Approaches to GMOfree Protected Areas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 18
About This Presentation
Title:

Approaches to GMOfree Protected Areas

Description:

... history: - religious reasons, species protection (e.g. elephant reserves 300-100 BC by Mauryan Kings in India) - 'protected areas are a cultural response to ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:28
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 19
Provided by: jhoppi
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Approaches to GMOfree Protected Areas


1
Approaches to GMOfree Protected Areas
Josef HoppichlerFederal Institute for
Less-Favoured and Mountainous Areas, Vienna
(Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen)
2
Content
  • What are protected areas ?
  • Protected areas in the EU Natura 2000 network
    and EIA
  • Precautionary principle and protected areas
  • Approaches to GMO-free protected areas in Austria
  • opinion of EU-Commission
  • counterarguments to the comments of
    EU-Commission
  • new risk assessment strategies
  • Conclusions

3
What are protected areas ?
  • Protected areas have a long history - religious
    reasons, species protection (e.g. elephant
    reserves 300-100 BC by Mauryan Kings in India) -
    protected areas are a cultural response to
    perceived threats to nature. Because society is
    constantly changing, so too are social
    perspectives on protected areas and the values
    that they are established to conserve (McNeely
    1998) e.g. national parks as a result of
    industrial revolution
  • Actual Definitions of protected areas
  • IUCN Guidelines (1994) .An area of land and/or
    sea especially dedicated to the protection and
    maintenance of biological diversity, and of
    natural and associated cultural resources, and
    managed through legal or other effective means.
    similar to
  • CBD (1992) A geographically defined area which
    is designated or regulated and managed to achieve
    specific conservation objectives (Part of Article
    8 In-situ conservation integrating PAs,
    regulation of risks of GMOs, TK and ABS)

4
The IUCN categories
  • Protected areas are a political and social
    construct and not just the result of
    scientifically analysed causes and effects
  • There is a need for demarcation concerning the
    levels of human interference in PAs

5
Growth of global protected areas
Source S. Chape, J. Harrison, M. Spalding and
I. Lysenko, Measuring the extent and
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator
for meeting global biodiversity targets. UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge,
UK - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005) 360, 443455
6
Protected areas in the EU Natura 2000 network
  • Council Directive 92/43/EC Article 1 (c)
    natural habitat types of Community interest
    means those which, within the territory referred
    to in Article 2 (i) are in danger of
    disappearance in their natural range or(ii)
    have a small natural range following their
    regression or by reason of their intrinsically
    restricted area oriii) present outstanding
    examples of typical characteristics of one or
    more of the five following biogeographical
    regions Alpine, Atlantic, Continental,
    Macaronesian and Mediterranean.
  • Article 2 1. The aim of this Directive shall
    be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity
    through the conservation of natural habitats and
    of wild fauna and flora in the European territory
    of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.
    2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive
    shall be designed to maintain or restore, at
    favourable conservation status, natural habitats
    and species of wild fauna and flora of Community
    interest. 3. Measures taken pursuant to this
    Directive shall take account of economic, social
    and cultural requirements and regional and local
    characteristics.

7
Protected areas in the EU Natura 2000 network
Natura 2000 directives (Habitats and Birds
Directive) (Council Directive 92/43/EC) Article
6 1. For special areas of conservation, Member
States shall establish appropriate management
plans specifically designed for the sites or
integrated into other development plans, and
appropriate statutory, administrative or
contractual measures which correspond to the
ecological requirements of the natural
habitat 2. Member States shall take appropriate
steps to avoid, in the special areas of
conservation, the deterioration of natural
habitats and the habitats of species as well as
disturbance of the species for which the areas
have been designated
8
Protected areas in the EU Natura 2000 network
Natura 2000 directives (Habitats and Birds
Directive) (Council Directive 92/43/EC) Article
6 3. Any plan or project likely to have a
significant effect thereon shall be subject to
appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site's conservation
objectives The competent national authorities
shall agree to the plan or project only after
having ascertained that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site concerned and,
if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion
of the general public ------------------------- Co
mment The trigger for applying these safeguards
is a likelihood that a plan or project will have
a significant effect on the site concerned. (DG
XI's Nature Newsletter, Issue 2, Dec. 1996)
(Amendment 50)
9
Special Areas of protection Austria 2004
10
Precautionary principle and protected areas
  • Protected areas are based on the Precautionary
    Principle to prevent irreversible loss to
    biodiversity
  • apparent during the creation of a System of PAs
  • An example of the description of the
    Precautionary Principle in connection with the
    creation of a PAs Marine Protected Areas
    Network Canada
  • The precautionary principle recognizes that
    decisions and action on conservation measures can
    and will be taken in the absence of scientific
    certainty. Even without extensive scientific
    knowledge, the level of risk to the marine
    environment can be determined with the best
    available information and conservation actions
    taken based on that information. In the context
    of marine protected areas, where the threat or
    risk can be inferred, this could mean that lack
    of scientific certainty regarding performance
    measures, targets and benefits will not be used
    as a reason not to precede with a designation.
    (http//www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/canwaters-eauxcan/infoc
    entre/publications/docs/fedmpa-zpmfed/part7_e.asp)

11
Co-existence and protected areas in Austria
  • Comments of the EU-Commission to Carinthian,
    Burgenland and Styrian Act 2004/05 (Genetic
    Engineering Precaution Acts 2004/05 Objectives
    are - regulation of Co-existence (Art. 26a of D
    2001/18/EC)(- protection against
    GMO-contamination of organic/GMO-free farming)-
    protection of natural flora and fauna and of
    natural ecosystems/habitats
  • Second Carinthian draft statement of the
    Commission restriction of the use of GMO
    within protected areas has to be
    justified in accordance with the Natura 2000
    Directives
  • Detailed comments on the Burgenland/Styrian draft
    (3 statements)
  • there is no need to scrutinize whether the GMO
    may threaten an object of conservation in PAs.
    (All) impacts on health and environment of
    authorized GMOs are carefully assessed.
  • justified only, if the consent/authorisation
    according to article 19 (c) defined conditions
    for the protection of particular
    ecosystems/environments and/or geographical
    areas
  • Comm. understands the concern for a higher level
    of protection in PAs. A possible restriction of
    the use of agricultural plants, including GMOs,
    has to take place within the scope of the Natura
    2000 directives

12
Co-existence and protected areas in Austria
  • 1st Counterargument on the comments of the
    EU-Comm. to Carinthian, Burgenland and Styrian
    Act 2004/05
  • The environmental impact assessment according
    environmental effects is not complete
  • A full EIA of the GMOs implications for the
    site in view of the site's conservation
    objectives has never been done by the EFSA
    GMO-panel, especially not done including all
    direct and indirect risks of a GMO.
  • If there is lack of scientific evidence this
    does not mean there are no risks of significant
    effects. (absence of evidence of risk evidence
    of absence of risk?)
  • e.g. Where are the ERAs to meet the criteria of
    the guidance to Annex II to Directive
    2001/18/EC? The overall case-by-case assessment
    covers the GMO(s) concerned (GMO-by-GMO
    assessment) and the environment(s) in which the
    GMO is to be released (for example, site-by-site
    assessment and region-by-region assessment, if
    applicable) ..The ERA should use the
    case-by-case principle because of the broad range
    of individual characteristics of different
    organisms (GMO by GMO) and different environments
    (site by site and region by region).

13
Co-existence and protected areas in Austria
  • 2nd Counterargument on the comments of the
    EU-Comm. to Carinthian, Burgenland and Styrian
    Act 2004/05
  • The Precautionary Principle must be the
    guiding principle
  • If we accept that there is scienttific
    uncertainty (knowledge gaps) in assessing the
    impacts of GMOs on the environment especially
    concerning special conservation objectives, then
    we have to use the precautionary principle as
    main basis for restrictions of GMO in PAs
  • Lack of scientific certainty regarding the
    impact on the environment of a PA and the
    conservation objective should not be used as a
    reason not to restrict the use of a GMO in PAs.
    Especially concerning PAs there is a need for
    reversing the burden of proof .
  • Conclusion Minimizing the gene-flow of
    synthetic constructs (vertical and horizontal)
    would be a sufficient reason to restrict the use
    of GMO in PAs

14
Co-existence and protected areas in Austria
  • If the precautionary principle is not accepted
  • there is the need to proof the environmental
    damage but this is the same within PAs and
    outside PAs
  • however, the thresholds for a damage may be
    significantly lower e.g. the risk of
    significantly influencing the population of
    butterflies may be un-acceptable in PAs
  • examples
  • laboratory experiments are they accepted by
    decision-makers?
  • on-farm, large scale experiments like FSE in GB
    huge costs but they are still easy to refute
    e.g. ACRE comments on FSE the impacts are due
    to the herbicide management regime, not to the
    genetic modification itself alternative
    management strategies may have different
    impacts

15
Co-existence and protected areas in Austria
  • If the precautionary principle is not accepted
  • an actual Austrian approach
  • determine Biodiversity Hotspots of species
    mainly affected agro-associated ecosystems and
    plants, butterflys, beetles, predator species
  • New Austrian Study from UBA-Vienna (Traxler A.
    et al.)
  • Hotspots of Biodiversity within Agricultural
    Landscapes as a Basis for Risk Assessment and
    Monitoring of GMO (www.gentechnik.gv.at)
  • contribute to the regionalization of the
    environmental risk assessment for
    agro-associated flora and butterflies
  • within hotspots there is a higher basic risk
    and/or the thresholds for damages are lower
  • development of risk scenarios e.g. analyses of
    pollination time of maize corr. larval
    development of butterflies

16
Austria-wide risk-map of butterflies according to
Bt-Mais
Gesamtrisiko-Index (bezüglich Bt-Mais) der
Tagfalter in der Agrarlandschaft Source TRAXLER
et al. 2005 www.gentechnik.gv.at
17
Conclusions
  • There is a need for GMO-free areas
  • a new category of Protected GMO-free Areas,
    including most of the actual PAs should be
    introduced
  • goal GMO-free Bioshere-Reserves at a global
    level
  • main arguments
  • Precautionary Principle recognizing the
    crucial importance of centres of origin and
    genetic diversity
  • Minimizing the introgression of synthetic genes
    (no gene garbage in PAs) - we need a dynamic
    concept of counterbalancing modern risks e.g.
    including nanotechnology ?
  • create closed areas for GMO-free seed breeding
    and propagating - guarantee a GMO-free on-farm
    conservation of plant genetic resources
  • in Natura 2000 sites appropriate GMO-free
    management plans should be developed (including
    the Democtratic Principle)
  • last argument The Principle of Ark-NoahIf the
    Genetic Revolution causes unforseeable negative
    developments, we need Alternatives for a GMO-free
    Future.

18
A nice view into a GMO-free future
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com