Title: Approaches to GMOfree Protected Areas
1Approaches 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)
9Special 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)
11Co-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
12Co-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).
13Co-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
14Co-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
15Co-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
16Austria-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
17Conclusions
- 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.
18A nice view into a GMO-free future