EN

Brussels, 9.3.2006

SEC(2006) 313

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Annex to the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence

of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming

{COM(2006) 104}

1. Introduction

Co-existence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM crop production, in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and/or purity criteria. None of these types of agriculture should be excluded in the EU.

The possibility of adventitious presence of GM crops in non-GM crops can not be dismissed, and may have commercial implications for the farmers whose crops are affected. Consequently, suitable measures during cultivation, harvest, transport, storage, and processing may be necessary to ensure co-existence. Co-existence thus concerns only the economic implications of GMO admixture, the measures to achieve sufficient segregation between GM and non-GM production and as the costs of such measures.

Agriculture is an open process, which means that perfect segregation of the different agricultural production types is not possible in practice. Co-existence of these production types which will not lead to a systematic exclusion of one or more of them can only be ensured if the segregation measures are designed in a way that takes these limitations into account.

In the case of presence of material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs above specific tolerance levels the existing legal requirements for GMOs and GM food and feed apply also to conventional products. In particular, products consisting of or containing GMOs and food products produced from GMOs which have been lawfully placed on the market on the basis of the procedure under Directive 2001/18/EC [1] (part C) or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 [2] are subject to traceability and labelling requirements pursuant to Regulations (EC) Nos 1829/2003, 1830/2003 [3] and Directive 2001/18/EC. These two regulations establish a threshold for adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of material which contains, consists of or is produced from GMOs, below which food and feed do not require labelling or tracing. This threshold is set at a level of 0.9%.

Directive 2001/18/EC provides for the possibility to exempt seed lots from labelling if they contain traces of GM seeds authorised for cultivation in the EU that are below a certain threshold. No labelling thresholds have been defined yet, which means that seed lots containing detectable traces of GMOs have to be labelled as containing GMOs and the unique identifiers of the GMOs have to be mentioned on the label. The Commission is currently considering the possibility of proposing a Decision under Directive 2001/18/EC establishing seeds labelling thresholds provided that appropriate economic data are available in order to establish scientifically-based, feasible and economically sustainable threshold values. The same threshold values are intended to be taken over for corresponding Decisions under the seeds Directives.

Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic farming [4] stipulates that GMOs may not be used in organic farming. The Regulation provides for a specific threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs in organic input materials, but no such thresholds have yet been set. In the absence of such a specific threshold, organic farmers may use materials which do not require labelling as GM as long as they comply with the other requirements of the Regulation.

In accordance with Action 12 of the 2004 European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Council regulation [5] on Organic Farming which will prohibit the labelling of a product as organic if it has to be labelled as GM according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The proposal furthermore states that farmers are required not to use GMOs or products produced from and with GMOs where they should have knowledge of their presence due to information on any label accompanying the product or from any other accompanying document. This means that material other than seeds containing adventitious or technically unavoidable traces of GMOs up to a threshold of 0.9% could be used in organic farming. However, if the farmer/producer is aware of the presence of GMOs in a raw material through a label or accompanying documentation it, must not be used in organic production.

Since only authorised GMOs can be grown in the EU, and the environmental and health aspects are already covered by Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the issues to be addressed in the context of co-existence concern only the possible economic consequences of admixture of GM and non-GM crops.

According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC Member States may take appropriate national measures on coexistence so as to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products.

In their national approaches to co-existence Member States have to take into account those areas already harmonised under Community legislation. This means that national co-existence measures may not derogate from the harmonised measures, particularly those taken under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, under which GMOs may be authorised for use in the EU. As the effects of GMOs on the environment and human health are fully harmonised under this legislation, Member States may not introduce measures aiming at the protection of the environment or human health under Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC which would go beyond the provisions laid down in Community legislation.

Furthermore, Article 26a has to be seen in conjunction with Article 22 of the same Directive, which stipulates that (without prejudice to the safeguard provisions of the Directive) Member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs that comply with the requirements of Directive 2001/18/EC. This provision means that national co-existence measures can not lead to restrictions of the marketing and cultivation of authorised GMOs that could not be defended on the basis of principles laid down in Community legislation.

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted Recommendation 2003/556/EC [6] on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the co-existence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming, reaffirming that measures for co-existence should be developed by the Member States.

Recommendation 2003/556/EC is intended to help Member States develop national legislative or other strategies for co-existence. It contains a list of general principles to be taken into account when developing national approaches, as well as a list of technical measures.

In the Recommendation, the Commission announced that it will, based on information from Member States, report in 2005 to the Council and the European Parliament on the experience gained in the Member States concerning the implementation of measures to address co-existence, including, if appropriate, an evaluation and assessment of all possible and necessary steps to take.

The present report provides an overview of the state of implementation of national and regional co-existence measures, based on information provided by the Member States. It includes a review of specific co-existence legislation adopted by the Member States at national or regional level, and also draft measures, which have been notified to the Commission or which are currently being discussed in the Member States.

This implementation report provides factual grounds on which the Commission will base its assessment about the appropriate steps to take in the future.

The report is based on an overview of adopted legislation and draft legislation which has been formally notified to the Commission. Additional sources of information include a questionnaire which was circulated to the Permanent Representations of the Member States, as well as direct contacts with the competent authorities and information provided by the Member States in the framework of the activities of the coordination network on co-existence, COEX-NET.

It summarises the state of implementation of national co-existence measures based on information made available by the Member States up to the end of 2005.

2. State of implementation of national co-existence measures

Co-existence is still a regulatory novelty for the EU Member States, and this is even true on a global scale as very few countries have adopted labelling rules for GMOs. Since the Commission’s adoption of its Recommendation on coexistence in 2003, only a few Member States have so far adopted co-existence legislation, and none have completed a regulatory framework that includes implementing measures at a technical level for all major crops currently in the authorisation process. This report is therefore aimed not only at providing an overview of the legislation in force but also at revising draft approaches still being discussed at the level of the Member States. Obviously, draft measures may be subject to change before adoption of the final legislation.

In some Member States competence for rules on co-existence lies at regional level (AT, BE, IT, and UK). In some Member States, for example ES, competence for co-existence rules lies with the federal government while certain responsibilities are regionalised, such as those for defining planting dates, monitoring and enforcement authorities etc.

Co-existence measures that have been notified under the relevant notification procedures as well as measures adopted outside notification procedures are listed below.

Notification of national measures under Directive 98/34/EC [7]

In June 2004 the Commission informed the Member States of their obligation under Article 8 (1) of Directive 98/34/EC to notify draft measures on coexistence which contain technical regulations within the meaning of the Directive. (Generally these texts provide for mandatory production methods and processes and this aspect is covered by the notification procedure).

Directive 98/34/EC establishes a procedure to provide transparency in the field of standards and technical regulations relating to products and information society services. The purpose of the Directive is to avoid the creation of new barriers to the smooth functioning of the internal market. Following notification of a draft measure by a Member State, Article 9 of the Directive provides that the draft is subject to a three month standstill period, and so it may not be adopted within that period. During the three month standstill period the Commission and the Member States consider the draft. The Commission and (or) the Member States may decide that the measure does not introduce barriers to the single market and therefore make no particular comment. However, this would not preclude the Commission from challenging the national measure outside of the procedure of the Directive, if it is subsequently found to be contrary to the Treaty or secondary legislation. The Commission and (or) Member States may react in one of two ways; comments may be sent when the draft, although in accordance with Community law raises issues of interpretation, or there is a need for details of the arrangements relating to implementation. Alternatively, a Detailed Opinion may be issued if the draft measure appears to introduce factors which would hinder the operation of the internal market. In which case, the standstill period would be extended for a further three months to a total of six months. Member States are obliged to reply to a Detailed Opinion. One further option, which is only available to the Commission, is that the standstill period could extend to twelve months, if the proposed draft covers an area where the Commission proposes to legislate.

Notified legislation is translated into all Community languages and is publicly available on the following internet site: www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris.

According to the case law of the Court of Justice (Case C-194/94 judgement of 30 April 1996 – CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL), the court has held that Articles 8 and 9 of the Directive are precise and unconditional (to the effect that technical regulations must be notified and controlled at Community level before adoption) and must therefore be interpreted so that those provisions may be relied on by individuals before national courts. Consequently failure by a Member State to notify draft legislation containing technical regulations means that it cannot be invoked before national courts, and so, is unenforceable against individuals.

By the end of 2005, under the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC the Commission had received notifications from AT (concerning provincial draft legislation by eight Austrian Länder: Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, Upper Austria and Vienna), from AT at federal level, CZ, DK, DE, LU, HU and PT.

In response to the notification the Commission issued detailed opinions on the notifications from AT (concerning Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg, Styria, Tyrol, and Vienna), DE and LU.

By the end of 2005 the notifications from CZ, HU and Upper Austria were still pending.

Measures introducing a ban on GMO cultivation

In 2003, the Commission received two notifications under Article 95(5) from Salzburg and Upper Austria. Both measures were aimed at banning the use of GMOs on their territories. The Salzburg notification was later withdrawn and replaced by draft legislation notified under Directive 98/34/EC.

According to Article 95(5) of the Treaty, if after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to introduce national provisions based on new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment on grounds of a problem specific to that Member State arising after the adoption of the harmonisation measure, it shall notify the Commission of the envisaged provisions as well as the grounds for introducing them.

Thus, where a Member State considers introducing a complete ban of GMO crops, these provisions constitute a derogation from harmonisation and not a technical regulation within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC. These measures must be notified under Article 95(5) of the Treaty. Measures in relation to co-existence could not be notified under Article 95(5) due to the fact that co-existence is an economic issue, which is not included in the scope of this provision of the Treaty.

After having consulted the European Food Safety Authority on the scientific information provided by Upper Austria, the Commission decided that the request made by Upper Austria did not fulfil the basic conditions set out in Article 95(5), since Upper Austria had not provided new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, and did not demonstrate that there is a specific problem within the territory of Upper Austria, which arose following the adoption of Directive 2001/18/EC [8]. The government of Upper Austria and the Republic of Austria challenged the Commission before the Court of First Instance [9]. On 5 October 2005 it decided in favour of the Commission and rejected the applications. Subsequently, Upper Austria notified to the Commission draft co-existence legislation under the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC.Furthermore, in December 2005, Upper Austria and the Republic of Austria appealed to the European Court of Justice against the decision by the Court of First Instance.

Notification of national measures under Article 88 of the Treaty (State aids)

Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty states that any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market. According to Article 88(3) of the Treaty plans to grant new aid must be notified to the Commission in sufficient time by the Member State concerned, which is required to provide all necessary information to enable the Commission to take a decision.

This notification procedure is relevant, for instance, to financial aids in relation to compensation schemes for damages resulting from the presence of GMOs in other products.

In November 2005, the Commission accepted a notification by DK under the State aid procedure of a compensation scheme for economic losses due to presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (aid case N 568/04). The Danish compensation scheme institutes a compensation fund, wholly financed by the producers of GM crops with an annual parafiscal charge of DKR 100 per hectare of land cultivated with such crops. Compensation may be paid only to farmers and if the amount of GM material exceeds 0.9 % of the conventional or organic crop. The amount of compensation provided by the scheme is limited to the price difference (based on official market prices) between the GM crop and conventional or organic crops. The compensation fund will be replaced by private insurance as soon as it is available. In any event, the duration of the compensation scheme is limited to 5 years.

Notification of transposition measures of Community legislation

In November 2004 AT adopted an amendment of the Austrian national Law on Genetic Engineering, which introduces specific provisions on liability in the case of economic damage resulting from the cultivation or experimental release of GMOs on adjacent fields. This law was notified to the Commission as a measure transposing of Directives 90/219/EEC [10] and 2001/18/EC.

Measures adopted in the framework of national rural development programmes

SI made the participation of farmers in the agri-environment programme under its national rural development programme for the programming period of 2006-2008 dependent on abstaining from the use of GMOs. The Commission informed the Slovenian authorities that such restriction is not in line with Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 [11] as the use of GMOs has no demonstrable disadvantage for the environment if applied within the conditions of consent. The Slovenian authorities confirmed that for 2006 only certain measures will continue to be supported under the agri-environment scheme (organic farming and maintenance of grassland). Thus, measures in conventional crop production will be excluded from support, which could remove the disincentives to using GM crops under this support scheme.

CZ made complementary national direct payments in respect of the year 2005 conditional on co-existence requirements in maize cultivation. These measures include isolation distances and record keeping. The corresponding Government Decree (145/2005) was approved by the Commission under the Czech horizontal rural development plan.

Measures adopted by Member States without notification under the above-mentioned procedures at draft stage

The Commission is aware that some measures adopted by the Member States and concerning GMOs have not been notified at the draft stage under the procedures outlined above. Some of these texts provide for a total ban on GMO crops, which is not in compliance with Community legislation. Such measures should have been notified, where appropriate, under Article 95(5) of the Treaty. As mentioned above, according to case law of the European Court of Justice, failure to notify national measures under the appropriate procedure means that the measures cannot be invoked against third parties.

An Italian decree-law was adopted in November 2004 and later amended by a law in January 2005. It contains a total ban of GM crops in Italy until the adoption of co-existence measures by the Italian regions. In order to examine the Italian national law with respect to its compliance with Directive 2001/18/EC legislation the Commission requested further information from Italy in May and July 2005. Following Italy’s failure to respond, in October 2005 the Commission sent Italy a written warning for breach of Article 10 of the Treaty.

Some Italian regions have taken further measures concerning GMOs. Generally, these measures involve a ban of GM products or crops and are at odds with Community legislation. They cannot therefore be considered legitimate co-existence measures under Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC. Most of these regional laws were adopted before the national law mentioned above was enacted.

Initiatives to set up “GMO-free” regions

A Charter on co-existence was signed by 20 regions of the Community on 4 February 2005 at Florence. Since then, further regions have joined the group of regions. This text encourages the creation of “GMO-free” areas, but does not constitute a legally binding text which would have had to be notified. Depending on the Member State they belong to, many of the regions that have joined the network do not have the jurisdiction to legislate on co-existence.

In addition, the Commission is aware of a number of municipalities and regions in various Member States that have declared themselves “GMO-free”. As long as these declarations are a mere declaration of intent, a description of the status quo, or are based on voluntary agreements of all stakeholders concerned and do not imply a prohibition of the use of authorised products, they do not require notification by the Member State to the Commission. However, if those decisions are aimed at producing legal effects and result in a ban on the placing on the market of authorised GMOs, such measures might be in contradiction with Community legislation.

3. Summary of national co-existence measures

This summary of national and regional co-existence measures is based on Member States who have so far adopted legislation, notified draft legislation or have proposals or draft legislation/measures available for assessment. These Member States are summarised in Table 1. A more detailed overview of the co-existence measures can be obtained from the Annexes to this report.

3.1. Table 1 – Status of co-existence measures in advanced stages of development by the end of 2005

Adopted legislation | Notified draft legislation | Non-notified drafts |

AT (federal level and Lower Austria, Burgenland, Salzburg, Carinthia, Tyrol, Vienna), CZ (temporary rules for 2005), DK, DE, IT (Federal Framework Law), PT | AT (Styria, Upper Austria), CZ, HU, LU | BE, EE, ES, FI, LV, LT, NL, PL, SE, SK |

By November 2005, only a limited number of Member States had completed the development of national co-existence strategies. In most Member States, preparatory discussions are still on-going. The first specific co-existence legislation was adopted by some Member States in 2004 (some Austrian Länder, DE, DK) and 2005 (CZ, PT, some Austrian Länder). Mandatory good farming practices have, so far, been adopted only by DK for certain crops (maize, sugar beet, potatoes) and, on a temporary basis for the cultivation of GM maize in 2005, by CZ.

In ES, GM (Bt-) maize has been grown commercially since 1998. Co-existence measures were based on voluntary industry guidelines on crop stewardship. In other Member States, including CZ, DE, FR, and PT, the cultivation of GM maize is limited to few hundred hectares each, and only began on a commercial scale in 2005 in most of these Member States.

Due to the limited progress in the development of the regulatory framework and the limited cultivation, there is little information available about the practical feasibility of the measures currently under discussion or adopted. Monitoring programmes established in ES show that under Spanish agricultural conditions Bt-maize cultivation has not led to significant negative economic consequences for non-GM crop growers. In ES the Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales is in charge of the monitoring programme. Few cases of adventitious presence of GM maize were reported between 1998 and 2004. In 2004, in the course of the cultivation of GM maize on 58 000 hectares three cases of assumed adventitious presence of GM maize in organic maize harvests were investigated. In two of these cases GMO presence in the organic maize was not confirmed, and in the third case it could be demonstrated that the farmer had used seeds with a high content of GM maize.

In some Member States, the development of co-existence measures is fairly well advanced although not completed. The Commission received notifications of draft legislation from a total of seven Member States (AT at federal level, 8 Austrian Länder, CZ, DE, DK, HU, LU, and PT). Further legislation was adopted by AT concerning liability aspects in relation to economic damages resulting from the presence of GMOs in other products. IT adopted a framework law transferring competence for co-existence measures to the regional level. In NL guidelines endorsed by all stakeholders have been developed in the form of a code of good practice, which is to be backed up by legislation. Other Member States are preparing draft legislation on co-existence, which is currently in a review and consultation phase. These Member States (BE, EE, FI, FR, EL, LT, LV, SE, and UK) have indicated their intention to produce strategies/best practice guidelines by dates ranging from the end of 2005 to the end of 2008.

The limited availability of GM crops with approval for planting in the EU, or which are currently in the regulatory approval process means that, for many Member States the development of national co-existence strategies and best practices relates to a hypothetical (future) scenario. For some Member States (in particular countries in which grain maize is not generally grown, such as the UK, FI, SE, EE and MT), GM crops that would be relevant for cultivation on their territory have yet to become available. In these Member States, it is not surprising that progress on developing co-existence strategies has been limited.

Competent authorities and advisory committees (Annex 2)

All Member States have appointed Competent Authorities.

Competent Authorities and their contact details have been identified for all Member States. No information on Advisory Committees has been made available from LU, MT and PT.

Level of legislative competence for co-existence measures (Annex 3)

In AT, BE, IT and UK competence for co-existence lies at regional level. In all other Member States the competence for co-existence measures lies at national level. However, in some Member States, for example ES, certain responsibilities are regionalised, such as defining planting dates, monitoring and enforcement authorities.

Development of measures in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines

All recent co-existence approaches adopted by the Member States or proposals, which have been brought to the attention of the Commission, have certain central elements in common: generally, co-existence measures are designed to protect farmers of non-GM crops from possible economic consequences that may result from accidental admixture with GMOs. At the same time, GM crop cultivation should not be generally prohibited. The Member States have instead made an effort to allow the different production types- GM crop cultivation, conventional and organic - to co-exist within a region. Farmers cultivating GM crops have certain obligations to implement segregation measures, which are aimed at preventing the adverse economic consequences of GMO admixture. Thus, the obligation to implement measures to segregate GM and non-GM crop production has generally been placed on the growers of GM crops.

In Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for co-existence the Commission advises the Member States to take account of a number of general principles when developing national approaches to co-existence. The following sections it is analysed to which extent these principles have been followed by the Member States in their adopted and draft measures.

Transparency and stakeholder involvement

Most Member States reported that they have held wide stakeholder consultations, which points to a transparent procedure in the development of co-existence measures (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, HU, IE, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, SK, ES, SE, and UK). In most cases a wide range of stakeholders was consulted, including government, seed producers, scientific sector, NGOs, farmers and industry sectors (see Annex 6). The methods used to consult varied, with public debates, workshops, seminars, written consultation packages being used to varying degrees.

No information was received from the remaining five Member States.

Use of science-based decisions

Most Member States have referred to the use of research, completed or planned, in drafting co-existence measures. Little detail has been provided to validate the concrete measures proposed. CY, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, and PL made no reference to research- or science-based decision making in their responses.

The tables on completed and planned research (Annexes 4 and 5) contain information cited by the Member States in the questionnaire as being relevant for the development of their national approaches to co-existence.

Building on existing methods and practices

Given the limited practical experience of the commercial growing of GM crops few Member States appear to have built on existing methods or practices for GM crop production. Where such experience is reported, the rationale for developing co-existence measures has been mainly based on certified seed production techniques (DK, HU, and PL). Individual measures, such as isolation distances, have been partially modified to take account of differences between seed production and crop production. However, in some cases, recommended seed production distances have been taken over as co-existence measures. In ES, the proposed legislation has been further developed on the basis of the existing crop stewardship conditions and experience of segregation in agriculture. In NL, the approach is to have a system of self regulation by the relevant stakeholders in accordance with relevant national and Community legislation. In ES the measures discussed seem to be based on segregation measures approved.

