Brussels, 17/02/2012 (Agence Europe) - Only marginally present in Europe, GMO crops nonetheless give EU institutions a great deal of headache. In order to overcome the impasse in the Commission's proposal of July 2011 aimed at authorising member states to restrict or ban GMO crops on their territory despite the fact that those same crops may be authorised at EU level, the Danish Presidency of the EU Council has concocted a compromise bringing in greater flexibility, but also greater complexity. The compromise, which has already been discussed twice within the ad hoc GMO group of the EU Council, will be on the table again on Monday 20 February, no doubt in an amended form. The Danish Presidency, which is optimistic about the likelihood of reaching a political agreement between all 27 member states during the Environment Council of 9 March, may - unless the situation is completely turned around - come up against a strong blocking minority composed to date of five member states (France, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Belgium).
The compromise being scrutinised consists of introducing into European authorisation procedure a step that is inspired by that for the assessment of biocides in the EU. Thus, after or before the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has made its scientific assessment of GMOs, each member state would have the possibility to seal with the “notifying” company (i.e. the company that has called for approval to grow a given GMO) a deal whereby a number of regions would be excluded from marketing the GMO in question. In the event of agreement, the decision to authorise the GMO at EU level could rule out the country that has passed an agreement with the notifying enterprise. Two situations are possible and are set out in detail in the compromise that, if approved, will amend Directive 2001/18/EC (relating to the voluntary dissemination of GMOs into the environment), which governs the market approval procedure for GMOs in the EU. The two situations in question are:
(1) Before a GMO can receive authorisation to be grown at EU level, a member state opposed to such crops on its territory would have 30 days in which to seek agreement with the company, which would agree not to call for approval of that GMO crop in the given member state. If an agreement is reached, the scope of the approval decision would be formally amended in order to specifically rule out the member state concerned, which would not have to provide justification for its stance to the Commission or to the other member states.
(2) In the assumption that a member state would like to restrict or ban the growing of a GMO crop already authorised EU wide, the member state would have to provide justification for its request by informing the European Commission, the other member states and the notifying company of its reasons (respecting the reasons that may be invoked as set out in the Commission proposal: - environmental impact other than that assessed by EFSA, reasons linked to soil use and spatial planning, reasons linked to socio-economic consequences, reasons linked to the agri-economic viability of quality products or of geographically protected products, and other reasons in line with EU law). This procedure would also apply in every case where negotiation between a member state and a notifying company has failed to reach agreement.
Many member states take the view that the compromise proposed by the Presidency makes the debate richer but also makes procedure more complicated and is detrimental to the project's legal security. Also, prior consultation between the private notifying company and the national authorities can lead to agreements lacking in transparency (Belgium, Portugal). One diplomatic source has said with irony that: “Negotiating with Monsanto does not guarantee that there will be one of the most open public debates”.
Breaking the deadlock will be difficult as member states most opposed to the compromise are opposed for different reasons. The United Kingdom, the fiercest opponent of all, invokes the risk of dispute with the WTO. France considers that the solution is impractical, a nightmare. Not to mention, France says, that by giving the proposed justifications - especially environmental reasons other than as assessed by the EFSA - this will detract from European scientific assessment instead of reinforcing it (Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Republic, United Kingdom take the same view). Like Belgium, France insists that one should return to the conclusions of the Environment Council of December 2008 which called for EU authorisation procedure to be recast. Germany and Belgium fear that, by formalising the repatriation of decisions, the compromise would run counter to the correct functioning of the internal market. Spain (albeit in favour of the à-la-carte growing of GMOS, and hence to the initial Commission decision) is not convinced either. It above all fears the risk of contention over environmental aspects. John Dalli, European Health and Consumer Commissioner, recently said that the compromise was being studied at the Commission. “We want to examine the effect that this would have. We shall state our position at the Environment Council”, he told the press on 9 February (on the sidelines of a press conference on PIP breast implants). (AN/transl.jl)