tailieunhanh - Báo cáo hóa học: " European Union and German law on coexistence: Individualisation of a systemic problem"

Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành hóa học dành cho các bạn yêu hóa học tham khảo đề tài: European Union and German law on coexistence: Individualisation of a systemic problem | Winter and Stoppe-Ramadan Environmental Sciences Europe 2011 23 28 http content 23 1 28 o Environmental Sciences Europe a SpringerOpen Journal DISCUSSION Open Access European Union and German law on coexistence Individualisation of a systemic problem Gerd Winter and Sarah Stoppe-Ramadan Abstract Background Co-existence of the cultivation of genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops is commonly regarded as a suitable way out of the clash of perceptions of environmental or health risks of genetically modified organisms. It allows setting aside a clear risk-based decision for or against genetically modified organisms because all types of agriculture shall be given the possibility to exist side by side. Still co-existence entails conflicts which the law strives to solve. European Union law is reticent as to binding coexistence measures and has left this task to the member states. Taking Germany as a case the established rules have not been effective because they shift conflict resolution to the local and individual level. A systemic approach suggests the use of landscape planning as a means of clustering different kinds of agriculture. Methods The pertinent European Union and German law is summarised and interpreted. Its effects are analysed and explained. From this reform suggestions are derived. Results According to the European Union conception measures aiming at reducing health and environmental risks of genetically modified organisms must be separated from measures aiming at ensuring the economic coexistence of different kinds of agriculture. In contrast German law on gene technology does not precisely separate risk mitigation measures from co-existence measures. The measures all aim at solving the conflicts between the individual landowners and thus fail to recognise the systemic character of the conflict between agricultures. The systemic conflict can better be solved by non-binding landscape planning or a legally binding agrarian