An Overview

1. SCIMAC proposals for managing the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops An Overview

2. SCIMAC - key points • Grouping of industry organisations along • UK farm supply chain • Established in 1998 to support the responsible • development and co-existence of GM crops in the UK • SCIMAC on-farm guidelines published in May • 1999 - endorsed by UK Government • Industry partner in UK programme of Farm-Scale • Evaluations 1999-2003 • Supports effective, science-based regulation

3. SCIMAC - members • British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) • Crop Protection Association (CPA) • National Farmers Union (NFU) • Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)

4. EU regulatory context • Three pillars of GMO regulation established: • EC Directive 2001/18 • (deliberate release of GMOs) • EC Regulation 1829/2003 • (GM food and feed) • EC Regulation 1830/2003 • (GM traceability and labelling) • Adventitious presence of GM in seed remains unresolved

5. Key changes • Food /feed labelling threshold of 0.9% for adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence • Requirement to label GM crop derivatives (e.g. rapeseed oil, sugar) • Environmental impacts extended to include indirect & long-term effects • Maximum 10 year time-limit on new GM approvals • Requirement for consent-holders to conduct post-market monitoring

6. Political inertia blocking progress in EU • One GM crop (Bt maize) has EU-wide approval for cultivation • Six EU member states have imposed national bans on cultivation of GM maize • 18 GM crops awaiting approval for cultivation, 49 for import • BASF is suing EU Commission over failure to approve Amflora GM potato • GM field trial applications • significantly down, despite • EU enlargement from • 15 to 27 countries

7. EU Commission Recommendation on Co-existence • GUIDING PRINCIPLES • GM labelling threshold (ie 0.9%) is the basis for co-existence measures • Farmers’ freedom to choose GM, non-GM or organic must not be denied • Co-existence is an economic issue - not a health or safety issue • Practical measures, specific to crop type and relevant to local conditions, must be developed at Member State level

8. EU Commission Recommendation on Co-existence • CO-EXISTENCE MEASURES • Measures should build on existing segregation practices and available agricultural experience • Measures should be cost-effective, proportionate and based on the best available scientific evidence • Initial onus of responsibility for observing co-existence measures rests with the GM crop grower • Co-existence threshold of 0.9% applies equally to • non-GM and organic growers

9. Proposed co-existence measures -a further barrier to GM crops? • Imposing a total ban on GM crops (Upper Austria, Salzburg); • Making agri-environmental payments conditional on not growing GM crops (Slovenia) • Growers require training and statutory licence to grow GM crops (Ireland) • Denmark has already legislated for a DK100/ha compensation payment to grow GM crops • NL proposing 10-fold increase in separation distance to organic crops

10. No EU-wide consensus on technical measures Proposed separation distances – maize

11. No EU-wide consensus on technical measures (2) Proposed separation distances – oilseed rape

12. EU co-existence review – conclusions • Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are • excessive from a scientific point of view; • (ii) difficult to implement in practice; • (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and • (iv) not proportional to the farmers’ basic economic incentives for coexistence. • Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein. • Devoset al • Journal of Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2008

13. Co-existence – UK policy • EU Commission Recommendation on • Co-existence - July 2003 • UK Government policy statement on • GM crops - March 2004 • Code of Practice with statutory backing, based around 0.9% labelling threshold • Access to compensation for farmers whose non-GM crop exceeds the GM labelling threshold ‘through no fault of their own’ • Consider lower threshold for organics • Consider GM-free zones

14. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach (1) • Co-existence is an economic issue, not about safety • Co-existence arrangements will only be required if there is (differentiated) market demand • Zero is not achievable, but practical tolerance thresholds work • Co-existence is not new to farmers - systems are already in place to meet customer specifications • Co-existence is not one-way, and requires co-operation between neighbouring growers

15. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach (2) • GM growers cannot reasonably be held responsible for the self-imposed marketing standards of others • GM crops introduce no new liability issues • Experience of growing GM crops in other parts of the world confirms that co-existence is achievable • No one knows whether new price differentials will emerge or be sustained between GM and non-GM value chains • Gene flow data offers a high degree of confidence that breach of labelling threshold would be extremely rare

