BETA

Activities of Nicola CAPUTO related to 2010/0208(COD)

Plenary speeches (1)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2010/0208(COD)

Amendments (25)

Council position
Recital 5

(5) Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed at Member State level. Issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal market. Cultivation may however require more flexibility in certain instances as it is an issue with strong national, regional and local dimensions, given its link to land use, to local agricultural structures and to the protection or maintenance of habitats, ecosystems and landscapes. TFurthermore, the harmonised assessment of risks to health and the environment might not address all possible impacts of GMO cultivation in different regions and local ecosystems. In accordance with Article 2(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Member States are entitled to have the possibility to adopt legally binding acts restricting or prohibiting the effective cultivation of GMOs or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs in all or part of their territory once authorised at Union level. However, the common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process, should not be adversely affected by such flexibility.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 7 a (new)

(7a) Member States, in their capacity as risk managers, should be allowed to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting in all or part of their territory the cultivation of all GMOs, of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait, or of a particular GMO authorised in accordance with Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, or in the process of being authorised or re-authorised. Those measures should be in conformity with Union law and justified on grounds related to environmental or other legitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts, where those factors have not been addressed as part of the harmonised procedures provided for in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, or to persisting scientific uncertainty.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 8

(8) During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO, the possibility should be provided for a Member State to request the Commission to present to the notifier/applicant its demand to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC or in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State be excluded from cultivation. The Commission should facilitate the procedure by presenting the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant without delay and the notifier/applicant should respond to that request within an established time-limit.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 9

(9) The geographical scope of the notification/application should be adjusted accordingly if the notifier/applicant explicitly or tacitly agrees with the Member State's request within an established time-limit from the communication by the Commission of that request. If the notifier/applicant opposes the request, the notifier/applicant should notify the Commission and the Member States. However, a refusal by the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of the notification/application is without prejudice to the Commission's powers in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC or Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, as the case may be, to make such an adjustment, where appropriate, in the light of the environmental risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority ('the Authority').deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 10

(10) In addition, and only where the notifier/applicant has refused to adjust the geographical scope of the notification/application of a GMO as requested by a Member State, there should be the possibility for that Member StateMember States, acting as risk managers, should be authorised/granted the possibility/allowed to adopt ~~reasoned~~ measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of ~~that~~a GMO o~~nce authorised~~r of groups of GMOs or of all GMOs in all or part of ~~its~~their territory, on the basis of grounds ~~distinct from those assessed~~ related to environmental impacts or other legitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts, where those facctor~~ding to~~s have not been properly addressed as part of the harmonizsed ~~set of Union rules, that is~~procedures provided for in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio- economic impacts, co-existence and public policy. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will applyor to persisting scientific uncertainty. Those measures should be in conformity with Union law.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 11

(11) The level of protection of human or animal health and of the environment chosen in the Union ~~allows for a uniform scientific assessment throughout the Union~~cannot be diverged from by a Member State, and this ~~Directiv~~principle should ~~not alter that situation~~be maintained. Therefore, to avoid any interference with the competences which are granted to the risk assessors and risk managers under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a Member State should only use grounds related to environmental ~~policy objectives which do not conflict with~~impacts which are complementary to the assessment of risks to health and the environment which are assessed in the context of the authorisation procedures provided in Directive 2001/18/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003~~, such as the maintenance of certain type of natural and landscape features, certain habitats and ecosystems, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services~~.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 11 a (new)

(11a) Member States should be allowed to base the measures that restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs on duly justified grounds relating to environmental impacts. Those grounds may include the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; the invasiveness or persistence of a genetically modified variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestically cultivated or wild plants; the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystem, or certain types of natural and landscape features; the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including biodiversity.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 11 b (new)

(11b) The grounds relating to socio- economic impacts may include the impracticability or the high costs of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 11 c (new)

(11c) Member States should be allowed to base measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of a GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs also on other grounds that may include land use, town and country planning, or other legitimate factors.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Recital 14

(14) Member States' measures adopted pursuant to this Directive should be subject to a procedure of scrutiny and information at Union level. In light of the level of Union scrutiny and information, it is not necessary to provide, in addition, for the application of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1. Member States may restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs in all or part of their territory as from the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation and ~~no later than two years after the date when~~for the whole duration of the consent/authorisation ~~is granted~~, provided that an established standstill period, during which the Commission was given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures, has elapsed. __________________ 1 Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.).

