Sub Groups

NOTE OF A MEETING ON 9 MAY 2001
ALBANY HOUSE, PETTY FRANCE, LONDON SW1

Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission

Present

Ed Dart
John Gilliland
Julie Hill (Convenor)
ChiChi Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow
Roger Turner

Anne Packer (Secretary)

Apologies for absence
1. None: everyone was present.

Matters arising from the meeting on 16 March.
2. Julie Hill had discussed substantial equivalence briefly with Sir John Krebs at the FSA and would write to explore this further. Action: Secretariat/Julie Hill.

3. Roger Turner would draft a note on Intellectual Property Rights. John Gilliland circulated a note; he hoped to be able to pursue his earlier action points. Ed Dart had drafted a note on apomixis and would prepare one on mutation breeding. Julie Hill would circulate the Environment Agency study as soon as it was available. It was agreed that work on international comparisons would be taken forward once the group had decided which specific questions members and embassies might best explore.

4. Anne Packer said the Department for International Development had confirmed that they specifically commissioned the Jules Pretty/ Rachel Hine study, 'Feeding the World with Sustainable Agriculture'.

5. Matters arising from the meeting with Church of Scotland Society, Religion and Technology project members on 24 April. Members had found this and the subsequent information from its members very useful and stimulating; the secretariat would draft a meeting note. Action: Secretariat.

6. Julie Hill had prepared a possible outline draft report as a basis for discussion. In discussion, main points emerging were:

• There was no perceived need for a drafter external to the group.
• The aim was a short report, with papers referenced, and matrix annexed. It would invite the full Commission to identify particular areas for further more detailed study. There would be a preliminary draft for AEBC discussion at the September meeting.
• The report would identify issues (in narrative paragraphs); its aim was to be easily readable, and to inform the debate.
• It would provide a series of introductions, raising generic issues. For example the paragraph on herbicide resistance could note that this is a trait likely to increase (either by GM or not), look at possible developments in short and longer term time horizons, and consider what this would imply for the future eg monitoring, and note that the issues were being considered by others, including AEBC, in more detail.
• On the 'receiving environment', there would be a snapshot of the global, European and UK position in agriculture and, within that, in biotechnology. The report would note that the UK had to make choices, and that scenarios could outline options, both for choices and consequences.
• A workshop might be useful in 2002, rather than 2001, after evaluating the group's first phase of work. Ed Dart would circulate information about a workshop planned by the British Crop Protection Council;

7. At the next meeting, on 11 June, the group would aim arrange informal discussions with some senior government officials, as well as external speakers, to explore their thinking about possible futures. This would be in tune with the discussions in Edinburgh about involvement of officials in AEBC's work. Action: Secretariat.

8. For the meeting in Birmingham in July, members agreed to arrange evidence-taking in public. Members agreed most of the time should be for evidence taking from perhaps three people, based on written information supplied in advance to AEBC, then opening questioning to members of the public. That meeting's primary purpose would be to inform the group in writing its report. Speakers would be sent the scenarios outlined in advance, and would be asked to comment on them from their perspective also in advance in writing eg what they would expect and what they would want, reasons for this, and consequences - pluses and minuses. In discussion the issues would be explored further. Action: Secretariat to explore possible speakers.

9. For the meeting in Belfast in September, two elements were discussed. One aim was to hear about possible biotechnology developments in Ireland and in Northern Ireland. Second, the sub-group would organise a session to involve local schools, using scenarios, interactively, and in small groups (on 18 September in the morning.) John Gilliland and Julie Hill would develop proposals further, with the secretariat, with the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland and education colleagues. Action: John Gilliland, Julie Hill and secretariat to develop plans for the Northern Ireland meeting, including speakers from Ireland and Northern Ireland, and involvement of schools.

10. Following the meeting, Julie Hill would discuss the group's plans and outline timetable with the AEBC Chair, and would keep all Commission members in touch. Action: Julie Hill.

11. Additional dates for sub-group meetings were set provisionally for Monday 3 September and Wednesday 31 October.

AEBC Secretariat
May 2001