IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v9y2010i2p18-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne Hin zu flexiblen Koexistenzregelungen für genetisch veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU

Author

Listed:
  • Matty Demont
  • Yann Devos
  • Olivier Sanvido

Abstract

Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU The European Union (EU) is currently facing a challenge that might unnecessarily hamper the adoption of GM crops: regulating the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non‐GM crops. Member states are currently implementing or developing both ex ante coexistence regulations and ex post liability schemes to ensure that both GM and non‐GM crops can be cultivated in the EU. In this article, we explore in detail how national and/or regional policymakers can build in a certain degree of flexibility in ex ante coexistence regulations in order to reduce the regulatory burden on certain agricultural options and avoid jeopardising the economic incentives for coexistence. We use the example of GM maize as a case study, being the only GM crop planted over a significant area in the EU. We conclude that flexibility could be integrated into regulations at different levels: (i) at the regulatory level by relaxing some of the regulatory rigidity in ex ante regulations; (ii) at the farm level by allowing the substitution of isolation distances by pollen barriers; and (iii) at the national/regional level through plural coexistence measures, consistent with heterogeneity of farming in the EU. L’Union européenne (UE) est actuellement confrontée à un défi qui pourrait entraver inutilement l’adoption des cultures transgéniques : la réglementation de la coexistence de cultures transgéniques et non‐transgéniques. Les États membres sont en train de mettre en œuvre ou de développer à la fois des réglementations de coexistence a priori et des dispositifs de responsabilitéa posteriori, afin de permettre la coexistence des deux types de cultures dans l’UE. Dans cet article, nous envisageons en détail comment les décideurs de l’action publique au niveau national et/ou régional peuvent introduire un certain degré de flexibilité dans les réglementations de coexistence a priori afin de réduire le poids réglementaire de certaines options agricoles et d’éviter de compromettre les incitations économiques à la coexistence. Nous utilisons l’exemple du maïs transgénique, seul culture transgénique occupant une superficie non négligeable dans l’UE. Nous concluons que la flexibilité pourrait être intégrée dans les réglementations à différents niveaux : (i) au niveau réglementaire en assouplissant certaines des rigidités dans les réglementations a priori; (ii) au niveau de l’exploitation en permettant la substitution des distances de séparation par des barrièrs à pollen; et (iii) au niveau national/régional par le biais de mesures plurielles de coexistence, cohérentes avec l’hétérogénéité de l’agriculture européenne. Die Europäische Union (EU) sieht sich momentan mit einer Herausforderung konfrontiert, welche die Einführung von genetisch veränderten Feldfrüchten unnötig erschweren könnte: Die Koexistenzregelungen von genetisch veränderten und nicht veränderten Feldfrüchten. Die Mitgliedsstaaten implementieren oder entwickeln gerade sowohl ex ante Koexistenzregelungen als auch ex post Haftungssysteme, um sicherzustellen, dass sowohl genetisch veränderte als auch nicht veränderte Feldfrüchte in der EU angebaut werden können. In diesem Beitrag beleuchten wir ausführlich, wie Politikakteure auf nationaler und/oder regionaler Ebene ein gewisses Maß an Flexibilität in ex ante Koextistenzregelungen einfließen lassen können, um die Regelungslast einiger Optionen in der Landwirtschaft zu reduzieren und die wirtschaftlichen Anreize zur Koexistenz nicht zu gefährden. Als Fallbeispiel ziehen wir genetisch veränderten Mais heran, der als einzige genetisch veränderte Feldfrucht großflächig in der EU angebaut wird. Wir kommen zu dem Schluss, dass Flexibilität auf verschiedenen Stufen in die Regelungen eingebaut werden könnte: (i) Direkt in die Regelungen selbst, indem die ex ante Regelungen weniger starr ausgestaltet werden; (ii) auf Ebene des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs, indem Isolationsabstände teilweise durch Pollenbarrieren ersetzt werden könnten; und (iii) auf nationaler/regionaler Ebene durch vielfältige Koexistenzmaßnahmen, die der Heterogenität der Landwirtschaft in der EU Rechnung tragen.

Suggested Citation

  • Matty Demont & Yann Devos & Olivier Sanvido, 2010. "Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne Hin zu flexiblen Koex," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 18-24, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:2:p:18-24
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00135.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00135.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2009.00135.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Demont, Matty & Daems, Wim & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 683-689, February.
    2. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    3. Volker Beckmann & Claudio Soregaroli & Justus Wesseler, 2006. "Coexistence Rules and Regulations in the European Union," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1193-1199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    3. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    4. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2015. "How do GM / non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," Working Papers hal-00956039, HAL.
    5. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    6. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    7. Rolf A. Groeneveld & Erik Ansink & Clemens C.M. Van de Wiel & Justus Wesseler, 2011. "Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, Pedro & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: A case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2402-2408, October.
    9. Thomas J. Venus & Koen Dillen & Maarten J. Punt & Justus H. H. Wesseler, 2017. "The Costs of Coexistence Measures for Genetically Modified Maize in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 407-426, June.
    10. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gomez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodriguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2011. "Adoption of GMHT Crops: Coexistence Policy Consequences in the European Union," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114227, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    12. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    13. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    14. GianCarlo Moschini, 2015. "In medio stat virtus: coexistence policies for GM and non-GM production in spatial equilibrium," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 42(5), pages 851-874.
    15. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni & Timo Kaphengst & Clive Evans & Sophie Herbert & Bernard Lehmann & Stephen Morse & Nataliya Stupak, 2011. "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(5), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Jennifer Schweiger & Ali Ferjani & Achim Spiller, 2010. "Agentenbasierte Abschätzung der Wirtschaft-lichkeit von transgenen Kulturen anhand von Beispielbetrieben in einer Schweizer Ackerbau-region," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 3(1), pages 3-37.
    17. Beckmann, Volker & Soregaroli, Claudio & Wesseler, Justus, 2010. "Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 4, pages 1-33.
    18. Skevas, Theodoros & Wesseler, Justus & Fevereiro, Pedro, 2009. "Coping with ex-ante regulations for planting Bt maize: the Portuguese experience," MPRA Paper 25609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Skevas, Theodoros & Fevereiro, P. & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Coping with ex ante Regulations and ex post Liability Rules for Planting Bt-maize – The Portuguese Experience," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44189, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Klara Fischer & Camilla Eriksson, 2016. "Social Science Studies on European and African Agriculture Compared: Bringing Together Different Strands of Academic Debate on GM Crops," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:9:y:2010:i:2:p:18-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.