Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999" (COM(2001) 617 final (Volume I) — 2001-0256 (CNS))
Date: 2002-04-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, biotechnology, energy resources, exploitation of resources, farming sector, management of resources

21.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 149/11

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on the
conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture and
amending Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999’

(COM(2001) 617 final (Volume I) — 2001-0256 (CNS))

(2002/C 149/04)

On 22 November 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 April 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Ribbe.

At its 39th plenary session of 24 and 25 April 2002 (meeting of 24 April) the Economic and Social
Committee adopted the following opinion with 89 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

— in general gearing the projects to broader Member State

participation.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 on the conser-
1.1.
vation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic
resources in agriculture launched a five-year action programme
that expired on 31 December 1999. This action programme
was the Commission’s response to various European Parlia-
ment resolutions dating back to the eighties which had pointed
to the problem of genetic erosion and proposed Community
initiatives to counter this process.

1.2.
Under this action programme various projects were
financed, most of which focused on the characterisation of
available ex situ genetic resources; gene banks, research
institutes and users were the main participants in the projects.
Sometimes NGOs were also involved under the aegis of
scientific institutions.

1.3.
As provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1467/94, the
action programme was evaluated by a group of independent
experts after it had terminated. Their report was forwarded to
the Council and European Parliament. It gave the programme
a generally positive assessment and called for the actions to be
maintained and strengthened, recommending inter alia:

— a better balance between ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ projects;

— including the concept of in situ/on farm conservation to
meet international undertakings and the needs of the
ecoregions;

In the present draft regulation the Commission is
1.4.
proposing a new Community action programme to run for
another five years.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Committee warmly welcomes the fact that the
Commission is presenting a new Community action pro-
gramme.
It stresses that the loss of genetic resources in
agriculture has been far from halted, so that further efforts are
needed (a)
to characterise, compile an inventory of and
conserve the gene potential and (b) to maintain the utilisation
of genetic diversity by farms.

2.2.
The properties — i.e. genetic potential — of known
species, some of which are highly endangered or threatened
with extinction, have been assessed only fragmentarily. An
important reason for preserving all gene resources is thus the
potential use of their previously unknown properties.

There are major shortcomings in the compilation of a
2.3.
gene potential inventory in databases and in the networking
of existing databases, uncertainties also exist concerning access
to databases and the right to use them.

— more active participation by NGOs;

— increased coordination between the Member States and
the Commission with regard to negotiations and actions
at FAO level;

Firstly,

2.4.
there is the scientific approach, aimed at
ensuring the conservation of the gene potential for possible
future use. For this, theoretically we only need gene banks or
to conserve a comparatively small number of living specimens
in a kind of ‘botanical or zoological garden’.

C 149/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.6.2002

Trends in biological diversity,

2.5.
in agriculture for
example, are of course affected by economic criteria, but other
factors are also relevant such as climatic conditions, the
appearance of new diseases in Europe and favourable trends in
plant-health conditions. In parallel with this scientific approach
there is the no less important need to ensure that the diversity
of genetic resources continues to be used in farming by
promoting environmentally sound practices such as diversity
in crop rotation under the second pillar of the CAP. Other
measures should also be envisaged to preserve the use of rare
breeds of productive livestock.

2.6.
Conserving this diversity is undoubtedly in the public
— and European — interest. In its opinion on The situation of
nature and nature conservation in Europe (1) the Committee
stated that preserving wild animal and plant species is a
European task, even if some of these species are to be found
only in particular regions. The same applies to animal and
plant species which are not found in the wild; they are more
than ‘just’ gene sequences of potential scientific use. They are
an expression of Europe’s diverse farming and landscape
heritage and worth preserving.

3.2.2.
In this connection it will be important that appropri-
ate programmes and measures be provided at Member State
level; they should not be restricted — as hitherto — to species
of which only a few remain, i.e. under imminent threat of
extinction.

3.3.
Despite the fact that the Commission is proposing a
new action programme, the Committee has the impression
that the importance of direct Community action in this field is
not fully recognised. For instance, in contrast to the arrange-
ments under the previous programme, no more Community
projects will be initiated and carried out. The new action
programme will be implemented solely through measures at
Member State level, partly in the form of multinational
programmes. Programmes financed from Community funds
will not even be approved in Brussels: Member States merely
notify the Commission of the programmes and any amend-
ments thereto (Article 4(1)). The Commission is thus relin-
quishing the option of initiating Community measures in
those sectors where the Member States are not active. This is a
shortcoming.

