WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/00 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Genetically modified seeds.
Date: 2000-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, maize, market approval, seed, transgenic plant

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/25

titles which remains in the competence of Member States. The Commission is of the opinion that Directive
89/48/EEC is not applicable in relation to competitions organised by the European institutions. Instead, in
order to decide if a diploma is accepted for access to its public function, the Commission has to base itself
on the existing legislation of each individual Member State.

4.
In the case of German graduates of (cid:145)Fachhochschulen(cid:146), to whom the Honourable Member refers in
her question, it can be noted that in Germany their diploma does not give them access to a career in the
(cid:145)H(cid:246)herer Dienst(cid:146), (which is comparable to category A/LA), but to (cid:145)Gehobener Dienst(cid:146) which is comparable
to category B at the Commission. In accepting candidates with a (cid:145)Fachhochschule(cid:146) degree of at least four
years duration to A/LA competitions, the Commission has been acting in favour of these candidates, with
the aim of taking into account differences in education systems in the Member States.

3. and 5.
At the moment, no central records exist that allow the requested information to be readily
obtained. In future, as part of the Reform process, a database will be established containing profiles of the
academic and career qualifications of Commission staff.

(1) OJ C 312, 14.10.1997.
(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2001/C 46 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified seeds

Would the Commission clarify what exactly is being communicated to Member States regarding the
inclusion of (a) 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, (c)
97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the
EU Common Catalogue?

Would the Commission confirm whether marketing consent has been given for (a) 97/98/CE Chardonell
Aventis herbicide tolerant maize, (b) 97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/ herbicide tolerant maize, (c) 97/98/
CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE Chardonell Aventis Ht maize, on which national seed
lists these seeds are currently included and if any are subject to field trials in any Member State?

Would the Commission clarify whether it supports the inclusion of 98/294/CE Elgira Monsanto Bt Maize,
97/98/CE Compa CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, 97/98/CE Jordi CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and 98/293/CE
Chardonell Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue and when a decision is expected on
this matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The current status of the specific genetically modified maize varieties the Honourable Member mentions is
as follows.

The marketing of seeds of genetically modified varieties of agricultural plant species including maize is
currently subject to authorization under two different pieces of Community legislation: the authorisation
for placing on the market (cid:145)transformation events/products(cid:146), pursuant to Council Directive 90/220/EEC of
23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), aiming
to protect human health and the environment, and the provisions of Council Directive 70/457/EEC of
29 September 1970 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (2) aiming at
compliance with a set of agricultural criteria.

C 46 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The following consents under Directive 90/220/EEC for placing on the market of the genetically modified
parental material have been given: the varieties Compa CB and Jordi CB, by Commisison Decision 97/98/
EC (Novartis Bt-176 maize line), the variety Chardon LL, by Commission Decision 98/293/EC (AgrEvo T25
maize line), and the variety Elgina by Commission Decision 98/294/EC (Monsanto 810 maize line).

On that basis, three Member States (Spain and Portugal for Compa CB; Spain for Jordi CB; Netherlands for
Chardon LL and Portugal for Elgina) have notified to the Commission the acceptance of these varieties in
their national catalogues in accordance with the provisions of Directive 70/457/EEC for marketing of seeds
within their respective territories. Under the acceptance procedures carried out by the three Member States
concerned, material of these varieties has been subjected to field trials.

The free marketing of such seeds throughout the Community would require, under the same Directive, the
inclusion of the four varieties in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

However, the initial acceptance of the varieties Compa CB and Elgina in the Portuguese national catalogue
was suspended by a decision of the ministry of Agriculture of Portugal dated 27 December 1999. As a
consequence the variety Elgina is currently no longer eligible either for inclusion in the common catalogue
or for marketing in the Community. This does not apply to the variety Compa CB, because of its
acceptance by Spain.

At present, discussions with Member States are going on, in order to provide a coherent solution in
respect of all aspects relating to the marketing of GMO products. Therefore, the Commission has at this
stage not completed the examination of the qualification of the remaining three varieties for inclusion in
the common catalogue. The standing committee on seeds and propagating material
for agriculture,
horticulture and forestry has been informed accordingly.

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(2) OJ L 225, 12.10.1970.

(2001/C 46 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Mart(cid:237)nez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Regional policy

Addressing the Committee on Regional Policy, Mr Landaburu recently stated that if there is to be
improvement and greater efficiency it is essential to modify or broaden the criteria, rather than simply
continuing to use GDP per inhabitant as the sole indicator.

What other criteria does he believe should be included?

Has a decision already been taken on these new indicators?

When is any such decision expected to be adopted?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (1) refers to per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The Article states that the
regions covered by Objective 1 (those whose development is lagging behind) are NUTS level II regions
whose per capita GDP, measured in purchasing power parities and calculated on the basis of Community
figures for the last three years available on 26 March 1999, is less than 75 % of the Community average.