Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming {SEK(2009) 408}
Date: 2009-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: consumer protection, cultivation system, genetically modified organism, national agricultural policy, organic farming, transgenic plant

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 2.4.2009 
COM(2009) 153 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming 

{SEK(2009) 408} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  coexistence  of  genetically  modified  organisms  (GMOs)  with  conventional  and  organic 
agricultural production is directly related to the practical choice of consumers and agricultural 
producers  to  respect  individual  preferences  and  economic  opportunities,  in  compliance  with 
the legal obligations regarding the labelling of GMOs. According to Directive 2001/18/EC on 
the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs1, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on GM 
food and feed2 and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of 
GMOs and the traceability of food and feed products produced from GMOs3, GMOs as well 
as  food  and  feed  containing,  consisting  of  or  produced  from  GMOs  have  to  be  labelled 
accordingly  in  order  to  guarantee  an  informed  choice.  This  implies  that  products  requiring 
labelling as GM have to be segregated from non-labelled products. 

Since the environmental and health aspects of GM crop cultivation are fully covered during 
their authorisation procedure, the issues to be addressed in the context of coexistence concern 
technical segregation measures and the possible economic consequences of admixing GM and 
non-GM crops. 

According  to  Article  26a  of  Directive  2001/18/EC,  Member  States  may  take  appropriate 
national measures on coexistence in order to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other 
products. Commission 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 farming4 is intended to help Member States develop national 
legislative or other strategies for coexistence. 

In  March  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  a  first  report  on  the  implementation  of  national 
measures on the coexistence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming5. 

On 22 May 2006 the Council of Agricultural Ministers adopted Conclusions on Coexistence 
in which it invites the Commission to undertake the following activities: 

(1) 

Come forward, as soon as possible, with Community labelling thresholds for seeds. 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ  L  106,  17.4.2001,  p.  1,  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  1829/2003  and  Regulation  (EC) 
1830/2003. 
OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. 
OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 24. 
OJ L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 36. 
COM(2006) 104 final and Commission staff working document: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/co-existence/sec313_en.pdf 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Identify, in close cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders, best practice 
for technical segregation measures and, on the basis of this work, develop guidelines 
for crop-specific measures. 

Intensify the use of COEX-NET6 to exchange information regarding crop segregation 
and liability measures, including cross-border problems in relation to coexistence, and 
to discuss possible solutions should such problems be observed. 

Explore  with  Member  States  possible  ways  of  minimising  potential  cross-border 
problems related to coexistence. 

Explore  sustainable  solutions,  which  are  in  line  with  EU  law,  for  areas  where 
agricultural structures  and  farming  conditions  are  such  that  farm-level  coexistence  is 
difficult to achieve for a given crop. 

Strengthen European research on coexistence in order to fill current knowledge gaps 
and make existing research results available to the Member States. 

Study the different national civil liability systems relating to their application in case 
of  economic  damage  from  the  admixture  of  GMOs  in  non-GM  crops,  including  in 
cross-border  situations.  In  this  context,  examine  also  specific  compensation  and 
insurance schemes developed in the Member States. 

(8) 

Continue to explore, together with the Member States, whether further steps towards 
common principles regarding coexistence should be taken. 

This  report  provides  an  overview  of  the  Commission’s  activities  in  relation  to  the  mandate 
provided  by  the  Council  Conclusions.  It  also  provides  an  overview  of  the  state  of 
implementation of national and regional coexistence measures, based on information provided 
by the Member States. 

2. 

COMMUNITY LABELLING THRESHOLDS FOR SEEDS 

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.  The  Commission  is  currently  carrying  out  an  impact  assessment  for  the 
establishment  of  such  labelling  thresholds  for  seeds  which  will  form  the  basis  for  a 
forthcoming  Commission  legislative  text.  When  drafting  its  proposal,  the  Commission  will 
also  take  into  account  the  Council  Conclusions  on  GMOs  of  5  December  2008  that  such 
thresholds should be set at the lowest practicable, proportionate and functional levels for all 
economic  operators,  and  contribute  to  ensuring  freedom  of  choice  for  producers  and 
consumers of conventional, organic and GM products alike. 

