COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 162 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

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) 163 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties.........................................................3 

1.1. Overview 

1.2. Preparatory work 

1.3. Consultations 

1.4. Action Plan 

1.5. Impact Assessment Board 

3 

3 

4 

5 

5 

2. Problem definition ..................................................................................................................8 

2.1. Background 

2.2. International dimension 

2.3. What are the issues or problems that may require action? 

2.4. Who is affected, in what way and to what extent? 

2.5. How would the problems evolve, all things being equal? 

2.6. Does the EU have the right to act (subsidiarity)? 

8 

12 

13 

17 

17 

18 

3. Objectives .............................................................................................................................20 

3.1. Overall objectives 

3.2. Specific objectives 

3.3. Operational objectives 

20 

20 

21 

4. Policy options........................................................................................................................21 

5. Analysis of impacts...............................................................................................................30 

6. Comparing the options..........................................................................................................55 

6.1. Comparing the options 

6.2. Stakeholder assessment of the options 

6.3. Preferred option 

55 

59 

61 

7. Monitoring and evaluation....................................................................................................66 

Annex I: Glossary .....................................................................................................................68 

Annex II: History of the development of the PRM legislation.................................................70 

Annex III: Summary of the chronology of meetings ................................................................72 

Annex IV: The International Framework of the PRM Industry ...............................................74 

2 

 
 
 
 
Annex V: List of stakeholders ..................................................................................................78 

Annex VI: Analysis of the public consultation.........................................................................92 

Annex VII: Short description of the main features of the PRM marketing legislation ..........102 

Annex VIII: Main features of the PRM marketing industry...................................................110 

Annex IX: Selected data regarding the current EU common catalogues for vegetable 

and field species........................................................................................................116 

Annex X: Inspection costs for forest reproductive material ...................................................124 

Annex XI: Graphical presentation of the five scenarios.........................................................130 

Annex XII: Variety registration and seed certification systems in major third countries ......136 

Annex XIII: Detailed presentation of the Measures included in the preferred option............141 

Annex XIV: Cost structure of registration and certification...................................................144 

3 

 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Overview 

The revision of the Directives on the marketing of plant reproductive material (PRM) 
is part of the 2012 Commission Legislative and Work Programme and is included in 
the Commission strategy for simplifying the EU legislation.  

Plant reproductive material (PRM) is a cornerstone input for agricultural, horticultural 
and  forestal  production  and  it  is  the  first  link  in  the  food  and  feed  chain.  Union 
legislation has been in place since 1966 for cereal seed, beet seed, fodder plant seed, 
seed potatoes and forest reproductive material. Later on, legislation was adopted for 
other groups of plant species, for example material for the vegetative propagation of 
the vine in 1968 to vegetable seed in 1970. A number of Directives were to a large 
degree overhauled between 1998 and 2002. By 2011, PRM legislation has grown to 
include around 90 legal acts. A full list of basic legal acts and a short history of the 
legislation can be found in Annex II. 

1.2. 

Preparatory work 

The impact assessment builds on the results of the evaluation of the European Union 
legislation  on  the  marketing  of  seed  and  plant  propagating  material  (hereafter  plant 
reproductive  material,  PRM)  that  was  carried  out  in  2007/2008  by  the  Food  Chain 
Evaluation  Consortium  (FCEC),  on  the  results  of  a  study  on  variety  registration 
conducted by the same consortium in the first half of 2010 and on a PRM certification 
study conducted by the Commission's services.  It also incorporates discussions with 
stakeholders,  in  particular  the  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States,  private 
sector  representatives  at  EU  and  at  national  level,  relevant  international  standard 
setting  bodies,  non-governmental  organisations  and  the  Community  Plant  Variety 
Office  (CPVO),  an  EU  regulatory  agency  mandated  to  grant  plant  breeders’  rights 
valid throughout the EU.  

Key messages of the evaluation of the PRM legislation 

Primary strengths: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Role of official authorities is considered crucial by stakeholders in 
guaranteeing the equal access to all EU players onto the PRM market 
Evaluation of distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) and the value for 
cultivation and use (VCU) are considered essential and robust tools for 
conventional agriculture 
Reasonable and proportionate costs linked to the implementation of the 
legislation 
The Common Catalogues on agricultural and vegetable species are perceived 
as a powerful tool by private operators to facilitate marketing of PRM 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

Provisions for certification have helped European seed industry to become a 
world market leader 
Alignment with international standards and guidelines (i.e. OECD, ISTA, 
UPOV) 

Areas for improvement 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Room for cost reduction and increased efficiency 
Complex legislation with lack of flexibility 
Non-harmonised implementation in Member States 
Niche and emerging markets are disadvantaged 

The respective documents related to the preparatory stages of the legislative review 
can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm. 

1.3. 

Consultations 

Stakeholders  at  various  levels  were  first  consulted  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation 
conducted in 2007/2008. Following the evaluation, internal consultations, discussions 
with Member states and further dialogues with stakeholders were carried out. Annex 
III gives list of all the meetings. 

1.3.1. Internal consultation  

Within  the  Commission,  internal  consultation  has  been  pursued  through  an  Inter-
Service Steering Group (ISSG) set up in 2009. The ISSG was led by the Directorate-
General  Health  and  Consumers,  with  the  participation  of  DGs  Agriculture,  Trade, 
Environment and the Secretariat General.  

1.3.2. Member States consultation 

A number of Commission Horizontal Working Party meetings covering all the plant 
species  were  held  in  2009-2011.  In  May  2011,  four  task  forces  created  by  the 
Hungarian  presidency  worked  on  specific  topics.  In  addition,  the  Commission 
consulted the working group 'Seeds and Propagating Material' of the Advisory Group 
on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health on several occasions from 2009 – 2011. 

1.3.3. Stakeholder consultation 

On  18  March  2009  an  open  conference  on  Ensuring  Seed  Availability  in  the  21st 
Century  was  organised  to  present  and  discuss  the  evaluation  results  with  different 
stakeholders. Overall, stakeholders supported the Commission's intention to revise the 
legislation. 

Finally, a web-based stakeholder survey using an “Interactive Policy Making” (IPM) 
questionnaire  to  collect  comments  on  an  "options  and  analysis  paper  was  organised 
from 19 April to 30 May 2011. It yielded more than 257 responses from a very wide 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
range  of  stakeholder  groups.  All  replies  to  the  questionnaire  can  be  found  in 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/options_review_legislation
_replies_en.htm.  The  results  are  summarised  in  section  6.2  and  in  more  detail  in 
Annex VI. 

Main outcome of the stakeholder consultation 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A majority of stakeholders support the continued existence of the main pillars of 
variety registration and certification of lots of listed species. 
Competent  authorities  support  the  idea  that  the  revised  legislation  should 
reflect a combination of scenarios, combining obligatory variety registration and 
certification of lots of listed species with more responsibilities for operators, the 
introduction of cost recovery and a lighter system for conservation varieties. 
Breeders,  suppliers  and  users  of  PRM  support  the  maintenance  of  current 
technical  provisions  and  accept  the  idea  that  certain  tasks  should  be  shifted  to 
operators  under  official  supervision.  The  concept  of  cost  recovery  is  also 
accepted. 
A  majority  of  stakeholder  groups  mainly  interested  in  biodiversity  issues 
support a liberalised and flexible system with no obligatory variety registration 
and certification of lots. 
Forest  stakeholders support the scenario with no changes in the Directive  on 
forest reproductive material. 

1.4. 

Action Plan 

Based  on  the  evaluation  results  and  the  stakeholder  consultations,  the  Commission 
services  presented  a  PRM  Action  Plan  (SEC(2009)  1272  final)  on  2  October  2009, 
which was subsequently discussed with the Member States.  

Main issues raised in the Action Plan 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Single horizontal legal framework 
Harmonised implementation of legislation in Member States 
Reduction of administrative burden and costs 
Consistency with other EU policies:  
Possible extension of the role of the CPVO 
Enhancing the role of the Common Catalogue 
Strengthening the EU role on international standards 
Setting structures for stakeholder involvement 

1.5. 

Impact Assessment Board 

The impact assessment report was submitted to the IA board on 14 December 2011 
and  was  formally  presented  on  18  January  2012.  Following  this  meeting  the  board 
issued  on  20  January  2012  an  opinion  on  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  emphasising 
four main points to be addressed in the final version of the report. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) Strengthen the evidence base of the problem definition 

•  The  problem  definition  in  section  2.3.  now  more  clearly  describes  which 
elements of the current system are problematic and why amending the current 
legislation is not sufficient; 

•  The  problem  definition  now  in  more  clarity  explains  how  the  current 

• 

legislation creates obstacles to a level playing field for all operators; 
It is stated in section 2.3. that the problem definition is based on the evaluation 
and consultations with Member States' experts and stakeholders; 

•  Section 2.5 emphasizes that a better implementation of the current legislation 

is not a solution to the identified problems; 

•  The current market structure is described in the baseline scenario (section 5 – 
Option  0)  and  in  Annex  VIII.  The  baseline  scenario  also  contains  detailed 
descriptions  of  the  different  sub-sectors.  Annex  X  provides  details  on 
inspection in the FRM sector; 

•  The relevant elements of the EU Plant health Regime, links with the Official 
Controls Regulation and the fact that GMOs are dealt with in a parallel legal 
framework are mentioned at the end of section 2.1. 

(2) Improve the intervention logic and the presentation of the objectives 

•  Problem  definition  2.3.4.  shows  which  specific  elements  of  the  current 
legislation are insufficient to promote sustainability and 2.3.5. demonstrates in 
detail the obstacles that delay the flow of innovation to the market; 

•  The  report  now  clearly  demonstrates  that  the  introduction  of  cost  recovery 
regime does constitute a proportionate measure (section 5: impact assessment 
of Option 1 and tables 3 and 4) and that it is an instrument to promote a level 
playing field for all operators; 

•  Section  4  lays  out  that  the  major  trade-off  is  between  transferring  costs  and 

tasks to operators and the resulting flexibility; 

•  The  description  of  each  option  is  now  accompanied  by  a  text  box  outlining 

how the options achieve the objectives (section 4). 

(3) Better present the options and their possible combinations 

•  The  presentation  of  the  policy  options  clarifies  that  simplification  refers 
exclusively to the legal structure (from  12 Directives to one Regulation)  and 
demonstrates  that  legal  simplification  and  cost  recovery  are  horizontal 
provisions  common  to  all  options.  The  substantial  differentiation  of  the 
options is mainly based on the other instruments (see next point); 

•  The  first  paragraph  of  section  4  explains  that  options  1-4  were  designed  to 
reflect  internal  consistency  of  the  instruments  mainly  with  respect  to  the 
flexibility afforded to operators, while option 5 envisages a centralised, fully 
harmonised  system.  It  is  emphasized  that  combinations  are  feasible  if 
consistency is respected; 

•  The preferred option is now presented in the same way as all the other options 
(Section 6.2.), also stating which elements originate from which of the options 
2,  4  and  5.  A  summary  of  the  impacts  of  the  preferred  option  is  included  as 
well  (Section  6.2.1).  The  preferred  option  is  also  included  in  the  qualitative 
comparison of all options in table.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(4) Present the expected impacts in a more transparent way 

• 

In  the  context  of  assessing  the  impacts  of  cost  recovery  a  more  detailed 
quantitative  analysis  of  costs  and  benefits  was  carried  that  also  explicitly 
addresses the different sectors (section 5: assessment of Option 1); 

•  The  impact  of  cost  recovery  on  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  is  analysed  in 
detail  in  the  assessment  of  option  1.  Available,  but  incomplete,  information 
from sectors other than the sector of agricultural crops is taken into account. 
The analyses of impacts of all other options explicitly take SMEs and micro-
enterprises into account where appropriate; 

•  The  impacts  on  international  competitiveness  and  trade  flows  are  in  detail 
dealt  with  in  the  analysis  of  all  options,  but  have  particularly  been 
strengthened in Options 3 and 4; 

•  The  employment  impact  is  analysed  separately  for  the  private  and  public 
sector.  Other  social  impacts  are  analysed  in  a  dedicated  section  for  each 
option; 

•  The fact that GMOs are dealt with in a parallel legal framework is mentioned 
at the end of section 2.1., where it is also stated that invasive alien species are 
outside the scope of the PRM legislation. Environmental impacts are analysed 
for each option, specifically agro-biodiversity: this analysis for option 3 shows 
specifically how VCU can have an impact of land use; 

•  Available quantitative information on costs, benefits and industry structure has 
been  taken  into  account  in  the  analysis  of  all  options,  in  particular  in  the 
analysis  of  option  1.  Available  quantitative  information  on  costs  is 
summarised in Annex XIV. 

(D) Procedure and Presentation 

•  The  analysis  of  the  stakeholder  survey  is  presented  in  Annexes  V  and  VI. 
Responses are analysed for different stakeholder groups. The report refers to 
stakeholder opinions in several places (for example section 2.3.4). The report 
states  that  stakeholder  input  has  been  relevant  for  identifying  the  options 
(section  4)  and  emphasizes  that  the  preferred  option  also  strikes  a  balance 
between different stakeholder groups (section 6.2.); 

•  The  IA  executive  summary  has  been  changed  accordingly  to  reflect  the 

changes of the main report. 

Following the resubmission the board issued on 29 March 2012 a further opinion on 
the  draft  Impact  Assessment  emphasising  four  issues  to  be  addressed  in  the  final 
version of the report. 

(1) Strengthen the evidence base of the problem definition 

•  Sections 2.3.1. – 2.3.5. now include several new footnotes that make specific 

references to findings of the evaluation of the existing S&PM legislation 

(2)  Reformulating  the  objectives  to  better  address  the  issues  raised  in  the 
problem definition and by clarifying trade-offs 

•  The  overall  and  specific  objectives  (Sections  3.1.  and  3.2.)  now  correspond 

almost exactly to the problems identified in Sections 2.3.1. – 2.3.5. 

•  Trade-offs  are  explicitly  identified  following  the  presentation  of  the  policy 

objectives in Sections 3.1. – 3.3. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

In  the  assessment  of  Option  1  it  is  now  explicitly  stated  that  cost  recovery 
regime is a proportionate measure in the light of the main objective. 

(3) Improve the presentation of impacts and the comparison of options 

• 

• 

In Section 4 it is now spelled out in more detail which elements of the options 
are compatible with each other and which elements are not. 
In the assessment of Option 2, point 3, data are presented that demonstrate the 
potential cost savings for some sectors if official supervision of certification is 
introduced.  

•  The comparison of the options now includes a summary graph that in a semi-
quantitative  manner  summarises  the  impacts  of  the  initial  and  also  the 
preferred option. 

(D) Procedure and presentation 

•  Stakeholder input has been frequently and constantly sought during the entire 
revision process and has helped identifying problems, devising objectives and 
options  and  assessing  specific  impacts.  The  objectives  (see  Section  3)  thus 
also reflect well the diversity of stakeholder attitudes. Stakeholder groupings 
are presented in Annex V and opinions are summarised in detail in the newly 
added Section 6.2. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Background  

Plant  reproductive  material  is  an  input  of  fundamental  importance  for  the 
productivity, the diversity, and the quality of plant production and food. This fact has 
been  reflected  in  national  legislation  since  the  late  19th  century  and  in  European 
legislation  since  the  1960s.  Productivity  is  determined  by  two  basic  elements.  First, 
varieties of agricultural and horticultural crop species and forest reproductive material 
shall be of good quality and identifiable. This means that the plants show a strong and 
healthy growth, are resistant or tolerant to attacks of some harmful organisms, and to 
adverse  environmental  conditions  and  finally  have  the  right  characteristics  for  their 
intended  use.  Wheat  varieties,  for  instance,  could  be  suitable  for  bread  but  not  for 
pasta, or exactly the opposite. Second, the PRM lots brought to the market should be 
in a state so that growers have the best guarantee on the identity of the material and 
that the plants are able to realise their good characteristics when properly maintained 
after sowing or planting. 

At  the  time  when  the  PRM  EU  legislation  was  first  developed,  its  objective  was  to 
contribute to improving the productivity of agriculture in order to ensure food security 
in the EU, to improve the competitiveness of the related sectors and to play part in the 
harmonisation  of  the  legislation  at  EU  level,  leading  to  more  open  markets.  This 
policy  has  proved  to  be  successful:  the  PRM  sector  in  the  EU  is  diverse  and 
competitive  (see  Annex  VIII)  and  has  developed  into  the  world's  largest  PRM 
exporter. But agricultural policy is no longer restricted to the policy aims formulated 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in the 1960s. In the  past  years  agricultural  policy in the EU has come to be seen as 
strategically important for food security and safety, the nutritional value of food, the 
environment,  biodiversity  and  climate  change.  "Sustainable  intensification"  of  food 
crop production in which yields are increased without adverse environmental impact 
and  without  the  cultivation  of  more  land  has  become  a  central  concern.  PRM 
legislation is critically important for reaching this aim as well. 

The EU legislation on the marketing of PRM is based on two main pillars, namely the 
registration of varieties/material1 and the certification2 of individual PRM lots of plant 
species  used  for  agriculture  marketed  in  the  EU  and  identified  in  the  Annex  of  the 
Directives ('EU listed species') or the approval and registration of basic material and 
the  traceability  and  quality  control  of  forest  reproductive  material.  It  consists  of  12 
basic  Council  Directives  and  is  structured  into  one  horizontal  Directive  on  the 
Common  Catalogue  of  varieties  of  agricultural  plant  species  and  11  vertical 
Marketing  Directives,  among  which  five  seed  Directives  (fodder  plant  seed,  cereal 
seed,  beet  seed,  seed  of  oil  and  fibre  plants  and  vegetable  seed3),  three  plant 
propagating material Directives (vine propagating material4, seed potatoes, vegetable 
reproductive material other than seed) and three Directives that cover both seed and 
propagating  material  (fruit  plant  propagating  material,  ornamental  plants  and  forest 
reproductive  material5).  Annex  VII  summarises  the  processes  of  registration  and 
certification  and  provides  a  tabular  overview  over  the  current  requirements  for  the 
different plant groups covered by the legislation. 

Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)6 

To  better  appreciate  the  assessment  of  one  of  the  options  developed  here,  it  is  also 
necessary to succinctly describe the present role of the CPVO and to keep in mind the 
difference  between  plant  variety  rights  and  plant  variety  marketing.  CPVO 
manages  the  Union's  intellectual  property  rights  system  for  new  plant  varieties. 
After  an  application  has  been  submitted,  the  CPVO  first  studies  the  administrative 
file, including payment of fees, and whether the variety is in fact novel with regard to 
previous  marketing.  If  no  formal  impediment  is  found  for  granting  protection,  the 
CPVO arranges for a technical examination of the variety submitted. The purpose of 
this examination is to ensure that the criteria of distinctness, uniformity, and stability 

1 Depending on the plant species, the term variety or material is used in the basic Directives. For the 
ease of reading, in this document the term variety is used for both cases. 
2  Certification  refers  to  intervention  of  official  services  which  includes  (1)  visual  inspections  on 
growing field and (2) sampling and analysis of PRM lots before marketing, while inspection could be 
work done by official services or by the supplier in a number of cases. For the ease of reading, in this 
document the term certification is used to cover both cases. 
3  The  Marketing  Directive  for  vegetable  seeds  includes  the  reference  to  the  Common  catalogue  of 
varieties of vegetables species. 
4  The  marketing  Directive  on  vine  propagating  material  includes  reference  to  national  vine  varieties 
officially accepted. 
5 The Marketing Directive for forest reproductive material includes the reference to national registers of 
basic material of the various species on national territory and national list. 
6  CPVO  is  self-sustained  from  a  financial  point  of  view  because  of  fees  levied  for  its  activities  on 
commercial operators, with an annual budget of EURO 12.8 Mio and a total number of staff of 46 in 
2011. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
(DUS)  are  complied  with.  The  technical  examination  is  entrusted  to  Member  States 
competent  bodies  (examination  offices)  or  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  third 
countries. They are conducted in accordance with protocols established by the CPVO, 
based on UPOV guidelines, and are monitored by its technical experts. In addition to 
the  technical  requirements,  a  variety  must  be  identified  by  a  variety  denomination, 
which is  proposed  by the applicant in the form  of  a  code  or  a  “fancy”  name.  To  be 
approved,  a  variety  denomination  must  fulfil  several  criteria  that  ensure  clear  and 
unambiguous identification. 

CPVO is currently only responsible for the granting of intellectual property rights for 
plant  varieties  –  granting  of  this  intellectual  property  right  for  a  new  variety  is 
entirely independent from the right to market the variety. 

The  current  EU  PRM  legislation  sets  out  general  principles  that  operators7  need  to 
comply with before reproductive material of plant varieties can be marketed: 

1.  Plant  varieties  should  be  listed  in  a  national  and  then  in  the  EU  (Common) 
catalogues  (for  agricultural  and  vegetable  crops)  to  be  marketed.8  The  purpose  is  to 
ensure  that  the  varieties  are  clearly  identified.  In  order  to  be  listed,  it  has  to  be 
demonstrated  that  varieties  are  Distinct,  Uniform  and  Stable  (DUS)  and  that  variety 
denomination  rules  are  observed.  Moreover,  varieties  of  agricultural  crop  species 
must  be  tested  for  their  Value  for  Cultivation  and  Use  (VCU).9  The  tests  should  be 
conducted as official examinations. The above general principles are not applicable to 
ornamentals.  The  principles  for  forest  reproductive  material  are  based  on  national 
registers of approved basic material. 

2. Individual  lots of seed  and plant propagating material are subject to a pre-market 
certification system on the basis of official certification or certification under official 
supervision  of  the  competent  authorities.  However,  for  seed  potatoes  and  for  the 
categories of pre-basic and basic seed only official inspections shall be carried out. 

The above general principles are not applicable to ornamentals or vegetable standard 
seeds, while for fruit plants EU mandatory rules will only apply as from 2012. 

For forest reproductive material the Member States shall, by an official control system 
set up or approved by them, ensure that reproductive material from individual units of 
approval or lots remains clearly identifiable through the entire process from collection 

7 As economic operators on the PRM sector we include breeders, seed multipliers, seed cleaners (seed 
companies or mobile processors), seed packaging and traders.  
8 The EU common catalogues for agricultural plant species and vegetable species are available online 
at  http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/catalogues/database/public/index.cfm.  The  European 
catalogues offer added value compared to the national catalogues. For example, the website of GNIS 
(Groupement  National  Interprofessionnel  des  Semences  et  Plants)  provided  information  on  both 
national registration and European registered varieties. In 2010 the European listed varieties received 
more hits (approx. 200 000 hits in total) than the varieties registered on the national French catalogue 
(information received from GNIS). 
9 VCU evaluation encompasses the assessment of yield, quality, disease resistance and behaviour with 
respect to physical factors in the environment. The characters evaluated in each of these four categories 
are species-specific and defined in national protocols. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
to  delivery  to  the  end  user.  Therefore  a  master  certificate  is  required,  showing  the 
unique  register  reference  for  all  reproductive  material  derived  from  approved  basic 
material. 

3.  The  more  recent  Directives  require  the  registration  of  suppliers,  in  particular 
because  most  of  the  PRM  concerned  is  brought  to  the  market  carrying  a  suppliers' 
label. 

In the recent years, to meet objectives such as preserving biodiversity, supporting in 
situ  conservation  and  the  protection  of  natural  environment,  specific  legislations 
creating derogation for less stringent marketing requirement for so called conservation 
and amateur varieties and preservation seed mixtures were developed.10 

The  legislation  on  PRM  applies  without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  Directive 
2001/18/EC,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1829/2003  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  1830/2003 
concerning the deliberate release into the environment, including cultivation, placing 
on the market, traceability and labelling of GMOs. 

As regards harmful organisms, the so-called non-quarantine pests  are listed together 
with  other  certification  requirements  in  the  various  PRM  Directives.  In  addition  the 
Directive  on  seed  potatoes  list  some  quarantine  pests  which  should  today  only  be 
listed under the umbrella of the Plant Health legislation. 

The  scope  of  the  new  legislation  should  exclude  from  marketing  authorisation 
material  belonging  to  plants  which  are  injurious  to  plants  exclusively  through 
competition  for  nutrients  and/or  ecological  niche  or  allelopathy  (invasive  alien 
species,  IAS).  With  regard  to  IAS,  the  new  legislation  on  PRM  will  apply  without 
prejudice to the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy adopted in May 2011. 

Finally, the enforcement of PRM legislation is currently not framed by a general legal 
framework providing the competent authorities in the Member States with a solid and 
comprehensive  set  of  rules  which  affords  them  the  necessary  powers  and  tools  to 
deliver  their  enforcement  duties  in  an  efficient  and  reliable  fashion.  In  fact,  official 
controls  performed  by  competent  authorities  to  verify  compliance  with  PRM 
legislation  are  not  covered  at  present  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  882/2004  governing 
official  controls  along the food chain, nor do equivalent provisions exist for  official 
controls  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  PRM  legislation.  The  required  official  control 
system for forest reproductive material is already set up by member states and may be 
checked  by  the  Commission.  Nevertheless,  a  harmonised  European  approach  is  not 
yet  in  place.  This  issue  will  be  addressed  in  the  context  of  the  on-going  Impact 
Assessment for the review of the Regulation (EC) No 882/2004.  

10 A conservation variety is defined as a landrace or plant variety that is naturally adapted to local and 
regional conditions and is threatened by genetic erosion. The term amateur varieties refers to varieties 
that are not used for commercial agricultural production ('with no intrinsic value for commercial crop 
production  but  developed  for  growing under  particular  conditions'),  i.e. varieties  that  are  only  grown 
for  private  use  by  for  example  hobby  gardeners.  Preservation  seed  mixtures  of  fodder  plants  are 
collected in designated areas contributing to the conservation of plant genetic resources. The seeds of 
those  species  are  then  mixed  to  create  a  mixture  which  is  composed  of  those  genera,  species  and 
subspecies which are typical for the habitat type of the collection site. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2. 

International dimension  

The EU is the world's largest exporter of PRM with an estimated export value of EUR 
4.4  billion  representing  roughly  60%  of  the  total  worldwide  PRM  export  value  of 
EUR 7.7 billion11. The high quality of European PRM is an asset in the global market 
– and an asset for food security. 

The  legal  framework  established  in  the  EU  has  facilitated  –  if  not  enabled  –  this 
development,  but  it  needs  to  be  underlined  that  rules  and  standards  have  been 
established in a wider international context than the EU (see also Annex IV). The EU 
is  an  active  member  in  these  international  fora  and  EU  rules  have  had  considerable 
influence  on  the  elaboration  of  international  rules  and  standards.  Internationally 
accepted  standards  for  seed  sampling  and  testing  are  developed  by  the  International 
Seed Testing Association (ISTA) and applied in the EU by seed analysis laboratories. 
EU  protocols  for  the  technical  examination  of  varieties  are  based  on  test  guidelines 
elaborated by UPOV experts (Union Internationale pour le Protection des Obtentions 
Végétales);  EU  is  member  of  UPOV  since  July  2005.  Varietal  identity  and  purity 
standards  for  the  certification  of  PRM  lots  in  view  of  their  marketing  are  based  on 
OECD  (EU  has  a  status  of  participant)  seed  rules  and  forest  reproductive  material 
control, which are also open to non OECD countries, or on UNECE standards for seed 
potatoes.  The  plant  health  legislation  is  framed  in  the  wider  context  of  the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). In general, the EU standards are in 
line  with  OECD  standards,  but  not  fully  coherent  with  UNECE  standards  on  seed 
potatoes. The UNECE standard is an evolving framework, while the EU Directive has 
not  changed  since  its  adoption.  Regarding  plant  genetic  resources,  the  EU  is  a 
contracting party to the International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 
Agriculture (ITPGRFA) since 2004.12  

PRM  which  are  developed  in  Europe  can  later  be  exported,  commercialized  and 
grown  in  third  countries,  in  particular  through  the  OECD  seed  scheme  or  OECD 
forest reproductive material scheme, directly in similar agro-climatic conditions areas 
or  by  being  introduced  to  breeding  programs.  The  rules  which  are  developed  in  the 
Union  are  following  the  principles  of  the  international  standards  in  order  to  assure 
coherence  with  all  countries  following  such  standards  and  to  facilitate  international 
trade.  67  countries  are  members  of  the  OECD  seed  schemes,  including  India, 
Argentina, Brazil; Senegal is candidate to one of the OECD seed schemes. 

The  revision  of  the  PRM  legislation  will  continue  to  take  into  consideration  the 
productivity  in  the  agricultural,  horticultural,  and  forestal  production  and  will 
strengthen  sustainability  criteria  in  the  variety  registration  process  in  order  to  adjust 
production to major challenges such as climate change, food security and to reinforce 
the  link  between  breeders  and  user/farmer  in  the  plant  innovation  system.  The 
control  and  certification  system  along  the  PRM  production  chain  will  maintain  the 
high  quality  of  the  material  and  continue  to  contribute  to  food/feed  safety  and 
security. The rules on forest reproductive material conform to the standard developed 
at  OECD  level  which  will  be  further  used  by  third  countries  for  the  production  of 
tropical wood PRM. 

11 http://www.worldseed.org/isf/seed_statistics.html. 
12 ITPGRFA: http://www.planttreaty.org/. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  revision  of  the  PRM  legislation  also  contributes  to  achieving  the  millennium 
goals,  including  measures  in  favor  of  preservation  of  biodiversity  through  the 
facilitation of market access for conservation varieties. 

2.3.  What are the issues or problems that may require action?  

In line with the Europe 2020 Strategy and Commission SMART Regulation policy13 
aiming at simplifying and improving regulation and at developing an economy based 
on  knowledge  and  innovation,  it  is  necessary  to  review  PRM  legislation,  streamline 
and  remove  overlaps  to  ensure  that  it  is  consistent  and  does  not  create  unnecessary 
burdens for operators and citizens.  

This  is  especially  relevant  due  to  the  fact  that  the  EU  PRM  sector  is  not  only  the 
world's biggest exporter of seeds (net market value EUR 4.4 billion) but also has an 
average R&D/net sales ratio of around 15% of its annual turnover (EUR 6.8 billion) 
in  seed  market.14  Maintaining  the  comparative  advantage  of  the  EU  industry  on  the 
global  market,  while  ensuring  at  the  same  time  innovation  and  diversity  as  crucial 
element, is therefore one main objective of this review. 

The  external  evaluation  carried  out  in  2007-2008  concluded  that  most  of  the 
stakeholders  consider  that  the  EU's  PRM  legislation  has  been  effective  in  achieving 
its  initial  objectives  and  that  free  movement  of  marketed  PRM  is  observed  in  the 
internal  market.  However,  the  evaluation  also  highlighted  a  number  of  problems 
regarding  the  application  of  the  legislation  in  practice.  The  five  key  problems, 
identified in the evaluation and through consultation with member States' experts and 
stakeholders, form the basis of this review. 

2.3.1. Complexity, rigidity and fragmentation of legislation and gaps  

Driver: The legislation is composed of 12 basic Directives and approximately 90 other 
legal  acts.  The  Directives  have  been  developed  over  several  decades  and  within 
different  political  and  scientific-technical  contexts.  Furthermore,  the  alignment  with 
other legislative  acts  that concern the sector also needs improvement. The  problems 
cannot be corrected by only amending the legislation.  

Problem: 

•  Understanding  the  requirements  laid  down  in  the  Directives  and  other  legal 
acts in their entirety is not simple.15 In some PRM sectors, the operators must 
implement 2-3 Directives at the same time in order to fulfil their obligations. 
There  is  also  a  lack  of  consistency,  such  as  cross-referencing  to  outdated 

13 COM(2010) 543 Final of 8 October 2010. 
14 ESA document ESA_07.0243.5A2 (2007). 
15  For  example,  there  currently  are  different  requirements  and  tests  depending  on  the  crop  (DUS, 
VCU), several levels of variety catalogues (EU, national, for export or list of recommended varieties in 
some Member States). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
legislation  or  concerning  definitions  and  some  obligations.16  The  current 
legislation  is  in  a  form  of  Directive  requiring  national  transposition.  The 
Directives  are  implemented  at  different  points  of  times  and  give  room  for 
substantial differences in national interpretation;17  

•  Certain work-intensive parts of the certification process (field inspections for 
pre-basic  and  basic  seed,  seed  potatoes,  FRM)  and  the  examinations  for 
variety  registration  (DUS,  VCU)  can  only  be  carried  out  as  official 
examinations. This may limit the flexibility of operators to adapt to the more 
quickly changing demands of an increasingly global market for PRM18; 

•  As  regards  variety  registration,  it  is  well  known  in  the  sector  that  some 
Member States use much larger variety reference collections than others19 and 
that there are considerable differences how extensively VCU tests are carried 
out (criteria, testing, calculation of results, etc.)20;  

•  The  current  legislation  gives  the  possibility  for  additional  national  rules.  For 
example,  in  the  case  of  certification  of  seed  potatoes,  different  marketing 
categories exist in different Member States leading to national systems taking 
precedence over the EU legislation and thus undermining the internal market; 
•  The current legislation does not contain a solid and comprehensive set of rules 
for  competent  authorities  in  the  Member  States  performing  official  controls 
and in the majority does not include the empowerment for the Commission to 
audit/visit the Member States' control system; 

•  There  are  currently  no  EU  rules  on  fees  for  variety  registration  or  official 

controls including PRM certification; 

•  The  majority  of  the  current  Directives  do  not  require  the  registration  of 

operators.  

It therefore seems sensible to envisage a review of the PRM legislation with a view to 
its simplification and increased consistency with itself and with other legal acts that 
govern PRM marketing. 

2.3.2. High level of administrative burden in particular for public authorities  

Driver:  Public  competent  authorities  are  to  a  high  degree  involved  in  variety 
registration and in the certification of PRM lots brought to the market, as the required 
tests  and  examinations  (DUS,  VCU)  are  currently  nearly  exclusivley  carried  out  by 
the authorities. 

16  See  p.  57,  p.  62  and  pp.  155-156  in:  FCEC  (2008),  Evaluation  of  the  Community  acquis  on  the 
marketing of seed and plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. 
17  The  Krakow  Declaration  (2011)  stressed  the  importance  of  reducing  transposition  and  compliance 
deficits. This proposal is thus fully in line with this target. 
18 See pp. 151-152 in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and 
plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. 
19 See the example of winter oilseed rape in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the 
marketing of seed and plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. Pp. 82-83. 
20 See the example of winter oilseed rape in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the 
marketing of seed and plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. P. 66. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Problem: As Member State national budgets are under strong pressure and the need to 
prioritise resources is becoming more and more severe, it seems pertinent to consider 
the possibility to reduce the level of public resources required by PRM legislation.21 

The system therefore needs to become more efficient and less burdensome. It should 
be  examined  whether,  and  if  so  to  what  extent,  certain  tasks  could  or  should  be 
assigned to the private sector or can be shared between Member States while ensuring 
that  the  quality  of  the  marketed  PRMs  remains  at  least  as  high  as  under  the  current 
regime and that the operational capacity of SMEs is not compromised.  

2.3.3. Non-harmonised implementation of the current legislation 

Driver:  The  evaluation  of  the  current  regime  found  that  implementation  of  the 
legislation in the Member States varies significantly. There are currently no rules for 
fees at EU level for public services rendered to private operators, and therefore there 
is  no  harmonised  framework  for  costs  and  responsibility  sharing.  Some  Member 
States recover the whole cost of technical examination of varieties and of certification 
from the producer, some only recover a part. 

Furthermore,  the  variety  examination  procedures  and  associated  costs  can  vary 
considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member  State.22  For  certification,  additional  or 
stricter  national  requirements  for  national production  are applied in several  Member 
States. 

Problem: This lack of harmonisation causes obstacles to the establishment of a level 
playing field for all operators in the internal market. While costs for registration and 
certification  amount  to  no  more  than  3%  of  the  annual  market  value  of  agricultural 
seed  crops23,  the  burden  for  public  services  is  quite  significant  in  some  Member 
States:  in  Germany  and  France  annual  costs  for  registration  and  certification  are 
approximately  EUR  26  Mio  and  EUR  24  Mio,  respectively.  However,  in  Germany 
only  around  50%  of  these  costs  are  recovered,  while  in  France  67%  of  registration 
costs and 97% of certification costs are recovered (see Annex XIV). The 'user pays' 
principle is not evenly applied across all Member States. 

2.3.4. Weaknesses concerning horizontal coordination with recent EU strategies 
concerning biodiversity, sustainability and climate change 

Driver:  For  historical  reasons,  the  current  system  is  mainly  focused  on  the 
improvement of productivity of agricultural crops and for all listed species to a certain 

21 See p. 88, and p. 105 in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed 
and plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. 
22 FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and plant propagating 
material (S&PM). Cost analysis. For example, the study mentions that VCU-testing of winter oilseed 
rape costs around EUR 2000 in Italy and around EUR 9000 in the UK. Both countries claim to have 
cost  recovery,  thus  the  differences  are,  as  the  study  shows,  to  a  large  extent  due  to  the  number  of 
conditions tested during VCU. 
23 FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and plant propagating 
material (S&PM). Cost analysis. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
extent  on  the  resistance  to  biotic  and  abiotic  stress  and  diversification  of  uses,  in 
addition to the harmonisation of the market.  

Problem: The evaluation stressed that although productivity is still an important factor 
for  the  development  of  new  varieties,  other  aspects  have  gained  in  importance.24  In 
the  past  decade  the  need  for  "greening"  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP) 
has  emerged  and  policy  objectives  related  to  sustainability,  biodiversity  protection 
and  climate  change  have  gained  importance  in  addition  to  food  security  (including 
feed)  and  food  safety.  Specific  products  such  as  old  varieties  or  minor  crops  are 
increasing  their  market  share.  Breeders  and  competent  authorities  in  some  Member 
States have taken these developments proactively into account, but efforts should be 
spread over the  entire EU.  For  low-input agriculture the  rules  are seen to be far too 
strict and costly. Certain stakeholders are stating that the less stringent requirements 
developed in the recent years in the EU for conservation and amateur varieties are still 
too  restrictive,  burdensome  and  costly.25  Basic  Council  Directives  66/402/EEC  and 
2002/55/EC  stipulate  limitation  to  region  of  origin  for  conservation  varieties  and 
appropriate  quantitative  restrictions.  Some  stakeholder  groups  are  strongly  against 
both  these  stipulations,  while  others  are  adamant  that  no  changes  should  be 
considered. 

2.3.5. Removing obstacles to quick market access of innovations 

Driver:  The  registration  process  of  varieties  is  a  heavy  procedure  requiring  time, 
technical knowledge and staff both at the level of competent authorities and operators’ 
in  order  to  fulfil  the  registration  criteria.  Rules  governing  the  variety  registration 
process  can  place  a  series  of  small  obstacles  in  the  way  to  market  access,  which  in 
their combination can delay the flow of innovations to the market. 

Problem: 

•  As  part  of  the  registration  process,  Member  States’  notifications  are  to  be 
transferred to the EU Common Catalogue. Some Member States only report 
national  registrations  twice  per  year  for  transfer  to  the  EU  Common 
Catalogue.  At  the  EU  level,  depending  on  the  time  of  the  year,  the 
administrative procedure concerning the transfer of varieties to the Common 
Catalogues (Official Journal) takes roughly 8 weeks; 

•  Member  States  may  have  limited  resources  for  growing  trials  for  variety 
testing.  Therefore  in  some  Member  States  the  number  of  applications  in 
certain species per year are limited; 

•  Strict deadlines for submission of application and material; 
•  Number  of  years  required  for  the  technical  examination  varies  between 

Member States; 

24 See p. 94 and pp. 168-172 in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of 
seed and plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. 
25 See pp. 105-106 in: FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and 
plant propagating material (S&PM). Final Report. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Breeders  have  to  accept  the  practical  conditions  for  testing  (e.g.  locations  of 
fields)  in  the  examination  office,  which  might  be  suboptimal  for  variety  in 
question; 

•  For a new type of variety the development of the necessary testing protocols 

can take several years. 

In  addition,  variety  registration  procedures  put  a  high  burden  on  competent 
authorities.  This  is  amplified  by  the  difficult  current  economic  environment  which 
leads to a reduced availability of public funds: the consultation process demonstrated 
that a number of Member States are under pressure to reduce staff and to close some 
testing  stations.  The  current  administrative  procedures  might  delay  the  flow  of 
innovation onto the market.  

2.4.  Who is affected, in what way and to what extent?  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Member  State  authorities:  financial  and  staff  resources  are  under  severe 
pressure  and  it  becomes  increasingly  difficult  for  competent  authorities  to 
fulfil the obligations laid down in the legislation; 

Breeders  of  varieties,  as  changes  in  the  legislation  may  affect  their  right  to 
commercialise the products of their breeding activity, taking into account that 
breeding  activities  represent  at  least  10  years  of  work,  and  the  cost  of  doing 
so; 

PRM suppliers, if quality requirements for lots brought to the market would be 
altered or if costs of certification would be transferred more systematically to 
the private sector operators; 

PRM  users,  as  a  revision  of  the  legal  framework  with  regard  to  minimum 
conditions  for  PRM  marketing  could  affect  the  availability,  quality  and  the 
cost of PRM brought to the market; 

Consumers of produced commodities, because PRM is a primary input of any 
agricultural, horticultural or forestal production and as such the changes felt by 
PRM  users  will  be  reflected  in  the  availability,  quality  and  costs  of  the 
commodities (food) offered to the final consumers; 

PRM  suppliers,  agricultural  stakeholders  and  consumers  outside  the  EU, 
because, as the EU is the world leader in PRM production and export, changes 
to the EU PRM marketing legislation will have consequences worldwide. EU 
has an important role to play in global food security and thus in avoiding food 
crises. 

2.5. 

How would the problems evolve, all things being equal? 

The  current  provisions  on  variety  registration  only  allow  examinations  by  official 
authorities and do not allow examinations to be carried out by private operators. As 
regards certification, the current legislation caters for a possibility in certain cases to 
transfer part of the work related to certification of lots of PRM to the industry through 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
a  system  of  certification  under  official  supervision.  However,  limitations  of  the 
legislation  do  not  allow  certain  plant  species  (e.g.  potatoes)  and  categories  of  seed 
(pre-basic and basic) to fully benefit from officially supervised examination. This will 
in particular have an impact on big companies and competitive, innovative SMEs in 
big Member States, which are limited in their room to operate. If no action was taken, 
the shortcomings of the system will grow and become an increasingly larger burden 
for  both  official  authorities  and  business  with  consequences  for  competitiveness, 
adaptation  to  market  demands  as  well  as  export  capacities  vis-à-vis  to  non  EU 
competitors.  

The  provisions  contained  in  the  EU  PRM  marketing  legislation  on  registration  of 
varieties  and  on  certification  of  individual  PRM  lots  are  strict.  This  could  become 
more  problematic  given  the  current  financial  situation  as  in  today's  global  market 
operators  need  to  react  quickly  to  market  demands  and  opportunities.  The  current 
variety registration system can be improved with a view to support innovation. These 
improvements  are  needed  to  ensure  quick  access  to  the  market  for  new  improved 
varieties,  especially  those  giving  a  higher  and  more  regular  yield  on  the  same  land 
surface  with  less  need  for  irrigation,  fertilisers  or  pesticides.  Developments  in  plant 
breeding  have  contributed  significantly  to  yield  increases,  but  with  regard  to  the 
European strategy to further reduce the use of plant protection products and fertilisers, 
plant  breeding  efforts  will  have  to  be  strengthened  in  order  to  be  able  to  take  such 
requirements into consideration. 

Furthermore, discrepancies with regard to technical examinations and evaluations in 
the context of registration and certification would continue to exist across the Member 
States. This would prove disadvantageous to some operators and may continue to be 
an obstacle to the establishment of a level playing field in the internal market. 

Finally,  the  complexity  and  fragmentation  of  the  existing  legislation  is  likely  to 
perpetuate existing uncertainties and discrepancies in its implementation. This would 
further maintain or aggravate current difficulties of national authorities and operators. 
In  addition,  without  amending  legislation,  the  possibility  to  move  more  technical 
requirements to the implementing measures and thus the increase in flexibility of the 
legislation would be lost. 

As regards the current legislation on conservation varieties, the strict requirements for 
variety  testing,  restriction  to  production  in  region  of  origin  and  quantitative 
restrictions  might  compromise  achievement  of  the  aim  of  conservation  of  agro-
biodiversity  in  situ.  Therefore  there  are  few  opportunities  for  the  growth  and 
expansion of this sector. 

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) n°882/2004 would be obtained. 

2.6. 

Does the EU have the right to act (subsidiarity)? 

2.6.1. Right of the EU to act (Treaty basis) 

19 

 
 
 
 
The  PRM  legislative  framework  is  based  on  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union  (TFEU)  Article  43  (ex-Article  37)  implementing  the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP).  The  objectives  of  that  policy  are  to  increase  agricultural 
productivity,  to  ensure  a  fair  standard  of  living  for  the  agricultural  community,  to 
stabilise  markets,  to  assure  the  availability  of  supplies  and  to  ensure  that  supplies 
reach  consumers  at  reasonable  prices.  The  Lisbon  Treaty  qualifies  agriculture  as 
shared  competence  between  the  EU  and  its  Member  States.  It  is  obvious,  however, 
that  to  a  very  large  extent  all  fields  of  agricultural  activity  as  well  as  ancillary 
activities upstream and downstream, have been regulated at the EU level. This means 
that legislation is predominantly a role for the institutions of the European Union. 

Article  114  provides  the  legal  basis  for  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the 
internal market and the approximation of provisions laid down by the law, regulation 
or administrative actions in this respect.  

Article 191 states as the objectives of EU environment policy the preservation of the 
environment,  the  prudent  and  rational  use  of  natural  resources  as  well  as  promoting 
measures at international level to deal with environmental problems. 

2.6.2. Necessity for the EU to act 

The  introduction  of  the  EU  framework  legislation  on  the  marketing  of  PRM  in  the 
sixties  has  been  a  major  contributor  to  the  creation  of  an  internal  market.  As 
confirmed  in  stakeholder  consultation,  performed  as  part  of  the  current  systems 
evaluation, a large majority of the respondents believe that the EU rules on marketing 
of PRM have had a positive impact on free movement, availability and quality of 
PRM on the EU market and have thus facilitated trade within the EU. 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 or recommendations have been established not only for PRM 
quality  (OECD,  UNECE,  ISTA)  but  also  for  plant  health  (IPPC,  WTO/SPS 
agreement)  which  require  an  adequate  transposition  in  all  EU27  Member  states.  In 
order  to  avoid  a  more  non  harmonised  implementation  of  EU  rules  on  the  internal 
market, a common EU framework is the most appropriate approach.  

2.6.3. Added value 

A  common  legislative  framework  adds  weight  to  EU  positions  and  approaches  for 
addressing issues of PRM on the global level, notably in international agreements. 

At the same time, transparent and reliable rules ensuring the highest product quality 
are of particular relevance to the EU PRM industry in its role as the largest exporter in 
the  world.  The  competitive  advantage  of  EU  exporters  relies  heavily  on  the  high 
quality of its products. 

Certification  and  marketing  of  PRM  relies  on  a  system  of  pre-market  authorisation, 
such  as  DUS-  and  VCU-evaluation  for  variety  registration  and  field  inspection  and 
sampling  of  PRM  production  as  well  as  approved  basic  material  and  traceability  of 
forest reproductive material. These are performed by national authorities, but in line 

20 

 
 
 
with a 'one key, several doors' principle, are valid in all EU27 Member states. This 
ensures the quality of EU products while safeguarding open and fair competition on 
the  Single  market,  and  facilitating  the  marketing  of  innovative  products.  A  certain 
margin for higher efficiency herein is possible with the introduction of the possibility 
for direct EU-wide authorisations by CVPO.  

2.6.4 Proportionality 

With a view to ensuring proportionality of measures, notably reducing administrative 
burden for Member States and private actors, the system of pre-market control must 
take into consideration the freedom and economic viability of stakeholders as well as 
SME  and  micro-entities  regarding  the  more  specific  parts  of  the  PRM  market. 
Varieties  of  common  knowledge,  conservation  or  amateur  varieties  help  to  ensure 
access of  growers, including amateur gardeners,  to PRM  of varieties that would  not 
pass modern variety evaluation. Conservation varieties could play an important role in 
maintaining  resilient  systems  in  agriculture  production  and  genetic  diversity  at  the 
field  level.  Smart  growth  is  fostered  by  specifically  focusing  on  niche  markets  (e.g. 
old varieties), such as in allowing simplified market access for specific varieties and 
PRM. 

2.6.5 Citizens' and Human Rights 

the 
Provide  Member  States'  competent  authorities  with  efficient 
performance of official controls and, consequently, allow for a more efficient use of 
national control resources in line with the principles of equity and fairness and in full 
compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular the right 
to protection of personal data and the right to an effective remedy.  

tools  for 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

Overall objectives  

•  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. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives   

•  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 to increase flexibility 

for operators without compromising the general policy objectives; 

•  To  align  PRM  legislation  with  other  recent  Union  strategies  (plant  health  law, 
official  controls  regulation,  agriculture,  biodiversity,  food  security,  climate 
change, bio-based economy); 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
•  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. 

3.3. 

Operational objectives  

•  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 Common Catalogue; 

•  To enhance market transparency and improve traceability through the registration 

of operators. 

The  objectives  also  reflect  the  diversity  of  opinions  and  aims  among  stakeholder 
groups  in  the  PRM  sector  (see  Annexes  V  and  VI).  Attempting  to  realise  all  these 
objectives simultaneously is constrained by a number of potential trade-offs between 
or even within objectives: (1) Transferring tasks to the private sector and broadening 
the  scope  of  official  supervision  may  have  an  impact  on  the  health  and  quality  of 
PRM; (2) the reduction of costs for competent authorities and the transfer of tasks to 
the  private  sector  may  burden  in  particular  SMEs  that  may  not  be  able  to  bear  the 
additional  costs  or  to  carry  out  the  tasks  themselves;  (3)  Breeding  for  sustainability 
traits of crops (drought resistance etc.) may compromise yield increases. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Based  on  the  evaluation,  on  internal  discussions  and  on  discussions  with  Member 
States'  experts  and  various  stakeholder  groups,  a  number  of  policy  options  were 
developed.  

The problem definition identified the following main axes along which the system has 
to change in order to be fit for the new economic, environmental, social, and 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 measures – 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 hold of loss of 
biodiversity.  These  measures  have  been  translated  into  the  content  of  the  options  as 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regards  the  main  instruments  of  the  legislation:  registration  of  varieties/material, 
certification, registration of operators and conservation varieties. 

The preparatory work for the Impact Assessment identified 5 options that address all 
or  most  of  the  identified  problems  and  are  characterised  by  internal  consistency, 
especially  with  respect  to  the  level  of  responsibility  sharing  between  private  and 
public actors and the obligatory or voluntary nature of instruments such as registration 
or certification. The options were chosen so that, for example, responsibility sharing 
between  operators  and  competent  authorities  or  deregulation  extends  to  all  main 
instruments of the legislation and are not arbitrarily restricted to certain instruments. 
Option  5  (centralisation)  is  compatible  with  increased  flexibility  of  operators 
concerning certification, but is more limiting concerning variety registration. Option 5 
is by and large incompatible with deregulation. It should be noted that simplification 
of the legal architecture (replacing 12 Directives by one Regulation) and cost recovery 
are constant for all options and compatible with deregulation, increased flexibility and 
centralisation.  

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. 

Specific attention is given to the trade-off between transferring operational work and 
maintenance of PRM quality 

A  graphical  presentation  of  the  five  options  can  be  found  in  Annex  XI.  A  detailed 
quantitative  analysis  of  stakeholder  attitudes  towards  the  options  can  be  found  in 
Annex VI. 

Option  1  -  Cost  recovery:  No  change  to  technical  provisions  and 
allocation  of  tasks  but  complete  recovery  of  registration  and 
certification costs by competent authorities  

Cost recovery and the simplification of the basic legal acts (replacing 12 Directives by 
one Regulation) are horizontal provisions common to all options. 

Option  1  does  not  foresee  any  changes  to  the  technical  provisions  of  the  current 
legislation  or  to  the  allocation  of  responsibilities  for  the  implementation  and  the 
control  of  the  implementation  of  the  legislation.  The  registration  and  certification 
systems will continue to exist as they are for the same plant species. The involvement 
of  public  authorities  in  the  management  of  the  system  is  not  changed.  The  only 
change with potential significant impacts consists in a recovery from the stakeholders 
of costs incurred by the competent authorities in all the Member States. This will be 
achieved  via  the  introduction  of  a  mandatory  fee  system  or  any  other  way  of 
authorities' compensation. Currently there is a wide divergence in the extent to which 
this is done in the Member States. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Linking main objectives to instruments 

o  Simplification and harmonisation - from 12 Directives => one Regulation; 
o  Reducing  administrative  costs  -  recovery  of  substantive  costs  for  variety 

registration and PRM certification; 

o  Transparency and traceability – no specific provisions; 
o  Access of innovation to the market - no specific provisions; 
o  Environmental aims – no specific provisions. 

Option 2 - Co-system: No change to technical provisions but certain 
tasks  performed  by  industry  under  official  supervision;  improved 
coherence between the PHR and PMR regimes 

Cost recovery and the simplification of the basic legal acts (replacing 12 Directives by 
one Regulation) are horizontal provisions common to all options. 

This  option  foresees  the  shifting  of  certain  tasks  and  responsibilities  from  the 
competent  authorities  to  the  private  sector.  As  a  result,  the  system  focuses  more  on 
process- than on product-control. 

1. Registration of varieties and material  

Variety  registration  continues  to  be  obligatory  for  crops  covered  by  EU  legislation.  
However, more responsibilities will be given to industry to carry out DUS and VCU 
evaluations  subject  to  validation  and  audit  by  the  competent  authorities.  For  VCU 
evaluation harmonised and more detailed EU criteria will be developed on the basis of 
the  requirements  set  up  in  the  Member  States.  Official  examination  shall  remain 
possible on request. Provisions related to variety denomination and the management 
of  the  Common  Catalogues  will  remain  unchanged.  In  this  option  all  administrative 
tasks at EU level will be attributed to the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). 

2. Certification/inspection of PRM 

The  certification  requirements  for  lots  of  PRM  remain  unchanged.  However,  as  a 
standard  procedure,  the  PRM  certification  is  carried  out  by  the  operator  under 
supervision of the competent authority. On request of the operator certification under 
official examination is still possible. Marketing of lots of PRM covered by a suppliers' 
label  equally  remains  unchanged.  Pests  currently  regulated  under  the  PRM  will  be 
listed  under  PHL;  definitions  and  provisions  between  PHL  and  PRM  Law  will  be 
aligned.  This  should  allow  removing  any  obstacles  for  combine  health  inspections 
under the two regimes.  

3. Registration of operators 

In  a  context  where  a  more  significant  role  is  given  to  the  industry,  all  operators 
(breeders, growers, suppliers) are registered, allowing a monitoring of their activities 
and  facilitating  traceability  in  case  of  identified  problems.  This  registration  will  be 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
valid both for the EU plant health regime and for the PRM marketing legislation and 
implemented through a shared register to reduce burden. 

4. Approach to conservation varieties/amateur varieties/niche markets 

This approach is not changed. Specific provisions continue to apply for conservation 
varieties  and  landraces  of  agricultural  crops,  for  vegetable  varieties,  mixtures  of 
fodder plant seed and for forest reproductive material intended for gene conservation 
purposes. 

Linking main objectives to instruments 

o 
o 

Simplification and harmonisation - from 12 Directives => one Regulation; 
Reducing  administrative  costs  for  competent  authorities; 
increasing 
flexibility  for  operators  –  recovery  of  substantive  costs  for  variety 
registration  and  PRM  certification,  transfer  of  tasks  to  the  operators  under 
official supervision; 
o 
Transparency and traceability – register of operators and operators' labelling; 
o  Access of innovation to the market – more flexibility and responsibility for 

operators; 
Environmental aims – no specific provisions. 

o 

Option  3  -  Deregulation:  VCU-evaluation  and  official  certification 
are  optional.  Harmonised  tests  are  developed.  Reallocation  of  tasks 
as under option 2 

Cost recovery and the simplification of the basic legal acts (replacing 12 Directives by 
one Regulation) are horizontal provisions common to all options. 

In  this  option,  tasks  and  responsibilities  are  not  only  shifted  from  the  competent 
authorities  to  the  private  sector,  but  also  reduced:  VCU-evaluation  and  official 
certification  are  no  longer  legal  requirements.  Furthermore,  ornamentals  will  no 
longer  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  PRM  marketing  legislation  and  therefore  will  be 
totally deregulated. 

1. Registration of varieties and material  

DUS-test for  variety registration continues to be compulsory for the  crops regulated 
by the EU legislation, and the verification of compliance with the requirements will 
be passed to industry as in option 2. 

VCU-evaluation for agricultural crops will no longer be a legal requirement. It is the 
responsibility of plant breeders to provide information on the value of varieties. For 
the  sake  of  transparency,  harmonised  evaluation  methods  will  be  developed  at  EU 
level.  In  this  option,  all  administrative  tasks  at  the  EU  level  related  to  variety 
registration, including the checking of variety denomination, will be attributed to the 
CPVO. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Certification/inspection of PRM 

All  lots  of  PRM  are  marketed  solely  on  the  basis  of  a  suppliers'  label  (i.e.  no  pre-
market  inspection  but  only  marketing  controls  carried  out  by  consumer  protection 
services), and there is no obligation to certify. Certification of lots will only be done 
for  PRM  lots  intended  for  export.  However,  lots  under  suppliers'  label  will  need  to 
meet  certain  minimum  criteria,  which  are  set  at  the  EU  level.  As  it  is  envisaged  to 
include  PRM  under  the  scope  of  the  new  Regulation  on  official  controls  along  the 
food chain (see the related IA), marketing controls will be carried out in accordance 
with the latter framework, in particular following the principle of risk based controls. 

3. Registration of operators 

In  a  context  where  a  more  significant  role  is  given  to  the  industry,  all  operators 
(breeders, growers, suppliers) are registered, allowing a monitoring of their activities 
and  facilitating  traceability  in  case  of  identified  problems.  This  registration  will  be 
valid both for the EU plant health regime and for the PRM marketing legislation and 
implemented through a shared register to reduce burden. 

4. Approach to conservation varieties/amateur varieties/niche markets 

This  approach  is  not  changed.  Specific  provisions  on  less  stringent  requirements 
continue  to  apply  for  conservation  varieties  and  landraces  of  agricultural  crops,  for 
vegetable varieties, mixtures of fodder plant seed and for forest reproductive material 
intended for gene conservation purposes. 

Linking main objectives to instruments 

o  Simplification and harmonisation – from 12 Directives => one Regulation; 
o  Reducing  administrative  costs  for  competent  authorities; 

increasing 
flexibility  for  operators  –  recovery  of  substantive  costs  for  variety 
registration  and  PRM  certification,  transfer  of  tasks  to  operators,  VCU 
evaluation and certification are optional; 

o  Transparency and traceability – register of operators and operators' labelling; 
o  Access of innovation to the market – more flexibility and responsibility for 

operators; 

o  Environmental aims – no specific provisions. 

Option  4  -  Enhanced  flexibility  system:  Mandatory  basic  provisions 
for  registration  with  a  voluntary  level  of  higher  assurance  for 
registration and certification 

Cost recovery and the simplification of the basic legal acts (replacing 12 Directives by 
one Regulation) are horizontal provisions common to all options 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This  option  envisages  a  substantial  flexibility  regarding  the  allocation  of  tasks  and 
responsibilities among the actors. The system can thus be process- or product-centred, 
depending  on  the  priorities  of  the  operators.  Furthermore,  basic  general  EU  criteria 
with regard to plant health and fitness for purpose, as well as for traceability/labelling, 
will apply to all PRM brought to the market. 

A  dual  system  is  put  in  place  allowing  a  broader  choice  for  operators:  (i)  official 
description  of  the  variety  and  a  right  for  certification  and  (ii)  official  recognised 
description provided by the operator and no right for certification. 

1. Registration of varieties and material 

All varieties and material of specified crops (in principle those covered by the current 
EU  marketing  Directives  with  a  closed  list of  species)  will  be  registered  in  national 
and subsequently in EU catalogues, which will be composed of two sections. For both 
sections,  the  variety  description  should  be  based  on  criteria  complying  with  CPVO 
and  UPOV  rules.  All  administrative  tasks  at  the  EU  level  related  to  variety 
registration will be attributed to the CPVO. 

Section  1  will  comprise  "officially  tested"  varieties  that  have  been  tested  and 
described officially or under official supervision. Technical examination will include 
DUS,  mandatory  VCU  criteria  (sustainability  of  resistance/tolerance  to  pests, 
adaptation to the physical environment and sustainability criteria such as sensitivity to 
input level or plant competitiveness) and denomination. Only varieties that are listed 
in this part of the catalogues will have the right to certification. 

Section 2 will comprise "not officially tested" varieties that are registered on the basis 
of  an  accepted  harmonised  description  of  the  variety  prepared  by  the  applicant, 
including  the  denomination  – this amounts to an "officially recognized description". 
Competent  authorities  will  only  be  responsible  for  checking  the  denomination  and 
registration and for controls of material present on the market, focussing on labelling 
in particular. Varieties in this category will not have the right for certification because 
the  authorities,  in  the  absence  of  officially  verified  and  accepted  results  of  identity 
testing (official examinations), cannot certify the identity of individual PRM lots. 

2. Certification of PRM 

Certification of certain species is no longer an obligation, but is converted into a right 
that  only  the  officially  tested  varieties  can  have.  Obligatory  certification  of  PRM 
could be maintained for crops that cause specific risks in terms of plant health or other 
aspects  with  societal  relevance  such  as  possible  content  of  toxic  substances, 
sustainability  of  production,  food  security.  In  case  of  no  certification,  competent 
authorities will only carry out marketing controls, possibly under the new Regulation 
on official controls along the food chain (see Scenario 3, point 2). 

3. Registration of operators 

In  a  context  where  a  more  significant  role  is  given  to  the  industry,  all  operators 
(breeders, growers, suppliers) are registered, allowing a monitoring of their activities 
and  facilitating  traceability  in  case  of  identified  problems.  This  registration  will  be 

27 

 
 
 
 
valid both for the EU plant health regime and for the PRM marketing legislation and 
implemented through a shared register to reduce burden. 

4. Approach on conservation varieties/amateur varieties/niche markets 

The  marketing  of  conservation  or  certain  "niche  market"  varieties  is  liberalised.  As 
there  is  no  obligatory  technical  examination  of  varieties  and  no  obligatory 
certification  of  PRM,  the  marketing  of  conservation  varieties  or  "niche  market" 
varieties  can  take  place  under  the  provisions  of  the  regime  for  non-tested  varieties. 
Suppliers whose PRM lots hold no particular plant health risk (in line with priorities 
to be set by a revised EU plant health legislation). 

Linking main objectives to instruments 

o  Simplification - from 12 Directives => one Regulation; 
o  Reducing  administrative  costs  for  competent  authorities; 

increasing 
flexibility  for  operators  –  recovery  of  substantive  costs  for  variety 
registration  and  PRM  certification,  transfer  of  tasks  to  operators,  voluntary 
higher level of control with regard to registration or certification; 

o  Transparency and traceability – register of operators and operators' labelling; 
o  Access  of  innovation  to  market  -  system  includes  non-tested  varieties  for 

which access to the market is free; 

o  Environmental  aims  –  less  stringent  conditions  for  conservation  varieties, 

sustainable VCU criteria.

Option  5  -  Centralisation:  Centralised  EU  registration  procedure 
with  CPVO  managing  and  making  final  decisions,  and  fully 
harmonised certification requirements; improved coherence between 
the PHR and PMR regimes 

Cost recovery and the simplification of the basic legal acts (replacing 12 Directives by 
one Regulation) are horizontal provisions common to all options. 

In  this  option,  registration  is  centralised  at  the  CPVO,  while  some  other  tasks  and 
responsibilities  can  be  allocated  to  the  private  sector.  Variety  registration  and  PRM 
certification,  where  applicable,  will  remain  mandatory  for  crops  covered  by  the 
existing  EU  legislation  and  detailed  technical  requirements  will  be  defined  in  the 
legislation. 

1. Registration of varieties and material 

The  CPVO  will  be  mandated  to  coordinate  and  decide  on  variety  registration, 
covering  both 
technical  examination  (DUS  and  VCU)  as  well  as  variety 
denomination.  Applications  for  registration  of  new  varieties  will  be  sent  directly  to 
CPVO.  In  addition,  this  would  allow  breeders  to  obtain  in  the  same  office  the 
intellectual property title and the authorisation for marketing ("one key, 27 locks"). 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The EU catalogue(s) will be published online, and will be continuously updated. To 
make  them  more  informative,  they  will  contain  hyperlinks  leading  to  standardised 
descriptions of the registered varieties, including possible relevant data related to food 
safety aspects. 

National catalogues may still coexist alongside the EU (Common) catalogue(s). They 
could contain additional VCU information that has been validated at national level or 
play a role for species that are not covered by the EU marketing legislation. 

2. Certification of PRM 

The  certification  requirements  for  lots  of  PRM  remain  unchanged.  However,  as  a 
standard procedure, the control of compliance with the criteria for PRM marketing is 
carried out by the operator under supervision of the competent authority. On request 
of  the  operator  certification  under  official  examination  is  still  possible.  Possible 
stricter  requirements  of  the  Member  States  that  apply  to  their  domestic  production 
will be subject to approval at EU level. Pests currently regulated under the PRM will 
be listed under PHL; definitions and provisions between PHL and PRM Law will be 
aligned. This should allow removing obstacles for combine health inspections under 
the two regimes. The Union system of comparative tests and trials – which have not 
been carried out since 2008 – will be replaced by “Reference Certification Centres”. 
These  centres  will  have  the  task  to  develop  and  share  best  practices,  carry  out 
comparative tests and trials, carry out studies in support of policy development and to 
disseminate knowledge of PRM certification. This all should contribute to the health 
and quality of PRM and to the development and harmonisation of PRM certification 
in the Union. 

3. Registration of operators 

In  a  context  where  a  more  significant  role  is  given  to  the  industry,  all  operators 
(breeders, growers, suppliers) are registered, allowing a monitoring of their activities 
and  facilitating  traceability  in  case  of  identified  problems.  This  registration  will  be 
valid both for the EU plant health regime and for the PRM marketing legislation and 
implemented through a shared register to reduce burden. 

4. Approach on conservation varieties/amateur varieties/ niche markets 

Conservation  varieties  have  a  strong  link  with  their  region  of  origin  and  should  be 
evaluated  in  that  same  region  for  their  contribution  to  agro-biodiversity.  This 
evaluation should be carried out on the basis of harmonised criteria. Deviations from 
the normal regime ought to be kept to an absolute minimum. 

29 

 
 
 
 
Linking main objectives to instruments 

o  Simplification - from 12 Directives => one Regulation; 
o  Reducing  administrative  costs  for  competent  authorities;  increasing  flexibility 
for  operators  –  recovery  of  substantive  costs  for  variety  registration  and  PRM 
certification; "one key, 27 locks": possibility for breeders to obtain in the same 
office the intellectual property title and the authorisation for marketing; 

o  Transparency and traceability – register of operators; 
o  Access  of  innovation  to  the  market  –  one  EU  office  with  several  related  tasks 

will strengthen the innovation and protection of the innovation; 

o  Environmental aims – no specific provisions. 

Discarded options 

The  following  option  was  also  considered  but  given  its  incompatibility  with  the 
objectives of the revision it has been excluded at an early stage and not been analysed 
in detail. 

Abolishing the EU legislation on PRM marketing 

Variety registration and seed certification schemes have a long history in Europe: in 
the  Netherlands,  government  seed  testing  services  were  already  offered  in  1877,  in 
Germany a seed certification programme was established in the late 19th century26 and 
Sweden  created  an  official  system  in  1888.27  Variety  registration  developed  in  the 
early 20th century; Germany passed the first seed law that included variety registration 
in 1929. 

The development of some type of regulatory system concerning PRM is predicated on 
the fact that any inadequacies concerning identity of or quality in purchased seed are 
difficult or impossible for the farmer to recognise. Due to long production circles, this 
issue is also crucial for forestry. Regulation is best seen as a response to insufficient 
information  in  a  market,  which  may  limit  transactions.  In  these  cases  a  third  party 
helps ensure that adequate information is available to guide market transactions or to 
enforce  standards  of  public  safety.  Abolishing  the  current  EU-wide  legislation  on 
PRM marketing would most likely not lead to a complete disappearance some form of 
variety registration or of certification of seed as the transparency of the market has to 
be  maintained.  A  complete  replacement  of  the  current  well-functioning  official 
system by a similar, but private system thus does not appear to be an efficient course 
of action. If these private schemes were mainly run on a national level, new problems 
may well arise as can be illustrated using the example of certification. 

In the absence of any EU regulations concerning PRM marketing, the principle of free 
movement  of  goods  has  still  to  be  respected.  At  intra-EU  level,  the  private  sector 
certification schemes would most likely not be identical. This would lead to a lack of 

26 Rutz, H.W. (1990) Seed certification in the Federal Republic of Germany. Plant Varieties and Seeds 

3, 157-163. 

27 Kahre, L. (1990) The history of seed certification in Sweden. Plant Varieties and Seeds 3, 181-193. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
transparency, making choice for farmers more difficult. As the PRM industry would 
have to take account of diverging rules and required specifications depending on the 
customer to whom and the Member State in which they sell their products, this would 
have  a  strong  negative  impact  on  the  administrative  burden  for  the  industry  and 
consequently,  on  its  competitiveness.  In  the  absence  of  mandatory  minimum 
standards,  part  of  the  operators  may  seek  to  gain  a  part  of  the  market  through  low 
prices  based  on  the  reduction  of  production  costs.  This  could  ultimately  affect 
agricultural  production  and  productivity  as  well  as  forestry.  This  option  could  also 
increase  the  risk  of  spreading  plant  pests.  On  the  whole,  it  is  considered  that  this 
option will not contribute to the achievement of the overall objectives. 

In  the  absence  of  any  EU  regulations  concerning  PRM  marketing,  trade  with  third 
countries  will  only  be  regulated  in  line  with  the  OECD  rules  and  internationally 
recognised rules on seed testing. This entails that Member States will have to maintain 
a  system  of  certification.  This  implies  furthermore,  that  the  EU  equivalence  system 
would have to be abolished as it would represent a technical trade barrier within the 
WTO system. 

As one underlying objective of the review is the reduction of cost and administrative 
burden,  possible  options  that  would  lay  down  stricter  rules,  such  as  centralising 
certification or a full VCU evaluation for all groups of plant species, were discarded.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

Option 0 - Baseline 

Structure and dynamics of the sector 

In 2009 – 2010, the EU commercial seed market has reached a value of approximately 
EUR 6.8 billion and it thus represents more than 20% of the total worldwide market 
for commercial seed. There is still an important potential on the international market 
for improved seed; an annual growth rate of about 5% for field crops at global level 
can  be  expected.  The  value  of  the  PRM  market  other  than  agricultural  seed  is 
approximately an additional EUR 6-7 billion. 

The  PRM  industry  is  very  dynamic.  Traditionally,  the  seed  markets  were  national 
markets  with  quite  a  low  volume  of  international  exchanges.  This  has  changed 
dramatically  in  the  past  20  years.  The  industry  has  undergone  considerable 
consolidation  and  continues  to  evolve.  This  sector  now  comprises  a  complex  and 
dynamic network of ownerships (partial and complete), joint ventures, partnerships or 
strategic alliances.28  

28  For  an  analysis  see  Howard,  P.H.  (2009)  Visualizing  Consolidation  in  the  Global  Seed  Industry: 
1996–2008. Sustainability 1, 1266-1287. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The situation in old Member States can be characterized as follows: a large proportion 
of  SMEs  with  a  high  R&D  rate,  strong  interlinkages  and  production  for  the  global 
market.  The  situation  in  the  new  Member  States  is  still  quite  different:  breeding  of 
new  varieties  is  still  largely  done  by  public  bodies,  but  SMEs  are in  charge  of  seed 
multiplication  and  sales.  Therefore,  companies  in  the  new  Member  States  such  as 
Poland,  Hungary  and  Romania  are  not  research  intensive  and  a  large  proportion  are 
likely  seed  multipliers  or  seed  traders.  Annex  IX  shows  on  the  basis  of  variety 
registration data from the Common Catalogue the still significant differences between 
some selected old and new Member States in terms of new varieties registered and the 
provenance of variety maintainers. 

Situation in specific subsectors 

Vegetable seeds are mainly multiplied outside the EU in a wide range of countries in 
which labour costs are lower than in the EU. The produced seeds are shipped to the 
EU, mainly to the Netherlands, for treating, sampling and packaging and re-exported 
to their final destination in the EU or outside the EU. The production has a value of 
about EUR 1 billion. Main producers are FR, IT, NL, HU DK, PL. The five biggest 
companies have 95% of the seed market. 

In the EU, forest nursery activities are linked to reforestation and afforestation, which 
could  concern  forested  area,  agricultural  land  (agricultural  abandonment  of  marginal 
area), creation/renovation of hedges or agro-forestry. European forests serve different 
aims: economical (raw materials like sawn wood for construction purposes or furniture, 
pulpwood for cellulose, insulation, packaging, paper and source of renewable energy), 
environmental  (e.g.  protection  against  soil  erosion,  avalanche  control,  regulation  of 
streams  and  rivers,  CO2  capture)  and  societal  (e.g.  recreation,  employment  in  rural 
areas).  

Regarding  the  control  of  nursery  activities,  registration  of  new  selected  seed  stands 
and qualified seed orchards, deliverance of Master certificates, responsibility is at the 
level  of  the  competent  authority  in  the  Member  States.  Generally,  there  are  two 
different  competent  authorities  for  plant  health  control  and  PRM  control,  except  in 
few  Member  States  (FR,  IE).  Regarding  the  practical  modalities  of  control  and  the 
costs involved, the situation is very diverse among the Member States as is shown in 
Annex X. 

The  existing  legal  framework  for  forest  reproductive  material  is  accepted  and 
supported by all stakeholder groups. 

The  propagating  material  of  fruit  plants  is  produced  in  all  EU  countries,  but  the 
largest  quantity  of  the  propagating  material  marketed  in  the  Union  is  produced  in 
specialised  areas  concentrated  in  few  countries  (ES,  IT,  NL,  FR,  PT,  UK  and  HU). 
The  production  of  propagating  material  is  held  by  a  large  number  of  suppliers 
accredited  by  the  responsible  official  bodies  of  the  Member  States.  Only  a  low 
number  of  suppliers  have  a  large  business  specialised  in  fruit  plant  propagating 
material breeding or reproduction. Some suppliers are specialised in the production of 
particular material e.g. stone fruits, citrus fruit or apple trees only. In some cases the 
same  company  is  involved  in  production  of  fruit  plants  and  ornamental  plants 
propagating  material,  it  is  accredited  as  supplier  for  fruit  plants  and  registered  as 
supplier for ornamental plants. In other cases the production of propagating material 

32 

 
 
 
is  a  part  of  other  farming  business.  Basic  research  is  still  generally  carried  out  by 
universities or other public Research Institutes. 

DG SANCO consolidated some key figures in 2007-08 and concluded that more than 
12,000 enterprises are involved in production of fruit plants in the EU; and about 90% 
of  them  are  small  to  medium  enterprises  frequently  based  in  rural  areas  where 
alternative  business  is  not  possible.  The  estimated  value  of  this  business  was 
estimated at about EUR 2.5 billion. 

The EU is world leader in the market for vine nursery products, with an annual output 
of 360 million cuttings. The steady decline in prices for cuttings on the world market 
and stronger competition from other producer countries has resulted over recent years 
in  an  exponential  increase  in  the  number  of  nursery  closures  in  Europe  and  has 
plunged the entire sector into crisis. In Italy, for instance, it is estimated that in 2009 
the  market  for  cuttings  has  shrunk  by  30  %,  and  up  to  60  %  in  areas  experiencing 
severe difficulties. In France, over the past three years alone, 130 of the country's 830 
vine nurseries have closed down owing to the collapse in market prices for cuttings, 
which have fallen well below production costs. 

Implementation costs of the legislation 

The  current  cost  of  implementing  the  variety  registration  provisions  amounts  to 
approximately EUR 55-60 Mio per year in the EU according to information provided 
by  Member  States.29  DUS  and  VCU  account  for  45%  and  55%  of  the  cost, 
respectively (see also Annex XIV). 

The  cost  of  certification  is  more  difficult  to  estimate  since  in  a  number  of  Member 
States staff involved in certification is also involved in plant health inspections, and it 
is not straightforward to assign costs.  

From  information  provided  by  Member  States  (evaluation  of  2007/2008  and 
certification  questionnaire)  it  is  estimated  that  the  expenditure  by  Member  States' 
authorities  on  certification  of  PRM  are  in  the  range  of  EUR  73-79  Mio.30  Seed  lot 
sampling and analysis represents more than 50% of the total certification costs, while 
field  inspection  costs  represent  in  between  20-30%  on  average  (Annex  XIV).  For 
agricultural and vegetable crops the 2007/2008 evaluation calculated an approximate 
combined  cost  for  variety  registration  and  certification  incurred  by  competent 
authorities of just under EUR 120 Mio and that across the EU approximately 60% of 
these costs are recovered. These figures serve as a basis for the analysis of the costs in 
the  other  options.  Table  1  and  2  provide  information  on  the  current  distribution  of 
variety registration and seed certification costs between public and private bodies in 
the Member States. Annex XIV provides further information on the cost structure of 
registration and certification for Member States for which detailed information could 
be gathered during the evaluation. 

29 Extrapolation of data obtained in the 2010 PRM testing and registration study. It concerns all species 
for which variety registration is mandatory under EU legislation.  
30 This figure includes the additional cost flowing from stricter national provisions. Also, it should be 
stressed that part of the expenditure is compensated by incoming fees. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                 
Controls for the possible presence of harmful organisms (HO) at growing stage and in 
lots of PRM brought to the market are an important cost factor and an integration of 
plant  health  and  certification  inspection  schemes  could  lead  to  some  cost  savings. 
This possibility is analysed in options 2 and 5. 

Table 1 – Current distribution of seed registration costs between public and private bodies in the 
MS 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG* 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

Transfer of 
Registration costs 

Additional information 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs  (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No transfer of DUS costs, partial transfer of VCU costs 

Partial transfer of costs  (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Partial  transfer  of  costs    (between  70%  and  80%  of  DUS  and  VCU 
costs) 

Partial transfer of costs (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Around 2/3 of DUS and VCU costs are transferred to the industry) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs (around 25 to 30% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Partial transfer of costs 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RO* 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Almost no DUS testing performed in Slovenia, around 70% of VCU 
costs are transferred 

Partial transfer of costs (around 70% of VCU costs) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Source:  compiled  on  the  basis  of  the  data  provided  in  the  qualitative  and  the  cost  questionnaire.  * 
Information  received  from  these  Member  States  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  by  now  full  (BG)  or  at 
least partial (RO) cost recovery is in place. 

Table  2  –  Current  distribution  of  seed  certification  costs  between  public  and 
private bodies in the Member States 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

Certification costs 
are transferred to 
industry 

Additional information 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs 

30% of costs are transferred to the industry 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Between  30%  and  70%  depending  on  the  Federal  Land 
concerned 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

97% for seed, 65% for vine 

The  fee  =  (reference  price)  x  (certified  quantity)  x  3%.  The 
rate of the reference price is fluctuating between the farmer’s 
price and the final selling price of the seed. 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

8% is financed by private sector 

Certification is mostly financed by national authorities 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Full transfer of costs (100%)  

Full transfer of costs (100%)  

70-80 of costs transferred to the industry and target of 100%  

Source: compiled on the base of the answers provided to the cost questionnaire and by official authorities to the 
preliminary questionnaire.  

Rating of impacts 

To facilitate comparisons between options, impacts have been rated: 

0 
+ 
++ 

No or neutral impact 
Small positive impact 
Significant  positive impact 

0 
- 
-- 

No or neutral impact 
Small negative impact 
Significant negative impact 

Option  1  -  Cost  recovery:  No  change  to  technical  provisions  but  complete 
recovery of registration and certification costs by competent authorities  

Under  this  option,  the  impacts  of  the  horizontal  measures  (cost  recovery,  the 
simplification  of  the  basic  legal  acts  and  the  registration  of  operators)  are  assessed. 
The current situation concerning the distribution of costs between the public and the 
private sector are shown in tables 1 and 2.  

1. Impact on health and quality of PRM  

No significant impacts compared to the baseline are expected on health and quality of 
PRM. 

2. Impact on employment and jobs 

Employment  in  the  public  sector  might  escape  some  of  the  cuts  that  would  be 
necessary under the budgetary austerity measures if there is no change in the system. 
No noticeable effects on the private sector are expected. 

3. Impact on administrative burden for authorities and private sector operators 

The main instruments having impacts in these respects will be legal simplification and 
cost  recovery.  No  additional  costs  are  expected  from  the  simplification  and 
harmonisation of the legislation. Benefits are expected as legislation will become far 
less complex and fragmented and as all technical measures laid down by the existing 
basic legislation will be transferred to specific implementing acts. Member States save 
costs  as  they  do  not  have  to  transpose  EU  legislation  into  national  law.  Increased 
flexibility  for  the  management  of  technical  implementing  acts  is  expected  both  by 
official  bodies  and  suppliers.  Costs  will  decrease  for  competent  authorities  in  those 
Member States that so far have not implemented cost recovery and the extra resources 
will  help  to  maintain  the  pool  of  expertise  in  the  public  services  which  will  secure 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
their  functioning  in  the  future.  Costs  will  increase  to  a  small  extent  for  operators  in 
those  Member  States.  The  impacts  on  the  private  sector  can  be  considered  in  more 
detail for the different sectors:  

Agricultural seed crops: 

With an estimated cost for variety registration and certification of up to 3%31 of the 
market  value  of  the  agricultural  seed  crops,  the  introduction  of  cost  recovery  is 
unlikely to have a direct impact on the competition of between PRM companies from 
different  Member  States  –  especially  as  at  least  60%  of  these  costs  are  already 
recovered  across  the  EU.  Two  factors  have  to  be  considered  in  order  to  judge  the 
impact of cost recovery on the PRM industry: the ability to absorb extra cost and the 
specific impact on SMEs and micro-enterprises. The PRM industry as a whole is one 
of the most research intensive industries having an average R&D/net sale ratio of 15% 
and  thus  can  be  expected  to  have  the  financial  capability  to  absorb  the  costs  for 
registration and certification. 

Annex  VIII  shows  that  the  largest  numbers  of  SMEs  are  found  in  three  Member 
States: Hungary, Poland and Romania. Approximately 4900 companies are located in 
these  three  Member  States  and  more  than  90%  of  these  companies  are  SMEs. 
However, these three Member States already have cost recovery for seed certification. 
Variety  registration  costs  are  not  recovered  in  Hungary  and  partially  recovered  in 
Romania32 and Poland. Thus, a large majority of SMEs and micro-enterprises in the 
EU  are  already  operating  under  cost  recovery  regimes  for  seed  certification  (which 
accounts for approximately 57% of the implementation costs of the PRM legislation). 
If cost recovery were to be extended to all Member States for both variety registration 
and seed certification, only a small increase of costs amounting to less than 1% of the 
market value of the agricultural seed crops (taking into account the already recovered 
share of the total costs) would have to be borne by operators that develop and register 
new varieties. It has also to be taken into account that a large share of the SMEs and 
micro-enterprises  in  the  new  Member  States  are  seed  multipliers  and  seed  traders33 
and  are  not  involved  in  breeding  new  varieties.  Therefore,  they  are  not  registering 
new varieties to a significant extent. 

Vegetables:  

Vegetable  varieties  only  undergo  DUS,  but  no  VCU  and  certification  is  not 
compulsory. The main producers of vegetable seed and propagating material are the 
Netherlands and France, two countries in which cost recovery for DUS is already in 
force. The impact of cost recovery on this sector will therefore be minimal. 

31 FCEC (2008), Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and plant propagating 

material (S&PM). Cost analysis. 

32  When  the  evaluation  was  carried  out,  Romania  reported  no  cost  recovery  for  registration. 
Information received recently from Romanian authorities lead to the conclusion that presently partial, 
if not full, recovery for registration has been established. 

33 This can be inferred from data in Annex VIII which show that comparatively few R&D employees 
work in the new Member States and that most research is done in Member States with companies that 
have a relatively large number of employees. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
Fruit propagating material: 

Many of the enterprises active in this sector are small or micro-enterprises located in 
disadvantaged  areas.  In  addition,  it  has  to  be  taken  into  account  that  variety 
registration  may  very  well  be  more  expensive  than  for  agricultural  seed  crops  on 
which the estimate of 1.3% is based on. DUS for fruit propagating material takes at 
least  4  years  and  thus  could  be  approximately  30%  more  expensive.  Detailed 
information concerning cost recovery in this sector is not available, but on the basis of 
available general information from the Member States and information from experts, 
it  can  be  assumed  that  at  least  partial  cost  recovery  already  exists  in  the  major 
countries  producing  fruit  plant  propagating  material.  The  effects  of  introducing  cost 
recovery are most likely moderate to low. 

Forest reproductive material: 

Forests  are  atypical  compared  to  the  other  sectors  in  their  multifunctionality 
(including  public  goods  such  as  recreation,  cultural  identity  or  environmental 
protection) and the long-term perspectives concerning these functions. This explains 
and  also  justifies  the  current  strong  involvement  of  public  authorities  in  breeding, 
growing and certification. Annex X shows the practical modalities and costs involved 
in control of FRM, but detailed data on potentially specific cost recovery regimes for 
this sector are not available. 

Vine reproductive material: 

The  problems  facing  vine  nurseries  have  their  root  cause  not  in  the  marketing 
Directives.  The  1999  reform  of  the  common  market  organisation  (CMO)  for  wine 
strengthened  the  goal  of  achieving  a  better  balance  between  supply  and  demand  on 
the Community market, giving producers the chance to bring production into line with 
a market demanding higher quality and to allow the sector to become competitive in 
the long term by financing the restructuring of a large part of present vineyards. This 
reform proved insufficient to reduce wine surpluses and considerable sums still had to 
be spent on disposing of them. The reform adopted by the EU in 2008 has the goals of 
making EU wine producers even more competitive, making the market-management 
rules simpler, clearer and more effective – to achieve a better balance between supply 
and demand and to preserve the best traditions of European wine. After 2015, current 
EU  restrictions  on  planting  vines  will  be  lifted,  enabling  competitive  producers  to 
increase production. 

Detailed  data  for  cost  recovery  in  this  sector  are  not  available,  but  assuming  that 
practices are similar to other sectors, cost recovery will not have a significant impact, 
but  rather  help  to  maintain  the  system  to  control  the  strict  quality  requirements 
demanded of planting material. 

38 

 
 
 
 
•  Table 3  Potential impact of requiring MS to achieve cost recovery on registration34 

U
H

E
I

T
L

V
L

T
M

E
B

Y
C

E
D

L
P

*
S
E

*
R
G

*
U
L

*
T
P

Z
C

R
F

*
*
O
R

I
S

K
S

*
*
G
B

K
D

E
E

I
F

T
I

L
N

E
S

K
U

T
A

High impact 

Medium 
impact 

Low impact 

No impact 

High  impact:  currently  no  cost  recovery;  medium  impact:  currently  50%  cost  recovery;  low  impact: 
50% < current cost recovery < 100% and no impact: currently cost recovery. 

* These Member States only stated that they achieve partial cost recovery without providing a number. 

** The situation in BG and RO appears to have changed since the evaluation was carried out in 2007. 
Information received from those Member States lead to the conclusion that cost recovery is in place in 
BG and at least partial recovery in RO. 

•  Table 4  Potential impact of requiring MS to achieve cost recovery on certification 

T
M

T
L

U
L

T
A

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
E

S
E

R
G

E
I

V
L

E
B

E
D

K
U

R
F

K
D

I
F

U
H

T
I

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

I
S

K
S

High impact 

Medium 
impact 

Low impact 

No impact 

Data  received  from  ESA  (personal  communication)  on  the  situation  of  micro-
enterprises,  SMEs  and  large  companies  in  the  some  European  countries  where  the 
seed  sector  is  relatively  important,  show  that  the  proportion  of  micro  enterprises 
ranges  from  around  48%  in  France,  68%  in  Italy,  82%  in  Hungary  to  up  to  95%  in 
Poland. The micro-enterprises are mainly involved in seed production and marketing. 

Today  in  France,  Italy  and  Poland  the  principle  of  cost  recovery  for  variety 
registration  and  seed  certification  is  already  in  place  and  applied  to  all  types  of 
companies and is not of major concern for the majority of stakeholders. In Hungary, 
cost recovery only applies to seed certification. 

In the sector of fruit, forest and vine nurseries, the percentage of small enterprises is 
even higher.35 The exemption of these sectors from the scope of the Regulation is not 

34  The  data  used  to  construct  these  tables  are  uncertain.  They  are  intended  to  provide  an  indicative 
assessment of the distributional impact of requiring cost recovery based on current rates of recovery. 
Actual impacts will be influenced by a range of factors in addition to current cost recovery rates. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in coherence with the global request of nursery growers to increase the quality of the 
material  in  order  to  provide  high  quality  material  and  remain  competitive  at  global 
level. 

Regarding  a  general  exemption  of  micro-enterprises  from  the  scope  of  the  new 
Regulation, it will result in an exemption of 95% of the businesses in Poland and of 
50% in France. 

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. Furthermore, operators active along the food 
chain share with competent authorities the responsibility of preventing that unsafe or 
unfit  products  enter  the  market.  They  are  the  first  beneficiaries  of  the  added  value 
produced  by  an  efficient  control  system  and  are  thus  called  upon  to  finance  the 
official  control  system  through  the  payment  of  a  fee  which  allows  the  competent 
authorities  to  recover  its  control  costs.  Introducing  a  cost  recovery  regime  is  a 
proportionate measure as it does not unduly burden SMEs and because it contributes 
significantly to achieving the objective of assuring the health and quality of PRM. 