In relation to the various sources of admixture (e.g. pollen flow, seed shedding, volunteers, mixing during harvest, post-harvest operations, transport storage and handling) measures have been proposed which addressing various operations in the process of crop production. Such measures include training for operators, the dissemination of information about GM crop cultivation to neighbours, authorities and the general public, on-field segregation measures (isolation distances, border crops, volunteer or bolter control), as well as harvesting, transport and storage techniques.

Some of the measures proposed go beyond those generally used in existing segregation practices/methods, such as the handling of identity preserved crops or seed production practices. These measures include compulsory training courses for GM crop growers or all operators dealing with GMOs (DK, ES, HU, LV, LT, NL, PT, SK). Alternatively, GM crop growers have to be able to prove appropriate knowledge for GM crop cultivation (Carinthia, DE).

A case-by-case approval or notification procedure is required or will be required for each GM crop cultivation in certain Austrian Länder, HU, LV, and SK. In response to notifications by the Austrian Länder the Commission requested that such approval or notification procedures should not lead to a dual authorisation for the use of GM crops, which are authorised for cultivation at EU level under Community legislation.

The farm measures are summarised in Table 2 (see also Annexes 8-20, including additional measures not mentioned here).

Table 2 – Summary of Farm Measures

Measure | Included by | Excluded by |

National register providing information on GM crop cultivation to the general public | All. Where specified, this register is open to the public. However, certain differences exist with respect to the degree of detail made available to the public | None |

Compulsory training | DK (for all handlers), ES, FI (option), HU, LV, LT, NL, PT, SK | Austrian Länder, CZ, LU, PL |

Licensing of grower | DK, HU, SK | Austrian Länder, CZ, DE, LU, NL, PL, PT, ES |

Approval procedure for each field* | AT: all Länder except Tyrol, Upper Austria, HU, LV, SK | CZ, DK, DE, LU, LT, NL, PL, PT, ES |

Notification procedure for each field* | AT: Tyrol, Upper Austria | |

Duty of grower to inform neighbours | AT: all Länder except Salzburg, DK, EE, ES, FI, HU, NL, PL, PT | CZ, DE, LU, AT: Salzburg |

Record keeping | CZ, DE, DK, ES, HU, IT, NL, PL, PT | AT, LU |

* Approval procedure for each field means that cultivation of GM crops is not allowed prior to receiving authorisation by a local authority following an application. In the case of a notification procedure cultivation of GM crops is allowed unless a local authority prohibits this within a specified time period. |

The registration dates vary between 15 days (SK) and 6 months prior to sowing (Upper Austria). CZ, DK, NL and SK have opted for fixed registration dates (CZ: 1 March; DK: 1 July for winter planted crops and 1 February for spring planted crops; NL have not approved any winter crops, 1 February for spring planted crops; SK declaration at the same time as declarations for direct payments, by which time all plans for GMOs should be registered.

Proportionality

In its guidelines the Commission advised that co-existence measures shall not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the tolerance thresholds set out in Community legislation in order to avoid an unnecessary burden for the operators concerned. For organic and conventional crops the relevant tolerance threshold is the labelling threshold laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM food and feed. Article 21(3), inserted by Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, sets a 0.9% threshold for "products intended for direct processing."

While this principle appears to have been taken into account in the legislation notified by CZ, DE, DK and PT, other Member States have decided to propose or adopt measures which seem to aim at reducing adventitious presence of GMOs beyond this level (Austrian Länder, HU, LU).

Concerns in relation to the proportionality of the proposed measures were included in the Commission’s detailed opinions in response to draft legislation notified by AT (concerning the Austrian Länder), DE and LU.

None of the other Member States have yet proposed technical details for technical field measures, nor have they provided information about specific tolerance levels for admixture of GMOs in other crops as a basis for co-existence measures.

The Member States have to take into account local factors that have an impact on co-existence when developing their national or regional approaches. Appropriate measures for co-existence are conditioned by numerous factors that vary from one region to another. These factors include climatic conditions, soil conditions, structure of agricultural production (such as field sizes, dispersed nature of fields, terms of ownership), dominant crops grown in a region, etc.

While there is thus the need for a degree of flexibility with respect to segregation measures, it has to be noted that the segregation measures proposed or implemented differ greatly among the Member States. For instance, in some cases where separation distances are proposed they are substantially greater than those identified from scientific research studies in the EU covering a range of agricultural systems in different Member States (e.g. studies on co-existence in maize production from FR, DE, ES, and UK).

Appropriate scale

The Commission recommended giving priority to farm-specific management measures and to measures aimed at coordination between neighbouring farms. Measures on a regional scale should only be considered if it can be demonstrated that sufficient levels of purity cannot otherwise be achieved.

Most Member States do not provide for regional measures but rather envisage or implement farm-scale measures. In some Member States, however, responsibility for co-existence lies at provincial or regional level (AT, BE, IT, and UK), which might lead to different regional approaches.

Where authorisation procedures for the cultivation of GMOs were made compulsory or proposed to be made compulsory it could not be ruled out that such authorisation may only be granted in certain regions.

A complete ban on the cultivation of GMOs was notified to the Commission by the Austrian Land of Upper Austria under Article 95(5) of the Treaty and initially by the Land Salzburg under Directive 98/34/EC. The notification by Salzburg was withdrawn and the one by Upper Austria was rejected by the Commission (see above) and replaced by a different approach by Upper Austria.

PT provides for the possibility to set up voluntary areas free from the cultivation of GM crops where growers all agree and which are approved by the authorities. Furthermore, the law makes it possible to prohibit the cultivation of GM crops in certain areas. LU provides for the possibility to prohibit the cultivation of GM crops in areas where co-existence can not be achieved by other means or in ecologically sensitive areas.

Some Member States propose to prohibit or restrict GM crop cultivation in protected or ecologically sensitive regions for reasons of environmental protection (several Austrian Länder, DE, HU, LV, LT, LU, PL, SK).

It should be noted that the environmental and health risk assessment of GMOs is fully covered by the consent and authorisation granted in accordance with the procedures of Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. According to Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC Member States may adopt national measures on coexistence to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products, but these must target economic aspects and not duplicate the environmental risk assessment which is harmonised at EU level. This provision does not justify taking measures to prevent the presence of GMOs elsewhere in the environment if such presence is not related to a product.

Therefore, restrictions on the use of agricultural plant species, including GMOs, in certain regions on environmental grounds have to be justified on a case-by-case basis according to the relevant Community legislation, namely the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Bird Conservation Directive (79/409/EEC).

Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC provides that, where necessary, specific conditions for the placing on the market of a GMO or conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environments and/or geographical areas shall be specified in the written consent. Therefore, restrictions on the cultivation of GM crops in specific areas, on environmental grounds, can apply only to those GMOs for which such restrictions have been laid down in the final consent (this is without prejudice to any possible requirements under other Community legislation). As a result, implementation of specific environmental measures should be required only if the written consent for the authorisation of a particular type of GMO contains specific conditions for the protection of particular ecosystems/environments and/or geographical areas or if they are justified, on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with Directives 92/43/EEC and/or 79/409/EEC.

An overview of the regions where the cultivation of GM crops is restricted is given in Annex 21.

Specificity of measures

The Commission recommended that best practices for coexistence should take into account the differences between crop species, crop varieties and product type (e.g. crop or seed production). Technical segregation measures have so far been developed by a few Member States (adopted: CZ, DK, PT; notified: CZ, HU, LU; drafts: ES, NL, PL, SE), and cover oilseed rape, maize, beet, and potatoes.

The crop specific isolation distances are summarised in Table 3. In addition, where good farming practices have been specified, these usually include segregation measures during harvest, post-harvest operations, transport and storage. Further crop specific measures are listed in Annexes 13-15.

Table 3 – Summary of crop specific isolation distances

| | Separation distances between GM crops and … | |

crop | crop included by | conventional | organic | seed | crop not included by MS, which have laid down specific measures for other crops |

Oilseed Rape | LU | 3000m | 3000m | 3000m | CZ, DK, NL, PT, ES, HU, SE |

| PL | 500m | 1000m | no details | |

Maize | CZ | 70m (1 row replaces 2m) | 200m (1 row replaces 2m but min. 100m) | no details | |

| DK | 200m | 200m | 200m | |

| HU | 400-800m | 400-800m | 400-800m | |

| LU | 800m | 800m | 800m | |

| NL | 25m | 250m | 250m | |

| PL | 200m | 300m | no details | |

| PT | 200m or 24 rows | 300m or 24 rows | no details | |

| ES | 50m | 50m | 300m | |

| SE | for single-gene constructs: 25m grain and sweet maize; 15m forage maize | identical | no details | |

| | for others: 50m grain and sweet maize; 30m forage maize | | | |

Beet | DK | 50m | 50m | 2000m | CZ, ES, HU, PT, SE |

| LU | 2000m | 2000m | 2000m | |

| NL | 1.5m | 3m | no details | |

| PL | 100m | 100m | 2000m | |

Potato | DK | 20m | 20m | 20m | CZ, ES, HU, LU, PT |

| NL | 3m | 10m | 10m | |

| PL | 50m | 50m | no details | |

| SE | 2m | 2m | no details | |

Some Member States proposed to provide for different isolation requirements between fields with GM and non-GM crops, depending on whether the non-GM crops are produced conventionally or organically (PT, drafts: CZ, PL for certain crops) or whether they are produced to non-GM standards (NL). Other Member States adopted (DK) or proposed identical segregation measures (ES, FI, LU, PL for certain crops).

SE proposed different isolation distances between GM and non-GM maize fields depending on the type of genetic modification of the GM maize. This proposal relates to the fact that GMO detection and quantification methods may give different results for single and multiple gene constructs, which means that rates of adventitious presence of the latter in non-GM harvest could be overestimated.

Furthermore, SE proposed different isolation distances between GM maize and non-GM grain and sweet maize vs. fodder maize.

