Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-24-Speech-2-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020924.2.2-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want first of all to thank you for your interesting and constructive contributions to this debate.
Mr President, I want in conclusion to repeat that the Commission shares most of the European Parliament’s priorities and views in the problem areas. If we want it to be possible to implement the Protocol on Biosafety, we must, at the same time, be accountable for the feasibility of such implementation. International discussions on the Protocol on Biosafety are still going on. A proposal capable of being implemented will not only help make it possible for the negotiations to continue in a constructive climate but also help show that sound protection of the environment and of human health can be combined with trade.
We shall have to return to other issues mentioned in the course of this debate, such as the moratorium and UN food aid, for they demand both time and thorough preparations. I hope that they will lead in time to a constructive exchange of opinions, but this is not the right time and place to touch on all these different aspects. A summary of the Commission’s position on the matter of the amendments is being presented in writing to the President.
I want to begin with a general comment. The Commission is, and remains, very active where the issue of biotechnology is concerned. As you know, we have presented a communication on how we should make use of biotechnology. We are actively working on our internal Community legislation in this area, partly by revising Directive 2001/18/EC on traceability and marking, and we are also working on the issue of liability for environmental damage. It is constantly a question of striking this delicate and difficult balance between, on the one hand, exploiting the advantages of a new technique, a new technology and new knowledge in this area and, on the other, preserving biological diversity and, most importantly of all, protecting people’s health. I believe that this proposal is in line with Community legislation and that we are still being ambitious. I was myself involved in the negotiations in which the EU was the party pushing to guarantee the introduction of international regulations. I believe that we are achieving that balance in this area too. It is also true, as Mr Sjöstedt points out, that there will be further negotiations and work in a number of areas with a view to shedding more light on a number of important issues.
If, finally, I may now offer my views on certain of the amendments in order to clarify the Commission’s attitude, I will begin by commenting on Amendment Nos 30 and 57 which cannot be approved because they go against the proposal on traceability and marking by extending the proposal also to include food and feed manufactured with the aid of GMOs. It is important for different legal acts on biotechnology to tally.
Amendment Nos 5 and 47 deal with the important issue of capacity development in developing countries but contain no mechanisms for putting this into practice. The Commission believes that this is an important issue but that it can better be dealt with in a more suitable forum, for example the European Development Fund.
Amendment Nos 7 and 45 relate to the issue of environmental liability, and the Commission again believes that this proposal is not the right instrument for getting to grips with this problem, to which special international negotiations are better suited. Further attention will be given to this issue in international negotiations.
Amendment No 22 proposes that the export of GMOs for deliberate release into the environment should be limited to organisms already authorised within the EU. In its
the amendment could entail serious obstacles to research outside Europe comprising, for example, field trials involving GMOs not cultivated in our latitudes. The Commission is not therefore able to accept this amendment in its present form.
Amendment No 29 addresses more fundamental problems. Firstly, procedures are being established that do not in their entirety correspond to Article 11 of the Protocol on Biosafety and, what is worse, are inconsistent with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law. For that reason, the Commission cannot accept the amendment.
The proposal in the last sentence of Amendment No 60 to the effect that an exporter should be obliged to give notice of further movement of GMOs already authorised in the recipient country would not be in accordance with Community legislation governing deliberate release or with the Protocol on Biosafety
. This part of the amendment cannot therefore be approved. It is, of course, a question of not creating unduly bureaucratic rules that cannot be implemented in practice.
The Commission is, on the other hand, able to accept Amendment Nos 50 and 51."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"present version"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples