On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations
The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be “proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence”, very few studies have actually attempted to assess whe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Food policy 2009-12, Vol.34 (6), p.508-518 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 518 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 508 |
container_title | Food policy |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Demont, Matty Dillen, Koen Daems, Wim Sausse, Christophe Tollens, Eric Mathijs, Erik |
description | The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be “proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence”, very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial
ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37237937</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0306919209000396</els_id><sourcerecordid>1968596051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d5bb68234246caa1ffd589a27398293f595339be7776a02e1f1b8159fdf2691e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtvFDEQhK2ISFkCPwHJ4sBtBj_GrxNCIbwUKZfkbHk9beLR7HiwvVH238fLRhy4cKjuS1Wp-0PoHSU9JVR-nPqQ0rimuWeEmJ4MPSH8DG2oVrwTUqhXaEM4kZ2hhl2g16VMhBBGBrJBX24XXB8ArzmtKdeYFjfHesAp4Ot7XFZXo5sxPGG3VMA-wVMsFRYPOMOv_eyOifIGnQc3F3j7si_R_dfru6vv3c3ttx9Xn286LwZeu1Fst1IzPrBBeudoCKPQxjHFjWaGB2EE52YLSinpCAMa6FZTYcIYmDQU-CX6cOpt1_7eQ6l2F4uHeXYLpH2xXDGuDFfN-P4f45T2ub1WrFZMaEklbyZxMvmcSskQ7JrjzuWDpcQewdrJvoC1R7CWDLaBbbmfp1yGFfzfEABMoXmjfbTc8aGNQ9OfJHexSTatTYJoK6i2D3XXyj6dyqBxe4yQbfHxyHeMGXy1Y4r_OecZPAiciw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>872586163</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations</title><source>RePEc</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Demont, Matty ; Dillen, Koen ; Daems, Wim ; Sausse, Christophe ; Tollens, Eric ; Mathijs, Erik</creator><creatorcontrib>Demont, Matty ; Dillen, Koen ; Daems, Wim ; Sausse, Christophe ; Tollens, Eric ; Mathijs, Erik</creatorcontrib><description>The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be “proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence”, very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial
ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-9192</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5657</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural biotechnology ; Agricultural policy ; Agricultural production ; Biotechnology ; Biotechnology Policy analysis Opportunity costs GIS Shadow factor ; EU directives ; Europe ; European Union ; Farming ; Flexibility ; Genetically altered foods ; Genetically modified organisms ; Geographical information systems ; GIS ; Opportunity cost ; Opportunity costs ; Policy analysis ; Regulation ; Shadow factor ; Spatial analysis</subject><ispartof>Food policy, 2009-12, Vol.34 (6), p.508-518</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d5bb68234246caa1ffd589a27398293f595339be7776a02e1f1b8159fdf2691e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d5bb68234246caa1ffd589a27398293f595339be7776a02e1f1b8159fdf2691e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,4008,27866,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejfpoli/v_3a34_3ay_3a2009_3ai_3a6_3ap_3a508-518.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Demont, Matty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dillen, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daems, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sausse, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tollens, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathijs, Erik</creatorcontrib><title>On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations</title><title>Food policy</title><description>The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be “proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence”, very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial
ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers.</description><subject>Agricultural biotechnology</subject><subject>Agricultural policy</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Biotechnology Policy analysis Opportunity costs GIS Shadow factor</subject><subject>EU directives</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>European Union</subject><subject>Farming</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Genetically altered foods</subject><subject>Genetically modified organisms</subject><subject>Geographical information systems</subject><subject>GIS</subject><subject>Opportunity cost</subject><subject>Opportunity costs</subject><subject>Policy analysis</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Shadow factor</subject><subject>Spatial analysis</subject><issn>0306-9192</issn><issn>1873-5657</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtvFDEQhK2ISFkCPwHJ4sBtBj_GrxNCIbwUKZfkbHk9beLR7HiwvVH238fLRhy4cKjuS1Wp-0PoHSU9JVR-nPqQ0rimuWeEmJ4MPSH8DG2oVrwTUqhXaEM4kZ2hhl2g16VMhBBGBrJBX24XXB8ArzmtKdeYFjfHesAp4Ot7XFZXo5sxPGG3VMA-wVMsFRYPOMOv_eyOifIGnQc3F3j7si_R_dfru6vv3c3ttx9Xn286LwZeu1Fst1IzPrBBeudoCKPQxjHFjWaGB2EE52YLSinpCAMa6FZTYcIYmDQU-CX6cOpt1_7eQ6l2F4uHeXYLpH2xXDGuDFfN-P4f45T2ub1WrFZMaEklbyZxMvmcSskQ7JrjzuWDpcQewdrJvoC1R7CWDLaBbbmfp1yGFfzfEABMoXmjfbTc8aGNQ9OfJHexSTatTYJoK6i2D3XXyj6dyqBxe4yQbfHxyHeMGXy1Y4r_OecZPAiciw</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Demont, Matty</creator><creator>Dillen, Koen</creator><creator>Daems, Wim</creator><creator>Sausse, Christophe</creator><creator>Tollens, Eric</creator><creator>Mathijs, Erik</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091201</creationdate><title>On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations</title><author>Demont, Matty ; Dillen, Koen ; Daems, Wim ; Sausse, Christophe ; Tollens, Eric ; Mathijs, Erik</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-d5bb68234246caa1ffd589a27398293f595339be7776a02e1f1b8159fdf2691e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Agricultural biotechnology</topic><topic>Agricultural policy</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Biotechnology Policy analysis Opportunity costs GIS Shadow factor</topic><topic>EU directives</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>European Union</topic><topic>Farming</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Genetically altered foods</topic><topic>Genetically modified organisms</topic><topic>Geographical information systems</topic><topic>GIS</topic><topic>Opportunity cost</topic><topic>Opportunity costs</topic><topic>Policy analysis</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Shadow factor</topic><topic>Spatial analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Demont, Matty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dillen, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daems, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sausse, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tollens, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathijs, Erik</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Food policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Demont, Matty</au><au>Dillen, Koen</au><au>Daems, Wim</au><au>Sausse, Christophe</au><au>Tollens, Eric</au><au>Mathijs, Erik</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations</atitle><jtitle>Food policy</jtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>508</spage><epage>518</epage><pages>508-518</pages><issn>0306-9192</issn><eissn>1873-5657</eissn><abstract>The EU is currently struggling to implement coherent coexistence regulations on genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in all member states. While it stresses that any approach needs to be “proportionate to the aim of achieving coexistence”, very few studies have actually attempted to assess whether the proposed spatial
ex ante coexistence regulations (SEACERs) satisfy this proportionality condition. In this article, we propose a spatial framework based on an existing landscape and introduce the concept of shadow factor as a measure for the opportunity costs induced by SEACERs. Our empirical findings led us to advance the proposition that flexible SEACERs based on pollen barriers are more likely to respect the proportionality condition than rigid SEACERs based on isolation distances. Particularly in early adoption stages, imposing rigid SEACERs may substantially slow down GM crop adoption. Our findings argue for incorporating a certain degree of flexibility into SEACERs by advising pollen barrier agreements between farmers rather than imposing rigid isolation distances on GM farmers. The empirical questions of proportionality and flexibility have been largely ignored in the literature on coexistence and provide timely information for EU policy makers.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0306-9192 |
ispartof | Food policy, 2009-12, Vol.34 (6), p.508-518 |
issn | 0306-9192 1873-5657 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37237937 |
source | RePEc; PAIS Index; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Agricultural biotechnology Agricultural policy Agricultural production Biotechnology Biotechnology Policy analysis Opportunity costs GIS Shadow factor EU directives Europe European Union Farming Flexibility Genetically altered foods Genetically modified organisms Geographical information systems GIS Opportunity cost Opportunity costs Policy analysis Regulation Shadow factor Spatial analysis |
title | On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T01%3A41%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20proportionality%20of%20EU%20spatial%20ex%20ante%20coexistence%20regulations&rft.jtitle=Food%20policy&rft.au=Demont,%20Matty&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=508&rft.epage=518&rft.pages=508-518&rft.issn=0306-9192&rft.eissn=1873-5657&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.04.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1968596051%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=872586163&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0306919209000396&rfr_iscdi=true |