Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:43:12.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Potential Effects of the European Union Multilevel Approach to the Coexistence Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2015

Macario Rodríguez-Entrena  and
Melania Salazar-Ordóñez
Macario Rodríguez-Entrena
Affiliation:
IFAPA – Andalusian Institute of Agricultural Research and Training, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Studies, Avda. Menéndez Pidal s/n - PO Box 3092, 14080 – Córdoba, Spain
Melania Salazar-Ordóñez
Affiliation:
Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Department of Economics, C/ Escritor Castilla Aguayo no. 4, 14004 - Córdoba, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

European Union (EU) coexistence policy is based on the principle of subsidiarity, which implies a multilevel governance framework. Different legislative approaches have been developed in EU Member States. These legal rules are oriented to both preventing on-farm adventitious admixture (ex-ante regulations) and reducing potential economic consequences (ex-post liability). So coexistence deals with a subject of negative externalities involving an issue of property-right allocation between farmers. Considering the impacts that coexistence policy has on GM (genetically modified) crop adoption rates and the generation of trade distortions, potential effects of the EU coexistence framework are reviewed from a theoretical property-right allocation view. Derived from the analysis, property-right allocation is focused on non-GM farmers according to EU regulation enforcement, which tends to rigid coexistence measures. Nonetheless, the multilevel EU framework has led Member States to pursue their aims: trade interests and social legitimation.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 489 - 500
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.European Commission (2003) Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on Guidelines for the Development of National Strategies and Best Practices to Ensure the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming, DOCE L 189 (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
2.Baumol, W. J. (1972) On taxation and the control of externalities. American Economic Review, 62(3), pp. 307–322.Google Scholar
3.Council of the European Union (2003) Regulation (EC) no. 1829/2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed, OJEU L 268 (Brussels: Council of the European Union).Google Scholar
4.Beckmann, V. and Wesseler, J. (2007) Spatial dimension of externalities and the Coase Theorem: implications for coexistence of transgenic crops. In: W. Heijman (Ed.), Regional Externalities (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 215–234.Google Scholar
5.Honore, A. M. (1961) Ownership. In: A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
6.Beckmann, V., Soregaroli, C. and Wesseler, J. (2010) Ex-ante regulation and ex-post liability under uncertainty and irreversibility: governing the coexistence of GM crops. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 4, 2010–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Etty, T. F. M. (2009) Regulating Coexistence in the EU: Moving beyond ‘Subsidiarity vs. Harmonization’ towards Synergetic Governance (Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM)).Google Scholar
8.Ceddia, M. G., Bartlett, M., De Lucia, C. and Perrings, C. (2011) On the regulation of spatial externalities: coexistence between GM and conventional crops in the EU and the ‘newcomer principle’. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 55, 126–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Skevas, T., Fevereiro, P. and Wesseler, J. (2010) Coexistence regulations and agriculture production: a case study of five Bt maize producers in Portugal. Ecological Economics, 69, 2402–2408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Moschini, G. C. (2008) Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 35, 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (2003) Report on Coexistence between Genetically Modified Crops and Conventional and Organic Crops, A5-0465/2003 (Brussels: European Parliament).Google Scholar
12.EESC (2005) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Co-existence between genetically modified crops, and conventional and organic crops. DOCE C157 (Brussels: European Economic and Social Committee).Google Scholar
13.European Commission (2006) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament – Report on the Implementation of National Measures on the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. COM (2006) 104 final (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
14.European Commission (2009) Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. COM (2009) 153 final (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
15.European Commission (2010) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on Guidelines for the Development of National Coexistence Measures to avoid the Unintended Presence of GMOs in Conventional and Organic Crops. DOCE C 200/1 (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
16.Corti-Varela, J. (2010) Coexistence of genetically modified, conventional and organic products in the European Market: state of the art. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1, pp. 63–71.Google Scholar
17.European Commission (2009) Implementation of National Measures on the Coexistence of GM Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. SEC (2009) 408 final (Brussels: European Commission).Google Scholar
18.MAPA (2006) Proyecto de Real Decreto por el que se aprueba el reglamento sobre coexistencia de los cultivos modificados genéticamente con los convencionales y los ecológicos (Madrid: Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food).Google Scholar
19.Devos, Y., Demont, M., Dillen, K., Reheul, D., Kaiser, M. and Sanvido, O. (2009) Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
20.Sanvido, O., Widmer, F., Winzeler, M., Streit, B., Szerencsits, E. and Bigler, F. (2008) Definition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation. Transgenic Research, 17, 317–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Furtan, W. H., Guzel, A. and Weseen, A. S. (2007) Landscape clubs: co-existence of genetically modified and organic crops. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55, pp. 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Demont, M., Daems, W., Dillen, K., Mathijs, E., Sausse, C. and Tollens, E. (2008) Regulating coexistence in Europe: beware of the domino-effect! Ecological Economics, 64, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Greenpeace (2006) La imposible coexistencia. Siete años de transgénicos contaminan el maíz ecológico y el convencional: una aproximación a partir de los casos de Cataluña y Aragón (Barcelona: Assemblea Pagesa, Plataforma Transgènics Fora and Greenpeace).Google Scholar
24.GMO-Safety (2009) Coexistence in the countries of the EU: a European patchwork. Available at: www.gmo-safety.eu/en/coexistence/513.docu.html (accessed 20 February 2010).Google Scholar
25.Sanvido, O., Romeis, J., Gathmann, A., Gielkens, M., Raybould, A. and Bigler, F. (2012) Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops: ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy, 15, pp. 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.European Commission (2010) Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of Change? (Brussels: Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit).Google Scholar
27.Court of Justice of the European Union (2005) Land Oberösterreich and Austria vs Commission of the European Communities. OJEU C 296 (Brussels: Court of Justice of the European Union).Google Scholar
28.Baumol, W. J. and Oates, W. E. (1988) The Theory of Environmental Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Court of Justice (2012) Case C-36/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) made by decision of 14 January 2011 (Brussels: Case-law Judgment of the Court).Google Scholar
30.Salazar-Ordóñez, M., Rodríguez-Entrena, M. and Sayadi, S. (2013) Agricultural Sustainability from a Societal View: An Analysis of Southern Spanish Citizens. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, pp. 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar