34 Amendments of Younous OMARJEE related to 2010/0208(COD)
Amendment 35 #
Council position
Recital - 1 (new)
Recital - 1 (new)
(-1) The cultivation and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be prohibited throughout the territory of the European Union.
Amendment 58 #
Council position
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Once a GMO is authorised for cultivation purposes in accordance with the Union legal framework on GMOs and complies, as regards the variety that is to be placed on the market, with the requirements of Union law on the marketing of seed and plant propagating material, Member States are not authorised to prohibit, or restrict, or impede its fpree circulationsence within their territory, except under the conditions defined by Union law.
Amendment 62 #
Council position
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Experience has shown that cultivation of GMOs is an issue which is more thoroughly addressed at Member State level. INevertheless, issues related to the placing on the market and the import of GMOs, as well as to the assessment of health and environmental risks, should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal market and a high level of human health as set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Cultivation may however require more flexibility in certain instances as it is an issue with strong national, regional and local dimensions, given its link to land use, to local agricultural structures and to the protection or maintenance of habitats, ecosystems and landsca, landscapes and natural plant genotypes. The common authorisation procedure, in particular the evaluation process, should not be adversely affected by such flexibility where this process is carried out to the highest standards and includes an evaluation of all the possible health risks and consequences for nature and the environment of the introduction of GMOs.
Amendment 64 #
Council position
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) The harmonised common European- level authorisation procedure should therefore be strengthened to enable it to include an evaluation of the health and environmental risks not only throughout the European Union but also at local level, by analysing potential impacts on local ecosystems. Only a complete, centralised, truly independent and strengthened evaluation procedure can guarantee the high level of safety required by the Treaties. This requires all Member States to be involved in this evaluation to ensure that many positions are represented and to foster scientific and ethical discussion on the specific local features of each Member State.
Amendment 66 #
Council position
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In order to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, some Member States had recourse to the safeguard clauses and emergency measures pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC and Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as a result of, depending on the cases, new or additional information made available since the date of the consent and affecting the environmental risk assessment, or of the reassessment of existing information. Other Member States have made use of the notification procedure set out in Article 114(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which requires putting forward new scientific evidence relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment. In addition, the decision-making process has proved to be particularly difficult as regards the cultivation of GMOs in the light of the expression of national concerns which do not only relate to issues associated with the safety of GMOs for health or the environment. It is essential that notifiers/ applicants take these national concerns into account, without putting any pressure on the Member States, in future requests for authorisation to cultivate GMOs on the European market.
Amendment 75 #
Council position
Recital 7
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, morabsolute 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 concern on their territory and in the border areas of neighbouring Member States. Notifiers/applicants must respect decisions by Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO on their territory, and accordingly the cultivation of GMOs in the Union. This Directive should therefore facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal marketir notification/application for authorisation to cultivate must not relate to the territories of the Member States in question.
Amendment 82 #
Council position
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) Where a notifier/applicant submits a request for authorisation to cultivate a GMO on the territory of the European Union, its request should not relate to the territory of a Member State which has decided to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on its territory. Non- compliance with this condition should result in the application by the notifier/applicant being automatically rejected by the Commission.
Amendment 89 #
Council position
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) DuringAhead of the authorisation procedure of a given GMO, the possibility should be provided for a Member State to request the Commission to present to the notifier/applicant its demand to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC or in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State be excluded from cultivation. The Commission should facilitate the procedure by presenting the requestnotifier/applicant should always request authorisation from the 28 Member States before including their territory within the scope of its application. Without the explicit approval of thea Member State to, the notifier/applicant without delay and the notifier/applicant should respond to that request within an established time-limitapplication by the notifier/applicant should not relate to the territory of that Member State.
Amendment 96 #
Council position
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The geographical scope of the notificationnotifier/applicationt should be adjusted accordingly if the notifier/applicant explicitly or tacitly agrees withcomply with the sovereign decisions of the Member State's request within an established time-limit from the communication by the Commission of that request. If the notifier/applicant opposes the request, the notifier/applicant should notify the Commission and the Member States. However, a refusal by the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of the notification/application is without prejudice to the Commission's powers in accordance with Article 19 of Directive 2001/18/EC or Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, as the case may be, to make such an adjustment, where appropriate, in the light of the environmental risk assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority ('the Authority')and should not therefore submit any application relating to the territory of Member States which have decided, explicitly or tacitly, to restrict or prohibit GMOs on their territory. The geographical scope of the notification/application should therefore be limited to the territories of Member States which have explicitly and publicly given their consent to the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Any pressure exerted on a Member State should be prohibited and should be subject to appropriate financial penalties.
Amendment 108 #
Council position
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In addition, and only where the notifier/applicant has refused to adjust the geographical scope of the notification/application of a GMO as requested by aA Member State, there should bhave the possibility for that Member State to adopt reasonedto adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thata GMO 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. Such measures, which should be at the full discretion of the Member States, may be relatbased ton environmental or agricultural policy objectives, or any other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, co-existence and public policy. Those grounds may be invoked individually or in combination, depending on the particular circumstances of the Member State, region or area in which those measures will apply.
Amendment 113 #
Council position
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The European Union must guarantee a high level of protection of human or animal health and of the environment chosen in the Union allows for a uniformby means of a serious, uniform, genuinely independent, high-quality scientific assessment throughout the Union and this Directive should not alter that situation. Therefore, to avoid any interference with the competences which are granted to the risk assessors and risk managers under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, a Member State should only use grounds related to environmental policy objectives which do not conflict withcomplement the assessment of risks to health and the environment which are assessed in the context of the authorisation procedures provided in Directive 2001/18/EC and in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, such as the maintenance of certain type of natural and landscape features, certain habitats and ecosystems, as well as specific ecosystem functions and services.
Amendment 121 #
Council position
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Member States should also be able to base their decisions which they adopt pursuant to Directive 2001/18/ECto restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs on their territory on grounds concerning socio-economic impacts which might arise from the cultivation of a GMO on the territory of the Member State concerned. While co-existence measures have been addressed by the Commission Recommendation of 13 July 20101, there should also be the possibility for Member States to adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation of authorised GMOs in all or part of their territory under this Directive. Those grounds may be related inter alia to the impracticability or the impossibility of implementing co-existence measures due to specific geographical conditions, the need to avoid GMO presence in other products such as specific or particular products, the need to protect the diversity of agricultural production, or the need to ensure seed and plant propagating material purity. Furthermore, the Commission has, as requested in the Council Conclusions of 5 December 2008 on Genetically Modified Organisms, reported to the European Parliament and the Council on socio- economic implications of GMO cultivation. The outcome of thatis report may provide valuable information for Member States considering taking decisions on the basis of this Directive. __________________ 1Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crop (OJ C 200, 22.7.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 126 #
Council position
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The restrictions or the prohibitions adopted pursuant to this Directive should refer to the cultivation, and not to the free circulation and import, of genetically modified seeds and plant propagating material as, or in, products and of the products of their harvest, and should furthermore be in conformity with the Treaties, in particular as regards the principle of non- discrimination between national and non- national products, the principle of proportionality and Article 34, Article 36 and Article 216(2) TFEU.
Amendment 129 #
Council position
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Member States ' measures adopted pursuant to this Directive should be subject to a procedure of scrutiny andn information procedure at Union level. In light of the level of Union scrutiny and information, it is not necessary to provide, in addition, for the application of in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1. Member States may restrict or prohibit the cultivation of a GMO in all or part of their territory as from the date of entry into force of the Union authorisation and no later than two years after the date when the consent/authorisation is granted, provided that an established standstill period, during which the Commission was given the opportunity to comment on the proposed measures, has elapsedwithout any constraint as to time or duration. __________________ 1 Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.).
