No C 182/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 77/93/EEC on Protective 
Measures Against the Introduction into the Member States of Organisms Harmful to Plants or 
Plant Products (*) 
(90/C 182/05) 
On 2 February 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 May 1990. The rapporteur was Mr Rolao 
Goncalves. 
At its 277th Plenary Session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion unanimously: 
1. Introduction intra-Community trade and to Member States' domes­
tic trade. 
1.1. The need to boost productivity and improve the 
quality of farm produce is leading farmers to purchase non-
native instead of native plant varieties and species. 
1.2. The plantules and seeds thus exported from one 
part of the world to another may (either directly or as a 
carrier) introduce harmful organisms not found in the 
region of destination. Such organisms may cause epi-
phytotic diseases with damaging economic and social 
consequences, and these may be aggravated by the change 
in ecological or crop-growing conditions. 2. Principles of the proposal 
2.1. The Commission proposal is designed to complete 
the legal framework by reconciling (a) the goal of free 
movement of plants and plant products with a minimum of 
restrictions and prohibitions, with (b) the need to prevent 
the introduction and spread of harmful organisms in 
uncontaminated areas. 
1.3. Community strategy in this area has hitherto 
focused on prevention. This takes the form of border 
checks and quarantine measures at Member States' 
frontiers, and involves harmonization of inspection 
methods and mutual recognition of plant health certifi­
cates. Directive 77/93/EEC and its subsequent (almost 20) 
amendments form the legal framework. 2.2. The Commission proposes: 
— the establishment of plant health standards for trade 
within the Community, including Member States' 
domestic trade. It also lays down rules to prevent the 
import from third countries of harmful organisms not 
found in the Community, 
1.4. The establishment of a genuine single market by the 
start of 1993 rests on the abolition of physical frontiers and 
the removal of barriers to the free movement of goods. As 
this will mean the end of frontier controls, a new strategy is 
called for, designed to: the transfer of checks from internal Community 
frontiers to places of production and, for third country 
production, to external Community frontiers. This 
entails not only mandatory EC checks on plants and 
plant products, but also the compilation of a register of 
all producers, 
— retain the present arrangements, with some adjust­
ments, for imports from third countries, either by 
retaining checks at the Community's external borders 
or by systems of mutual recognition on the basis of 
bilateral agreements, 
replace current national risk-assessment systems with 
Community-wide health standards applicable both to 
(!) OJ No C 29, 8. 2. 1990. p. 10. the issue of a 'plant passport' which must accompany all 
material moving within the Community, 
the identification of 'protected zones' ('ecological 
regions' and 'isolated zones'), 
the establishment of a system of official checks at the 
marketing stage; the system is to be reliable and 
uniform, but will exclude specific checks at borders 
between Member States. 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/17 
2.3. All these measures are based on the principle that 
action should be centralized at Community level. Member 
States will thus no longer be able to impose specific or more 
restrictive provisions, and a simplified procedure for plant 
health requirements will be introduced instead. 
3. General comments 
3.1. The Committee recognizes that the proposal will 
help ensure that the new system does not lead to a 
deterioration in plant health within the Community 
through the introduction or propagation of new harmful 
agents. The Committee therefore approves the Commis­
sion proposal, subject to the comments and recommend­
ations which follow. 
3.2. The Committee considers that the legal basis of the 
proposal (Article 43 of the Treaty) is unsound, and that it 
should instead be Article 100a. It is clear from both the 
explanatory memorandum and the preamble that the 
proposal is a necessary legislative move towards the 
completion of the internal market in 1992. If it were not for 
the internal market, the proposal would not be necessary, 
as it is not needed for the implementation of the common 
agricultural policy. 
3.3. The Committee also considers that in cases such as 
the present, where simultaneous adoption of uniform 
criteria is vital in order to prevent defective interpretations 
in the national law of Member States, a regulation would 
be a more appropriate instrument than a directive. To 
minimize problems, the Committee suggests that the 
Commission shortly draw up a Code of Inspection 
Conduct, on which the ESC should be consulted. 
3.4. The Committee warmly welcomes the announce­
ment that consolidated versions of Directive 77/93/EEC 
will be published with all its amendments and any future 
updatings, once the present package of measures tailored to 
the internal market has been adopted. The successive 
amendments, some of which overlap, make the legislation 
extremely complex at the moment. 
3.5. The Committee also feels it important that the 
Commission should consider granting financial and 
technical assistance (as it does in parallel areas of animal 
health in the fight against certain epizootic diseases) to 
campaigns to stamp out certain epiphytotic diseases which 
are on the increase in the Community and frequently cause 
serious damage. 3.6. Given the extensive human and financial resources 
involved, the Committee is gravely concerned about the 
feasibility of implementing all the actions and measures 
outlined in this proposal (only now at the assessment stage) 
throughout the Community between now and the end of 
1992. As action will not end in 1992, and the need for the 
system will in fact be even greater after this date, the 
Committee is obliged to note that there will be inevitable 
consequences if the system is not properly prepared. 
3.7. The Committee disagrees with the Commission's 
move to limit its action in training coordination to the 
training of 'qualified agents', and subjecting this to 
budgetary limitations, as outlined in the last paragraph of 
Article 1(4) of the proposal [new point (i) of Article 2(1) of 
Directive 77/93/EEC]. The credibility and efficiency of the 
whole system depends on the alignment of inspection 
procedures; if this were jeopardized, it could cause 
irreparable damage for the Community. Moreover, this 
rather timid approach conflicts with the innovative nature 
of the proposed system. 
3.8. The Committee suggests that the Commission (a) 
set up a specialized group to train training staff, in order to 
mitigate the inevitable shortage of inspectors when the new 
system is introduced, and (b) ensure that the proper 
manuals are available in all Community languages, so that 
the system can operate in a uniform and credible manner in 
accordance with the principles contained in Article 19a. 
3.9. Parallel to this, the Committee calls on the 
Commission to provide financial support for national 
action by Member States, in particular the less advantaged 
States where the primary sector receives more budgetary 
support, so as to speed up programmes to train more and 
better qualified inspection staff. 
3.10. Current procedures for turning back imports of 
infested material are established worldwide. The only 
options are burning or, where possible, disinfection or 
disinfestation. The system now proposed by the Commis­
sion is new and therefore no longer fully aligned on world­
wide practices. Without wanting to detract from the value 
of the innovative aspects of the proposed system, the 
Committee draws attention to the possibility that the new 
procedures could have a negative impact on current major 
Community exports to non-Member States, which might 
trigger off counter measures and retaliatory action by these 
third countries. Present and future negotiations will have to 
pay special attention to this question of 'equivalence' (as it 
is termed in the current GATT/Uruguay round talks). 
3.11. Checks have hitherto been mainly visual, whereas 
the proposal highlights other methods of inspection such as 
laboratory and analytical tests; these are inevitably more 
burdensome. The Committee is concerned about the effects 
No C 182/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
this extra workload will have; it could affect the 
competitiveness of smaller firms in this sector, which will 
already be overstretched by the extra paperwork created by 
the registration procedures required under the new system. 
4. Specific comments 
4.1. Article 1(2) (new 5) 
4.1.1. This comment refers to the Portuguese trans­
lation of the proposal and does not affect the English 
version. 
4.2. Article 1 (3) [new Article 2(1) f)[ 
4.2.1. In the third line of the final paragraph, replace 
'are not' by 'may not be'. 
4.3. Article 1 (4) [new g)[ 
4.3.1. The definition of 'ecological region' is unclear 
and could give rise to disagreement; it should be revised. 
The Committee feels that it should be the task of the 
Standing Committee on Plant Health to provide a better 
definition, in particular the criteria for determining 
'similarity' of ecological conditions. 
4.4. Article 1(4) [new (h)[ 
AAA. In the third line of the first indent, add 'or are not 
endemic' after 'are not known to occur'. 
4.5. Article 1(4) [new (i)} 
4.5.1. The second line of the second indent should be 
redrafted to read '... other public or private law bodies 
acting under the responsibility of a Member State'. This is 
in line with the Commission's own formulation in 
Article 3(g) of its proposals 649, 650 and 651 final for 
specific regulations. 
4.6. Article 1(8) 
4.6.1. This point should read as follows: 'In Article 5, 
the second sentence of paragraph 1 is deleted'. Article 1(9) 
replaces the whole of Article 5(2), so point (a) of 
paragraph 2 will be deleted anyway. 
4.7. Article 1(14) [new (4)] 
— The reference in indent (a) to 'all relevant plants or plant 
products' is inconsistent with the current paragraph 1, 
which remains unchanged; under this paragraph, plants 
and plant products shall be examined 'either in their 
entirety or by a representative sample'; the Committee 
feels that this is what will be feasible in practice. The 
word 'all' should therefore be deleted. In indent (d), delete 'at least' and add 'when this is 
considered technically adequate' after 'by visual 
observation'. In practice, visual observation has serious 
limitations, particularly during plant dormant seasons. 
The term 'at least' could give the erroneous impression 
that visual observation would be sufficient if no other 
means of testing are available. 
4.8. Article 1 (14) [new (5)] 
4.8.1. This exemption should be strictly limited, 
particularly as the proposal is framed as a directive; thus 
allowing each Member State its own interpretation of 'local 
administrative area'. The amount of plant propagating 
material sold at markets in certain agricultural regions 
should not be forgotten. Either this new paragraph 5 
should be deleted or conditions for exemption should be 
established in accordance with the procedure laid down in 
Article 17. 
4.9. Article 1(16) (new Article 10a) 
4.9.1. Paragraph 2 of this new Article could be highly 
dangerous and undoubtedly controversial. Inspectors 
should be given instructions as to what circumstances 
would allow them to proceed in this manner, so that the 
same criteria are used throughout the Community. As a 
psychological check this paragraph should begin: 'in the 
special cases where it is established ...'. This would stress 
the fact that such cases should be rare. 
4.10. Article 1(16) (new Article 10a, insertion of a new 
paragraph 3a) 
4.10.1. The following new paragraph should be inserted 
between paragraphs 3 and 4: 
'3a) The plant passport may cover one or more plants, 
of one or more species, contained in the same 
consignment. At any stage and in any part of the 
Community, the passport may be split into several 
separate passports, in line with the substitution 
arrangements contained in paragraph 3.' 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE