received from Matthew Freeman. Minutes of the Previous Meeting 2. Minutes of the meeting on 26 February had been circulated by the secretariat. Any comments would be sent to Matt Hughes by 27 March. Update on co-existence work 3. As noted at the 27 February Commission meeting, the liability report linked closely with the work being carried out by the consumer choice and coexistence sub-group. There would be a shared underlying approach and issues from one could impact on the other. Group members acknowledged that the options being considered were heavily dependent on the viability of protocols for possible coexistence. To that end members invited Roger Turner and Richard Abel to outline developments on the emerging thinking of the consumer choice and coexistence sub-group. 4. Richard Abel reported that Elizabeth Hopkins had been appointed to draft the coexistence report. Some members suggested that the liability and coexistence reports should be combined into a single report. After discussion it was agreed that this would not be workable at this late stage and that the two reports also had potentially different specialist readerships. Instead a combined executive summary would be produced. Action: secretariat 5. The consumer choice and coexistence group were considering options for use of protocols to achieve coexistence on a crop-by-crop basis, with a review mechanism built into any protocol agreements. At this stage the coexistence group were undecided as to whether protocols should be voluntary or statutory. If a statutory protocol were put in place it was envisaged that it would be separate from the existing statutory provisions for seed production, although that framework could be used to enforce compliance with the protocol. The coexistence report would include a table which would indicate the impact on farming practice of an adventitious presence (AP) of 0.1%, 0.5%, and 0.9% on each crop. The political reality was that the organic threshold would probably be 0.1% in Europe, which was essentially the level of detectability. 6. Separation distances would be the first factor for testing the practicability of coexistence at different thresholds. Some members considered that it would be unreasonable that the farmer wanting to plant GM crops to bear all the costs incurred through the designation of separation distances, - and considered there should be ‘symmetry’. Problems such as timing and the sexual compatibility of the species would be discussed at the seminar for stakeholders whom the coexistence group were holding on 28 April. Economic Liability 7. An outstanding issue from the discussions at the main AEBC meeting was where a farmer suffered loss through AP without there being any evidence of a protocol having been breached. It was suggested an independent tribunal could be established to determine liability for such cases. An example given was the spillage of GM seed following a tractor accident. Some members said in that in these particular cases insurance might provide the answer and the possibility of a compulsory insurance system was raised, or the Government underwriting a scheme for a transitional period. Members discussed the potentially important role for an insurance market alongside protocols for coexistence, which could both provide cover for GM farmers and hence potential means of redress for non-GM farmers, within a framework where insurers would be able to assess their potential exposure. 8. Some members suggested an industry fund, which could deliver compensation for both economic and environmental impacts. It was noted that this might lead to the argument that the need for such a scheme was evidence that GM crops were different and possessed traits, which risked damage to the environment and economic harm. The possibility of a ‘cap’ on liability acting as an incentive for an insurance market to develop was discussed and some members said that in reality the magnitude of risk and limited size of the likely sums of money involved would not warrant a cap on liability. For example, the economic costs involved would be compensation to cover the loss of a single crop or a more drastic scenario, the loss of organic status. The secretariat was asked the order of the magnitude of sums involved: the difference between prices for organic crops and similar non-organic crops. Action: secretariat Environmental liability 9. Members discussed the reasoning behind the group’s emerging – though not yet firm – conclusion not to recommend the introduction of an environmental remediation regime for GM crops alone. This needed to be explained more fully in the text of the report. Reasons included the similarity of issues raised by a wide range of agricultural and other practices, and the difficulties in devising a suitable regime, given the length of time it has taken to develop the draft European Directive on environmental liability and given that there is not yet an agreed set of indicators to use as a baseline in assessing biodiversity. 10. Some members said they took some comfort from the stringent legislative safeguards in place which deal with environmental issues and have some faith in the regulatory system. It was also noted the regulatory authorities had powers to prevent environmental damage once it started to emerge or if there appeared to be a high risk of damage occurring. Nonetheless, members agreed the report needed to be clear as to why the group could not advocate a specific environmental liability regime for GMOs as well as making some reference to the evidence that the public have concerns about the potential for GM crops to cause currently unforeseeable environmental harm. Some of the members said the current draft of the report did not justify the reasons why this was the case and that the report should be clear that not all Commission members shared the same views about the significance or difference or otherwise of GM crops. 11. Some members said that the development of mechanisms to address the impact of agriculture on the environment was best done at EU level and this was already happening with the recent European Commission proposals for the Mid Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The reforms aim to remove environmentally negative incentives from current agricultural policy, to reduce the link between farm payments and food production (‘decoupling’). The reforms included linking subsidy payments to (amongst other things) environmental and food safety standards as well as the requirement to keep all farmland in good condition (‘cross compliance’). This would ultimately lead to a reduction in direct payments (‘degression’) for larger farms to generate additional money for rural development. John Gilliland outlined the proposals adopted by the EC in January and said that all farmers receiving direct payments would need to respect the statutory management requirements referred to in Annex III (paper attached as Annex A) of the proposed Regulation. These include provisions under the Habitats Directive and the Nitrates Directive. Some members considered this would be a valuable incentive for farmers to achieve good environmental standards and would also reduce the need for any separate regime to cover liability for environmental damage. Draft report 12. Members discussed a number of aspects of the draft report, and the secretariat would take these detailed points on board in extending and revising the draft. Action: secretariat Stakeholders Seminar 13. It was agreed that papers would be sent to those attending the stakeholder meeting a week in advance: on 1 April. It could be useful either to circulate the full draft report, amended to reflect the discussions from the sub-group meeting and the full AEBC meeting in February, or to send a short paper which would set the context (from the introduction to the report), summarise emerging conclusions and include. The secretariat would revise the draft report and send out papers to attendees and group members. Action: secretariat 14. Members suggested that a few additional stakeholders should be invited to the seminar. Action: secretariat Next meeting 15. The stakeholders’ seminar would be held on 8 April. Members agreed that a further sub-group meeting after the seminar was needed and scheduled for Monday 28 April. Any other business 16. There was none. AEBC secretariat March 2003 Annex A Extract from EC proposals for a Council Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy 2003/0006(CNS). TITLE II GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1 Cross compliance Article 3 Main requirements 1. A farmer receiving direct payments shall respect the statutory management requirements referred to in Annex III and the good agricultural conditions established under Article 5. 