6 

The Network Group for the Exchange and Coordination of Information concerning Coexistence. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

GUIDELINES  FOR  CROP-SPECIFIC  COEXISTENCE  MEASURES,  CROSS-BORDER 
PROBLEMS AND REGIONS WHERE COEXISTENCE IS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE 

The Commission has created the European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB7), which is aimed at 
developing  crop-specific  Best  Practice  Documents  for  technical  coexistence  measures.  The 
ECoB will also address possible ways of minimising potential cross-border problems related 
to  coexistence  and  develop  recommendations  for  areas  where  agricultural  structures  and 
farming conditions are such that farm-level coexistence is difficult to achieve for a given crop. 

The ECoB consists of a Secretariat and crop-specific Technical Working Groups comprised 
of  technical  representatives  of  Member  States.  Stakeholders  are  consulted,  in  particular,  via 
the relevant Advisory Groups established by the Commission. 

The  first  ECoB  Technical  Working  Group  deals  with  the  development  of  coexistence 
measures  in  maize  crop  production.  It  is  assumed  that  it  will  develop  a  Best  Practice 
Document for maize crop production by 2010. 

4. 

NETWORK  GROUP  FOR  THE  EXCHANGE  AND  COORDINATION  OF  INFORMATION 
CONCERNING COEXISTENCE (COEX-NET) 

The  Network  Group  for  the  Exchange  and  Coordination  of  Information  concerning 
Coexistence  of  Genetically  Modified,  Conventional  and  Organic  Crops  (COEX-NET)  is 
aimed  at  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  among  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  regarding  coexistence.  Two  meetings  of  this  group  were  held  in  2006,  one  in 
2007, and one in 2008. 

5. 

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AT COMMUNITY LEVEL IN RELATION TO COEXISTENCE 

Three  research  projects  related  to  coexistence  were  supported  under  the  6th  Framework 
Programme  for  Community  Research.  The  SIGMEA  project  ended  in  November  2008.  It 
studied  temporal  and  spatial  gene  flow  from  GMOs  across  Europe  in  both  seed  and  crop 
production  systems 
to  determine  appropriate  coexistence  measures.  The 
TRANSCONTAINER and CO-EXTRA projects are still ongoing and will finish in the course 
of 2009. 

in  order 

In  February  2006,  the  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  published  a  report8,  which 
analyses the need and feasibility of changes in agricultural practices to ensure coexistence. 

6. 

NATIONAL  LIABILITY  AND  COMPENSATION  SCHEMES  FOR  DAMAGE  RESULTING 
FROM GMO ADMIXTURE 

Admixture of GMOs may lead to the devaluation of non-GM products, which would entail an 
economic  damage  to  their  producers.  For  instance,  the  affected  product  may  require  to  be 
labelled as GM according to EU legislation, which might result in lower market returns. 

7 
8 

http://ecob.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur22102en.pdf 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The admixture of GMOs may also have specific implications for organic products. Regulation 
(EC)  No  834/2007  on  organic  production  and  labelling  of  organic  products9  stipulates  that 
products, which require labelling according to Community legislation due to the admixture of 
GMOs, can no longer be marketed with an organic label. 

Liability in the event of economic damage to non-GM crops resulting from GMO admixture 
is a matter for civil law, which is the responsibility of Member States. A study10 ordered by 
the Commission has shown that all national jurisdictions provide a minimum of protection in 
cases of such damage under the regular conditions of tort law. The majority of Member States 
have not changed the conditions for application of general tort law to the specific case posed 
by GMO admixture. 

Nevertheless,  there  are  differences  between  the  general  tort  laws  of  Member  States,  which 
imply  differences  in  the  way  that  potential  claims  in  relation  to  GMO  admixture  would  be 
handled  and  resolved.  For  instance,  under  fault-based  systems,  proof  of  wrongdoing  or 
negligence by the defendant is required, whereas under strict liability systems, the judgement 
does not depend upon a value judgement of the defendant’s behaviour. Some Member States 
have  introduced  strict  liability  regimes  which  apply  specifically  to  damage  resulting  from 
GMO admixture. 