16. Industry ‘bottom-lines’ • Products approved as safe must be treated as such • Companies are already liable for any harm their products cause, but cannot accept liability for: • harm caused by third party fault or negligence • losses from a third party setting its own voluntary standards • SCIMAC does not support any scheme which involves an arbitrary general compensation fund or levy • Any co-existence regime must be internationally compatible, and respect the principles of: • Context, Consistency, Proportionality, Equity, Practicality

17. SCIMAC proposal: 6 point plan

18. 1. Code of Practice • SCIMAC - on-farm guidelines • Management guidelines to ensure best practice and identity preservation in production of GM crops, covering: • operator training • seed storage / planting • neighbour notification • crop separation distances • crop management • harvest / post-harvest management • on-farm monitoring and record- • keeping

19. SCIMAC Guidelines – a sound basis for co-existence • UK Farm Scale Evaluations (1999-2003) offered a • unique opportunity to apply and evaluate the SCIMAC • guidelines in practice • Guidelines were applied at >260 FSE sites • Grower experience assessed via questionnaire • Grower compliance assessed via independent ADAS audit • High compliance levels - no Critical Control Point failures / • no loss of organic / non-GM status • Potential framework for managing identity preservation, • co-existence and post-market monitoring

20. Updating the SCIMAC Guidelines • SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES • Up-date regulatory & other relevant changes • Extend scope to include other crop species - eg potatoes; • Extend scope to cover all GM crops - ie not just GM HT crops • Focus guidance on practical, agronomic issues and outcomes • - ie focus on 8 critical control points; • Include statutory and non-statutory requirements for both farm- • to-farm and within-farm co-existence; • Extend coverage to include co-responsibility guidance for • non-GM sector - eg best practice advice on farm-saving of seed

21. Key changes (1) • CLEAR STATEMENT OF GUIDELINES’ OBJECTIVES • Ensure best agricultural practice in the management of GM crops • Support effective co-existence between GM and neighbouring non-GM crops • Avoid unintentional mixing of GM and non-GM material • Minimise cross-pollination between GM and neighbouring non-GM crops • Avoid spillage of GM material into unplanned areas • Maintain appropriate records of key information and actions • Ensure effective transfer of information along the supply chain

22. Key changes (2) • NEW SECTIONS REFLECT CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS • Preparation for planting • Seed delivery & storage • Planting the crop • Managing the crop  • Harvest preparation / harvesting the crop • Transport / storage of harvested GM crop • Post-harvest management / volunteer control • Monitoring & record-keeping on the farm

23. Key changes (3) • LINK TO FARM ASSURED STATUS • “Under the terms of the SCIMAC Charter, access to certified seed of GM crops requires farm assured status or equivalent. Compliance with these guidelines is a requirement of recognised Farm Assurance Schemes, and is therefore subject to independent inspection by an approved third party auditor. All those involved in growing, harvesting and handling the crop, including contractors, are responsible for observing these guidelines.”

24. Key changes (4) SEPARATION DISTANCES

25. Key changes (5) • NOTIFICATION ARRANGEMENTS – KEY POINTS • GM grower must notify neighbouring farmers whose land falls within the specified separation distance – as soon as possible and at least 4 weeks prior to planting • Standard notification form can be delivered in person, by e-mail (using receipt request) or by post (recorded delivery) • Neighbouring farmer must respond to notification at least 2 weeks before specified planting date • Where a neighbour has been given reasonable notification and fails to respond within the specified timescale, the notifying farmer may proceed to plant the GM crop. Note that a non-GM farmer’s rights to redress under the SCIMAC Redress Charter may be affected in the event of failure to respond within the specified timescale.

26. Key changes (6) • NOTIFICATION ARRANGEMENTS – KEY POINTS (contd.) • The notifying farmer may proceed to plant the GM crop where response to notification indicated that no compatible non-GM crop will be grown on land within the specified separation distance • Where the response to notification indicates that a compatible non-GM crop will be grown on land within the specified separation distance, the notifying farmer must either: • - adjust cropping plans to ensure the required separation between GM and compatible non-GM crops is observed; • or • - reach a written agreement with his neighbour on alternative planting arrangements.

