On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations

Abstract

The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be "proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence", very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers.

Soybean in the European Union, Status and Perspective

“…Up to now 2 trends can be distinguished in the European coexistence schemes, a flexible coexistence frame and one based on dedicated production areas, be these GMO or GMO-free. Until now, coexistence research has mostly focused on flexible coexistence, that is to say, the individual choice of a farmer, with a minimum of ex-ante duties (such as isolation distances, buffer and/or discard zones) together with an information system, including, for instance, a public register of GM crops to provide information to non-GM growing neighbors coupled with some ex-post economic solutions such as compensation schemes for economic losses (Demont et al, 2010;Demont et al, 2009;Desquilbet and Bullock, 2010;Devos et al, 2009;Messéan et al, 2006;Messéan et al, 2009). Current EU best practice guidelines and companies' stewardships for coexistence measures in maize give effective measures for the European 0.9% threshold by requesting separation distances, buffer and discard zones, and staggered flowering times, but without taking into consideration the threshold of 0.1%used by companies due to measurements and sampling uncertainties (Bartsch et al, 2009;Bock et al, 2002;European Commission, 2010b).…”

Benefits and Costs of Biologically Contained Genetically Modified Tomatoes and Eggplants in Italy and Spain

“…Buffer strips consist of a non-GM variety of the GM crop, planted in a strip along the outer border of the GM field. These strips are claimed to be more effective and more flexible than minimum distance requirements [8], although this claim is not uncontested [13]. Insect-proof nets can be used to isolate crops from the environment and thereby prevent transgene flow.…”

“…Existing studies show that the costs of coexistence measures for GM crops may be substantial [7,8]. A large and diverse portfolio of regulations exists to regulate the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Europe [1,5].…”

“…The costs associated with these measures, and minimum distance requirements in particular, can severely constrain the adoption of GM crops. Soregaroli and Wesseler [9] and Demont et al [7,8] show that such regulations may disproportionally raise the costs of coexistence of GM with conventional crops, while Skevas et al [10] show flexible coexistence regulations may allow farmers to reduce the coexistence compliance costs to almost zero. The benefit of cultivating biologically contained GM crops is evident.…”

“…One may even question the necessity for coexistence regulations from an economic point of view [12]. The pros and cons have been addressed by a number of authors [1,8,10,11,[13][14][15]. As coexistence requirements are politically motivated, we hardly can expect cultivation of GM tomato and GM eggplants to be possible without coexistence regulations.…”