23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/23 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) on the marketing of fruit plant 
propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production (!) 
(90/C 182/08) 
On 26 February 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European 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 Strauss. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The many changing national rules controlling the 
quality and health standards of young plants and plant 
propagating material could in effect constitute barriers to 
trade between Member States. 
1.2. With the objective of harmonizing regulations as 
required for the completion of the internal market the 
Commission has found it necessary to extend the existing 
Directive (70/458) relating to the marketing of seeds to 
cover young plants and propagating material and has 
published three proposals for regulations covering veget­
able, ornamental and fruit material. 
1.3. Because of time constraints the Commission has 
had little time for prior consultation with Member State 
authorities. The Commission may thus not be fully aware 
of the range of differences in national legislation, and has 
therefore only drawn up a framework in which Member 
States may operate, many of the details having still to be 
determined. 
2. General observations 
2.1. This proposal forms part of a wider strategy on 
plant health and must be considered in the context of other 
proposals notably COM(88) 170 final, COM(89) 646 final 
and COM(89) 647 final amending the plant health 
Directive 77/93/EEC. These harmonization measures 
provide the framework within which COM(89) 651 final 
must be operative. These other measures must be adopted 
before the marketing regulation is introduced. This would 
ensure that there is no breakdown in control of plant health 
standards and that adequate safeguard facilities are 
provided for whereby unilateral action may be taken. 
(!) OJ No C 54, 6. 3. 1990, p. 5. 2.2. The Committee agrees that it is necessary to 
introduce Community legislation in order to harmonize 
quality and plant health standards as required for the 
completion of the internal market. 
2.3. However, the Committee is concerned that the 
legislation may limit the flexibility and initiative which 
exists in the sector and is desired by consumers who have 
differing requirements with regard to quality standards and 
who are currently satisfied in an already self-regulating 
balance between supply and demand. Further, it is essential 
that sufficient Community resources are applied in order to 
ensure that adequate inspection is carried out to enforce the 
regulation fairly throughout the Community. 
2.4. In respect of certain points the proposal will need 
considerable clarification before its adoption. In the 
proposal much of the detailed administration of the 
proposed measures is left to the Joint Standing Committee 
and will not be referred to Council. It is difficult to give a 
precise and constructive opinion on a proposal which 
leaves so much of the final form of the Regulation to 
officials who will not have to refer the matter back to 
Council of Ministers and other Community institutions. 
3. Specific observations 
3.1. Material to which regulation applies 
3.1.1. The list in Article 1(2) is not exhaustive, for 
example Raspberries, Lemons and Quince could be added. 
3.1.2. The regulation should also apply to propagating 
material intended for export. The derogation provided in 
Article 2 could lead to the situation whereby material is 
circulated in the Community which is of lower quality and 
No C 182/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
health standards and which could transfer disease to other 
plants or themselves enter the internal market. 
3.2. Supplier requirements 
3.2.1. The requirements imposed under Article 5 and 
Annex I and will impose extra cost on small and medium-
scale enterprises, in particular many of whom do not 
already have the necessary record-keeping facilities. The 
Committee would like the Commission to examine 
whether recognized Producer and Trade Organizations 
should play a role in reducing growers' administrative 
costs. 
3.2.2. The derogation referred to in Annex I (4) (4th 
indent) must be clarified. The Committee does not believe 
that a derogation should be based on area as this would be 
impracticable. It is, however, agreed that a derogation 
should apply to very small sales, provided that this does not 
invalidate the aim of the legislation. 
3.2.3. The requirement in Annex 1(5) for keeping a 
detailed plan of the premises showing the location of each 
species and variety should be dropped as it would be 
impossible to adhere to, considering that propagating 
material and plants are regularly moved around during 
their production. 
3.3. Inspectorate resources 
3.3.1. The inspection required to enforce the regulation 
will impose an extra burden on already limited inspectorate 
resources. To ensure that suppliers are meeting the 
requirement laid out in Annex I, extra EC resources will be 
required, especially if the Regulation is to be applied 
uniformly throughout the Community. 
3.3.2. Similarly inspectorate resources will have to be 
greatly enhanced in order to meet the conditions referred to 
in Article 6. 
3.4. Marketing arrangements 
3.4.1. The term 'lot' is not defined, and there should be a 
precise definition of 'sufficiently homogeneous' (Ar­
ticle 12). For example, some indication should be given of 
percentage tolerance acceptable. 
3.4.2. The requirement for homogeneity [Article 12(1)] 
will reduce the flexibility which exists in the sector. 
Customers have very different requirements for size and 
vigour for plants grown as one lot. The present demand-led nature of the sector meets best the requirements of 
individual growers. 
3.4.3. The requirements for individually marking each 
fruit plant [Article 12(1)] is excessive and should only be 
imposed where practicable. 
3.4.4. Official sealing or sealing under official super­
vision and labelling [Article 12(2 and 3)] will require 
considerable extra resources. If the intention is to widen the 
definition of 'official', to include producers or officially 
recognized producer and trade organizations, then there 
must be provision to ensure that the privilege is not abused. 
Adequate Community funding must be made available in 
order to train new inspectors and to operate the scheme. 
3.5. Temporary difficulties 
3.5.1. Article 13 provides for less stringent measures to 
be adopted should 'temporary difficulties' in supply arise. 
This provision should not be invoked by a Member State 
wishing to abrogate its responsibilities under the proposed 
Regulation. 
3.5.2. The marketing restrictions imposed under Ar­
ticle 18 may in themselves constitute a temporary difficulty 
in supply and therefore invoke Article 13. Clarification of 
this terminology is required. The statement 'without 
derogations' should be added to Article 18(2). 
3.6. More stringent requirements 
3.6.1. Under Article 15 a Member State could insist on 
higher quality and health standards and provide the 
necessary inspectorate. The Committee is not opposed to 
the unilateral raising of standards, but can only agree to 
this if the Commission ensures that this is not associated 
with state aids. 
3.7. Comparative trials 
3.7.1. Fruit plants produced in third countries should be 
subject to the same EC trials, as plants produced internally. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE