Deputy McCormack and I will have to leave as we have a meeting at 2.30 p.m. which was arranged some months ago. Our absence is unavoidable.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals: Discussion with Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and EPA.
That is no problem.
We will now hear a briefing from officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on COM (2006) 78 regarding genetically modified oilseed rape lines Ms8 and Rf3, and COM (2005) 338 on an amendment to the Aarhus Convention in regard to public participation in decision-making on genetically modified organisms.
I welcome Mr. Ian Keating, principal officer, in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dr. Tom McLaughlin from the Environmental Protection Agency and Mr. John Downey and Dr. Richard Hackett of the Department of Agriculture and Food. I thank them for attending the meeting. Questions from members will follow the presentation.
Before the presentation begins, I draw attention to the fact members of this committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Keating.
Mr. Ian Keating
It might be useful if I were to place COM (2006) 78 in the context of the process from which it emerged. I will also try to update the committee on developments since its publication. Directive 2001/18 is one of two key pieces of current European legislation relating to the approval of genetically modified organisms. The second one being the more recent Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. While all new proposals to market genetically modified food and animal feed will fall to be considered under Regulation 1829/2003, a small number of proposals relating to animal feed, made before Regulation 1829/2003 was finalised, fell to be considered under Directive 2001/18.
Directive 2001/18, like Regulation 1829/2003, is an inclusive process involving all member states. A company wishing to market a GM product submits a notification to the competent authority of the member state in which it is first proposed to market it. That competent authority then becomes lead competent authority for the purposes of that particular application. The lead competent authority examines the notification for completeness and makes summary information on the notification available to all other competent authorities and the European Commission.
Following detailed assessment of the notification, the lead competent authority can conclude that the product is either unfit or fit for marketing. If the conclusion is that the product is unfit, the process is completed and the application is refused. If, however, the lead competent authority considers that the product is fit for marketing, the process moves forward to obtain a detailed, Community-wide view. To achieve this, the full notification and the lead competent authority's assessment of it are made available to all competent authorities and the Commission for their consideration.
It is then open to each competent authority and the Commission to seek further information or to indicate objections. In this process, it is open to all parties to discuss and possibly resolve outstanding issues. In this context, I point out that in coming to a view on any proposal under the directive, the Irish competent authority — the Environmental Protection Agency — consults with other relevant bodies, including the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health and Children, Teagasc, the GMO and novel foods sub-committee under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's scientific committee, and the EPA's own GMO advisory committee. I might also point out at this stage that the public can also participate in the process through the Commission sponsored website which contains summary information on each notification.
If any competent authority remains unsatisfied as to the appropriateness of the conclusion drawn by the lead competent authority that the product is fit to place on the market — in practice, this is what usually happens — the notification is referred by the Commission to the regulatory committee of all member states established for the purposes of the directive. Before the regulatory committee considers the notification, the Commission obtains an opinion on it and the objections raised by competent authorities from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. Its opinion is, therefore, also available to the regulatory committee.
In dealing with a notification, the regulatory committee operates on the basis of qualified majority voting. If a qualified majority is obtained to approve the proposal, the proposal is adopted. However, if no qualified majority in favour of the proposal emerges from the committee, the Commission must then formally make its proposal to the Council.
If the Council, acting by qualified majority, agrees with the Commission's proposal, the proposal is adopted. Where the Council, also by qualified majority, opposes the proposal, it is then open to the Commission to abandon its proposal or produce an amended one. If no opinion emerges from Council, the Commission may proceed with its proposal. The role of the European Parliament in the process is confined to a form of legal scrutiny of proposals rather than a wider assessment of their actual merit.
COM (2006) 78 is a proposal by the Commission to the Council to approve genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8, Rf3 and their hybrid Ms8XRf3, which are resistant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium. The proposal covers the import of the varieties for animal feed and industrial processing. It does not propose cultivation. Use of these varieties for food purposes is not at issue either, although the committee may wish to know that the use of refined oil from these varieties for food use has already been approved throughout the European Union since 2000 under the novel food regulation, the forerunner of the GM food and feed regulation which dealt exclusively with food for human consumption.
The original notification in this case was made to the Belgian competent authority. That authority, following its assessment, indicated that it was satisfied that the importation of the product for the uses specified and under the conditions required by Directive 2001/18/EC would not adversely impact on the environment or human health. As this view was not shared by the competent authorities of all other member states, the proposal came before the regulatory committee under the process I outlined earlier. The majority of objections raised to the proposal had centred on the possible consequences of the establishment of feral colonies of oilseed rape and consequent gene transfer in the event of accidental spillage of viable seed.
EFSA's opinion, which was made available to the regulatory committee, concluded that the product "is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals and, in the context of the proposed uses, for the environment". However, EFSA recommended that "appropriate management systems should be in place to minimise accidental loss and spillage of transgenic oilseed rape during transportation, storage, handling in the environment and processing into derived products".
The Commission proposal that came before the regulatory committee sought to take account of EFSA's recommendations on management systems. Notwithstanding this, the outcome of the vote at the regulatory committee was inconclusive, as is indicated in the information note.
Ireland abstained during this vote. This abstention took a number of considerations into account, not least the abstention recorded by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government at the Environment Council in December 2004 on oilseed rape GT73 — a virtually identical product.
On the question of accidental seed spillage and gene flow from feral colonies of GM oilseed rape, it is useful to point out that this concern does not arise to the same extent in Ireland as in certain other countries, given that imports — either from inside or outside the Community — to Ireland of oilseed rape for feed use are pulped before arrival, leaving only a very remote possibility of unprocessed seed surviving the process, remaining viable, escaping and then establishing itself. In the case of GT73, the Department of Agriculture and Food agreed to put in place appropriate measures to ensure that any obligations placed on feed business operators by the Commission to minimise the accidental spillage of the GM oilseed rape for animal feed are complied with.
The committee will see from the information note that it was legally necessary for the proposal to be brought before Council within three months of publication. As the scheduled meeting of the Environment Council fell outside the three month deadline, the matter was taken at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 18 September last. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, at the behest of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, abstained in the vote and maintained consistency in Ireland's voting pattern under Directive 2001/18.
The Council, comprising the 25 member states, did not reach a qualified majority on the proposal. In accordance with the procedure outlined above, Ireland's input, and that of all other member states, to the decision-making process has now concluded and responsibility for the matter now reverts to the European Commission. I checked the European Commission's website this morning and the product has yet to be formally approved.
COM (2006) 78 has been overtaken by events which occurred on 18 September last year. Notwithstanding this, I hope that the information I have given to the committee on the approval process under Directive 2001/18/EC, and the progress of the particular product through that process, is helpful.
The other item before us relates to an amendment to the UN/ECE Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters. The convention was signed by the Community and its member states on 25 June 1998. It entered into force on 30 October 2001 and was approved by the Community on 17 February 2005, following Council Decision 2005/370/EC. The convention has three environmental pillars relating to access to information, public participation, and access to justice. The rationale behind the convention is that environmental protection will be well served by implementation of these pillars, in other words, people who are concerned about the environment need to be able to get access to environmental information and to participate in environmental decision making processes if their efforts towards environmental protection are to be meaningful and effective.
When the convention was originally negotiated, sub-Article 11 of Article 6, which deals with public participation in decisions on specific activities, provided that, "Each party [to the Convention] shall, within the framework of its national law, apply, to the extent feasible and appropriate, provisions of this article to decisions on whether to permit the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment". In summary, the public participation provisions in relation to GMOs were heavily qualified by the phrase "to the extent feasible and appropriate".
Subsequently, certain signatories to the convention sought to develop further the application of the convention to the deliberate release of GMOs, and a working group was established. The options resulting from the work of this group were examined at the second meeting of the parties in Almaty in Kazakhstan in May 2005. The Council of the EU authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Community with the objective of an agreement which would be consistent with the relevant Community legislation. These negotiations concluded with agreement on an amendment requiring parties to the convention to make provision for public participation where decisions on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment were contemplated.
The amendment which was agreed was consistent with Community legislation which already made provision for the amended provisions of the convention, notably through Articles 9 and 24 of Directive 2001/18/EC and through Articles 6, 18 and 29 of Regulation 1829/2003. COM (2006) 338 was a proposal for a Council decision for the Community's formal agreement to the amendment to the Aarhus Convention. The Council gave its formal assent on 18 December 2006. The item was agreed without debate.
The amendment to the Aarhus Convention which was put in place obliges the parties to the convention to make provision for public information about the GMO approval process for the public in general and to allow them participate in that process. Community legislation was already fully consistent with these principles and therefore did not need to be amended. What was done by the European Council in its decision was simply to formally agree on behalf of the European Union to the amendment of the Aarhus Convention to which it is a party.
Along with my colleagues, I will endeavour to assist the committee in responding to questions from members. If we do not have the answers directly to hand, we will be happy to communicate the information to the committee subsequently.
I thank Mr. Keating.
If EFSA's opinion, which was made available to the regulatory committee, concluded that the product "is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals", why is there any concern about the appropriate management systems? EFSA went on to state that "appropriate management systems should be in place to minimise accidental loss and spillage of transgenic oilseed rape during transportation, storage", etc. If the conclusion was that the product "is as safe as conventional oilseed rape for humans and animals", why is there concern about that?
Mr. Keating
I suppose EFSA must speak for itself in this. I think it is making the point that notwithstanding the fact that the product is safe for humans and animals, it would be concerned if feral colonies of this particular oilseed rape were established, perhaps in competition with other strains of oilseed rape grown.
As this oilseed rape is pulped before it comes into Ireland, in practice the prospect of accidental spillage of seed and the establishment of feral colonies of oilseed rape is considered low. With the Chairman's permission, I would ask my colleague, Dr. Tom McLoughlin of the EPA, to contribute on this matter.
Dr. Tom McLoughlin
To answer Deputy McCormack's question, there is concern in the European Union — more than in other jurisdictions like those of North America — about the release of GM crops into the environment. Last year approximately 200 million acres of GM crops were planted worldwide by some 6 million farmers in 17 countries, and there has been an increase in GM crop planting in Spain, France and other EU states.
To allay people's concerns, the scope of this particular GM crop's application was not for cultivation in the European Union. However, there is concern that this could survive if it was imported as a live seed. There was a concern a number of years ago surrounding GM sugar beet field trials in Carlow that the sugar beet seed would grow on the top of mountains, by lakes and wherever. If one introduces a crop, there is a potential for that to happen. It has happened in the case of rhododendron crops that have been introduced into Ireland.
I suppose the EFSA scientific opinion is to be absolutely sure to provide a monitoring or surveillance plan so that if live seed were imported and fell off a truck in a port, someone would be on the lookout to control it. It really is a precautionary step.
In Canada, and the countries to which I referred, GM oilseed rape with an increase in yield of over 20% is being grown for biofuel production, for example, and that crop has potential. In the future, a post-market monitoring plan might be put in place in the EU under Directive 2001/18/EC, in respect of this crop to ensure that no adverse effects are caused to human health or the environment as a result of its cultivation.
Does Dr. McLoughlin accept that there is a market niche for non-GM crops and, if he will pardon the pun, that there is a growing desire for products that are clearly GM free? Will he comment on the emergence in Europe of regions — such as Emilia Romagna in Italy — that are declaring themselves GM free? The latter appears to be aiding the marketing of the agricultural produce from the regions to which I refer.
Dr. McLoughlin
It is the Commission's policy to give farmers freedom of choice to plant GM, conventional, organic or whatever type of crops they wish. The Deputy is correct that potential niche markets exist in the European Union and elsewhere. As already stated, however, much of the soya in North and South America is GM and there could come a time when it might be difficult to get GM crops. In the end, it will be the responsibility of farmers to decide which method of farming they wish to pursue. That is EU policy. Mr. Keating might address that matter further.
Does Dr. McLoughlin accept that, as a result of decisions involving Austria, the principle of subsidiarity appears to permit particular countries to refuse to allow the growing of GM crops?
Dr. McLoughlin
As the Deputy is aware, the EPA is the competent body as regards the implementation of regulations. I will leave it to my colleague from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to answer that question.
I thank Dr. McLoughlin.
There are several opinions in the public domain, both here and abroad. I visited France a couple of years ago and discovered an opinion which indicated that GM crops are harmful to the environment and also to animals. It emerged that rats died as a result of consuming oilseed rape, etc. There is an amount of public concern about this matter. Will our guests indicate why Ireland abstained from the relevant vote?
Mr. Keating
Ireland's policy in respect of GMOs is positive but precautionary. This policy was underpinned by a Government decision on foot of a report on modern biotechnology produced by an interdepartmental group in 2000. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government briefs the committee before each meeting of the Council of Environment Ministers and he has discussed with members his voting intentions in respect of approval of GM products. The Minister provided reasons he has mandated his officials to abstain at the regulatory committee and why he has also abstained from votes on particular products at the Council of Ministers.
While he is well able to speak for himself regarding these matters, if it is of assistance to the committee I must state that the Minister has, to the best of my recollection, made a number of points on this issue. He stated that he accepts the scientific advice being made available to him, particularly by the relevant competent authority in Ireland, namely, the EPA. Notwithstanding this, in circumstances where a relatively large number of member states maintain objections to particular GM products, rather than vote in favour of such products, the Minister is minded to abstain. I hope that gives some indication regarding that which underpins the Minister's voting intentions.
With the Chairman's permission, I wish to refer briefly to Deputy Cuffe's point on certain regions within Europe. The Deputy referred in particular to Emilia Romagna and also Austria, where national bans, so to speak, in respect of GMOs have been invoked. I understand that it is not permitted, within the current framework of European legislation, to invoke such bans. Austria has done so in respect of certain products. For that action to be taken under Directive 2001/18/EC, a safeguard clause is invoked. For the latter to happen, some new scientific knowledge must have become available to the member state which invokes the clause subsequent to the action taken to approve the GM product in question.
A ban on GM products, either in respect of a country or any particular region therein, is not envisaged under that legislation. It would be different if all the farmers in a particular area decided that they did not want to have anything to do with GM products and decided, independently, to declare that area GM free. That would be perfectly acceptable and consistent. To my knowledge, however, under the EU framework of legislation which governs the approval of GM products, it is not permissible to unilaterally ban such products in a particular member state or region thereof.
I thank our guests for attending. A draft report on today's proceedings will be compiled and when it is agreed by the committee, copies will be sent to our guests by the clerk.
Members should note that an additional meeting has been arranged for Thursday, 15 February at 10.30 a.m. regarding the motion to be referred by both Houses in respect of microrenewable technologies.
The joint committee adjourned at 2.39 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14 February 2007.