Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture’ (COM(2003) 817 final -2003/0321 (CNS))
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: biodiversity, biotechnology, conservation of resources, exploitation of resources, management of resources, plant resources

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘proposal for a Council Regu-
lation establishing a Community programme on the conservation, characterisation, collection and
utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture’

(COM(2003) 817 final -2003/0321 (CNS))

(2004/C 112/14)

On 13 January 2004 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 37 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 March 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Voss.

At its 407th plenary session of 31 March and 1 April 2004 (meeting of 31 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 92 votes to three, with three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

In 1994 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1467/94 on the
1.1
conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of
genetic resources in agriculture launched a five-year action
programme that expired on 31 December 1999. This action
programme was the Commission's response to various Euro-
pean Parliament resolutions dating back to the 1980s which
had pointed to the problem of genetic erosion and proposed
Community initiatives to counter this trend.

1.4
In March 2001 the Commission submitted a proposal
for a new Community programme which was, however, subse-
quently withdrawn, as both the European Parliament and the
Council were against the financing of national measures under
the EAGGF Guarantee Section. The Commission was to play a
more active role in coordinating and implementing the new
programme.

1.5
The current proposal for a regulation provides for a
three-year Community action programme. Preference will be
given to projects involving the use of genetic resources for the
following purposes:

1.2
Under this action programme 21 projects were financed,
most of which focused on the characterisation of available ex
situ genetic resources; gene banks, research institutes and users
were the main participants in the projects. Sometimes NGOs
were also involved under the aegis of scientific institutions.

— diversification of production in agriculture,

— improved product quality,

The action programme was evaluated, as planned in the
1.3
regulation, by a group of independent experts. Their report
gave the programme a generally positive assessment, called for
the actions to be maintained and strengthened, and contained
inter alia the following proposals:

— sustainable management and use of natural and agricultural

resources,

— improved quality of the environment and the countryside,

— identification of products for new uses and markets.

— a better balance between ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ projects;

— including the concept of in situ/on farm conservation;

1.6
The implementation of the Community programme will
focus mainly on targeted actions, but will also involve
concerted and accompanying actions.

— meeting the needs of

the ecoregions (bio-geographical

regions);

— more active participation by NGOs;

— increased coordination between the Member States and the
Commission with regard to negotiations and actions at
FAO level;

2. General comments

In its Opinion (1) of 24 April 2002 on Commission
2.1
proposal COM(2001) 617 final, which was subsequently with-
drawn, the Committee welcomed the proposal, stressing that
‘the loss of genetic resources in agriculture has been far from
halted, so that further efforts are needed (a) to characterise,
compile an inventory of and conserve the gene potential and
(b) to maintain the utilisation of genetic diversity by farms’.

— gearing the projects to broader Member State participation

in certain project categories.

(1) OJ C 149, 21.6.2002, pp. 11-13

C 112/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

that

The EESC notes

2.2
the conservation of genetic
resources will become even more important with the accession
of ten new Member States. The expected change in farming
practices in these countries could damage the exceptional diver-
sity of genetic resources used in agriculture in these regions.

2.3 Our knowledge of the genetic potential of species which
are in some cases at high risk or in danger of extinction is still
fragmentary. The potential use of multiple and in some cases
still unknown qualities is the basis for diversity in agriculture
and farming practices tailored to the area.

2.4
There are shortcomings in the recording of gene poten-
tial in the databases and in the networking of these databases.
The EESC points out that clear rules are needed on the use and
economic exploitation of the data collected in the framework
of this programme.

2.5
The Committee welcomes the proposal for a regulation's
focus on the in-situ conservation and on-farm management of
these genetic resources. In this way the regulation is in step
with the FAO's 1996 Global Plan of Action (GPA) (1). Here too
strong stress on measures of this kind is called for.

The Committee also welcomes the close attention which

2.6
the programme pays to the work of NGOs.

In its Opinion of 25 April 2002 the Committee stated
2.7
that ‘ in parallel with this scientific approach there is the no
less important need to ensure that the diversity of genetic
resources continues to be used in farming by promoting envir-
onmentally sound practices such as diversity in crop rotation
under the second pillar of the CAP’. Comparable measures
should be carried out to maintain the use of rare farm animal
breeds. Protecting through consumption can be an important
part of a new, consciously diverse European food culture.

2.8
The EESC therefore emphasises that the opportunities
offered by the second pillar of the CAP for the conservation
and use of genetic resources should be more clearly pinpointed
and exploited.

3. Specific comments

3.1
The proposed three-year Community programme 2004-
2006 will be financed with a total of IJ10 m. from Heading 3
of the budget (internal policies). The Committee is glad that the
Commission will be assuming the necessary active role in
implementing the programme. The Committee regards the
financial framework as limited compared with the proposal of
22 November 2001 (IJ10 m. annually for five years) and
expects funding to be stepped up in 2005.

numerous NGO networks which play an important part in the
maintenance and improved use of genetic diversity in the
framework of sustainable farming practices.

3.3 With this regulation the European Community would be
complying with some of its commitments under the relevant
UN conventions (the FAO's GPA and the Convention on Biolo-
gical Diversity (Rio 1992)). The Committee feels that before the
programme expires the Commission should submit a proposal
for a successor programme. The Commission should continue
to provide the necessary human resources for the implementa-
tion of the programme.

that

The Committee points out

3.4
this Community
programme takes on particular importance in the light of the
Community's negotiations in the WTO on the protection of
regional labels of origin and state aid which does not distort
competition. It makes a contribution to achieving a multifunc-
tional European agriculture.

3.5
The EESC recognises the particular importance of the
implementing regulation for the amended Directives 2002/53-
57 and 66/401 on the marketing of seed, which the Commis-
sion has announced but not yet submitted. These directives
have an impact on access to conservation species and non-
commercial species. On the initiative of the Parliament special
arrangements for the labelling and marketing of seed were
introduced which did not fulfil the relevant certified species
criteria. They cannot at present be marketed; there is therefore
a danger that they will not be (re)produced and thus conserved.
The implementing regulation for these directives has been in
preparation since November 2002.

3.6
The EESC considers that the trade category regulations
should be checked to ensure that they do not impede the
market access of rare plant and animal products.

It should be ensured that

3.7
the NGOs are sufficiently
involved in the Committee on the conservation, characterisa-
tion, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agri-
culture provided for in Article 15 of the proposal for a regu-
lation.

Farmers should also be specifically mentioned in Article

3.8
9(2) of the draft regulation.

3.9
The EESC calls on the Commission to draw up two
reports on the effects of the CAP answering the following ques-
tions:

3.2
The EESC considers that in the longer term the Commis-
sion should support and coordinate the necessary activities in
the current and future Member States. This would involve not
only state-funded programmes and projects but also the

(1) Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utiliza-
tion of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA)

a. How can regional development support be arranged so as to
ensure that the cultivation of rare plant species and the
husbandry of rare animal species is better integrated as part
of a multifunctional agriculture and a comprehensive
programme for the conservation and utilisation of genetic
resources?

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/49

b. What impact do CAP measures have in terms of genetic
diversity, and what impact can be expected from decoupling
and cross-compliance?

Even though a work programme has not been
the Committee welcomes the

3.10
submitted for the regulation,
detailed objectives set out in the draft.

4. Summary

4.1
In its proposal for a regulation the Commission already
to a large extent takes account of the proposals of the Member
States, the Parliament and the EESC on the withdrawn proposal
of 22 November 2001. The EESC welcomes the new proposal
for a regulation and expects the programme to be rapidly
adopted, implemented, evaluated and continued.

Brussels, 31 March 2004

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC in the Member States’

(COM(2003) 458 final)

(2004/C 112/15)

On 25 July 2004 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 March 2004. The rapporteur was Ms Le Nouail
Marlière.

At its 407th plenary session of 31 March and 1 April 2004 (meeting of 31 March), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one with five abstentions.

1.

Introduction

Background

1.1 The directive

1.1.1
adopted in 1996 by the Council and the European Parliament.

The directive on the posting of workers (1) was

The directive seeks

to strike a balance between
1.1.2
extending the opportunities for businesses to provide services
in other Member States and social protection of workers. For
this reason, it defines a series of employment conditions which
posted workers are to be guaranteed in the territory of the host
regardless of which legal system governs posted
country,
workers' employment contracts. The directive defines a posted
worker as a worker who, for a limited period, carries out his
work in the territory of a Member State other than the State in
which he normally works (Article 2(1)).

(1) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provi-
sion of services, OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997.

Regulation 1408/71, which deals with the coordina-
1.1.3
tion of social security in the EU in connection with the free
movement of workers and services, introduced postings as one
of the circumstances in which social insurance coverage could
continue in the State of residence when working in another
Member State for a maximum period of 12 months (2), or 18
months under certain conditions.

1.1.4 Directive 96/71/EC is concerned with the practical
coordination of employment conditions for posted workers.
Article 3 is the core of the text, stipulating the conditions
applicable to posted workers. These are laid down:

— by employment conditions established in law, regulation or

administrative provision;

— by fulfilling the criteria set out in the directive;

(2) Regulation 1408/71.