A future task in good hands Approaches to an Ecological Coexistence Nature Protection Areas and GMO cultivation

Transcription

1 A future task in good hands Approaches to an Ecological Coexistence Nature Protection Areas and GMO cultivation Dr. Beatrix Tappeser Vienna Regional Aspects in Precautionary GMO Decision Making

2 Agenda Introduction EU / national law Deliberate release projects Assessment and examples Cultivation Assessment and examples Regulations in the Federal States of Germany Recommendations

3 Protected Areas and GMO Release Extensively managed hay meadows Quelle: - wuerttemberg.de /nafaweb/berichte/pasw_04/p asw453.htm Maculinea nausithous - dusky large blue Quelle: /publi k_syst2/files144/ jurinea.jpg Cultivation of GM-Maize ments/themen/natura2000/ffhawz_20 08.pdf; FFH-Sites 2008

4 Protected Areas EU Law Natura 2000 network : Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Impact Assessments in Article 6 of Habitat Diective 1. (...) 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, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.

5 Protected Areas National Law BNatSchG: Impact Assessment of Deliberate release projects and Cultivation in 34, 34a; Article 34 a; Genetically Modified Organisms Article 34 paragraph 1 and 2 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms and the use in agriculture, forestry and fishery of products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms which have been lawfully placed on the market, as well as other, especially non commercial uses of these products with similar effects, within a Site of Community Importance or on a European Bird Sanctuary, if they are likely, either individually or in combination with other projects or plans, to have a significant effect on a Site of Community Importance or on a European Bird Sanctuary. GenTG Assessment of adverse affects before release

6 Deliberate release projects Responsible agency Lead Agency in Germany, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) BfN cooperating Agency Two step approach foreseen by law Screening Appropriate Assessment

7 Deliberate release projects Provisions of Art. 6 (3+4) in Germany I. Screening according to 10, 34 (1) und 35 BNatSchG Can significant impacts be excluded without any doubt? No Yes => Authorisation II. Appropriate Assessment according to 34 (1-2) BNatSchG May a plan / project have significant adverse effects on the components of a site which are of a critical interest for the conservation objectives? Yes => Rejection or: No => Authorisation III. Assessment of Derogation / Exception according to 34 (3-5) BNatSchG Are all requirements fulfilled for an authorisation in derogation? Yes => Authorisation No => Rejection of Project / Plan Regional Aspects in Precautionary GMO Decision, Vienna, , Dr. Beatrix Tappeser, BfN, II.2.3

8 Deliberate release projects 1000 m buffer Agreement between the agencies in Germany: To demand data for a screening when the release project is planned in an area less than 1000 m distance to the FFH-Area More than 1000m is not excluded but will depend on plant and trait

9 Criteria for the assessment Habitats listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, including their characteristic species and protection goals. Species listed in Annex II and IV of the Habitats Directive and bird species listed in Annex I and Article 4 (2) of the Birds Directive, including their habitats and locations. Characteristic species of the protected area Biotic and abiotic on-site factors, spatial and functional relationships, structures, and site-specific functions and features of importance to the above mentioned habitats and species. Effects of the GMO on the protected area (Outcrossing, wild relatives, dissemination of seeds and pollen, pollen deposition, nontarget effects, effects on food webs etc.) The action range of animals living in the protected area prohibition of degradation of the area (Article 6(2))

10 Effects of GMO Beispiel Mais Bt 176 Persistence of transgenes in the environment Pollen drift by air Effects of corn with Bttoxin Non-target-system Plant Out crossing herbivore und food webs Soil/Water Entry of pollen, of plant residues, of compost, silage Soil/Water

11 Example von Bt-corn release (Part B) near a Natura 2000 Area MON88017; MON810; MON88017xMON810 XXXXX xxxxxx XXX XXXX Federal State Agency for the Environment, Data-Collection and Nature Conservation Baden- Württemberg (LUBW)

12 Deliberate release projects Assessments done since 2005 Number of FFH-Screenings: 36 cases Number of areas: 9 FFH-Areas and 8 Bird-Areas (SPA) BfN was of the opinion, that in 9 cases an Appropiate Assessment should be conducted no Appropiate Assessment has been deemed necessary by BVL

13 Cultivation Area of cultivation has to be notified to the public register 3 months before cultivation Responsible for an assessment are nature conservation agencies of the federal states Goals and criteria same as with deliberate release projects Cultivation mainly in the new states 2009: about 3700 ha planned in Germany 2009: 1650 ha are located in one federal state Brandenburg Example: FFH Area Ruhlsdorfer Bruch (DE ) SPA Märkische Schweiz (DE )

14 MON810-Cultivation vs. FFH-Area Ruhlsdorfer Bruch Landkreis Märkisch-Oderland Fachbereich III, Umweltamt, - Untere Naturschutzbehörde -

15 Example: MON810-cultivation near a Natura 2000 Area SPA : Märkische Schweiz (DE ) 28 Birds of Annex I example: Ciconia ciconia (White Stork/Weißstorch), Grus grus (crane/kranich), Anser fabalis ( Bean Goose/Saatgans) Anser albifrons (Greater White-fronted Goose/Blessgans) and Lanius collurio (Red-backed Shrike/Neuntöter) FFH-Area: Ruhlsdorfer Bruch (DE ) Habitats : Extensively managed hay meadows of the planar to submontane zones; (6510; magere Flachland-Mähwiesen); Alkaline fens (7230; Kalkreiche Niedermoore); Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa (Alder/Schwarz-Erle) and Fraxinus excelsior (Ash/gemeine Esche)(91E0*, Auen-Wälder). FFH-species: Lutra lutra - Otter, Occurence of further endangered or protected species not yet assessed

16 Exposure: Example insect resistant Bt-Maize Estimation of pollen deposition (maize) in areas close to GMO-fields (report for BfN; Hofmann 2007) Regression Maispollendeposition vs. Abstand Maisfeld mit Vertrauensbereichen Pollen Maispollendeposition [N pollen/cm [n/cm²] 2 ] ,1 Messwerte 95 % Vertrauensintervall Regression 99 % Vertrauensbereich Messwerte 95 % Vertrauensbereich Messwerte 80 % Vertrauensbereich Messwerte Linear Regression (Messwerte) y = -0,5471x + 2,0823 R 2 = 0,582 0,1 Im Feld Abstand nächste Maispflanze Abstand vom nächstgelegenen Maisfeld in m Distance from the nearest pollen source [m] PMF SIGMA total of 122 sites

17 Exposure: Example insect resistant Bt-Maize Estimation of pollen deposition (maize) in areas close to GMO-fields Distance to next Pollen source [m] Estimated pollen deposition [pollen/cm 2 ] Mean VI 99% VI 95% VI 90% VI 80% In field , , , , , ,7 0, ,2-82 1,6-58 2, ,7 0, , ,1-40 1, ,3 0, , , , ,0 0, , , , ,8 0, , , , ,9 0, , , ,46-7,7 Regional Aspects in Precautionary GMO Decision, Vienna, , Dr. Beatrix Tappeser, BfN, II.2.3

18 Sensitivity of Lepidopteran larvae to Bt-pollen LD 50 -values for different species of Lepidoptera feeding on Bt pollen (Bt176; Cry1Ab; PACTOL CB) Species larval stage LD 50 CF Agrotis segetum L1 > 542 L2 > 542 Pieris rapae L ,70 122,70 Photo: M. Felke Ostrinia nubilalis L ,38 48,80 Plutella xylostella L4 19 9,20 29,80 L4 8 6,14 9,74 Inachis io L ,59 54,34 L ,3 88,70 L4 > 80 Aglais urticae L1 32 0,88 61,96 Felke & Langenbruch (2005) Regional Aspects in Precautionary GMO Decision, Vienna, , Dr. Beatrix Tappeser, BfN, II.2.3

19 Regulations in the federal states of Germany Brandenburg: Cultivation of Bt-corn only in a distance of 800 m Bavaria (unofficial until now): Cultivation of GVO only in a distance of 1000 m

20 Recommendations Uncertainties identified during the GMO risk assessment in combination with known GMO effects should trigger the precautionary principle For the time being, GMO should not be released in and close to protected areas (1000 m), unless the impact of the GMO on protection goals and species has been established The authorization should not prejudice regulations under national law of the Member States providing for the protection of species and habitats, especially case-by-case requirements and administrative decisions according to provisions laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC

21 A future task in good hands Thank you for your attention Dr. Beatrix Tappeser Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany Division II 2.3 GMO-Regulation, Biosafety