Position Paper on EU Proposal 'Plant and Animal Health Package'

Position paper on EU proposal ‘Plant and Animal Health Package’ Introduction On 6 May 2013, the European Commission published the Animal and Plant Health Package COM(2013)264. The standing committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands has appointed MP Bart de Liefde (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy; VVD) to be the rapporteur for this dossier. This position paper forms the foundation for the talks that the rapporteur will have with key stakeholders in Brussels. It is based on the findings of rapporteur MP Sjoera Dikkers (Labour Party; PvdA), who held consultations about this dossier with a number of relevant stakeholders in the summer of 2013. This paper also draws upon the letter that the House sent to the European Commission in June 2013 expressing a negative so called ‘reasoned opinion’ (subsidiarity) with regard to the Plant Reproductive Material Regulation and the motion put forward by MP Esther Ouwehand and adopted by the House, about the protection of the interests of small processors, organic farming and agri-biodiversity. Summary and key issues The Animal and Plant Health Package comprises an overarching communication and five regulations, which, once adopted by the Member States and the European Parliament, will take effect im- mediately in the Netherlands and in the other Member States. The package is intended to replace the 70 existing laws, thus reducing the administrative burden on enterprises and improving the enforcement of health and safety standards within the agri-food chain. Important issues include the preservation of biodiversity and the improvement of the level playing field and coordination with other policy areas (e.g. phytosanitation). The objections of the House focus largely on the proposal for a Plant Reproductive Material Regulation COM(2013)262. - The House is critical of the large number of delegated and implementing acts, and would like for transparency and democratic control to be guaranteed. - The House is against exempting micro-enterprises from the costs of inspection, as specified in the current proposal. The House would like for enterprises in all EU countries to be required to bear the costs of inspection in order to create an efficient and level playing field, which is not yet the case. - The new categories of ‘niche markets’ and ‘heterogeneous material’, to which lighter rules apply than those applying to the existing categories, should be clearly defined in order to prevent abuse. Reproductive material for ornamental vegetables (not meant for human consumption) should also fall under lighter registration requirements, and not under the strictest regime, as proposed by the Commission. - Opportunities for high-quality import and export must be guaranteed. This means that responsibility for the quality of imported seeds should remain with the importer, and not with third-country authorities. - Additional administrative burden for enterprises must be prevented. Examples include the proposals for an additional sustainability check and additional administrative requirements for the provisional admission of seed trade, pending definitive registration. - The requirements for the registration of seeds and the application for the plant-variety right should be integrated. - Coordination with other legislation must be guaranteed. Explanatory remarks on the key issues In principle, the House considers review of existing legislation to be a good idea. The continuous accumulation of new legislation has made the current system complex and unclear. As revealed in the report by rapporteur Dikkers, most parties are happy with the transformation of directives into regulations. Although this leaves less room for national policy, it largely promotes the level playing field within the EU. Nevertheless, the House has identified a number of problems in the proposals, and it would like to see them amended accordingly. 1. Delegated and implementing acts One of the concerns mentioned by the House in its reasoned opinion (subsidiarity) is that many technical details of the package have yet to be worked out in devolved legislation. The members would like democratic control to be guaranteed. The House fears that the House itself and other interested parties will no longer be involved in working out the details of the framework regulations in devolved (i.e. delegated and implementing) legislation. Some stakeholders have been involved in drafting the package to some extent, as members of expert groups or as co-readers of the Dutch official representative on the Standing Committee. They would also like to continue propagating their position on the details. The House would like for both the House and the stakeholders to be actively involved in the process of working out the details. 2. Exempting micro-businesses from the costs of inspection The House considers the proposal to exempt micro-enterprises from the costs of inspection to be a problem. According to the plans, businesses with staff amounting to less than 10 FTE and an annual turnover of less than € 2 million are regarded as micro-enterprises. They are exempted from the costs of inspection. In this case, the general European definition of micro-enterprises has been applied. This definition does not apply to this sector, however, which consists primarily of very small businesses. For example, in the Netherlands, around two thirds of the 8000 enterprises in this sector fall under this definition. The central government will be obliged to bear the costs of inspection for all of these companies, despite prevailing practice in the Netherlands, in which the sector itself bears the costs of inspection. The additional costs to the government amount to an estimated € 25 million – € 30 million per year (apart from the animal sector). Exempting companies from paying for inspections would eliminate incentives for efficiency and quality awareness. This could also hamper the growth of the business, possibly resulting in the strategic division of businesses, in order to avoid exceeding the marginal value of micro-enterprises. Moreover, this policy would promote neither the level playing field between large and small companies nor that between member states, as the intensity of inspections might decrease due to the tendency of countries to cut back on inspections. The House of Representatives is of the opinion that bearing the costs of inspection should be made compulsory for the commercial sectors in all of the EU Member States, in order to create an efficient and level playing field in the EU, which is not yet the case. If it is considered necessary to spare the smallest players, the limit for micro-enterprises should be adjusted downwards. Alternatively, every enterprise, regardless of size, should be granted exemption from these costs up to a fixed amount (e.g. € 500). 3. Small crops, organic and ornamental plant cultivation Before the legislation package was published, hobby gardeners and growers of traditional crops were concerned, because they were under the impression that these crops would fall under the stricter registration rules. After publication of the proposals, however, it became clear that the private seed exchange and use in private gardens did not fall within the scope of the legislation. These practices are permitted, without the seeds being subject to registration. Moreover, the legislation relaxes the registration rules for niche-market and traditional crops. A ‘light’ registration scheme will be introduced for these categories, in order to avoid confronting growers of small crops with disproportionate administrative and financial burdens. The new legislation also contains an exception for heterogeneous material, as organic varieties do not always comply with the strict rules of uniformity. The requirements for the category of heterogeneous material, however, remain unclear. Accepting diversity within the same variety can lead to abuse, if growers are allowed to market varieties of common crops that do not comply with the applicable registration requirements for uniformity, even if they are of inferior quality. The categories that are eligible for ‘light registration’ (i.e. niche-market crops, traditional crops and heterogeneous material) should be strictly defined. Another point involves a group of small growers that specialise in ornamental varieties of agricultural, vegetable and fruit crops (e.g. sunflowers, ornamental peppers, tomatoes and cabbages). According to the draft Plant Reproductive Material Regulation, these growers must comply with the strictest registration and quality requirements, even though these crops are not used for consumption. The House is of the opinion that lighter requirements would suffice for these crops, as is currently the case. These lighter rules also apply to other ornamental crops. 4. Import and export On the one hand, the House has identified a risk in the new requirement that only seeds from countries with systems similar to that of the EU can be imported, as very few countries have control systems of such excellence. This would jeopardise the import of seeds, and thus the Netherlands’ leading position in the field of parent material. A major part of the seeds marketed by Dutch companies is produced at production sites in third countries. On the other hand, some Dutch seeds are produced for cultivation only outside the EU. This requirement also poses an obstacle to trade for cultivators in developing countries. For this reason, the House considers it important

Load more