4 Protective measures against plant
pests
| (34934)
9574/13
COM(13) 267
+ ADDs 1-2
| Draft Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants
|
| 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 22 May 2013 and Minister's letter of 26 June 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | See para 4.10 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
4.1 According to the Commission, plant health is a key factor
for sustainable and competitive agriculture and forestry, and
for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems, and it notes that
pests from other continents are especially dangerous, since indigenous
plants lack adequate genetic resistance to them and they have
no natural enemies. In view of this, the current EU regulatory
framework for plant health — which is based on Council Directive
2000/29/EC — aims to prevent the entry and spread of foreign
pests, and to impose eradication and containment measures where
an outbreak occurs; lays down rules on trade within the EU and
for non-EU imports, covering inspections and plant passports and
rules on protected zones which are free from specified pests and
diseases; and lists harmful organisms which may be subject to
specific control measures.
4.2 However, the Commission notes that the Directive
has been criticised for not being able to stop an increased influx
of dangerous new pests caused by globalisation, and that climate
change now enables these to survive in Europe, rendering crops
and ecosystem more vulnerable, and raising awareness of the costs
and impacts of inadequate protection. Consequently, following
a review of the current arrangements carried out in 2010, it has
now proposed this new Regulation, which would repeal Directive
2000/29/EC, and update, simplify and consolidate the current EU
regulatory regime.
The current proposal
4.3 The proposal would provide detailed technical
rules designed to prevent the entry of harmful pests and diseases
by means of enhanced imports checks targeted at the highest risks;
prioritising risks and action against the most harmful pests by
means of intensified checks, inland surveillance and mandatory
contingency plans; controlling those outbreaks which do occur
by means of either eradication or containment; tightening internal
controls to minimise the risks from material moving within the
EU; and improving communication and collaboration between official
services, the private sector and the general public.
4.4 More specifically, its main impact would
be in the following areas:
Controls on imports and exports
At present, in order to prevent the introduction
of harmful organisms listed in various annexes to Directive 2000/29/EC,
import consignments from countries outside the EU have to be accompanied
by phytosanitary certificates issued by the country of export
as verification that they meet the EU's rules, with provision
being made for official inspections at the point of entry to ensure
compliance.
This proposal would develop the concept of Quarantine
Pests, which do not normally occur in an area, and which have
the potential to cause serious harm, and would apply these either
to the EU as a whole or to defined Protected Zones (which are
free from pests and diseases which are present in other parts
of the EU). The Commission would also be able to list up to 10%
of Quarantine Pests as Priority Pests and diseases, which would
be subject to enhanced controls (inspection, surveillance, contingency
planning, and accessibility to EU funding). Economic, environmental
and social criteria for determining the appropriate classification
of both Quarantine and Priority pests would be set out in Annexes
to the Regulation, and the proposal would in addition permit the
adoption of temporary measures to allow for a full risk assessment
to be made for new trade in high risk material from non-EU states
to be assessed before permanent measures are imposed; transfer
to the parallel draft proposal on official controls common provisions
relating to the checking of imports for compliance; and remove
the current exemption from official controls for passenger baggage.
There would be a new provision for official communication
between Member States on the status of material making up export
consignments to non EU countries where the Member State of export
is certifying material originating in other Member States.
Union quality pests
So-called "quality pests", whose main impact
is essentially economic, are currently subject to control under
the Marketing Directives covering various types of plant reproductive
material, but would be transferred into this regime.
Plant passports
Plant passports, which are required for the movement
of certain material within the EU in order to provide evidence
that the material meets relevant phytosanitary conditions, and
comes from premises which are subject to an official inspection
regime, can at present be issued only by officially registered
and authorised growers and nurseries.
In future, the registration requirement would be
extended to all professional operators undertaking planting, growing,
production and importation into the EU, movements within the EU,
exports from the EU, marketing within the EU, and sales through
long distance contracts. The proposal would also extend the list
of materials subject to the passport regime to include all plants
for planting; provide for the standardisation of the content and
format of passports; place new obligations on professional operators
issuing passports in terms of guaranteeing the health of material
supplied by them, and require them to receive appropriate training.
It also provides for authorised operators to have in place phytosanitary
risk management plans.
Eradication and containment measures
These currently place a general obligation on Member
States to take all necessary measures to eradicate (or, if this
is not possible, to inhibit) the spread of listed harmful pests
and diseases, and to protect the EU from any imminent danger of
non-listed harmful organisms being introduced and spread. In addition,
more detailed eradication measures are covered in pest-specific
legislation, covering potato diseases and some emergency measures
relating to specific pests.
There would be a new obligation on Member States
to have in place contingency plans and eradication plans, and
to carry out simulation exercises for priority pests, and the
official services would have to take measures to eliminate pests
and diseases, and prevent their spread (including the establishment
of restricted areas, infested zones and buffer zones); and the
surveying and modification of restricted areas and the lifting
of restrictions. The proposal would introduce measures to be taken
by professional operators to eliminate pests and diseases and
prevent their spread, including (where appropriate) the withdrawal
of products from the market.
Protected zones
Where a survey has shown this to be justified, there
is currently provision for Member States to be granted Protected
Zone status for areas which are free from specified pests and
diseases established elsewhere in the EU. This proposal would
retain that provision, but would align it more closely with international
standards for pest-free areas. In addition, it would extend the
scope of the required survey to include general surveillance for
EU Quarantine Pests and diseases and for Priority Pests, and it
would allow for rapid deregulation where this is no longer justified.
Notification obligations
At present, Member States are required to notify
the Commission and other Member States of the presence, or suspected
presence, of harmful organisms, and in future there would be an
obligation on everyone to notify the official services in such
an event. At the same time, the official services would have an
obligation to notify professional operators and the public of
the presence of harmful organisms, the measures taken, and the
imminent danger of entry of a Union quarantine pest.
Quarantine stations
At present, there are arrangements for contained
licensed facilities for work on otherwise prohibited material,
including pests and diseases, and in future provision would be
made for the official designation of storage facilities in relation
to listed harmful organisms.
4.5 The new Regulation provides for additional
requirements to be identified and developed through delegated
and implementing acts, the latter would include listing quarantine
pests, priority pests, quality pests and plants, plant products
and other objects to be regulated. The Commission have allocated
a three-year implementation period after adoption of the Regulation,
during which any additional requirements deemed necessary through
delegated and implementing acts will be worked up.
The Government's view
4.6 The Government's views are set out in an
Explanatory Memorandum of 22 May 2013 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord
de Mauley), together with further material he provided in a letter
of 26 June 2013.
4.7 He says that the Government broadly welcomes
and supports the Commission's proposal to revise and strengthen
the current plant health regime along with the other four elements
of the agri-food chain package, and to overcome the deficiencies
identified by the 2010 evaluation. He suggests that the proposed
Regulation has the potential to introduce a new regime more consistent
with the UK's aim of achieving faster decision making as plant
health risks change and new pests arrive; better risk targeting,
including regionalisation where appropriate, and a shift of inspection
effort from plant produce to plants and propagating material;
and more co-operation between plant health inspectorates across
the EU and between plant health and customs services.
4.8 The Minister also comments that, as the proposal
builds on many of the elements of the current regime, many of
the policy approaches and controls are already familiar to, and
well established in, the agriculture and horticulture sectors.
At the same time, he cautions that some aspects of the proposal
could involve new and potentially more prescriptive requirements
and additional costs, although further clarification is needed
before impacts can be assessed. In addition, further requirements
are expected to be adopted through delegated and implementing
acts during the three-year transition period following adoption
of the main text, making it difficult to fully assess the impacts
of this new regulation at this stage. The Government will consider
carefully whether the proposed use of such acts is justified and
needed, and whether it is in line with the EU's competence and
the principles of subsidiarity: and it will express a preference
for these powers to be conferred for a fixed period rather than
the indeterminate period proposed by the Commission.
4.9 The Minister also comments on individual
elements in the proposal, as follows:
- Whilst the identification of
Priority pests is a positive step in principle, it is unclear
how this will work in practice and it would be preferable if well
defined criteria were used to identify priority pests rather than
the proposed arbitrary 10% limit.
- Whilst the strengthening of policies in Protected
Zones is likely to help deliver improved plant health protection,
this could result in additional costs for competent authorities
and the private sector.
- The transfer of 'quality pests' from the parallel
plant reproductive material regime is a positive step which could
potentially lead to synergies and efficiencies for growers and
horticulturalists who currently deal with these pests in separate
regimes, but implementation will require a robust approach in
order to achieve these.
- Precautionary measures to prevent the import
of new, high-risk material from non-EU countries pending an assessment
of risk will address an important gap in the current regime, as
unregulated and unknown trade in planting material represents
a significant threat. Details will have to be considered carefully
to ensure that the new legislation operates as intended, and that
the assessment process is sufficiently robust whilst being proportionate
and efficient.
- The proposal to remove the passenger baggage
exemption will address an inconsistency and gap in the current
controls although the possibility of some exemptions being reintroduced
via implementing acts may serve to undermine the proposed approach.
- The proposal to align registration requirements
for both the plant health regime and the plant reproductive material
regime potentially introduces efficiencies and cost savings for
operators in these sectors and the competent authorities, but
the definition of operators will need careful attention to ensure
that it does not extend any further than necessary.
- The proposed extension of plant passports to
all plants for planting in commercial trade is logical, and the
proposed harmonisation of plant passports should help facilitate
trade, so long as there is adequate flexibility over the format
to tie in with commercial practise. Also, the proposed requirement
for practical pest and disease training for those issuing passports
should help raise awareness of plant health issues and offer greater
reassurance about the status of traded material.
4.10 As regards timing, the Minister indicated
that meetings will continue under the Lithuanian Presidency in
the second half of 2013, but that, as the proposal is part of
a complex package, it is unlikely that the proposal will be agreed
between the Council and the European Parliament before the Parliament
elections in June 2014.
Conclusion
4.11 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.
4.12 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 general principles underlying the proposal are
in line with UK objectives, there are a number of issues which
will need to be clarified, including the use of delegated and
implementing acts by the Commission.
4.13 In view of this, we can do little more
at present that to report the situation to the House, retain the
document under scrutiny, and ask the Government to keep us informed
of developments.
|
