WRITTEN QUESTION P-1592/03 by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission. Legal admissibility of Member States' measures concerning the coexistence of crops.
Date: 2003-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, cultivation system, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, environmental risk prevention, genetically modified organism, organic farming, transgenic plant

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/113

At all events, the reform adopted on 26 June 2003 by the Council of Ministers for Agriculture, on a
proposal from the Commission, gives a special place to the outermost regions, which will be affected
neither by the decoupling of aid from production nor by the modulation of direct aid.

The Commission will continue to ensure that
maintained and take full account of the specific nature of those regions.

the special measures for the outermost regions are

(2004/C 51 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1592/03

by Karin Scheele (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: Legal admissibility of Member States’ measures concerning the coexistence of crops

For some time, the Commission has been debating the possibilities of allowing genetically modified crop
farming and conventional or organic agriculture to exist
side by side. Commissioner Fischler’s
communication set out various options for regulating the coexistence of different forms of agriculture.
It emerged from discussion of the communication at the Commission’s meeting of 5 March (IP/03/314)
that the majority of Commissioners are opposed at this point to legislative measures at Community level in
this regard. Instead, the Commission prefers the Member States to take measures, although supplemented
by Commission ‘guidelines’.

1.
Under current EU law, to what extent can Member States restrict the marketing or use of genetically
modified organisms which have been authorised for placing on the market pursuant to Community law, in
particular Directive 2001/18/EC (1), or attach certain conditions thereto (which are not provided for in the
Community authorisation), where such restrictions or conditions are in pursuance of objectives other than
the protection of public health or the environment?

2.
Can Member States require, on grounds other than those referred to in Article 23 of Directive 2001/
18/EC, that certain safe distances be observed between genetically modified crops and fields containing
conventional crops of the same type if the sole objective of such safe distances is to prevent cross-
fertilisation of non-genetically modified crops by genetically modified crops in order to guard against any
economic damage which conventional or organic farmers might
incur as a result of such cross-
fertilisation?

3. Would the measures notified by the UK in Wales on 13 July 2001 concerning T25 maize be, in
principle, legally admissible if they were not notified pursuant to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC (2)?

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is committed to provide appropriate solutions to address the issue of co-existence
between conventional, organic and genetically modified crops. The Commission believes that no form of
agriculture (cid:1) be it conventional or organic farming, or agriculture using genetically modified organisms (cid:1)
should be excluded in the Union in the future.

The Commission would like to clarify that the need for measures to protect the environment, including the
protection of particular ecosystems, is adressed as part of the environmental risk assessment carried out in
accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive
90/220/EEC. Measures to address such risks, where appropriate, would be included in the final consent

C 51 E/114

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

with a legal obligation for their implementation. Directive 2001/18/EC does not, however, cover potential
economic impacts in terms of, for instance, losing a price premium in cases where a farmer discovers that
his harvested crop inadvertently contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs) above the labelling
thresholds.

The conditions under which European farmers are working are extremely diverse. Farm sizes, production
systems, crop rotations and cropping patterns, as well as natural conditions, vary enormously across
Europe. This variability must, therefore, be accounted for when devising implementing and monitoring
measures for co-existence to allow producers to meet legally established labelling thresholds.

Consequently, the Commission is currently preparing a Recommendation to the Member States, clarifying
the principles and measures which could be applied to address the issue of co-existence. Examples of such
measures include isolation distances, buffer zones, pollen traps or barriers, optimising sowing dates,
cleaning measures etc. The Recommendation will not only provide a clear framework for addressing
co-existence, it also intends to provide assurance to Member States that the Commission shall consider the
measures adopted at the national level, be they mandatory or non-binding, as being in compliance with
Community law or, indeed, Directive 2001/18/EC. The Commission intends to adopt the Recommendation
by July 2003 at the latest.

Two years after the publication of the Recommendation in the Official Journal and based on information
from Member States, the Commission will report to the Council and the Parliament on the experience
gained in the Member States concerning the implementation of measures to address co-existence, including
an evaluation and assessment of possible and necessary further steps to take.

With regard to the measures notified by the United Kingdom on 13 July 2001 the Commission has taken
the view that they are not admissible under Article 16 of Directive 2001/18/EC. It is up to the British
authorities to decide whether they wish to resubmit them for further consideration.

(2004/C 51 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1603/03

by Hans-Peter Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Identification of police officers

French police officers assigned to duties in the vicinity of the European Parliament in Strasbourg repeatedly
refuse to identify themselves upon request or even to make known their service number. This practice is
followed even towards Members of Parliament. It is therefore impossible to attribute any abuse or excess to
individual police officers, which is contrary to the democratic principle of accountability to which
executive activities must be subject.

Is the Commission aware of this deplorable state of affairs?

Does the Commission intend to work towards the introduction of uniform rules for all Member States so
that police officers on duty can be identified?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it is not aware that any problems
have arisen in Member States due to police officers refusing to identify themselves vis-à-vis citizens. It is
important to recall that the maintenance of law and order and internal security, including the organisation
and the management of the police, are the sole responsibility of the Member States.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that any difficulties identified should be brought to the
attention of the authorities of the Member State where they have occurred.