Specific segregation measures to ensure co-existence with non-GM seed production have been proposed by DK, FI, LU, NL, and PL. Other Member States have not laid down specific rules for the segregation of GM crop/seed production and non-GM seed production. This could involve additional requirements for non-GM seed producers of those crops, where the isolation distances required to ensure the tolerance levels in seeds exceed both the mandatory distances to be respected by seed producers for other, conventional, crops of the same species and the isolation distances to be respected by GM crop growers with regard to other non-GM fields of the same species. In AT, enclosed seed production areas are a prerequisite for approval of seed production for several crop species if this is required in order to ensure appropriate seed quality. In such enclosed seed production areas, specific co-existence rules may be defined. While this is not yet the case in the other Austrian Länder, Upper Austria has notified draft legislation which provides for a complete ban of GMO cultivation in closed seed production areas.

Implementation of measures

The Member States have generally not followed the Commission Recommendation that during the phase of introduction of a new production type in a region, operators (farmers) who introduce the new production type should bear responsibility for implementing the farm management measures necessary to limit gene flow. They generally place this responsibility on farmers cultivating GM crops, whether they are newcomers or have already established GM crop cultivation prior to the introduction of non-GM crop cultivation in the neighbourhood. In practice this means that neighbouring non-GM crop growers do not have to change established conventional or organic farming techniques as a result of the cultivation of GM crops next to them. An exception to this principle may be granted in those Member States that have not proposed specific co-existence rules for seed production (see above), where conventional seed producers might have to change production practices following the introduction of GM crop cultivation in their immediate neighbourhood.

In most cases national draft legislation provides for the possibility that neighbouring farmers could, on a voluntary basis, decide amongst themselves not to segregate their production according to the general standards. The Commission requested in its detailed opinions to several Austrian Länder that segregation measures should not be made mandatory if neighbours agree that segregation is not required.

All Member States keep a national register of GM crop cultivation which is accessible to the public. Some differences exist with respect to the level of detail of information of GM crop cultivation made available to the public. In some cases, it is proposed that certain information (such as the name of a GM crop grower or the precise location of the field) be made available by the public authorities only to persons with a vested interest, such as neighbours. Most Member States also lay down a requirement to inform neighbouring farmers of an intention to grow GM crops. Consent of neighbouring farmers to the cultivation of GM crops is to be required by some Austrian Länder, BE, HU, and SK.

No Member State has yet proposed cross-border co-operation with neighbouring countries as a way of guaranteeing the effectiveness of co-existence measures in border areas. Some Austrian Länder provide for the consideration of neighbouring farmers in other Austrian Länder.

Policy Instruments

Most of the Member States have adopted or are in the process of developing specific legislation on co-existence. In NL a voluntary code has been developed in a stakeholder-driven process. The code is to be backed up by statutory requirements. An overview of the type of instruments chosen by the Member States is given in Annex 7.

In CZ, co-existence requirements in maize cultivation have been a condition for complementary national direct payments for the year 2005 as part of the national rural development plan.

In ES, GM maize has been grown since 1998 under a non-binding code of good practice. ES is preparing co-existence legislation.

The Austrian Länder of Burgenland, Carinthia, Lower Austria, Salzburg, Tyrol and Vienna together with DK, DE, IT (Framework legislation without specific rules) and PT have adopted co-existence legislation. The Austrian Länder Upper Austria and Styria, CZ, HU, and LU have notified new legislation.

Liability

Economic damage that may result from GMO admixture in non-GM crops is normally covered by national civil liability laws. It should be noted that this type of economic damage potentially affecting farmers is not covered by Directive 2004/35/EC on environmental liability [12], as this does not apply to cases of personal injury, to damage to private property or to any economic loss and does not affect any right regarding these types of “traditional damage”. This Directive does not alter the competence of the Member States to maintain or introduce civil liability rules on traditional damage caused by GMOs.

In many cases admixture of GMOs to other crops could occur through various sources (e.g. via neighbouring activities, activities on the same field at an earlier time, or seed impurities, admixture during transport, harvesting and storage, etc.). Furthermore, GMO admixture may remain undetected in the early stages of the food or feed processing chain, which may make it difficult to establish a causal link between the damage and the operator responsible.

Due to the specific nature of this kind of economic damage, some Member States have decided to adopt or propose specific legislation for the case of economic damage resulting from GMO admixture in non-GM crops as a result of neighbouring GM crop cultivation (adopted: AT at federal level, supplemented at provincial level by some Austrian Länder, DE, DK, drafts: ES, HU, IT, LU, NL, PL). No specific liability measures have been proposed for economic damage resulting from seed impurities, or from admixture due to the use of shared harvesting or seeding machinery.

Where specified in the legislation, liability for economic damages resulting from GMO admixture has been generally placed on the GMO grower. There are c differences between the different schemes. In some Member States liability is fault-based (e.g., DK, NL), which means that farmers growing GM crops can only be made liable if they have not complied with the legal requirements for GM crop cultivation. In other Member States strict liability applies (e.g. AT, DE, PL), which means that economic damage incurred by neighbouring farmers, which results from GM crop cultivation has to be compensated by the GMO grower regardless of whether fault could be proven.

Given that it may be difficult for non-GM crop growers to prove non-compliance by neighbouring GM crop growers, AT has introduced a reverse burden of proof for the case of GMO admixture.

In DE, strict and joint liability applies to GM crop growers neighbouring a field where damage occurs. In its response to the notification by Germany the Commission suggested not establishing different procedures for compensation for different operators that could have caused the damage. For instance, the presence of GMOs in non-GM crops could be caused by inappropriate application of segregation measures by neighbouring farmers, as well as by impurities in the seeds. It should be ensured that there is no discrimination between different types of operator related to a particular source of admixture.

Conditions for receiving compensation in cases of GMO admixture vary from one Member State to another. In some cases, compensation is only awarded in cased of non-compliance with legal thresholds for GMO presence, such as GMO labelling thresholds or GMO tolerance thresholds linked to food and feed labels (DE, DK, ES). In NL, non-compliance with private contractual obligations could also lead to compensation claims. In other Member States, conditions for receiving compensation are less clearly defined.

Claims sometimes have to be made within a limited period after the damage occurs or is noticed. This period is 14 days in DK and two months in some Austrian Länder (Burgenland, Carinthia, Tyrol, Upper Austria).

Moreover, in AT (federal level) compensation is limited to cases where the impact of cultivating GM crops on the neighbourhood exceeds the local standards.

In DK in order to obtain compensation, the GMO content in the damaged product must exceed 0.9%. Furthermore, GMOs of the same (or related) crop must have been cultivated in the same season within a distance of 150% of the mandatory isolation distance.

In DE compensation is limited to cases where there is significant damage to the product in which admixture is found. This is the case if the product damaged as a result of GMO presence can not longer be marketed, or has to be labelled as GM, or cannot be labelled as organic or as “produced without genetic engineering” (a national label). In all cases, a threshold of 0.9% has to be exceeded.

In ES a threshold of 0.9% must be exceeded for compensation to be granted.

Some Member States are considering the implementation of a compensation scheme (DK, HU, NL, PT). In November 2005, the Commission approved the compensation scheme notified by DK under the State Aid procedure. The Danish compensation fund covers economic damage resulting from GMO admixture. Compensation is limited to cases where the legal thresholds for GMO labelling are exceeded, and where GMO cultivation has occurred within a specified perimeter around the damaged field. It is financed by a levy on the cultivation of GM crops. In NL the establishment of a compensation fund without statutory backing was also agreed in a stakeholder-driven process but financial details remain open.

Others encourage or require GM crop growers to take out third party insurance (some Austrian Länder, LU). Currently, insurance cover for economic damage resulting from adventitious GMO presence is not available in the EU. This lack of insurance is due at least in part to the limited information available about the expected frequency of economic damage. The frequency of expected damage depends on the national regulatory frameworks for co-existence. In particular, it depends on the stringency of mandatory co-existence measures, which are still to be implemented in most Member States.

Where some Member States proposed to make insurance cover mandatory, the Commission pointed out to the Member States concerned that the lack of insurances for this kind of damage must not prevent the cultivation of GM crops.

Several Austrian Länder have introduced a legal requirement for non-GM crop growers to report adventitious presence in non-GM products.

Commercial cultivation of GM maize has taken place in ES under the general civil legislation in the absence of specific rules on co-existence. No specific liability provisions are envisaged in ES for the near future in relation to co-existence.

The national liability provisions are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 – Summary of liability provisions

Liability provision | Included | Excluded |

Liable Party in cases of economic damage resulting from GMO admixture: | | |

Individual GMO grower | AT, BE, CZ, DK, HU, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL | |

Joint and several liability by GMO growers in the neighbourhood | DE, (PL with respect to the environment) | |

Strict liability for GMO growers | AT, DE, PL | DK, ES, NL, PT |

Burden of proof lies with GMO growers | AT, DE (following proof by the claimant that damage could have been caused by GMO grower) | DK, ES, NL, PT |

Insurance Requirement | AT: Burgenland – but only if a suitable provider is available; | AT Länder except Burgenland and Salzburg |

| AT: Salzburg – may be a condition of licence; LU – compulsory | DE, DK (optional), IT, NL, PT, ES |

Compensation Fund | AT: Burgenland – for contaminated soil products | AT except Burgenland, CZ, DE, IT, LU, ES, SK |

| DK: Covers economic damage resulting from GMO admixture, where no fault by GMO growers can be proven. Compensation is limited to cases where the legal thresholds for GMO labelling are exceeded, and where GMO cultivation occurred within a specified perimeter around the damaged field. Financed by a levy of DK 100/ha of GM crops. | |

| HU – funded by a levy on GM crop cultivation | |

| NL – funded by stakeholders | |

| PT – funded by stakeholders | |

A more detailed list of national provisions on liability is provided in Annex 17.

Monitoring and evaluation

All Member States have identified their enforcement and monitoring authorities and given them powers to access fields, records and take samples where necessary (Annexes 19 and 20). The Austrian Länder and DK have also identified powers of restoration and defined who is responsible for the action to be taken.

However, given the limited cultivation of GM crops in most Member States, monitoring and evaluation programmes have not been implemented in practice in most Member States.

In ES, most of the feed production, which is based on maize, has not been segregated with respect to genetic modification throughout the feed processing chain. This has prompted some limited efforts by farmers to segregate GM and non-GM maize production for feed uses at the farm level. Co-existence measures have been implemented, on a voluntary basis, in areas where maize is also grown for food and starch production. Few complaints by non-GM maize growers concerning adventitious presence of GM maize in their produce were reported between 1998 and 2004. In 2004, during the cultivation of GM maize on 58000 hectares three cases of assumed adventitious presence of GM maize in organic maize harvests were investigated.

