The Scottish Government

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Consultation paer:-Revision of the Fruit Plant Marketing Directive (92/34)

Purpose

1. The purpose of this paper is to consult on proposed changes to Directive 92/34, as outlined in the Commission's Proposal 5877/07 http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/dir9234rev-fruitplants/index.htm. The outcome will contribute to the development of a UK negotiating strategy, to be used as the Proposal progresses through the Council process.

Background

2. Council Directive 92/34 and the associated Commission Directives, 93/48, 93/64 and 93/79 http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/fruit/index_en.htm set minimum standards on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. These have been implemented in Scotland by the Marketing of Fruit Plant Material Regulations 1995 (SI 2653), as amended. These Regulations are available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19952653_en_1.htm

3. In 2006 the Commission carried out a consultation http://ec.europa.eu/food/consultations/index_en.htm seeking views on possible changes to Directive 92/34. This was driven by changes to the Common Agricultural Policy and Rural Development Policy, which the Commission felt required a review of the marketing regime to reflect a greater emphasis on consumer interests and increased opportunities for suppliers and users of propagating material.

4. The Commission's main objectives were to clarify and simplify the existing legislative regime and to improve the legislation to reflect technical and scientific progress and the changes referred to above. A number of specific areas were addressed in the Commission's paper, including:

• Definition of 'marketing' and 'suppliers' and relevant conditions.
• Categories of propagating material and relevant conditions.
• Quality requirements and 'variety' definition and conditions.
• Links between categories of propagating material and international certification schemes (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation - EPPO).

5. On the basis of replies received and subsequent discussion in the relevant EC Standing Committee, the Commission has now published a Proposal outlining the specific revisions it intends to introduce. A comparison of the Proposal with Directive 92/34 is attached at the Appendix, but the key changes are:

• Propagating material for marketing must either be officially certified Pre-basic, Basic or Certified material, or officially inspected CAC (Conformitas Agraria Communitatis) material - the lowest category of material marketed. At present, propagating material must meet the minimum requirement for CAC material, but there is no obligation for all stocks to be officially inspected. Official certification schemes are possible, but no harmonised requirements have been introduced.
• A new requirement is introduced for CAC material to be officially checked, rather than monitored by at least random checks. Fruit plants must either be officially certified as Certified material, or officially inspected as CAC material. At present, fruit plants must meet the minimum requirements for CAC material.
• The accreditation requirement for suppliers is replaced with a registration requirement.
• The requirement for laboratories to be accredited is revoked.
• New definitions are included for 'variety' and 'clone'; marketing is required by reference to the clone, where appropriate.
• There is no longer an option to maintain varieties on a supplier's list ( e.g. a catalogue).
• New record keeping requirements, with details of sales and purchases to be maintained for 12 months (rather than 3 years); the exemption for suppliers selling small quantities is replaced by an exemption for retail sales.

Discussion

6. No specific timetable has been published, but a first read through of the text started under the German Presidency on 13 June. This will continue under the Portuguese Presidency and probably into 2008. While there has been an opportunity for UK stakeholders to contribute directly to the Commission's consultation exercise, views are now requested on the key issues identified above, to help develop a UK negotiating line in relation to the Proposal. The same Directive is subject to review under an EU simplification initiative, which includes the marketing Directives on seeds and propagating material. The two exercises are being carried out in parallel and there may be a further opportunity for comment under the simplification review.

7. Further information on each of the key issues is provided below and an assessment of possible impacts is outlined in the accompanying partial Regulatory Impact Assessment.

(a) Enhanced requirements for propagating material

8. In Scotland, the voluntary Soft Fruit certification schemes provide an opportunity for growers of soft fruit plants to have their crops certified. The scheme is largely based on international (EPPO) recommendations. There is no top fruit certification scheme in Scotland.

9. The Commission's Proposal would require a Scottish Executive scheme to operate in line with any requirements introduced in Commission implementing legislation. This would most likely be in line with EPPO recommendations. There would be greater emphasis on official checks, with propagating material either having to be officially certified, or officially checked (as CAC material). It is estimated that the vast majority of strawberry propagating material, along with Ribes and Rubus, already derive from the UK certification schemes, but this is not the case for top fruit.

10. Greater official involvement would have resource implications for both the Scottish Executive and the participating growers, but this would be the case across the EU and there could be trading benefits and opportunities for UK propagators, as common standards and requirements would apply. Equally, there would be increased opportunities for propagators in other EU countries to access the UK market. For fruit growers, there may be access to a wider range of material than previously and a better understanding of its quality due to improved transparency of its designation.

(b) Enhanced requirements for fruit plants

11. At present, there is a requirement for the Scottish Executive to undertake at least random official checks of CAC material (including fruit plants). This is generally done at the same time as official checks for other purposes, such as plant passporting or surveillance monitoring for quarantine organisms. Strawberry and Rubus propagating material must be passported when intended for commercial growing on and Pyrus , Malus and Prunus must be passported to retail level. There is no passporting requirement for Ribes. The Scottish Executive currently funds surveillance work (including the random checks of CAC material), but official inspections (for plant passporting and soft fruit certification) are charged to growers.

12. The purpose of introducing compulsory official checks for CAC material would be to ensure that minimum standards for this category were being met. At present, such material largely falls outside the scope of official schemes in Member States and the Commission are concerned about the lack of consistency in material being marketed. The Commission also feel that bringing this category of material more directly under official control is necessary given that such material forms part of the chain which will lead to food products being sold to consumers, but also that such a move will provide greater marketing opportunities and possibly access to funding under EU Rural Development programmes.

(c) Registration, rather than accreditation, of suppliers

13. Accreditation involves a process of confirmation that certain requirements are being met by suppliers, whereas registration involves an entry on an official register to identify that certain activities are undertaken. The current system of accreditation is operated in such a way to minimise burdens on suppliers, in particular by allowing existing authorisations, in relation to plant passporting for example, to be taken into account. A registration system would represent a further step towards simplification, in line with the process which now operates for suppliers of ornamental propagating material. In practice, the switch to a registration system would have no impact on suppliers already accredited under the current system, other than possibly written confirmation that they are content for their existing accreditation to be considered as a registration. Under the Proposal, suppliers who market through retail sales only would be exempt from registration, which would exclude some suppliers who are covered by the accreditation system. The proposed arrangements are consistent with those operating in the ornamentals sector.

(d) Removal of accreditation requirement for laboratories

14. Although there is a requirement for laboratories to be accredited, criteria for accreditation have never been established. In addition, suppliers already have the flexibility to decide when to have samples tested and which laboratory to send them to. The revocation of the accreditation requirement would therefore have little practical impact at present, but it would remove the possibility of more stringent requirements being introduced in future and would better reflect the situation which exists at present. It would also be consistent with requirements for the ornamental sector.

(e) New requirements on marketing of 'varieties' and 'clones'

15. Unlike the ornamentals sector, it is obligatory to market fruit plants and propagating material with a reference to their variety, which must be commonly known and protected, officially registered, or entered on a supplier's list. There is no official register of fruit varieties in the UK, so varieties must meet one of the other options. The Commission are proposing to remove the supplier's list option. In addition, they want to include new definitions for 'variety' and 'clone'. This is to address the situation whereby material may now be marketed by clone, and to respond to misleading or inaccurate variety descriptions which have sometimes been found in monitoring or during EC Comparative Trials. In the absence of an official register, the use of supplier's lists (i.e. trade catalogues) is a popular option in the UK to describe varieties being marketed. The proposed changes would provide greater clarity and consistency with regard to varieties being marketed, but would involve greater costs for suppliers, who would be required to use only varieties with plant breeders rights or that are officially registered/have an official description.

(f) Revised record keeping requirement

16. At present suppliers are required to maintain records of production and marketing activity for three years. The Commission's Proposal would require that records of sales and purchases be maintained for 12 months. This would be consistent with the arrangements which apply to the ornamentals sector and would reduce the burden on suppliers.

Issues for consideration

17. Taking into account the information provided on paragraphs 8-16 please indicate, with reasons where possible, whether you support the following changes being proposed by the Commission:

• Propagating material for marketing to be either officially certified as Pre-basic, Basic or Certified material, or officially inspected as CAC material. At present, propagating material must meet the minimum requirement for CAC material, but there is no obligation for all stocks to be officially inspected. Also, official certification schemes are possible, but no harmonised requirements have been introduced.

• On certification, do you support: (a) an uniform, prescriptive EU certification scheme, with harmonised requirements between all member states; (b) greater equivalency and transparency of scheme conditions, to facilitate trade, but retaining flexibility for member states to operate their own schemes; (c) retention of the current situation, where there is no obligation to introduce certification schemes and requirements are left for member states to decide.

• On CAC, to what extent would you like to see strengthened controls and requirements in place, particularly in relation to: (a) varietal identity; (b) health requirements; (c) official inspections.

• Fruit plants intended for marketing to be either officially certified, or officially inspected (when intended for marketing as CAC material). Such plants must currently meet the minimum requirements for CAC material and official monitoring is undertaken on the basis of random checks. Suppliers to be registered rather than accredited.

• Revocation of the requirement for laboratories to be accredited.

• Marketing by reference to 'clones' as well as by variety, where this is appropriate.

• Revocation of the option to use supplier's lists to describe varieties.

• Revised record keeping requirements, with details of sales and purchases to be maintained for 12 months (rather than 3 years).

18. What are your views on the compatibility of the Proposal with the Ornamentals Directive (98/56) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/1998/l_226/l_22619980813en00160023.pdf Some features (e.g. registration rather than accreditation) from 98/56 have been incorporated into the Commission's Proposal, but the two regimes will remain significantly different. For instance:

• 98/56 applies to all species, but of propagating material only (not plants for end use).

• Importers rather than official bodies are responsible for ensuring that ornamental material imported from third countries is of equivalent quality.

• Additional requirements for individual ornamental genera/species are to be introduced only where there is a demonstrated need, rather than routinely.

19. Is there a case for treating fruit material differently to ornamental material, or would you prefer to see greater compatibility between the regimes? The Commission's view is that they should be treated differently, as fruit plants are ultimately intended to harvest products intended for human consumption. Also they believe that the measures they have proposed will result in greater compatibility with other EU regimes (such as rural development). Some of the requirements have been updated to ensure compatibility with the Vines Directive (68/193 and 2002/11) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/vine/index_en.htm. What are your views?

20. Overall, the Proposal introduces some simplification measures (e.g. registration rather than accreditation), but the main objective is improved consistency and harmonisation. This will result in additional administrative burdens (e.g. co-operating with official inspections) and policy costs ( e.g. official inspections of all CAC stocks, loss of the supplier's list option for recording variety details). Potential benefits include a more level playing field, with greater access to other markets for propagators and improved access to sources of fruit planting material for growers. Do you believe that there is an appropriate balance between burdens and benefits?

21. What are your views on the Partial Impact Assessment provided, in particular:

• The estimates of costs and benefits provided in Table 2.

22. Do you have any other comments on the Proposal?

Conclusion

23. A Proposal to update Directive 92/34 on the production and marketing of fruit propagating material and fruit plants is progressing through the Council process. Views are sought on the Proposal, and a partial Impact Assessment which has been prepared, to help develop a UK negotiating strategy.

What to do next

24. Views and contributions are welcome from all individuals and organisations with an interest in the Proposal. Please:

(i) read the consultation paper and partial Impact Assessment;

(ii) consider the questions at paragraphs 17 -22 in this consultation paper;

(iii) submit your comments using the contact details provided in the covering letter.

25. The Scottish Executive would be happy to hold a meeting to discuss the issues raised in the consultation, probably in early September. Please respond as soon as possible if you would be interested in attending such a meeting.

26. Please send your replies by 13 November 2007 at the latest.

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]