Political Posturing or Real Powers: Control of Genetically Modified Crops by the Member States and their Regions

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, involving a central authorisation procedure that aims to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection. However conflicts over authority persist and the Commission has responded to a combination of internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and recently a promise by the head of the Commission to review the existing EU GM legislative regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. In light of the significance of multilevel governance and subsidiarity for GM cultivation, this paper considers the policy-making powers of the Member States and subnational regions in this regime, focussing upon post-authorisation options in particular. A number of core mechanisms exist, including voluntary measures, safeguard clauses, coexistence measures, a proposed express opt-out and Article 4(2) TEU on ‘national identity. These mechanisms are examined in light of the goals and challenges of multilevel governance, in order to consider whether the relevant powers are located at the appropriate level. Overall, it is apparent that the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening multilevel governance, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the supporting roles and the regional levels in particular.

Attaining Subsidiarity-Based Multilevel Governance of Genetically Modified Cultivation?

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU is highly harmonised, but with persisting conflicts over authority. The Commission responded to internal and external pressures with a more flexible approach to coexistence, a proposed opt-out clause and a promise to review the existing EU GM regime, providing an opportunity to consider and suggest paths of development. This article considers the post-authorisation policy-making powers of Member States and subnational regions, in light of subsidiarity-based multilevel governance. It considers the different approaches to risk-centred issues and more general policy choices. Overall, the developments occurring at the EU level are strengthening subsidiarity-based multilevel governance within the GM cultivation regime, but with significant opportunities to improve it further through focussing on the complementary powers, coordination and the regional levels in particular.

Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in Ireland – Laissez faire approach?

This chapter examines the legal framework applicable to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ireland, bearing in mind the limited presence of GMOs. As a member of the European Union (EU), a specific, process-based regime applies regarding the authorisation and regulation of GMOs. This is intended to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and also enable producer and consumer choice. This regime is highly harmonized, but allows some flexibility regarding its implementation and, soon, the potential to opt-out from cultivation in part or entirely. Although, Ireland has only legislated on the area to the extent and in the manner required by the EU, it may avail of the opt-out in future – understandable in light of the lack of any cultivation currently and the green image of Ireland.
Complementary horizontal legislation and common law principles, relevant to labelling and varying forms of liability, deal with most issues that might arise quite comprehensively. However, they are quite complicated, overlapping and untailored and it is worth considering whether specific legislation should be developed to deal with liability related to GMOs.
Overall, Ireland holds varying stances to different forms of GMOs, with the greatest acceptance and use of GM-feed for pragmatic reasons. It has not developed a specific Irish approach, copy-pasting EU legislation and relying upon existing law to deal with any issues. This is understandable in light of the high level of harmonization and limited presence of GMOs in Ireland, but nonetheless will need to be developed as the availability of GMOs increases.

Isotopic composition of tropospheric and soil N2O from successive depths of agricultural plots with contrasting crops and nitrogen amendments

Agricultural soils are the dominant contributor to increases in atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O). Few studies have investigated the natural N and O isotopic composition of soil N2O. We collected soil gas samples using horizontal sampling tubes installed at successive depths under five contrasting agricultural crops (e.g., unamended alfalfa, fertilized cereal), and tropospheric air samples. Mean d 15N and d 18O values of soil N2O ranged from -28.0 to +8.9‰, and from +29.0 to +53.6‰. The mean d 15N and d 18O values of tropospheric N2O were +4.6 ± 0.7‰ and +48.3 ± 0.2‰, respectively. In general, d values were lowest at depth, they were negatively correlated to soil [N2O], and d 15N was positively correlated to d 18O for every treatment on all sampling dates. N2O from the different agricultural treatments had distinct d 15N and d 18O values that varied among sampling dates. Fertilized treatments had soil N2O with low d values, but the unamended alfalfa yielded N2O with the lowest d values. Diffusion was not the predominant process controlling N2O concentration profiles. Based on isotopic and concentration data, it appears that soil N2O was consumed, as it moved from deeper to shallower soil layers. To better assess the main process(es) controlling N2O within a soil profile, we propose a conceptual model that integrates data on net N2O production or consumption and isotopic data. The direct local impact of agricultural N2O on the isotopic composition of tropospheric N2O was recorded by a shift toward lower d values of locally measured tropospheric N2O on a day with very high soil N2O emissions.

‘Ghosts in the Head and Ghost Towns in the Field: Ethnography and the Experience of Presence and Absence’

This article is about an anthropologist coming to terms with the field and fieldwork. In 1995, I left – was evacuated from – my fieldsite as a volcanic eruption started just as my period of fieldwork drew to a close. These eruptions dramatically and instantaneously altered life on the island of Montserrat, a British colony in the Caribbean. While Montserrat the land, and Montserratians the people, migrated and moved on with their lives, Montserrat and Montserratians were preserved in my mind and in my anthropological writings as from “back home.” Revisiting Montserrat several years into the volcano crisis, I drove through the villages and roads leading to the former capital of the island, where I had worked from. My route to this modern-day Pompeii threw up a stark contrast between absence and presence, the imagined past and the experienced present. This is understood, in part, by examining the literary work of two other travelers through Montserrat, Henry Coleridge and Pete McCarthy, both of whom have a very different experience of the place and the people.