SCIMAC proposals for managing GM crop co-existence

1. Co-Extra Workshop Cambridge - 17 May 2007 SCIMAC proposals for managing GM crop co-existence Daniel Pearsall

2. SCIMAC - key points • Grouping of industry organisations along • UK farm supply chain • Established in 1998 to support the responsible • development and co-existence of GM crops in the UK • SCIMAC on-farm guidelines published in May • 1999 - endorsed by UK Government • Industry partner in UK programme of Farm-Scale • Evaluations 1999-2003 • Supports effective, science-based regulation

3. SCIMAC - members • British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) • National Farmers Union (NFU) • Crop Protection Association (CPA) • Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)

4. Regulatory Context EU Commission Recommendations (1) • Farmers’ freedom to choose GM, non-GM or organic must not be denied - no form of agriculture should be excluded in the EU • Co-existence is an economic issue - not a health or safety issue • Co-existence is not new to agriculture - many parallel examples exist, e.g. seed production, food vs. feed maize, food vs. industrial oilseed rape

5. Regulatory Context EU Commission Recommendations (2) • Practical measures, specific to crop type and relevant to local conditions, must be developed at Member State level • Measures should build on existing segregation practices and available agricultural experience • Measures should be cost-effective, proportionate and based on the best available scientific evidence • Legal labelling threshold (ie 0.9%) is the basis for co-existence measures

6. Regulatory Context EU Commission Recommendations (3) • National strategies for co-existence should ensure an equitable balance between the interests of all farmers - co-operation between farmers should be encouraged • Initial onus of responsibility for observing co-existence measures rests with the GM crop grower: • “As a general principle, during the phase of introduction of a new production type in a region, operators who introduce the new production type should bear the responsibility of implementing the farm management measures necessary to limit gene flow.”

7. EU Commission - indicative co-existence measures • separation distances • buffer zones / pollen barriers • seed handling • cleaning of machinery • volunteer control • minimising seed shed at harvest • post-harvest storage / transport • neighbour notification / co-operation • record keeping

8. Co-existence – UK policy • EU Commission Recommendation on • Co-existence - July 2003 • UK Government policy statement on • GM crops - March 2004 • Code of Practice with statutory backing, based around 0.9% labelling threshold • Access to compensation, funded by the GM sector, for farmers whose non-GM crop exceeds the GM labelling threshold ‘through no fault of their own’ • Consider lower threshold for organics • Consider GM-free zones

9. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach • Co-existence is an economic issue, it is not about safety • Co-existence arrangements for GM and non-GM crops will only be required if there is (differentiated) market demand • Zero is not achievable, but practical tolerance thresholds work • Co-existence is not new to farmers, and industry-based systems are already in place to meet customer specifications • Co-existence is not a one-way street, and requires mutual co-operation between neighbouring growers

10. 10 key principles behind SCIMAC approach • GM growers cannot reasonably be expected to bear responsibility for the self-imposed marketing standards of others • GM crops introduce no new liability issues • Experience of growing GM crops in other parts of the world confirms that co-existence is achievable • No one can predict whether new price differentials will emerge or be sustained between GM and non-GM value chains • Gene flow data offers a high degree of confidence that breach of labelling threshold would be extremely rare

11. Industry ‘bottom-lines’ • Products approved as safe must be treated as such • Companies are already liable for any harm their products cause, but cannot accept liability for: • harm caused by third party fault or negligence • losses from a third party setting its own voluntary standards • Industry does not support any scheme which involves an arbitrary general compensation fund or levy • Any co-existence regime must be internationally compatible, and respect the principles of: • Context, Consistency, Proportionality, Equity, Practicality

12. SCIMAC proposal: 6 point plan 1. Code of Practice: Practical guidelines for growing GM crops 2. Compliance: Measures requiring GM growers to observe guidelines 3. Audit: Independent verification of compliance 4. Oversight: Independent / Government monitoring of co-existence in practice 5. Co-responsibility: Mechanism to ensure co-operation between neighbouring growers 6. Redress provision: Mechanism(s) to restore the marketing position of non-GM farmers whose produce exceeds the statutory 0.9% GM labelling threshold “through no fault of their own”

13. 1. Code of Practice • SCIMAC - on-farm guidelines • Management guidelines to ensure best practice and identity preservation in production of GM crops, covering: • operator training • seed storage / planting • neighbour notification • crop separation distances • crop management • harvest / post-harvest management • on-farm monitoring and record- • keeping

14. UK Farm-Scale Evaluations • Unique opportunity to apply and evaluate • performance of SCIMAC guidelines in practice • Guidelines applied at >260 FSE sites • Grower experience assessed via questionnaire • Grower compliance assessed via independent audit • No loss of organic / non-GM status • Potential framework for identity preservation, • co-existence and post-market monitoring

15. 2. Compliance UK farm assurance schemes • 85-90% coverage across UK crop production • Subject to annual on-farm inspection by independently accredited (EN45011) auditors • Non-compliance can result in loss of assured status

16. 3. Audit • Compliance with co-existence requirements verified through annual farm assurance inspections • Inspection process based around ADAS audit of FSE growers, focused on 8 Critical Control Points: • 1. Seed delivery, storage & handling • 2. Seed drilling operations, including cleaning • 3. Handling of surplus seed • 4. Separation distances • 5. Field operations, including harvest preparations • 6. Harvesting operations • 7. Transport & storage of GM bulk • 8. Record keeping & post-harvest monitoring

17. 4. Independent / Government oversight • Government consultation on / endorsement of on-farm protocols • Independent verification of effectiveness of co-existence in practice (eg via GM Inspectorate, Rural Payments Agency) • cf. Drinking Water Inspectorate model (ie statutory thresholds achieved via industry-based protocols and verified through independent inspection)

18. 5. Co-responsibility • Separation distances and notification arrangements to be given statutory backing • Secondary legislation to be enacted on a crop by crop basis • No requirement to observe statutory requirements where co-existence measures can be observed within the same farm • SCIMAC view is that this can be extended to include situations where neighbouring growers agree alternative arrangements

19. 6. Redress provision • Industry ‘redress charter’ • ‘In the event of GM crops trading at a discount to the equivalent non-GM crops, participating members of the biotech sector commit to an industry redress charter whose single objective is to cover the price differential for any farmer producing a non-GM crop whose crop exceeds the GM labelling threshold through no fault of his own and as a consequence of the presence of neighbouring GM crop(s) of the same species.’

20. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

21. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

22. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

23. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

24. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

25. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

26. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

27. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

28. Consulting the UK supply chain FOOD RETAILING FOOD MANUFACTURE PRIMARY PROCESSING GRAIN HANDLING CROP PRODUCTION SEED DISTRIBUTION PLANT BREEDING TECHNOLOGY PROVISION

29. www.scimac.org.uk

30. 6. Redress provision • Industry ‘redress charter’ • ‘In the event of GM crops trading at a discount to the equivalent non-GM crops, participating members of the biotech sector commit to an industry redress charter whose single objective is to cover the price differential for any farmer producing a non-GM crop whose crop exceeds the GM labelling threshold through no fault of his own and as a consequence of the presence of neighbouring GM crop(s) of the same species.’

31. Redress charter - conditions • ‘Loss’ involves only the demonstrable economic difference between an affected and unaffected crop • Any loss claimed shall be proven through independently verified means including mutual acceptance of: • any supporting analyses of affected crop / original seed stock • records of previous cropping • any other potential causes of GM presence • any claimed price differential • Any disagreement should be resolved via an independent arbitration system

32. Redress charter - conditions • Loss shall not include the costs of additional voluntary measures taken by the non-GM grower • Loss specifically excludes any indirect claims such as ‘consequential loss’ • Any prospective non-GM claimant has complied with all relevant Government regulations and co-existence provisions • Any calculation of losses relate only to the statutory 0.9% GM labelling threshold

33. Means of redress • Direct replacement of affected produce (crop substitution) • Indirect replacement of affected produce (‘virtual’ crop substitution) • Direct cash compensation • Compensation in other forms (eg products or goods of agreed equivalent value) • Facilitation of insurance cover • Other methods as yet unidentified

34. Redress charter - delivery mechanisms • Participating members of the biotech sector (technology developers, seed suppliers, farmers and grain handlers) propose that the industry redress charter can be delivered through existing supply chain arrangements, eg: • Conditions of sale on certified seed • Inter-Professional Agreements • Farm Assurance Scheme • GM licensing agreements

35. Benefits of market-based redress • Removes the need for a dedicated ‘fund’, with associated levy-raising requirements, administration and arbitration • Mirrors existing supply chain arrangements to service different market channels and customer specifications • Links directly to the market situation, dealing with cases only when and if they arise (and organised within the grain chain or equivalent) • Provides the opportunity to quantify, ring-fence (and place in appropriate context) the scale of any issues • Minimises the potential for mischievous, opportunistic or spurious claims not backed by or in the spirit of legislation

36. ü CHARTER MARK CHARTER MARK ü SCIMAC Redress Charter Certified Seed Sales Licensing Agreement ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fku vfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfbjvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fku vfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfbjvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb hjgn jlh kjhlihil lij lijol;j o;oko; lliji Step 1 OBJECTIVE: Specify mechanism(s) to deliver requirements of SCIMAC Redress Charter for each GM crop placed on the UK market HOW: Conditions specified in Certified Seed Sales Licence or Contract (eg Inter-Professional Agreement) WHO: Contractual agreement between Technology Provider and individual Distributors (eg seed merchants, or in some cases plant breeders)

37. ü CHARTER MARK CHARTER MARK ü SCIMAC Redress Charter Certificate of Farm Assurance Standards ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Criteria ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Assessment ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Audit ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Confirmation ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuu sf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf bvhg yfjygfyjgy ikuhkuihuih Step 2 OBJECTIVE: Ensure all growers purchasing certified seed of GM crops are accredited to recognised Farm Assurance Schemes HOW: Conditions specified in Certified Seed Sales Licence or Contract WHO: Verification of grower’s Farm Assured status by Distributor (using existing electronic verification systems)

38. ü CHARTER MARK CHARTER MARK ü SCIMAC Redress Charter Farm Assurance Standards Seed ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Co-existence measures ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Records ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf Audit ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuu sf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf bvhg yfjygfyjgy ikuhkuihuih Step 3 OBJECTIVE: Ensure all GM crops grown within recognised Farm Assurance Schemes are covered by the Redress Charter HOW: Farm Assurance Schemes permit only GM crops covered by the Redress Charter WHO: Growers must comply with Farm Assurance standards

39. ü CHARTER MARK CHARTER MARK ü SCIMAC Redress Charter Farm Assurance Audit Seed ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs f Notification ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs f Separation Distances ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs f Harvest ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs Storage ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fku Record-keeping ,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fkuusf kjhkjs fkuvfb,jvjxcb sfdkugkfsd kuf kufn i8 fku bvhg yfjygfyjgy ikuhkuihuih Step 4 OBJECTIVE: Verify that GM growers have complied with Farm Assurance standards on co-existence and redress HOW: Annual on-farm audit by independently accredited inspectors, as required as a component of recognised Farm Assurance Schemes WHO: Growers’ compliance with co-existence measures, including the requirement to use seed covered by Redress Charter, is included as part of annual audit process