Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-07-01-Speech-2-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030701.5.2-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation of the wearisome work carried out by the rapporteurs, and I am completely serious in saying this, for it has certainly been no mean feat to reconcile positions which were initially so very far apart and achieve the present position, which has backing across the board. However, I have to mention the fact that today’s consensus is the result of a compromise which is not really particularly satisfactory, adopted purely because of the unyielding reluctance of the Commission and, in particular, the Council, to build a better basis. Indeed, the resulting framework certainly cannot be said to be complete. That is not so much because the issue continues to be addressed by 35 different reports without even the slightest attempt being made to link them, nor because, for the present phase, it has been decided to split the matter into three different regulations – one of which is not to be debated in this part-session, moreover – as because the framework which emerges is in itself highly dysfunctional, a fact which has been purposefully disregarded in the name of the urgent need to regulate the matter. I could cite many examples, such as, for instance, the fact that authorisations are to be valid for ten years and the obligation to keep correspondence and the results of tests carried out for only 15 years. In addition, it will be a long time before we have identification codes and the sampling techniques are random, with no standardised procedures, while, what is more, there is the recommendation to monitor the life of GMOs and products produced from GMOs closely, without, however, it being possible to require additional risk assessments. There is one example, in particular, which I feel is absurd: so-called co-existence. I know there is no point in going back over the arguments raised in the debate on this matter, but the fact is that the path chosen – the decision to require the Member States to produce rules governing the area before the Commission has had time to give its opinion – is surely highly unusual.
I hope I am wrong when I say that it will not be the benchmarking techniques which stop pollution, in addition to which there is no mention of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, while, moreover, the acceptability criteria of 0.5 – 0.9, which caused so much debate, are completely invalidated.
In conclusion, we certainly needed to move on from the current derogations, but that could have been achieved with more meaningful and, above all, more coherent provisions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples