POTATO CYST NEMATODES (8399/05)
Letter from Lord Rooker, Minister for
Sustainable Farming and Food, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
Further to my letter of 5 June 2006[78]
and your reply of 10 July 2006. I am writing to update you on
developments concerning the above proposal.
The Finnish Presidency were unable to give the
proposal much attention in the latter half of 2006 and therefore
they focused on completing a first read through of the text. The
proposal has now been taken over by Germany who, as anticipated,
want to see an accelerated rate of progress, ideally completing
scrutiny during their Presidency.
In preparation for the German Presidency, we
have been assessing progress against UK objectives to date. As
a result of this process, we have been able to identify and prioritise
the remaining key issues for resolution. These issues are described
in Annex A.
The first meeting of the German Presidency was
held on 15 and 16 January 2007, when a second read-through of
the proposal started, including consideration of amendments proposed
by Member States. This was an opportunity to explore revisions
to take account of the issues described in Annex A. Thanks to
the groundwork laid during earlier Council Working Group meetings
and a number of bilaterats, there was support for a number of
UK-inspired amendments to be incorporated into a revised draft
text. This was encouraging, but clearly much work still needs
to be done to ensure that the amendments are retained, as there
remains a diverse range of views within the Working Party as to
what is required from the updated Directive.
It is also the case that there was no time to
discuss the key issue of concern—soil sampling (Annex II
of the proposal). These measures, if adopted unamended, would
have most impact in terms of the increased burden placed on Member
States. The UK has therefore been working hard to build support
for alternative approaches, which remain scientifically based,
but would be more balanced and proportionate. One such idea has
been to include revised measures for larger fields, which at present
are subject to a disproportionate effect, because of the flat
rate of sampling proposed. The UK gave a powerpoint presentation
during the Finnish Presidency to illustrate the problem and identify
possible solutions. Another option would be an across the board
reduction to the proposed sampling rates, to reflect the concerns
expressed by Member States about increased costs, with only limited
corresponding benefits.
The next meeting is scheduled for 16 and 17
April 2007, so there is a further opportunity to develop our ideas
on soil sampling in consultation with others. We intend to discuss
such ideas with, at least, the other Member States who were involved
in developing the original proposals (Netherlands and Germany).
This will not be an easy process as Netherlands grows its seed
potatoes in very small fields (and therefore does not have the
same concerns about large fields as the UK) while Germany are
the main proponents of enhanced measures. Nevertheless, these
Member States, together with the UK, have significant influence
in this area, given the scientific expertise available and their
experience in developing the original proposals. Therefore, any
amendments which have the support of these Member States are more
likely to be accepted by the Commission and other Member States.
The progress achieved to date in these negotiations
has been encouraging, given the lack of support during the early
stages, but it remains too early to give a firm indication on
the extent to which remaining substantial UK objectives will be
achieved by the end of the process. The Council Working Party
scheduled for April is likely to be an important one particularly
in determining the prospects for revised soil sampling measures.
I would hope that following that meeting we will be in a clearer
position to update the Committee on the likelihood of achieving
the UK objectives set out in the Annex. Therefore, my intention
is to write again after that meeting, but I felt it important
to update the Committee now to report on early developments from
the German Presidency. Should the Committee have any questions
at this stage, I would of course by happy to answer them.
You have asked for details of the cost: benefit
situation regarding the proposal. These remain largely as described
in earlier correspondence, particularly letters from my predecessor
of 21 October 2005 and 20 December 2005. One of the key concerns
for the UK has been the poor benefit: cost ratio associated with
the proposal. However, this has not been such an issue for the
Commission or the majority of other Member States, who do not
regard cost: benefit considerations as a priority. Much of the
work undertaken by the UK Presidency in the latter half of 2005
was designed to ensure that all parties were exposed to evidence
on costs and benefits through the preparation and presentation
of an Impact Assessment. This has achieved some limited success,
as a number of other Member States are now making statements relating
to the burdens associated with particular aspects of the proposal.
Despite this there remains overwhelming support for enhanced measures,
with PCN being seen as an important pest to control. Given this
support, we have had to accept that there will be increased costs
resulting from the proposal. Our objective, therefore, has been
to build support amongst others to introduce amendments which
limit the scale of increased costs while still achieving the overall
objective of strengthened measures to reduce the rate of further
PCN spread. If we can address at least the highest priority issues
set out in the Annex then I believe we will have achieved our
objective.
9 February 2007
Annex A
PCN: KEY UK NEGOTIATING
OBJECTIVES (IN
ORDER OF
PRIORITY)
| Issue | Objective
| Progress |
| Annex II: soil sampling/testing—additional burden
| Reduced overall burden, or revised measures for larger fields.
| No substantive discussion. |
| Art.6: official survey—new burden |
Permit other sources of information to be included.
| UK objective now reflected in draft text. |
| Annex I: list of plants—inclusion of bulbs
| Exclusion of bulbs, or reduced impact on bulb growers.
| No substantive discussion on Annex I, but most bulb growers would be exempt under a UK-inspired revision to the official investigation requirements.
|
| Art. 9: official control programme—compulsory use of resistant varieties
| Flexibility to decide control measures on a case by case basis.
| UK objective now reflected in draft text. |
| Art. 9: official control programme—no scope for authorising other programmes
| Provision to authorise programmes undertaken by growers or other organisations.
| UK objective now reflected in draft text. |
| Art. 18: implementation date—time to adapt
| Minimum of 2 years. | Still to be discussed.
|
| Annex III.I: verification options—restricted options
| Extended options | No substantive discussion.
|
| Art. 11: notification of resistance breakdown—practicality
| Removal of compulsory requirement. | UK objective partly reflected in draft text; reduced emphasis on enforcing such a requirement.
|
| Annex III.III: waste disposal—practicality
| Amended requirements to ensure practicality.
| No substantive discussion. |
78
Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session 2006-07,
HL Paper 187, p 268. Back
|
