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 {SEC(2006) 313}
Date: 2006-03-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, cultivation system, genetically modified organism, national agricultural policy, organic farming, transgenic plant

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 9.3.2006 
COM(2006) 104 final 

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 

{SEC(2006) 313} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Coexistence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, 
organic and genetically modified (GM) crop production. It is also a precondition for consumer 
choice.  The  Commission  firmly  believes  that  consumers  and  producers  should  have  a  real 
choice with respect to the type of agricultural products and the type of production they prefer. 
National  coexistence  legislation  should  allow  market  forces  to  operate  freely  in  compliance 
with Community legislation. 

Since farming takes place in an open environment, the possibility of adventitious presence of 
GM  crops  in  non-GM  crops  cannot  be  dismissed,  and  it  can  have  economic  implications 
where the two types of crops have different values on the market. This means there is a need 
for  feasible  and  cost-effective  coexistence  measures,  which  should  guarantee  that  GM  and 
non-GM crop production can take place in compliance with the legal standards applicable at 
Community level.  

Since  only  authorised  genetically  modified  organisms  (GMOs)  can  be  cultivated  in  the  EU, 
and  the  environmental  and  health  aspects  are  already  covered  by  Community  legislation,  in 
particular Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically 
modified  organisms1  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1829/2003  on  genetically  modified  food  and 
feed2,  the  issues  to  be  addressed  in  the  context  of  coexistence  concern  only  the  economic 
aspects of the admixture of GM and non-GM crops, and the appropriate measures to prevent 
admixture. 

Article  26a  of  Directive  2001/18/EC  calls  on  Member  States  to  take  appropriate  national 
measures  on  coexistence  in  order  to  avoid  the  unintended  presence  of  GMOs  in  other 
products, without, however, establishing an obligation for Member States to take action. This 
Article has to be seen in conjunction with other provisions in Community legislation and the 
Treaty.  In  particular,  according  to  Article  22  of  Directive  2001/18/EC,  Member  States  may 
generally not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of authorised GMOs. 

On 23 July 2003 the Commission adopted Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for 
the  development  of  national  strategies  and  best  practices  to  ensure  the  coexistence  of 
genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming3, which is intended to help 
Member  States  develop  national  legislative  or  other  strategies  for  coexistence.  It  contains  a 
list of general principles to be taken into account when developing national approaches, and a 
list of technical measures.  

Appropriate measures for coexistence are conditioned by numerous factors that vary from one 
region  to  another,  including  climatic  and  soil  conditions,  the  size  and  dispersion  of  fields, 
cropping  patterns  and  crop  rotations,  etc.  The  subsidiarity-based  approach  to  coexistence 
allows Member States to tailor coexistence measures to the needs of their local conditions. 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1, amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1). 
OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. 
OJ L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 36. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

EXPERIENCE OF GM CROP CULTIVATION 

Commercial  cultivation  of  GM  crops  in  the  EU  has  so  far  been  limited  to  two  events  of 
GM maize (Bt176 and MON810).  

In ES, cultivation of Bt-maize was 58 000 ha in 2004, which was equivalent to about 12% of 
the Spanish area under maize. In other Member States, GM maize cultivation is limited to a 
few hundred hectares. Therefore, the experience with the cultivation of GM crops in the EU 
remains very limited.  

3. 

LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES IN THE MEMBER STATES 

This  report  is  based  on  three  main  sources  of  information:  adopted  national  legislation  and 
draft  national  legislation  notified  to  the  Commission;  information  provided  in  reply  to  a 
questionnaire  circulated  to  the  national  competent  authorities;  and  information  provided  by 
national experts through the coordination network on coexistence (COEX-NET).  

By the end of 2005, specific coexistence legislation had been adopted in four Member States 
(DE, DK, PT, and six of the Austrian Länder; see Annex). In the great majority of the other 
Member States, only draft coexistence measures had been developed. In some Member States 
coexistence legislation has been or is being developed at the regional level. 

