3 Plant reproductive material
| (34930)
9527/13
COM(13) 262
| Draft Regulation on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law)
|
| Legal base | Article 43(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 6 May 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 17 May 2013
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 21 May 2013 and Minister's letter of 26 June 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | See para 3.8 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
3.1 Plant reproductive material in the form of seeds and other
types of material (such as young plants) is an important first
step in the agri-food chain, with farmers, growers, forestry managers
and gardeners needing assurance as to the identity of this material
in terms of yield and disease resistance, and its quality (for
example, purity and germination rate). Similar assurance is also
needed by governments for food security purposes.
3.2 The Commission points out that the EU has
over the last 50 years built up a body of legislation, comprising
12 Directives and some 90 supplementary acts, to provide these
assurances. The majority of these measures were adopted between
1966 and 1971, and the Commission says that, although these have
been updated, they are quite diverse, not only in their technical
background, but also in their approaches, and that this has led
to uncertainties and discrepancies in implementation between Member
States, creating a need for harmonisation, and for a reduction
in the cost and administrative burden involved. It also notes
the importance of adapting to technical progress in plant breeding,
and to the rapid evolution of European and global markets in plant
reproductive material.
The current proposal
3.3 The current legislation comprises two main
elements:
Registration of new varieties
The registration requirements vary according to the
type of plant or crop, with those for the main agricultural crops,
grasses and commercial vegetables being more demanding, given
their importance for food production, than for vegetable seeds
to gardeners and ornamentals. Thus, cereal varieties are registered
on the National List (of varieties) based on field data demonstrating
distinctness, uniformity and stability and value for cultivation
and use (such as yield and resistance to pests and diseases),
whereas vegetable seeds are registered on a simpler basis, providing
a recognised description which is accepted by officials without
requiring field data. Certain categories of forest basic material
are also registered in National List.
Quality standards for marketing of seeds
and other planting material
The quality standards to be met before sale are varietal
identity and standards such as purity (for example, freedom from
weeds) and germination rate, with the approach to assessing these
again varying according to the type of plant and its use. Given
their importance, assurance for the main agricultural crops and
grasses is provided through an officially controlled certification
process involving field inspection and seed testing, with the
seed then being sold as certified. In the case of commercial
vegetables and seeds for gardeners, the producer has responsibility
for these quality standards and sells standard seed. Seed testing
is also required for forest reproductive material, and, whilst
there is no official minimum quality standard, seed purity does
determine how the material (in lots) can be marketed.
3.4 The broad intention of this proposal is to
update and simplify the current body of legislation in this area,
and to clarify and harmonise existing approaches and practices
throughout the EU. In particular, it would consolidate the current
legislation into one new Regulation which would be directly applicable,
whilst also including additional powers for the Commission to
develop through delegated and implementing acts further requirements
in the future, some of which will be key to understanding the
scope and impact of the legislation.
3.5 In general, however, the scope and intention
of the legislation would remain largely as at present, with no
fundamental changes being made to the two components of assurance,
and the focus continuing to be on variety registration and quality
standards for marketing, where the requirements are already familiar
to (and well established in) the plant breeding and seeds marketing
sectors for commercial food production. At the same time, the
proposal would introduce a number of possible changes, including:
- a new requirement for mandatory
fees for variety registration and certification to quality standards
(with a mandatory exemption of micro-businesses employing fewer
than 10 people and with an annual turnover no greater than 2 million);
- scope for the registration of so-called 'heterogeneous
material', in order to facilitate developments in ecological plant
breeding;
- an exemption from variety registration for niche
material marketed in small quantities by micro-businesses;
- a possible requirement that all new vegetable
varieties should undergo field-based testing for distinctness,
uniformity and stability as a basis for registration;
- harmonisation across the EU of the requirements
for sustainable value for cultivation and use;
- scope for breeders to register directly with
the EU register; and
- new registration requirements for ornamentals
and other species currently exempted under derogation or not covered
by the current legislation.
The Government's view
3.6 The Government's views are set out in an
Explanatory Memorandum of 21 May 2013 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord de Mauley), together with further material supplied with
his letter of 26 June.
3.7 He points out that it will be necessary to
seek clarification from the Commission during negotiations, and
that, given the scope for additional requirements through delegated
and implementing acts, it is difficult at this stage to fully
understand the proposal's implications and impacts. Nevertheless,
he says that the Government broadly welcomes and supports the
Commission's intention to simplify this regime, and he notes that
the key elements would continue as at present. At the same time,
he also observes that an initial analysis suggests that there
are a number of issues on which further clarification is needed,
noting:
- that harmonisation of requirements
for sustainable value for cultivation and use across the EU seems
impractical, given the differences in climate and crop use, and
that inappropriate requirements in breeding programmes risk undermining
significant market driven traits, such as yield;
- that the possibility that all new vegetable varieties
may require testing for distinctness, uniformity and stability
as a basis for registration and access to the market would potentially
limit the number of new varieties for gardeners and specialised
uses because of the costs this would involve;
- that there is a possible gap in the traceability
of forestry reproductive material, as (unlike the current Directive)
there is no requirement to notify intra-community movements;
- that requiring Member States to exempt micro-businesses
from registration fees will need further consideration to assess
how this would work in practice, particularly as it would have
implications for the UK's current approach in this sector, where
fees are currently collected from such businesses;
- the possible extension of registration and certification
requirements and associated additional costs to species and sectors
currently exempted under derogation or not covered by the current
regime;
- that the extension of the definition for professional
operators to include the landowners or managers of tree seed stands,
in relation to forestry reproductive material, would be unwelcome
as these stands are not normally managed for commercial purposes;
and
- that an extension of audit by the EU's Plant
Varieties Agency to all variety registration processes would lead
to additional costs for businesses and competent authorities.
3.8 On the other hand, he also suggests that
direct EU registration and formalising current practices, such
as acceptance across the EU of field data on distinctness, uniformity
and stability, will benefit plant breeders; that the scope to
register 'heterogeneous material' will be beneficial for organic
farmers; and that the exemption from variety registration for
niche market material is potentially beneficial for small-scale
seed producers.
3.9 The Minister says that his officials are
continuing to identify impacts and benefits from the new regulation,
and that the Government will produce a fuller Impact assessment
when there is greater understanding of the detailed requirements,
including those to be set out in delegated and implementing acts.
In the meantime, negotiations are continuing in the Council, but,
as this proposal is part of a wider package covering animal health,
plant health and official food and feed controls, these are unlikely
to be completed before the European Parliament elections in June
2014.
Conclusion
3.10 The scrutiny of documents which consolidate,
and amend, existing EU legislation presents major difficulties,
as it is virtually impossible, without a close knowledge of the
measure(s) in question, to identify in any detail their content
or the changes which are being made. Those considerations are
particularly acute in the case of a proposal of this kind, which
aims to update and simplify a large number of detailed and technical
measures going back over many years. The role of the Explanatory
Memorandum provided by the Government is therefore more than usually
important in such cases in enabling a proper assessment to be
made of a document's importance, and a coherent Report to be provided
to the House.
3.11 Since we did not feel that the Minister's
initial Explanatory Memorandum provided us with adequate guidance,
we asked him to clarify his comments, which he did subsequently
in a note attached to his letter of 26 June 2013, the contents
of which are set out earlier in this chapter. These demonstrate
that, whilst the UK welcomes the approach set out in the proposal,
there are a number of issues which will need to be clarified,
including those arising from the use of delegated and implementing
acts by the Commission.
3.12 In view of this, we can do little more
at present than to report the situation to the House, retain the
document under scrutiny, and ask the Government to keep us informed
of developments.
|