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 a – paragraph 1

(-1) Article 26a (1) is replaced by the following: 'Member States ~~may~~shall take appropriate and binding measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products on their territory and in border areas of neighbouring Member States.'

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 1

1. During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may request, via the Commission, the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. This request shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 30 days from the date of the circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall communicate the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26b – paragraph 2

2. Where the notifier/applicant opposes a request of a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, the notifier/applicant shall notify the Commission and the Member States within 30 days from the communication by the Commission of that request. In the event of explicit or tacit agreement of the notifier/applicant, the adjustment of the geographical scope of the notification/application shall be implemented in the written consent or authorisation. The written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, shall be issued on the basis of the adjusted geographical scope of the notification/application as explicitly or tacitly agreed by the notifier/applicant.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

3. Where the notifier/applicant opposes the adjustment of the geographical scope of its notification/application corresponding to a request made by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, that Member State mayMember States may, acting as risk managers, adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of ~~that GMO in all or part of its terr~~a particular GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait ory o~~nce~~f all GMOs authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, in all or part of their territory, provided that ~~such~~those measures are in conformity with Union law, reasoned, proportional and non- discriminatory and~~, in addition, are based on compelling~~ based on grounds such as those related to:

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) environmental ~~policy objectives distinct from the elements assessed according to this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;~~ impacts which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs and which are complementary to the environmental impacts examined during the scientific assessment of the impacts on the environment conducted under Part C of this Directive. Those grounds may include: - the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; - the invasiveness or persistence of a GM variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestic cultivated or wild plants; - the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; - the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; - the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services; - the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including on biodiversity;

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d

(d) socio-economic impacts; Those grounds may include: - the impracticability or the high cost of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions; - the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production; - the need to ensure seed purity; or

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point g a (new)

(ga) other legitimate factors.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2

Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, with the exception of the ground set out in point (g) which cannot be used individually, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply, but shall, in no case, conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) the Member State concerned shall refrain from adopting and implementing those measures, provided that this does not coincide with the sowing period of the GM crops addressed by the measures; and

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

On expiry of the 75-day period referred to in the first subparagraph, ~~and no later than two years after the date that the consent/authorisation is granted,~~ the Member State concerned may adopt the measures either in the form originally proposed, or as amended to take account of any comments received from the Commission. Those measures shall be communicated to the Commission, the other Member States and the notifier/applicant without delay.

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 5

5. Where, after the authorisation of a GMO under this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and no earlier than two years after the date that the consent/authorisation is granted, a Member State considers that new objective circumstances justify an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation, it may apply the procedure under paragraphs 1 to 4, mutatis mutandis, provided that such measures do not affect the cultivation of any authorised GMO seeds and plant propagating materials which were planted lawfully before those measures were adopted.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 6

6. Where a Member State wishes all or part of its territory to be reintegrated into the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation from which it was previously excluded pursuant to paragraph 2, it may make a request to that effect to the competent authority which issued the written consent under this Directive or to the Commission if the GMO has been authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The competent authority which has issued the written consent or the Commission, as the case may be, shall amend the geographical scope of the consent or of the decision of authorisation accordingly.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 7

7. For the purposes of an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation of a GMO under paragraphs 5 and 6, and on condition that under paragraph 5 the consent/authorisation-holder explicitly or tacitly agrees to the request of the Member State: (a) for a GMO which has been authorised under this Directive, the competent authority which has issued the written consent shall amend the geographical scope of the consent accordingly and inform, the Commission, the Member States and the authorisation holder once this is complete; (b) for a GMO which has been authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the Commission shall amend the decision of authorisation accordingly, without applying the procedure set out in Article 35(2) of that Regulation. The Commission shall inform the Member States and the authorisation holder accordingly.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point a

(a) for a GMO which has been authorised under this Directive, the competent authority which has issued the written consent shall amend the geographical scope of the consent accordingly and inform, the Commission, the Member States and the authorisation holder once this is complete;deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI

Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1

Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – point b

(b) for a GMO which has been authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, the Commission shall amend the decision of authorisation accordingly, without applying the procedure set out in Article 35(2) of that Regulation. The Commission shall inform the Member States and the authorisation holder accordingly.deleted

2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI