Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants'
25. 5. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 157/33 4. Specific comments 4. 1. Article 12 — The word ‘any’ at the beginning of Article 12 (2) should be deleted. 4. 1. 1. To avoid differing interpretations as to whether the ANIMO system is to be extended to all Member States, the Committee proposes the following: — The words ‘may if necessary be extended’ should be replaced by ‘shall be extended’ in Article 12(1). 4. 2. The last recital 4. 2. 1. The legal basis of the last recital should be amended in the light of what is said in point 3. 3 of this opinion. Brussels, 25 March 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants’ (98/C 157/10) On 26 January 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 5 March 1998. The rapporteur was Mr Stokkers. At its 353rd plenary session of 25 and 26 March 1998 (meeting of 25 March) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 111 votes to one with two abstentions. 1. Introduction 1. 1. The production of ornamental plants occupies an important place in Community agriculture. Satisfactory results depend to a large extent on the quality and health of the material used for their propagation. In order to guarantee free movement of goods in the Community and to make sure that purchasers throughout the Community receive propagating material which is healthy and of good quality, it is important that there be harmonized rules at Community level. In May 1996 the Commission launched the SLIM initiative (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market). Its aim was to identify ways in which internal market legislation could be simplified. Four areas were chosen for a pilot project, of which the ornamental plants sector was one, given the difficulties which had been experienced in implementing the legislation. A SLIM team drew up recommendations for simplifying the ornamental plants directive. The current Commission proposal takes account of these recommendations and of the comments of the Member States and sectoral associations. The Commission pro- posal is based on Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. It contains the full text of Directive 91/682/EEC, with the changes underlined. 2. General comments 2. 1. The Commission has been successful in its effort to simplify the rules. The proposal places responsibility for meeting the quality requirements principally with the main players, i. e. those involved in producing, propagating and importing the basic material. The Committee welcomes this approach, as it feels that it offers a sufficient quality guarantee to purchasers of basic material, without however generating unnecessary bureaucracy. The import of basic material 2. 2. is also given balanced treatment in the proposal, allaying any fears of distortions of competition or the development of a C 157/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 5. 98 parallel system which might undermine the quality guarantee system in the EU. 3. 2. 3. A r t i c l e 3 ( 2 ) (Definition of supplier) 2. 3. The Committee is however critical of the large number of cases in which, under the Commission proposal, the Article 22 procedure would apply; this provides for further detailed legislation. This point is picked up in the specific comments. The definition of ‘supplier’ should include a requirement for registration with the responsible body and com- pliance with the rules contained in the directive. This is to prevent recognition under the plant health directive (77/93/EEC) being used to circumvent the rules con- tained in the directive under discussion. The Committee feels that the terms used in the 2. 4. proposal need to be more precisely defined. For example, attention is drawn to the lack of a definition of ‘ornamental plant’, and to the definitions of ‘propagating material’ and ‘supplier’. Precision is needed to prevent the proposal being undermined by differing interpre- tations. This is developed in point 3. 3. Specific comments 3. 1. Title I — Field of application 3. 1. 1. A r t i c l e 1 The Committee feels that the relationship between the proposal and Regulation 338/97 is unclear. The underlined addition is superfluous in relation to plants covered by the regulation and which are not permitted to be traded. The directive does however apply to plants covered by Regulation 338/97 and which may be traded. 3. 2. Title II — Definitions 3. 2. 1. A r t i c l e 3 The Committee notes that ‘ornamental plants’ are not defined in the proposal for a directive and urges that a clear definition be added. 3. 2. 2. A r t i c l e 3 ( 1 ) material) (Definition of propagating The Committee proposes that the definition be amended as follows: ‘Propagating material: seeds, parts of plants and all plant material intended for, or which could be intended for, the propagation and cultivation of ornamental plants’. This change brings all propagating material into the scope of the directive, to prevent any doubt arising in the event of a subsequent change of intention. 3. 2. 4. A r t i c l e 3 ( 4 ) (Responsible official body) The Committee proposes that the term ‘responsible official body’ be replaced by ‘responsible body’. It should be possible for government to delegate this task to a non-government body, although ultimate responsibility would remain with government. The requirement that it be an official body is superfluous. 3. 2. 5. A r t i c l e 3 ( 9 ) (Laboratory) The Committee feels that there is no need to lay down more detailed rules for the accreditation of laboratories under the Article 22 procedure [Article 8(3), Article 3(4) and (9) and Article 15(2)]. 3. 3. Title III — Requirements to be met by propagating material 3. 3. 1. A r t i c l e 6 ( 1 ) The Committee considers that the words ‘at least on visual inspection’ (in relation to harmful organisms and diseases) should be deleted. Certain diseases, such as virus infections, which do not entail quarantine, can be identified only by means of laboratory tests. In the case of virus infections of this kind the purpose is to establish the extent of the infection of the basic material. Margins of tolerance are used here. The Committee also feels that viability of the propagating material should be explicitly included among the minimum quality require- ments. 3. 3. 2. A r t i c l e 6 ( 4 ) The Committee feels that the proposed quality require- ments for flower bulbs will prove adequate only for some plants. The Committee therefore recommends that the Commission, in consultation with experts in the field, amplify the provision to make it suitable for all bulb, tuber and rootstock material. 25. 5. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 157/35 3. 4. Title IV — Requirements to be met by suppliers 3. 4. 3. A r t i c l e 9 ( 4 ) of propagating material 3. 4. 1. A r t i c l e 8 The Committee considers that in Article 8 and sub- sequent articles the term accreditation should be replaced by registration. Reference to Directive 77/93/EEC merely causes confusion and should be deleted. Recognition under the directive does not necessarily imply that the requirements of the directive have been fulfilled. All references to accreditation or registration in the text could of course be dropped if a requirement for registration were to be incorporated into the definition of ‘supplier’. The Committee considers an Article 22 procedure to be unnecessary here. 3. 5. Title V — Marketing and labelling of propagating material 3. 5. 1. A r t i c l e 1 1 ( 3 ) The Committee considers that there is no need for application of Article 22 in relation to the packaging of propagating material mentioned. 3. 6. Title VIII — Control measures and general pro- visions 3. 4. 2. A r t i c l e 9 ( 1 ) , t h i r d i n d e n t 3. 6. 1. A r t i c l e 2 1 The reference to an ‘accredited laboratory’ gives rise to confusion as this is not defined; further details of the analysis methods to be used are also needed. The Committee considers that the exemptions referred to in this article should have no bearing on the necessary inspection infrastructure. Brussels, 25 March 1998. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Tom JENKINS