Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-03-28-Speech-3-159"

PredicateValue (sorted: none)
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@ro18
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@et5
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@sl20
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@mt15
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@cs1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@sk19
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@lt14
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@pl16
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@hu11
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Hr. formand! Jeg er glad for at få mulighed for at debattere vores forslag om en ny forordning fra Rådet om økologisk produktion. Først vil jeg takke ordføreren fru Aubert og medlemmerne af Udvalget om Landbrug og Udvikling af Landdistrikter for deres indsats. Deres grundige arbejde er et meget værdifuldt bidrag til vores debat. Med hensyn til vores ønske om at udvide anvendelsesområdet til at dække storkøkkener, kosmetik, tekstilvarer og fiskekonserves vil jeg gerne pointere, at vi ikke kan gøre det hele på én gang. Denne gang udvider vi anvendelsesområdet betydeligt til at omfatte vin og akvakultur. De andre sektorer befinder sig fortsat på et meget tidligt udviklingstrin, og efter min mening vil en harmonisering kunne hæmme deres udvikling. Ifølge den nuværende tekst er det faktisk muligt at tage sagen op igen i 2011. I denne sammenhæng har jeg også bemærket, at De ønsker et dobbelt retsgrundlag for dette forslag. Det er ikke nogen hemmelighed, at der er en omfattende debat om indførelsen af fælles beslutningstagning for landbrugsanliggender. Det er et vigtigt spørgsmål, og det er en debat, som jeg klart har tilkendegivet, at jeg bifalder. Men det er et spørgsmål, der skal behandles horisontalt, på det rette niveau og i den rette sammenhæng. Jeg tror ikke, at det gavner nogen at forholde sig til det fra sag til sag. Derfor kan jeg ikke acceptere den foreslåede ændring af retsgrundlaget for den nye forordning om økologisk landbrug. Endelig foreslår De, at medlemsstaterne skal kunne bibeholde eller indføre strengere nationale regler. Det kan jeg ikke acceptere. Selve formålet med denne forordning er at skabe en solid harmonisering på et tilstrækkeligt strengt niveau med en fleksibilitetsmekanisme for undtagelser. Efter min mening når vi ved at harmonisere reglerne på et rimeligt højt plan med fleksibilitet det samme mål men med en reduceret risiko for ulige behandling af de erhvervsdrivende under lignende forhold. Jeg er overbevist om, at det er den rette metode til at fremme et blomstrende indre marked for økologisk produktion. Jeg beklager det lange indlæg, men det er et meget vigtigt emne, som jeg ønskede at gå i dybden med. Med 160.000 økologiske landbrug og mere end 6 millioner ha landbrugsjord i EU skønnes omsætningen af økologiske produkter at have en værdi på mellem 13 og 14 milliarder euro. Tendensen er stigende, så det er bestemt en meget vigtig sektor. Jeg er overbevist om, at denne ekspanderende sektor har en meget vigtig rolle at spille. Den opfylder en række forventninger fra offentligheden og forbrugerne - forventninger vedrørende fødevarekvalitet, miljø, dyrevelfærd og muligheder for udvikling af landdistrikter. Det er også en sektor med en masse optimisme og tillid til fremtiden, hvilket jeg tydeligt så under mit nylige besøg hos BioFach i Nürnberg. Men for at udvikle og udnytte sit fulde potentiale har sektoren brug for et relevant regelsæt, og det er faktisk det, vi forsøger at skaffe med vores nye forordning. Det er derfor et meget vigtigt lovforslag, og jeg er tilfreds med de fremskridt, vi kunne gøre via vores overvejelser fra sidste år. I 2006 blev der afholdt meget intensive debatter om vores forslag i Rådet og i Parlamentet. Som følge heraf er visse meget følsomme elementer af det oprindelige forslag nu helt forsvundet. Det drejer sig bl.a. om et forbud mod højere krav, inspektionsorganers gensidige anerkendelse af private normer samt EU's økologiske tilkendegivelse. Parlamentet har også stillet en række ændringsforslag for at forbedre formuleringen af målene og principperne for økologisk landbrug, om en indikation af produkternes oprindelse, om en udtrykkelig ret til at bruge nationale og private logoer, om indlejring af kontrolsystemet i de officielle fødevare- og foderstofkontroller samt om de styrkede importgarantier. Disse ændringsforslag forbedrer det oprindelige forslag, og jeg er derfor glad for at få dem med. Vi har også formået at få lagt større vægt i forordningen på jordens frugtbarhed, jordens liv og forvaltning af jordbunden. Spørgsmålet om gmo'er og økologisk landbrug har skabt megen debat. Jeg har noteret mig Parlamentets ønske om, at de erhvervsdrivende skal give beviser på, at de har truffet alle nødvendige forholdsregler for at for at forhindre tilfældig eller teknisk uundgåelig forurening med gmo'er, og jeg er helt enig. Så selv om disse ændringsforslag er en gentagelse af et eksisterende krav, har jeg besluttet at acceptere dem, fordi det er et meget følsomt emne. Men jeg vil også gøre det helt klart, at grænsen for tilfældig forekomst af gmo'er ikke, som nogle antyder, er en de facto-grænse for gmo-tolerance. Det er strengt forbudt at anvende gmo'er og deres derivater i økologisk produktion. Skønt Kommissionen og Parlamentet er enige om de grundlæggende aspekter vedrørende den nye forordning, er der visse emner, vi ikke har kunnet skabe enighed om, og jeg vil kort kommentere nogle af disse. Parlamentet beder om flere detaljer, og det er klart, at mange af de detaljerede regler i den nuværende forordning er blevet fjernet. Men lad os ikke glemme, at et af de primære formål med dette forslag var at få gjort de grundlæggende regler tydeligere og mere logiske. Det betyder imidlertid ikke, at de detaljerede regler, der udgør de økologiske standarders enestående sammensætning, helt skal forsvinde. Bestemt ikke. Men efter min mening skal de hellere placeres i gennemførelsesbestemmelserne, og indholdet af disse detaljerede regler vil - som jeg tidligere bekræftede - være meget lig de detaljerede regler i den aktuelle forordning."@da2
lpv:translated text
"Arvoisa puhemies, pidän myönteisenä tätä tilaisuutta keskustella ehdotuksestamme uudeksi neuvoston asetukseksi luonnonmukaisesta tuotannosta. Haluan aluksi kiittää esittelijä Aubertia sekä maatalouden ja maaseudun kehittämisen valiokunnan jäseniä heidän työstään. Heidän perusteellinen työnsä on hyvin arvokas panos keskusteluihimme. Toiveestamme laajentaa asetuksen soveltamisalaa koskemaan suurkeittiöitä, kosmetiikkaa, tekstiilejä ja kalasäilykkeitä haluan huomauttaa, ettemme voi ottaa kaikkia askelia yhtä aikaa. Laajennamme nyt asetuksen soveltamisalaa huomattavasti koskemaan viinintuotantoa ja vesiviljelyä. Muut alat ovat vielä hyvin varhaisessa kehitysvaiheessa, ja yhdenmukaistaminen saattaisi mielestäni vaikeuttaa niiden kehitystä. Nykyisessä tekstissä annetaan itse asiassa mahdollisuus tarkastella tätä kysymystä uudelleen vuonna 2011. Tähän liittyen olen myös pannut merkille, että haluaisitte ehdotukselle kaksinkertaisen oikeusperustan. Ei ole salaisuus, että yhteispäätösmenettelyn käyttöönotosta maatalousasioissa keskustellaan laajemminkin. Tämä on tärkeä kysymys, ja olen selvästi antanut ymmärtää pitäväni asianomaista keskustelua myönteisenä. Kyseessä on kuitenkin kysymys, jota olisi käsiteltävä horisontaalisesti, asianmukaisella tasolla ja asianmukaisessa kontekstissa. En usko, että lähestymistavan omaksuminen tapauskohtaisesti palvelee kenenkään etua. En siten voi hyväksyä luonnonmukaista tuotantoa koskevan uuden asetuksen oikeusperustan muuttamista, jota olette ehdottaneet. Lopuksi ehdotatte, että jäsenvaltiot voivat säilyttää tai ottaa käyttöön tiukemmat kansalliset säännöt. En voi hyväksyä tätä. Asetuksella pyritään nimenomaan yhdenmukaistamaan säännöt riittävän tiukalla tasolla ja luomaan joustomekanismi poikkeuksia varten. Yhdenmukaistamalla säännöt kohtalaisen korkealla tasolla ja takaamalla joustavuuden pääsemme nähdäkseni samaan lopputulokseen, jossa tuotantoa vastaavissa oloissa harjoittavien toimijoiden eriarvoisen kohtelun riski on kuitenkin pienempi. Olen vakuuttunut, että näin edistetään luonnonmukaisen tuotannon kukoistavia sisämarkkinoita. Pahoittelen, että olen puhunut näin pitkään, mutta kyseessä on hyvin tärkeä kysymys, jota halusin käsitellä yksityiskohtaisesti. Euroopan unionissa on 160 000 luonnonmukaista tilaa ja luonnonmukaisen viljelyn piiriin kuuluu yli 6 miljoonaa hehtaaria maata. Luonnonmukaisten tuotteiden liikevaihdoksi arvioidaan 13–14 miljardia euroa. Tämä suuntaus on nouseva, joten kyseessä on todellakin hyvin tärkeä ala. Olen täysin varma, että tällä laajenevalla alalla on keskeinen asema. Se vastaa moniin erilaisiin kansalaisten ja kuluttajien odotuksiin, jotka kohdistuvat elintarvikkeiden laatuun, ympäristöstä huolehtimiseen, eläinten hyvinvointiin ja maaseudun kehittämismahdollisuuksiin. Luonnonmukainen tuotanto on myös ala, johon liittyy paljon toiveikkuutta ja luottamusta siihen, mitä tulevaisuus tuo tullessaan, kuten saatoin nähdä selvästi käydessäni äskettäin Nürnbergissä järjestetyillä BioFach-luomumessuilla. Kehittyäkseen ja hyödyntääkseen mahdollisuuksiaan täysimääräisesti luonnonmukaisen tuotannon ala tarvitsee kuitenkin asianmukaisen sääntelykehyksen, ja juuri tämän pyrimme saavuttamaan uudella asetuksellamme. Kyseessä on siten hyvin tärkeä lainsäädäntöehdotus, ja olen tyytyväinen edistykseen, jota pystyimme saavuttamaan viime vuonna käymissämme keskusteluissa. Vuoden 2006 aikana ehdotuksestamme käytiin hyvin kiihkeitä keskusteluja neuvostossa ja parlamentissa. Tämän seurauksena jotkin alkuperäiseen ehdotukseen sisältyneet osat, jotka osoittautuivat hyvin arkaluonteisiksi, on nyt poistettu kokonaan. Tällaisia ovat muun muassa korkeatasoisempaa luomutuotantoa koskevien väittämien kieltäminen, yksityisten standardien vastavuoroinen tunnustaminen tarkastuslaitosten toimesta ja EU-luonnonmukainen-merkintä. Parlamentti on myös ehdottanut lukuisia tarkistuksia parantaakseen luonnonmukaisen tuotannon tavoitteiden ja periaatteiden sanamuotoa. Tarkistukset koskevat mainintaa tuotteen alkuperästä, nimenomaista oikeutta käyttää kansallisia ja yksityisiä tunnuksia, valvontajärjestelmän sisällyttämistä osaksi elintarvikkeita ja rehuja koskevia virallisia tarkastuksia ja tuontituotteita koskevia parempia takeita. Nämä ovat tarkistuksia, joilla parannetaan alkuperäistä ehdotusta, ja hyväksyn ne näin ollen mielelläni. Olemme myös onnistuneet parantamaan asetuksen painotusta maaperän viljavuuden, maaperän elämän ja maanhoitokäytäntöjen osalta. Kysymys muuntogeenisistä organismeista ja luonnonmukaisesta tuotannosta on herättänyt paljon keskustelua. Olen pannut merkille parlamentin toiveen siitä, että toimijat todistavat ryhtyneensä kaikkiin tarvittaviin toimiin muuntogeenisten organismien satunnaisen tai sellaisen esiintymisen estämiseksi, jota ei teknisesti voida estää, ja olen asiasta täysin samaa mieltä. Vaikka näissä tarkistuksissa toistetaan jo olemassa oleva vaatimus, olen siten päättänyt hyväksyä ne tämän kysymyksen suuren arkaluonteisuuden vuoksi. Saanen kuitenkin myös tehdä asian täysin selväksi: muuntogeenisten organismien satunnaisen esiintymisen enimmäisraja-arvo ei ole, kuten jotkut väittävät, tosiasiallinen muuntogeenisten organismien kynnysarvo. Muuntogeenisten organismien ja niiden johdannaisten käyttö luonnonmukaisessa tuotannossa on edelleen tiukasti kielletty. Vaikka komissio ja parlamentti ovat samaa mieltä uuden asetuksen perusnäkökohdista, on tiettyjä kysymyksiä, joiden osalta emme ole onnistuneet pääsemään yksimielisyyteen, ja haluan käsitellä lyhyesti joitakin näistä. Parlamentti pyytää enemmän yksityiskohtia, ja on selvää, että monet nykyiseen asetukseen sisältyvistä yksityiskohtaisista säännöistä on poistettu ehdotuksessa. Meidän ei pitäisi kuitenkaan unohtaa, että yksi ehdotuksen tärkeimmistä tavoitteista oli laatia perussäännöt selkeämmin ja johdonmukaisemmin. Tämä ei kuitenkaan tarkoita, että yksityiskohtaisten sääntöjen, jotka muodostavat luomustandardien ainutlaatuisen rakenteen, pitäisi hävitä kokonaan. Ei tietenkään. Katson kuitenkin, että ne on parempi sijoittaa täytäntöönpanosääntöihin, ja näiden yksityiskohtaisten sääntöjen sisältö on, kuten vahvistin teille aiemmin, hyvin samantapainen kuin nykyiseen asetukseen sisältyvien yksityiskohtaisten sääntöjen."@fi7
lpv:translated text
". Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik juich deze gelegenheid om ons voorstel voor een nieuwe verordening van de Raad inzake de biologische productie te bespreken, toe. Allereerst wil ik graag de rapporteur, mevrouw Aubert, en de leden van de Commissie landbouw en plattelandsontwikkeling danken voor hun inspanningen. Het grondige werk dat zij hebben verricht, levert een zeer waardevolle bijdrage aan onze besprekingen. Met betrekking tot onze wens om het toepassingsgebied uit te breiden zodat het ook grootkeukens, cosmetica, textiel en visconserven omvat, wil ik opmerken dat we niet alles in één keer kunnen doen. We breiden het toepassingsgebied nu aanzienlijk uit met wijn en aquacultuur. De andere sectoren bevindt zich nog in een zeer vroeg ontwikkelingsstadium, en ik ben van mening dat het hun ontwikkeling zou belemmeren wanneer we die zouden harmoniseren. De huidige tekst biedt feitelijk de mogelijkheid om deze kwestie in 2011 weer te bekijken. In dit verband heb ik ook gemerkt dat u een dubbele rechtsgrondslag wilt zien voor dit voorstel. Het is geen geheim dat er een bredere discussie gaande is met betrekking tot de invoering van medebeslissing inzake landbouwkwesties. Dit is een belangrijke kwestie en een discussie waarvan ik duidelijk heb aangegeven dat ik die toejuich. Maar het is een kwestie die moet worden aangepakt op een horizontale manier, op het juiste niveau en in de juiste context. Ik denk niet dat er iemand mee gediend is wanneer deze kwestie per geval wordt benaderd, en kan daarom de door u voorgestelde verandering van de rechtsgrondslag van de nieuwe verordening inzake biologische landbouw niet aanvaarden. Tot slot stelt u voor dat de lidstaten striktere nationale regelgeving mogen handhaven of invoeren. Dat vind ik onaanvaardbaar. Het doel van deze verordening is juist om te komen tot een solide harmonisatie op een niveau dat strikt genoeg is, met een flexibiliteitsmechanisme voor uitzonderingen. Ik ben van mening dat we, door de regels op een redelijk hoog niveau en met enige flexibiliteit te harmoniseren, hetzelfde doel bereiken, maar dan met een beperkt risico van ongelijke behandeling van marktdeelnemers die in gelijke omstandigheden verkeren. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat we op deze manier een bloeiende interne markt voor biologische productie kunnen bevorderen. Neem me niet kwalijk dat ik zo lang aan het woord ben geweest, maar het is een zeer belangrijke kwestie en die wilde ik uitvoerig bespreken. Gezien het feit dat er binnen de Europese Unie 160 000 biologische landbouwbedrijven zijn met meer dan zes miljoen hectare landbouwgrond, wordt de omzet van biologische producten geschat op een bedrag tussen de dertien en veertien miljard euro. Deze tendens vertoont een stijgende lijn, dus het is zeker een zeer belangrijke sector. Het lijdt voor mij geen twijfel dat deze groeiende sector een essentiële rol te vervullen heeft. Hij komt tegemoet aan een reeks verwachtingen van het publiek en de klant; verwachtingen op het gebied van voedselkwaliteit, zorg voor het milieu, dierenwelzijn en mogelijkheden om het platteland te ontwikkelen. Het is ook een sector met veel optimisme voor en vertrouwen in de toekomst, zoals ik duidelijk heb kunnen zien tijdens mijn recente bezoek aan de BioFach in Nürnberg. Maar als deze sector zijn volledige potentieel wil benutten, is er een geschikt regelgevingskader nodig, en dit is feitelijk wat we willen bereiken met onze nieuwe verordening. Het is daarom een zeer belangrijk wetgevingsvoorstel, en ik ben verheugd over de vooruitgang die we door onze beraadslagingen van het afgelopen jaar hebben kunnen boeken. In 2006 vonden er in de Raad en het Parlement zeer intensieve discussies plaats over ons voorstel. Als gevolg hiervan zijn enkele aspecten uit het originele voorstel die erg gevoelig bleken te liggen, nu helemaal verdwenen. Hiertoe behoren een verbod op verdergaande beweringen, de wederzijdse erkenning van particuliere normen door controleorganisaties en de Europese biologische aanduiding. Ook heeft het Parlement een reeks amendementen voorgesteld om de formulering van de doelstellingen en beginselen van biologische landbouw te verbeteren, met betrekking tot de aanduiding van de herkomst van de producten, met betrekking tot het expliciete recht om nationale en internationale logo’s te mogen gebruiken, met betrekking tot het verankeren van het controlesysteem in de officiële controles op de naleving van de wetgeving inzake diervoeders en levensmiddelen, en de aanvullende garanties op importproducten. Deze amendementen verbeteren het originele voorstel, en ik zal ze daarom met genoegen overnemen. Daarnaast zijn we erin geslaagd om in de verordening meer nadruk te leggen op bodemvruchtbaarheid, bodemleven en bodembeheerspraktijken. Het vraagstuk rond GGO’s en biologische landbouw heeft veel discussie opgeroepen. Ik heb nota genomen van de wens van het Parlement om marktdeelnemers te laten bewijzen dat ze alle nodige maatregelen hebben genomen om onvoorziene of technisch onvermijdelijke aanwezigheid van GGO’s te vermijden, en ik ben het daar roerend mee eens. Hoewel deze amendementen dus een herhaling zijn van een bestaande eis heb ik besloten ze te aanvaarden vanwege de enorme gevoeligheid van deze kwestie. Maar laat tegelijkertijd glashelder zijn dat de drempel voor onvoorziene aanwezigheid van GGO’s geen feitelijke drempel is voor tolerantie ten opzichte van GGO’s, zoals sommigen suggereren. Het gebruik van GGO’s en daarvan afgeleide producten in de biologische productie blijft ten strengste verboden. Hoewel de Commissie en het Parlement elkaar met betrekking tot de fundamentele aspecten van de nieuwe verordening hebben gevonden, zijn er bepaalde kwesties waarover we het nog niet eens hebben kunnen worden, en enkele daarvan wil ik kort bespreken. Het Parlement vraagt om meer details, en het is duidelijk dat een groot deel van de gedetailleerde regels zoals we die van de huidige verordening kennen, zijn geschrapt. Laten we echter niet vergeten dat een van de belangrijkste doelen van dit voorstel was om de basisregels duidelijker en logischer te op te stellen. Dit betekent echter niet dat de gedetailleerde regels die de unieke structuur van biologische normen vormen, maar helemaal moeten verdwijnen. Beslist niet. Maar ik ben van mening dat ze beter op hun plaats zijn in de uitvoeringsregels, en qua inhoud zullen deze gedetailleerde regels, zoals ik u al eerder bevestigde, zeer veel lijken op de gedetailleerde regels van de huidige verordening."@nl3
lpv:translated text
"Herr talman! Jag välkomnar denna möjlighet att diskutera vårt förslag till rådets nya förordning om ekologisk produktion. Jag vill börja med att tacka föredraganden Hélène Aubert och ledamöterna från utskottet för jordbruk och landsbygdens utveckling för deras insatser. Det grundliga arbete som de har utfört är ett mycket värdefullt bidrag till våra diskussioner. När det gäller vår önskan att utvidga räckvidden till att även omfatta storhushåll, kosmetika, textilier och konserverad fisk vill jag påpeka att vi inte kan göra allting på en gång. Vi håller nu på att gradvis utvidga räckvidden till att även omfatta vin och vattenbruk. De övriga sektorerna befinner sig fortfarande i ett mycket tidigt utvecklingsskede, och jag tror att en harmonisering av dessa skulle kunna hindra deras utveckling. I den nuvarande texten ges möjligheten att på nytt undersöka frågan 2011. I samband med detta har jag också lagt märke till att ni vill ha en dubbel rättslig grund för detta förslag. Det är ingen hemlighet att det pågår en mer omfattande diskussion om att införa medbeslutande för jordbruksfrågor. Detta är en viktig fråga och en diskussion som jag tydligt har visat att jag välkomnar. Men det är en fråga som borde behandlas på ett mer övergripande sätt, på lämplig nivå och i ett lämpligt sammanhang. Jag tror inte att det skulle tjäna någonting till att anta en strategi från fall till fall. Därför kan jag inte godta att den rättsliga grunden för förordningen om ekologiskt jordbruk ändras enligt ert förslag. Slutligen föreslår ni att medlemsstaterna ska upprätthålla eller införa strängare nationella bestämmelser. Det kan jag inte godta. Själva syftet med denna förordning är att åstadkomma en hållbar harmonisering på en tillräckligt rigorös nivå, med en flexibilitetsmekanism för undantag. Jag anser att vi kan nå samma mål genom att harmonisera bestämmelserna på en någorlunda hög nivå, med flexibilitet, men med en minskad risk för ojämlik behandling av aktörer under liknande omständigheter. Jag är övertygad om att detta är ett sätt att utveckla en framgångsrik inre marknad för ekologisk produktion. Jag beklagar att jag har talat så pass länge, men detta är en mycket viktig fråga som jag ville ta itu med grundligt. Med 160 000 ekologiska jordbruk och mer än 6 miljoner hektar mark i EU uppskattas omsättningen för ekologiska produkter uppgå till ett värde på 13–14 miljarder euro. Denna utveckling ökar, så detta är definitivt en mycket viktig sektor. Det råder enligt min uppfattning inga tvivel om att denna växande sektor har en väsentlig roll att spela. Här ingår en hel rad förväntningar från allmänhetens och konsumenternas sida, förväntningar om livsmedelskvalitet, miljöhänsyn, djurs välbefinnande och möjligheter till utveckling på landsbygden. Det är också en sektor där det finns en stor optimism och ett förtroende för vad framtiden kan bära med sig, vilket jag tydligt kunde se under mitt senaste besök vid BioFach i Nürnberg. Men för att sektorn ska utvecklas och nå sin fulla potential behövs ett lämpligt regelverk, och det är just detta vi försöker uppnå genom vår nya förordning. Därför är detta ett mycket viktigt lagstiftningsförslag, och jag gläds åt de framsteg som vi har kunnat uppnå med hjälp av förra årets avregleringar. Under 2006 fördes mycket intensiva diskussioner om vårt förslag i rådet och i parlamentet. Till följd av detta har vissa inslag som fanns med i det ursprungliga förslaget, men som visade sig handla om mycket känsliga frågor, nu helt och hållet strukits. Dessa gällde bland annat ett förbud mot högre krav, kontrollmyndigheters ömsesidiga erkännande av privata standarder, samt EU:s uppgifter om ekologiska produkter. Parlamentet har också lagt fram en rad ändringsförslag i syfte att förbättra formuleringen av mål och principer för ekologiskt jordbruk, om produkters ursprung, en uttrycklig rätt att använda nationella och privata logotyper, att kontrollsystemet ska införlivas i de officiella kontrollerna av livsmedel och foder, samt förstärkta garantier för importerade produkter. Dessa ändringsförslag förbättrar det ursprungliga förslaget, och därför gläder det mig att kunna godkänna dem. Vi har också lyckats förstärka förordningens betoning på jordens bördighet, biologiska aktivitet samt på metoderna för att förvalta jorden. Frågan om GMO och ekologiskt jordbruk har gett upphov till en hel del debatt. Jag har noterat parlamentets önskan om att aktörer ska bevisa att de har vidtagit alla nödvändiga åtgärder för att undvika tillfällig eller tekniskt oundviklig förekomst av GMO, och med detta instämmer jag helt och hållet. Så trots att man i dessa ändringsförslag återupprepar ett redan befintligt krav har jag beslutat att godta dem till följd av att det handlar om en mycket känslig fråga. Men låt mig vara fullständigt tydlig: tröskelvärdet för tillfällig förekomst av GMO är däremot inte, som någon antydde, ett faktiskt tröskelvärde för GMO-tolerans. De genmodifierade organismerna och deras härledningar fortsätter att vara strikt förbjudna i den ekologiska produktionen. Trots att kommissionen och parlamentet är eniga om den nya förordningens grundläggande aspekter finns det vissa frågor som vi inte har lyckats komma överens om, och jag vill kort redogöra för några av dessa. Parlamentet kräver fler detaljer, och det är uppenbart att en stor del av de detaljerade bestämmelser som vi känner till från den nuvarande förordningen har tagits bort. Men låt oss inte förglömma att ett av förslagets huvudskäl var att fastställa de grundläggande bestämmelserna på ett mer klart och logiskt sätt. Detta innebär emellertid inte att de detaljerade bestämmelserna som utgör det unika systemet av ekologiska standarder kommer att försvinna helt och hållet. Definitivt inte. Men jag anser att de hellre bör ingå i genomförandebestämmelserna. Innehållet i dessa detaljerade bestämmelser kommer dessutom, som jag tidigare bekräftade, att till stor del likna de detaljerade bestämmelser som förekommer i den nuvarande förordningen."@sv22
lpv:translated text
". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, χαιρετίζω αυτήν την ευκαιρία να συζητήσουμε την πρότασή μας σχετικά με έναν νέο κανονισμό του Συμβουλίου για τη βιολογική παραγωγή. Θέλω καταρχάς να ευχαριστήσω την εισηγήτρια, κ. Aubert, και τα μέλη της Επιτροπής Γεωργίας και Ανάπτυξης της Υπαίθρου για τις προσπάθειές τους. Το ολοκληρωμένο έργο που έχουν επιτελέσει συμβάλλει πολύ σημαντικά στις συζητήσεις μας. Όσον αφορά την επιθυμία μας να επεκτείνουμε το πεδίο εφαρμογής ώστε να περιλαμβάνονται οι υπηρεσίες μαζικής εστίασης, τα καλλυντικά, τα υφάσματα και οι κονσέρβες ιχθύων, θέλω να επισημάνω ότι δεν μπορούμε να καλύψουμε μονομιάς όλα τα θέματα. Διευρύνουμε σημαντικά το πεδίο εφαρμογής, έτσι ώστε να περιλαμβάνει τώρα τον οίνο και τις υδατοκαλλιέργειες. Οι υπόλοιποι τομείς βρίσκονται ακόμη σε πολύ πρώιμο στάδιο ανάπτυξης, και θεωρώ ότι η εναρμόνισή τους θα μπορούσε να εμποδίσει την ανάπτυξή τους. Το τρέχον κείμενο προσφέρει άλλωστε τη δυνατότητα επανεξέτασης του θέματος το 2011. Σε συνδυασμό με αυτό το θέμα, παρατήρησα επίσης ότι επιθυμείτε τη θέσπιση διπλής νομικής βάσης για την πρόταση αυτή. Δεν είναι μυστικό ότι βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη μια ευρύτερη συζήτηση σχετικά με τη θέσπιση της συναπόφασης για τα θέματα γεωργίας. Αυτό το θέμα είναι σημαντικό και εντάσσεται σε μια συζήτηση την οποία έχω δηλώσει σαφώς ότι χαιρετίζω. Είναι, όμως, ένα θέμα το οποίο πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί με οριζόντιο τρόπο, στο κατάλληλο επίπεδο και στο ενδεδειγμένο πλαίσιο. Δεν θεωρώ ότι εξυπηρετεί κανέναν μια προσέγγιση κατά περίπτωση. Συνεπώς, δεν μπορώ να δεχτώ την αλλαγή της νομικής βάσης του νέου κανονισμού σχετικά με τη βιολογική γεωργία την οποία προτείνετε. Τέλος, προτείνετε να μπορούν τα κράτη μέλη να διατηρούν ή να θεσπίζουν αυστηρότερους εθνικούς κανόνες. Δεν μπορώ να δεχτώ κάτι τέτοιο. Σκοπός αυτού του κανονισμού είναι η επίτευξη ισχυρής εναρμόνισης σε αρκετά αυστηρό επίπεδο, με παράλληλη χρήση ενός μηχανισμού ευελιξίας για ορισμένες εξαιρέσεις. Με την εναρμόνιση των κανόνων σε αρκετά υψηλό επίπεδο και με την ευελιξία, θεωρώ ότι επιτυγχάνουμε τον ίδιο στόχο, μειώνοντας όμως τον κίνδυνο άνισης μεταχείρισης των επιχειρήσεων σε παρόμοιες συνθήκες. Είμαι πεπεισμένη ότι με αυτόν τον τρόπο προάγουμε μια δυναμική εσωτερική αγορά βιολογικών προϊόντων. Ζητώ συγγνώμη που μίλησα τόσο πολύ, όμως αυτό το θέμα είναι πολύ σημαντικό και ήθελα να το πραγματευθώ εμπεριστατωμένα. Με 160 000 βιολογικές εκμεταλλεύσεις και περισσότερα από 6 εκατ. γης στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ο κύκλος εργασιών των βιολογικών προϊόντων εκτιμάται στο ποσό των 13 έως 14 δισ. ευρώ. Αυτή η τάση είναι ανοδική, οπότε πρόκειται όντως για πολύ σημαντικό τομέα. Δεν έχω καμία αμφιβολία ότι αυτός ο επεκτεινόμενος τομέας πρόκειται να διαδραματίσει σημαντικότατο ρόλο. Ανταποκρίνεται σε ευρύ φάσμα προσδοκιών του κοινού και των καταναλωτών· προσδοκιών σχετικά με την ποιότητα των τροφίμων, την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και των ζώων και τις ευκαιρίες ανάπτυξης της υπαίθρου. Είναι επίσης ένας τομέας ο οποίος χαρακτηρίζεται από μεγάλη αισιοδοξία και σιγουριά για ό,τι επιφυλάσσει το μέλλον, όπως είχα την ευκαιρία να διαπιστώσω η ίδια κατά την πρόσφατη επίσκεψή μου στην έκθεση BioFach στη Νυρεμβέργη. Προκειμένου, όμως, να αναπτυχθεί και να εκμεταλλευτεί πλήρως τις δυνατότητές του, ο τομέας χρειάζεται το κατάλληλο ρυθμιστικό πλαίσιο, και αυτό ακριβώς προσπαθούμε να επιτύχουμε με τον νέο μας κανονισμό. Είναι, λοιπόν, μια πολύ σημαντική νομοθετική πρόταση, και είμαι ικανοποιημένη από την πρόοδο που μπορέσαμε να σημειώσουμε στις διαβουλεύσεις μας το περασμένο έτος. Το 2006 πραγματοποιήθηκαν πολύ εντατικές συζητήσεις σχετικά με την πρότασή μας στο Συμβούλιο και στο Κοινοβούλιο. Αυτό είχε ως αποτέλεσμα να έχουν πλέον εξαλειφθεί εντελώς από την αρχική πρόταση ορισμένες πτυχές οι οποίες αποδείχθηκαν πολύ ευαίσθητες. Αυτές περιλαμβάνουν την απαγόρευση υψηλότερων απαιτήσεων επισήμανσης, την αμοιβαία αναγνώριση των ιδιωτικών προτύπων από τους εποπτικούς οργανισμούς και την ένδειξη της ΕΕ για τα βιολογικά προϊόντα. Το Κοινοβούλιο έχει επίσης προτείνει μια σειρά τροπολογιών για τη βελτίωση της διατύπωσης των στόχων και των αρχών της βιολογικής γεωργίας, για την ένδειξη του τόπου καταγωγής των προϊόντων, για το ρητό δικαίωμα χρήσης εθνικών και ιδιωτικών λογοτύπων, για την ενσωμάτωση του ελεγκτικού συστήματος στους επισήμους ελέγχους των τροφίμων και ζωοτροφών, καθώς και για τις ενισχυμένες εγγυήσεις στον τομέα των εισαγωγών. Οι τροπολογίες αυτές βελτιώνουν την αρχική πρόταση και, ως εκ τούτου, θα τις δεχτώ ευχαρίστως. Καταφέραμε επίσης να βελτιώσουμε την έμφαση του κανονισμού στις πρακτικές οι οποίες αφορούν τη ζωή, την ευφορία και τη διαχείριση του εδάφους. Το ζήτημα των ΓΤΟ και της βιολογικής γεωργίας έχει προκαλέσει πολλές συζητήσεις. Λαμβάνω υπόψη την επιθυμία του Κοινοβουλίου να υποχρεώνονται οι επιχειρήσεις να αποδεικνύουν ότι έχουν λάβει όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για την αποφυγή της τυχαίας ή τεχνικώς αναπόφευκτης μόλυνσης από ΓΤΟ, με την οποία δεν μπορώ παρά να συμφωνήσω απολύτως. Συνεπώς, παρότι οι εν λόγω τροπολογίες αποτελούν αναδιατύπωση της υφιστάμενης υποχρέωσης, αποφάσισα να τις κάνω δεκτές λόγω της τεράστιας ευαισθησίας αυτού του θέματος. Θέλω, όμως, να είμαι απολύτως σαφής: το κατώτατο όριο όσον αφορά την παρουσία γενετικώς τροποποιημένων οργανισμών δεν αποτελεί, όπως υποστηρίζουν ορισμένοι, το όριο ανοχής των ΓΤΟ. Η χρήση ΓΤΟ και των παραγώγων τους εξακολουθεί να απαγορεύεται αυστηρά στη βιολογική παραγωγή. Ενώ η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο συμφωνούν ως προς τις βασικές πτυχές του νέου κανονισμού, υπάρχουν ορισμένα θέματα στα οποία δεν καταφέραμε να καταλήξουμε σε συμφωνία, και στη συνέχεια θα αναφερθώ εν συντομία σε ορισμένα από αυτά. Το Κοινοβούλιο ζητά περισσότερες λεπτομέρειες, και είναι σαφές ότι πολλοί από τους λεπτομερείς κανόνες που περιλαμβάνονται στον υφιστάμενο κανονισμό έχουν καταργηθεί. Δεν πρέπει, όμως, να λησμονούμε ότι ένας από τους βασικούς στόχους αυτής της πρότασης ήταν ο καθορισμός των βασικών κανόνων σαφέστερα και πιο ορθολογικά. Εντούτοις, αυτό δεν σημαίνει ότι οι λεπτομερείς κανόνες οι οποίοι συγκροτούν τον μοναδικό ιστό των βιολογικών προτύπων πρέπει να καταργηθούν ολοκληρωτικά. Ασφαλώς και όχι. Φρονώ, όμως, ότι μπορούν να ενταχθούν πολύ καλύτερα στους κανόνες εφαρμογής, και το περιεχόμενο αυτών των λεπτομερών κανόνων θα είναι, όπως σας επιβεβαίωσα νωρίτερα, σε μεγάλο βαθμό ίδιο με τους λεπτομερείς κανόνες που ισχύουν ήδη με την υφιστάμενη νομοθεσία."@el10
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@lv13
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"de facto"10,12,8
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our proposal for a new Council regulation for organic production. I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Aubert, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts. The thorough work that they have been doing is a very valuable contribution to our discussions. On our wish to extend the scope to cover mass caterers, cosmetics, textiles and preserved fish, I would like to point out that we cannot take all steps in one go. We are substantially extending the scope now to wine and to aquaculture. The other sectors are still at a very early stage of the development, and I think that harmonising them could hamper their development. The current text actually provides for the possibility of looking at the issue again in 2011. Linked to this, I have also noticed that you would like to see a double legal basis for this proposal. It is no secret that there is a wider discussion on the introduction of codecision for agricultural matters. This is an important issue and it is a discussion that I have clearly indicated that I welcome. But it is an issue that should be dealt with in a horizontal manner, at the proper level and in the proper context. I do not believe that it serves anyone to take an approach on a case-by-case basis. Therefore I cannot accept a change to the legal basis for the new regulation on organic farming as you have proposed. Finally, you propose that Member States may maintain or introduce stricter national rules. That is not acceptable to me. The very purpose of this regulation is to bring about a solid harmonisation at a strict enough level, with a flexibility mechanism for exceptions. By harmonising the rules at a fairly high level, with flexibility, I think we are reaching the same end, but with a reduced risk of unequal treatment of operators in similar conditions. I am convinced that this is a way to foster a thriving internal market for organic production. I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is a very important issue that I wanted to address in detail. With 160 000 organic farms and more than 6 million hectares of land in the European Union, the turnover of organic products is estimated to have a value of between 13 and 14 billion euros. This tendency is on the increase, so it is indeed a very important sector. There is no doubt in my mind that this expanding sector has an essential role to play. It addresses a range of expectations on the part of the public and of consumers; expectations about food quality, care for the environment, animal welfare and opportunities for developing the countryside. It is also a sector with plenty of optimism and confidence about what the future has to bring, as I was able to see clearly during my recent visit to the BioFach in Nuremberg. But in order to develop and reach its full potential, the sector needs an appropriate regulatory framework, and this is actually what we are trying to achieve with our new regulation. It is therefore a very important legislative proposal, and I am pleased with the progress that we were able to make through our deliberations last year. In 2006 very intensive discussions were held on our proposal in the Council and in Parliament. As a result, some elements from the original proposal that proved to be very sensitive ones have now totally disappeared. This includes a prohibition on higher claims, the mutual recognition of private standards by inspection bodies, and the EU organic indication. Parliament has also proposed a range of amendments in order to improve the wording of the objectives and principles of organic farming, on the indication of the origin of the products, on the explicit right to use national and private logos, on embedding of the control system in the official food and feed controls, and the reinforced guarantees on imports. These are amendments that improve the original proposal and I am therefore happy to take them on board. We have also managed to improve the emphasis of the regulation on soil fertility, soil life and soil management practices. The question of GMO and organic farming has generated a lot of debate. I have noted Parliament’s wish that operators provide proof that they have taken all the necessary steps to avoid adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs, and I could not agree more with that. So although these amendments present a reiteration of an existing requirement, I have decided to accept them because of the huge sensitivity of this issue. But let me also be completely clear: the threshold for adventitious presence of GMOs is not, as some suggest, a de facto threshold for GMO tolerance. GMOs and their derivatives remain strictly banned for use in organic production. Although the Commission and Parliament agree on the fundamental aspects of the new regulation, there are certain issues where we have not managed to see eye to eye, and I would like to touch briefly on some of these. Parliament is asking for more details, and it is clear that a lot of the detailed rules as we know them in the current regulation have been removed. But let us not forget that one of the main purposes of this proposal was to set out the basic rules more clearly and more logically. This, however, does not mean that the detailed rules that form the unique fabric of organic standards should disappear altogether. Certainly not. But I believe that they are better placed in the implementing rules, and the content of these detailed rules will, as I confirmed to you earlier on, be very similar to the detailed rules that we have in the current regulation."@en4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Mariann Fischer Boel,"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Member of the Commission"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,11,13,4
lpv:translated text
"Senhor Presidente, saúdo esta oportunidade de discutir a nossa proposta de novo regulamento do Conselho relativo à produção biológica. Começaria por agradecer à relatora, a senhora deputada Marie-Hélène Aubert, assim como aos membros da Comissão da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural, pelos esforços desenvolvidos. O aturado trabalho que realizaram constitui um valioso contributo para os nossos debates. Por muito que desejemos alargar o âmbito de forma a incluir grandes restauradores, cosméticos, têxteis e conservas de peixe, devo dizer que não é possível avançar ao mesmo tempo em todas as áreas. Estamos a alargar substancialmente o âmbito ao vinho e à aquicultura. Os outros sectores encontram-se, por enquanto, numa fase muito precoce e creio que harmonizá-los poderia travar o seu desenvolvimento. O texto actual prevê a possibilidade de rever a questão em 2011. E, a propósito, reparei que gostariam que a presente proposta tivesse dupla base jurídica. Não é segredo que está em curso uma vasta discussão sobre a introdução da co-decisão nas questões relativas à agricultura. O assunto é candente e já referi que vejo positivamente essa discussão. Mas é uma questão que deve ser discutida horizontalmente, ao nível e no contexto adequados. Não vejo qualquer utilidade em seguir uma abordagem casuística. Não posso, portanto, aceitar uma alteração da base jurídica do novo regulamento relativo à agricultura biológica, como proposto pelo Parlamento. Finalmente, os senhores propõem que os Estados-Membros possam manter ou introduzir regras nacionais mais rigorosas. Não posso aceitar tal sugestão. O presente regulamento visa, justamente, uma sólida harmonização a um nível suficientemente estrito, com um mecanismo de flexibilidade para excepções. Harmonizando as regras a um nível bastante elevado, permitindo a flexibilidade, creio que atingimos o mesmo fim, mas corremos um risco reduzido de tratamento desigual de operadores em situação semelhante. Creio que esta é uma forma de fomentar um mercado interno da produção biológica próspero. Peço desculpa por ter tomado tanto tempo mas o assunto é muito importante e queria referi-lo em pormenor. Com 160 000 explorações biológicas e mais de 6 milhões de hectares na União Europeia, estima-se que o volume de negócios da agricultura biológica se situe entre os 13 e os 14 mil milhões de euros. A tendência é para o crescimento, pelo que, na realidade, se trata de um sector muito importante. Não tenho quaisquer dúvidas de que este sector em expansão tem um papel essencial a desempenhar. Dá resposta a uma série de expectativas do público e dos consumidores, expectativas essas que abrangem a qualidade alimentar, o cuidado com o ambiente, o bem-estar animal e as oportunidades para desenvolver o campo. O sector apresenta, ao mesmo tempo, grande optimismo e confiança quanto ao que o futuro pode trazer, como verifiquei claramente durante a minha recente visita à empresa BioFach, em Nuremberga. Contudo, para se desenvolver e atingir todo o seu potencial, o sector exige uma moldura legislativa adequada, e é isso justamente que estamos a tentar obter através do nosso novo regulamento. Trata-se, portanto, de uma proposta legislativa da maior importância e apraz-me verificar o progresso que conseguimos com as nossas deliberações do ano passado. Em 2006 a nossa proposta suscitou viva discussão, quando apresentada no Conselho e no Parlamento. Em resultado dessa discussão alguns elementos da proposta inicial que se verificou serem demasiado sensíveis foram retirados. Entre eles surge a proibição de alegações que façam referência a normas superiores, o reconhecimento mútuo de normas privadas por parte dos organismos de inspecção e a menção “UE-Biológico”. O Parlamento propôs, também, uma série de alterações que visam melhorar a redacção dos objectivos e princípios da agricultura biológica relativas à indicação da origem dos produtos, ao direito explícito de usar logótipos nacionais e privados, à inclusão do sistema de controlo nos controlos oficiais de géneros alimentícios e alimentos e a garantias reforçadas quanto às importações. Trata-se de alterações que melhoram a proposta original e é com agrado que as acolho. Conseguimos também que o regulamento dê mais ênfase à fertilidade do solo, à vida do solo e às práticas de gestão do solo. A questão dos OGM e a agricultura biológica provocou grande discussão. Registei o desejo do Parlamento de que os operadores forneçam provas de que tomaram todas as medidas necessárias para evitar a contaminação acidental ou tecnicamente inevitável com OGM e concordo plenamente. Assim, apesar de essas alterações repetirem uma exigência já existente, decidi aceitá-las devido à extrema delicadeza da questão. Permitam-me, contudo, que seja muito clara: o limiar de presença acidental de OGM não é, como alguém alvitrou, um verdadeiro limiar para a tolerância de OGM. Os OGM e seus derivados continuam a ser estritamente proibidos na produção biológica. Embora a Comissão e o Parlamento concordem nos aspectos fundamentais do novo regulamento, aspectos há em que não conseguimos ter o mesmo ponto de vista e gostaria de referir sumariamente alguns desses aspectos. O Parlamento solicita mais pormenores, e é óbvio que muitas regras detalhadas, tal como as conhecemos no regulamento actual, foram retiradas. Mas não esqueçamos que um dos principais objectivos do regulamento actual consistia em estabelecer as regras de base de modo mais claro e mais lógico. Isto não significa, porém, que as regras detalhadas que formam o tecido singular das regras biológicas desapareçam, decerto que não. Mas creio que devem constar das normas de execução, e o conteúdo dessas regras detalhadas será, como antes confirmei, muito semelhante ao das regras detalhadas da legislação actual."@pt17
lpv:translated text
". Herr Präsident! Ich begrüße diese Gelegenheit zur Erörterung unseres Vorschlags für eine neue Verordnung des Rates über die ökologische/biologische Erzeugung. Zunächst möchte ich der Berichterstatterin, Frau Aubert, sowie den Mitgliedern des Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung für ihre Bemühungen danken. Die sorgfältige Arbeit, die sie geleistet haben, ist ein überaus wertvoller Beitrag zu unseren Erörterungen. Zu unserem Anliegen, den Umfang auf Anbieter von Gemeinschaftsverpflegung, Kosmetika, Textilien und Fischkonserven auszudehnen, möchte ich sagen, dass wir nicht alle Schritte auf einmal ausführen können. Wir erweitern den Umfang derzeit erheblich um Wein und die Aquakultur. Die anderen Bereiche befinden sich noch in einem frühen Entwicklungsstadium und meiner Meinung nach würde eine Harmonisierung deren Entwicklung behindern. Die derzeitige Fassung sieht übrigens vor, diese Thematik erneut im Jahre 2011 zu prüfen. Im Zusammenhang damit habe ich auch festgestellt, dass Sie gern eine doppelte Rechtsgrundlage für diesen Vorschlag hätten. Es ist kein Geheimnis, dass eine Einführung der Mitentscheidung für landwirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten breit diskutiert wird. Das ist ein wichtiges Thema und ich begrüße diese Diskussion, wie ich bereits eindeutig geäußert habe. Doch handelt es sich um ein Thema, das auf horizontale Weise behandelt werden sollte, auf einer angemessenen Ebene und im richtigen Zusammenhang. Ich bezweifle, dass es irgendjemandem nützt, einen Ansatz auf Fall-zu-Fall-Basis zu verfolgen. Daher kann ich eine Änderung der Rechtsgrundlage für die neue Verordnung über ökologische/biologische Erzeugung, wie Sie sie vorschlagen, nicht akzeptieren. Abschließend schlagen Sie vor, den Mitgliedstaaten die Möglichkeit einzuräumen, strengere Vorschriften anzuwenden oder zu erlassen. Das kann ich nicht akzeptieren. Der eigentliche Zweck dieser Verordnung besteht darin, eine stabile Harmonisierung auf einer Ebene zu erreichen, die streng genug, aber auch flexibel genug ist, um Ausnahmen zu ermöglichen. Durch die Harmonisierung der Vorschriften auf relativ hohem Niveau bei gleichzeitiger Flexibilität gelangen wir meiner Meinung nach zum gleichen Ziel und verringern dabei das Risiko einer Ungleichbehandlung der Wirtschaftsteilnehmer unter gleichen Bedingungen. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass dies eine Möglichkeit ist, einen florierenden Binnenmarkt für ökologisch/biologische Erzeugnisse zu etablieren. Es tut mir leid, dass ich so ausführlich geworden bin, aber es ist ein überaus wichtiges Thema, auf das ich ausführlich eingehen wollte. Mit 160 000 Ökohöfen und mehr als 6 Millionen Hektar Landfläche in der Europäischen Union beläuft sich der Umsatz mit ökologisch erzeugten Produkten auf schätzungsweise 13 bis 14 Milliarden Euro. Die Tendenz ist weiter steigend, so dass es in der Tat eine wichtige Branche ist. Ich zweifle nicht im Geringsten daran, dass diesem expandierenden Sektor eine bedeutende Rolle zukommt. Hier geht es um weitreichende Interessen der Öffentlichkeit und der Verbraucher, nämlich um Erwartungen in Bezug auf die Qualität der Nahrungsmittel, Sorge um die Umwelt, das Wohlergehen von Tieren und Möglichkeiten zur Landschaftsgestaltung. Diesem Sektor wohnen auch großer Optimismus und Zuversicht in Bezug darauf inne, was die Zukunft bereithält, wovon ich mich selbst kürzlich auf der BioFach in Nürnberg überzeugen konnte. Um aber sein volles Potenzial entwickeln und erreichen zu können, ist der Sektor auf einen angemessenen Rechtsrahmen angewiesen, was wir im Grunde mit unserer neuen Verordnung zu erreichen versuchen. Es ist daher ein äußerst wichtiger Legislativvorschlag, und ich freue mich sehr über die Fortschritte, die wir in unseren Beratungen im vergangenen Jahr erzielen konnten. Im Jahre 2006 wurde unser Vorschlag im Rat und im Parlament sehr intensiv erörtert. Im Ergebnis dessen sind einige Teile des ursprünglichen Vorschlags, die sich als recht kritisch erwiesen, inzwischen vollständig verschwunden. Dazu zählt ein Verbot höherer Forderungen, die gegenseitige Anerkennung privater Standards durch Inspektionsgremien sowie die Biokennzeichnung durch die EU. Das Parlament hat ferner eine Reihe von Änderungsanträgen zur Verbesserung des Wortlauts der Ziele und Grundsätze des ökologischen Landbaus, zur Herkunftsangabe von Erzeugnissen, zum ausdrücklichen Recht der Verwendung nationaler und privater Logos, zur Einbettung des Kontrollsystems in die offiziellen Nahrungs- und Futtermittelkontrollen sowie die verstärkten Garantien bei Importen vorgelegt. Mit diesen Änderungsanträgen wird der Originalvorschlag verbessert und ich nehme sie daher sehr gern auf. Es ist uns auch gelungen, ein stärkeres Augenmerk auf die Verordnung zur Bodenfruchtbarkeit, zu Verfahrensweisen in Bezug auf Bodenleben und Bodenbewirtschaftung zu richten. Die Frage des genetisch veränderten Saatguts und der ökologischen Landwirtschaft hat zu zahlreichen Diskussionen geführt. Ich habe den Wunsch des Parlaments zur Kenntnis genommen, dass der Wirtschaftsteilnehmer nachweisen können muss, dass er alle notwendigen Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung zufälliger oder technisch unvermeidbarer Kontamination durch GVO getroffen hat, und ich kann das mit aller Vehemenz unterstützen. Obwohl also diese Änderungsanträge eine bestehende Anforderung wiederholen, habe ich sie wegen der außerordentlichen Sensibilität der Thematik akzeptiert. Lassen Sie mich jedoch Folgendes absolut klarstellen: der Schwellenwert für die zufällige Anwesenheit von GVO ist nicht, wie manche meinen, ein De-facto-Schwellenwert zur GVO-Toleranz. GVO und deren Ableitungen bleiben auch weiterhin von der Verwendung im ökologischen Landbau ausdrücklich ausgeschlossen. Zwar sind sich Kommission und Parlament bei den grundsätzlichen Aspekten der neuen Verordnung einig, doch gibt es noch einige Fragen, zu denen wir unterschiedliche Auffassungen vertreten. Auf einige davon möchte ich jetzt näher eingehen. Das Parlament möchte weitere Einzelheiten wissen, und es ist klar, dass viele der ausführlichen Vorschriften, die wir aus der aktuellen Verordnung kennen, entfernt wurden. Wir sollten jedoch nicht vergessen, dass eines der Hauptanliegen dieses Vorschlags darin bestand, die grundlegenden Vorschriften klarer und logischer zu fassen. Das wiederum bedeutet nicht, dass die ausführlichen Vorschriften, die das einzigartige Gefüge der Standards für den ökologischen Landbau bilden, insgesamt verschwinden müssen. Ganz gewiss nicht. Doch denke ich, dass sie in den Durchführungsvorschriften besser aufgehoben sind, und der Inhalt dieser ausführlichen Vorschriften wird, wie ich Ihnen bereits bestätigte, von den ausführlichen Vorschriften der aktuellen Verordnung kaum abweichen."@de9
lpv:translated text
"Signor Presidente, sono lieta di discutere la nostra proposta sul nuovo regolamento del Consiglio relativo alla produzione biologica. Vorrei iniziare ringraziando la relatrice, onorevole Aubert, e i membri della commissione per l’agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale per gli sforzi profusi. L’ottimo lavoro che hanno svolto è un contributo estremamente prezioso per i nostri dibattiti. Per quanto riguarda il nostro desiderio di estendere l’ambito di applicazione alla ristorazione collettiva, ai cosmetici, ai prodotti tessili e alle conserve di pesce, sottolineo che non possiamo agire contemporaneamente su tutti i fronti. Fondamentalmente, ora lo stiamo estendendo al vino e all’acquacoltura. Gli altri settori sono ancora in una fase iniziale del loro sviluppo, che, credo, potrebbe essere pregiudicato dall’armonizzazione. Di fatto, il testo in essere prevede la possibilità di riesaminare la questione nel 2011. Collegandomi a questo, ho anche visto che vorreste una doppia base giuridica per la proposta. Tutti sanno che è in corso un ampio dibattito sull’introduzione della procedura di codecisione per le questioni agricole. Si tratta di un punto importante e di un dibattito che, come ho chiaramente affermato, accolgo con favore. Tuttavia, è una questione che si dovrebbe affrontare in maniera orizzontale, a livello adeguato e nel giusto contesto. Credo non sia utile a nessuno adottare un approccio caso per caso. Per tale motivo, non posso accettare una modifica della base giuridica per il nuovo regolamento sull’agricoltura biologica come avete proposto. Infine, proponete che gli Stati membri possano mantenere o introdurre norme più severe a livello nazionale. Lo trovo inammissibile. Lo scopo ultimo del presente regolamento è garantire un’efficace armonizzazione in maniera abbastanza rigorosa, con un meccanismo di flessibilità che garantisca le dovute eccezioni. Armonizzando le norme a livelli abbastanza elevati, con una certa flessibilità, credo raggiungeremo lo stesso fine, ma con meno rischi di trattare diversamente gli operatori che versano in condizioni analoghe. Sono convinta che sia questo il modo per promuovere un fiorente mercato interno della produzione biologica. Mi dispiace di avere parlato così a lungo, ma si tratta di una questione molto importante che volevo analizzare attentamente. Con 160 000 aziende biologiche e oltre 6 milioni di ettari destinati all’agricoltura nell’Unione europea, il fatturato dei prodotti biologici oscilla tra i 13 e i 14 miliardi di euro. La tendenza è al rialzo; quindi si tratta, indubbiamente, di un settore molto importante. Sono assolutamente convinta che questo settore in espansione debba svolgere un ruolo fondamentale. Esso risponde a una serie di aspettative dell’opinione pubblica e dei consumatori riguardo alla qualità degli alimenti, alla tutela dell’ambiente, al benessere degli animali e alle opportunità di sviluppo per la campagna. Si tratta anche di un settore molto ottimista e fiducioso nell’avvenire, come ho potuto chiaramente constatare durante la recente visita alla di Norimberga. Tuttavia, per svilupparsi e sfruttare appieno il proprio potenziale, esso necessita di un quadro normativo adeguato, ed è esattamente ciò che vogliamo fare con il nuovo regolamento. Questa è, pertanto, una proposta legislativa molto importante, e sono lieta dei progressi che siamo riusciti a compiere con le decisioni adottate lo scorso anno. Il 2006 è stato caratterizzato da intensi dibattiti in Consiglio e in Parlamento sulla nostra proposta, in seguito ai quali alcuni elementi della proposta originaria, che sembravano essere molto delicati, sono totalmente scomparsi. Tra questi si segnala il divieto di avanzare maggiori richieste, il reciproco riconoscimento delle norme private da parte degli organismi di controllo e la dicitura UE per il biologico. Il Parlamento ha altresì proposto una serie di emendamenti per meglio formulare gli obiettivi e i principi dell’agricoltura biologica sull’indicazione dell’origine dei prodotti, il diritto esplicito all’utilizzo di loghi privati e nazionali, l’integrazione del sistema di controllo nei controlli ufficiali sugli alimenti e sui mangimi e le maggiori garanzie sulle importazioni. Questi emendamenti migliorano la proposta iniziale e, per tale motivo, sono lieta di recepirli. Siamo altresì riusciti a ottenere un regolamento che attribuisce maggiore importanza alla fertilità del suolo, al suo ciclo vitale e alle relative pratiche di gestione. La questione degli OGM e dell’agricoltura biologica ha fatto nascere un acceso dibattito. Ho visto che il Parlamento ha espresso il desiderio che gli operatori dimostrino di avere adottato tutte le misure necessarie per evitare la presenza di OGM accidentale o tecnicamente inevitabile, e sono pienamente d’accordo. Quindi, anche se questi emendamenti ripropongono una condizione già esistente, ho deciso di accettarli vista l’estrema delicatezza della questione. Permettetemi, però, di essere completamente chiara: la soglia indicante la presenza accidentale di OGM non è, come suggerito da alcuni, una soglia che indica una tolleranza nei confronti degli OGM. L’uso degli OGM e dei loro derivati rimane strettamente proibito nella produzione biologica. Benché Commissione e Parlamento concordino sugli aspetti fondamentali del nuovo regolamento, vi sono alcuni punti su cui non la vediamo allo stesso modo, e vorrei soffermarmi brevemente su alcuni. Il Parlamento chiede maggiori particolari, e chiaramente molte delle norme dettagliate a noi note nel regolamento attuale sono state eliminate. Non dimentichiamoci, però, che uno dei principali obiettivi della proposta è definire le norme fondamentali in maniera più chiara e più logica. Ciò non significa, tuttavia, che le regole dettagliate alla base dello straordinario tessuto delle norme sul biologico debbano scomparire del tutto. Ovviamente non è così. Credo però che possano essere meglio inserite nelle norme di attuazione e il loro contenuto sarà, come vi ho precedentemente confermato, molto simile a quello delineato nel regolamento attuale."@it12
lpv:translated text
". Monsieur le Président, je me réjouis de l’occasion qui nous est donnée aujourd’hui de débattre de notre proposition de nouveau règlement du Conseil en matière de production biologique. Je voudrais tout d’abord remercier pour leurs efforts le rapporteur, Mme Aubert, ainsi que les membres de la commission de l’agriculture et du développement rural. Leur travail complet est une contribution très précieuse à nos discussions. Concernant votre souhait d’élargir le champ d’application à la restauration collective, aux secteurs cosmétiques et textiles et aux conserves de poisson, je voudrais souligner que nous ne pouvons pas prendre toutes les mesures en même temps. Nous élargissons déjà le champ d’application de manière substantielle en intégrant le vin et l’aquaculture. Les autres secteurs sont encore à un stade très précoce de leur développement, et je pense que les harmoniser pourrait entraver leur évolution. Le texte actuel prévoit d’ailleurs la possibilité de réexaminer la question en 2011. Dans le même ordre d’idées, je relève que vous souhaiteriez que cette proposition soit fondée sur une double base juridique. Il n’est un secret pour personne qu’une plus vaste discussion est en cours sur l’introduction de la codécision pour les questions agricoles. Il s’agit d’une question importante et d’un débat en faveur duquel je me suis énergiquement prononcée. Cette question doit toutefois être examinée sur un plan horizontal, au niveau et dans un contexte appropriés. Je ne pense pas qu’une approche au cas par cas puisse servir les intérêts de quiconque. C’est pourquoi je ne peux pas accepter de modification de la base juridique du nouveau règlement sur l’agriculture biologique, comme vous l’avez proposé. Enfin, vous proposez de laisser la possibilité aux États membres d’imposer des règles nationales plus strictes. Ce n’est pas acceptable selon moi. L’objectif même de ce règlement est d’obtenir une harmonisation substantielle à un niveau suffisamment strict, assortie d’un mécanisme de flexibilité pour les cas exceptionnels. En harmonisant les règles à un niveau relativement élevé et en garantissant une certaine flexibilité, je pense que nous atteignons le même objectif, tout en réduisant les risques d’inégalité de traitement des opérateurs dans des conditions similaires. Je suis convaincue que cela contribuera à développer un marché intérieur florissant pour la production biologique. Veuillez excuser la longueur de cette intervention, mais il s’agit d’une question très importante que je souhaitais aborder en détail. Avec 160 000 exploitations biologiques et plus de six millions d’hectares de terres dans l’Union européenne, le chiffre d’affaires des produits biologiques est estimé à une valeur oscillant entre 13 et 14 milliards d’euros. Cette tendance étant à la hausse, il s’agit assurément d’un secteur très important. Le rôle essentiel de ce secteur en expansion ne fait aucun doute dans mon esprit. Il répond à une série d’attentes de la part du public et des consommateurs en matière de qualité de la nourriture, de respect de l’environnement, de bien-être animal et de perspectives de développement rural. Il s’agit également d’un secteur où règnent l’optimisme et la confiance dans ce que l’avenir doit apporter, ainsi que j’ai pu m’en rendre compte durant ma récente visite au salon BioFach de Nuremberg. Pourtant, s’il veut exploiter pleinement son potentiel, le secteur a besoin d’un cadre réglementaire adéquat. C’est exactement ce que nous essayons d’obtenir avec ce nouveau règlement. Il s’agit donc d’une proposition législative très importante, et je me félicite des progrès réalisés l’an dernier dans le cadre de nos délibérations. Notre proposition a fait l’objet de débats très intenses au sein du Conseil et du Parlement en 2006. Certains éléments de la proposition initiale, considérés trop sensibles, ont aujourd’hui totalement disparu. On citera notamment l’interdiction de plus fortes revendications, la reconnaissance mutuelle de normes privées par les organismes de contrôle, et la mention «UE biologique». Le Parlement a également proposé une série d’amendements destinés à améliorer le libellé des objectifs et des principes de l’agriculture biologique, la mention de l’origine des produits, le droit