Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants'
Date: 1998-03-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: application of EU law, horticulture, marketing, plant health control, plant propagation

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