Amendment 133 #
Council position
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Decisions to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs by Member States in all or part of their territory should not prevent biotechnology research from being carried out provided that, in carrying out such research, all necessary safety measures relating to human and animal health and environmental protection are observed.
Amendment 139 #
Council position
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) When new and objective circumstances justify an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation of a GMO, and in any case no earlier than two years after the date when the consent/authorisation is granted, a Member State should be able to request, via the Commission, the consent/authorisation holder toA Member State should be able at any time to review its decision and adjust itsthe geographical scope. I of the consent/authorisation holder does not explicitly or tacitly agree, the Member State should be given the possibility to adopt reasonedof a GMO and adopt measures to restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of thate GMO. The Member State concerned should communicate a draft of those measures to the Commission at least 75 days prior to their adoption, in order to give the opportunity to the Commission to comment, and should refrain from adopting and implementing those measures during that period. On the expiry of the established standstill period, the Member State should be able to adopt the measures as originally proposed or amended to take into account the Commission's comments.
Amendment 142 #
Council position
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) A Member State shouldmust also be able to request the competent authority or the Commission to reintegrate all or part of its territory into the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation from which it was previously excluded. In that case, there should be no need to forward the request to the consent/authorisation holder and ask for his agreement. The competent authority which has issued the written consent or the Commission under Directive 2001/18/EC or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 respectively, should amend the geographical scope of the consent or of the decision of authorisation accordingly.
Amendment 146 #
Council position
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) To ensure that the cultivation of GMOs does not result in the unintended presence of GMOs in other products and other crops, effective co-existence measures are needed. Member States should therefore be required, under Directive 2001/18/EC, to adopt rules applicable to their territories to avoid such unintended presence. Particular attention should be paid to any possible cross- border contamination from a Member State or a region where GMO cultivation is allowed into a neighbouring Member State or region where it is prohibited. The Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 provides guidance to Member States for the development of national co- existence measures, including in border areas.1a _________________ 1a Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crop (OJ C 200, 22.7.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 148 #
Council position
Recital 20 a (new)
Recital 20 a (new)
(20a) To guarantee a high level of consumer protection, the Member States should also take effective labelling and information measures to guarantee full transparency about the presence of GMOs on their territory and in products produced or marketed there.
Amendment 153 #
Council position
Recital 22
Recital 22
Amendment 155 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new)
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article -1 (new)
Article -1 (new)
Amendment 175 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/CE
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 1
1. DuringAhead of the authorisation procedure of a given GMO or during the renewal of consent/authorisation, a Member State may request, via the Commission, the notifier/applicant to adjust the geographical scope of its notification/application submitted in accordance with Part C of this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation. This request shall be communicated to the Commission at the latest 30 days from the date of the circulation of the assessment report under Article 14(2) of this Directive, or from receiving the opinion of the Authority under Article 6(6) and Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The Commission shall communicate the request of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay, the notifier/applicant shall always request authorisation from the 28 Member States before including their territory within the scope of its application. Without the explicit approval of a Member State, the application by the notifier/applicant shall not relate to the territory of that Member State.
Amendment 184 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/CE
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 26 b – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
2. Where tThe notifier/applicant opposes a request of a Member State in accordance with paragraph 1, the notifier/applicant shall notify the Commission and the Member States within 30 days from the communication by the Commission of that request. In the event ofshall comply with the sovereign decisions of the Member States and shall not therefore submit any request relating to the territory of Member States which have decided, explicitly or tacit agreement of the notifier/applicant, the adjustment of tly, to restrict or prohibit GMOs on their territory. The geographical scope of the notification/application shall therefore be limplemented in the written consent or authorisaited to the territories of Member States which have explicitly and publicly given their consent to the cultivation of GMOs on their territory. Any pressure on a Member State shall be prohibited and shall be subject to appropriate financial and penal sanctions.
Amendment 197 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
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 withithout prejudice to paragraph 1 of this Article, thata Member State may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of that GMO in all or part of its 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-discriminat. Those measures, which Member States may adopt at their discretion, may be related to environmental ory and, in addition, are based on compelling grounds such as those related to:gricultural policy objectives, or other compelling grounds such as town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, coexistence and public policy.
Amendment 250 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
A Member State which intends to adopts measures pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article shall first communicate a draft of those measures and the corresponding grounds invoked to the Commissioncommunicate them to the Commission, which shall in turn communicate them to the other Member States and to the notifiers/applicants and make them public. This communication may take place before the GMO authorisation procedure under Part C of this Directive or under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 has been completed. During a period of 75 days starting from the date of such communication:
Amendment 261 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 b – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 267 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 5
Article 26 b – paragraph 5
5. Where, after the authorisation of a GMO under this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and no earlier than two years after the date that the consent/authorisation is granted, a Member State considers that new objective circumstances justify an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation, it may apply the procedure under paragraphs 1 to 4, mutatis mutandis, provided that such measures do not affect the cultivation of any authorised GMO seeds and plant propagating materials which were planted lawfully before those measures were adoptedstill adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of the GMO in question on all or part of its territory. In that event it shall ensure that farmers who cultivated such crops legally have sufficient time to finish the ongoing cultivation season.
Amendment 277 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 26 b – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
7. For the purposes of an adjustment of the geographical scope of the consent/authorisation of a GMO under paragraphs 5 and 6, and on condition that under paragraph 5 the consent/authorisation-holder explicitly or tacitly agrees to the request of the Member State 6:
Amendment 286 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 b a (new)
Article 26 b a (new)
"Article 26ba Liability requirements and financial guarantees Member States shall establish a general mandatory system of financial and criminal liability and financial guarantees which applies to all operators and which ensures that the polluter pays and is held criminally liable for unintended effects or damage that might occur as a result of the deliberate release or the placing on the market of GMOs.’
Amendment 291 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 c – paragraph 1
Article 26 c – paragraph 1
1. As from…* until ...** a Member State may request, via the Commission,decide that a notifier/applicant toshould adjust the geographical scope of a notification/application submitted, or of an authorisation granted, under this Directive or Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 before…*. The Commission shall communicate the requestdecision of the Member State to the notifier/applicant and to the other Member States without delay. __________________ *OJ: please insert the date of entry into force of the Directive in document st 10972/14. **OJ: please insert the date of entry into force of the Directive in document st 10972/14+ 6 months.".
Amendment 295 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 c – paragraph 2
Article 26 c – paragraph 2
2. Where the application is pending and the notifier/applicant has explicitly or tacitly agrsuch a decision has beedn to such a request within 30 days from the communication of that requestaken by a Member State, the geographical scope of the notification/application shall be adjusted accordingly. The written consent issued under this Directive and, where applicable, the decision issued in accordance with Article 19 as well as the decision of authorisation adopted under Articles 7 and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 shall be issued on the basis of the adjusted geographical scope of the notification/application as explicitly or tacitly agreed by the notifier/applicant.
Amendment 297 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 c – paragraph 3
Article 26 c – paragraph 3
Amendment 300 #
Council position
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Directive 2001/18/EC
Article 26 c – paragraph 4
Article 26 c – paragraph 4
4. If aA notifier/applicant or, as the case may be, an authorisation holder opposes such a request, paragraphs 3 to 9 of Article 26b shall apply mutatis mutandismay not oppose in any way the decision taken by a Member State.
Amendment 305 #
Council position
Article 2
Article 2
No later than 4 years after…+, the Commission shall present a report to the European Parliament and to the Council regarding the use made by Member States of this Directive including the effectiveness of the provisions enabling Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in all or part of their territory and the smooth functioning of the internal market. That report may be accompanied by any legislative proposals the Commission considers appropriate. TAs soon as possible the Commission shall also report on the progress towards givinggive normative status to the strengthened 2010 Authority guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. __________________ + OJ: please insert the date of the entry into force of this Directive.