Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-09-Speech-3-406"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030409.9.3-406"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The Commission appreciates the broad acceptance of its proposal, and has examined in detail all the amendments proposed.
On this issue I should refer to the points made by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf in relation to coexistence. This issue has been dealt with by my colleague Commissioner Fischler, who is bringing forward a communication to the Commission within the next number of weeks on that issue which I expect will deal with that situation.
A full listing of the Commission’s position on each of the amendments is being made available to Parliament. I trust that this will be included in the minutes of this session.
Finally, I would I reiterate my commitment, prior the adoption by the Commission of any Commission Directive on the subject, to listen to the views of all concerned, in particular the European Parliament.
I should make clear from the start that many amendments go beyond the scope of the original Commission proposal.
The request to ensure the inclusion in the Community comparative trials of organically produced seed, and seed falling in the area of plant genetic resources deserves consideration. However, the proposal to take specific measures in these areas has to be carefully considered to avoid any risk of overlapping with measures already in place. For this reason, Amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, and the relevant parts of Amendments 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 24 to 29 are acceptable – subject to re-wording.
The compulsory indication of Community financial allocations laid down by parts of Amendments 12 to 17, 19 to 21 and 24 to 29 can be accepted only as a general recommendation to the Commission, again subject to rewording.
Concerning Amendment 22, the Council has already adopted the legal base for the implementation of measures for the marketing of seeds and plants for the conservation and diversity of genetic resources in Europe (for example, Article 21 of Council Directive 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed). Hence the principle is acceptable, but not the amendment as such. I should add that this is an area to which the Commission is paying particular attention.
Amendments 7 to 11 cannot be accepted. The reference to financial and to other commitments of the Member States should take into account the specific competencies of the Member States.
Allow me now to turn to the important issue of the adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in seeds of conventional plant varieties. This is a totally different matter to the issue of comparative trials that we are discussing here today. It is therefore being addressed in another proposal, in the context of the directives on the marketing of seeds. A proposal for a Commission directive is being prepared, which will aim to set thresholds in this regard.
As a consequence, Amendments 1, 3, 23, and the relevant parts of Amendments 12, 13, 18, 19 to 21 and 24 to 29 cannot be accepted. In relation to Amendments 24 to 29, they are not accepted on the basis that they repeat exactly the Commission proposal.
I have explained on a number of occasions how the Commission intends to proceed with this file. As the seeds thresholds for GMOs are based on the food labelling threshold, and as the labelling threshold will be discussed again in the next few months in Parliament during the second reading of the proposed GM food and feed regulation, the Commission will wait for the outcome of these discussions before proceeding with the question of GMO thresholds in seeds. As Parliament is aware, there is draft legislation in preparation at the moment in relation to that issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples