VZCZCXRO4301
RR RUEHAST
DE RUEHSF #1173/01 2290900
ZNR UUUUU ZZH ZDK PER GENVA SVC 09110
R 170900Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY SOFIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2405
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SOFIA 001173 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TBIO KSTH ECON EAGR ETRD PREL BU
SUBJECT: BULGARIA: TOUGH GMO LAW HAMSTRINGS BIOTECH INDUSTRY 
 
SOFIA 00001173  001.4 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Bulgaria currently has some of the most 
restrictive legislation on biotechnology in Europe, 
surpassing even the European Union's stringent standards. In 
addition to prohibiting the commercialization and release 
into the environment of modified products banned by EU 
member countries, Bulgaria's law bans almost all forms of 
biotech production and field experiments, and prohibits 
laboratory research on a number of strategic Bulgarian 
crops.  Although parliament passed the law in March 2005, 
Bulgarian authorities have failed to establish the Bio- 
Safety Commission required to implement the law.  As a 
result, all potential investment and research projects 
involving agricultural biotechnology in Bulgaria are 
currently on hold and the country is experiencing a vacuum 
in the biotechnology industry.  Pro-biotech supporters hope 
to pressure parliament to revise the law and to establish 
the Commission, but expect little progress until after 
Bulgaria accedes to the EU.  Needless to say, the law has a 
harmful effect on both U.S. exporters of biotech products, 
and potential American biotech investors here.  END SUMMARY 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
BULGARIA TAKES HARDLINE STANCE TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL 
BIOTECHNOLOGY 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) In March 2005 the Bulgarian parliament passed one 
of Europe's most restrictive laws on biotechnology.  The law 
prohibits the production, commercialization, field testing 
or research of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) for the 
following three crops--tobacco, grapevines, and damask 
rose--considered by authorities to be "strategic" crops in 
which Bulgaria has a unique comparative advantage. 
According to Atanas Atanassov, Director of the Agro-Bio 
Institute (ABI), one of the leading organizations in biotech 
research, Bulgaria is the only country in the world to 
impose a ban on biotech research.  Additionally, the law 
bans production, commercialization and field testing of many 
other transgenic crops, such as wheat, cotton, vegetables 
and perennial fruit.  Fines for violating these bans are 
severe with penalties amounting to 1 million leva (USD 
657,000) for breaching the ban on the cultivation of GM 
plants or fruits.  This sanction applies also to companies 
that violate the ban by releasing antibiotic-resistant 
plants or seeds into the environment.  Additionally, the law 
places tight restrictions on the cultivation of GMOs that 
receive approval from the Bio-Safety Commission by requiring 
a buffer zone of 30 kilometers around transgenic crop 
plantings.  This requirement is particularly onerous given 
the country's small size and the fact that only 
approximately 30 percent of land in Bulgaria is arable. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The law essentially prohibits almost any activity 
related to products of agricultural biotechnology.  However, 
it does allow an opening for planting of corn, soy, and rice 
on the condition that an application and detailed risk 
assessment is submitted and approved by the Bio-Safety 
Commission, the principle executive agent for biotech 
issues.  The problem, however, is that the Ministry of 
Environment has not formed the Commission since the law was 
approved more than a year ago.  As a consequence, no GMO- 
related investments are allowed and the work of Bulgaria's 
biotech industry is currently "frozen," according to Atanas 
Atanassov.  Atanassov told us that the law and the lack of 
the Commission have had a devastating effect on his 
institution and the biotech industry in general.  Most of 
ABI's biotech projects are currently on hold due to the law, 
and the ban on research has set his Institute back 50 years. 
Bulgaria "would have in been the forefront" of GM research 
if it were not for the law, said Atanassov. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Until recently, Bulgaria was doing advanced 
research on BT corn and BT potatoes with support from U.S. 
firms like Monsanto and Pioneer, and was considered to be 
among the best in the field in Eastern Europe.  The law, 
however, has contributed to a rapid decline in GM production 
in Bulgaria.  One testament of this is the ever-dwindling 
production of GM corn in the country.  In 2001, there were 
13,000 hectares (or 32,110 acres) of GM corn cultivated.  In 
2002, this amount shrank to 6,200 hectares (or 15,314 acres) 
before falling to 2,000 hectares (or 4,940 acres) in 2003. 
In 2004, no GM corn was cultivated.  The law has forced ABI 
to suspend an ongoing research project on GM cotton that it 
was doing with the U.S. company Delta. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
DIVIDE IN SCIENCE COMMUNITY HELPS EXPLAIN TOUGH GMO LAW 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The original draft law, first proposed to 
parliament in late 2004, was much more biotech-friendly and 
scientifically informed.  However, prior to final approval 
 