The general principle of proportionality will apply in the new PRM legislation also in 
a different  sense: for species such  as those from the ornamental sector or non-listed 
species  (not  important  with  regard  to  EU  agricultural  production  and  food  quality), 
obligations  will  be  limited  to  registration  of  professional  operators  and  minimum 
labelling requirement affixed by the operators.  

The review of PRM legislation is also linked to the review of plant health Regulation 
(Directive  2000/29)  and  control  in  the  food  chain  (Regulation  No.  882/2004)  where 
the  issue  of  SMEs  and  exempting  small  or  micro  enterprises  from  the  scope  of  the 
legislation will also be addressed.  

4. Impact on competitiveness and trade 

The  major  positive  impact  of  cost  recovery  consists  in  establishing  a  level  playing 
field for all operators in the internal market. This should improve competitiveness and 
trade in the EU. 

5. Impact on innovation and research 

No significant impacts on innovation and research are expected, as the R&D budgets 
are far larger than the additional costs incurred through cost recovery. 

6. Environmental impact 

No environmental impacts are expected compared to the baseline 

7. Social impact 

No social impacts are expected compared to the baseline 

35 See for example FranceAgriMer (Sep. 2011) Observatoire des exploitations horticoles et pépinières. 

p. 9. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                            
Summary of the key impacts under option 1 

Areas 

Impacts 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Impact on employment and jobs in the public and private sector 

0 

0 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

+ (in few MS ++) 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators 

- (in few MS --) 

Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impacts 

+  

0 

0 

0 

Option  2  -  Co-system:  No  change  to  technical  provisions  but  certain  tasks 
performed by industry under official supervision; improved coherence between 
the PHR and PMR regimes 

1. Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Transferring  the  legal  requirements  for  registration  to  industry  should  not  have  a 
major negative impact on the health of PRM. With regard to the certification of PRM, 
Member  States  that  are  already  using  certification  under  official  supervision  (11 
Member States in 2007) did not consider that widening the possibility to certify PRM 
“under  official  supervision”  to  all  categories  of  PRM  and  to  all  agricultural  species 
would lead to a general reduction of the health and quality of PRM lots of agricultural 
crops on the market. Propagating material will run the highest health risk, rather than 
true seeds, because this technique of reproduction could transfer more possible pests 
and diseases to the daughter generations. 

Improving the coherence between the PHR and PMR regimes will make it easier to 
change  the  status  of  regulated  harmful  organisms  from  territorial  (quarantine)  to 
marketing  (quality).  This  will  improve  the  flexibility  and  adaptability  of  both  legal 
regimes  to  changes  in  threats  to  PRMs.  Further  alignments  of  definitions  and 
provisions of the EU plant health and PRM regimes can remove obstacles for Member 
States to combine health inspections under the two regimes and reduce burden. Where 
consignments  require  a  plant  passport  and  a  certification  label,  the  competent 
authorities shall issue a single document. This would allow for a reduction of operator 
costs up to EUR 0.7 Mio per year.36 

36  FCEC  (2011)  Quantification  of  costs  and  benefits  of  amendments  to  the  EU  plant  health  regime. 
Final report. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2. Impact on employment and jobs 

Between 1300 and 1500 employees work on variety registration in official bodies in 
the  EU.  The  results  of  the  variety  registration  study  indicate  that  60%  of  the 
registration costs are in fact labour costs. If the practical work for variety registration 
were  fully  transferred  to  the  private  sector  stakeholders,  it  could  result  in 
redundancies in Member States' competent authorities. Technical examination of the 
identity of varieties would then be limited to the work done for that share of varieties 
checked in the system of official supervision of variety evaluation activities and in the 
context  of  post-controls  on  lots  of  PRM  present  on  the  market.  In  terms  of  jobs,  a 
certain  share  of  those  related  to  variety  evaluation  in  the  public  sector  might 
disappear, but part of the staff could potentially be recruited by private companies, to 
take advantage of their specialised expertise. This might lead to a limited increase in 
employment  in  the  private  sector.  However,  the  principle  of  cost  recovery  will 
contribute  to  the  maintenance  of  the  appropriate  level  of  expertise  in  competent 
authorities. 

As  for  the  certification  of  individual  lots  of  PRM,  in  the  current  system  of 
examination under official supervision the authorities have to inspect only 5% of the 
fields and lots, meaning that there could be a significant reduction in staff numbers. 
Some  major  PRM  producing  Member  States  already  implement  examination  under 
official  supervision  for  agricultural  crops  other  than  seed  potatoes,  and  there  the 
number  of  jobs  lost  in  the  competent  authorities  would  probably  be  fairly  limited.37 
As roughly half of PRM produced in the EU is intended for export to third countries, 
official  certification  or  certification  under  official  supervision  will  still  have  to  be 
carried  out  for  these  lots  of  PRM.  A  rough  estimate  is  that  no  more  than  600-700 
public sector jobs might be lost. 

Part  of  the  redundant  staff  may  be  recruited  by  the  private  sector,  as  it  will  have  to 
control their products more thoroughly, being ultimately responsible for the PRM lots 
brought to the market. 

3. Impact on administrative burden for authorities and private sector operators 

The administrative burden related to the registration of varieties is estimated to be 55 
to 60 Mio Euro per year, while the cost of the certification regime is estimated to be 
EUR  73-79  Mio.38  As  explained  earlier,  moving  the  inspection  task  to  the  private 
sector should reduce this burden significantly. The industry, however, will be required 
to maintain records of their variety and certification procedures. Already now, mostly 
large companies in the sector perform a considerable number of inspections as part of 
their quality assurance schemes. According to the variety registration study,39 private 

37 In France, for basic and pre-basic crops there are approximately 6000 contracts between farmers and 
seed  producers  each  year.  Currently,  these  crops  have  all  to  be  examined  officially.  With  official 
supervision, at least 5% would have to be examined. This is a small number compared to the number of 
inspections  under  official  supervision  for  certified  field  crops  that  are  already  undertaken, 
approximately 2000 – 3000 per year. (GNIS, pers. comm.). 
38 This figure includes the additional cost flowing from stricter national provisions. It should also be 
stressed that part of the expenditure is compensated by incoming fees. 
39 FCEC (2008) Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and plant propagating 
material (S&PM). Final report. 

42 

 
 
 
                                                 
companies could do the work at lower cost. It is therefore expected that the majority 
of  these  costs  can  be  absorbed  by  businesses  under  normal  business  practices 
(business  as  usual)  and  that  the  additional  cost  will  not  be  significant.  Therefore, 
passing  the  task  of  inspections  from  the  Member  State  authorities  to  the  sector  will 
lead to only a limited increase of workload for the private sector. Moreover, the sector 
has  pointed  at  the  importance  of  enhanced  flexibility,  timeliness  and  cost  savings 
offered by examination under official supervision. 

Estimating cost savings for certification under official supervision 

During official certification, work that is carried in the context of companies' quality 
assurance  schemes  is  to  some  extent  or  even  completely  duplicated.  The  following 
examples of seed potato and cereal certification provide an estimate of the costs that 
could  be  saved  if  official  supervision  of  certification  for  these  crops  would  be 
introduced. 

Estimation of costs and possible savings in the seed potato sector40: 

The total EU market of seed potatoes is approximately 2.5 Mio tons of which 400 000 
tons is exported to third countries. Seed lot testing is done both by official inspection 
authorities and seed companies which means a potential 100% duplication of work.  

Exports (400 000 tons) are tested in lots of 25 tons: this means that a total of 16 000 
inspections  take  place  every  year.  Assuming  inspection  costs  of  EUR  5041  this 
amounts to a total cost of EUR 800 000. 

Seed potatoes for the internal market (2.1 Million tons) are tested in lots of 100 tons: 
this means that 21 000 inspections take place per year. Again assuming that costs per 
inspection are EUR 50, the total inspection effort amounts to a cost of EUR 1.0 Mio. 
The total cost of duplicated activities during certification is thus EUR 1.8 Mio. Under 
official supervision, 5% of lots are checked by the competent authorities. This means 
that approximately EUR 1.7 Mio (≈ 2% of total certification costs) could be saved in 
the  seed  potato  sector  alone  by  avoiding  duplicated  work  under  a  system  of  official 
supervision of certification. 

Estimation of costs and possible savings for a company in the cereal sector42: 

A large seed company produces approximately 10 000 lots of basic and pre-basic and 
20 000 lots of certified cereal seeds each year. Official supervision for certified cereal 
seed is already in place. Field inspections cost approximately EUR 11 per visit – both 
if done by company staff or the competent authorities – and lot inspections EUR 35 if 
carried out by the company and EUR 65 if carried out by the competent authorities. If 
official supervision of the certification of pre-basic and basic seed was introduced and 
assuming complete duplication of quality assurance work and official inspection and 

40 Information from industry 
41 This number is based on the situation in the Netherlands. The main other European producers of seed 
potatoes are Germany, France and the UK and we assume that the inspection costs are roughly similar 
in these countries. 
42 Based on information from industry sources. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
that on average 2 field visits are carried out, the company could save in the order of 
0.95*10 000 * EUR 87 = EUR 826 500 per year. 

It is very difficult to generalise these calculations to the entire European cereal sector 
as  internal  costs  for  companies  and  costs  of  inspections  will  differ  substantially 
between Member States. 

The impacts of registration of operators will not be significant as PRM operators are 
to  a  large  majority  covered  by  the  register  envisaged  under  the  new  plant  health 
legislation. 

4. Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Registration  tests  require  staff  with  a  high  level  of  specialised  technical  skills.  It  is 
possible  that  only  a  small  part  of  the  breeding  industry  would  be  interested  in 
performing  registration  tests  themselves,  namely  bigger  companies  (10%  of 
companies)  that  breed  several  crops  and  that  can  afford  specialised  staff,  and  some 
smaller  companies  which  have  become  acknowledged  specialists  in  a  very  limited 
number  of  crops.  As  already  today  major  companies  are  carrying  out  variety 
evaluation  work  themselves,  in  particular  for  big  volume  crops,  such  a  shift  would 
allow them to act faster and more efficient, without increasing their costs. This would 
enhance their competitiveness.  

A  significant  number  of  companies  in  the  sector  are  SMEs  that  do  not  necessarily 
have the facilities to do the necessary technical examinations. These companies would 
need  to  outsource  this  work  to  the  private  sector  or  to  facilities  run  by  competent 
authorities. 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  public  services  is  also 
guaranteed, so that SMEs and micro-enterprises can have technical examinations and 
inspections carried out by competent authorities.  

There is also the risk that staff cuts in public facilities and a lower amount of technical 
examination/inspection  work  results  in  an  erosion  of  skills  and  knowledge  in  the 
public  sector.  But  the  cost  recovery  principle  for  the  services  provided  should 
counterbalance this tendency and help to maintaining the necessary level of staffing 
and expertise. 

The  currently  available  opportunities  for  performing  certification  under  official 
supervision  are  not  widely  taken  up  in  the  Member  States,  in  part  because  in  many 
Member  States  the  cost  of  certification  is  not  recovered  from  the  private  sector.  In 
Member States where already now the costs are fully recovered, the reduction of costs 
for producers of PRM will be limited, but it will result in a definite improvement of 
flexibility  in  their  operations,  and  therefore  most  of  them  would  benefit  from  a 
widened  certification  under  official  supervision,  regardless  of  the  size  of  their 
enterprise. 

The  increased  flexibility  envisaged  in  this  option  will  also  help  to  maintain  the 
competitiveness of European companies on the global market.  

The  forestry  sector  faces  some  specific  challenges  that  need  to  be  considered 
separately. This sector is characterised by a strong involvement of the public sector. 

44 

 
 
 
 
This  involvement  is  justified  by  the  long-term  perspective  of  forestry  and  by  the 
multifunctional  role  of  forests  –  they  not  only  serve  economic  purposes,  but  also 
contribute to several public goods such as environmental protection, cultural identity 
or  recreation.  Due  to  the  particular  conditions  of  forests  and  forestry,  a  specific 
approach  has  to  be  taken  for  forest  reproductive  material.  Official  examination  of 
FRM  is  therefore  a  justifiable  approach  to  ensure  the  long-term  achievement  of  all 
these goals. 

5. Impact on innovation and research 

A  transfer  of  tasks  related  to  technical  examination  for  variety  registration  could 
improve  the  knowledge  and  efficiency  at  the  level  of  breeders  to  recognize  and 
develop the varieties with the best commercial potential. This should have a positive 
impact on innovation and research. 

However,  a  full  transfer  of  the  work  and  the  associated  costs  of  variety  registration 
could have negative impacts on breeding activities in minor crops, which are normally 
only  produced  by  small  companies  for  national  or  regional  markets.  Requirements 
differ  according  to  species  and  so  does  size  of  the  markets.  For  example,  the 
evaluation  of  fodder  varieties  is  3  to  4  times  more  expensive  than  evaluating  cereal 
varieties; less money is made with fodder plant seed but there is also less competition 
in  the  EU  market.  There  is  a  possibility  that  this  option  would  benefit  more  the 
breeding of major crops which generate higher income. Based on the observation that 
cost recovery is done in approximately half of the Member States (see table 3), this 
could in the end have a small impact on breeding activities for less profitable species 
such  as  fodder  plants  and  other  minor  crops.  Breeding  of  small  crops  will  not  be 
abandoned  because  of  variety  registration  cost  but  due  to  R&D  investment.  Once 
again  the  cost  recovery  principle  could,  to  some  extent,  contribute  to  maintaining 
expertise or reorienting the activity at the level of competent authorities towards these 
crops. 

6. Environmental impact 

Under this regime, other possible impacts such as a shift to or away from varieties that 
can  be  grown  in  a  more  sustainable  manner  with  less  inputs  (mainly  pesticides, 
fertilisers  and  irrigation)  are  minor  because  the  regime  does  not  contain  decisive 
elements to steer such evolutions. As outlined above, for the small crops there is a risk 
of less breeding of new varieties and a gradual abandoning of such crops by the PRM 
users, thus reducing biodiversity. 

7. Social Impact 

No  negative  social  impact  is  expected.  The  allocation  of  more  responsibilities  to 
private operators will maintain staff and raise the skill level in PRM companies that 
are mainly located in rural areas. 

Summary of the key impacts under option 2 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Areas 

Impacts 

0 

Impact on employment and jobs in the public and private sector 

- (in the public sector) 

45 

 
 
 
 
Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

++ 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators 

-  (more  reporting  obligation 
but less financial cost) 

+ (in the private sector) 

Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impact 

+ 

+ 

- 

+ 

Option 3 - Deregulation: VCU-evaluation and official certification are optional. 
Harmonised tests are developed. Reallocation of tasks as under option 2 

1. Impact on health and quality of PRM 

In  this  option,  VCU-evaluation  and  certification  would  no  longer  be  obligatory  for 
any  PRM.  In  the  short  term  no  significant  effect  is  expected,  but  medium-  to  long-
term effects on both quality and health are likely. 

The modern food system is made up of a series of highly integrated chains that extend 
from  farm  to  fork.  Varieties  are  bred  for  very  specific  uses  and  the  buyers  that 
purchase from farmers have to be completely certain that they receive the variety with 
the  expected  characteristics.  Farmers  in  turn  have  to  be  sure  that  they  receive  the 
PRM  variety  in  guaranteed  purity  and  quality  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  their 
customers. Official or officially supervised VCU evaluation provides PRM users with 
important  information  on  the  characteristics  and  quality  of  a  variety  and  helps  to 
ensure  maximum  transparency  of  information.  VCU  thus  contributes  to  the 
functioning  of  a  specialised  and  differentiated  market.  For  vegetables  used  by  agri-
food  industries,  there  are  traditionally  close  links  between  breeders,  growers  and 
buyers who maintain a quality system and no VCU is carried out and it is not sought 
after. For most agricultural crops such strong links do not exist and thus VCU is likely 
to remain important. 

In  the  medium  and  long  term  abandoning  the  possibility  of  health  evaluation  for 
variety registration of agricultural crops could potentially lead to varieties with lower 
pest  resistance  or  quality  and  lowered  food  safety  due  to  the  fact  that  proper 
verification of the health status will entirely depend on the quality of the inspection 
work  done  by  the  operator.  To  the  extent  that  the  official  authorities  maintain  a 
credible system of general monitoring this should not lead to increased risks for health 
of  PRM  in  the  Union.  However,  if  official  authorities  seldom  carry  out  e.g.  field 
inspections  for  certification,  there  is  a  large  risk  that  essential  skills  are  lost.  There 
could be a risk for the quality of certain groups of PRM.  

Under this option, ornamentals are no longer covered under EU legislation. This will 
negatively  affect  the  identity  and  health  of  the  material  on  the  market.  Due  to  a 
different approach for FRM, there will be no effect on FRM under this option. 

46 

 
 
 
 
2. Impact on employment and jobs 

to 

the  role  of 

the  private  sector  and 

Between 1300 and 1500 employees work in official bodies on variety registration in 
the  EU  Member  States.  Approximately  half  of  this  personnel  works  on  VCU 
(performance)  evaluation,  posts  that  are  at  risk  of  becoming  redundant.  Moreover, 
identity  evaluation  would  pass 
the 
official/competent  authorities  would  be  to test  a  fraction  (about  5%)  of  the  varieties 
submitted  for  registration,  together  with  identity  tests  and  samples  drawn  from  the 
market in the context of general monitoring. As a consequence up to 1300 competent 
authority  posts  for  the  technical  examination  of  varieties  could  be  lost.  Companies 
might carry out additional work on the performance of their varieties and recruit staff 
from the public sector but it is unlikely that it would absorb more than a few hundred 
posts.  This  would  lead  to  only  a  small  direct  increase  in  employment  in  the  private 
sector. However, after a variety has been registered, recommendation trials are carried 
out in public, semi-public or private structures that assist PRM users and distributors 
in their choice. Some of the staff that was previously involved in VCU-evaluation is 
likely to be involved in recommendation trials as well. Furthermore, these trials will 
gain in importance if mandatory VCU is abolished. The principle of cost recovery will 
guarantee that expertise will be maintained in competent authorities to carry out the 
necessary  tasks.  Abolishing  VCU  could  have  serious  consequences  for  SMEs  that 
develop  varieties  of  agricultural  crops.  VCU  presently  serves  as  a  quality  assurance 
that  ensures  that  small  and  large  companies  can  compete  on  a  comparatively  equal 
footing – VCU provides the buyer with unbiased information on the performance of a 
variety. The success of a variety on the market is therefore not mainly dependent on 
the  marketing  power  of  an  operator.  If  this  source  of  information  were  no  longer 
available, SMEs would most likely not be able to be competitive. 

Abolishing  certification  increases  the  risk  that  some  activities,  especially  seed 
multiplication for agricultural seeds will be relocated to non-EU countries as already 
is the case for vegetable seed (as the EU equivalence system cannot be maintained). 
This could lead to considerable job losses in this part of the PRM industry (see section 
4 below). 

Certification  costs  in  EU  are  estimated  at  EUR  73-79  Mio  which  corresponds  to 
roughly  2000  jobs43  which  potentially  could  become  mobile  as  there  will  be  a 
continued  need  for  certification  of  PRM  lots  intended  for  export  to  third  countries. 
Given the fact that up to half of the production of PRM is intended for export,44 this 
exported  share  will  continue  to  have  to  be  certified.  If  this  is  done  under  official 
supervision only 5% (currently applied percentage) need official examination. In any 
case,  a  generalised  shift  to  certification  under  official  supervision  could  make 
redundant  up  to  1500  or  even  1600  posts.  Certification  duplicates  to  a  good  extent 
work done by the PRM suppliers, and hence the transfer of practical inspection work 
to the suppliers will not create a lot of new jobs in the private sector. 

43 Calculation on the basis of roughly equivalent percentage of labour cost for variety registration and 
for certification, and on the estimated cost for implementing these two elements of the seed marketing 
legislation. 
44 Data (as from 2009) from http://www.worldseed.org/isf/seed_statistics.html. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
At EU level, in total up to 2900 jobs might be lost in authorities that are competent for 
variety registration and PRM certification. 

3. Impact on administrative burden for authorities and private sector operators 

to 

the  variety  registration  study,45  completely  removing  official 
According 
performance  examination(VCU)  for  agricultural  crops  in  the  EU  would  save  about 
EUR 23 Mio for private operators and for public authorities combined. 

However, the study also indicated that most Member States would prefer to continue 
having VCU on a voluntary basis on their territory, and therefore abandoning VCU as 
a mandatory element of the EU legislation would only save between EUR 2.3 to 11.5 
Mio as a direct impact (10 – 50% of actual VCU cost) depending on the cost recovery 
in Member States. 

In  practice,  companies  will  continue  with a  limited  type  of  VCU-evaluation  in  their 
testing programs as this provides basic information needed during their breeding and 
selection  cycle.  In  addition,  voluntary,  but  well-established  and  stable  post 
registration networks, consisting of public, semi-public and private facilities, exist in a 
number of Member States. The costs for these services cannot be established as they 
form  part  of  the  business  cost  of  private  operators  and  are  not  based  on  obligations 
stemming from EU legislation. 

4. Impact on competitiveness and trade 

The costs saved by abandoning VCU-evaluation and official certification could lower 
the production costs of PRM, and hence have a  positive impact on competitiveness, 
markets,  trade  and  investment  flows.  VCU  is  not  a  statutory  requirement  in  several 
important  Third  country  competitors  on  the  global  seed  market  (e.g.  USA,  New 
Zealand,  Australia),  but  it  has  to  be  noted  that  similar  examinations  are  still  carried 
out widely in these countries (see Annex XII). In addition, more varieties would more 
quickly enter the market, as fewer varieties would be eliminated by VCU-evaluation. 
This  elimination  rate  is  currently  up  to  50  –  60%  in  Denmark  or  80  –  90%  in 
Germany.  As  a  consequence,  the  resources  invested  in  those  varieties  could  be 
recovered  via  marketing.  This  option  may  therefore  increase  competition  on  the  EU 
market which could be to the benefit of PRM users (increased choice, less expensive 
varieties). On the other hand this implies that varieties with low performance might be 
placed on the market and micro and small enterprises with less marketing staff will be 
disadvantaged. 

Abolishing certification would, however, have significant effects on trade with Third 
countries.  In  this  case,  EU  equivalence  cannot  be  maintained  and  trade  with  third 
countries  would  have  to  be  based  on  compliance  with  OECD  seed  schemes  and 
internationally  recognised  rules  on  seed  testing.  Such  a  situation  is  likely  to 
significantly  increase  trade  flows  into  the  EU  and  competitive  pressure  on  the  EU 
PRM industry and also decrease the quality of PRM.  

45 FCEC (2008) Evaluation of the Community acquis on the marketing of seed and plant propagating 
material (S&PM). Final report. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
SMEs  will  be  disadvantaged  as  VCU  is  abolished,  which  serves  as  unbiased 
information  for  users  independent  of  market  power  of  the  seller.  No  supplementary 
measures are planned for micro enterprises and SMEs. 

5. Impact on innovation and research 

Money  saved  on  expenses  for  VCU  and  official  certification  could  potentially  be 
directed  to  breeding  programmes  but  may  also  be  invested  in  internal  certification 
procedures, VCU evaluation or marketing. Also, more varieties will be brought to the 
market as none will be eliminated by poor VCU. The positive effects from this option 
are likely to be seen over the long term rather than immediately. 

6. Environmental impact 

This option may contribute to increasing agricultural biodiversity if more varieties are 
placed on the market but there is the risk that this promise is not fulfilled if varieties 
are not further developed after few years of production. Abandoning VCU-evaluation 
and  tests  for  disease  resistance,  which  are  part  of  it,  could  lead  to  less  resistant 
varieties being marketed that need more interventions using plant protection products, 
which  is  inconsistent  with  EU  strategy  to  reduce  pesticide  use.  In  addition,  yield 
evaluation which is part of VCU will not continue to be performed and consequently 
agricultural  productivity  for  crops  like  wheat,  maize,  potato  will  no  longer  be 
guaranteed to the farmer and could have an impact of land tenure. Certification also 
assures  the  purity  (seeds  of  other  plant  species)  of  PRM  lots  entering  the  market. 
Higher  impurity  levels  and  especially  the  deregulation  of  ornamentals  may  increase 
the risk of invasive alien species (IAS) gaining a foothold in the EU. 

VCU can embody both private and public aims. The "Cultivation"-part of VCU could, 
for example, employ criteria that support the sustainability of agriculture, that reflect 
the practices of low-input agriculture and that demonstrate how resilient varieties are 
to the consequences of climate change. The "Use"-part of VCU presently comprises 
of course many elements that are mainly of interest for industrial or final consumers. 
The  “Use”-part  can,  nonetheless,  also  reflect  public  goods.  For  example,  low-
glucosinate cultivars of rapeseed are bred to decrease the toxicity of animal feedstuffs 
(feed safety). Maize varieties are developed that have high conversion efficiencies as 
animal  feed  and  thus  contribute  to  energy  and  land-use  efficiency  of  agriculture. 
Linoleic  or  high  oleic  varieties  of  sunflowers  are  another  example  of  the  use  of 
specific  varieties  that  also  contribute  to  public  goods,  in  this  case  public  health.  A 
complete abandoning of VCU would thus make it difficult to steer agriculture towards 
more sustainability. 

7. Social impact 

Abolishing  VCU  and  certification  will  most  likely  threaten  SMEs  and  lead  to  the 
erosion of skilled jobs in disadvantaged rural areas. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Summary of the key impacts under option 3 

Areas 

Impacts 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Impact on employment and jobs in the public and private sector 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators 

Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impact 

-- 

-- 

++ 

++ 

- 

+ 

- 

-- 

Option  4  -  Enhanced  flexibility  system:  Mandatory  basic  provisions  for 
registration  with  a  voluntary  level  of  higher  assurance  for  registration  and 
certification 

1. Impact on health and quality of PRM 

Officially  tested  varieties  (registration)  are  by  and  large  tested  as  they  are  currently 
done  (sustainability  criteria  are,  though,  included  now  in  VCU-evaluation).  For  not 
officially tested varieties, not undergoing official technical examination, part of which 
is  for  pest  resistance/tolerance,  there  would  be  a  risk  in  the  long  term  that  varietal 
identity  on  the  market  and  characteristics  such  as  disease  resistance  etc.  are  not 
maintained. 

As there is no obligatory certification for any  of  the  two  groups  of varieties, proper 
verification  of  properties  such  as  varietal  purity,  seed  of  other  species,  germination 
rate  and  health  status  of  lots  that  are  marketed  with  an  operators'  label  will  entirely 
depend on the quality of the inspection work done by the operator. To the extent that 
the official authorities maintain a credible system of general monitoring, this should 
not  lead  to  increased  risks  for  plant  health  and  quality  in  the  Union,  especially  for 
reproductive material. For certified lots there would not be any impact as compared to 
the current situation. 

2. Impact on employment and jobs 

As  there  is  no  obligatory  official  technical  examination  for  the  registration  of 
varieties,  theoretically  a  substantial  part  of  the  1500  competent  authority  jobs 
involved with variety registration could be lost if all varieties would in the future be 
marketed  as  not  officially  tested  varieties  (some  variety  identification  work  would 
remain in the context of testing of PRM samples taken on the market and for exports 
as  variety  registration  is  also  a  precondition  for  certification  for  exports).  However, 
based  on  consultation  with  stakeholders,  this  assessment  is  considered  to  be  an 
overestimate. On average, the number of varieties with EU variety rights protection is 
roughly  30-35  %  of  the  number  of  newly  registered  varieties  in  the  common 
catalogues.  Holders  of  variety-rights  that  seek  for  legal  protection  will  most  likely 
also accept the additional cost of the official performance evaluation in order to have 
access to the category of officially tested varieties and to be eligible for certification 

50 

 
 
 
 
which  is  a  normal  precondition  for  export  of  PRM  to  third  countries.  Taking  into 
account the two elements above, this would mean that a significant part of the jobs in 
the  public  authorities  are  likely  to  be  maintained.  However,  if  the  technical 
examination of varieties would be done under official supervision, this would end up 
in far fewer jobs being maintained, with accordingly more jobs created in the private 
sector.  

Abolishing  certification  increases  the  risk  that  some  activities,  especially  seed 
multiplication for agricultural seeds will be relocated to non-EU countries as already 
is the case for vegetable seed (as the EU equivalence system cannot be maintained). 
This could lead to considerable job losses in this part of the PRM industry (see section 
4 below). 

Certification  costs  in  EU  are  estimated  at  EUR  73-79  Mio  which  corresponds  to 
roughly  2000  jobs46.  These  could  potentially  be  lost  if  there  is  no  obligatory 
certification.  Given  the  expected  dominant  position  of  officially  tested  varieties  and 
taking into account the certification requirements for certain export markets, it could 
be  assumed  that  some  PRM  lots  of  these  officially  tested  varieties  will  normally  be 
submitted to certification, especially for species which are internationally trade such 
as maize (less the case with wheat). As a consequence, certification would probably 
be done on far more than 30% of the lots on the market and this means that a good 
part  of  the  jobs  associated  with  certification  would  be  kept.  Here  too,  a  full  shift  to 
certification  under  official  supervision  could  sharply  reduce  the  number  of  public 
sector jobs that are saved while at the same time only a small number of private sector 
jobs are created.  

The flexibility with regard to ‘not officially tested varieties’ will decrease the level of 
technical  requirements  for  variety  description  provided  by  micro-enterprise  to 
competent authority. 

3. Impact on administrative burden for authorities and private sector operators 

As there is no obligatory official technical examination for registration, in theory 90% 
of  55-EUR  60  Mio  could  be  saved,  since  authorities  would  merely  have  a  light 
administrative burden in registering or listing varieties. However, again based on the 
assumption that 30-35% of the varieties would be officially tested varieties, the costs 
will be in the order of EUR 40 Mio per year. These costs will be fully recovered from 
or directly borne by the private operators. 

Assuming a comparable situation for certification of PRM lots, if in future about one 
third of the lots will be certified, savings on PRM certification would be roughly EUR 
50  Mio.  A  higher  percentage  of  lots  offered  for  certification  would  reduce  the 
amounts  saved.  Again,  these  costs  will  be  fully  recovered  and  borne  by  the  private 
operators. 

Not  officially  tested  varieties  would  constitute  a  ‘low-burden”  group  that  could  be 
interesting  in  particular  for  conservation  varieties  and  other  varieties  with  limited 

46 Calculation on the basis of roughly equivalent percentage of labour cost for variety registration and 
for certification, and on the estimated cost for implementing these two elements of the seed marketing 
legislation. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                 
full 

marketing  potential.  It  should  allow  access  to  the  market  of  varieties  of  interest  for 
conservation and other varieties that are expected to have only a local importance. For 
such  varieties, 
technical  examination  and  certification  would  be  a 
disproportionate  cost  when  set  out  against  the  potential  marketing  opportunities. 
However,  this  reduction of  administrative burden could lead  to an expansion of this 
market. If breeders and PRM suppliers would use this at too large a scale as an outlet 
for new varieties with less potential, they would risk compromising the profitability of 
the markets for their top varieties. Due to a different approach for FRM, there will be 
no effect on FRM under this option. 

4. Impact on competitiveness and trade 

As  there  is  no  obligatory  official  technical  examination  for  registration  and  no 
obligatory official certification, this enhanced flexibility ought to allow a more rapid 
market  access  for  new,  not  officially  tested  varieties.  In  particular,  the  operators 
producing  specific  PRM  for  regional  and  local  markets  would  benefit  from  this 
opportunity, even though this forms a very small part of the volume of PRM produced 
in  the  EU.  For  officially  tested  varieties  there  would  not  be  any  significant  change 
compared  to  the  present  situation.  Given  the  fact  that  the  two  markets  of  registered 
and unregistered varieties can be expected not to be to a significant degree in direct 
competition  with  each  other,  the  impact  on  the  sector  is  likely  to  be  low.  Also, 
unregistered  varieties  are  mostly  brought  to  the  market  by  micro  and  small 
enterprises, while seeds for export and wide-spread commercial cultivation are drawn 
from the highly concentrated six global seed companies.  

Abolishing certification would, however, have significant effects on trade with Third 
countries.  In  this  case,  EU  equivalence  cannot  be  maintained  and  trade  with  third 
countries  would  have  to  be  based  on  compliance  with  OECD  seed  schemes  and 
internationally  recognised  rules  on  seed  testing.  Such  a  situation  is  likely  to 
significantly  increase  trade  flows  into  the  EU  and  competitive  pressure  on  the  EU 
PRM industry and also decrease the quality of PRM.  

A diversity of operators, especially SME and micro-entities active in niche markets, 
are bound to benefit from the increased freedom to act. On the other hand, this option 
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. 

5. Impact on innovation and research 

A double effect is anticipated. The enhanced flexibility should allow a more rapid and 
less  costly  access  to  the  market  for  new,  but  not  always  improved  varieties.  The 
industry  will  be  stimulated  to  focus  its  research  on  the  sustainability  of  the  new 
varieties  as  under  this  option  sustainability  criteria  will  be  a  mandatory  element  of 
VCU of officially tested varieties.  

6. Environmental impact 

Not officially  tested  varieties,  but with an officially recognised description provided 
by the operator, are intended in the first place to serve the interest of the conservation 
of  biodiversity.  It  should  allow  access  to  the  market  of  varieties  of  interest  for 
conservation and other varieties that are well adapted to local conditions and that are 

52 

 
 
 
expected to have only local importance. It seems likely that overall more varieties will 
be cultivated under this option and that therefore a positive effect on agro-biodiversity 
can be expected. The charts below show that the introduction of conservation varieties 
of agricultural crops and amateur varieties for vegetables has been successful.  

. 

Officially  tested  varieties  should  constitute  the  bulk  of  the  varieties.  Here  too,  a 
positive effect is expected as varieties in this group will have undergone a screening 
for  their  sustainability  profile.  This  new  approach  on  VCU  is  in  line  with  the 
Commission's approach to pesticides47. Annex III (1) to that Directive recommends to 
use,  where  appropriate,  resistant/tolerant  cultivars  and  standard/certified  seed  and 
planting  material. To  implement  this provision,  users  of  PRM  should  dispose  of  the 
proper  information.  Official  or  officially  supervised  sustainability  evaluation  would 
appear to be the best and probably the least costly guarantee that PRM users indeed 
receive this information. 

47  Directive  2009/128/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  October  2009 
establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
7. Social impact 

A positive social impact is expected concerning new operators which are involved in 
landraces/conservation  varieties  at  local  level  and  try  to  develop  local  markets  in 
order to respond to consumer request for traditional local food.  

Summary of the key impacts under option 4 

Areas 

Impacts 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Impact on employment and jobs in the public and private sector 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

- 

- 

++ 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators  ++ 

Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impact 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Option  5  -  Centralisation:  Centralised  EU  registration  procedure  with  CPVO 
managing  and  making  final  decisions,  and  fully  harmonised  certification 
requirements; improved coherence between PHR and PMR regimes 

1. Impact on health and quality of PRM 

As  for  registration,  the  assessment  of  the  description  (DUS)  of  varieties  will  be 
centralised  by  CPVO  and  carried  out  in  national  testing  stations,  following  audits 
carried  out  by  CPVO.48  This  should  result  in  an  improved  reliability  of  variety 
descriptions, including qualifications of the performance criteria of varieties placed on 
the EU market. 

Concerning certification, the reduction of possibilities for more stringent requirements 
for  national  production  should  result  in  a  better  harmonisation  and  improved 
transparency.  Introducing  “Reference  Certification  Centres”  will  contribute  to  the 
harmonisation  and  dissemination  of  best  practices  and  thus  increase  the  overall 
quality of PRM certification in the Union.  

Improving  the  coherence  between  the  PHR  and  PMR  regimes  will  lead  to  the  same 
impacts as analysed in option 2 above.  

48 Networks for VCU evaluation are in general far larger than those for DUS. For example, in France 
60 stations carry out VCU for wheat. It is not realistic to assume that CPVO will be able to audit and 
control  all  such  testing  stations  for  all  species  in  all  Member  States.  One  possibility  is  that  CPVO 
audits  one  or  a  small  number  of  entrusted  authorities,  which  in  turn  audit  the  rest  of  the  national 
network. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2. Impact on employment and jobs 

The effect of centralised variety registration is difficult to calculate as it depends on 
how many of the currently operating testing stations (just over 500 testing locations) 
with their 1500 employees would continue their activities after CPVO audits. For jobs 
on certification no significant impact is expected. 

3. Impact on administrative burden on public authorities and on businesses 

The  administrative  burden  for  industry  would  be  lowered,  as  repetition  of  work  on 
variety  registration  and  on  protection  of  plant  variety  rights  will  be  avoided  (some 
operators  might,  though,  continue  to  apply  in  several  Member  States  to  be  on  the 
national  list  for  marketing  reasons).  There  will  only  be  one  single  EU  variety 
registration  system  instead  of  27  national  variety  registration  organisations,  even 
though the evaluation work as before will be done in entrusted testing stations across 
the EU. An example from Annex XIV shows what kind of savings might be possible. 
In  Germany  and  France  annual  DUS  costs  are  EUR  6.7  Mio  and  EUR  5.2  Mio, 
respectively.  If  testing  stations  in  the  same  agro-ecological  regions  cooperated,  the 
number  of  stations  could  be  reduced.  The  maximum  cost  reduction  would  be  in  the 
order of EUR 3-4 Mio if the number of test locations could be cut by half. In addition, 
a centralised management by CPVO of the collections for variety comparison held in 
the testing stations (reference collections) may reduce the cost of variety evaluation as 
this  element  accounts  for  6  to  30%  of  the  evaluation  costs  (based  on  information 
provided  by  four  Member  States).  This  saving,  however,  has  to  be  balanced  against 
the  costs  of  running,  coordinating  and  maintaining  the  databases  of  reference 
collections which would entail considerable IT and staff investment at the CPVO and 
this  will  be  reflected  in  increased  fees  for  operators.  This  option  also  reduces  the 
administrative burden for the Member States and thus saves costs. With an estimated 
overhead  for  administrative  costs  of  10%  of  the  registration  costs  in  the  Member 
States the total savings at Member State level could be around EUR 5.5 to 6 Mio. The 
work at CPVO level will be increased (direct application, audit, and harmonisation of 
DUS)  and  will  result  with  more  reporting  obligations  on  public  authorities  (CPVO 
audit of national examination offices) but in the meantime it will increase the level of 
harmonisation of technical requirements in the internal market. 

The establishment of Union Certification Reference Centres, training in the context of 
the Better Training for Safer Food-initiative, the development of communication and 
information tools and studies in support of policy development will cost EUR 2.3 Mio 
per year. At least 85% of these costs will be borne by the Commission. The benefits 
are  expected  to  be  significant  as  comparative  tests  and  trials  are  carried  out, 
harmonised best practices established and disseminated and staff continuously trained.  

In addition, 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. Due to a different approach for FRM, 
there will be no effect on FRM under this option. 

4. Impact on competitiveness and trade 

A centralised uniform EU variety registration system for the internal market improves 
transparency and it ensures a truly level playing field for all operators. Concentration 

55 

 
 
 
of  all  variety  registration  tasks  in  CPVO  facilitates  work  for  breeders.  Trade  will 
benefit  from  increased  transparency  and  harmonisation.  However,  language  barriers 
might  discourage  some  breeders  and  micro-enterprises  and  SMEs  from  seeking 
registration  at  the  CPVO  and  a  distant,  centralised  authority  might  have  difficulties 
judging the value of small and regional crops. 

5. Impact on innovation and research 

Uniform  and  harmonised  EU  rules  and  systems  of  variety  registration  support  the 
access of new varieties to the market, and thus innovation and research.  

6. Environmental impact 

As  outlined  under  health,  new  provisions  might  lead  to  better  reassurance  on  the 
intrinsic health profile of varieties. Access to the market for varieties that draw their 
main interest from their contribution to biodiversity or that have enhanced qualities in 
respect of sustainability will not change as compared to the current situation. 

7. Social impact 

No social impact is expected concerning this option.  

Summary of the key impacts under option 5 

Areas 

Impacts 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Impact on employment and jobs in the public and private sector 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators 

Impact on competitiveness and trade  

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impact 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

0 

- 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

0 

The revision of the existing legislation aims at achieving the objectives identified in 
the 'Action Plan' of 2009 which are reflected in the objectives of this IA. Thus, all five 
options are being assessed against their potential to achieve these objectives. 

6.1. 

Comparing the options  

Drawing  from  the  impact  assessment  of  each  of  the  five  options,  the  two  summary 
tables  below  and  the  graph  provide  an  overall  comparison  (1)  in  terms  of  achieving 
the objectives, (2) terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with overarching 
EU  objectives,  strategies  and  priorities  and  (3)  semi-quantitatively  in  terms  of 
aggregated and weighted impacts. 

56 

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

Option 1  Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

Preferred 
Option 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

l
l
a
r
e
v
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 

57 

0 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

+ 

++ 

+ 

0 

− − 

+ 

− 

+ 

+ 

0 

− 

− 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

++ 

0 

++ 

++ 

++ 

0 

0 

++  

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++  

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
throughout the EU by audits and training 

To  foster  innovation  by  increasing  the  timeliness  and  level  of 
information provided in the Common Catalogue 

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

Legend: 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

0 

++ 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

0  no change with the baseline option 

+  minor positive effect 

++   significant positive effect 

−  minor negative effect  

− − significant negative effect 

58 

 
 
 
Criteria 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Option 5 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 
with 
objectives 

EU 

The  health  and 
quality  of  PRM 
will  remain  high, 
while 
a  more 
level playing field 
established. 
is 
There 
no 
strong  incentives 
to 
steer 
innovation 
towards 
environmental 
and  sustainability 
aims. 

are 

0 

financial 
Public 
burden 
is 
reduced,  but  no 
possibility 
for 
private  operators 
achieve 
to 
efficiency  gains 
through 
taking 
over 
responsibilities 
from 
sector 

the  public 

− 

field 

The  health  and 
quality  of  PRM 
will  remain  high, 
while a more level 
is 
playing 
established.  There 
are 
clear 
no 
incentives  to  steer 
breeding  activities 
innovation 
and 
more 
towards 
sustainability. 

in 
term. 
is 
and 

Health  and  quality 
of  PRM  might 
become 
compromised 
long 
the 
Innovation 
supported 
agricultural 
biodiversity  might 
increase,  but  both 
effects  might  not 
be persistent. 

+ 

− 

The  health  and 
quality  of  some 
PRM 
might 
become 
in 
compromised 
the long term. The 
offers 
option 
for 
incentives 
breeding 
new 
varieties  and  the 
of 
pursuit 
environmental  and 
sustainability 
aims. 

The  health  and 
quality  of  PRM 
will 
remain 
high,  while  a 
level 
more 
playing  field  is 
established. 
Strong  support 
for  innovations 
in  conventional 
but 
breeding 
of 
lack 
for 
incentives 
breeding 
for 
sustainable 
agriculture 

0 

0 

As  many  tasks  as 
are 
possible 
transferred 
to 
industry  and  cost 
recovery 
is 
implemented.  This 
will  lead  to  more 
efficient 
implementation  of 
the  legislation  and 
the  reduction  of 
financial 
and 
administrative 
burden. 

++ 

This  option  will 
lead  to  large  cost 
saving 
for  CAs 
and  for  operators 
most 
as 
are 
obligations 
abolished. 
However,  many 
new 
non-EU 
competitors  will 
be able to enter the 
market 
and 
economic 
activities  can  be 
relocated 
to  non 
EU-countries. 

− − 

This  option  will 
lead  to  large  costs 
while 
savings, 
to 
leaving 
operators 
the 
possibility  to  seek 
added 
official 
quality  assurance. 
However,  many 
new 
non-EU 
competitors  will 
be able to enter the 
market 
and 
economic 
activities  can  be 
relocated 
to  non 
EU-countries. 

− 

option 
This 
leads 
a 
to 
highly  efficient 
system  as  most 
technical 
are 
aspects 
harmonised  and 
centralised.  The 
speed of market 
access  of  new, 
improved 
varieties will be 
increased. 

++ 

a 

Achieves the goal 
of 
single 
legislative 
but 
framework 
the 
of 
lack 
flexibility  means 
it  is  less  likely  to 
achieve 
the 
operational 
objectives  and  is 
to  be 
less  able 
adapted 
to 
changing 
circumstances 
the future. 

in 

The option offers a 
maximally flexible 
system  that  could 
unintended 
have 
consequences 
for 
plant  health  and 
the 
environment 
that are not in line 
with 
the 
objectives. 

This  option  offers 
a  flexible  system 
that  can  achieve 
operational 
the 
objectives  of  CAs 
and 
most 
stakeholder 
groups. 

Offers  a  coherent 
framework 
that 
can  achieve  many 
of  the  operational 
objectives. 
The 
option  lacks  clear 
means  to  adapt  to 
development 
the 
of  PMR 
the 
to 
of 
needs 
sustainability  and 
other 
environmental 
goals. 

− 

0 

− − 

++ 

59 

a 

Offers 
maximally 
coherent 
framework  that 
achieve 
can 
many  of 
the 
operational 
objectives.  The 
option 
lacks 
clear  means  to 
adapt 
the 
to 
development  of 
the 
PMR 
to 
needs 
of 
sustainability 
and 
environmental 
goals. 

other 

Preferred 
option 

field 

The  health 
and 
quality  of  PRM 
will  remain  high, 
while  a  more  level 
is 
playing 
The 
established. 
offers 
option 
for 
incentives 
new 
breeding 
varieties  and 
the 
of 
pursuit 
environmental  and 
sustainability  aims 
and  strong  support 
for  innovations  in 
conventional 
breeding. 

+ 

to  more 

As  many  tasks  as 
are 
possible 
transferred 
to 
industry  and  cost 
recovery 
is 
implemented 
leading 
efficient 
implementation  of 
the  legislation  and 
reduction  of 
the 
financial 
and 
administrative 
burden.  Technical 
harmonisation 
through 
involvement 
increases 
efficiency. 

CPVO 
also 

++ 

Offers  a  balance 
between a coherent 
and 
system 
The 
flexibility. 
will 
system 
guarantee 
high 
quality  of  PRM 
and 
competitive 
advantage  on  the 
the 
internal  and 
markets, 
world 
possible 
while 
in 
derogations 
addition 
will 
support diversity of 
SMEs, 
sustainability  and 
biodiversity. 

0 

++ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The data summarised in this graph are based on the qualitatively ranked impacts of section 5. 
Each “-“ is given a score of -1, each “+” a score of 1, a “0” is given a score of 0. The scores 
for each option are added up and furthermore the standard deviation s of the scores for each 
option is calculated. The sum of the scores for each option is then weighted by the inverse of 
the  squared  standard  deviation  (1/s2)  of  the  scores.  This  weighting  operation  favours  risk-
aversion:  options  that  have  a  high  standard  deviation  of  scores  (i.e.  both  high  and  low 
impacts) are discounted more strongly than options with more even impacts. 

Preferred Option

Option 5

Option 4

Option 3

Option 2

Option 1

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

weighted summed impacts

6.2. 

Stakeholder assessment of the options 

For  this  purpose  we  divided  the  participants  of  the  web-based  survey  into  five  groups  and 
quantitatively assessed the position of each group to each option. The analysis is summarised 
below and is in more detailed presented in Annex VI. 

(1) Competent authorities and ministries 

64% of competent authorities consider that scenario 1 is slightly beneficial or neutral, 24% 
that it is rather negative or very negative and 12% that they don’t know. 62% of competent 
authorities  consider  that  scenario  2  is  slightly  beneficial  or  fairly  beneficial,  10%  that  it  is 
neutral, 24% that it is rather negative or very negative and 4% that they don’t know. All other 
scenarios are rated by the majority as rather to very negative. It was noticeable that competent 
authorities involved specifically in the FRM sector consider that the scenario ‘’no change’’ 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
is the most appropriate one. Accordingly it was decided to group  them  with  the  other  FRM 
suppliers and users in order to create a more homogenous group. 

(2) PRM Breeders and suppliers (PRM B&S) 

77% of PRM B&S consider that the scenario 2 is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial. 18% 
consider that it is rather negative or very negative, 2% that it is neutral and 3% that they don’t 
know. 44% of PRM B&S consider that the scenario 5 is slightly beneficial or neutral, 30% 
that it is rather negative or very negative and 26 % that they don’t know. All other scenarios 
are rated as rather to very negative by the majority in this group. The representation of PRM 
B&S involved in fruit or vine reproductive material was very low (3 of 60). 

(3) Stakeholder groups mainly interested in biodiversity issues 

54% of participants from this group consider that the scenario 4 is slightly beneficial or very 
beneficial, 33% that it is rather negative or very negative and 13% that they don’t know. All 
other scenarios are rated as rather to very negative by the majority in this group. 

(4) Users, farmer growers, technical institutes 

69% of this stakeholder group consider that scenario 1 is slightly beneficial or neutral, 27% 
that  it  is  rather  negative  or  very  negative  and  4%  that  they  don’t  know.  80%  consider 
scenario 2 as fairly beneficial or slightly beneficial, 8% as neutral, 8% as rather negative or 
very  negative  and  4%  that  they  don’t  know.  46%  consider  scenario  5  as  slightly  negative, 
23% as neutral, 11% as slightly beneficial and 12% that they don’t know.  

This group is characterized by a strong opposition to options 3 and 4. 

(5) FRM 

This stakeholder group opposed all scenarios and stated that the option "no change" was not 
sufficiently  assessed.  Members  from  this  often  mention,  that  agriculture  and  forestry  are 
different and that within the information provided, FRM was not specifically mentioned. Due 
to  the  missing  information,  some  stakeholders  couldn't  decide  among  the  options  and  have 
proposed to keep the existing legislation. 

The  analysis  of  the  questionnaires  also  shows  that  a  majority  of  stakeholders  prefer  a  new 
option  which  combines  elements  from  the  options  analysed  in  the  Impact  Assessment. 
Competent  authorities  mainly  support  the  idea  that  the  revised  legislation  should  reflect  a 
combination  of  scenarios  (64%),  with  a  large  majority  supporting  the  inclusion  of  elements 
from  option  2  (64%)  and  30%  for  the  inclusion  of  elements  from  scenarios  4  and  5.  22% 
support  the  inclusion  of  the  element  of  cost  recovery.  18%  espouse  inclusion  of  elements 
from  scenario  3.  PRM  Breeders  and  suppliers  strongly  back  a  combination  of  scenarios 
(74%), with 56% for taking up elements from option 2 and 39% for elements from scenario 5. 
A minority supports the introduction of elements from scenario 4 (14%), scenario 1 (8%) and 
scenario 3 (6%). A majority of stakeholder groups mainly interested in biodiversity issues 
supports the idea that the revised legislation should reflect combination of scenarios (54%). 
These groups mainly state that the scenario 4 should be the basis for the revision. A minority 
support the introduction of elements from scenario 3 (8%). Users of PRM strongly support 
the idea that the revision should reflect a combination of scenarios (96%). They mainly state 
that  scenario  2  should  be  the  basis  for  the  revised  legislation  (89%).  27%  consider  that  the 

61 

 
 
 
 
revised legislation could also include the element of cost recovery and some centralization for 
DUS (23%). A minority supports the introduction of elements from scenario 4 (8%). Forest 
stakeholders support the scenario with no changes in the Directive on FRM. 

No  stakeholder  provided  details  of  entirely  new  elements  that  should  be  considered  in  the 
options. 

6.3. 

Preferred option 

As none of the five options delivered an optimal balance between efficiency of the system, the 
quality  assurance  of  the  PRM,  the  maintenance  of  competitiveness  and  the  issue  of 
biodiversity,  and  in  line  with  a  majority  of  stakeholders  a  preferred  option,  combining 
positive  elements  of  the  initial  options  while  maintaining  as  much  choice  and  flexibility  as 
possible  for  operators,  was  designed  and  selected  in  the  end.  An  exhaustive  presentation  of 
the preferred option is in Annex XIII. 

Option 6 – Preferred Option 

The  preferred  option  takes  up  elements  from  options  2,  4  and  5.  This  combination  aims  at 
striking a balance between flexibility for operators (option 2 and 4) and biodiversity (option 
4) and the necessary rigor in health and quality requirement (elements of option 2 and 5) for 
the fair functioning of the market and for maintaining the quality and health of the products. 
A balance is also achieved between the interests of different stakeholder groups (see Annex 
VI).  It  includes  the  horizontal  principles  of  simplification  of  the  PRM  legal  architecture, 
transparency  and  cost  recovery.  Furthermore,  basic  general  EU  criteria  with  regard  to  plant 
health  and  fitness  for  purpose,  as  well  as  for  traceability/labelling,  will  apply  to  all  PRM 
brought to the market. 

1. Registration of varieties and material 

•  Technical  examinations  can  be  carried  out  under  official  supervision.  On  request  of 

the operator official technical examination is still possible. 

•  All varieties and material of specified crops (in principle those covered by the current 
EU marketing Directives with a closed list of species) will be registered in national or 
directly  at  the  CPVO  and  subsequently  entered  into  the  EU  plant  variety  registers, 
which will be composed of two sections. Administrative tasks at the EU level related 
to  variety  registration  for  e.g.  vegetables  (because  no  VCU  is  required)  could  be 
carried out by the CPVO. The CPVO will also play a more central role by centralising 
all information on the reference collections that are held in the various testing stations 
in the Member States; the CPVO audits the national examination offices which in turn 
allow  private-sector  testing  stations  to  carry  out  technical  examination;  the  CPVO 
shall take an increased role in the practical arrangements for the publication of the EU 
common catalogues. The CPVO will verify variety denominations for all applications 
(from option 5) at national or EU level. 

•  Section  1  of  the  variety  register  will  comprise  "officially  tested"  varieties  that  have 
been tested officially or under official supervision. Technical examination will include 
DUS, mandatory VCU criteria (for agricultural crops) and variety denomination will 
be checked by CPVO. VCU criteria shall principally reflect public goods and become 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
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. Varieties that are listed in this part 
of the catalogues could undergo certification (from option 2). Provenances and clones 
of  forest  reproductive  material  are  identified  on  the  basis  of  the  criteria  as  currently 
applicable for such material and have a specific chapter in the catalogues of officially 
tested varieties. 

•  Section 2 of the variety register will comprise "not officially tested" varieties that are 
registered  on  the  basis  of  description  of  the  variety  prepared  by  the  applicant, 
including the denomination, accepted by the competent authority – this amounts to an 
"officially  recognized  description".  VCU-evaluation  is  not  required  for  this  category 
the 
of  PRM.  Competent  authorities  will  only  be  responsible  for  checking 
denomination  and  registration  and  for  controls  of  material  present  on  the  market, 
focussing  on  labelling  in  particular.  Varieties  in  this  category  cannot  undergo 
certification because the authorities, in the absence of officially verified and accepted 
results of an official variety description, cannot certify the identity of individual PRM 
lots (from option 4). 

•  At  the  EU  level,  a  high  level  group  including  all  relevant  stakeholders  shall  be 

established for further policy guidance on registration issue.  

•  All non-listed species, which should include ornamentals, must fulfil certain minimum 
conditions in order to be marketed (labelling obligations and a provision of 'fitness for 
use'). 

2. Certification of PRM 

The  certification  requirements  for  lots  of  PRM  remain  unchanged  for  varieties  and  material 
from section 1 of the catalogue. However, as a standard procedure, the control of compliance 
with  the  criteria  for  PRM  marketing  is  carried  out  by  the  operator  under  supervision  of  the 
competent authority. On request of the operator certification under official examination is still 
possible. Marketing of lots of PRM covered by a suppliers' label equally remains unchanged. 
Pests currently regulated under the PRM will be listed under PHL, however the certification 
procedure  will  continued  to  be  used  for  the  inspection;  in  this  regard,  definitions  and 
provisions  between  PHL  and  PRM  Law  will  be  aligned.  This  should  allow  removing 
obstacles  for  combine  health  inspections  under  the  two  regimes.  “Reference  Certification 
Centres”  shall  be  established  to  develop,  harmonise  and  disseminate  best  practices  in  PRM 
certification. 

3. Registration of operators 

In  a  context  where  a  more  significant  role  is  given  to  the  industry,  all  operators  (breeders, 
growers,  suppliers)  are  registered,  allowing  a  monitoring  of  their  activities  and  facilitating 
traceability in case of identified problems. This registration will be valid both for the EU plant 
health  regime  and  for  the  PRM  marketing  legislation  and  implemented  through  a  shared 
register to reduce burden (common to all options). 

4. Approach on conservation varieties/amateur varieties/niche markets 

The requirements for the marketing of conservation or certain "niche market" varieties will be 
adapted.  As  there  is  no  obligatory  technical  examination  of  varieties  and  no  obligatory 
certification of PRM, the marketing of conservation varieties or "niche market" varieties can 
take  place  under  the  provisions  of  the  regime  for  non-officially  tested  varieties  with  the 

63 

 
 
 
instrument  of  an  officially  recognised  description  based  on  current  and/or  historical 
information available on the variety. 

5. Forest reproductive material 

Following  the  Impact  Assessment  and  the  stakeholder  consultation  the  basic  approach  on 
FRM  identification  and  certification  will  not  be  changed  and  official  controls  will  be 
maintained. A separate chapter in the proposed Regulation is dedicated to FRM. 

6.2.1. Analysis of impacts of the preferred option 

The  impact  on  health  and  quality  of  PRM  will  be  absent  or  negligible.  Officially  tested 
varieties  are  tested  as  they  currently  are,  with  further  emphasis  on  resistance/tolerance  to 
biotic  and  abiotic  stress,  while  not  officially  tested  varieties  will  not  be  tested  for 
pest/resistance or tolerance. These varieties will, however, only have a small share in the total 
market for PRM. Certification will remain obligatory for the same species as currently is the 
case  and  thus  no  negative  impact  is  expected.  Introducing  minimum  requirements  for  non-
listed species will improve the quality of this group of species. Including ornamentals in this 
group  will  ensure  a  minimum  quality  for  this  group  of  plant  species.  The  impact  on 
employment  and  jobs can  be  significant  in  the  public  sector  as  tasks  are  transferred  to  the 
private  sector.  For  registration  this  loss  could  be  significant,  but  it  can  be  expected  that  a 
proportion of that highly specialised staff could be recruited by private operators. As for the 
certification of individual lots of PRM, the analysis from option 2 is relevant here. A rough 
estimate is that no more than 600-700 public sector jobs concerned with certification might be 
lost, but that part of the redundant staff may be recruited by the private sector. Nevertheless, 
appropriate  levels  of  staff  and  expertise  will  have  to  be  maintained  because  public  services 
shall  remain  available.  The  impact  on  administrative  burden  and  costs  will  be  most 
noticeable  for  competent  authorities,  which  will  recover  fully  the  costs  for  services  offered 
and  transfer  responsibilities  to  the  private  sector.  Larger  operators  already  to  a  great  extent 
have the resources to carry out these tasks and will most likely be able to carry them out in a 
more efficient manner. The possibility of directly registering varieties of some species at the 
CPVO will also lower administrative burden for operators. The new approach of enabling the 
marketing of new varieties directly at the stage of national register will save time and allow 
quicker market access. This and the transfer of tasks to operators will increase their operating 
flexibility  and  thus  have  a  positive  impact  on  competitiveness  on  the  global  market  place. 
The analysis of option 2 showed, using the example of the potato and the cereal sector, that 
official supervision of certification tasks can lead to considerable costs savings for companies. 
The maintenance of VCU for officially tested varieties for certain groups of species will also 
contribute  to  maintain  an  open  competition  in  the  Internal  Market  as  large  companies  and 
SMEs will compete mainly based on the quality of their products. Trade with Third countries 
will not be particularly affected by this option, but the rules that remain in place (DUS, VCU, 
certification)  will  guarantee  that  European  PRM  companies  will  compete  with  high-quality 
and  traceable  products.  With  regard  to  micro  and  small  companies,  the  option  will  have 
rules for providing public services for variety registration and PRM certification; it will also 
provide flexibility with regard to ‘officially recognised description’. The increased flexibility 
of operators should help to accelerate the market access of new, improved varieties. Adapted 
VCU-criteria  ("sustainable  VCU")  will  simulate  the  industry  to  focus  development  of 
varieties into new directions and thus foster innovation and research. This option will also 
have a positive environmental impact. The instrument of not officially tested varieties will 

64 

 
 
 
 
serve the interest of the conservation of agrobiodiversity. "Sustainable VCU" will support the 
trend  to  develop  agricultural  practices  more  robust  to  climate  change  and  less  reliant  on 
pesticides and fertilisers. The  social impact is also assessed as positive as a high-skill PRM 
industry will be maintained in disadvantaged rural areas. 

Summary of the key impacts under the preferred option 

Areas 

Impact on health and quality of PRM  

Impact on employment (private and public sector) 

Impact on administrative burden and costs for authorities  

Impact on administrative burden and costs for private sector operators 

Impact on competitiveness and trade 

Impact on innovation and research 

Environmental impact 

Social impacts 

Impacts 

Preferred 
option 

0 

0(-) 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

The  preferred  option  thus  leads  to  legal  architecture  based  on  a  simplified  and  harmonized 
unitary legal base with two pillars describing the provisions for listed (tested and non-tested) 
and non-listed species. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REGULATION ON THE MARKETING OF PLANT REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL 

Horizontal provisions: 
• 
• 
• 

Cost recovery of activities carried out by competent authorities 
Possibility of official supervision for all activities carried out by operators 
Official register of operators 

►Level playing field for operators in all Member States 

Minimum  provisions  for  non-listed 
species 
• 
Free  from  harmful  organisms 
and  defects,  satisfactory  vigor  and 
germination (where appropriate) 
• 
Traceability  of  material  and 
records  of  production  keeping  by  the 
operators 
• 
sufficient 
denomination 
• 

If  marketed  as  a  variety: 
identity  and  purity  and 

Operator’s label 

All species not listed in Annex 1 or for 
ornamental use 

This pillar allows minor crops or crops 
with  particular  uses  access  to  specific 
or small market segments. At the same 
time a level playing field is established 
with  minimum  obligations  ensuring 
traceability,  health  and  information  to 
the  consumer.  This  pillar  also  supports
diversity  of  SMEs,  sustainability  and 
biodiversity. 

Provisions for EU listed species 
•  Registration of varieties 
o  Official description 

(cid:131)  DUS 
(cid:131)  VCU 

(e.g. 
agricultural crops)  

specific  crops 

such  as 

o  Officially 

recognized 

description 

for 

conservation varieties e.g. * 

o  Suitable denomination 

•  PRM Certification 

o  Category (pre-basic, basic, certified) 
o  Post-certification controls 
o  Official label 

•  Extended mandate of CPVO 

o  Possible direct registration for certain species 
o  Harmonization of DUS testing among MS 
o  Mandatory requirement for denomination 
checking 
o  Audit of national and private examination 
offices 

•  Listed species defined in Annex 1 
•  Standard marketing category for varieties of 
listed species 

o  with operator’s label 
o  free from harmful organisms 

This pillar guarantees legal security for operators and 
consumers,  high  quality  of  PRM  and  competitive 
advantage on the internal and the world markets.  

*Derogations  on  the  basis  of  public  goods and 
recognized 
biodiversity  conservation 
description) 

(officially 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The general monitoring of the legislation on marketing PRM will be carried out according to 
the  principles  of  the  Regulation  882/2004  on  official  controls  on  feed  and  food  where  the 
Commission (Food and Veterinary Office, FVO) controls the enforcement of the legislation in 
the Member States by audits. 

The  monitoring  of  the  impact  and  effectiveness  of  the  PRM  legislation  at  EU  level  will  be 
required  not  only  to  assess  the  correct  implementation  but  also  to  propose  further  action  or 
redirection of the measures, if necessary.  

Two  sets  of  indicators  will  be  needed,  the  first  one  for  the  overall  monitoring  of  the  PRM 
sector and the second one for assessing the effect of the measures introduced with the revision 
of the legislation with regard to the objectives.   

1. Overall monitoring of the PRM sector 

Indicators 

Variety registration 

Number, list of species concerned and evolution 

quality 

PRM 
(health and quality) 

control 

Number of variety applications / species, MS and evolution 

Number of varieties registered / species, MS and evolution  

Number of varieties withdrawn from the EU register and evolution 

Number of maintainers / group of species, MS and evolution  

Number and list of species concerned by this legislation and evolution 

Amount of PRM yearly inspected / groups of species and evolution  

Amount of PRM yearly finally certified / groups of species and evolution 

Number, type, quantity of PRM not satisfying EU rules (post control evaluation) / MS and 
evolution 

Number  and  type  of  derogations  requested  per  MS  for  material  not  satisfying  EU 
requirements and evolution 

Market 

Internal PRM market per species/group of species, type of material (certified or under the  
responsibility of supplier's) (ha, EUR), per MS and evolution 

Import, export (quantity/value) per group of species and MS and evolution 

2. Assessment of the specific objectives of the revised legislation  

EU equivalence for PRM import 

2.1 Effectiveness of the system 

Number of complaints and requests for clarifications received from stakeholders, MS 

Number  of  notification  received  from  Member  States  on  national  measures  and  national 
implementation  

Functional register of operators and evolution. 

Results  of  CPVO  audits  of  national  examination  centres  for  variety  registration  and 
harmonised DUS protocol 

Results  of  FVO  audits  on  implementation  of  the  legislation  in  the  MS  and  PRM  official 
control by competent authorities 

Number  of  cases  of  developing  information  tools  in  the  Member  States 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
concerning the implementation of the new Regulation 

Number of studies conducted for the preparation and development of Union 
legislation in the field of plant reproductive material 

2.2 Reduction of administrative burden and costs and introduction of flexibility 

Variety registration 

Application:  Number,  Time  needed,  cost  recovery  for  variety  registration  per  group  of 
species and MS and evolution 

quality 

PRM 
(health and quality) 

control 

PRM companies with a focus on SMEs applying for new varieties or for withdrawing the 
existing ones : Number, type, evolution 

Number of varieties registered with an ‘officially recognised description’ 

Number of direct applications to CPVO and evolution 

%  of  certification  under  official  supervision  compared  to  official  certification  in  the 
Member States (ha, type of companies especially SMEs) and evolution 

Cost recovery for PRM quality control  

Number of Union certification reference centres established 
Number of comparative tests and trials carried out 
Number of cases of amendments to legislation or establishment of protocols to improve the 
methodology of certification 

2.3  Alignment  of    PRM  legislation  with  other  recent  Union  strategies  (biodiversity,  CAP,  climate  change,  bio-based 
economy) and proportionate rules 

Number,  quantity  of  conservation  varieties/landraces/amateur  varieties  and  of  minor 
species listed per MS and evolution  

Number,  quantity  of  conservation  varieties/landraces/amateur  varieties  and  of  minor 
species marketed per MS and evolution  

Number of species concerned and evolution 

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

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I: GLOSSARY 

AOA: area of adaptation 

AOSCA: Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies 

CA: certifying agency 

CMO: Common Market Organisation 

CPVO: Community Plant Variety Office 

DG: Directorate General 

DUS: distinctness, uniformity, stability 

ESA: European Seed Association 

EU: European Union 

FVO: Food and Veterinary Office 

GATT: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

GMO: genetically modified organism 

HO: harmful organisms 

IAS: Invasive alien species 

IPPC: International Plant Protection Convention 

ISF: International Seed Federation 

ISSG: inter-service steering group 

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

PRM: Plant Reproductive Material 

R&D: Research and Development 

SME: small and medium-sized enterprises 

SPS: sanitary and phytosanitary measures 

PRM: Plant reproductive material 

UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
UPOV: International Union for the protection of new varieties of plants 

USD: US dollar 

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture 

VCU: value for cultivation and use 

WTO: World Trade Organisation 

70 

 
 
 
ANNEX II: HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRM LEGISLATION 

PRM  Marketing  Directives  have  existed  since  the  mid  1960s.  They  comprise  of  one 
horizontal Directive on the Common Catalogue of Varieties and 11 vertical Directives dealing 
with specific plant groups: 

Council  Directive  2002/53/EC  on  the  common  catalogue  of  varieties  of  agricultural  plant 
species  

Council Directive 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed 

Council Directive 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed 

Council Directive 2002/54/EC on the marketing of beet seed  

Council Directive 2002/55/EC on the marketing of vegetable seed  

Council Directive 2002/56/EC on the marketing of seed potatoes  

Council Directive 2002/57/EC on the marketing of seed of oil and fibre plants  

Council Directive 68/193/EEC on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of 
the vine  

Council Directive 1998/56/EC on the marketing of propagating material of ornamental plants  

Council  Directive  2008/72/EC  on  the  marketing  of  vegetable  propagating  and  planting 
material, other than seed  

Council Directive 2008/90/EC on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit 
plants intended for fruit production  

Council Directive 1999/105/EC on the marketing of forest reproductive material 

The majority of Council Directives for the marketing of PRM have first been issued between 
1966  and  1971.  Some  Directives  are  more  recent,  such  as  the  Council  Directive  for  the 
marketing of vegetable propagating material and planting material other than seed and the one 
for the marketing of ornamentals. 
These  original  Directives  have  been  updated  both  frequently  and  substantially,  creating  the 
need  for  clarity  and  transparency.  In  some  cases,  such  as  the  Directive  on  the  Common 
Catalogue,  this  has  been  pursued  in  the  current  versions.  In  other  cases,  for  example  the 
Directives  on  fodder  plant  seed  and  cereal  seed,  the  original  Directives  are  still  in  force 
although these have been subject to a large number of amendments. 
The  SLIM  initiative  launched  by  the  Commission  in  1996  has  led  to  the  recasting  of  the 
Council  Directive  on  the  marketing  of  ornamental  plants  in  1998  as  well  as  to  the  “2002” 
Directives  (2002/53/EC,  2002/54/EC,  2002/55/EC,  2002/56/EC,  2002/57/EC)  that  are 
codifications  of  pre-existing  Directives.  Directives  66/401/EEC  and  66/402/EEC  were  not 
included  in  this  SLIM  initiative  as  some  amendments  were  on-going  at  the  time  when  the 
Directives were recast or codified. 
As a follow-up to the OECD revision of its trade scheme for forest reproductive material in 
the mid-1990s, the EU undertook to renew its old Directive so that there would be only one 
set  of  definitions  and  rules  for  marketing  of  FRM.  The  new  Directive  1999/105/EC  has 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
standards that reflect the increase in Member States since 1966, for example in the number of 
species covered.  
A more recent change was the adoption of Council Directive 2008/90/EC on the marketing of 
fruit  plant  propagating  material  and  fruit  plants  intended  for  fruit  production.  The 
Commission has recently also developed specific legislation on conservation varieties so that 
varieties of agricultural and vegetable crops, which may be threatened by genetic erosion and 
which are adapted to regional and local conditions, may be marketed under certain derogatory 
rules.  Directive  2008/62/EC  provides  that  agricultural  landraces  and  varieties  which  are 
naturally adapted to the local and regional conditions (conservation varieties) can be placed 
on  the  catalogues  without  official  examination,  once  they  meet  some  minimum  standards. 
Directive 2009/145/EC foresees less stringent requirements as regards the acceptance of the 
varieties and the marketing of the seed for the vegetable landraces and varieties which have 
been  traditionally  grown  in  particular  localities  and  regions  (conservation  varieties)  and 
vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for 
growing  under  particular  conditions.  Equally,  conservation  and  preservation  of  natural 
environment of species-rich grassland has gained importance. Directive 2010/60/EU provides 
for  less  stringent  rules  which  are  necessary  to  allow  the  marketing  of  fodder  plant  seed 
mixtures as 'preservation seed mixtures'. 

72 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III: SUMMARY OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF MEETINGS 

No. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

(13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

Action 

Date 

Conference on Seed Availability in the 21st Century      

18 March 2009 

Council  WP  on  Agricultural  Questions 
Breeder Rights/Seeds and Propagating Material) 

(Plant 

1.1. 

2  October 
2009 

Sanco  Advisory  Group,  WG  'Seeds  and  Propagating 
Material' 

30 November 2009 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

26 January 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

9 February 2010 

Council  WP  on  Agricultural  Questions 
Breeder Rights/Seeds and Propagating Material) 

(Plant 

12 March 2011 

Sanco  Advisory  Group,  WG  'Seeds  and  Propagating 
Material' 

15 April 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

3 May 2010 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

11 May 2010 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

3 June 2010 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

15 September 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

30 September – 1 
October 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

8 October 2010 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

26 October 2010 

Sanco  Advisory  Group,  WG  'Seeds  and  Propagating 
Material' 

23 November 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

13 December 2010 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

11 April 2011 

Web-based stakeholder survey 

19 April – 30 May 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(19) 

(20) 

(21) 

(22) 

(23) 

(24) 

(25) 

(26) 

Council WP on Agricultural Questions  

(Seed and Propagating Material)  

TF  1  (General  requirements),  TF  2  (Registration  of 
varieties),  TF  3 
requirements  and 
(Marketing 
controls) under Hungarian Presidency 

2011 

27th April 2011 

24 May 2011 

Commission Horizontal WG of MS experts 

30 – 31 May 2011 

(material  with 

for 
TF  4 
biodiversity,  spec.  marketing  requirements)  under 
Hungarian Presidency 

significance 

spec. 

1 June 2011 

Council  WP  Agricultural  Questions  (Seeds  and 
Propagating Material/Plant Breeders Rights)   

17 June 2011 

TF 3 (controls) under Polish Presidency 

19 July 2011 

Commission Inter-Service Steering Group 

11 November 2011 

Council  WP  Agricultural  Questions  (Seeds  and 
Propagating Material/Plant Breeders Rights)   

12 October 2011 

74 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV: THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PRM INDUSTRY 

OECD Seed Schemes 

Since  1958,  the  OECD  Seed  schemes  are  open  to  OECD  countries  as  well  as  other  U.N. 
Members.  58  countries  participate,  including  EU  Member  States  and  the  US,  Canada, 
Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India and Iran.  
The OECD seed certification is applied to varieties which have obtained satisfactory results 
by official tests (including comparative field tests) in at least one participating country. The 
tests must also  establish  that the varieties have an acceptable value in at least one country. 
The varieties are notified by National Designated Authorities (NDA) and published in 
official  lists:  the  annual  OECD  list  of  varieties  eligible  for  certification  includes  about 
43.000 varieties from 200 species and 400.000tons/year.  
The schemes deal with the following groups of species: Grasses and Legumes,  Crucifers 
and other Oil or Fibre species, Cereals, Maize and Sorghum, Beet, Subterranean clover, 
Vegetables. 
All  schemes  aim  at  seed  certification;  the  Vegetable  Scheme  provides  also  for  "Standard 
Seed"  which  are  not  certified  but  only  controlled.  The  schemes  ensure  the  varietal  identity 
and purity of the seed through appropriate harmonised requirements and controls throughout 
the  cropping,  seed  processing  and  international  recognised  OECD  labels  (varietal  identity 
and purity): generation control (pre-basic, basic and certified seed), isolation distances, purity 
standards, field  inspections,  lot sampling, post-control plots, compulsory  official laboratory 
analysis for each certified seed lot. 
OECD certification provides for official recognition of seed with guaranteed varietal identity 
and  purity,  thus  facilitating  international  trade  and  contributing  to  the  removal  of  technical 
trade barriers. 

In order to become member, the basic requirement are the following :   

(cid:131)  National  seed  law  providing  a  framework  for  variety  registration  and  seed 

certification, 

(cid:131)  National list of plant varieties 
(cid:131)  Effective national system for seed control and certification 
(cid:131)  Seed  analyses  laboratories  working  with  ISTA  or  equivalent  standards  for 

seed testing 

(cid:131)  Post-control field test to check the varietal purity of basic and certified seeds 

OECD  scheme  for  the  control  of  forest  reproductive  material  moving  in  international 
trade 

The  scheme  defines  four  categories  of  forest  reproductive  material  recognised  for 
certification:  (i)  source-identified  material  (minimum  standard);  (ii)  material  from  selected 
stands  located  in  well-delimited  regions  of  provenance;  (iii)  material  from  untested  seed 
orchards which can produce seed of improved quality; (iv) tested material that is genetically 
improved. 

The  scheme  is  open  to  OECD  Members  as  well  as  to  other  States.  Today  25  participating 
countries implement the Scheme, including tropical countries which are developing their seed 
exchange for reforestation purposes. Seeds and plants are produced and officially controlled 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
according to common harmonised procedures. 

All categories included, the participating countries approved to date 253 tree species eligible 
for  OECD  certification  of  reproductive  material,  with  a  total  area  of  13.6  million  hectares.

ISTA International Seed Testing Association 

Founded  in  1924,  with  the  aim  to  develop  and  publish  standard  procedures  in  the  field  of 
seed  testing,  ISTA  is  an  independent  association  and  acts  free  from  economic  interest. 
Currently its membership consists of 201 member laboratories, 52 personal members and 42 
associate  members,  from  79  countries  around  the  world  (seed  scientists  and  analysts  from 
universities,  research  centres  and  governmental,  private  and  company  seed  testing 
laboratories). 120 of the ISTA Member Laboratories are accredited by ISTA and entitled to 
issue  ISTA  international  seed  analyses  certificates  for  international  trade  of  quality  seed. 
Research,  training  and  publishing  are  conducted  including  cooperation  with  related 
organisations such as OECD, ISO, and many others. 

ISTA  produces  internationally  agreed  rules  for  seed  sampling  and  testing,  accredits 
laboratories, promotes research, provides international seed analysis certificates and training, 
and  disseminates  knowledge  in  seed  science  and  technology.  This  facilitates  seed  trading 
nationally and internationally, and also contributes to food security. 

The  ISTA  International  Rules  for  Seed  Testing  guarantee  worldwide  annually  updated, 
harmonised,  uniform,  seed  testing  methods.  The  ISTA  Accreditation  Programme  (1995) 
includes Accreditation Standard, Proficiency Testing Programme and Auditing Programme. 

17 Technical Committees are responsible for the development of new methodologies for seed 
testing,  including  bulking  and  sampling,  flower  seed  testing,  forest  tree  and  shrub  seed, 
germination,  GMO,  moisture,  nomenclature,  seed  health,  proficiency  testing,  purity,  rules, 
statistics, seed storage, Tetrazolium, and vigour. 

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention 

The  International  Plant  Protection  Convention  (IPPC)  is  an  international  plant  health 
agreement, established in 1952, that aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing 
the introduction and spread of pests and to promote appropriate measures for their control. In 
applying  phytosanitary  measures,  contracting  parties  have  obligations  to  comply  with  the 
Convention principles of necessity, technical justification and transparency. 

IPPC began with 12 countries and measures for grapevine Phylloxera. Today 177 contracting 
party  are  signatories  to  the  Convention.  Each  contracting  party  has  a  National  Plant 
Protection  Organization  (NPPO)  and  an  Official  IPPC  contact  point.  Nine  Regional  Plant 
Protection Organizations (RPPOs) were established to coordinate NPPOs on a regional level. 
The Secretariat is provided by the FAO. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Within the context of the WTO (Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures SPS Agreement), the 
IPPC role is to encourage international harmonization and elaborate international standards 
to ensure that phytosanitary measures are not used as unjustified barriers to trade. In 2005, 
the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  revised  IPPC-Agreement  emphasizes  cooperation  and 
information  exchanges  toward  the  objective  of  global  harmonization.  In  addition  to 
describing national plant protection responsibilities, it also addresses important elements of 
international cooperation for the protection of plant health and the establishment and use of 
International  Standards  for  Phytosanitary  Measures  (ISPMs).  Some  ISPMs  concern  the 
production and trade of PRM, such as:  

ISPM 07: 2011 Phytosanitary certification system 

ISPM 11: 2004 Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental 
risks and living modified organisms  

ISPM 15: 2009 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade 

ISPM 21: 2004 Pest risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests 

ISPM  33:  2010  Pest  free  potato  micropropagative  material,  minitubers  for  international 
trade. 

ISPM 36: 2012 Integrated measures for plants for planting (excluding seed) 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Standard for Seed Potato 

Work  on  the  UNECE  Standard  for  Seed  Potatoes  began  in  1958.  The  first  version  of  the 
standard  was  adopted  by  the  Working  Party  in  1963  at  its  16th  session.  It  sets  common 
terminology  and  minimum  commercial  quality  requirements  for  the  certification  of  high-
quality seed intended for marketing internationally. 

It  is  a  unique  international  frame  of  reference,  covering  all  aspects  related  to  seed-potato 
certification: (a) varietal identity and purity; (b) genealogy and traceability; (c) diseases and 
pests; (d) external quality; (e) sizing; and (f) labelling. 

The requirements are set for three categories of seed potatoes: pre-basic, basic and certified, 
in descending order of quality.  

Within  these  categories  and  classes,  countries  producing  seed  potatoes  are  free  to  create 
national classes that are subject to specific national requirements. The Designated Authority 
is responsible for the maintenance of classification data to provide traceability. 

Varieties are accepted for trade according to the Standard only if an official description and a 
reference sample are available from the Designated Authority. The variety should be distinct, 
uniform and stable (DUS) and have a denomination so that it can be identified. 
The Standard prescribes rules on packaging, sealing and labelling to ensure the identity of the 
seed.  It  also  provides  guidelines  for  comparative  trials  of  plants  grown  from  seed  potatoes 
sampled from marketed lots. 

A List of Diseases and Pests, containing a basic description of each disease with illustrative 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
photographs and their status in certification, supplements the Standard. 

World trade organisation and TBT 

The  WTO  agreements  cover  goods,  services  and  intellectual  property.  They  spell  out  the 
principles  of  liberalisation,  and  the  permitted  exceptions.  As  tariff  barriers  are  eliminated, 
non-tariff  barriers,  such  as  technical  barriers,  become  possible  significant  obstacles  to 
international trade.  

Technical  regulations,  standards,  conformity  assessment  procedures  are  important,  but  they 
vary  from  country  to  country  due  to  climatic  conditions  or  cultural,  socio-economic  or 
geographical factors; they make life difficult for producers and exporters. They are necessary 
for  environmental  protection,  safety,  product  quality,  national  security  and  to  consumer 
information. 

If  the  standards  are  set  arbitrarily,  they  could  be  used  as  an  excuse  for  protectionism  or 
market distortions. Standards can become obstacles to trade.  

The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) is part of WTO agreements and tries 
to  ensure  that  regulations,  standards,  testing  and  certification  procedures  do  not  create 
unnecessary obstacles. However, the agreement also recognizes countries’ rights to adopt the 
standards they consider appropriate — for example, for human, animal or plant life or health, 
interests. 
for 

to  meet  other  consumer 

the  environment  or 

the  protection  of 

The  TBT  agreement  states  that  the  procedures  used  to  decide  whether  a  product  conforms 
with relevant standards have to be fair and equitable. It discourages any methods that would 
give  domestically  produced  goods  an  unfair  advantage.  The  agreement  also  encourages 
countries  to  recognize  each  other’s  procedures  for  assessing  whether  a  product  conforms. 
Without recognition,  products might  have to be tested twice, first by the exporting country 
and then by the importing country. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS 

The following European stakeholders’ organisations and individuals have participated in the Internet consultation. In order to be able to carry out 
the data analysis reported in Annex VI, the stakeholders were divided in 5 groups, as follow: 

EU 

Ministries and competent authorities 

AGES / BAES 

AGES / FOFS 

Lebensministerium 

DGARNE 

DGARNE - SPW 

CRAW 

LV-vlaanderen 

MOA - DA 

MOA-DA-Seed control 

UKZUZ 

BSA 

JKI 

AT 

AT 

AT 

BE 

BE 

BE 

BE 

CY 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DE 

79 

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES / BAES) 

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety / Federal Office for Food Safety  

Federal Ministry Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management  

DG for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment 

Direction of Quality – Dep. Development - General operational Directorate of Agriculture, natural 
Resources and Environment - Public Service of Wallonia  

Centre Wallon de Recherches agronomiques + CRAW Département Productions et Filières - Unité 
Stratégies Phytotechniques 

Flemish authority: Agency for Agriculture and Fishery 

Ministry of agriculture, natural resources and environment, department of agriculture, plant health 
and quality control section, plant propagating material  

Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment – Dep. Agriculture 

Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture 

Federal Min. Agriculture Food, Consumer Protection - Plant Variety Office 

Institute for Breeding Research on Agricultural Crops, Horticultural & Fruit Crops, Plant Health of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LFL-Bayern 

LLH-Hessen 

LWK-Niedersachen 

LWK-NRW 

SMUL-SACHSEN 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

the Julius Kühn-Institute 

Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft  

Landesbetrieb Landwirtschaft Hessen 

Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen 

Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen 

Sächsisches Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Geologie  

DK 

Danish Plant Directorate 

OEVV 

EVIRA 

MMM 

MAAPRAT 

GEVES 

CTPS 

SOC France 

IFV 

MIN AGRIC 

MGSZH 

Min. agriculture 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

80 

Ministry of Agriculture 

Plant variety office – Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino 

Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira 

Ministry of Agriculture – Seed + Fruit and ornamental propagating material 

Ministère de l’Agriculture 

Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés Et des Semences  

Comté Technique Permanent pour la Sélection (fodder crops, protein crop, vine, President) 

Service Officiel de Contrôle et de certification des semences et plants  

Institut français de la vigne et du vin 

Ministry Agriculture, Rural Development, Food - Directorate of Inputs for Crop Production 

Central Agricultural Office + CAO - Directorate of Plant Production and Horticulture 

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COSVIR IX 

COSVIR XI 

INRAN-ENSE  

VATZUM 

ASTA 

IT 

IT 

IT 

LT 

LU 

Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali 

Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali - Servizio fitosanitario 

INRAN-ENSE  

State Plant Service – ministry of Agriculture 

Administration des Services Techniques de l’Agriculture 

MRRA – SPMU  

MT 

Plant Health Directorate within the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs  

Ministry of Economics, Agriculture and Innovation - Netherlands 

Dutch General Inspection Service for agricultural seeds and seed potatoes 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

Research Centre for Cultivar Testing 

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

Territorial Inspection for quality SPM 

Swedish board of agriculture 

Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet 

Central Controlling and Testing Institute in Agriculture (2 answers) 

Food and environment research agency 

Norwegian Food Safety Authority 

MINLNV 

NAK 

MINROL 

COBORU 

INCS 

JORDBRUKSVERKET 

SLU 

UKSUP 

DEFRA-FERA 

NL 

NL 

PL 

PL 

RO 

RO 

SE 

SE 

SK 

UK 

NO 

81 

Non EU 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU organisation 

Breeding / supplier companies / associations / suppliers PRM 

EU 

ESA 

BE 

European Seed Association 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

AOHE 

FR 

Association des Obtenteurs Horticoles Européens 

Breeders PRM 

Others 

Monsanto 

BE 

Monsanto  Europe 

Pioneer 

BE 

Pioneer Hi-Bred International 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

GWPPPDT-UPR 

BE 

Groupement Wallon Producteurs de Plants de Pommes de Terre 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

CMMSSA 

CZ 

Czech Seed trade association 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

DE 

Bundesverband Deutscher Saatguterzeuger E.V. 

APVD 

DK 

Association of Plant Variety Owners in Denmark 

Breeders PRM 

Breeders PRM 

Seed Council 

DK 

Danish seed Council 

Breeders / suppliers / users PRM 

DLF Trifolium 

DK 

Dansk gartneri 

DK 

Danish Horticulture 

ANOVE 

JOVEGA 

FSTA 

Boreal 

ES 

ES 

FI 

FI 

Spanish Association of plant breeders  

Jõgeva plant Breeding Institute 

Finnish Seed Traders Association 

Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd  

82 

Breeders PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeders PRM 

Breeders PRM 

Suppliers PRM 

Breeder PRM 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supplier PRM 

Groupement National Interprofessionnel des Semences et Plants 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Association (Potatoes) 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Fédération Nationale Producteurs de Plants de Pommes de Terre 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Fédération nationale production de semences de maïs et de sorgho 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Union Française des Semencier 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 

Reseach / plant breeding PRM 

Siemen Forelia 

GNIS 

FEDEPOM 

FNPPPT 

FNPSMS 

UFS 

INRA 

Agri Obtentions 

CLAUSE SA 

Belloy Semences 

DE SANGOSSE 

EMC2 

EURALIS 

INVIVO  

JOUFFRAY-
DRILLAUD SA 

FI 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

Laboulet Semences 

FR 

Limagrain group 

FR 

Mercier Frères Sarl 

FR 

(vine nurseries)  

83 

EURALIS SEMENCES + Groupe EURALIS 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Supplier PRM 

Supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Syndicat établissements multiplicateurs de semences de lin textile 

Suppliers PRM  

Supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Supplier PRM 

Supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier / User PRM 

supplier PRM 

Breeder PRM 

Breeders PRM 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

NORIAP cooperative  FR 

Pépinières du Valois 

FR 

(Fruit reproductive material) 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

FR 

IT 

IT 

RAGT Semences 

UNEAL SCA 

Semences Vertes  

Semlin 

Terre de Lin 

TOP Semences 

UNISIGMA 

AHPB 

VSZT 

ASSOSEMENTI 

COVI 

KAVB 

NAO 

Seed company 

HU 

Association of Hungarian Plant Breeders 

HU 

Hungarian Seed Association 

Associazione Italiana Sementi 

COVI CONSORZIO ORTOVIVAISTI ITALIANI  

Supplier PRM 

LV 

Latvian Seed Association 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

NL 

KAVB - Royal General Bulbgrowers' Association  

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

NL 

Nederlandse Aardappel Organisatie (potato merchants) 

Suppliers PRM 

PLANTUM 

NL 

Dutch  Seed  association  (ornamentals,  vegetable  seeds,  agricultural  crops, 
vegetable plants and strawberry.) 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Nickerson Zwaan 

NL 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rijk Zwaan 

Syngenta Seeds 

AGRICO U.A. 

NL 

NL 

NL 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

SPS-AGRO 

PL 

Association of Polish Nurseries (fruit reproductive material) 

Suppliers PRM 

AMSEM 

RO 

Association of Breeders, Producers and Traders PRM 

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

SVUF 

Lindbloms Frö 

SWSEED 

SE 

SE 

SE 

Swedish seed trade association 

Lantmännen SW Seed AB  

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

SASTAB 

SK 

Slovak Association of Seed Traders and Breeders  

Breeders / suppliers PRM 

HORDEUM s.r.o.  

SK 

ZELSEED 

SK 

BSPB 

AIC 

UK 

British Society of Plant Breeders Ltd. 

UK 

Agricultural Industries Confederation Ltd.  

J. Hutton Institute 

UK 

Fruit breeder 

Non EU 

USA  New World Seeds & Tubers  

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

Breeders PRM 

Breeder PRM 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

EU organisation 

User of PRM / Seed growers / technical institutes 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU 

Copa-Cogeca 

BE 

European farmers – European agri-cooperatives 

Seed growers / Users PRM 

ESGG 

C.I.B.E. 

Others 

BE 

EUROPEAN FLOUR MILLERS 

FR 

European Seed Growers' Group 

BE 

International Confederation of European Beet Growers 

Users PRM 

Seed growers 

Users PRM 

EU 

LK-OE 

AT 

Landwirtschaftskammer Österreich 

Users PRM 

IRBAB 

AKCR 

WVZ 

BE 

Institut  Royal  Belge  pour  l'amélioration  de  la  betterave  -  IRBAB-KBIVB 
asbl  

CZ  Agrarian Chamber 

DE  Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung Zucker- WVZ  

Dansk planteskole 

DK  Danish Nursery sector 

DK  The Knowledge centre for Agriculture, Plant production  

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

User PRM 

MTK-agriculture 

FI 

Central  Union  of  Agricultural  Producers  and  Forest  Owners  (MTK), 
Agriculture Group  

Users PRM 

ARVALIS 

FR 

Institut du vegetal 

FR  Association générale des producteurs de blé et autres céréales 

FR  Association générale des producteurs de lin 

FR  Association générale des producteurs de maïs 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

AGPB 

AGPL 

AGPM 

BNIC 

FR 

Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac 

Users, Suppliers, Breeders 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capseine 

CETIOM 

FR 

FR 

Centre technique des oléagineux métropolitains 

Champagne Céréales 

FR 

Champagne Céréales 

FR 

Comité français de la semoulerie industrielle 

FR 

Confédération générale des betteraves 

Seed growers 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

Users PRM 

FR 

Fédération Nationale Agriculteurs Multiplicateurs de Semences 

Seed growers 

FR 

Federation Nationale des Producteurs de Chanvre 

Users PRM 

FR 

Société Française des Gazons - SFG  

CFSI 

CGB 

FNAMS 

FNPC 

SFG 

TOULEMONDE FRERES Sarl  FR 

Users PRM (Fruit) 

USRTL 

FR  Union syndicale des rouisseurs teilleurs de lin 

Users PRM 

NL  Agriculture and horticulture Organisation – section trees and perenials 

NFU 

UK  National Farmers Union 

Users PRM 

UK 

Pre Basic Growers Association (seed potatoes) 

Users, Suppliers PRM 

Non EU 

Felleskjøpet Agri  

NO 

User PRM 

EU organisation 

Others (biodiversity, conservation varieties, organic farming…) 

EU 

ECVC 

BE  European Coordination Via Campesina 

Users, Suppliers, breeders PRM 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IFOAM EU 

BE 

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 

Conservation varieties 

ECOPB 

DE  European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding  

Breeder PRM (biodiversity) 

Others 

EU 

Arche Noah 

AT  Verein, Austrian Seed Savers Association 

NGO (Breeder, supplier, user) 

ARGE Streuobst 

AT  Österreichische  Arbeitsgemeinschaft  zur  Förderung  des  Streuobstbaues 

User PRM (biodiversity) 

und zur Erhaltung obstgenetischer Ressourcen  

ASBL Terre potagère 

BE  Association 

thevegetablegarden 

VELT 

SAVE 

BE 

BE 

Supplier PRM (biodiversity) 

Conservation varieties 

Supplier & consumer (biodiversity) 

DE  SAVE-Foundation  

Conservation varieties 

VERN e.V 

DE  Verein  zur  Erhaltung  und  Rekultivierung  von  Nutzpflanzen 

in 

NGO (old varieties) 

Brandenburg 

ABDP 

DE  Association of biodynamic plant breeders eV 

Breeder / supplier PRM 

DE  Bingenheimer Saatgut AG 

Breeders 
farming) 

/  suppliers  PRM 

(organic 

Frøsamlerne 

DK  Danish  Seed  Savers  Association  "Frøsamlerne"  -  NGO  dealing 

NGO (biodiversity) 

with variety conservation and biodiversity  

Confederation paysanne 

FR  Agricultural Union  

KOKOPELLI 

FR  Association 

Breeder, supplier, User PRM  

Breeder / supplier PRM  

ITAB 

FR 

Technical Institute for Organic Farming 

Technical institute  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OKOFORRAS 

HU  Ökoforrás (Eco-resources) Foundation 

Conservation varieties 

IE  Eco Committee of Cork Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society 

Conservation varieties 

of Friends in Ireland 

IE 

Irish Seed Savers Association 

Mullingar Educate 
together NS 

IE 

Supplier  &  consumer 
varieties) 

(Conservation 

Consumers (biodiversity) 

AIAB 

IT  Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica) 

Biodiversity 

Bifurcated Carrots 

Fritidsodlingens 
Riksorganisation 

Röttle natur och kultur  

Non EU 

Portage Perennials 

NL 

SE 

SE 

CA 

NGO (seed network) 

Consumers (gardeners) 

Biodiversity 

Consumer (biodiversity) 

FNI 

NO  Fridtjof Nansen Institute 

Research institute (biodiversity) 

Forestry / Nurseries 

Competent authorities 

BFW 

AT 

Federal Forest Office – FRM  

SPW-DGO3-DNF 

BE 

Service public de Wallonie - Département Nature & Forest - Comptoir Forestier 

MMM 

FI 

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forestry 

CA 

CA 

CA 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Min. Agriculture 

IE 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 

SKOGSSTYRELEN 

SE 

Swedish forest agency 

NLC 

SK 

National forest centre 

EU organisation 

EFNA 

UK 

European Forest Nursery Association 

Nordic Forestry 

BE 

Bureau of Nordic Family Forestry  

Others 

Bosgroep 

IBGE 

SPW 

SRFB 

BE 

Bosgroep Zuidwest Brabant vzw  (advice to forest owner) 

BE 

Brussels  Institute  for  Management  of  the  Environment  -  Division  Nature,  Water  and  Forest  -  Forestry 
Department  

BE 

Department of nature and forest in Wallonia 

BE 

Société royale forestière de Belgique 

DGARNE DNF 

BE 

Nature and Forest Administration of Walloon Region 

UCL 

BE 

Université Catholique de Louvain - Earth and Life Institute - Environmental sciences Laboratory of forest 
sciences 

Vallée du Chavan 

BE 

Groupement forestier 

Scaldéen sprl 

BE 

Groupement Forestier 

Forest Life SCA 

BE 

BE 

Nanson A.( former responsible for the regulations of Control of FRM) 

90 

CA 

CA 

CA 

User 

Advice 

Supplier 

User 

User,  breeder, 
supplier 

User 

User 

User 

User 

User 

Users 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Aigret G., Serstevens A., Bastin H., Baudry O., Blondel N., Bonte F., Charmetant C., Coquelet L., Corriat 
J., d’Aspremont Lynden F.-R., De Lannoy, De La Vallée F., De La Vallée P., De Le Court E., De Le Court 
J.-C.,  De  Le  Court  J-F,  De  Lichtervelde  F.  de  Radzitzky  J.,  de  Radzitzky  P.,  du  Parc  P.,  Delogne  J.-F., 
Dessain H., Egefim, Evrad D., Gobbe V., Indivision Arnould - Vandeputte, Iweins de Wavrans F., Jugnot 
V., Mestdagh G., Rondia G., Simon N., Sonnet J., Sosson C, Tennstedt L.-M.,.Vincent A., Wootwood 

FD-MOA 

NST 

MTK-forestry 

ERTI 

LTO 

LRF 

SODRA 

CY 

Department of Forests 

DK 

Danish nature Agency (tree) 

FI 

FI 

Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK), Forestry Group  

Union of Forest Owners West Finland 

FI  

Finnish Forest Research Institute (2 answers) 

HU 

Forest Research Institute  

NL 

Agriculture and Horticulture Organisation Netherlands section Trees and perennials  

SE 

SE 

Federation of Swedish Family Forest Owners 

Southern Swedish Forest Owners Association 

SE 

Foreningen Sveriges Skogsplantproducenter (Swedish Forest Nursery Association)  

SK 

Federal Forest Office - Forest Reproductive Material  

CONFOR 

UK 

Confederation of Forest Industries, Nursery Producers Group  

Supplier 

User,  breeder, 
supplier 

Users  

User  

Research  

Research  

Supplier, 
breeder, user 

Supplier, 
breeder, user 

Supplier 

Breeder 
Supplier  

/ 

Individual 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Consumer 

Seed grower 

Consumer 

Consumer 

Consumer 

FR 

FR 

SE 

SK 

? 

Coquin P., Dano C., François Rose Marie., Le Hingrat Y., André V. 

Vitu M. 

A. Truedsson 

Schnorrer M., Majdekova, Kása S. 

Anonymous 

92 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI: ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

I. Overall analysis 

A web-based stakeholder survey using an “Interactive Policy Making” (IPM) questionnaire to 
collect comments on an "options and analysis paper” was organised from 19 April to 30 May 
2011.  

It yielded more than 257 responses from a very wide range of stakeholder groups. All replies 
to the questionnaire can be found with the following link: 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/options_review_legislation_replie
s_en.htm.  

1- Response profile 

Stakeholders from 27 countries have answered to the web based consultation, including from 
24  Member  States  (Bulgaria,  Portugal  and  Slovenia  did  not  answer).  Canada,  the  US  and 
Norway also have provided answers. 2/3 of answers were coming from 6 countries: Belgium, 
France (20-25%), Germany, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands (between 4-6%).   

Table V.1: Response profile 

Competent authorities 

S&PM: 

Certification 

Variety registration 

Breeders 

Suppliers 

Users of S&PM 

User for raw material 

Final Consumer 

Type of organisation 

SME 

National companies 

International companies 

International organisations 

Others 

93 

19.4% 

16.7% 

25.5 % 

28.9 % 

32.7% 

4.9 % 

8.4% 

6.1% 

10.7% 

8.4% 

6.1% 

28.5% 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The questionnaire authorised multiple answer with regard to the activities (e.g. breeders and 
suppliers), and thus the percentages do not add up exactly to 100%. 

2- Problem definition 

64% of the stakeholders consider that the problems were not defined correctly and that issues 
such as genetic improvement, productivity, competitiveness, global food security, adaptation 
to  climate  change,  biotechnology,  agro-environmental  adaptation,  biodiversity  (minor  crop 
and old varieties), niche markets, national stricter rules or no common solutions for all PRM 
were not sufficiently addressed.  

71.9%  of  the  stakeholders  considered  that  the  scenarios  were  not  defined  correctly  and  that 
certain  scenarios  were  overlooked.  Therefore,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  (between  54  and 
96% depending on activity and sector, with the exception of FRM where stakeholders are in 
favour  of  keeping  the  status  quo)  proposed  that  a  combination  of  scenario  should  be 
developed. 79.5% feel that certain scenarios are unrealistic. 

There was a majority of 57.4% to discard the baseline scenario ‘’no change’’ and the extreme 
scenario ‘’abolishment of S&PM Regulation’’.  

Table V.2: Prioritisation of objectives 

Priority objectives 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

N/A 

Ensure availability of healthy high quality seed and propagating material 

37% 

23% 

9% 

8% 

3% 

21% 

Secure the functioning of the internal market for seed and propagating material 

21% 

19% 

14% 

11% 

15% 

20% 

Empower users by informing them about seed and propagating material 

2% 

13% 

14% 

32% 

17% 

22% 

Contribute to improve biodiversity, sustainability and favour innovation 

21% 

12% 

25% 

11% 

11% 

19% 

Promote plant health and support agriculture, horticulture and forestry 

7% 

15% 

17% 

14% 

28% 

18% 

The analysis of the answer of stakeholders on the priority objectives shows that:   

94 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
•  37%  of  stakeholders  consider  that  ‘’ensuring  availability  of  healthy  high  quality 
seed  and propagating material’’  is the first priority and remains valid  in  2011 and 
60% that it is a priority 1 or 2.  

•  40% consider that ‘’securing the functioning of the internal market for S&PM’’ is a 

first or second priority. 

•  25%  of  stakeholders  consider 

improve  biodiversity, 
sustainability  and  innovation’’  is  a  medium  priority  objective  while  21%  consider 
this  to  be  of  a  high  priority.  This  is  reflected  in  the  discussion  where  some 
stakeholders consider that the issue is already addressed while some others state that 
there is a definite need to do more in this field. 

that  ‘’contributing 

to 

•  Around  50%  consider  that  ‘’empowering  users  by  informing  them  about  S&PM’’ 

has a lower priority. 

•  Only  7%  of  stakeholders  consider  that  the  objective  ‘’promoting  plant  health  and 
support agriculture, horticulture and forestry’’ is a first priority and 28% state that it 
has a low priority. This might be explained by the fact that plant health for S&PM is 
already addressed in the first priority through the terminology ‘’healthy high quality 
seed’’  and  that  the  securing  of  the  Internal  market  covers  the  principle  of  support 
for agriculture, horticulture and forestry.  

3- Assessment of options 

76.9% of stakeholders considered that the impacts of each option were not correctly analysed 
and  that  certain  impacts  have  been  overlooked  or  underestimated.  This  stakeholder  view  is, 
however,  based  on  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  impacts  in  the  “Options  &  Analysis”-
paper.  

Some stakeholders judge that the impacts on the various sectors of PRM (agricultural crops, 
vegetable,  fruit,  and  vine  or  forest  material)  were  not  sufficiently  addressed  in  the  options 
which were described as very general and even simplistic.  

Specific  questions  related  to  Forest  Reproductive  Material  are  not  adequately  taken  into 
consideration and the related plant health issue neither (seed potato, fruit and vine materials). 

Certain  stakeholders  believe  that  the  impact  of  the  transfer  of  cost  to  the  private  sector  has 
been underestimated. Others consider that the issue of biodiversity is underestimated.  

Several stakeholders consider that the issue of warranty of quality of PRM to users has been 
underestimated. 

Table V.3: Stakeholders' support to specific options or combination of options 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Combination of 
scenarios 

Scenario 
with new 
features 

N/A 

3.1% 

7.3% 

2.7% 

6.5% 

8.0% 

28.5% 

44.2% 

6.9% 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
44.2%  are  in  favour  of  a  new  scenario  with  new  features.  28.5%  of  the  stakeholders 
support the idea that the preferred option for the review of the PRM legislation should 
be a combination of options.  

Regarding  the  options  which  would  best  meet  the  objectives  of  the  review,  only  16 
stakeholders  provided  an  answer.  ‘’Green’’  stakeholders  (37.5%  of  respondents  answering 
this question, but only 2.3% of all respondents) considered that option 4 will meet them, while 
other groups shared the opinion that a combination of option or a scenario with new features 
(12.5%+37.5% of respondents answering this question, but only 3.1% of all respondents) will 
meet the objectives. 

II. Analysis of the consultation according to sectoral stakeholder groupings 

This  section  presents  an  overview  of  the  positions  taken  by  sectoral  stakeholder  groupings 
and  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  in  reply  to  the  consultations.  The 
Commission has attempted to summarise these positions as accurately as possible. 

1. Opinions concerning the proposed scenarios 

The  public  consultation  was  based  on  the  five  scenarios  presented  in  detail  in  this  Impact 
Assessment and the discarded options of "No change" and "abolishment". 

Discarded options 

SCENARIO 
"Cost Recovery": 

SCENARIO 
"Co-system": 

SCENARIO 
"Deregulation" 

1 

2 

Complete recovery of variety registration and PRM certification 
costs by competent authorities 

Limited  flexibility  for  operators:  technical  examination  for 
variety registration and PRM certification can be carried out by 
the operator under official supervision. 

3  

Complete  flexibility  by  deregulation:  only  DUS  tests  are 
mandatory and made under official supervision. VCU tests are 
optional. PRM certification applies only to exports. 

SCENARIO 
‘’Enhanced flexibility’’ 

4  

Dual system: one for officially tested varieties (DUS, VCU) and 
one for non-officially tested varieties. Certification is limited to 
officially tested varieties. 

SCENARIO 
‘’Centralisation’’ 

5: 

CPVO  will  be  given  the  mandate  for  variety  registration.  No 
change for certification (scenario 2). 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders,  including  competent  authorities,  from  24  EU  Member  States  (no  responses 
from Bulgaria, Portugal and Slovenia) took part. Six countries accounted for two thirds of the 
responses:  

•  France (more than 25% of all responses) 

•  Belgium  (25%  of  the  responses,  including  40  responses  from  the  Belgium  forest 

sector) 

•  Germany, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden. 

Five responses came from third countries: Norway (3 – competent authority, user of PRM and 
research institute), Canada (1 – user of PRM), USA (1 – breeder and PRM supplier).  

North American (US and Canada) stakeholders reject all scenarios; Norwegian stakeholders 
consider  the  scenarios  1  and  5  as  very  negative  and  have  a  range  of  views  on  the  other 
scenarios.  

For the following analysis, stakeholders were divided into categories: 

•  Competent authorities and ministries: 25% of responses; 

•  Breeders and PRM suppliers: 30%; 

•  Users of PRM; 

-  non FRM: 13%; 
-  Users of PRM emphasizing biodiversity issues: 12%; 

•  FRM : 15% 

Competent authorities (excluding FRM) 

Scenarios 

Discarded 
options 

CA 

disregarded 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Slightly 
beneficial 
or neutral 

Slightly 
beneficial 

Rather 
negative 

Rather 
negative 

Rather 
negative 

Discarded options 

66%  of  competent  authorities  (excluding  FRM)  consider  that  the  assessment  of  the 
discarded options was sufficient and consequently disregarded these two options.  

Scenario 1 

64% of competent authorities judged scenario 1 to be slightly beneficial or neutral, 24% 
consider it to be rather negative or very negative and 12% state that they don’t know.  

Scenario 2 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
62%  of  competent  authorities  judged  scenario  2  to  be  slightly  beneficial  or  fairly 
beneficial, 10% consider it to be neutral, 24% as rather negative or very negative and 4% 
state that they don’t know.  

Scenario 3 

76% of competent authorities judged scenario 3 as rather negative or very negative. 12% 
consider  it  to  be  slightly  beneficial  or  fairly  beneficial,  6%  as  neutral  and  6%  state  that 
they don’t know.  

Scenario 4 

72% of competent authorities judge scenario 4 as rather negative or very negative. 12% 
consider it is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial, 10% as neutral and 6% state that they 
don’t know.  

Scenario 5 

68% of competent authorities judge scenario 5 as rather negative or very negative. 14% 
consider it to be slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial, 14% that it is neutral and 4% state 
that they don’t know.  

It is noticeable  that competent  authorities  involved specifically in the FRM-sector judge 
the discarded scenario ‘’no change’’ to be the most appropriate.  

PRM Breeders and suppliers (PRM B&S) 

Scenarios 

Discarded 
options 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Breeders and 
PRM 
suppliers 
(PRM B&S) 

disregarded  Rather 

negative 

Slightly 
beneficial 

Very 
negative 

Rather 
negative 

Slightly 
beneficial 
or neutral 

Discarded options 

81% of PRM B&S consider that the assessment of the discarded scenario ‘’no change’’ or 
‘’abolishment’’ was sufficient and consequently disregarded these two options. 

Scenario 1 

65% of PRM B&S consider scenario 1 to be rather negative or very negative, 20% state 
that it is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial, 6% that it is neutral and 9% that they don’t 
know.  

Scenario 2 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
77%  of  PRM  B&S  judge  scenario  2  to  be  slightly  beneficial  or  fairly  beneficial.  18% 
state that it is rather negative or very negative, 2% that it is neutral and 3% that they don’t 
know.  

Scenario 3 

84% of PRM B&S consider scenario 3 to be rather negative or very negative and 8% state 
that it is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial, 5% that it is neutral and 3% that they don’t 
know. 

Scenario 4 

80% of PRM B&S consider that scenario 4 is rather negative or very negative and 15% 
state that it is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial, 2% that it is neutral and 3% that they 
don’t know. 

Scenario 5 

44% of PRM B&S consider that scenario 5 is slightly beneficial or neutral, 30% state that 
it is rather negative or very negative and 26 % that they don’t know.  

It  was  conspicuous  that  the  representation  of  PRM  B&S  involved  in  fruit  or  vine 
reproductive material is very low (3 between 60). It is thus not possible to arrive at strong 
conclusions concerning these sectors. 

Stakeholder groups mainly interested by biodiversity issues 

Scenarios 

Discarded 
options 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Stakeholders  disregarded  Very 

negative 

Rather 
negative 

Rather 
negative 

Slightly 
beneficial  

Very 
negative 

Discarded options 

65% of this group answered that the assessment of the discarded scenarios was sufficient. 
30%  responded  that  the  disregarded  options  ‘’no  change’’  or  ‘’abolishment’’  were  not 
sufficiently assessed. 

Scenario 1 

75% of respondents from this stakeholder group consider scenario 1 to be very negative, 
8% state that is neutral, 4% that it is slightly beneficial and 13% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 2 

75% consider scenario 2 to be rather negative or very negative, 8% state that it is neutral 
and 17% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 3 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
62% consider scenario 3 to be rather negative or very negative, 8% state that is neutral, 
17% that it is slightly beneficial or fairly beneficial and 13% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 4 

54% of PRM B&S consider scenario 4 to be slightly beneficial or very beneficial, 33% 
state that it is rather negative or very negative and 13% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 5 

75% of PRM B&S consider scenario 5 to be very negative, 8% state that it is neutral and 
17% that they don’t know.  

This  stakeholder  group  is  generally  critical  to  very  critical  concerning  the  various 
scenarios.  Only  scenario  4  (58%)  is  judged  to  provide  some  benefits  concerning  the 
question of biodiversity. 

Users (non-FRM, also including technical institutes) 

Scenarios 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Stakeholders  Disregarded  Slightly 

beneficial 
or neutral 

Slightly 
beneficial 

Very 
negative 

Very 
negative 

Neutral  or 
rather 
negative 

Discarded options 

61% of this group respond that the assessment of the discarded options ‘’no change’’ or 
‘’abolishment’’ was sufficient and consequently disregarded these two options.  

Scenario 1 

69%  consider  scenario  1  to  be  slightly  beneficial  or  neutral,  27%  state  that  it  is  rather 
negative or very negative and 4% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 2 

80% consider scenario 2 to be fairly  beneficial  or slightly  beneficial, 8%  state that it is 
neutral, 8 % that it is rather negative or very negative and 4% that they don’t know.  

Scenario 3 

100% consider scenario 3 to be very negative.  

Scenario 4 

100% consider scenario 4 to be very negative. 

Scenario 5 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
46% consider scenario 5 to be slightly negative, 23% state that it is neutral, 11% that it is 
slightly beneficial and 12% that they don’t know.  

This stakeholder group is characterized by a common view on scenarios 3 and 4 stating 
that those two scenarios are very negative for the future of the PRM sector. 

Forest reproductive material 

Within the FRM sector, forest owners can be supplier and users at the same time. Due to 
the  fact  that  public  owned  forests  are  common  in  Europe,  sometimes  the  competent 
authorities  can  also  be  user  and  supplier.  Therefore  all  participants  in  the  public 
consultation involved with forestry were treated as one stakeholder group. 

Scenarios 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Stakeholders 

Not 
sufficiently 
assessed 

No 
opinion 

Very 
negative 

Very 
negative 

Very 
negative 

Very 
negative 

Discarded options 

2/3 of this group answered that the disregarded scenarios were not sufficiently assessed.  

Scenario 1 

46% of the group state that they don’t know how to assess the possible impact of scenario 
1. 23% consider that it would be negative, 19 % answer that the scenario would have a 
positive impact, 12% consider it as neutral.  

Scenario 2 

69% of the group consider scenario 2 to be rather negative or very negative, 23% don't 
know how to assess it and 8% answer that it is neutral.  

Scenario 3 

69% of the group consider scenario 3 to be rather negative or very negative, 23% don't 
know how to assess it and 8% answer that it is neutral.  

Scenario 4 

58% of the group consider scenario 4 to be rather negative or very negative, 27% don't 
know how to assess it, 11% answer that it is positive and 4% consider it as neutral.  

Scenario 5 

61%  of  the  group  consider  scenario  5  to  be  rather  negative  or  very  negative  and  27% 
don't know how to assess it, 7.7% answer that it is neutral and 4% that it is positive.  

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This group is opposed to all options. It is often mentioned, that agriculture and forestry are 
different  and  that  FRM  was  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the  Option  &  Analysis  Paper 
provided.  Due  to  this,  some  stakeholders  from  this  sector  couldn't  decide  yet  and  have 
proposed to keep the existing legislation. 

2. Opinions concerning the proposed objectives 

Obj. 1. Ensure availability of healthy high quality seed and propagating material; 

Obj.  2.  Secure  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  seed  and  propagating 
material; 

Obj. 3. Empower users by informing them about seed and propagating material; 

Obj. 4. Contribute to improving biodiversity, sustainability and favour innovation;  

Obj. 5. Promote plant health and support agriculture, horticulture and forestry 

Objectives 

Obj.1 

Obj. 2 

Obj. 3  Obj. 4 

Obj. 5 

Priorities for competent authorities 

Priorities  for  breeders  and  PRM 
suppliers 

Biodiversity stakeholders 

PRM users, PRM growers 

Forestry group 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

4 

3 

2 

3 

4 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

This  table  shows  that  for  four  stakeholder  groups,  except  the  biodiversity  group,  the 
objective of ‘’ensuring availability of healthy high quality seed and propagating material’’ 
is  the  first  priority.  The  biodiversity  group  puts  objective  4  first,  but  responds  that  the 
objective of ‘’ensuring availability of healthy high quality seed and propagating material’’ 
is the second priority. 

For  competent  authorities,  breeders  and  suppliers  and  forestry  stakeholders,  the  second 
most important objective is to ‘’secure the functioning of the internal market for PRM’’. 

It is noticeable that the objective of improving ‘’biodiversity and innovation’’ is also an 
important concern of nearly all stakeholder groups. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  VII:  SHORT  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  MAIN  FEATURES  OF  THE 
PRM MARKETING LEGISLATION 

Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability (DUS) 
A variety shall be regarded as distinct if it is clearly distinguishable on one or more important 
characteristics  from  any  other  variety  known  in  the  Union.  The  characteristics  of  a  variety 
must be capable of precise recognition and precise definition. 

A variety shall be regarded as sufficiently uniform if, apart from a very few aberrations, the 
plants  of  which  it  is  composed  are,  account  being  taken  of  the  distinctive  features  of  the 
reproductive  systems  of  the  plants,  similar  or  genetically  identical  as  regards  the 
characteristics, taken as a whole, which are considered for this purpose. 

A variety shall be regarded as stable if, after successive propagation or multiplications or at 
the end of each cycle, it remains true to the description of its essential characteristics. 

For the official examination of a variety the CPVO- or UPOV- or national protocols are used. 

Value for cultivation and use (VCU) 

The value of a variety for cultivation and use shall be regarded as satisfactory if, compared to 
other varieties accepted in the catalogue of the Member State in question, its qualities, taken 
as  a  whole,  offer,  at  least  as  far  as  production  in  any  given  region  is  concerned,  a  clear 
improvement either for cultivation or as regards the uses which can be made of the crops or 
the products derived there from. Where other, superior characteristics are present, individual 
inferior characteristics may be disregarded. The characteristics to be considered are the value 
for  cultivation  (being  yield,  resistance  to  harmful  organisms  and  behaviour  with  respect  to 
factors in the physical environment) and the value for use (quality characteristics). 

Protocols and testing procedures for the four characteristics are developed on a national level. 

Certification/controls on lots of PRM 
Quality and health of lots of PRM on the market are guaranteed by issuing of a label, which 
stands for a statement that the lot concerned complies with the EU requirements applicable 
to the species and the category under which the lot is placed on the market. 
For  nearly  all  agricultural  crops  marketing  is  only  possible  in  the  categories  of  certified 
material  or  higher.  It  also  implies  that  the  label  is  an  official  label  issued  following  an 
official  examination  of  the  field  production  and  the  lot  or  an  examination  under  official 
supervision.  This  examination  involves  controls  during  the  growing  period  of  the  PRM 
crop, examination at the stage of the preparation of the lot itself and sampling followed by 
laboratory testing.  

Besides official certification labels, the guarantee can be based on the basis of a suppliers' 
label  which  is  issued  by  the  supplier  himself,  on  the  basis  of  his  own  verification  of  the 
compliance of the lots with the applicable standards. The only official controls on such lots 
are the post-controls on samples drawn from PRM that is present on the market. One of the 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consequences  is  that  the  official  services  can  only  verify  compliance  with  the  standards 
applicable to the lot itself.  

