7 Amendments of Alojz PETERLE related to 2010/0208(COD)
Amendment 78 #
Council position
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) To ensure that the cultivation of GMOs does not result in the unintended presence of GMOs in particular in products recognised under the Union quality schemes such as organic production, effective co-existence measures are needed. Member States should therefore be required, under Directive 2001/18/EC, to adopt rules applicable to their territories to avoid such unintended presence. Particular attention should be paid to any possible cross- border contamination from a Member State or a region where cultivation is allowed into a neighbouring Member State or region where it is prohibited. The Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 provides guidance to Member States for the development of national co- existence measures, including in border areas.
Amendment 84 #
Council position
Recital 7 b (new)
Recital 7 b (new)
(7b) Most Member States do not have measures in place to protect conventional and organic farming from contamination with GMOs, and when measures exist they are not usually efficient enough to protect farmers from contamination. Member States that do not ban the cultivation of GM crops should be obliged to adopt measures to protect conventional and organic farming from contamination and to design liability regimes that ensure that the economic burden of contamination is on GMO producers rather than on conventional and organic farmers.
Amendment 87 #
Council position
Recital 8
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 itsa 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.
Amendment 101 #
Council position
Recital 10
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 byThere should always be the possibility for a Member State, there should be the possibility for that Member State too act as risk manager and adopt reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thata GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs once authorised in all or part of its territory, on the basis of grounds distinct from those assessed according to the harmonized set of Union rules, that is Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003relating to the public interest, 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 policylegitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts, where those factors have not been addressed as part of the harmonised procedure provided for in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, or to persisting scientific uncertainty. Those measures should be duly justified on scientific grounds or on grounds relating to other legitimate factors which might arise from the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs. 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 apply.
Amendment 170 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26b – paragraph 1
Article 26b – 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 adjust the geographical scope of the written consent or authorisation to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. Thise request shall be communicated to the Commission and, if applicable, to the competent authority responsible for issuing the written consent under this Directive at the latest 360 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 and to the public without delay.
Amendment 182 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Where the notifier/applicant oppoIn cases a request of a Member Stais submitted 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 as a condition in the written consent or authorisation.
Amendment 187 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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.