explicite d’utiliser des logos nationaux et privés, l’intégration du système de contrôle dans les contrôles officiels des aliments pour animaux et des denrées alimentaires, et le renforcement des garanties en matière d’importation. Ces amendements améliorent la proposition initiale et je me réjouis dès lors de les adopter. Nous avons également réussi à renforcer la place accordée à la réglementation sur la fertilité des sols, la vie des sols et les pratiques de gestion des sols. La question des OGM et de l’agriculture biologique a suscité de vifs débats. Je note que le Parlement souhaite voir les opérateurs faire la preuve qu’ils ont pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter la contamination accidentelle ou techniquement inévitable par des OGM, et je ne peux que lui exprimer ma totale approbation. Dès lors, bien que ces amendements ne fassent que réitérer une exigence existante, j’ai décidé de les accepter en raison de la forte sensibilité de cette question. Permettez-moi cependant d’apporter quelques précisions: le seuil de présence accidentelle des OGM n’est pas, comme le suggèrent certains, un seuil de tolérance des OGM. Les OGM et leurs dérivés restent formellement interdits d’usage dans la production de nourriture organique. Bien que la Commission et le Parlement s’entendent sur les aspects fondamentaux du nouveau règlement, certaines questions font encore l’objet de désaccords. Je voudrais les aborder brièvement. Le Parlement demande de plus amples précisions, et il est vrai que bon nombre des dispositions détaillées figurant dans le règlement actuel ont été supprimées. Mais n’oublions pas que l’un des principaux objectifs de cette proposition était de définir des règles de base avec plus de clarté et de logique. Ceci n’implique pourtant pas la disparition totale des dispositions détaillées, qui constituent l’unique ensemble structuré de normes biologiques. Certainement pas. Je pense néanmoins qu’elles sont plus utiles dans les dispositions d’exécution et que le contenu de ces dispositions détaillées sera, comme je vous l’ai confirmé précédemment, très semblable à celui des dispositions détaillées du règlement actuel."@fr8
lpv:translated text
". Señor Presidente, acojo con satisfacción esta oportunidad para debatir nuestra propuesta de un nuevo Reglamento del Consejo sobre la producción ecológica. Quiero comenzar dando las gracias a la ponente, la señora Aubert, y a los miembros de la Comisión de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural por sus esfuerzos. El riguroso trabajo que han estado haciendo es una contribución muy valiosa a nuestro debate. Sobre nuestro deseo de ampliar el espectro para incluir también a servicios de restauración de grandes grupos, cosméticos, textiles y pescado en conserva, quiero señalar que no podemos dar todos los pasos a la vez. Ampliamos ahora sustancialmente el ámbito al vino y la acuicultura. Los demás sectores están todavía en estado de gestación incipiente y pienso que armonizarlos dificultaría su desarrollo. El texto actual, de hecho, prevé la posibilidad de volver a revisar el tema en 2011. En relación con esto, también me he dado cuenta de que ustedes quisieran que hubiese un doble fundamento jurídico para esta propuesta. No es un secreto que existe un amplio debate sobre la introducción de la codecisión en asuntos agrícolas. Es una cuestión importante y es un debate que expresamente acojo con satisfacción. Pero es una cuestión que debe tratarse de forma horizontal, en el nivel adecuado y en el contexto adecuado. No creo que sirva a nadie adoptar un enfoque de caso por caso. Por ello no puedo aceptar un cambio de fundamento jurídico para el nuevo Reglamento sobre agricultura ecológica como han propuesto ustedes. Finalmente, ustedes proponen que los Estados miembros mantengan o introduzcan normas nacionales más estrictas. Esto no es aceptable para mí. El propósito de este Reglamento es lograr una armonización sólida en un nivel suficientemente estricto, con un mecanismo de flexibilidad para las excepciones. Armonizando las normas en un nivel bastante alto, con flexibilidad, creo que estamos logrando el mismo objetivo, pero reduciendo el riesgo de trato desigual de los operadores en condiciones similares. Estoy convencida de esta es una forma de fomentar un mercado interior pujante para la producción ecológica. Pido disculpas por haber hablado tanto tiempo, pero es una cuestión muy importante que quería tratar en detalle. Con 160 000 explotaciones y más de 6 millones de hectáreas de tierras de cultivo ecológico en la Unión Europea, se calcula que el volumen de ventas de productos ecológicos se sitúa entre 13 000 y 14 000 millones de euros. La tendencia va en aumento, así que se trata realmente de un sector muy importante. No tengo la menor duda de que este sector en expansión debe desempeñar un papel esencial. Despierta toda una serie de expectativas de parte de la opinión pública y los consumidores; expectativas sobre alimentos de calidad, preocupación por el medio ambiente, bienestar de los animales y oportunidades para el desarrollo del mundo rural. También es un sector con mucho optimismo y confianza sobre lo que el futuro puede ofrecer, tal como pude ver claramente durante mi reciente visita a la BioFach en Nuremberg. Pero para desarrollar y alcanzar todo su potencial, el sector necesita un marco reglamentario adecuado, y esto es lo que realmente estamos intentando lograr con nuestro nuevo Reglamento. Por ello es una propuesta legislativa muy importante, y estoy muy satisfecha con el progreso que hemos podido hacer gracias a nuestros debates el año pasado. En 2006 se celebraron debates muy intensos sobre nuestra propuesta en el Consejo y el Parlamento. A resultas de ello han desaparecido ahora totalmente algunos elementos de la propuesta original que resultaron ser muy sensibles. Entre ellos figura la prohibición de declaraciones superiores, el reconocimiento mutuo de normas privadas por parte de los órganos de inspección y la indicación ecológica de la UE. El Parlamento ha propuesto también una serie de enmiendas para mejorar la redacción de los objetivos y principios de las explotaciones agrícolas ecológicas, sobre la indicación del origen de los productos, sobre el derecho expreso a usar logotipos nacionales y privados, sobre la incorporación del sistema de control en los controles oficiales de alimentos y piensos y el refuerzo de las garantías de las importaciones. Son enmiendas que mejoran la propuesta original y por tanto me complace aceptarlas. También hemos conseguido mejorar la insistencia del Reglamento en la fertilidad del suelo, la vida del suelo y las prácticas de gestión del suelo. La cuestión de los OMG y de la agricultura ecológica ha provocado amplios debates. He tomado nota del deseo del Parlamento de que los operadores tengan que demostrar que han adoptado todas las medidas necesarias para evitar la presencia accidental o técnicamente inevitable de OMG, y estoy totalmente de acuerdo con ello. Por tanto, aunque algunas enmiendas suponen una repetición de un requisito vigente, he decidido aceptarlas debido a la enorme sensibilidad de esta materia. Pero permítanme dejar una cosa muy clara: el umbral de presencia accidental de OMG no es, como algunos indican, un umbral que de hecho tolera los OMG. La utilización de OMG y sus derivados sigue estando estrictamente prohibida en la producción ecológica. Aunque la Comisión y el Parlamento están de acuerdo en torno a los aspectos básicos del nuevo Reglamento, hay algunas cuestiones sobre las que no hemos podido ponernos de acuerdo, y quiero referirme brevemente a algunas de ellas. El Parlamento pide más detalles, y está claro que se han eliminado muchas de las reglas detalladas que conocemos por el Reglamento actual. Pero no olvidemos que uno de los objetivos principales de esta propuesta era fijar las normas básicas de manera más clara y lógica. Esto, sin embargo, no significa que las normas detalladas que forman el tejido único de las normas ecológicas deban desaparecer totalmente. De verdad que no. Pero creo que encajan mejor en las normas de aplicación, y el contenido de estas normas detalladas será, como les he confirmado antes, muy semejante a las normas detalladas que tenemos en el Reglamento actual."@es21
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"de facto"10,12,8
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"de facto"10,12,8
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"BioFach"12
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070328.16.3-159"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Romanian.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph