European negotiations: Simulation

Résumé du document

The course of "European negotiations" opened a new area of interests for me, not only by being able to explain very well the framework of the negotiating and the co-decision processes in the European Union, but also by unveiling the practical set of skills necessary in any kind of negotiations and which can be acquired only if they are applied in a specific context. The context proposed for the present exercise was Commission's proposal for a regulation amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory (COM (2010) 375).

In the following pages I will describe the background of the actual proposition, as well as, my role of shadow-reporter of the European's People Party in the simulation. Also, I will analyze the negotiations inside the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) and the strategies that myself and my group used in order to obtain the maximum result, which would be the adoption of the act.

Extraits

[...] This double-standard does not clarify anything and it further complicates the issue. In addition to this, many Member States are not able to estimate the potential risks of GMO crops. The work of the EFSA has already cost taxpayers quite a lot, it would be wiser to follow its advice and let Member States decide on issues that are not scientific (socio-economic). advocate the proposed EC Regulation of July 2010 amending Directive 2001/18/EC only on specific reasons the prohibition or restriction of cultivation of GMOs Negotiation strategies An alliance was seen as necessary for EPP even from the beginning of the negotiations, because the Christian Democrats are the only party who focuses mostly on the common market and is against the proposition of the Commission, with the exception of a few very specific situations. [...]

[...] EPP would have been against such a measure because it would have created an even greater destabilization of the internal market. We support that the fact that the whole issue would have been kept within the communitary context, but we cannot agree with such a great impact on the common market. At this point, we were in an even better position than before as we had majorities who supported the article 114 in both Parliament and Council, and it wasn't necessary to keep our alliance with ALDE standing. [...]

[...] In this point I will concentrate on the procedure inside the Parliament and, mostly, on the role that I chose in the simulation the shadow-rapporteur. The Parliament receives legislative proposals from the Commission and appoints a committee that will be responsible for the report. The committee names a rapporteur who will supervise the development of the file. The political groups with interest in the matter can name shadow-rapporteurs who will monitor the rapporteur's work on the matter and try to influence the result of the negotiations in favour of their party. [...]

[...] The present context tends to be very confusing for the people due to various divergent studies, some defending the GMOs and deeming them as safe to consumption as the traditional or bio products[1], while others depict terrible results as tumors and cancers.[2] Under these conditions it only natural for the people to be fearful and some to adopt radical attitudes towards GMOs, but is it really necessary? The one thing that everybody agrees upon is that more information and certainty in the matter are needed. [...]

[...] This could, in the worst case give the Member States too much power, and, eventually, be able to ban the cultivation of a specific GMO, which could be in the detriment of the local farmers and could destabilize the market. Another position that the Commission and EPP have in common is that the environment itself cannot be mentioned as a motive for banning a GMO, except the emergencies. A further element is the fact the EPP wants to keep as legal base the article 114 instead of the article 192, as the least one is not comprehensive enough and also excludes the comitology. [...]