2. The competent national authority shall provide the farmer with the list of statutory management requirements and good agricultural conditions to be respected. Article 4 Statutory management requirements 1. The statutory management requirements referred to in Annex III shall be established by Community legislation in the following areas: – public, animal and plant health, – occupational safety, – environment, – animal welfare. 2. The acts referred to in Annex III shall apply within the framework of this Regulation in the version as amended from time to time. Article 5 Good agricultural conditions Member States shall define good agricultural conditions taking into account the framework set up in Annex IV. Member States shall ensure that land which was under permanent pasture on 31 December 2002 is maintained under permanent pasture. ANNEX III Statutory management requirements referred to in Articles 3 and 4 Public, animal and plant health (a) Public health 1. Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs Article 9k 2. Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market Article 3 3. Council Directive 92/46/EEC laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products Articles 3, 4 and 5 4. Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food Article 2 5. Council Directive 94/371/EC laying down specific public health conditions for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs Article 2 6. Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector Article 2 7. Council Directive 96/22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostaic action and of beta-agonists Articles 3,4, 5 and 7 8. Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products Articles 9 and 10 9. Council Directive 96/25/EC of 29 April 1996 on the circulation of feed materials, amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC Article 3 10. Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on undesirable substances in animal feed Articles 3 and 5 11. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law Articles 14,15, 18, 19 and 20 12. Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption Articles 9 and 22 (b) animal health 13. Council Directive 82/894 /EEC of 21 December 1982 on the notification of animal diseases within the Community 14. Council Directive 85/511/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease Article 3 15. Council Directive 92/119/EEC introducing general Community measures for the Control of certain animal diseases and specific measures relating to swine vesicular disease Article 3 16. Council Directive 2000/75/EC laying down specific provisions for the control and eradication of bluetongue Article 3 17. Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies Articles 7, 11, 12, 13 and 15 (c) identification and registration of animals 18. Council Directive 92/102/EEC on identification and registration of animals Articles 3, 4 and 5 19. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 of laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 as regards eartags, holding registers and passports in the framework of the system for the identification and registration of bovine animals Articles 2, 6 and 8 20. Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products Article 4 and 7 (d) plant health 21. Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community Article 10 Occupational safety 22. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1 ) Article 6 Article 3 23. Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (sixth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 196, 26.7.1990, p. 1) Articles 4 to 12 24. Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work (OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12) 25. Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 262 17.10.2000, p. 21) Articles 3, 6, 8 and 9 Environment 26. Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39) Articles 8, 9 and 14 27. Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ L 129, 18.5.76, p. 23) Article 3 28. Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1) Articles 3, 4, 5 and 9 29. Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43) Articles 4 and 5 30. Directive 86/278/EEC on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6) Article 3 31. Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1) Articles 4 and 5 32. Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7) Articles 6, 12 and 16 Animal welfare 33. Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport Article 5 34. Council Directive 91/629/ laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves Article 3 Article 4 35. Council Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing Article 7 36. Council Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs Article 3 37. Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes Article 4 38. Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens Article 7 ANNEX IV Good agricultural conditions referred to in Article 5 1. Issue Soil erosion Requirement Protect soil through appropriate measures Standards – Minimum winter soil cover at farm level and for sloping areas and all year round minimum soil cover – Tillage practices (angle of inclination and length of slopes, nearness to watercourses, direction and timing of ploughing etc.) – Cropping restrictions in relation to land use where applicable – Management techniques related to specific crops (vines, olive trees,maize etc.) – Retain terraces – Soil tare levels for specific crop (potatoes, sugar beet, etc.) 2. Issue Soil organic matter Requirement Maintain soil organic matter levels through appropriate crop rotation practices and tillage techniques Standards – Principles and standards for crop rotations including where appropriate for the incorporation of crop residues – Arable stubble management in particular regarding burning – Rules where renewal of permanent pasture is undertaken 3. Issue Soil structure Requirement Maintain soil structure through appropriate machinery use and stocking rates Standards – Appropriate machinery use (tyre pressure, use of tramlines, type and timing of agricultural operations etc.) – Maximum for stocking rate levels to avoid damage to soil structure 4. Issue Soil salinisation Requirement Follow irrigation and soil nutrient management practices which avoid a build up of salts in soils Standards – Ensure balance of irrigation, drainage and water table replenishment – In coastal areas, irrigation which avoids the intrusion of sea water into groundwater 5. Issue Minimum level of maintenance Requirement Ensure a minimum level of maintenance and avoid the deterioration of habitats Standards – Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes – Protect permanent pasture through principles and standards restricting use changes – Retention of field boundaries and landscape features – Avoiding the encroachment of shrubs on agricultural land |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
