Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-05-Speech-2-066-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110705.6.2-066-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, about a year ago I presented the proposal on GMO cultivation to Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The key message of the proposal, which is limited in scope, would allow Member States to restrict or prohibit GMO cultivation on their territory or on part of their territory.
Accepting Amendment 12, relating to Article 22 on free circulation, could weaken our argumentation in the event of EU or WTO litigation.
Similarly, as regards Amendment 24 on a general mandatory system of financial liability, it is questionable whether this proposal to introduce an opt-out clause for cultivation is the right instrument to address financial liability.
Furthermore, Article 114 of the Treaty does not seem to be the appropriate legal basis for imposing an obligation on Member States to adopt financial liability systems. I consider, however, that Article 114 is the appropriate legal basis for this proposal, whose centre of gravity is the approximation of laws in Member States for the establishment of the internal market.
Let me conclude by underlining that Parliament, the Council and the Commission need to continue working in an effective and productive manner to build bridges between opposing views on GMO cultivation.
I remain committed to working closely with the two co-legislators with the aim of reaching agreement as soon as possible.
Let me first congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Lepage, for her very active work and also thank the shadow rapporteurs of all the other political groups for their involvement. The draft report reflects the important work undertaken during the last months.
I certainly welcome your efforts towards clarifying the grounds on which restrictions on cultivation may be justified. The possible grounds to be invoked are, by definition, open. That is why, in order to avoid restricting Member States’ flexibility, the Commission’s proposal referred only to grounds other than the assessment of adverse effects of GMOs on health or the environment. I understand, however, that specifying these grounds in the proposal itself would enhance the proposal. I can therefore support this approach.
As regards the concrete grounds being considered, I certainly welcome the fact that they are largely inspired by the list that the Commission developed at the request of the Member States at the Environment Council on 20 December 2010.
A fundamental point for discussion between co-legislators is the formulation of environmental grounds. As with any other grounds, these would need to be substantiated in line with the reality of the territory in question. But it should be made explicit that these environmental reasons or policy objectives are distinct from risks assessed according to the GMO legislation. This is essential to preserve the EU authorisation system, with the Member States playing an active role during the risk assessment prior to an EU-wide authorisation, but without duplication at national level once the authorisation is given.
I want to emphasise that the proposal aims to give Member States a choice not to cultivate. Where there is an identified risk, it is not a matter of choice, but instead there is an obligation to act at EU level – and the existing legislation provides for precise and restrictive measures.
A number of amendments concern articles of Directive 2001/18/EC other than the proposed new Article 26b.
In its proposal, the Commission favoured a targeted amendment to deliver specifically on Member States’ requests for an opt-out clause. It did not touch other articles.
While we could consider, in an overall agreement, some of the amendments modifying other articles, there are two particular amendments that warrant careful attention."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples