Brussels, 04/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - With Germany ready to move forward and the United Kingdom supporting the Greek Presidency compromise, everything seemed much clearer at the Environment Council, with regard to the July 2010 draft directive that seeks to provide member states with an opportunity for limiting or banning authorised GMOs on their respective territories, for health or environmental reasons (EUROPE 11029). During the public debate, a large majority of member states gave their support to the Greek presidency compromise and subsequently put an end to the minority blockage exerted since March 2012 (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Slovakia, Belgium, Cyprus and Bulgaria). It is therefore on this basis that the work will continue at the Council working group for a political agreement in June, much to the satisfaction of the President of the Council, Yianis Maniatis. He stated that, “this is a clear signal that this dossier is going to be reopened. We are going to give member states the possibility to reject GMO crops. A political agreement is insight under the Greek presidency”. Tonio Borg, Commissioner for Health, was delighted and said that, “member states will be able to exclude themselves from the scope of application if the entity requesting authorisation for a crop agrees. If the party making the request does not agree, the member state will be able to limit or ban the crop. Socio-economic or reasons linked to land use cannot be invoked. We will be able to draw up a common position before the European elections and soon begin a trilogue with the new parliament”. The French proposal is seeking a two-stage authorisation procedure - European and national - to provide member states with the possibility of a real and effective opt out, “with more legal security, particularly at the WTO” (EUROPE 1128). This will also be examined by the Commission, at the request of Germany, but numerous delegations do not want to “start from scratch again”.
Germany indicated that it would shift from a total rejection regarding examination conditions on the compromise and “wanted clarity by June”. The British minister asserted that GMO technologies were safe and they needed to facilitate their access to the European market if they wanted to avoid slowing down economic growth. Belgium maintained its opposition and said that the compromise did not bring anything new compared to what was on the table in 2012 and that reform of the role played by EFSA began in July 2008 did not justify subsidiarity to member states, “ rejecting an opaque system that perturbed the market”. Neither did it want to negotiate with private companies in the first phase of the initiative.
Greenpeace believes that the presidency compromise suffers from the same legal shortcomings as the text proposed by the Commission in 2010. It said that it also exposed countries that wanted to ban GMO crops to legal challenges and obliged them to have to deal with the biotech lobbies behind the scenes (AN)