By the end of 2005, 20 items of draft legislation from seven Member States had been notified 
under  Directive  98/34/EC  laying  down  a  procedure  for  the  provision  of  information  in  the 
field of technical standards and regulations. In 10 of these cases the Commission considered 
that the notified measures could create obstacles to the free movement of goods; in four cases 
it raised no such objections. Two notifications have been withdrawn and four others were still 
pending at the end of 2005.  

The  dialogue  between  the  Commission  and  the  notifying  authorities  under  the  notification 
procedure has contributed to a substantial improvement of the proposed coexistence measures 
even though the Commission’s comments have not always been completely implemented in 
the adopted legislation.  

CZ notified provisional coexistence measures for GM maize cultivation for the year 2005 in 
the context of its rural development programme. 

In addition to the above-mentioned coexistence measures, further actions have been taken by 
Member  States  and  regional  governments,  which  have  an  impact  on  GM  crop  cultivation. 
Upper Austria and Salzburg had recourse to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty and notified to the 
Commission  draft  legislation  which  imposed  a  total  ban  on  GM  crops  in  those  regions, 
thereby  derogating  from  the  harmonised  rules  laid  down  in  Directive  2001/18/EC.  Salzburg 
later  withdrew  its  notification.  The  Commission  rejected  the  notification  by  Upper  Austria, 
arguing that the conditions set out under Article 95(5) were not satisfied. This decision was 
upheld in October 2005 by a ruling of the Court of First Instance4. In December 2005, Upper 
Austria  and  the  Republic  of  Austria  appealed  to  the  European  Court  of  Justice  against  the 
ruling. 

4 

Joined  Cases  T-366/03  and  T-235/04,  Judgment  of  5.10.2005  -  Land  Oberösterreich  and  Austria  v. 
Commission 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
SI  made  the  participation  of  farmers  in  agri-environmental  measures  under  its  rural 
development  programme  for  the  programming  period  of  2004-2006  conditional  on  them 
refraining  from  the  use  of  GMOs.  The  Commission  informed  the  Slovenian  authorities  that 
such  a  restriction  is  not  in  line  with  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  on  support  for  rural 
development  from  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGGF)  and 
amending  and  repealing  certain  Regulations5,  as  the  use  of  GMOs  has  no  demonstrable 
disadvantage  for  the  environment  if  they  are  applied  within  the  conditions  of  their  consent. 
The Slovenian authorities confirmed that the non-use of GMOs will no longer be a condition 
for support under the agri-environment scheme in conventional crop production. 

Some measures adopted by the Member States and concerning GMOs have not been notified. 
Generally,  national  measures  are  not  enforceable  against  individuals  if  they  were  adopted 
without the appropriate notification procedures according to the jurisprudence of the Court of 
Justice. Where such measures provide for a total ban of GM crops, they are in conflict with 
Community  legislation  and  cannot  be  considered  legitimate  coexistence  measures  under 
Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC.  

An  Italian  decree-law  adopted  in  November 2004  and  amended  in  January 2005  imposes  a 
total ban on GM crops in Italy until coexistence measures are adopted by the Italian regions. 
Prior to the adoption of the national law, several Italian regions had established bans on the 
use  of  GMOs  on  their  territories.  In  order  to  examine  the  Italian  law  with  respect  to  its 
compliance  with  Directive  2001/18/EC  the  Commission  requested  further  information  from 
Italy.  As  a  consequence  of  Italy’s  failure  to  respond,  the  Commission  sent  Italy  a  written 
warning in October 2005 for breach of Article 10 of the Treaty. 

In February 2005, 20 regions from different Member States, which in many cases do not have 
the  competence  to  legislate  on  coexistence,  signed  a  charter  in  Florence  expressing  their 
opposition to the cultivation of GM crops on their territory. Since then, further regions have 
joined the network. 

Overview of national coexistence measures 

The overview of the measures implemented or proposed by the Member States or regions is 
structured with respect to the general principles contained in Recommendation 2003/556/EC.  

Economic aspects of coexistence versus environmental and health aspects 

While  most  Member  States  make  a  clear  distinction  between  the  economic  aspects  of 
coexistence and the environmental and health aspects dealt with in the context of the GMO 
authorisation  procedure,  others  have  proposed  to  include  specific  provisions  in  national 
coexistence legislation on environmental protection. In particular, some Member States have 
proposed  to  prohibit  or  restrict  GM  crop  cultivation  in  protected  or  ecologically  sensitive 
regions.  In  these  cases  the  Commission  made  it  clear  that  national  coexistence  measures 
cannot introduce requirements to protect the environment which go beyond the provisions laid 
down in Community legislation.  

Transparency and stakeholder involvement 

Most  Member  States  have  had  extensive  consultations  with  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders, 
which indicates a transparent procedure in the development of coexistence measures.  

5 

OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Science-based decisions 

Most Member States have reported the research activities, completed or planned, which they 
are using in developing coexistence measures.  

Building on existing segregation methods/practices 

Given  the  limited  practical  experience  with  GM  crops,  few  Member  States  appear  to  have 
built on existing methods or practices for GM crop production. Where reported, the rationale 
for  specific  coexistence  measures  was  mainly  based  on  techniques  for  certified  seed 
production,  which  have  been  partly  modified  to  take  account  of  differences  between  seed 
production  and  crop  production  or,  in  other  cases,  have  been  taken  over  as  coexistence 
measures.  

Certain  measures  go  beyond  those  generally  used  in  existing  agricultural  segregation 
practices. Such measures include case-by-case farm-level approval or notification procedures 
for GM crop cultivation, which could lead to duplication of authorisation for the use of GM 
crops that have been authorised for cultivation under Community legislation.  

Proportionality 

Commission  Recommendation  2003/556/EC  states  that  coexistence  measures  should  not  go 
beyond what is necessary in order to ensure that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the 
labelling threshold laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and Directive 2001/18/EC in 
order to avoid any unnecessary burden for the operators concerned. 

While  some  Member  States  have  taken  this  advice  into  account,  others  have  decided  to 
propose  or  adopt  measures  that  aim  to  reduce  adventitious  presence  of  GMOs  below  this 
level.  In  some  cases,  proposed  measures,  such  as  isolation  distances  between  GM  and  non-
GM fields, appear to entail greater efforts for GM crop growers than necessary, which raises 
questions about the proportionality of certain measures.  

Some Member States have proposed different isolation requirements between fields with GM 
and non-GM crops, depending on whether the non-GM crops are produced conventionally or 
organically  or  if  they  are  produced  to  non-GM  standards,  even  though  the  same  labelling 
thresholds for adventitious GMO presence apply in conventional and organic farming. Others 
have proposed or adopted identical segregation measures.  

Given that the majority of Member States have not yet proposed technical field measures for 
coexistence, and that little practical experience is available, a full evaluation of such measures 
has not yet been possible.  

While the Commission recognises the legitimate right to regulate the cultivation of GM crops 
in order to achieve coexistence, it stresses that any approach needs to be proportionate to the 
aim of achieving coexistence. The coexistence measures adopted or proposed by the Member 
States need to be monitored with respect to their feasibility and efficiency, and adapted on the 
basis of the future results of monitoring programmes. 

Appropriate scale 

In  line  with  the  Commission  Recommendation,  most  Member  States  have  based  their 
coexistence approaches on management measures that are applicable at the level of individual 
farms  or  in  coordination  between  neighbouring  farms.  The  Member  States  have  made  no 
specific proposals for regional measures.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
PT and LU have made it possible to define regions where the cultivation of certain types of 
GMOs would not be allowed, if this is the only way that coexistence can be achieved. 

Specificity of the measures 

In the few cases where Member States have developed technical segregation measures, these 
measures are crop-specific. The crops covered include maize, oilseed rape, beet and potatoes.  

In  some  cases,  separate  segregation  measures  have  been  developed  in  relation  to  seed 
production.  

Implementation of measures 

Member  States  have  generally  placed  responsibility  for  implementing  coexistence  measures 
on  the  farmers  who  grow  GM  crops.  This  means  that  farmers  engaged  in  non-GM  crop 
production do not have to change established farming techniques following the introduction 
of GM crops. 

In most cases, national draft legislation allows neighbouring farmers, on a voluntary basis, to 
decide amongst themselves not to segregate GM and non-GM production, which means that 
non-GM production  would  have  to  be labelled as GM. This is in line with the Commission 
recommendation  that  segregation  measures  should  not  be  made  mandatory  if  neighbours 
agree that segregation is not required. 

All Member States have set up a national register of GM crop cultivation which is accessible 
to  the  public,  although  there  are  differences  in  the  level  of  detail  of  the  information  on 
GM crop  cultivation  made  publicly  available.  Most  Member  States  also  require  GM  crop 
growers to inform neighbouring farmers of their intention to grow GM crops. 

No Member State has yet proposed cross-border co-operation with neighbouring countries to 
address coexistence in border areas.  

Policy instruments 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States  have  opted  for  a  legislative  approach  to  coexistence.  In 
ES, GM maize has been grown since 1998 under a non-binding code of good practice. 

Liability rules 

Economic damage that may result from GMO admixture in non-GM products normally falls 
within  the  scope  of  national  civil  liability  laws.  Due  to  the  specific  nature  of  such  damage, 
some Member States have decided to develop specific legislation.  

Some  Member  States  are  considering  implementing  a  compensation  scheme.  In  November 
2005,  the  Commission  approved,  under  EU  State  aid  rules,  the  notification  by  DK  of  a 
compensation  scheme  for  economic  damage  resulting  from  GMO  admixture,  which  is 
financed by a levy on GM crop cultivation6. 

Others  encourage  or  require  GM  crop  growers  to  obtain  third  party  insurance.  Currently, 
insurance cover for economic damage resulting from adventitious presence is not available in 
the EU. It should therefore not be made mandatory as the lack of a corresponding insurance 
market would make the cultivation of GM crops impossible. 

6 

State aid case N 568/2004. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In ES, commercial cultivation of GM maize has taken place under the general civil liability 
legislation, in the absence of specific rules for liability related to coexistence.  

Monitoring and evaluation  

Given the limited cultivation of GM crops in the EU, monitoring and evaluation programmes 
have not yet been put into practice in most Member States. 

In ES, farmers frequently supply GM and non-GM feed production to the same market. This 
has led to limited incentives for farmers to segregate GM and non-GM maize production for 
feed  use  at  the  farm  level.  Where  coexistence  measures  have  been  implemented  few 
complaints have been reported concerning adverse economic implications resulting from the 
adventitious presence of GM maize in non-GM maize.  

Provision and exchange of information at European level 

By Decision 2005/463/EC7 the Commission established a network group for the exchange and 
coordination of information concerning coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and 
organic  crops  (COEX-NET).  At  its  first  meeting,  in  September  2005,  Member  States 
welcomed this coordination activity, which allows them to gain an overview of best practices 
developed in other Member States, and pointed to the need for increased co-operation in the 
development of technical coexistence measures.  

Research and sharing of research results 

Numerous research projects have been and continue to be conducted at national level. These 
research  efforts  are  complemented  by  actions  under  the  Sixth  Framework  Programme  of 
Community  Research  (FP6),  as  well  as  by  direct  research  activities  carried  out  by  the  Joint 
Research  Centre  of  the  Commission.  The  more  recent  research  activities  have  focused 
increasingly on the economic aspects of coexistence. 

Concluding observations 

Experience with GM crop cultivation in the Member States is still very limited and confined 
to  certain  regions  of  the  Community,  with  the  notable  exception  of  ES.  In  most  Member 
States,  the  regulatory  framework  for  coexistence  is  still  under  development,  although  draft 
legislation  has  in  many  cases  already  been  prepared. So far,  actual  cultivation of  GM  crops 
under the new  coexistence legislation adopted by the first pioneer Member States  (AT,  DE, 
DK  and  PT)  has  been  insignificant.  Monitoring  programmes  still  have  to  be  set  up  and 
implemented  in  order  to  verify  the  effectiveness  and  economic  feasibility  of  the  measures 
taken.  

All  coexistence  measures  adopted  or  proposed  by  the  Member  States  have  certain  central 
elements  in  common:  They  are  designed  to  protect  farmers  of  non-GM  crops  from  the 
possible  economic  consequences  of  accidental  admixture  with  GMOs.  At  the  same  time, 
GM crop cultivation is not prohibited. While differences in the stringency of the approaches 
can  not  be  denied,  Member  States  have  generally  made  an  effort  to  allow  the  different 
production types - conventional, organic and GM crop cultivation - to coexist within a region. 

7 

OJ L 164, 24.6.2005, p. 50. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The onus of implementing segregation measures between GM and non-GM crop production 
has generally been placed on GM crop growers. 

There  are  important  differences  between  the  various  national  approaches.  First  of  all,  these 
concern the question of liability in the case of economic damage from adventitious presence 
of GMOs in other crops. Some Member States have not proposed specific legislation on this 
matter, which means that the general civil liability codes apply. Since civil liability lies in the 
competence of the Member States, it can be expected that there will be certain differences in 
the rules applying to coexistence, in the same way as there are differences in relation to other 
activities. Other Member States are proposing to establish specific liability provisions and/or 
compensation schemes.  

There  are  also  differences  with  respect  to  the  level  of  segregation  to  be  achieved.  In  some 
Member  States  coexistence  measures  are  aimed  at  ensuring  that  Community  labelling 
thresholds are not exceeded, which is in line with the Commission Recommendation. Others 
either make no clear reference as to which levels of GMO admixture are tolerated, or they set 
target levels which are below the Community labelling thresholds.  

The introduction of GM crop production has not always been followed by mandatory rules or 
coexistence measures. In the Spanish case this has not been seen as necessary, as the market 
does not require the segregation of GM and non-GM maize for feed use.  

While  the  process  of  setting  up  general  legislative  frameworks  for  coexistence  is 
comparatively more advanced, crop-specific field measures are much less developed and, in 
most cases, are confined to a few crops. 

This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  scientific  knowledge  base  for  coexistence  measures  is  not 
developed to the same extent for the different crops. For maize, which is currently the only 
GM crop authorised for cultivation, a substantial amount of scientific knowledge and practical 
experience is available. It indicates that the segregation of GM and non-GM maize production 
can be achieved with technical measures that are applicable at the level of individual farms or 
in coordination between neighbouring farms.  

However,  the  conditions  under  which  European  farmers  work  are  very  diverse,  as  regards 
farm  and  field  sizes,  production  systems,  crop  rotations  and  cropping  patterns,  and  also 
natural  conditions.  This  variability  may  have  an  impact  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
segregation measures, which therefore need to be adapted to the local conditions.  

Given  that  the  adoption  of  GM  crops  is  at  an  early  stage,  and  given  the  limited  overall 
information  on the feasibility  and  the  cost-benefit ratio of practical coexistence measures, it 
remains  imperative  to  maintain  a  maximum  degree  of  flexibility  for  the  Member  States  to 
develop specific solutions to achieve coexistence.  

The  national  or  regional  approaches  to  coexistence  have  to  be  in  full  compliance  with 
Community legislation, which rules out a general prohibition of GMOs in a region, as well as 
overly restrictive measures that go beyond the objective of ensuring coexistence, and which 
may make the cultivation of GM crops practically impossible. The Commission will take the 
necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  Community  legislation  is  respected  in  national  or  regional 
coexistence legislation.  

The Spanish experience has shown that even in a Member State, where the same coexistence 
rules apply throughout the territory, the uptake of GM crops is unevenly distributed across the 
regions  due  to,  for  instance,  differences  in  agricultural  conditions  or  local  preference  of  the 
operators concerned. An uneven adoption rate of GM crop cultivation across Member States 
and regions does, therefore, not necessarily imply a distortion of the market. At present, the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
impact  of  differences  in  the  approaches  to  coexistence  on  the  internal  market  can  not  be 
sufficiently assessed. 

The  challenge  for  the  Member  States  is  to  develop  economically  sustainable  coexistence 
measures. In this regard, it will be necessary to adapt the technical rules for field measures in 
a  flexible  way  according  to  the  results  of  monitoring  programmes.  While  the  Commission 
acknowledges the need to tailor coexistence measures to the specific conditions prevailing at 
national  or  regional  level,  these  measures  have  to  be  based  on  sound  science  taking  into 
account  the  best  available  research  results  and  field  experience.  Much  of  the  research  on 
coexistence  has  been  conducted  at  national  level,  and  is  fragmented  and  not  necessarily 
available to all regulatory authorities.  

The way ahead 

On the basis of the above conclusions, the Commission sees a need for further experience to 
be  gathered  on  the  implementation  of  national coexistence  measures.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Commission  sees  a  need  for  a  more  active  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  in  order  to 
ensure  coexistence.  The  limited  experience  and  the  need  to  conclude  the  process  of 
implementing  national  coexistence  measures  do  not  seem  to  justify  the  development  of  a 
dedicated  harmonized  legislative  approach  at  the  present  time.  However,  before  taking  any 
decision, the consultative process with stakeholders should be completed. The conference on 
coexistence in Vienna, on 4-6 April 2006, will provide for such an occasion. 

In the meanwhile, the Commission proposes that the following actions be taken: 

• 

• 

the  Commission  proposes  to  strengthen  its  efforts  to  make  existing  information 
available  to  all  Member  States  and  to  support  research  activities  that  fill  significant 
gaps  in  our  knowledge  on  coexistence.  The  positive  co-operation  with  the  Member 
States already established in the context of COEX-NET provides a suitable basis for 
further activities in this regard; 

the  Commission  proposes  to  review  and  analyse  the  latest  scientific  and  economic 
information available, on segregation measures in crop and seed production and their 
costs.  This  assessment  should  also  take  into  account  the  market  demand  for 
segregation and the relative share of food and feed use in different regions; 

•  starting in 2006, the Commission proposes to work jointly with the Member States and 
stakeholders on the development of best practices for technical segregation measures, 
leading  to  crop-specific  recommendations.  The  practical  experience  with  the 
commercial  cultivation  of  GM  crops  in  Spain  and  other  Member  States  will  be  of 
particular  importance  in  this  process.  Consideration  will  be  given  to  the  impact  of 
local  factors  (e.g.  average  field  sizes,  share  of  different  crops,  etc.)  affecting  the 
applicability of general consensus measures in the Member States; 

• 

• 

the  Commission  intends  to  obtain  more  information  about  the  existing  national  civil 
liability systems in view of the national rules applying to the admixture of GM crops 
to non-GM crops. This information will contribute to assessing the effectiveness and 
potential impact of diverging rules on liability and compensation schemes with respect 
to coexistence; 

in 2008, the  Commission will report to the Council and the European Parliament on 
the progress made in relation to the above-mentioned activities, including an update on 
the development and implementation of national coexistence measures. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
ANNEX: OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL COEXISTENCE MEASURES 

AT8  BE  CY  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES  FI  FR  HU 

IE 

IT  LT  LU  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  SE  SI  SK  UK 

Coexistence legislation: 

Adopted 

Drafts  notified  under 
Directive 98/34/EC 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x9 

x 

x 

x 

Drafts in advanced stage 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Specific liability provisions in relation to coexistence, including compensation schemes or insurance requirements: 

Adopted 

x 

x 

x 

Drafts  in  advanced  stage 
or notified 

Crop specific field measures: 

Adopted 

Drafts  in  advanced  stage 
or notified 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

8 
9 

Legislation has been developed by the federal State and the Bundesländer.  
Framework law transferring the responsibility for coexistence measures to regional level. 

EN 

11 

EN