Furthermore, almost all legal systems have specific rules on neighbours’ disputes, which may 
also apply in the event of economic damage resulting from GMO admixture. 

Up  to  now,  there  have  been  no  court  cases  in  any  Member  State  that  would  illustrate  the 
actual application of the different rules in place by the national courts. 

At present, insurance products covering risks of GMO admixture seem not to be available on 
EU markets. In four Member States, however, insurance cover or alternative types of financial 
guarantee for potential economic damage are legally required, or may be required following 
case-by-case assessment, in order for GM crops to be cultivated. 

Some  Member  States  have  established  compensation  funds  for  economic  damage  resulting 
from  GMO  admixture.  Where  the  conditions  for  the  payments  into  the  scheme  are  defined, 
the  funds  are  financed  by  a  levy  for  GM  crop  cultivation.  As,  so  far,  no  compensation  has 
been  paid  out  from  any  of  these  funds,  it  cannot  be  judged  whether  the  levies  raised  are 
appropriate  so  as  to  avoid  either  an  under-supply  of  funds  and,  thus,  the  risk  that  certain 
damage may not be fully compensated, or over-financing, which would entail an unnecessary 
economic burden for GM crop farming. 

So far, no instance of economic damage resulting from cross-border admixture of GMOs has 
been reported by the Member States. Generally, questions of jurisdiction in cross-border cases 
are addressed by the Rome II Regulation11. 

9 
10 
11 

OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/liability_gmo/index_en.htm 
Regulation  (EC)  No  864/2007  on  the  law  applicable  to  non-contractual  obligations  (Rome  II). 
OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL COEXISTENCE MEASURES 

At  the  present  stage,  15  Member  States  have  adopted  specific  legislation  on  coexistence12. 
Draft  legislation  of  three  further  Member  States  has  been  notified  to  the  Commission.  The 
Commission  examines  the  compatibility  of  national  coexistence  measures  with  the  internal 
market in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of 
information in the field of technical standards and regulations13. 

No Member States reported addressing coexistence by means of non-legislative instruments, 
but in some Member States the development of a regulatory framework is not envisaged in the 
near future as the cultivation of GM crops on their territory has been deemed unlikely to take 
place. 

In some Member States, competence for coexistence lies at regional level. 

In  the  absence  of  GM  crop  cultivation  in  most  Member  States,  programmes  monitoring  the 
application  and  effectiveness  of  the  coexistence  legislation  have  not  yet  been  practically 
implemented.  Existing  monitoring  programmes  in  some  Member  States  did  not  reveal  any 
negative results as regards non-compliance with compulsory coexistence or labelling rules. 

No Member State indicated that the coexistence rules in place would be insufficient to ensure 
appropriate levels of segregation of GM and non-GM crops. Member States did not refer to 
any court cases in relation to GMO admixture to non-GM crops, but one case was reported in 
relation to bee keeping. 

Apart  from  some  Member  States  that  have  not  yet  started  to  develop  an  approach  on 
coexistence,  all  Member  States  conducted  stakeholder  consultations  for  the  development  of 
coexistence measures. 

7.1. 

Information, registration and training procedures 

The national  provisions  on informing  public authorities, third parties and the general public 
on GM crop cultivation differ in detail. Some Member States require a case-by-case approval 
procedure for the cultivation of GM crops, whereas others only require farmers to notify GM 
crop cultivation to the competent authorities. One Member State does not stipulate individual 
registration of GM crop cultivation by farmers. 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  GM  crop  growers  have  to  inform  their  immediate 
neighbours,  operators  with  whom  they  share  agricultural  machinery,  the  owners  of  the 
property on which cultivation is intended, and in three Member States, bee keepers within a 
certain perimeter around a GM crop field. 

The  public  is  generally  informed  about  the  cultivation  of  GM  crops  via  a  public  register, 
which  may  either  include  extensive  information  about  cultivation  plots,  including  personal 
data of growers and the exact location of plots, or only information at an aggregate level, e.g. 
total cultivation surface per region or local authority area. 

12 
13 

AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, FR, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO, SE, SK. 
OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. Draft measures can be obtained from a public database at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/ 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In some Member States, seed distributors have to report the amount of GM seeds sold and/or 
inform farmers about the coexistence rules in place. Operators dealing with transport, storage 
and packing of GM crops sometimes have to be registered. 

Some  Member  States  require  GM  crop  growers  to  undergo  mandatory  training  or  to 
demonstrate sufficient knowledge in order to implement the required segregation measures. 

7.2. 

Technical segregation measures 

The majority of Member States have designed the coexistence measures in such a manner that 
they prevent the labelling threshold for GMOs in food and feed set at a level of 0.9% from 
being  exceeded.  However,  some  Member  States  indicated  that  they  strove  for  GMO 
admixture  levels  to  be  as  low  as  possible.  Some  Member  States  take  into  account  possible 
future  seeds  thresholds  at  values  different  from  zero,  which  limits  the  scope  for  admixture 
from other, non-seed sources and requires stricter segregation measures in the field. 

Twelve  Member  States  adopted  segregation  measures  for  at  least  one  crop.  The  spatial 
segregation  is  generally  based  on  isolation  distances  between  GM  crop  fields  and 
neighbouring  non-GM  fields  with  sexually  compatible  crops.  The  isolation  distances  can 
sometimes be partially or fully replaced by buffer zones between GM and non-GM fields in 
which  sexually  compatible  non-GM  crops  are  grown  that  are  harvested  and  treated  as  GM 
plants.  In  other  Member  States,  buffer  zones  are  mandatory  supplements  to  isolation 
distances. The possible use of different flowering times is permitted by two Member States. 

Some Member States require obligatory consultation of neighbours, and in some cases their 
written agreement to the cultivation of GM crops if their own land is used to implement the 
isolation distances. 

Species  so  far  addressed  by  national  segregation  measures  include  maize,  and  in  some 
Member States also potato, sugar beet, fodder beet, wheat and oilseed rape. 

In  six  Member  States  segregation  measures  between  GM  crop  fields  and  organic  fields  are 
more stringent when  compared to  those applying between GM crop fields and conventional 
fields. In six other Member States identical segregation measures apply. Different segregation 
measures  are  defined  by  some  Member  States  regarding  fields  used  for  the  production  of 
seeds. 

Segregation measures vary among Member States: for instance, isolation distances for maize 
production  range  between  25m  and  600m  with  respect  to  conventional  maize  and  between 
50m and 600m regarding organic maize. 

One  Member  State  requires  GM  crop  growers  to  observe  isolation  distances  with  regard  to 
sites of established bee keeping. 

In all Member States the segregation measures have to be applied by GM crop growers and 
operators dealing with GM seeds or harvests. Only where neighbouring non-GM crop growers 
voluntarily agree to joint implementation of segregation measures would they be required to 
adopt  some  responsibility.  For  coexistence  in  seed  production,  some  Member  States  assign 
this responsibility to the seed producers and others to the GM crop growers. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Some  Member  States  allow  operators  to  agree  amongst  themselves  not  to  implement 
segregation  measures  between  their  fields,  whereas  in  other  Member  States  segregation  is 
obligatory in all cases. 

Some  Member  States  regulate  segregation  during  different  specific  agricultural  operations 
(e.g. seeding cultivation, harvest, post-harvest operations, transport, storage), whereas others 
only address segregation from neighbouring fields. 

7.3. 

Restrictions on the cultivation of GM crops 

Many Member States require specific procedures for, or prohibit, the cultivation of GM crops 
in  areas  under  environmental  protection  (e.g.  Natura  2000  areas).  These  measures  are  not 
related to coexistence and need to be assessed against existing Community legislation. 

