COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law)
Date: 2013-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, forest certification, market approval, marketing standard, plant propagation, production standard

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.5.2013  
SWD(2013) 163 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material 
(plant reproductive material law) 

{COM(2013) 262 final} 
{SWD(2013) 162 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

On the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material  
(plant reproductive material law) 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Background 

The  EU  commercial  seed  market  now  has  a  value  of  approx.  EUR  6.8  billion, 
representing more than 20% of the total worldwide market for commercial seed. In 
2002/2003, the EU became a net exporter of planting seeds. Currently, the EU PRM 
sector is highly competitive at global level: it is the largest exporter with an export 
value  of  EUR  4.4  billion  which  is  more  than  60%  of  the  worldwide  export.  The 
sector is highly concentrated (the largest 10 companies represent nearly 67% of the 
global seed market), but SME and micro-enterprises play a crucial role in the internal 
market, notably in niche markets such as organic crops.  

Plant  reproductive  material  (PRM)  is  a  fundamental  input  for  the  productivity,  the 
diversity,  and  the  quality  of  plants  and  food.  This  has  been  reflected  in  national 
legislation  since  the  late  19th  century  and  in  European  legislation.  The  current  EU 
legislation  for  PRM  has  been  developed  since  the  1960s  This  framework  consists 
today of 12 basic Council Directives covering variety listing as an authorisation for 
marketing  and  specific  marketing  requirements  for  different  species  (fodder  plant 
seed,  cereal  seed,  beet  seed,  seed  of  oil  and  fibre  plants  and  vegetable  seed,  vine 
propagating material, seed potatoes, vegetable reproductive material other than seed, 
fruit plant propagating material, ornamental plants, forest reproductive material). 

GMOs  are  dealt  with  in  a  separate  legislation  (Directive  2001/18/EC,  Regulation 
(EC) No 1829/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003) and are not covered by this 
initiative. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Problem Identification 

While  the  existing  PRM  EU  legislation  has  been  valuable  in  achieving  the  initial 
objectives  of  guaranteeing  free  marketing  of  material  and  providing  healthy  and 
quality PRM and thus contributing to productivity in the agriculture, horticulture or 
forestry sectors, an increasing number of problems have been emerging: 

• 

• 

• 

The  complexity  and  fragmentation  of  the  legislation,  lack  of  coherence  with 
other policies, no EU rules for cost recovery, the non-harmonised transposition 
and implementation of the current Directives and the consequent differences in 
e.g. technical requirements are obstacles to the establishment of a level playing 
field  for  all  operators.  There  is  also  a  need  to  achieve  major  gains  in  legal 
simplification  and  policy  coherence.  The  review  of  the  PRM  legislation  is 
therefore  part  of  a  package  of  four  reviews  relating  to  the  health  of  plants, 
health of animals, marketing of plant reproductive material and official control 
of food and feed. 

The  rigidity  of  the  current  legislation  in  allocating  tasks  puts  a  high 
administrative burden on public authorities and limits the flexibility of business 
operators (e.g. impossibility to conduct certain tasks). 

The absence of horizontal coordination with other EU policies and strategies is 
an  obstacle  to  a  more  efficient  implementation  of  existing  EU  legislation, 
policies  and  strategies  (sustainable  agriculture  and  forestry,  biodiversity 
protection, climate change, bio-economy). 

These problems are described in more detail in the report in section 2.3. 

Considering the Europe 2020 Strategy "Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" and 
the  need  to  foster  the  competitiveness  of  European  business,  notably  SMEs, 
furthermore taking into account the Commission's principles of Smart regulation and 
the evolution of the economic and scientific-technical contexts of the PRM sector, it 
is not sufficient to make amendments to the legislation and better implement them.  

Evaluation,  analysis  and  broad  consultations  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders 
thus proved the need to update the system. This can be done by combining measures 
along three axes (as follows) and which resulted in policy options to be considered:  

(1)  Simplification: the legal architecture requires substantive simplification in form 
of a Regulation so that a harmonised implementation in all Member States and 
a level playing field for all operators is assured. 

(2)  Flexibility  and  responsibility  sharing:  operators  require  more  flexibility  to 
carry  out  work  in  the  context  of  variety  registration  and  certification  and  the 
work  of  competent  authorities  needs  to  focus  more  on  the  supervision  of  the 
production  of  PRM  in  the  EU  (moving  from  product  inspection  to  process 
audits). For this, public services need to be secured financially. The listing of 
PRM varieties under a unique name in national and the EU registers generally 
is  a  requirement  for  marketing  and  based  on  the  identity  (Distinctness, 
Uniformity and Stability - DUS) and characteristics (Value for Cultivation and 
Use - VCU) of the variety. In addition, individual lots of PRM are subject to a 

EN 

3 

   EN 

quality  control  system.  These  activities  could  be  carried  out  by  competent 
authorities, by operators under official supervision or (for certain categories of 
PRM)  under  the  operator’s  responsibilities.  This  responsibility  sharing  and 
increased flexibility should lead to overall costs savings by a more efficient and 
timely  organisation  of  the  work  and  will  accelerate  the  access  of  new 
innovative varieties to the Internal market. 

(3)  Coherence  and  horizontal  linkages:  sustainability,  biodiversity  protection  and 
climate  change  have  to  be  addressed  in  addition  to  productivity  and  PRM 
quality. 

How would the problem evolve if no action was taken? 

The current legislation only allows variety examinations by official authorities. To a 
certain  extent,  certification  tasks  can  be  carried  out  by  operators  under  official 
supervision.  However,  limitations  do  not  allow  certification  under  supervision  for 
certain species (e.g. potatoes) and categories of PRM. This has an impact on business 
with limited room to operate, especially when the international context is evolving. If 
no  action  was  taken,  the  shortcomings  of  the  system  will  grow  and  become  an 
larger  burden  for  both  official  authorities  and  business  with 
increasingly 
consequences  for  competitiveness,  adaptation  to  market  demands  as  well  as  export 
capacities vis-à-vis to non EU competitors.  

The provisions could become more problematic given the consequences of growing 
pressures  on  national  budgets.  Furthermore,  discrepancies  with  regard  to  PRM 
technical requirements are not supportive to the establishment of a level playing field 
on  the  internal  market  for  business.  The  complexity  and  fragmentation  of  the 
legislation  will  perpetuate  existing  uncertainties  in  its  implementation.  As  regards 
new issues such as biodiversity, climate change, bio-economy, the current legislation 
will continue to address them as marginal topics. 

No synergies with the Plant Health Law concerning the plant health checks that are 
part of the PRM certification process or integration of general principles concerning 
official controls embedded in Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 would be obtained. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The  PRM  legislative  framework  is  based  on  Article  43  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union (Common Agricultural Policy) whose objectives 
are  to:  increase  agricultural  productivity,  ensure  a  fair  standard  of  living  for  the 
agricultural  community,  stabilise  markets,  assure  availability  of  supplies  at 
reasonable prices for consumers. The Lisbon Treaty qualifies Agriculture as shared 
competence.  In  addition,  the  rules  on  the  internal  market  (TFEU  114)  and  the 
preservation of the environment (TFEU 191) complete the legal base for EU action. 

The  introduction  in  the  60s  of  the  EU  legislation  on  the  PRM  marketing  has 
contributed  to  the  creation  of  an  internal  market  for  PRM.  As  confirmed  by  many 
stakeholders,  these  EU  rules  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  free  movement, 
availability  and  quality  of  PRM  and  facilitated  trade  within  the  EU.  Pre-market 
authorisations  of  PRM  are  performed  by  national  authorities  valid  for  all  Member 

EN 

4 

   EN 

states,  which  ensure  open  competition  on  the  Single  market  while  safeguarding 
subsidiary elements for Member States taking into consideration their national needs 
(e.g.  VCU  are  based  on  agro-ecological  evaluation).  If  there  was  no  action  at  EU 
level, 27 systems instead of one would be in place. This would put obstacles to the 
movement  of  PRM  on  the  internal  market  and  increase  the  financial  burden 
associated with the necessary controls on health and quality of PRM. 

International standards have been established for PRM quality (OECD, UNECE) and 
health  (IPPC,  WTO/SPS  agreement)  which  justify  an  EU  action  for  establishing  a 
level  playing  field  and  a  harmonised  implementation.  With  a  view  to  ensuring 
proportionality of measures, notably reducing administrative burden for stakeholders, 
the  system  must  take  into  consideration  the  freedom  and  economic  viability  of 
stakeholders  as  well  as  SME  and  micro-entities.  Measures  on  conservation  or 
amateur varieties help to ensure access of growers, including amateur gardeners, to 
wide  range  of  PRM  and  play  a  role  in  maintaining  resilient  systems  in  agriculture 
production  and  genetic  diversity  at  the  field  level.  Smart  growth  is  fostered  by 
allowing simplified market access for specific varieties. 

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

Overall objectives  

• 

• 

• 

To assure the health and high quality of PRM; 

To  provide  a  single  regulatory  framework  supportive  to  innovation  and 
competitiveness; 

To  support  sustainable  production,  biodiversity,  adaptation  to  climate  change 
and to contribute to food security and poverty alleviation.  

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To ensure a level playing field through simplified, harmonised rules; 

To reduce unnecessary costs and administrative burden and increase flexibility; 

To align PRM legislation with other recent Union strategies;  

To foster market access for innovation in plant breeding. 

3.3. 

Operational objectives  

• 

• 

• 

To provide one PRM Law with flexible and proportionate procedures; 

To  promote  an  harmonised  implementation  of  legislation  by  audits  and 
training; 

To foster innovation by increasing timeliness and information provided in the 
EU register; 

EN 

5 

   EN 

• 

To  enhance  market  transparency  and  traceability  through  the  registration  of 
operators. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The  problem  definition  identified  the  following  main  axes  along  which  the  system 
has  to  change  in  order  to  be  fit  for  the  changing  economic,  environmental,  social, 
scientific circumstances: (i) Simplification of the basic legal acts (from 12 Directives 
to  one  Regulation),  (ii)  Cost  recovery  and  improvement  of  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency  of  the  system,  (iii)  Horizontal  coordination  with  recent,  already  adopted 
EU policies. Various ways – increased flexibility, deregulation or centralisation – are 
explored  for  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  system,  while  maintaining  the 
assurances  for  high  quality  PRM,  competitiveness  and  addressing  new  challenges 
such as biodiversity. Based on these 3 axes, 5 policy options have been identified in a 
first stage, where legal simplification and cost recovery are constant for all options. 
In  the  various  options,  issues  concerning  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  have  been 
addressed  throughout,  especially  in  order  to  ensure  access  for  these  enterprises  to 
public services for the execution of certain tasks they cannot perform themselves and 
to support and further develop their flexibility to gain improved access to the PRM 
market. 

The baseline and the five options are outlined here: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Option  0 –  baseline:  no change in the  current  situation (12 Directives and no 
rule with regard to cost recovery). 

Option 1 – Cost recovery: The option does not include any changes to technical 
provisions  of  the  current  legislation  or  to  the  allocation  of  responsibilities 
between operators and competent authorities. The only change consists in a full 
recovery from the stakeholders of costs incurred by the competent authorities 
in all the Member States, which is already the case in most of them. 

Option  2  –  Co-system:  A  degree  of  flexibility  is  introduced  for  operators. 
Variety registration continues to be obligatory for a list of crops covered by EU 
legislation  (DUS,  VCU),  but  the  technical  examination  can  be  carried  out  by 
the operator under official supervision. The certification requirements for lots 
of  PRM  remain  unchanged,  but  it  can  be  carried  out  by  the  operator  under 
supervision  of  the  competent  authority  in  all  cases.  The  current  specific 
provisions continue to apply for conservation/amateur varieties. 

Option 3 – Deregulation: More flexibility is put into place by deregulation. As 
part  of  the  variety  registration,  DUS-tests  continue  to  be  compulsory,  while 
VCU for agricultural crops is no longer a legal requirement. There is no official 
certification.  Instead,  all  lots  of  PRM  are  marketed  only  on  the  basis  of  a 
suppliers'  label,  with  minimum  criteria.  The  current  specific  provisions 
continue to apply for conservation/amateur varieties. 

Option  4  –  Enhanced  flexibility  system:  A  dual  system  is  established  giving 
operators substantial flexibility by choosing between two systems, namely one 
for  officially  tested varieties (DUS, VCU with sustainability criteria) and  one 

EN 

6 

   EN 

for non-officially tested varieties with a description supplied by the applicant to 
the authority. Certification of PRM is limited to officially tested varieties. The 
marketing of, for example, conservation or certain "niche  market" varieties is 
liberalised  as  there  is  no  obligatory  technical  examination  of  varieties  and  no 
obligatory  certification  of  PRM,  so  that  they  can  be  marketed  as  non-tested 
varieties. 

– 

Option 5 – Centralisation: The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) will 
be given the mandate to coordinate and decide on variety registration, covering 
both technical examination (DUS and VCU) as well as variety denomination. 
The  certification  requirements  for  lots  of  PRM  remain  unchanged,  but 
certification  can  be  carried  out  under  official  supervision.  “Reference 
Certification  Centres”  with  the  task  to  develop  best  practices,  to  carry  out 
comparative tests and trials and studies in support of policy development and to 
disseminate  knowledge  of  PRM  certification,  will  be  established.  The  current 
specific provisions continue to apply for conservation/amateur varieties. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

The  current  cost  of  implementing  the  variety  registration  provisions  amounts  to 
approximately EUR 55-60 Mio per year in the EU. DUS and VCU account for 45% 
and 55% of the cost, respectively. The expenditure on certification of PRM is in the 
range of EUR 73-79 Mio. A majority of Member States does already today fully or 
partly  recover  costs,  while  a  minority  does  not.  At  least  60%  of  these  costs  are 
recovered by competent authorities across all Member States. The combined yearly 
costs of registration and certification correspond to approximately 3% (out of which 
at least 60% are already borne by operators) of the market value of agricultural seed 
crops. The impacts on SMEs and micro-enterprises have been followed throughout. 

Option 1 only addresses cost recovery. This option will establish a level playing field 
for  operators,  decrease  costs  for  Member  states'  competent  authorities  and  secure 
their  functioning  in  the  future.  This  option  will  not  have  an  impact  on 
competitiveness  and  provide  no  support  for  innovation  and  the  achievement  of 
environmental  or  sustainability  aims.  Competent  authorities  continue  to  guarantee 
the availability of public services to perform technical examinations and inspections. 
SMEs and micro-enterprises, which do not have the resources to carry out these tasks 
themselves,  will  be  the  main  beneficiaries  of  this  guarantee.  The  cost  recovery 
principle will not affect SMEs and micro-enterprises to a significant extent because 
this principle is already realised in a majority of Member States and offers benefits to 
these enterprises as it ensures the continuation of access to official services needed 
for marketing. 

Option 2 will also provide a more level playing field for competitors on the Internal 
Market  as  costs  are  fully  recovered  in  all  Member  States. Administrative  burden  is 
decreased as many tasks (certification, testing for registration) can be carried out by 
operators under official supervision. This will significantly increase the flexibility of 
operators to bring new varieties to the market. Some jobs are likely to move from the 
public sector to the private sector. The aim is to provide flexibility for all operators to 
carry  out  some  tasks  directly  if  they  wish  to  do  so,  but  the  continued  existence  of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

public  services  is  also  guaranteed,  so  that  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  can  have 
technical  examinations  and  inspections  carried  out  by  competent  authorities.  This 
option  also  has  no  clear  support  for  the  achievement  of  environmental  or 
sustainability aims.  

Option  3  entails  a  risk  to  the  health  and  quality  of  PRM  because  obligatory 
certification is abolished. Competent authorities and operators will be able to realize 
large  cost  savings,  but  abolishing  certification  means  that  EU  equivalence 
requirements for seed import from third countries will also have to be abolished. It is 
also likely that economic activities such as seed multiplication will be relocated to a 
greater  extent  to  non-EU  countries.  SMEs  will  be  disadvantaged  as  VCU  is 
abolished,  which  serves  as  unbiased  information  for  users  independent  of  market 
power  of  the  seller.  Abolishing  VCU  also  entails  threats  to  environmental  aims  as 
there are no means to steer plant breeding towards these aims. 

Option  4  offers  additional  cost  savings  to  competent  authorities  and  operators,  like 
option  3,  while  at  the  same  time  providing  some  more  assurances  for  the 
characterisation of PRM (VCU for officially tested varieties). However, risks due to 
non-obligatory  certification  and  variety  registration  will  remain.  A  diversity  of 
operators,  especially  SME  and  micro-entities  active  in  niche  markets,  is  bound  to 
benefit from the increased freedom to act. This option also offers good opportunities 
to  support  sustainable  agriculture  and  agro-biodiversity  as  the  registration  of 
conservation/amateur  varieties  is  administratively  simplified  and  should  bolster 
market access in this area. 

Option 5 offers strong assurances for the quality and health of PRM by centralisation 
of  variety  registration  in  the  EU,  while  a  level  playing  field  for  operators  is 
established.  An  efficient  and  transparent  system  is  established  with  harmonised 
technical requirements. The speed of market access of new, improved varieties will 
be  increased  –  this  could  lead  to  job  growth  in  the  long-term.  The  possibility  is 
offered to all operators to make a single application at the CPVO in order to receive 
plant variety registration and/or plant variety protection; this will simplify especially 
the  work  of  SMEs.  However,  the  option  lacks  clear  means  to  steer  plant  breeding 
towards the aims of sustainability and the protection of agro-biodiversity; it is more 
geared towards the needs of conventional plant breeding. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

The summary table below provides an overall comparison of options  in  terms  of achieving the objectives of the review compared to 
current situation. 

Option 1  Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

l
l
a
r
e
v
O

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
O

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

To assure the health and high quality of PRM 
To  provide  a  single  and  harmonised  regulatory  framework  which  is 
supportive for innovation and the competitiveness of the European PRM 
industry 
To support sustainable production, biodiversity protection, adaptation to 
climate change and to contribute to food security and poverty alleviation 
To  ensure  a  level  playing  field  across  the  EU  through  simplified, 
clarified and harmonised basic rules on fundamental principles presented 
in an improved legal form 
To  reduce  unnecessary  costs  and  administrative  burden  and  for  public 
authorities  and  increase  flexibility  for  operators  without  compromising 
the general policy objectives 
To  foster  innovation  in  plant  breeding,  especially  in  SMEs,  in  order  to 
improve  PRM  users’  choice  and  access  to  a  wide  diversity  of  plant 
varieties adapted to conditions in Europe 
To align PRM legislation with other recent Union strategies (agriculture, 
biodiversity, food security, climate change, bio-based economy) 
To provide a simplified legal framework for marketing of PRM – “PRM 
Law”  -  with  the  establishment  of  simplified,  more  flexible  and 
proportionate procedures 
To promote a more harmonised implementation of legislation throughout 
the EU by audits and training 
To  foster  innovation  by  increasing  the  timeliness  and  level  of 
information provided in the EU Register 
To  enhance  market  transparency  and  improve  traceability  through  the 
registration of operators 

0 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

+ 

++ 

+ 

0 

++ 

0 

0 

++ 

−− 

+ 

− 

+ 

+ 

0 

− 

++ 

0 

0 

++ 

−− 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

++ 

0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Preferred 
Option 
0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Legend: 0: no change with the baseline option 

+: minor positive effect  ++: significant positive effect 

−: minor negative effect  −−: significant negative effect 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preferred option 

As  none  of  the  five  options  provided  an  optimal  balance  between  efficiency  of  the 
system,  the  quality  assurance  of  the  PRM,  the  maintenance  of  competitiveness  and 
halt of loss of biodiversity, a preferred option, combining positive elements of the 5 
initial  options  while  maintaining  as  much  choice  and  flexibility  as  possible  for 
operators, was designed and selected. This preferred option takes up elements from 
options  2,  4  and  5.  This  combination  aims  at  striking  a  balance  between  flexibility 
for operators and biodiversity (options 2 and 4) and the necessary rigor in health and 
quality requirements (option 2 and 5) for the fair functioning of the market and for 
maintaining  the  quality  and  health  of  the  products.  It  includes  the  two  horizontal 
principles of simplification of the PRM legal architecture and cost recovery. 

The  General  principles  are:  Cost  recovery  for  services  carried  out  by  competent 
authorities. Exemptions are possible depending on the degree of public interest in the 
respective PRM marketing or in line with the exemptions envisaged by the revision 
of  Regulation  882/2004.  Operators  can  carry  out,  under  official  supervision  by  the 
competent  authority,  a  wide  range  of  activities  in  the  area  of  registration  and 
certification.  All  operators  have  to  be  registered  in  order  to  guarantee  PRM 
traceability.  Specific  and  strict  obligations  concerning  registration  and  certification 
shall  apply  to  a  specific  list  of  species  important  for  the  EU  market.  General 
minimum  requirements  shall  apply  to  all  other  PRM  (non-listed  species)  on  the 
market and cover labelling obligations and provision of 'fitness for use'.  

The role of the CPVO will be extended to centralising all information on varieties of 
PRM  registered  at  national  or  European  level.  CPVO  will  harmonise  technical 
requirements and audit the national examination offices which in turn allow private-
sector  testing  stations  to  carry  out  technical  examinations.  CPVO  shall  take  an 
increased  role  in  the  arrangements  for  making  information  available  on  varieties 
authorised  for  marketing  in  the  internal  market  (online  database)  and  verify 
denominations  for  all  applications.  As  an  alternative  to  national  registration, 
centralised  registration  for  varieties  not  requiring  VCU-evaluation  (e.g.  vegetables) 
by CPVO shall be offered. 

The  registration  of  non  officially  tested  varieties,  with  an  officially  recognised 
description,  at  national  and  European  level  shall  be  an  option  that  is  given  to 
conservation  and  amateur  varieties  for  reasons  of  public  good.  Existing  restrictions 
for the marketing of conservation varieties shall be relaxed. 

While VCU shall be maintained and shall be decided on a species-by species basis, 
its  criteria  shall  principally  reflect  public  goods  and  become  a  “VCU  for 
sustainability  and  health”.  VCU  shall  be  harmonised  as  much  as  possible  across 
agro-ecological regions and continuously improved as much as possible to take care 
of any evolution of public and private needs and legislative requirements.  

Mandatory  certification  of  lots  of  certain  crops  shall  be  maintained.  The  list  of 
species that have to be covered by this obligation shall be determined on a crop-by 
crop  basis  to  allow  for  future  changes  in,  for  example,  health  risks  or  economical 
importance.  The  examination  under  official  supervision  shall  be  widened  to  all 
species and all categories (i.e. basic and pre-basic crops). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
The needs of micro enterprises and SMEs will be specifically taken into account: The 
equal access to the internal market for varieties developed by those companies will 
be guaranteed by maintaining registration rules (upholding of VCU) not based on the 
market  power  of  the  seller.  In  addition,  with  the  possibility  of  having  a  variety 
description  provided  by  the  operator  (officially  recognised  description)  increasing 
opportunities will be created for specific markets (e.g. conservation varieties) which 
are of particular interest for SMEs and micro-enterprises. Official inspection services 
shall always be made available by competent authorities to conduct work that SMEs 
or micro-enterprises can not conduct themselves.  

The preferred option thus achieves the five main objectives in the following way:  

(1) 

simplification through the replacement of 12 Directives with one Regulation;  

(2) 

reducing administrative burden by introducing cost recovery and the transfer of 
tasks to operators;  

(3) 

fostering innovation through allowing more operational flexibility to operators; 

(4) 

(5) 

supporting  sustainability,  biodiversity  and  adaption  to  climate  change  by 
"sustainable VCU" and a reduced burden for conservation varieties;  

securing  transparency  and  traceability  by  the  registration  of  all  operators  and 
minimum requirements for non-listed species. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

To assess the success of the measures introduced, several indicators are suggested: 

(1)  Harmonisation of legislation and implementation in the Member States 

– 

– 

– 

Number of requests for clarifications and complaints received. 

Results of FVO or CPVO audits on implementation of the legislation in 
Member States.  

Number  of  notification  received  from  Member  States  on  national 
measures. 

– 

Functional register of operators. 

(2)  Reduction of administrative burden and costs and introduce flexibility  

– 

Variety registration 

– 

– 

– 

Application: number, time needed, cost recovery.  

PRM  companies  applying,  with  a  focus  on  SMEs:  number,  type, 
evolution. 

Number  of  varieties  registered  with  an  ‘officially  recognised 
description’. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
– 

Number of direct application for variety registration to CPVO. 

– 

PRM quality control 

– 

Percentage  of  certification  under  official  supervision  compared  to 
official certification in Member States. 

– 

Cost of PRM quality control.  

(3)  Setting  up  proportionate  rules  and  alignment  with  other  EU  policy  and 

strategies 

– 

– 

– 

Number,  quantity  of  conservation  and  amateur  varieties  registered  and 
marketed. 

Number of species concerned by this rules. 

Harmonised criteria for variety registration (e.g. sustainable VCU). 

EN 

12 

   EN