Provision and exchange of information at the EU level

By Decision 2005/463/EC [13] the Commission established a coordination network (COEX-NET) to facilitate the exchange of information supplied by the Member States on measures, experiences and best practices relating to the co-existence of genetically modified (GM), conventional and organic crops. COEX-NET provides a forum in which Member States can present and discuss national or regional approaches to co-existence. It allows Member States and the Commission to obtain an overview of best practices developed in other Member States and to be informed about the results of monitoring programmes concerning the practicability and cost-effectiveness of the measures taken. The first meeting of the network took place on 22 September 2005.

Research and sharing of research results

Numerous research projects have been and continue to be conducted in a large number of Member States. These research efforts at national level are complemented by activities under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP6). Following on from several research activities under the previous programme, FP5, three large research projects are funded under FP6: “Sustainable introduction of GM crops into European Agriculture and the food chain (SIGMEA)”, “GM and Non-GM supply chains: The co-existence and traceability of GMO ingredients along the food and feed chain (CO-EXTRA)”, and “Developing efficient and stable biological containment systems for genetically modified plants (TRANSCONTAINER)”. These three research projects receive funding of € 20 Mio from the EU budget.

In addition, the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) conducted an initial study on co-existence in 2002 [14]. Further work on co-existence, focusing particularly on the socio-economic implications of co-existence measures in crop and seed production is due to be published at the beginning of 2006.

ANNEXES

Inventory Organisation

Title | Content | Annex Number |

Summary Stage of Co-existence Measures | State of development of measures, number and date of notification under Directive 98/34/EC | Annex 1 |

List of Competent Authorities and List of Advisory Committees | A list of Competent Authorities, Advisory Committees and their primary contact details. | Annex 2 |

Level of legislative competence for co-existence measures (national or regional, with Regions where applicable) | Details of regional/provincial areas that are developing co-existence legislation | Annex 3 |

Supporting research for national development of co-existence measures | Summary of research cited by Member States as influential in the decision making process. | Annex 4 |

Planned Research | Summary of research cited by Member States on coexistence currently underway or planned. | Annex 5 |

Consultation activities | Details of stakeholder consultation arrangements. | Annex 6 |

Type of measures and time scale | Overview of type of measures being taken or proposed and an intended start date. | Annex 7 |

Farm Measures | Registers and trainingNational Register/Licence/Authorisation requirements for GM crop growersDuty to informTechnical segregation measures ITechnical segregation measures I | Annex 8Annex 9 Annex 10Annex 11Annex 12 |

Crop Specific Application | Oilseed RapeMaizeSugar BeetPotatoes | Annex 13Annex 14Annex 15Annex 16 |

Liability | Liability provisions | Annex 17 |

Penalties | Penalties in case of non-compliance with co-existence rules | Annex 18 |

Enforcement | Authority and powers | Annex 19 |

Monitoring | Details of monitoring arrangements for co-existence measures. | Annex 20 |

Areas, where the cultivation of GM crops is restricted | Details of specified protected areas. | Annex 21 |

Annex 1 – Summary Stage of Co-existence Measures

*: proposed **: in progress ***: completed –: no details available

| Member State / Region | Scientific Working Group | Consultation | Developing Legislation | Draft Legislation | Notified under Directive 98/34/EC | Adoption (if in brackets indicative date) | Monitoring/Evaluation |

1 | Austria: Federal level (liability provisions)Specific rules for closed seed production zonesFederal level (technical co-existence measures)Upper Austria CarinthiaSalzburg TyrolBurgenlandViennaLower AustriaStyriaVorarlberg | *** *** ** *** ****** ****************** | *** *** ** *** ****** ****************** | *** *** ** *** ****** ****************** | *** *** * *** ****** ***************** | – 2005/012/A – (2003/81/A) 2005/610/A2003/200/A(2003/327/A) 2003/475/A2004/311/A2004/459/A2004/538/A2005/005/A2005/297/A– | Dec 2004 May 2005 – replaced –Nov 2004replaced Aug 2004July 2005May 2005Sep 2005June 2005–– | – – – – – ––––––– |

2 | Belgium:WalloniaFlanders | ****** | ***** | **** | –– | –– | (2006)(2006) | –– |

3 | Cyprus | *** | * | * | * | – | (2006) | – |

4 | Czech Republic | *** | *** | ** * | *** | 2005/687/CZ | Rules for Bt maize cultivation adopted for 2005 | – |

5 | Denmark | *** | *** | *** | *** | 2004/546/DK2004/393/DK | June 2004 | – |

6 | Estonia | *** | ** | ** | * | – | Early 2006 | – |

7 | Finland | *** | ** | * | – | – | – | – |

8 | France | *** | ** | * | – | – | – | – |

9 | Germany | *** | *** | *** | *** | (2004/133/D)2004/241/D | Dec 2004 parts still missing | – |

10 | Greece | *** | ** | ** | * | – | – | – |

11 | Hungary | *** | *** | *** | *** | 2005/635/HU2005/637/HU | – | – |

12 | Ireland | *** | *** | ** | * | – | – | – |

13 | Italy | *** | *** | *** | *** | – | (Dec 2005) | – |

14 | Latvia | *** | *** | *** | ** | – | – | – |

15 | Lithuania | *** | *** | ** | ** | – | – | – |

16 | Luxembourg | *** | *** | *** | *** | 2004/426/L | (2005) | – |

17 | Malta | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |

18 | Netherlands | *** | *** | *** | ** | – | – | – |

19 | Poland | *** | ** | ** | ** | – | (2006) | – |

20 | Portugal | *** | *** | *** | *** | 2005/271/P | Sep 2005 | – |

21 | Slovak Republic | *** | ** | ** | ** | – | (2006) | – |

22 | Slovenia | – | * | * | – | – | (2006) | – |

23 | Spain | *** | *** | *** | *** | – | (2006) | |

24 | Sweden | *** | ** | ** | ** | – | – | – |

25 | Un. Kingdom:EnglandScotlandN. IrelandWales | ************ | ******** | **** | **** | –––– | (2008)(2008)(2008)(2008) | –––– |

Annex 2a – List of Competent Authorities

| Member State | Competent Authority | Contact Details | Email | Address 1 | Address 2 | Address 3 | Telephone |

1 | Austria | Federal Ministry for Health and WomenAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety | Manuela Wammeri Leopold Girsch | Manuela.wammeri@bmgf.gv.atleopold.girsch@ages.at | Federal Ministry for Health and WomenAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety | Radetzkystrasse 2 Spargelfeldstrasse 191 | 1031 Vienna A-1226 Vienna | T:+43 1 71100 4844 F:+43 1 715 2405T: +43 50 55534000 F: +43 50 55534808 |

2 | Belgium:Wallonia Flanders | Institute of Public HealthMinistère de la Région Wallonne, Direction générale de l’Agriculture, Division Recherche, Développement et QualitéMinisterie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap | Damien Winandy Directeur Dominique Perreaux Gilbert Crauwels | d.winandy@mrw.wallonie.be d.perreaux@mrw.wallonie.be gilbert.crauwels@ ewbl.vlaanderen.be | Chaussée de Louvain, 14 Chaussée de Louvain, 14 WTC III 1 2 verdieping, Simon Bolivarlaan 30 | | B-5000 Namur B-5000 Namur B-1000 Brussels | T+32 81 649 617 T:+32 81 649 611 F:+32 81 649 655T:+02 208 41 47 F:+02 208 41 84 |

3 | Cyprus | Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment | Eleni Stylianopoulou | Estylianopoulou@ environment.moa.gov.cy | Department of Environment Service | Louki Akrita 1411 | Nicosia | T:+357 22303865 |

4 | Czech Republic | Ministry of Agriculture | Marie Cerovska | Marie.cerovska@mze.cz | Department of Plant Commodities | Tesnov 17 | 117 05 Praha | T:+221 812 527 F:+221 812 705 |

5 | Denmark | Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries | Svend Pedersen | svp@pdir.dk | Danish Plant Directorate | Skovbrynet 20 | DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby | T:+45 4526 3772 F:+45 4526 3610 |

6 | Estonia | Ministry of the EnvironmentMinistry of Agriculture | Lilika Kais Andres Ounmaa | Lilika.kais@ekm.envir.ee Andres.ounmaa@agri.ee | Nature Protection DepartmentMinistry of Agriculture | Narva mnt 7a Lai Street 39/41 | Tallinn 15172 Tallinn 15056 | T:+372 6262877 F:+372 6262901T:+372 6256139 F:+372 6256200 |

7 | Finland | Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry | Mr. Tero Tolonen | tero.tolonen@mmm.fi | Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry | P.O. Box 30 | FIN-000230 Government | T:+358 916053405 F:+358 916052443 |

8 | France | Ministry of Agriculture | DGAL/SDQPV | – | 251 Rue de Vaugirad | FR-75732 Paris Cedex 15 | | T:+33 1 49555928F:+33 1 49554961 |

9 | Germany | Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection | Wolfgang Koehler | 222@bmvel.bund.de | Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und VerbraucherschutzFederal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection | Rochusstr. 1 | 53123 Bonn | T:+491888 5293356 F:+491888 5293743 |

10 | Greece | Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Food | Antonopoulos Dimitrios | ax2u017@minagric.gr | Ministry of Rural Development and Food | 2 Acharnon Str | 10176 Athens | T: +30 210 2124199 F: +30 210 2124137 |

11 | Hungary | Ministry of Environment and Water | Hajnalka Homoki | Homoki@mail.kvvm.hu | Ministry of Environment and Water | H-1121 Budapest | Kolto u. 21 | T: +361 3911778 F: +361 2754505 |

12 | Ireland | Department of Agriculture and Food | Gerry Lohan | gerry.lohan@agriculture.gov.ie | Department of Agriculture and Food | Backweston Farm, Leixlip | Co. Kildare | T: +353 1 6302900 F: +353 1 6280634 |

13 | Italy: Regions SGP | Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry | Aldo Cosentino | Scn-dg@minambiente.it | Ministry of Environment | IT-00154 Roma | | T:+3906 5722 8512 F:+3906 5722 8707 |

14 | Latvia | Ministry of Agriculture | Iveta Ozolina | Iveta.ozolina@zm.gov.lv | Ministry of Agriculture | Republikas lauk 2 | Riga | T:+371 702 7258 |

15 | Lithuania | Ministry of Environment | Danius Lygis Head of GMO Division | d.lygis@am.lt | Ministry of Environment | Jaksto 4/9 | LT-2694 Vilinius | T:+370 52 663562 F:+370 52 663668 |

16 | Luxembourg | Ministry of Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development / Administration des Services techniques de l'Agriculture (ASTA) | Marc Weyland | marc.weyland@asta.etat.lu | Administration des Services Techniques de l'Agriculture | 1904 L | 1019 Luxembourg | T: +352-457172234 F: 1352-457172341 |

17 | Malta | Environment and Planning Authority | George Carbone | Bcc.notifications@mepa.org.mt | Environment Protection Directorate | St Francis Ravelin | MT-Valletta CMR01 | T:+356 2290 6009 F:+356 2290 1585 |

18 | Netherlands | Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the EnvironmentMinistry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality | Hinse Boonstra J.H. Satter | Hinse.Boonstra@minvrom.nl j.h.satter@minlnv.nl | Rijnstraat 8 | P.O. Box 30945 P.O. Box 20401 | NL-2500 GX The Hague NL-2500 EK The Hague | T:+31 70 3395389 F:+31 70 3391316 T +31 70 3786519 F +31 70 3786156 |

19 | Poland | Ministry of the EnvironmentMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Development | Dr.Agnieszka Dalbiak Dr.Marta Czarnak-Klos | Agnieska.dalbiak@ mos.gov.plMarta.czarnack@mos.gov.pl | Ministry of the Environment Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development | Ul. Wawelska 52/54Uk. Wspolna 30 | 00-922 Warsaw00-930 Warsaw | T:+48 22 579 2538 F:+48 22 579 2555T:+48 22 623 2166 F:+48 22 623 1781 |

20 | Portugal | Ministry of Agriculture | Direcção-Geral de Protecção das Culturas (DGPC) | direccao@dgpc.min-agricultura.pt | Quinta do Marques | 2780-155 | Oeiras | T:+351 214464000 F:+351 21 4464099 |

21 | Slovak Republic | Ministry of Agriculture Central Control and Testing Institute of Agriculture | Adriana Varinska Dr. Lubomir Horvath Ing. Zuzana Hudecova | Adriana.varinska@land.gov.sk l.horvath@uksup.sk hudecova.zuzana@uksup.sk | Department of Plant Commodities (Secretariat)Department of molecular biologySection of variety testing | Dobrovicova 12Hanulova 9/A Matuskova 21 | 812 66 Bratislava841 01 Bratislava833 16 Bratislava | T:+42 12 59266360 F:+42 12 5T:+:421 2 64462089 F:+:421 2 64462089T:+421 2 59880296 T:+421 2 59880285 |

22 | Slovenia | Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and FoodMinistry of Environment and Spatial PlanningMinistry of Health | Mira Kos Skubic Martin Batic Darja Stanič-RacmanMarusa Pavcic | Mira.Skubic@gov.si Martin.Batic@gov.si Darja.Stanic@gov.siMarusa.Pavcic@gov.si | Safety and Quality of Food and Feed SectorBiotechnology Sector Sector for health prevention and promotion | Dunajska 58 Dunajska 48 Stefanova 5 | 1000 Ljubljana 1000 Ljubljana 1000 Ljubljana | T: +3861478 9110 F: + 38614789055T:+386 14787 402 F:+386 14787 420T:+386 1478 6851 F:+386 1478 6856 |

23 | Spain | Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Ministry of Environment | Dirección General de Agricultura Dirección General de Calidad y Evaluación Ambiental | oevv@mapa.es Dgcyea@mma.es | Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales (OEVV)Plaza San Juan de la Cruz s/n | C/Alfonso XII | 62 28014 Madrid 28071 Madrid | T:+91 3476593 F:+91 3476703 T:+91 5976067 F:+91 5975931 |

24 | Sweden | Ministry of Agriculture | Stefan Kallman | Stefan.kallman@ agriculture.ministry.se | Agricultural division | Fredsgatan 8 | SE-103 33Stockholm | T:46 8 4051000 F:+46 8 21 96 25 |

25 | Un. Kingdom:England Scotland Wales N. Ireland | Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsScottish Executive National Assembly for Wales Department of Environment | Renaud Wilson Rosi Waterhouse Stephen Jackson David Gray | Renaud.wilson@defra.gsi. gov.uk Rosi.waterhouse@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Stephen.Jackson@wales.gsi. gov.uk david.gray@doeni.gsi.gov.uk | Zone 4/E5, Ashdown House Pentland House Cardiff Bay Parliament Buildings | 123 Victoria Street 47 Robb’s Loan | London SW1E 6DE Edinburgh Cardiff Belfast | T:+0207 082 8080 T:+44 131 2447577 F:+44 131 2448240 T:+44 292 0825544 T:+44 2890 521333 F:+44 2890 521961 |

Annex 2b – List of Advisory Committees

| Member State | Advisory Committee | Contact Details | Email | Address 1 | Address 2 | Address 3 | Telephone/Fax |

1 | Austria | Bund-Länder working group on gene technology Working group on Guidelines for co-existence: Provinces-Chamber of Agriculture, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety | Manuela Wammeri Heinz-Peter Zach Leopold Girsch | manuela.wammeri@bmgf.gv.at Heinz-Peter.ZACH@ lebensministerium.at leopold.girsch@ages.at | Federal Ministry for Health and WomenFederal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water ManagementAustrian Agency for Health and Food Safety | Radetzkystrasse 2 Stubenring 12 Spargelfeldstrasse 191 | 1031 Wien 1010 Wien A-1226 Wien | T:+43 1 711004844 F:+43 1 7152405T: +43 1 711002795 F: +43 1 5138722 T: +43 50555 34000 F: +43 50555 34 808 |

2 | Belgium:Wallonia Flanders | To be established by the legislationMinisterie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap | – Gilbert Crauwels | – Gilbert.crauwels@ ewbl.vlaanderen.be | – WTC III 12 verdieping | – Simon Bolivarlaan 30 | – B-1000 Brussels | – T:02 208 41 47 F:02 208 41 84 |

3 | Cyprus | Scientific Committee under the law 160(I)2003 harmonising Directive 2001/18/EC | Eleni Stylianopoulou | Estylianopoulou@environment.moa.gov.cy | Department of Environment Service | Louki Akrita 1411 | Nicosia | T:+357 22303865 |

4 | Czech Republic | Working Group on Co-existence | Marie Cerovska | Marie.cerovska@mze.cz | Department of Plant Commodities | Tesnov 17 | 117 05 Praha | T:+221 812 527 F:+221 812 705 |

5 | Denmark | Scientific working group on co-existence between genetically modified, conventional and organic crops | Birte Boelt | Birte.Boelt@agrsci.dk | Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences | Research Centre Flakkebjerg | DK-4200 Slagelse | Tel:+45 89993625 Fax:+45 89993501 |

6 | Estonia | Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and marketing) | Lilika Kais Andres Ounmaa | Lilika.kais@ekm.envir.ee Andres.ounmaa@agri.ee | Nature Protection DepartmentMinistry of Agriculture | Narva mnt 7a Lai Street 39/41 | Tallinn 15172 Tallinn 15056 | T:+372 6262877 F:+372 6262901T:+372 6256139 F:+372 6256200 |

7 | Finland | Finnish National Advisory Board for Biotechnology | Dr.Leena Hommo Dr. Jussi Tammisola | Leena.hommo@mmm.fi jussi.tammisola@mmm.fi | Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry | P.O. Box 30 P.O. Box 30 | FIN-000230 GovernmentFIN-00023 Government | T:+358 916052919 T:+358 916052913 |

8 | France | Commission du génie biomoléculaire – comité de biovigilance | – | – | Ministry of Agriculture | 251 rue de Vaugirard | 75732 Paris Cedex 15 | T:+33 1 49555928 F:+33 1 49554961 |

9 | Germany | Advisory Committee | Dr. Gerhard Rühl | Gerhard.Ruehl@fal.de | Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (Federal Agricultural Research Centre) | Bundesallee 50 | 38116 Braunschweig | T:+49 531 596 2345 F:+49 531 596 2399 |

10 | Greece | Working Group on Co-existence | Antonopoulos Dimitrios | ax2u017@minagric.gr | Ministry of Rural Development and Food | 2 Acharnon Str | 10176 Athens | T: +30 210 2124199 F: +30 210 2124137 |

11 | Hungary | Working Group on Co-existence | Hajnalka Homoki | Homoki@mail.kvvm.hu | Ministry of Environment and Water | | H-1121 Budapest | T:+3613911778 F:+3612754505 |

12 | Ireland | Working Group on Co-existence | Gerry Lohan | Gerry.lohan@agriculture.gov.ie | National Crop Testing Centre | Backweston Farm | Leixlip, County Kildare | T: +353 1 6302900 F: +353 1 6280634 |

13 | Italy: Regions Self Governing Provinces | Committee for the Co-existence of Transgenic, Conventional and Organic Farming | | | | | | |

14 | Latvia | Inter-Ministerial Working Group | Iveta Ozolina | Iveta.ozolina@zm.gov.lv | Ministry of Agriculture | Republikas lauk 2 | Riga | T:+371 702 7258 |

15 | Lithuania | Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and marketing)Working group on drafting of the rules on the coexistence | Danius Lygis Neringa Šarkauskienė Oksana Ivascenko | d.lygis@am.lt n.sarkauskiene@am.lt oksana@zum.lt | Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture | Jaksto g. 4/9 Gedimino av. 19 | LT- 01105 Vilnius LT-01105 Vilnius | T. +370 5 266 35 62 F. +370 5 266 36 63 T: +370 5 2391 143 F: +370 5 239 12 12 |

16 | Luxembourg | No response | | | | | | |

17 | Malta | No response | | | | | | |

18 | Netherlands | Committee for co-existence in the Primary Sector Mar 04–Nov 04Committee for the Implementation of the co-existence agreement (to be established) | Dr. A.D. Hartkamp | | The Hague | | | T:+31 70 3708392 |

19 | Poland | GMO Commission | Prof. Andrzej Aniol | a.aniol@ihar.pl | Plant Breeding and Acclimatisation Inst. | 05-870 Radzikow | K/Blonia | T:+48 22 725 4711 F:+48 22 725 4714 |

20 | Portugal | No details | | | | | | |

21 | Slovak Republic | Commission for genetically modified plants | Dr.Lubimor Horvath | Lubomirhorvath@pobox.sk | CCTIA, Department of molecular biology | Hanulova 9/A | 841 01 Bratislava | T:+421 2 64462089 F:+421 2 64462089 |

22 | Slovenia | Scientific committee for deliberate release and placing GMO on the market | Prof. dr. Branka JavornikDr. Martin Batič | Branka.Javornik@bf.uni-lj.si | Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning | Dunajska 48 | 1000 Ljubljna | T:+386 14787 402 F:+386 14787 420 |

23 | Spain | Comisión Nacional de Biovigilancia | D. Ricardo Lopez de Haro Wood | Lopezdeharo@mapya.es | OEVV | C/Alfonso XII | 62 28014 Madrid | T:+91 3476593 F:+91 3476703 |

24 | Sweden | National Board of Agriculture | Anna-Clara Sjörström Staffan Eklöf | anna-clara.sjostrom@sjv.se staffan.eklof@sjv.se | Vallgatan 8 | SE-551 82 Jönköping | | T: +46 36 15 50 00 |

25 | United Kingdom: all regions | No specific advisory committee | | | | | | |

Annex 3 – Level of legislative competence for co-existence measures

(national or regional, with regions where applicable)

| Member State | Level of competence | Regions | | | | | | |

1 | Austria | regional (9) | Lower Austrian | Vienna | Burgenland | Salzburg | Carinthia | Upper Austria | Tyrol |

| | | Styria | Vorarlberg | | | | | |

| | national | – | | | | | | |

2 | Belgium | regional (2) | Flanders | Wallonia | | | | | |

3 | Cyprus | national | – | | | | | | |

4 | Czech Republic | national | – | | | | | | |

5 | Denmark | national | – | | | | | | |

6 | Estonia | national | – | | | | | | |

7 | Finland | national | – | | | | | | |

8 | France | national | | | | | | | |

9 | Germany | national | – | | | | | | |

10 | Greece | national | – | | | | | | |

11 | Hungary | national | – | | | | | | |

12 | Ireland | national | – | | | | | | |

13 | Italy | regional (22) | Abruzzo | Apulia | Basilicata | Calabria | Campania | Emilia-Romagna | Friuli-Venezia Giulia |

| | | Latium | Liguria | Lombardy | Marches | Molise | Piedmont | Sardinia |

| | | Sicily | Trenton-Alto Adige | Tuscany | Umbria | Valle d’Aosta | Veneto | Trento (SGP) |

| | | Bolzano (SGP) | | | | | | |

14 | Latvia | national | – | | | | | | |

15 | Lithuania | national | – | | | | | | |

16 | Luxembourg | national | – | | | | | | |

17 | Malta | national | – | | | | | | |

18 | Netherlands | national | – | | | | | | |

19 | Poland | national | – | | | | | | |

20 | Portugal | national | – | | | | | | |

21 | Slovak Republic | national | – | | | | | | |

22 | Slovenia | national | – | | | | | | |

23 | Spain | national (but autonomous communities may modify technical segregation measures) | – | | | | | | |

24 | Sweden | national | – | | | | | | |

25 | United Kingdom | regional (4) | England | Scotland | Northern Ireland | Wales | | | |

Annex 4 – Supporting research for national development of co-existence measures

This table summarises the research stated by Competent Authorities and/or national members of COEX-NET in correspondence or in the questionnaire in response to the question: ‘In support of GM crop co-existence measures being developed in your country/region, have you drawn on any commercial experience, research findings or economic studies from any source?’

| Member State | Research | Carried out by | Commissioned by | Date | Outline (provided by Member States) |

1 | Austria (federal level) | Literature study Biodiversity hotspots of the agricultural landscape as corner stones for risk assessment and monitoringGM-free areas of farming: conception and analysis of scenarios and conversion steps Elaboration of a model for GMO cultivation in Austria under Austrian regional and structural conditions by means of a so-called co-existence index The production of seed in defined production processes to avoid a contamination with genetically modified organisms in context with co-existence of conventional agriculture with or without GMO and organic farming Detection of maximum rate of foreign pollination in maize production fields on to consideration of the environments in the main production areas in Austria | Inst. of Ecology of the University of Vienna Dipl.-Ing. Werner Müller AGES (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety) AGES (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety) AGES (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety) | Ministry for Health and WomenMinistry for Health and WomenUpper Austria Provincial Government and Federal Ministry of Social Security and Generations Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water ManagementFederal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management | April 2005 Not published No details In progress May 2004 In progress | Assess possibility of co-existence of GMO, conventional and organic farming in Austria from the ecological point of view Brings together existing data (inventories, surveys, registers, mapping, studies) into a database from which GIS based maps can be created identifying areas in the agricultural landscape with a high proportion of ecological protection targetsConcluded that it is practically impossible for organic and conventional GM-free crop production to co-exist alongside a large GMO cultivation. The extensive use of GM seed and planting material in crop production would first interfere with and then displace organic and conventional GM-free production. Given that the proportion of organic farmers is particularly high in Upper Austria (around 7%) hardly any areas would be available for GMO cultivation if the intention was to safeguard the organic production of agricultural products by establishing a protection zone of 4 km radius. Co-existence management is based in principle on a case-by- case evaluation; this means an individual evaluation of the conditions whether or not the cultivation of GMO crops next to non-GMO crops satisfies the co-existence requirements. To avoid unintentional gene transfer during crop production (including seed) which meets the requirements of the relevant EC legislation for food and feed as well as for seeds, and to avoid the products having to be labelled as GMO-products, under the Austrian structural and environmental production conditions, it is necessary 1) to create “geographically closed seed production areas or regions” and “defined closed production processes” for the species Corn (Zea mays), Oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and 2) to create “defined closed production processes” for the species Soybean (Glycine max) and Potato (Solanum tuberosum). – |

| Upper Austria | GM-free areas of farming: conception and analysis of scenarios and conversion steps Scenarios of co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops in European Agriculture | Werner Müller Joint Research Centre | Upper Austria Provincial Govt., Federal Ministry of Social Security and Generations | No details | See above. It would no longer be possible to draw a clear distinction between GM and unmodified seed and harvested crops once GM crops cover approximately 10% of European land used for agriculture and continue to spread. Contaminated seed, pollen, seed dispersion and technical impurities are the sources of genetic contamination. As a result, organic and conventional GM-free farmers would have to resort to expensive protective measures entailing considerable additional costs in order to prevent such contamination |

2 | Belgium WalloniaFlanders | Developing a methodology for the evaluation of the possible agricultural and socio-economic impact of transgenic cultures on agricultural systems and the food chainDeveloping a methodology for the study and evaluation of environmental risks related to hybridisation between GMOs and the endemic flora in Belgium and of the feasibility of such studies taking the example of oilseed rapeNo details. GMOs in Flanders : Co-existence between different agricultural systems Dutch report on co-existence in the primary sector Developing a methodology for the evaluation of the possible agricultural and socio-economic impact of transgenic cultures on agricultural systems and the food chainDeveloping a methodology for the study and evaluation of environmental risks related to hybridisation between GMOs and the endemic flora in Belgium and of the feasibility of such studies taking the example of oilseed rape | Stakeholder group in the Netherlands | Federal Ministry of Public Health Federal Ministry of Public Health Ministry of the Flemish Community Federal Ministry of Public Health Federal Ministry of Public Health | Dec 2003– Apr 2004 Mar 2004 – Oct 2004 Dec 2003– Apr 2004 Mar 2004 – Oct 2004 | Co-existence concerns the prevention of contamination with GMOs and its economic impact. Measures need to be taken at farm level. Study on European legislation. The mechanisms of seed dispersion. Costs and liability in co-existence issues. Point of view stakeholders in Flanders. Point of view other Member States http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ned/sites/landbouw/publicaties/volt/15.htmlPossible consequences of co-existence, costs and potential damage. Legal basis for liability. Measures per crop. Co-existence monitoring. Recommendations of working group http://www.projectgroepbiotechnologie.nl/actueel/03112004a.html |

3 | Cyprus | No details. | | | | |

4 | Czech Republic | Study of selected factors influencing adventitious presence of GMO and biodiversity in the context of co-existence of GM, conventional and ecological cropsEvaluation and prevention of environmental and ecological risks related to the introduction of GM crops in the Czech RepublicParticipation in SIGMEA Monitoring of the fields with GM rape grown in 1999–2001 and their neighbouring sites Efficiency evaluating methods of crop protection tools using genetically-modified organisms and risk assessment while implementing | Research Inst. of Crop Production Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Prague Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Prague; Univ. of S. Bohemia, České BudĕjoviceResearch Inst. for Fodder Crops, Troubsko; Univ. of South Bohemia, České BudĕjoviceResearch Institute of Crop Production in Prague, Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Prague | Ministry of Agriculture European Community Framework Programme 6Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture | 2004–2007 2002–2005 2002–2004 | No details Ecological aspects of GM crop growing |

5 | Denmark | Co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic crops under Danish growing conditions | | Danish Scientific Working Group | 2004 | Working Group conclusions: Co-existence will require care during production and specific control measures in addition to good farming practice. Co-existence is possible at stipulated or threshold values with moderate levels of GM crops by using recommended control measures. Co-existence of maize, beet, potatoes, main cereal, lupines, field peas and beans can be ensured at the existing threshold. If GMOs are grown more widely further measures may be required. For a low GM threshold of <0.1% for organic production further measures are required. More rigorous measures are required for OSR, grass and clover due to cross-pollination and long seed survival. Cost of compliance varies widely. For maize, potatoes, cereals, peas, beans and lupines, the extra cost is 0–2% for conventional and organic. For OSR, beet and grassland the extra cost is between 3 and 9% for conventional and between 8 and21% for organic. Some of these costs will be incurred due to new EU labelling regulations. Working Group report: http://web.agrsci.dk/djfpublikation/djfpdf/djfm94.pdf |

| | Participation in SIGMEA | Danish Research Inst. of Food Economics; Danish Inst. of Agricultural Sciences; National Environmental Research Inst.; Risø National Laboratory | European Community Framework Programme 6 | | No details |

| | Participation in CO-EXTRA | Dan. Research Inst. of Food Economics | EC Framework Programme 6 | | No details |

6 | Estonia | No details | | | | |

7 | Finland | Report on the co-existence measures of GM- conventional and organic agriculture in Finland.Research on the costs of co-existence measures between GM- and conventional potatoesMemo on co-existence of GMO, non-GMO and organic production Measuring gene flow in the cultivation of transgenic barley | Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgrifood Res. Finland, MTT Ritala A., Nuttila AM., Aikasalo R., Kauppinen V., Tammisola J. | Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryFinnish Advisory Board on Biotechnology | Dec 2005 2005 Dec 2004 2002 | Several agronomic and legal recommendations. www.mmm.fi Prepared by a working group with representation from major stakeholders www.biotekniikanneuvottelukunta.fi/rinnelo.htm Gene flow in barley cultivation is very low. |

8 | France | Relevance and feasibility of a non-GM maize and soja production chain | FNSEA, INRA, ACTA, INP Grenoble | | Feb 1999 – Nov 2000 | Study of the feasibility of segregating GM and conventional crop production in different threshold conditions. |

9 | Germany | Study of the worldwide available relevant literature, especially in maize, oilseed rape, potato, and sugar beet Establishment of a working group for the assessment of different crops in respect to cross fertilisation, co-existence measures, and ecological risksExperimental cultivation of Bt-maize 2004 and 2005: Bt-maize and co-existence Research programme for securing co-existence of GM-free and GM-using agriculture as well as for protection of biodiversityParticipation in SIGMEA Participation in CO-EXTRA | Various Various Innoplanta e.V. Various Federal Biological Research CentreFederal Biological Research Centre | Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer ProtectionFederal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer ProtectionFederal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer ProtectionFederal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection | 2005 2003 2004, 2005 2005 | Identification of reliable measures that ensure the co-existence of GM maize and non-GM maize http://www.innoplanta.com/eng/start/engl.html Identification of sustainable co-existence measures and of long-term impacts of GM maize on biological diversity |

10 | Greece | Research from other member states – no details | | | | |

11 | Hungary | No details | | | | |

12 | Ireland | Review of worldwide literature and studies, any published co-existence reports:European report from JRC/IPTS European Environment Agency report (Eastham and Sweet 2002) Report of the Danish working group on co-existenceGM crops co-existence and liability Farm Scale Evaluation Study Report of the Netherlands working group on co-existenceMeetings and conferences e.g. Round-table Meeting on Co-existence in BrusselsGMCC03 Conference in DenmarkCOPA/COGECA Meeting Symposium on Co-existence | JRC/IPTS EEA (Eastham and Sweet)DIAS AEBC | Eur. Commission Denmark UKUKNetherlands | 20022002 2003 200420032003 2003 20032005 | |

13 | Italy | No details | | | | |

14 | Latvia | Modelling of dissemination of GM plants | University of Agriculture; Technical University | Latvian Council of Science | Jan 2004 – Dec 2004 | There are no regions in Latvia without bee-hives therefore the growing of GM rape is problematic in Latvia. There are no sound arguments for the need to grow maize or rape seed in Latvia – traditionally maize is not treated with insecticides traditionally therefore Bt maize is not necessary in Latvia. Increased risk of fungal infections in cultivation of GM rape seed tolerant to glyphosate. |

15 | Lithuania | No details | | | | |

16 | Luxembourg | No details | | | | |

17 | Malta | No details | | | | |

18 | Netherlands | Inventory of current knowledge on out-crossing in maize, oilseed rape, potato and sugar beet crops for the co-existence consultations in 2004Co-existence in the primary sector | Plant Research International, Wageningen UR | Temporary committee | 2004 Nov 2004 | Update on current co-existence in Europe; main findings concern maize, sugar beet, potatoes; main topic – separation distances, also referring to UK, French and Spanish trials to recommend separation distances of >25 m plus a safety margin for smaller fields |

19 | Poland | No details | | | | |

20 | Portugal | Impact of GM maize on agronomic ecosystems | DGPC/ISA/ESAS | DGPC | Dec 2001 – Dec 2004 | www.dgpc.min-agricultura.pt |

21 | Slovak Republic | State research project RVT 27-11 | Central Control and Testing Institute of Agriculture | Ministry of Agriculture | 1999–2002 | Development, standardisation and introduction of testing procedures for detecting GMOs in plant commodities, feed and foodstuffs |

22 | Slovenia | Preparation of groundwork for national strategy on co-existence | Agriculture Institute of Slovenia | | 2003–2004 | Main parameters influencing the possibility of introducing co-existence schemes given the specific situation within Slovenia were determined. Certain calculations were made of additional costs due to co-existence measures. |

23 | Spain | Studies on the co-existence of GM and conventional maize Analysis of adventitious GMO presence in conventional maize for human consumption | Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales; Molecular Biology Inst.; Agro-food Research and Technology; National Inst.; Agro-food; Provincial Technical Inst.; Monsanto; Pioneer Hi-bred; Nickersons SurOficina Española de Variedades Vegetales | Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales | May 2003 – Feb 2004 Sep 2004 – 2005 | In very large plots (>5ha) no row would have to be eliminated as the entire harvest would be under the 0.9% GMO threshold. The highest concentration of cross-pollination was recorded on the first two rows of the neighbouring field, from which point there was an exponential decrease. For plots smaller than 5ha, between 4 and 8 of the first rows next to the GMO variety would have to be eliminated, depending on the circumstances. After a distance of 10 to 12 metres from the pollen source, almost none of the remaining plot contained more than 0.9% GMOs; therefore, this remaining harvest could be sold as non-transgenic material. According to the studies undertaken, the % of GMO presence dropped rapidly over the first few metres around the transgenic crop. GMO presence in conventional maize crops depends on the size of the pollen source; the size of the non-GMO plot; direction of the prevailing wind; distance to the pollen source; and the sowing date of both crops. Study focussed on situation in Extremadura, where GM maize is grown next to maize for human consumption. Field controls to inspect compliance with segregation measures. Of 192 samples studied, 8 contained detectable presence of GMOs, all below 0.9%. Average GM content: 0.015%. |

24 | Sweden | Literature studies Swedish research | National Board of Agriculture | Ministry of Agriculture | Report 16 Dec 2005 | An Ordinance on GMO cropping in spring 2006. Commission to analyse the civil law and the liability when growing GMO crops. Report in Dec 2006 and possible new law on liability Jan 2008. |

25 | United Kingdom | Gene Flow Monitoring from the GM Crop Farm-Scale Evaluation Sites: Monitoring Gene Flow from the GM Crop to Non-GM Equivalent Crops in the VicinityConsequences for Agriculture of the introduction of GM Crops | SCRI, CSL | DEFRA DEFRA | 2000–2005 2000–2003 | Monitored gene flow from GM crops to adjacent non-GM equivalent crops. Two parts, on forage maize and oilseed rape. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-1-5-138.htm (paper on oilseed rape results published in Transgenic Research, Volume 14, Number 5, October 2005) http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment(gm/research/pdf/epg_rg0114.pdf |

| | Gene Flow Monitoring from the GM Crop Farm-Scale Evaluation Sites: Monitoring Gene Flow from the GM Crop to Non-GM Equivalent Crops in the Vicinity Consequences for Agriculture of the introduction of GM Crops | SCRI, CSL | DEFRA DEFRA | 1997–2003 2000–2003 | Aimed at monitoring gene flow from GM crops to adjacent non-GM equivalent crops. Results showed a rapid decrease in the rate of cross-pollination within the first 20 m from the donor crop and beyond this distance the rate of decrease was much slower. Results from individual fields were related to wind direction during flowering, synchrony of flowering and separation distances. Evidence of low-level gene flow was detected, beyond both the 80 m and 200 m separation distances recommended by SCIMAC for forage maize and sweetcorn respectively. The report concludes that a separation distance of 24.5m would be required to meet the 0.9% threshold recommended by the EU, and that 80 m separation distance would be sufficient to ensure that cross-pollination levels were below 0.3%.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment(gm/research/pdf/epg_rg0114.pdf |

Annex 5 – Planned Research

This is the information provided by the Competent Authorities and/or national members of COEX-NET through correspondence or in response to the questionnaire question ‘ Is any co-existence research currently taking place or planned?’.

| Member State | Research | Commissioned by | Date | Main Objectives |

1 | Austria | Establishing Technical Guidelines Detection of maximum rate of foreign pollination in maize production fields on to consideration of the environments in the main production areas in Austria | Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water ManagementFederal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management | since 2004, in progress since 2005, in progress | Establish technical guidelines for co-existence, but awaiting EU thresholds for GMOs in conventional seeds. The effective pollination from surrounding maize fields into neutered ones should be assured, i.e. the usual neighbourly growing conditions are prevailing. New scientific and representative conclusions concerning co-existence management (primarily minimum isolation distances), taking into account the different agricultural structures in Austria. |

2 | Belgium | No details | | | |

3 | Cyprus | No details | | | |

4 | Czech Republic | Study of selected factors influencing adventitious presence of GMO and biodiversity in the context of co-existence of GM, conventional and ecological cropsEvaluation and prevention of environmental and ecological risks related to the introduction of GM crops in the Czech RepublicProposed measures and guidelines for co-existence of GM and non-GM crops (sugar beet, oilseed rape) | Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture | since 2005 since 2005 since 2006 | Conducted by the Research Institute of Crop Production in Prague, Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Prague Conducted by the Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Praque Conducted by the Czech Univ. of Agriculture, Prague; Univ. of South Bohemia, České Budĕjovice |

5 | Denmark | No details | | | |

6 | Estonia | EU transition facility programme on GM co-existence | Ministry of Agriculture | Oct 2005 – Oct 2006 | Set up a system of procedures and inspections for use of GMOs in Estonia in accordance with EU regulations/recommendations. Aims to assist Estonia in the implementation of EU regulations on GMO and develop a strategy for co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops |

7 | Finland | Gene flow form Brassica campestris to nearby fields of cultivated B. rapa in Finnish conditions. | Agrifood Res. Finland MTT | June 2004 – Dec 2006 | |

| | Research Programme on Environmental, Societal and Health Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (ESGEMO) | Academy of Finland, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Environment | 2004–2007 | 10 research projects on subjects such as: Create new knowledge on environmental and health effects and potential risks of GMOs. Develop novel tools for research and assessment of the potential impacts of GMOs on nature. Evaluate the socio-economic and technological impacts of the use of GMOs, including ethical considerations and public acceptance of novel biotechnology. Research Themes. Ecological and health impacts of GMOs. Gene flow and interactions. Ethical and socio-economic aspects related to the development and application of GMOs in nat