This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 VIENNA 000546 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
 
NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD TBIO AU
SUBJECT:  EU COMMISSION GMO CO-EXISTENCE SYMPOSIUM IN 
 
 
AUSTRIA STIRS DEBATE 
 
¶1.  Summary:  The EU Commission hosted a Symposium on Co- 
 
Existence of GMO Seeds and Agricultural Production at the 
 
ParkHotel in Vienna, Austria, February 22-23, 2005.  More 
 
than 100 EU biotech experts and policymakers attended the 
 
symposium.  Participants said that most Member States 
 
have established or are in the process of establishing 
 
co-existence legislation.  They concluded that 
 
implementing co-existence measures could be complex and 
 
costly according to the measures taken.  Also, Member 
 
State participants said that the EU Commission needs to 
 
address liability issues and problems concerning 
 
conflicting national co-existence legislations in 
 
neighboring countries.  Participants concluded that most 
 
Member States are expected to have co-existence 
 
legislation in place by the end of the year.  End 
 
Summary. 
 
¶2.  On February 22-23, 2005, the European Commission 
 
hosted a 'Symposium on Co-existence of GMO in Seeds and 
 
Agricultural Production' in Vienna, Austria.  The EU 
 
Commission's Technical Assistance Information Exchange 
 
Unit organized the symposium in cooperation with the 
 
Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and the Austrian Agency 
 
for Health and Food Safety.  The aim of the meeting was 
 
to inform and discuss the legal framework on co- 
 
existence, exchange experiences on the implementation of 
 
the EU recommendations on co-existence, exchange views 
 
concerning transboundary co-existence between Member 
 
States or between Member States and third countries, and 
 
to establish a network of European experts and 
 
policymakers committed to co-existence in agriculture. 
 
¶3.  More than 100 EU biotech experts and policy makers 
 
from the following countries attended the symposium: 
 
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
 
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, 
 
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, 
 
Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden.  Also, representatives 
 
from EU candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, 
 
and Turkey attended.  Quintin Gray, AgCounselor, U.S. 
 
Embassy Vienna, and several seed company representatives 
 
were allowed to attend as observers. 
 
¶4.  Symposium speakers were from the EU Commission and 
 
Member State Governments.  The speakers discussed the EU 
 
framework/guidelines for co-existence, the current co- 
 
existence situation in member states, provided co- 
 
existence case studies from several EU Member States and 
 
developed general conclusions. 
 
Please find below a summary of the topics discussed and 
 
general conclusions: 
 
¶5.  EU Legislation/Guidelines 
 
----------------------------- 
 
Conference participants agreed that the following EU 
 
legislation/guidelines serve as the basis for co- 
 
existence: 
 
- Directive 2001/18/EC on the release of GMOs. 
 
- Regulation 1829/2003 concerning GMO food and feed. 
 
- For seeds and plant varieties, special EC Directives 
 
are applicable. 
 
- Regulation 1830/2003 deals with the traceability and 
 
labeling of GMOs. 
 
- Regulation 2092/91 on organic farming. 
 
- Guidelines of the Commission 2003/556/EC.  No form of 
 
agriculture, be it conventional, organic or using 
 
genetically modified organisms, should be excluded in the 
 
EU, including implementing regulations issued by the EU 
 
Commission. 
 
¶6.  In general, participants agreed that Members States 
 
are required to establish coexistence legislation 
 
consistent with EU regulations.  However, a few 
 
participants pointed out that there is no legal basis in 
 
EU legislation for 'GMO-free zones'.  Participants cited 
 
that GMO-free zones are a local matter decided by 
 
farmers, consumers, and local government officials. 
 
¶7.  Moreover, there was animated discussion concerning 
 
the lack of clear rules on liability.  For example, if 
 
one farmer's GMO crop caused an organic farmer's crop to 
 
test positive for GMO, who should pay?  Similarly, who 
 
would pay if the conventional farmer's crop tested above 
 
the EU 0.9 per cent threshold because of the GM crop 
 
produced on a neighboring farm.  Participants said that 
 
the EU needs to assign liability in these cases. 
 
¶8.  Also, participants debated the lack of legislation 
 
concerning neighboring countries.  Participants noted 
 
that most EU countries border several different 
 
countries.  As a result, participants said that the EU 
 
should establish co-existence guidelines to address this 
 
problem. 
 
¶9.  Co-existence Situation in Member States 
 
------------------------------------------- 
 
Participants made the following points concerning 
 
coexistence in Member States: 
 
- Only a few Members States have co-existence measures or 
 
at least co-existence strategies in place. 
 
- A number of Member States have drafted national 
 
legislation and in a number of cases the Commission has 
 
issued a detailed opinion. 
 
- Most of the Member States are working on appropriate 
 
measures for their countries or regions. 
 
- In all Member States, discussions are ongoing and in 
 
some Member States legal actions are planned for the 
 
coming year. 
 
- In many Members States, stakeholders (i.e. farmers, 
 
consumers etc.) are directly involved in developing co- 
 
existence legislation. 
 
- Some Member States have proposed training courses for 
 
farmers who want to grow GM crops. 
 
- A few Member States have already started to cooperate 
 
with other Member States either to establish GMO-free 
 
regions or exchange experiences. 
 
- Liability is a very important issue and several Member 
 
States are investigating national legislation and some 
 
participants have pointed out concerns for differences in 
 
neighboring countries. 
 
- Several Member States have provisions for funding and 
 
compensation. 
 
- It may be noted that there is already some experience 
 
with the cultivation of GMO crops in the EU (namely 
 
Spain).  Most other countries have GM products under 
 
cultivation for research projects. 
 
- Some Member States have projects for GMO-free regions. 
 
¶10.  Case Studies: 
 
------------------ 
 
Speakers from the following Member States presented the 
 
status of co-existence in their countries: 
 
¶11.  Lithuania:  On June 29, 2004, the Minister of 
 
Agriculture approved a co-existence working group; draft 
 
rules have been approved, co-ordination among other local 
 
institutions and companies on the rules, and notification 
 
has been sent to Member States. 
 
¶12.  Hungary:  The Ministry has established a 
 
professional working party to prepare national 
 
legislation on co-existence.  The committee consists of 
 
the competent Ministries, the National Inst. Quality 
 
control, the Chamber of Agriculture, the Association of 
 
Seed Producers, the Association of the Plant Breeders, 
 
the Biokontroll Hungaria Ltd, and other NGOs from gene- 
 
technological science and the green movements. 
 
¶13.  The Czech Republic:  Presently co-existence rules 
 
cover only GM corn.  Isolation distance between GM corn 
 
and conventional non-GM corn is 100 meters; and between 
 
GM corn and organic corn is 600 meters.  The grower must 
 
notify the Ministry of Agriculture two months before 
 
sowing GM corn and must notify the neighboring farmer two 
 
months before sowing.  Eight GM corn varieties (MON810, 
 
release C) in National Listing process (5 in second year 
 
of testing).  GMO corn crop production should be a 
 
reality in 2005 (about 40 hectares in a limited region). 
 
¶14.  Denmark:  The establishment of co-existence 
 
legislation has taken about two-three years as follows: 
 
In January 2002, the Minister of Agriculture established 
 
three co-existence working groups:  a group of experts; 
 
of stakeholders i.e. farmers, consumers etc.; and a third 
 
group of government officials.  In January 2003, the 
 
groups started reporting their findings.  In February 
 
2004, the proposed law on co-existence was presented to 
 
the Danish Parliament.  In June 2004, the Danish 
 
Parliament with 144 out of 179 votes adopted the Act on 
 
Growing Genetically Modified Crops.  In March 2005, the 
 
co-existence rules should enter into force. 
 
¶15.  The United Kingdom: The government announced the co- 
 
existence policy in March 2004.  GM growers are to apply 
 
measures to minimize GM presence in non-GM crops 
 
consistent with the EU 0.9 per cent threshold.  The 
 
government envisions a code of practices with statutory 
 
backing to be in place before any commercial GM 
 
cultivation.  And finally, the government will propose a 
 
managed introductory period followed by a review to 
 
monitor performance and build confidence. 
 
¶16.  General Symposium Conclusions 
 
- Implementation of coexistence can be complex and costly 
 
according to the measures taken. 
 
- Information and transparency is very important. 
 
- With regard to conventional/organic farming, some 
 
participants mentioned that the EU needs to establish a 
 
EU-wide legally binding framework for liability while 
 
others do not see the necessity. 
 
- In seed production, the EU needs to establish a EU-wide 
 
GMO threshold. 
 
- Participants said that with respect to neighboring 
 
countries, Member States and the EU should do the 
 
following:  1) strengthen cooperation and exchange 
 
information and experiences; and 2) the EU needs to 
 
develop clear rules to avoid conflicts due to different 
 
country strategies.  No legally binding provisions exist. 
 
- As for GMO detection, participants felt that the EU has 
 
to establish methods for sampling and detection.  They 
 
noted that PCR quantification analysis is costly. 
 
- Participants said that the EU should establish a task 
 
force on co-existence and should continue scientific 
 
research on the impact of GM crops on organic and 
 
conventional farming. 
 
¶17.  The discussions during the symposium were lively and 
 
reflected a wide range of diverse views on co-existence. 
 
Participants gave the impression that more EU 
 
coordination is needed in this area especially concerning 
 
farmer-to-farmer liability issues and co-existence 
 
legislation between neighboring countries. 
 
BROWN