Minimum Distance Requirements and Liability: Implications for Co-Existence

Soregaroli, Claudio and Wesseler, Justus (2005): Minimum Distance Requirements and Liability: Implications for Co-Existence.

Abstract

The co-existence of conventional and transgenic products in the food chain introduces new elements in the evaluation of the profitability of transgenic crops and, consequently, on the farmer’s adoption decision. In particular, one emerging problem farmers are facing in Europe is related to the legal liability of transgenic crop cultivation. In Europe, a mixture of ex-ante regulations and ex-post liability rules governing transgenic crops emerges. One of the predominant ex-ante regulations discussed at the EU-level is a minimum distance requirement to neighbouring fields in order to avoid cross-pollination. The ex-post liability rules differ. They depend on the legal frameworks of individual members of the EU. The current interpretation of, for example, Italian and German law does not exclude ex-post liability for farmers planting transgenic crops in the case of cross-pollination. In this paper, we analyze the value of planting transgenic crops when farmers face ex-ante regulatory and ex-post liability costs under irreversibility and uncertainty. The regulatory instrument analyzed is the minimum distance to neighbouring fields. First results indicate that under irreversibility and uncertainty the value of cultivating transgenic crops presents a trade-off between ex-ante regulatory and ex-post liability costs with respect to farm size. From this, it is not possible to conclude a priori the net effect on the size of the adopting farms, if, ceteris paribus, a minimum distance regulation is adopted within the EU and farmers can be held liable ex-post.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Coexistence, ex-ante regulation, ex-post liability, real option, uncertainty
• Subjects: K - Law and Economics > K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law > K32 - Environmental, Health, and Safety Law; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q1 - Agriculture > Q18 - Agricultural Policy ; Food Policy

References

agnet, 2002. GM free and the six mile exclusion zone. September 19. <http://131.104.232.9/agnet-archives.htm>.

Bock, A.K., Lheureux K., Libeau-Dulos M., Nilsagård H., Rodriguez-Cerezo E., 2002. Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European agriculture. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies and Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (IPTS – JRC).

Bruno, F., 2003. I profili giuridici dell’agricoltura transgenica. Working Paper for the research project Governare la rivoluzione biotech in agricoltura: politiche ed istituzioni, INEA-MIPAF, Rome.

Alberta Canola Producers Commission (ACPC), 1999. The canola’s producers perspective on biotechnology. <http://www.canola.ab.ca/tec/>.

Clark, E. A., 2001. On the implication of the Schmeiser decision. Bulletin of the Genetics Society of Canada, June 2001.

Demont, M., Wesseler, J., Tollens, E., 2002. Transgenic sugar beets versus biodiversity: the one Euro question. Working Paper 2001/58, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Economics, K.U.Leuven.

Demont M., Tollens E., 2001. Uncertainties estimating the welfare effects of agricultural biotechnology in the European Union, Working Paper 2001/58, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Economics, K.U.Leuven.

European Commission, 2003a. GMOs: Commission addresses GM crop co-existence, IP/03/314, Brussels, March 5, 2003.

European Commission, 2003b. Co-existence of genetically modified and conventional crops: roundtable on latest research results. IP/03/495, Brussels, April 4, 2003.

European Commission, 2002a. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Environmental liability with regard to the prevention and restoration of environmental damage. COM (2002) 17 final, Brussels, January 23, 2002.

European Commision, 2002b. Frequently asked questions on the Commission's proposal on Environmental Liability, Brussels, January 23, 2002.

European Commision, 2000. Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector: a first review. Brussels, April, 2000, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/res/index_en.htm

European Commision, 1999. Council Regulation (EC) 1804/1999 of July 19. Official Journal of the European Commission, 24.8.1999, L222/1-28.

Federal Court of Canada, 2001. Monsanto Canada Inc. vs. Schmeiser, decision by Judge MacKay 2001 FCT 256, March 29, 2001.

Gaisford, J. D., Hobbs, J. E., Kerr, W. A., Perdikis, N., Plunkett, M. D., 2002. The Economics of Biotechnology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Germanò, 2002. Voce Biotecnologie in agricoltura, IV Digesto discipline privatistiche, Torino: Utet.

James, C., 2002. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2002. ISAAA Briefs No.27. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

Kershen, D.L., 2002. Legal liability issues in agricultural biotechnology, National AgLaw Center Pubblications, University of Arkansas School of Law, November 2002.

Kolstad, C.D., Ulen, T.S., Johnson, G.V., 1990. Ex post liability for harm vs. ex ante safety regulation: substitutes or complements? The American Economic Review, 80 (4), 888-901.

Marra, M.C., 2001. Agricultural Biotechnology: A Critical Review of the Impact Evidence to Date, paper presented at IFPRI & AARES Preconference Workshop "Agricultural Biotechnology: Markets and Policies in an International Setting", Adelaide, January 22 2001.

Morel, B., S. Farrow, F. Wu, and E. Casman. 2003. Pesticide Resistance, the Precautionary Principle, and the Regulation of Bt Corn: Real Option and Rational Option Approaches to Decision-Making. In R. Laxminarayan (ed.) Battling Resistance to Antibiotics and Pesticides, 184-213. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), 2003. <http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/issues_legal_ litigation.asp>. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 1986. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology, 51 Fed. Reg. 23302, June 26, 1986.

Schmidt, H., 2002. Die heutigen rechtlichen Rahmenbedingungen für die Koexistenz der biologischen Landwirtschaft mit benachbarten transgenen Kulturen in Deutschland. Diskurs Grüne Gentechnik. Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Berlin.

United States, 1965. Second Restatement of the Law Torts 9.

Winston, M. L., 2002. Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wesseler, J., 2003. Resistance Economics of Transgenic Crops. A Real Option Approach. In R. Laxminarayan (ed.) Battling Resistance to Antibiotics. An Economic Approach, 214-237.Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.