Even though some Member States provide for the possibility of defining regions in which GM 
crop  cultivation  could  be  prohibited  for  socio-economic  reasons,  such  regions  have  not  yet 
been set up. The establishment of such regions would need to be notified to the Commission. 
In  the  absence  of  notification,  the  measures  may  not  be  applicable  and  therefore  not  be 
enforceable against individuals. Certain regions in some Member States declared themselves 
to be GMO-free, but such declarations are of a political nature and do not constitute legally 
binding prohibitions. 

Some Member States provide for the possibility of designating regions in which either only 
GM varieties of a given crop or, alternatively, only non-GM varieties can be cultivated on the 
basis of voluntary decisions by all farmers within the zone. 

Four Member States prohibit the cultivation of the GM maize MON810 under the safeguard 
measures  laid  down  by  EU  legislation  in  cases  of  new  scientific  evidence  in  relation  to  the 
safety  assessment  of  GMOs.  In  those  Member  States,  GM  crop  cultivation  is  currently  not 
possible  as  MON810  is  for  the  time  being  the  only  GM  crop  available  for  commercial 
cultivation in the EU. These measures are not related to coexistence and are being addressed 
in accordance with the procedure under EU legislation. 

7.4. 

Administrative provisions 

Rules on the enforcement and monitoring of coexistence measures were put in place by the 
majority  of  Member  States  that  established  legislation  on  coexistence.  However,  practical 
application of the procedures were started only in those Member States where GM crops are 
actually cultivated. 

Infringement of coexistence legislation is punishable in some, but not all Member States. 

7.5. 

Commercial experience with GM maize cultivation 

The  only  GM  crop  currently  cultivated  in  the  EU  is  the  GM  maize  MON810,  which  is 
resistant to certain lepidopteran pests. In 2008, based on information provided by the Member 
States,  MON810  was  cultivated  in  six  Member  States  (CZ,  DE,  ES,  PT,  RO,  SK)  on  a 
cultivation  surface  of  about  100 000  hectares,  which  equals  1.2  percent  of  the  total  maize 
acreage  in  EU27  this  year.  However,  in  certain  Member  States,  GM  maize  cultivation 
represents a larger share of maize production (e.g. more than 20% in ES). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
In  general,  the  Member  States  consider  their  national  coexistence  legislation  not  to  have  a 
strong  impact  regarding  the  introduction  of  GM  crops  by  farmers,  but  this  issue  deserves 
further  investigation.  Generally,  the  trend  is  that  cultivation  surfaces  are  expanding  in  the 
seven  abovementioned  Member  States,  five  of  which  have  set  up  mandatory  coexistence 
rules. 

7.6. 

Cross-border issues 

So  far,  only  a  few  Member  States  have  started  collaboration  with  other  Member  States  to 
develop possible measures for addressing cross-border coexistence issues. There have been no 
documented cases of cross-border admixture of GMOs. 

7.7. 

National research activities on coexistence 

Many  Member  States  reported  national  research  activities  in  order  to  substantiate  the 
development  of  coexistence  measures.  Research  activities  in  this  area  are  still  ongoing  in 
thirteen Member States. 

8. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Since  2006,  Member  States  have  made  significant  progress  in  developing  coexistence 
legislation. This development of the legislative framework went hand in hand with a moderate 
expansion  of  the  cultivation  surface  involving  GM  crops.  However,  GM  crop  production  is 
still  a  niche  production  in  the  EU,  with  currently  only  a  single  GM  product  being  in 
commercial use and with cultivation on a very limited scale. 

Even though there is ongoing controversy about the cultivation of GM crops in the EU within 
society  at  large,  there  is  no  concrete  indication  that  there  have  been  practical  difficulties  in 
introducing GM crops into EU agriculture. This assessment is, however, based on the limited 
commercial  experience  gained  so  far.  More  extensive  practical  experience  resulting  from 
cultivation over several years is confined to some regions within a few Member States. 

There have been no reports of economic damage resulting from either non-compliance with 
the  national  coexistence  rules  or  from  the  rules  themselves  being  inappropriate  in  terms  of 
achieving  sufficient  levels  of  segregation  between  GM  and  non-GM  crop  production. 
Monitoring programmes set up by Member States have not revealed any shortcomings in the 
rules in place. 

The coexistence approaches applied in Member States differ with respect to the administrative 
procedures  and  technical  segregation  measures.  There  is  no  compelling  evidence,  however, 
that differences in the legislative framework are a determining factor in the choice of farmers 
whether  to  grow  GM  crops  or  not.  Other  aspects  that  seem  to  play  an  at  least  equally 
important role are the existence of suitable market outlets for GM products, regional variation 
as regards the possible advantages or disadvantages of GM crops over their conventional or 
organic  counterparts,  and  societal  drivers  such  as  neighbours’  disputes  and  destruction  of 
fields.  The  importance  of  these  aspects  is  demonstrated  by  the  heterogeneous  spatial 
distribution  of  GMO  cultivation  even  within  Member  States  under  identical  coexistence 
regimes. 

The  differences  observed  among  the  national  measures  can,  at  least  to  some  extent,  be 
attributed  to  the  regional  variation  of  agronomic,  climatic  and  other  factors  determining  the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
likelihood of GMO admixture to other crops. Further experience needs to be gained in order 
to  fully  assess  the  efficiency  of  national  coexistence  measures.  The  European  Coexistence 
Bureau will develop guidance in this regard. 

Even though different coexistence approaches between neighbouring Member States have the 
potential to create cross-border problems, such difficulties have not been observed in practice. 
Therefore, for the time being there seems to be no need to develop specific measures on cross-
border issues in relation to coexistence. 

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to initiate the development of Community 
legal  instruments  that  could  interfere  with  the  national  liability  provisions  in  relation  to 
damage caused by GMO admixture. As explained above, much of the diversity in this regard 
results  from  differences  in  existing  national  liability  and  compensation  systems,  which  also 
apply in relation to other economic activities. These differences have not yet led to the need 
for harmonisation. Furthermore, the different jurisdictions of Member States have developed 
individual claims cultures and a distinct compensation cultures. Creating uniform rules for the 
narrow  scenario  posed  by  GMO  admixture  may  lead  to  parallel  application  of  different  tort 
law regimes within a single Member State. 

Given  the  apparent  absence  of  insurance  solutions  for  such  damage,  Member  States  are 
encouraged to explore steps aimed at facilitating the development of appropriate products by 
insurers. 

Research  activities  concerning  various  aspects  of  coexistence  are  still  ongoing  in  many 
Member  States,  illustrating  the  need  to  further  develop  the  knowledge  base  concerning 
coexistence.  Further  research  activities  will  be  required  in  the  medium  term  to  address 
segregation of GM and non-GM production chains beyond the farm gate. 

An  assessment  of  the  best  way  forward  to  address  coexistence  must  take  into  account 
commercial  experience  in  Member  States.  It  must  include  a  solid  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  measures  put  in  place,  and  an  analysis  of  the  impact  of 
national  measures  on  the  competitiveness  of  farmers  and  the  freedom  of  choice  of  both 
farmers and consumers. At the present time there is no indication of the need to deviate from 
the subsidiarity-based approach on coexistence and to develop further harmonisation on this 
matter. 

The Commission sees a need to undertake the following actions in relation to coexistence: 

•  The Commission will, at the earliest possibility, conclude an economic impact assessment 
concerning  the  establishment  of  potential  future  seeds  thresholds.  The  Commission  will 
propose appropriate legislative follow-up on the basis of that assessment. 

•  The  Commission  will  continue  the  activity  of  COEX-NET  to  foster  an  exchange  of 
information  on  coexistence  with  Member  States  as  regards  practical  experience,  research 
and monitoring results. 

•  Jointly  with  the  Member  States,  and  following  consultations  of  relevant  stakeholder 
groups,  the  Commission  will  develop  technical  guidance  on  crop-specific  coexistence 
measures through the European Coexistence Bureau. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
•  Under the Framework Programme for Community Research, the Commission will support 
further  research  based  upon  clearly  established  needs  identified  within  ongoing  or  future 
initiatives. 

•  In 2012, the Commission will report on the coexistence situation in Member States, based 

on information provided by the Member States. 

EN 

11 

   EN