3. Specific comments

3.1.
It is noteworthy that between the expiry of the old
programme (31 December 1999) and the present proposal for
a new programme, almost
two years have elapsed. This
suggests that the Commission thought long and hard about
continuing it.

3.4.
The proposed repeal of Regulation (EC) No 1467/94
— which allowed the Community to initiate its own projects
— should be reconsidered.
the
It
Commission should retain its important coordinating role in
this sector. This goes beyond the strict scope of the measures
in this regulation and encompasses, for instance, coordination
between Member States at international level.

is also essential

that

The Committee welcomes the increase in funding from
3.2.
EUR 20 million in total to EUR 10 million per annum. It
should be clear, however, that while such a sum can finance
very valuable measures for scientifically compiling an inven-
tory of, characterising and archiving genetic resources, it is in
less
no way sufficient to support the widespread use of
economically interesting plants in agricultural practice.

Article 7 states that the Member States are to contribute
3.5.
at least 15 % of the costs, while the Community contribution
is 35 %, i.e. the projects’ sponsors must themselves find up to
50 %. In the case of programmes such as these, where there is
not always an obvious immediate financial benefit, there is
thus a danger that certain projects which could be important
for the conservation and especially the utilisation of genetic
resources will not come to fruition.

3.2.1.
Therefore the Committee welcomes the fact that
Article 9 of the proposal adds measures to intended to ensure
the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of
genetic resources in agriculture to Article 1(2) of Regulation
(EC) No 1258/1999.

(1) ESC Opinion on ‘The situation of nature and nature conservation

in Europe’, OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, pp. 130-137.

3.6.
In general the Committee is still not clear how things
stand with regard to the continuity of the Commission’s
commitment in this important sector. The measures and
activities planned by the Commission — which are necessary
to do justice to the scale of the task and which must go far
beyond the proposed specific five-year programme — should
be announced to the relevant European bodies and to the
general public in a separate communication.

21.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 149/13

3.7.
The Committee is not clear what is meant by ‘ecore-
gions’ [cf. Article 4(1)(c)]. Who determines these regions
(according to what criteria)?
3.7.1.
how Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 on support

The Commission should draw up a report examining
for rural

development could to be framed so as to give greater support
for cultivating rare plant species and for keeping rare breeds
of productive livestock as a part of a multifunctional agriculture
and of a comprehensive programme for the conservation and
utilisation of genetic resources.

Brussels, 24 April 2002.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the
control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances’

(COM(2001) 624 final — 2001/0257 (COD))

(2002/C 149/05)

On 21 December 2001 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 April 2002. The rapporteur
was Mr Levaux.

At its 390th plenary session (meeting of 24 April 2002), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion unanimously.

1. Aim of the proposal

1.1.
The proposal under discussion is intended to update
the Council Directive, known as the Seveso II Directive, of
9 December 1996, which aims to prevent major accidents
which involve dangerous substances, and limit their conse-
quences for man and the environment.

This updating is intended to take account of certain

1.2.
recent large-scale industrial accidents, such as:

— that of Baia Mare in Romania, in January 2000, where a
cyanide spill from a tailings pond contaminated the
Danube;

— that of Enschede in the Netherlands, in May 2000, where

a series of explosions took place in a stock of fireworks.

1.2.1.
The Commission considered the need for immediate
amendment of the Seveso II Directive following the explosion

which occurred on 21 September 2001 at the AZF site in
Toulouse. In this case, it was noted that the Toulouse site,
unlike the sites of the accidents mentioned above, was fully
covered by the obligations imposed by the Directive. Moreover,
to wait for the full results of the enquiry would have meant
delaying the application of the amendments covered by the
present draft directive.

The Commission has

1.2.2.
therefore postponed its
decision on the timing of a new review of the Seveso II
Directive, emphasising at this stage that the consequences of
both the Toulouse and the Enschede accidents were aggravated
by the fact that the establishments concerned were situated
close to residential areas. The Committee emphasises that,
unfortunately, such areas have in some cases been created after
the establishment was set up.