BETA

9 Amendments of Valentinas MAZURONIS related to 2010/0208(COD)

Amendment 71 #
Council position
Recital 7
(7) In accordance with Article 2(2) TFEU, Member States are therefore entitled to have a possibility, during the authorisation procedure and thereafter, to decide to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their territory with the effect of excluding cultivation of a specific GMO in all or part of that Member State's territory. In that context, it appears appropriate to grant Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, more flexibility to decide whether or not they wish to cultivate GMO crops on their territory without affecting the risk assessment provided in the system of Union authorisations of GMOs, either in the course of the authorisation procedure or thereafter, and independently of the measures that Member States are entitlrequired to take by application of Directive 2001/18/EC to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products. The grant of that possibility to Member States should facilitate the decision-making process in the GMO field. At the same time, freedom of choice of consumers, farmers and operators should be preserved whilst providing greater clarity to affected stakeholders concerning the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Member States are required to cooperate with the neighbouring Member States with a view to ensuring appropriate information sharing, aiming the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal marketo prevent cross-border GMO contamination.
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 106 #
Council position
Recital 10
(10) In addition, and only where the notifier/applicant has refused to adjustWithout prejudice to the possibility provided for a Member State to request the adjustment of the geographical scope of thea notification/application of a GMO as requested by a Member State, there should always be the possibility for thata Member State to adopt reasoned measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thata GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs once authorised in all or part of its territory, on the basis of grounds distinct from those assessed according to the harmonized set of Union rules, that is Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio- economic impacts, co-existence and public policrelating to the public interest, which are in conformity with Union law. Those grounds may be related to environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or other legitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts, where those factors have not been addressed as part of the harmonised procedure provided for in Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC, or to persisting scientific uncertainty. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply.
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 172 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
1. During the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may request, via the Commission, to present to the notifier/applicant its demand to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. Thisat request shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 360 days from the date of the circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall communicate the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay.
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 194 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
3. Where the notifier/applicant opposes the adjustment of the geographical scope of its notification/application corresponding to a request made by a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, that Member State may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thatithout prejudice to paragraph 1 of this Article, Member States may, following the risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of a GMO or of groups of GMOs defined by crop or trait or of all GMOs in all or part of itstheir territory once authorised in accordance with Part C of this Directive or with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, provided that such measures are in conformity with Union law, reasoned, proportional and non-discriminatory and, in addition, are based on compelling grounds such as those related to:
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 206 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) environmental policy objectives distinct from the elements assessed according to this Directive and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Those grounds may include: - the prevention of the development of pesticide resistance amongst weeds and pests; - the invasiveness or persistence of a genetically modified variety, or the possibility of interbreeding with domestically cultivated or wild plants; - the prevention of negative impacts on the local environment caused by changes in agricultural practices linked to the cultivation of GMOs; - the maintenance of local biodiversity, including certain habitats and ecosystems, or certain types of natural and landscape features, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services; - the absence or lack of adequate data concerning the potential negative impacts of the release of GMOs on the local or regional environment of a Member State, including on biodiversity;
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 212 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point d
(d) socio-economic impacts; such as the impracticability or the high costs of coexistence measures or the impossibility of implementing coexistence measures due to specific geographical conditions such as small islands or mountain zones
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 220 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 –point f
(f) agricultural policy objectives;. Those grounds may include: - the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production; - the maintenance and development of agricultural practices which offer a better potential to reconcile production with ecosystem sustainability; – the need to ensure seed purity.
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 223 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – point g
(g) public policy.deleted
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI
Amendment 240 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, with the exception of the ground set out in point (g) which cannot be used individually, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply, but shall, in no case, conflict with the environmental risk assessment carried out pursuant to this Directive or to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003.
2014/10/20
Committee: ENVI