27. Key changes (7) • ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE FOR NON-GM GROWERS, CONTRACTORS & HAULIERS • Link to TASCC Code of Practice requirements for Road Haulage, Storage and Merchanting • Non-GM growers - volunteer & bolter control • Contractors - machinery hygiene when moving between GM and non-GM farms • Non-GM growers – best practice advice of the use of non-GM oilseed rape as farm-saved seed

28. Key changes (8) • ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON RECORD-KEEPING • All GM crop records must be retained securely for at least 10 years • New requirement to retain seed label information, including seed lot reference number • Dated records of neighbour notification and responses / cropping agreements • Both GM and non-GM growers advised to retain a representative sample of both the seed sown and harvested crop – for subsequent traceability & verification purposes

29. 2. Compliance with good practice UK farm assurance schemes • 85-90% coverage across UK crop production • Subject to annual on-farm inspection by independently accredited (EN45011) auditors • Non-compliance can result in loss of assured status

30. 3. Audit • Compliance with co-existence requirements verified through annual farm assurance inspections • Inspection process based around ADAS audit of FSE growers, focused on 8 Critical Control Points: • 1. Seed delivery, storage & handling • 2. Seed drilling operations, including cleaning • 3. Handling of surplus seed • 4. Separation distances • 5. Field operations, including harvest preparations • 6. Harvesting operations • 7. Transport & storage of GM bulk • 8. Record keeping & post-harvest monitoring

31. 4. Independent / Government oversight • Government consultation on / endorsement of on-farm protocols • Independent verification of effectiveness of co-existence in practice (eg via GM Inspectorate, Rural Payments Agency) • cf. Drinking Water Inspectorate model (ie statutory thresholds achieved via industry-based protocols and verified through independent inspection)

32. 5. Co-responsibility • Separation distances and notification arrangements to be given statutory backing • Secondary legislation to be enacted on a crop by crop basis • No requirement to observe statutory requirements where co-existence measures can be observed within the same farm • SCIMAC view is that this can be extended to include situations where neighbouring growers agree alternative arrangements

33. ü CHARTER MARK 6. Redress provision • Proposed industry ‘Redress Charter’ • ‘In the event of GM crops trading at a discount to the equivalent non-GM crops, participating members of the biotech sector commit to an industry redress charter whose single objective is to cover the price differential for any farmer producing a non-GM crop whose crop exceeds the GM labelling threshold through no fault of his own and as a consequence of the presence of neighbouring GM crop(s) of the same species.’

34. Redress charter - conditions • ‘Loss’ involves only the demonstrable economic difference between an affected and unaffected crop • Any loss claimed shall be proven through independently verified means including mutual acceptance of: • any supporting analyses of affected crop / original seed stock • records of previous cropping • any other potential causes of GM presence • any claimed price differential • Any disagreement should be resolved via an independent arbitration system

35. Redress charter - conditions • Loss shall not include the costs of additional voluntary measures taken by the non-GM grower • Loss specifically excludes any indirect claims such as ‘consequential loss’ • Any prospective non-GM claimant has complied with all relevant Government regulations and co-existence provisions • Any calculation of losses relate only to the statutory 0.9% GM labelling threshold

36. Means of redress - a market-led decision • Direct replacement of affected produce (crop substitution) • Indirect replacement of affected produce (‘virtual’ crop substitution) • Direct cash compensation • Compensation in other forms (eg products or goods of agreed equivalent value) • Facilitation of insurance cover • Other methods as yet unidentified

37. ü CHARTER MARK Redress charter - delivery mechanisms • Participating members of the biotech sector (technology developers, seed suppliers, farmers and grain handlers) propose that the industry redress charter can be delivered through existing supply chain arrangements, eg: • Conditions of sale on certified seed • Inter-Professional Agreements • Farm Assurance Scheme • GM licensing agreements

38. Benefits of market-based redress • Avoids disproportionate legislative approach • Mirrors existing supply chain arrangements to service different market channels and customer specifications • Links directly to the market situation, dealing with cases only when and if they arise (and organised within the grain chain or equivalent) • Provides the opportunity to quantify, ring-fence (and place in appropriate context) the scale of any issues • Minimises the potential for mischievous, opportunistic or spurious claims not backed by or in the spirit of legislation

39. Thank you www.scimac.org.uk