VZCZCXRO2401
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHSL #0009/01 0081549
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081549Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2218
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRATISLAVA 000009 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR G/OES/STAS AND EEB/TPP/MTAA/ABT FOR MARCELLA 
SZYMANSKI AND JACK BOBO 
WARSAW FOR FAS AND ECON SECTIONS 
PRAGUE FOR FAS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ECON ETRD TBIO LO
SUBJECT: BT CORN ACREAGE INCREASES DESPITE ADMINISTRATIVE 
AND COMMERCIAL OBSTACLES 
 
REF: 08 STATE 129940 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: Since Slovakia introduced a "co-existence law" 
that came into force in February 2007, farmers have steadily 
increased the planting of genetically modified (GM) corn, 
from 30 hectares in 2006 to 949 hectares in 2007 and 1948 
hectares in 2008.  While the growth in total acreage has been 
promising, the number of farmers doing the planting has 
actually shrunk, from 16 farmers in 2007 to 12 farmers in 
¶2008.  Conversations with the farmers reveal a comfort with 
the science and an enthusiastic response to the effectiveness 
of the product.  The drop-off in the number of users appears 
to be centered on market conditions and the commercial 
unattractiveness of GM corn along with the administrative 
hurdles a farmer must clear before planting the crop. 
GM-friendly forces in the Slovak regulatory and scientific 
community have attempted to address the latter concern by 
continuing to codify an openness to GM products in the Slovak 
legal structure.  END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------- 
ADMINISTRATIVE OBSTACLES 
------------------------- 
 
¶2.  The introduction of GM corn in Slovakia, particularly the 
Monsanto Bt810 variety, began with the difficult legislative 
struggle to introduce a co-existence law in early 2006.  The 
coalition then ruling under PM Mikulas Dzurinda included one 
party actively opposed to GMOs (KDH, Christian-Democratic 
Movement) and another influenced by Hungary's strong 
opposition to GMOs (SMK, Party of the Hungarian Coalition). 
While both groups continue to maintain some hostility to 
GMOs, most observers concede there is not a strong, organized 
opposition to GMOs in Slovakia today. 
 
¶3.  The lack of a well organized opposition does not imply 
that there are no obstacles to GM products in Slovakia. 
Instead, as demonstrated by the drop-off in the number of 
farmers using GM corn, the opposition to GMOs, though 
sporadic and often personal, has found its way to key 
institutions regulating GMOs and created hurdles for farmers 
wishing to use the product.  Currently, two institutions 
under the Ministry of Agriculture are tasked with training 
farmers in the use of approved GM corn, the Research 
Institute of Plant Production in Piestany and the Slovak 
Central Controlling and Testing Institute in Agriculture 
(UKSUP).  Casual conversations with farmers reveal a high 
level of frustration with UKSUP. 
 
¶4.  UKSUP is the "face" of the Ministry of Agriculture for 
most farmers.  It is the regulatory body charged with 
inspections, facilitating the application process from start 
to finish.  Farmers charge UKSUP with making the process too 
onerous, requiring excessive paperwork and failing to make 
themselves sufficiently available to answer questions.  Tomas 
Boros, head of the Dadatrans agricultural cooperative and one 
of the farmers planting Bt corn, believes the overbearing 
UKSUP administration has dissuaded his fellow farmers from 
using GM corn, even as they observe its effectiveness. 
Corroborating this view, Igor Ferencik, Director of the 
Biosafety Department at the Ministry of Environment, refers 
to the UKSUP training as "campaigns against GMOs" rather than 
science-based sessions. 
 
¶5.  In following up on farmers' complaints, Econoff found 
several GM-friendly forces in the Slovak regulatory and 
scientific community who share the farmers' view of UKSUP as 
an uncooperative agency.  These officials believe 
difficulties with UKSUP are rooted in personal objections to 
GMOs by UKSUP's leadership, claiming UKSUP has been invited 
to GMO planning sessions and conferences but does not often 
attend.  To date, we have requested several meetings with 
UKSUP's leadership but have not been able to secure an 
appointment.  As a means of addressing these negative views 
of UKSUP, we have discussed targeting the agency with the 
Regional Agricultural Counselor using biotech outreach funds 
(reftel). 
 
--------------------- 
COMMERCIAL OBSTACLES 
--------------------- 
 
¶6.  Aside from the administrative hassles, an additional 
explanation for the decrease in the number of farmers 
planting GM corn could be market conditions and the 
commercial unattractiveness of the product.  When GM corn was 
 
BRATISLAVA 00000009  002 OF 002 
 
AND COMMERCIAL OBSTACLES 
 
first introduced in Slovakia, the concurrent emergence of 
Enviral, a joint-stock bioethanol company in Leopoldov, 
promised a convenient marriage of GM corn and bioethanol 
production.  Beginning production on June 15, 2007, Enviral 
sent signals that GM corn would be welcome and farmers 
believed they might have a reliable market for the GM corn 
they were beginning to plant.  However, the Slovak Chamber of 
Food and Agriculture (SPPK) claims farmers got spooked when 
regional cornstarch processors and bioethanol companies, like 
Enviral, began resisting GM corn under pressure from 
environmental groups.  Other industry observers contend it 
was the overall market conditions for corn, namely the lower 
prices being offered in 2008 compared to 2007, that explains 
the drop in GM corn sales to Enviral.  They contend farmers 
were still able to sell to Enviral but balked at the prices 
being offered, preferring to store their corn or use it as 
feed. 
 
¶7.  While little can be done to affect overall market 
conditions for corn, GM-friendly forces in the Slovak 
regulatory and scientific community have attempted to address 
the administrative challenges by continuing to codify an 
openness to GM products in the Slovak legal structure.  The 
Slovak Ministry of Environment's Department of Biological 
Safety organized a workshop in November to discuss the 
formulation of a national strategy for biological safety. 
The workshop brought international experts from the United 
Nations Environment Program - Global Environment Facility 
(UNEP-GEF), the International Food Policy Research Institute 
(IFPRI), the Belgium-based Horizons consulting group, and the 
OECD.  Gathering the various stakeholders together, including 
the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, and 
Slovak Academy of Sciences, the goal of the conference was to 
clearly define the authorities and process for evaluating 
biosafety cases in a transparent manner.  By codifying 
responsibilities in a legal structure, the conference 
organizers hoped to establish clear guidelines that would 
diminish the scope and impact of anti-GMO biases in the 
Slovak regulatory system. 
 
¶8. COMMENT: While we are encouraged by the overall increases 
in GM corn acreage in Slovakia, we have discussed plans with 
the Regional Agricultural Counselor and FAS Prague to target 
biotech outreach efforts toward GMO-resistant regulatory 
officials.  The acreage increase among fewer farmers suggests 
the science and effectiveness of GMOs has been compelling for 
farmers who have stayed with the product.  Scientific 
outreach to the general public would still be useful, but the 
absence of a large, organized opposition means a strategy 
targeted at UKSUP officials might be most effective in the 
near term.  With the goal of increasing both GM corn acreage 
and users, we are working with FAS to develop proposals for 
using biotech outreach funds outlined in reftel.  END COMMENT. 
OBSITNIK