SOFIA 00001173  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
of the law, parliamentary deputies were swayed by GMO-wary 
scientists, along with various green NGOs, to pass a much 
more restrictive law.  According to Atanassov, a major 
factor for this reversal was the lack of unity among the 
scientific community regarding agricultural biotechnology, 
and the fact that the President of the Bulgarian Academy of 
Science (BAS), Ivan Juchnovski, was a leading opponent of 
the GMO-friendly law.  According to Atanassov, Juchnovski 
sent various "experts", who knew little about the science of 
GMOs, to the Environmental and Agriculture Parliamentary 
Committees to critique the draft law.  These experts 
propagated the view that "the harmful effects of GMOs on 
human health and the environment is a fact."  BAS insisted 
on a ban on the cultivation of modified crops since "no 
convincing evidence as to the safety of GMOs" exists. 
Taking BAS's concerns to heart, the current law's stated 
priority is "to protect human health and the environment" 
regardless of the existing economic interests or the 
unavailability of sufficient scientific data." 
 
¶6. (SBU) According to an ABI representative, the anti-GMO 
lobby in Bulgaria is bolstered by an overall lack of 
knowledge regarding biotechnology in the government and 
society.  Efforts to reverse this trend have been made more 
difficult by the fact that the perception of GMOs has become 
more negative in recent years, partly due to unfavorable 
coverage by the press, according to ABI.  Moreover, many 
people believe Bulgaria has more to gain economically from 
developing a niche in the organic sector.  They argue that 
this sector should be the country's first priority because 
the EU market demand for organic products will outstrip the 
demand for genetically modified products, the common wisdom 
being that EU member states are firmly anti-GMO. However, 
Atanassov told us that four articles of the law are contrary 
to EU legislation and may have to be amended once Bulgaria 
accedes to the EU. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
AREAS OF PROMISE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY IN BULGARIA 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶7. (SBU) There are a number of crops in Bulgaria that could 
greatly benefit from the use of biotechnology.  One is 
cotton, of which Bulgaria is a net importer.  The local 
cotton industry is not likely to survive without the use of 
GMOs because the industry is too labor-intensive and 
expensive for producers to turn a profit.  The same applies 
to rapeseed, of which the current varieties are too low- 
yielding and sensitive to the low winter temperatures in 
Bulgaria.  Rapeseed is particularly attractive given its 
potential as a source of bio-diesel fuel.  These two crops' 
biggest advantage lies in the fact that they are not food 
products, which could make them more acceptable and 
attractive as potential GM products.  Likewise, erosion- 
resistant trees and bushes could help to prevent flooding, 
which has caused millions of dollars of damage this past 
year. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The best chance of changing Bulgaria's restrictive 
GMO law, according to Atanassov, would be to force the 
Environment Minister, Djevdet Chakurov, to finally form the 
Bio-Safety Commission.   At that point the Commission, which 
is expected to be made up of scientists, could begin a more 
informed debate on the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs. 
Atanassov, however, is skeptical that anything will happen 
on this front before Bulgaria's EU accession (expected in 
January 2007).  He and his supporters are currently 
developing a strategy to form a political-science lobby 
group to pressure parliament to amend the law.  With the 
support of Deputy Minister of Agriculture Svetla 
Batchvarova, they have sent a letter to the EU Commission 
asking if the law is consistent with EU law.  Atanassov 
believes Bulgaria could face penalties if the law is shown 
to be out-of-step with EU policy, which might just be the 
stick GMO supporters here are looking for to convince the 
government to revise the law.  We will continue to work with 
local biotech supporters to open the market and research 
opportunities for genetically modified products.  End 
Comment 
 
KARAGIANNIS