The  various  steps  in  the  variety  registration  and  certification  processes  are  shown  in  the 
following flowchart 

Figure 1. Registration of varieties and certification/inspection of PRM lots for marketing  

EU system for PRM marketing49 

Step 1: Registration of varieties 

1.1 Applicant submits an application and a sample to the national competent authority 

1.2 Competent authority performs technical examination: 

- distinctness, uniformity, stability (DUS) for all varieties, (at least over 2 growing seasons) 

- value for cultivation and use (VCU) as additional tests for agricultural crops 

- suitability of the proposed variety name 

 if all criteria are met 

1.3 Competent authority registers the variety in its national catalogue or list 

For  agricultural  and  vegetable  crops,  the  variety  is  eligible  for  marketing  in  the  Member 
State, for other crops marketing in the entire EU is permitted 

1.4 The competent authority notifies the Commission of the registration of varieties of agricultural and 
vegetable crops 

1.5 The EU includes the agricultural and vegetable varieties in a common catalogue 

The variety of agricultural and vegetable crops is eligible for marketing throughout the EU 

Step 2: Inspections/certification of lots of PRM 

49 Terminology not directly applicable to Forest Reproductive Material 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Marketing of lots covered by an official certification label 

2.1.1 Supplier submits an application to the competent authority  

2.1.2  Authority  performs  inspections  on  growing  seed  crop  and  on  lots  prepared  for  marketing, 
including sampling and laboratory testing. Under certain conditions inspections may be done by 
the supplier under official supervision 

 if all criteria50 are met  

2.1.3 Certification label issued  

 lot eligible for marketing 

2.1.4 Competent authority performs random post-control on lots of PRM on the market 

Marketing covered by a suppliers' label51  

2.2.1 Supplier performs inspections on his seed crop and on lots prepared for marketing 

 if all criteria are met 

2.2.2 Suppliers' document issued 

 lot eligible for marketing throughout EU 

50 Criteria are crop- specific and depend on marketing category 
51 For small EU packages of fodder plants and beet seed and for lower marketing categories of non-agricultural 

crops 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Current  system  on  market  access  of  varieties/material:  registration  and  certification  of  all  varieties/materials  of  plant  reproductive 
material (PRM) of plant species regulated in the EU  

Groups  of  plan
species 

Agricultural crops: 

seed  of  fodder,  cereal,  beet, 
oil and fibre plants, potatoes 

Registration of varieties or materials  

Vegetable  seed  and 
propagating 
material 

Fruit 
vine 
and 
propagating  material 
and plants  

Forestry reproductive material 

seed 
propagating 

Ornamental 
and 
material  

•  Application is done by breeders 

(cid:131)  Purpose:  marketing of better varieties, with clearly identified characteristics. 

(cid:131)  The varieties are registered in catalogues (for agricultural and vegetables crops) or lists for fruits and vines. 

(cid:131)  The acceptance for registration is subject to examination of varieties for identity and performance as well as of 

denomination checking. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
Registration  of  varieties  in 
the  MS  (DUS  examination 
for 
and  VCU 
examination for performance, 
denomination checking) 

identity 

of 
Registration 
varieties  in  the  MS 
(DUS  examination 
identity,  only 
for 
chicory  
industrial 
VCU testing)  

of 
Registration 
varieties  in  the  MS 
(DUS examination) 

Official approval of  

basic  material  on  the  basis  of  its 
provenance   

variety 

No 
registration 
procedure: 

EU  marketing 
publication 
in 
Common Catalogues 

through 
the  EU 

EU 
marketing 
through  publication 
in the EU Common 
Catalogues 

EU 
marketing 
through  publication 
in  the  national  list, 
notification 
of 
information to the EU 
list  

EU  marketing  through  publication 
of basic material in the national list 
and  

notification  of  information  to  the 
EU list  

Can  be  marketed  if  
plant  variety  rights 
or 
protection 
officially  registered 
commonly 
or 
known 
on 
suppliers  list  in  the 
MS 

or 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for 

less 
Possibility 
stringent  derogative 
rules  for  varieties  in 
to 
the 
interest 
genetic 
preserve 
diversity exists. 

For  registration  of 
conservation 
and 
varieties 
amateur 
varieties 
the  MS  and  EU 
Common 
less 
Catalogues: 
stringent 
DUS 
testing and no VCU 
testing 

Derogations 
above   

t

Grasses  for  non-fodder  use: 
no VCU testing 

For 
of 
registration 
conservation  varieties  in  the 
MS 
and  EU  Common 
stringent 
Catalogues: 
DUS  testing  and  no  VCU 
testing 

less 

Preservation  seed  mixtures 
approved on basis of origin in 
the MS 

Derogative  pre-authorisation 
marketing  regime  for  tests 
and 
trials  on  farms  with 
quantitative restrictions in the 
MS: 'not- yet listed varieties'  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Category/ 

Agricultural crops: 

S&PM 

seed  of  fodder,  cereal,  beet, 
oil and fibre plants, potatoes 

Vegetable  seed  and 
propagating 
material 

Fruit 
vine 
and 
propagating  material 
and plants 

Forestry reproductive material 

seed 
plant 

Ornamental 
and 
propagating 
material 

Certification/inspection of  S&PM lots   

•  Purpose: ensure the presence of good quality and healthy lots on the market 

• 

Is subject to inspections done by national competent authorities or by the supplier under official supervision on growing 
seed  crops  and  on  lots  prepared  for  marketing,  including  sampling  and  laboratory  testing.  Following  these  tests  that 
explore various criteria such as: identity, purity, quality, plant health) certification label is issued.  

(1)  Certification  
before 
PRM 
by 
marketing 
official  authority 
only 

Marketing  categories  of  pre-
basic  and  basic  seed  (field 
inspection), 

seed potatoes 

Fruit: 
Marketing 
categories  of  pre-
basic,  basic, certified 

Different  marketing 
categories 
under which different types of basic 
material may be marketed.   

Marketing 
Vine: 
categories  of  initial, 
basic  seed,  certified 
seed 

for  derivation  of 
Certification 
approved  basic  material  ('master 
certificate'). 

Official control system in the MS. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(2) In addition to 
(1): 
possibility 
for    certification 
under 
official 
supervision 

Marketing 
certified seed and  

categories 

of 

commercial  seed  (fodder,  oil 
&fibre plants) 

Seed:  marketing 
categories  of  pre-
basic,  basic  seed 
and certified seed 

(3)  Marketing 
only 
controls 
(post-controls) 

Small  packages  of  beet  seed 
and fodder plant seed 

Seed:  marketing 
standard 
category 
seed (verification) 

Fruit: 
category CAC 

marketing 

Re-inspected at regular intervals 

No 
marketing 
categories,  general 
quality 
requirements, 
random checks 

Vine: 
category standard  

marketing 

PM:  self  controls, 
MS  supervision  & 
controls 
of 
producers, 

small packages 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII: MAIN FEATURES OF THE PRM MARKETING INDUSTRY 

EU production and trade in true seed 

The European Seed Association (ESA) estimates that in 2009-2010 the EU commercial seed 
market has reached a value of approximately EUR 6.8 billion and that it represents more than 
20% of the total worldwide market for commercial seed. The EU seed markets for cereals and 
pulses are estimated at EUR 2.5 billion, maize at EUR 1.6 billion seed potatoes at EUR 900 
Mio, vegetables at about EUR 1 billion, while oil and fiber plants, sugar beet and grasses are 
respectively from EUR 200 to 300 Mio each. 

The EU is the largest exporter with an estimated export value of EUR 4.4 billion representing 
roughly 60% of the total worldwide export value of EUR 7.7 billion. The EU became a net 
exporter  of  planting  seeds  in  2002/2003,  and  its  trade  surplus  has  gradually  increased  since 
then. 

Statistics produced by ISF (update August 2010 – ISF will not accept any responsibility for 
the use of their statistics by others) 

Value of domestic seed 
market (in US mio $ at 
1€ = 1.4 US $ 
Agricultural 
Vegetable crops 
185 
120 
300 

+ 

165 
1950 
2370 
n.a. 
240 
450 
80 
715 

Country 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
France 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
300 
Hungary 
n.a. 
Cyprus 
n.a. 
Malta 
Netherlands  317 
150 
Austria 
260 
Poland 
80 
Portugal 
220 
Romania 
110 
Slovak 

(includes 

Export 
EU 
destinations  -  in  US  mio  $ 
at 1€ = 1.4 US $) 
Agricultural 
seed 
160 
18 
41 

Vegetable 
seed 
4 
5 
4 

55 
48 
278 
n.a. 
2 
47 
0 
94 
2 
1 
0 
14 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1058 
3 
4 
6 
0 
0 

168 
458 
884 
n.a. 
11 
62 
4 
123 
0 
6 
4 
221 
n.a. 
n.a. 
241 
115 
39 
4 
86 
38 

111 

Import 
(includes  EU 
origin  -  in  US  mio  $  at 
1€ = 1.4 US $) 
Agricultural 
seed 
160 
60 
56 

Vegetable 
seed 
31 
7 
6 

54 
457 
590 
n.a. 
63 
198 
16 
186 
8 
17 

84 
n.a. 
n.a. 
282 
91 
78 
56 
124 
50 

15 
72 
107 
n.a. 
24 
198 
5 
162 

3 

17 
n.a. 
n.a. 
310 
14 
44 
20 
14 
3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Republic 
40 
Slovenia 
160 
Finland 
240 
Sweden 
UK 
400 
n.a.: information not available 
NB: The commercial world seed market for 2009-10 is assessed at approx. 42 billion US $ 

15 
12 
44 
126 

5 
7 
9 
73 

31 
40 

4 
21 

5 

3 

Seed production in EU 27 Member State for the most important agricultural crops 

Wheat seed is produced on 420 000 ha. France is the biggest producer (82 000 ha) followed 
by Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary and the UK. Italy has the first place with durum 
wheat  seed  production.  Romania  and  Spain  are  also  big  cereal  seed  producers.  Barley 
accounts for 300 000 ha, where Germany (38 000 ha), France (36 000 ha), Denmark (33 000 
ha) and the Czech Republic (30 000 ha) are the biggest producers.  

France and Germany are the two main producers of oilseed rape in the EU. In the last years 
production of rapeseed for sowing was increased due to the demand for rapeseed as a supply 
stock for biodiesel. Due to the very high multiplication factor, the number of hectares of seed 
production remains fairly limited. 

Maize seeds are grown on 140 000 ha. The largest maize seed producers are France, Hungary 
and Romania.  

Sugar  beet  seed  is  grown  on  126  815  ha.  France  and  Italy  are  the  largest  producers  in  the 
Union.   

Grass  seed  production  in  the  EU  occupies  207  000  ha.  Denmark  is  the  largest  producer  of 
grass seeds with about 72 000 ha, followed by Germany (29 350 ha), France (20 500 ha), and 
the  Czech  Republic  (16  700  ha)  and  the  Netherlands  (15  900  ha).  All  other  Member  States 
together produce grass seeds on 52 550 ha.  

Vegetable seeds are mainly multiplied outside the EU in a wide range of countries in which 
labour costs are lower than in the EU. The produced seeds are shipped to the EU, mainly to 
the  Netherlands,  for  treating,  sampling  and  packaging  and  re-exported  to  their  final 
destination in the EU or outside the EU. Vegetable production in the EU has a value of EUR 
27 bn, where five Member States (IT, ES, RO, FR and PL) together represent more than 50% 
of the production. The vegetable seed production has a value of about EUR 1 billion. Main 
producers are FR, IT, NL, HU DK and PL. The five biggest companies have 95% of the seed 
market. 

Seed  potato  production  occupies  around  90.000  ha  in  Europe;  four  main  countries  are  the 
largest  producers:  The  Netherlands  (34.000ha),  Germany  and  the  United  Kingdom  (around 
16.000 ha each), France (14.000ha).  

The major players in the seed market 

For several decades after plant breeding emerged as a recognized field of science in the late 
19th  century,  almost  all  plant  breeding  activities  took  place  in  public  institutes.  Breeding 
activities gradually shifted to the private sector during the 20th century. This may explain why 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
plant breeders (public first and then public & private) have been involved to a large extent in 
the development of national regulatory frameworks. 

The  seed  industry  matured  due  to  the  introduction  of  hybrids,  especially  hybrid  maize  in 
North  America,  hybrid  sugar  beet  in  Europe,  and  hybrid  vegetables  in  South  East  Asia  and 
intellectual protection (plant breeder’s right). In North America and Europe, the hybrid seed 
industry  grew  from  regionally  based  family  businesses.  The  profitability  of  hybrids  far 
outstripped that of non-hybrid open pollinated seeds. This has led to eventual consolidation in 
the  industry  and  the  dominance  of  several  key  companies  in  particular  crops.  In  the  1970s, 
high  margins  attracted  the  attention  of  several  agrochemical  companies,  waiting  to  exploit 
possible synergies of the seed business with their own line of business (e.g. the acquisition of 
Northrup King (USA) by Sandoz (Switzerland).  

The  emergence  of  biotechnology  in  agriculture  in  the  1980s  has  led  to  a  complete 
reorganization of the sector. Today, leading seed groups are largely owned or allied with the 
world  leading  chemical/plant  protection  companies.  Consolidation  through  mergers  and 
acquisitions took place in major field crops, and is currently on-going in the vegetable sector. 
Chemicals  companies’  interests  in  investing  in  biotech  are  linked  to  the  fact  that  many 
pesticides  used  in  agriculture  may  be  replaced  by  transgenic  crops  that  have  a  biologically 
inbuilt resistance.  

In the top ten of the biggest seed companies at global level, five are Europe-based companies, 
four of which are from EU Member States. 

The structure of the EU seed companies  

The  number  of  seed  companies  in  the  EU  is  estimated  at  6,79752  and  includes  breeding 
companies, seed producers and seed traders. About 6,580 out of 6,797 companies are based in 
ten Member States.  

In  Poland  and  Romania,  there  are  a  large  number  of  companies  (around  2,000)  and  in 
Hungary around 800. The next position occupies the United Kingdom with 600, followed by a 
group of 5 countries (Italy, France, Slovakia, Germany, Netherlands) with a number between 
120 and 350 companies. In the other member States, the number is lower than 60 companies. 

This highlights that the three Member States with the highest number of seed companies are 
Eastern  countries;  respectively  Poland,  Romania  and  Hungary.  However,  the  size  of  seed 
companies in these countries is small with most of them (> 90%) being SMEs. 

The total employment is estimated at about 50,000 employees with about 80% of the number 
of employees in the top ten Member States demonstrating that PRM sector is concentrated in 
a limited number of Member States. The  main  countries with  regards to employment in the 
private seed sector are first France followed by Romania, Netherlands, Poland, Germany and 
Italy.   

The  combination  of  number  of  companies  and  seed  employees  shows  that  consolidation  in 
France  and  the  Netherlands  is  important.  The  number  of  companies  is  quite  small  but  the 
number of employees is rather high.  

52 industry information - 2010  

113 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  percentage  of  micro  and  small  enterprises  per  Member  States  is  not  known  and  is 
difficult to calculate as many collaborations and agreements exist between companies across 
Member  States.  Data  regarding  ESA  membership  (European  Seed  Association)  show  that 
around  15  individual  members  are  medium  or  large  companies  and  the  others  are  small 
companies.  A  majority  of  small  or  micro  enterprises  are  participating  in  the  work  of  ESA 
through  their  membership  in  national  associations  (e.g.  the  French  seed  association  has  130 
members,  the  Dutch  seed  association  300).  It  can  be  concluded  that,  overall,  the  number  of 
SMEs is quite high, especially in the EU12 new Member States. As consolidation is still on-
going in these Member States, it can be estimated that the percentage of SMEs in the PRM 
sector  in  these  Member  States  and  then  at  the  EU  level  will  decrease  in  the  future. 
Additionally,  these  figures  do  not  distinguish  between  plant  breeding  activities  and  seed 
multiplication activities.  

Another point of consideration is the correlation between the public breeding efforts and the 
number of SME. Indeed when national plant breeding efforts on a given crop are dominated 
by public activities (e.g. fruit plants and vine in the EU, all crops in Poland, marginal crops in 
several EU12 new Member States, etc. ) varieties bred by these public institutes are marketed 
by SMEs in charge of seed production and sales. Some interviewees indicated that when plant 
breeding is privatised the number of seed companies is decreasing.  

The  structure  of  the  R&D  efforts  (plant  breeding)  is  presenting  a  quite  different  pattern  as 
most  of  the  plant  breeding  activities  are  located  in  the  EU15  old  Member  States,  mainly  in 
France,  Germany  and  Netherlands  (more  than  100  breeding  stations,  more  than  2000 
employees in R&D in each country), followed by Italy and Spain (more than 50 stations and 
around 700-800 employees each). In the new member States, the number of private breeding 
stations is quite important in Hungary, Romania (around 50) and in Poland (more than 25) but 
with different figures with regards to R&D employees: around 200 in Hungary, 600 in Poland 
and more than 1000 in Romania where the labour cost is cheaper. In the other Member states 
the number of breeding stations is lower than 20 with less than 300 employees in R&D. 

The importance of individual Member State's effort in plant breeding by private actors can be 
estimated  by  calculating  the  ratio  between  the  number  of  R&D  employees/number  of  total 
seed employees. This shows that German companies are conducting half of their activities for 
research and half for seed production while French companies, even if they are very active in 
breeding (comparable date to Germany), are more involved in seed production.  

In the last 40 years, the commercial seed industry has transformed dramatically. It has shifted 
from a competitive sector of agribusiness, composed primarily of small, family-owned firms, 
to  an  industry  by  transnational  corporations,  powerful  family-owned  firms,  cooperatively 
owned companies. This transformation is now nearly complete for key commodity crop seeds 
but is still on-going in EU12 new Member States and in the EU-wide vegetable sector. These 
corporations  entered  the  industry  by  acquiring  numerous  smaller  seed  companies  and  by 
merging with large competitors. The hybrid seed corn industry, which emerged in the 1930s 
in the US with the advent of high-yielding hybrid varieties, was the first to consolidate in the 
EU  in  early  1990s.  This  process  accelerated  in  the  US  due  to  enforcement  of  Intellectual 
Protection  systems,  which  attracted  chemical  and  oil  companies  to  add  to  their  portfolio  of 
agricultural inputs. The decade of the 1990s saw numerous mergers between pharmaceutical 
and  chemical  companies,  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  potential  synergies.  These  new 
conglomerations  were  described  as  life  science  companies  due  to  their  focus  on 
biotechnologies. By 2009, six companies with chemical and/or pharmaceutical company roots 
remained dominant in the seed industry. In parallel to this evolution, changes of ownership in 

114 

 
 
 
original farmer-owned supply cooperatives have led to the appearance of cooperatively owned 
global  seed  companies  (e.g.  Limagrain,  Svalöf  Weibull,  etc.).  Both  the  fruit  and  the  wine 
sectors are energized by public R&D efforts. 

The  hundreds  of  transactions  and  business  collaborations  that  have  reshaped  the  industry  in 
recent  years  challenge  the  simplistic  notion  of  a  division  of  the  sector  between  SMEs  and 
multinationals. It is almost impossible to map the structure of the industry as the number of 
collaboration  agreements  between  companies  is  extremely  important  and  quite  often  small 
seed companies may have access to varieties coming from medium size companies for seed 
production and marketing on a given market. 

Most of the interviewees and respondents to the qualitative survey consider that consolidation 
will continue at a rapid pace. 

In the last 40 years, the commercial seed industry has transformed dramatically. It has shifted 
from a competitive sector of agribusiness, composed primarily of small, family-owned firms, 
to  an  industry  dominated  by  a  small  number  of  transnational  corporations.  This 
transformation is now nearly complete for key commodity crop seeds but is still ongoing in 
EU12  Member  States  and  in  the  EU-wide  vegetable  sector.  These  corporations  entered  the 
industry  by  acquiring  numerous  smaller  seed  companies  and  by  merging  with  large 
competitors. The hybrid seed corn industry, which emerged in the 1930s in the US with the 
advent of high-yielding hybrid varieties, was the first to consolidate in the EU in early 1990’s. 
This  process  accelerated  in  the  US  due  to  enforcement  of  Intellectual  Protection  systems, 
which  attracted  the  entrance  of  chemical  and  oil  companies  to  add  to  their  portfolio  of 
agricultural inputs. The decade of the 1990s saw numerous mergers between pharmaceutical 
and  chemical  companies,  in  order  to  take  advantages  of  potential  synergies.  These  new 
conglomerations  were  described  as  life  science  companies  due  to  their  focus  on 
biotechnologies. By 2009, six companies with chemical and/or pharmaceutical company roots 
remained dominant in the seed industry. In parallel to this evolution, changes of ownership in 
original farmer-owned supply cooperatives have led to the appearance of cooperatively owned 
global  seed  companies  (e.g.  Limagrain,  Svalof  Weibull,  etc.).  Both  the  fruit  and  the  wine 
sectors are energized by public R&D efforts. 

The  hundreds  of  transactions  and  business  collaborations  that  have  reshaped  the  industry  in 
recent  years  challenge  the  simplistic  notion  of  a  division  of  the  sector  between  SMEs  and 
multinationals. It is almost impossible to map the structure of the industry as the number of 
collaboration  agreements  between  companies  is  extremely  important  and  quite  often  small 
seed companies may have access to varieties coming from medium size companies for seed 
production and marketing on a given market. 

Most of the interviewees and respondents to the qualitative survey consider that consolidation 
will continue at a rapid pace. 

Plant propagating material sectors (vine, ornamentals, fruit plants, and forest) 

Data and statistics regarding the vine, fruit plants and the forestry sectors are hardly available 
as no consolidated sources of relevant data have been identified for the EU market. In most 
Member States, activities related to certification of plant propagating material of these three 
sectors is organised at regional level or by different organisations so that the statistics are not 

115 

 
 
 
consolidated at national level. One example illustrating the difficulty to collect information in 
these sectors is that it took the Commission more than one year to get reliable data on the fruit 
plants sector during the preparatory work on the revision of Directive 92/34/EC.  

However, some basic data have been collected during this study: 

•  Regarding the tree seed market, the French forestry experts interviewed during the study 
indicated that for example, the seed forestry market value is, on average, not higher than 
EURO 2 Mio per year in France. The International Seed Federation provided some data 
on import/export of tree and shrub planting seed that show that seed trade is very low in 
this sector.  

•  For  the  fruit  plants  market,  DG  SANCO  consolidated  some  key  figures  in  2007-08  and 
concluded that more than  12000 enterprises  are involved in production of fruit plants in 
the EU; and about 90% of them are small to medium enterprises frequently based in rural 
areas where alternative business is not possible. The estimated value of this business was 
estimated at about EURO 2.5 billion. 

The difficulty in collecting market figures for these plant propagating material sectors is also 
certainly linked to the fact that certification is not mandatory for all species and that breeding 
of the majority of these species is done by public institutes. 

Summary 

As  demonstrated  by  the  information  above,  the  European  PRM  sector  is  characterized  by  a 
large  segmentation  (from  national  SMEs  involved  in  cereals  or  ornamentals  only  to 
international companies with a multi-crops approach).  

PRM is not one sector but several sectors in constant evolution, which are becoming more and 
more  specific  in  terms  of  type  of  products,  type  and  number  of  actors,  competitiveness, 
product life cycle, R&D efforts, added value and return on investment. 

The leading Europe-based seed companies are Syngenta and Limagrain and they are, like the 
major American companies mentioned above, operating worldwide. 

We can observe two major groups of breeders: 

•  SMEs  that  breed  for  their  local/national  markets  and  develop  partnerships  with  foreign 
seed partners for the purpose of testing/positioning and, when relevant, for the marketing 
of their existing cultivars in other countries characterized by specific growing conditions 
(breed locally - test globally); 

•  Larger companies whose breeding strategies aim at a European and/or a global scale (e.g. 
maize)  and  consist  of  breeding  for  a  given  Area  Of  Adaptation  (AOA),  which  could  be 
defined as an area where agro-climatic and plant growing conditions are uniform (breed 
globally – test locally).  

116 

 
 
 
ANNEX IX: SELECTED DATA REGARDING THE CURRENT EU COMMON CATALOGUES 
FOR VEGETABLE AND FIELD SPECIES 

Figure 1: Number of registered agricultural varieties per Member State 

Agricultural crops

s
e
i
t
e
i
r
a
v
d
e
r
t
s
i
g
e
r
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Agricultural crops

IT FR DE ES NL HU CZ UK SK PL RO AT BG EL LT DK LU FI EE SE BE SI CH PT LV IE NO IS CY MT

Country names

Figure  1  shows  that  the  three  main  countries  with  regard  to  registration  of  agricultural 
varieties,  i.e.  Italy,  France  and  Germany,  each  3000  or  more  varieties  on  their  national 
catalogue. Then 7 Member States (new or old ones) follow which have on their national list 
between 1000-1500 varieties, followed by another 4 with numbers of varieties ranging from 
500-1000. The common catalogue lists also varieties from Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. 

These  data  can  be  compared  to  the  utilised  agricultural  area  (UAA)53.  In  France,  the  UAA 
covers  27.1  million  ha  (16%  of  the  total  UAA  of  the  EU27),  followed  by  Spain  with  23.8 
million  ha  (14.0%),  Germany  16.7  million  ha  (10%),  the  United  Kingdom  15.9  million  ha 
(10%), Poland 14.4 million ha (8.5%), Romania 13.3 million ha (7.8%) and Italy 12.9 million 
ha  (7.6%).  These  seven  Member  States  accounted  for  almost  three  quarters  of  the  utilised 
agricultural area in the EU27 in 2010 (see the figure below). 

53 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/5-11102011-AP/EN/5-11102011-AP-EN.PDF 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Utilised agricultural area in the EU Member States 

UAA

30000,0

25000,0

)
a
h
0
0
0
1
(

A
A
U

20000,0

15000,0

10000,0

5000,0

0,0

UAA

FR ES DE UK PL RO IT HU IE EL PO BG CZ SE AU LT DK FI SK NL LV BE EE SL LU CY ML

Countries

Figures  1  and  2  show  that  more  breeding  companies  are  registering  their  varieties  in  Italy 
even  though  Italy  is  not  the  biggest  agricultural  country  in  terms  of  UAA.  This  could  be 
partially  explained  by  the  diversity  of  agro-ecological  situations  and  smaller  costs  for 
registration. 
The  situation  in  Romania  can  be  understood  by  its  relatively  recent  status  as  EU  Member 
State.  The  big  difference  between  the  importance  of  variety  registration  in  the  Netherlands 
and other smaller Member States could be linked to important knowledge of this country with 
regards to technical examination (plant variety protection) and the number of seed companies 
based there (NL is the leading EU seed exporting country). Regarding the number of varieties 
listed in Slovakia, it could be link to a smaller cost for registration. 

Figure 3: Number of agricultural varieties added per Member State in 2011 

Variety additions in 2011 (AGR)

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Series1

IT FR SK DE UK CZ ES PL AT DK RO NL BG HU LT PT SE EE SI BE CH FI

LV LU IE NO CY EL IS MT

Regarding  the  most  recent  variety  additions,  Germany  has  registered  fewer  varieties  than 
other  large  Member  States  such  as  Italy  and  France,  while  Slovakia  and  United  Kingdom 
have been quite active compared to Germany. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Number of registered vegetable varieties per Member State 

Vegetable crops

s
e
i
t
e
i
r
a
v
d
e
r
e
t
s
i
g
e
r
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

NL FR ES IT CZ PL SK HU UK DE BG EL RO PO AU DK LT SL EE SE BE LV NO CY MT IS IE CH FI LU

Country names

Figure 5: Number of vegetable varieties added per Member State in 2011 

Variety additions in 2011 (VEG)

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Vegetable crops

Series1

NL FR ES IT BG HU CZ PT PL DE UK RO SI DK SK SE BE AT CH CY EE EL FI

IE IS LT LU LV MT NO

These  two  figures  show  the  predominance  of  the  Netherlands  with  regard  to  registration  of 
vegetable varieties (8500); followed by France, Spain and Italy which have on their national 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
catalogues between 1600 and 2600 varieties. 8 countries have less than 60 vegetable varieties 
on their list and 6 have no varieties.  

Figure 6: Number of maintainers for agricultural varieties in national lists 

Number of maintainers in national lists (AGR CC)

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Series1

IT FR UK NL HU CH DE ES SK CZ AT PL LU FI RO EL DK LT IE EE BG BE SI PT LV SE NO IS CY MT

This figure shows that the number of maintainers of agricultural varieties by Member States 
mirrors the general situation with regard to variety registration. In countries where there is a 
significant number of varieties registered, they is also a high number of maintainers. 

The following figures give indications on some national situations in order to see the origin of 
the varieties by studying the responsible maintainers. 

For agricultural crops: 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Number and provenance of maintainers in the Slovakian national list 

Location of maintainers in SK list

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

DE 

FR  CZ 

SK  NL 

AT

US  HU  DK  UK

PL

CA

BE

SE

RS

HR

CH

ZA

In Slovakia, 170 maintainers are listed. 80% of maintainers are coming from other countries, 
mainly  from  3  EU  Member  States  (48%):  Italy,  France  and  the  Czech  Republic.  National 
maintainers  represent  10%,  which  means  that  foreign  operators  are  very  interested  in 
registering their varieties in Slovakia. 

Figure 8: Number and provenance of maintainers in the Romanian national list 

Location of maintainers in RO list

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

RO 

DE 

FR 

US 

HU 

RS 

DK 

NL 

HR 

CZ 

PL

ES

SE

AT

UK

CH

BE

In Romania, 81 maintainers are listed. Local maintainers represent 35%. Maintainers coming 
from  France  and  Germany  represent  around  30%.  This  figure  indicates  that  a  lot  of  local 
operators are active on this market. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9: Number and provenance of maintainers in the Polish national list 

Location of maintainers in PL list

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Series1

DE

PL

FR

NL

US

DK

CZ

CH

BE

SE

UK

AT

RS

SI

IT

SK

In Poland, 115 maintainers are listed. 25% of the maintainers are from Germany. Local and 
French maintainers represent 16.5% respectively. 

Figure 10: Number and provenance of maintainers in the UK national list 

Location of maintainers in UK list

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Series1

UK

FR

DE

NL

DK

US

NZ

CA

IE

BE

PL

SE

CH

AT

CZ

HU

FI

In United Kingdom, more maintainers are registered (232); 37% are from UK and 31% from 
France and Germany. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11: Number and provenance of maintainers in the Italian national list 

Location of maintainers in IT list

Series1

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

IT US FR DE NL AU ES RS AT NZ PL AR BE CA DK HU SE CH CZ ZA CL EL HR IL RO SI SK UK UY

In Italy, an important number of maintainers are registered (387); 33% are based in Italy. 19% 
are from US, 17% from France and 7% from Germany. 

For vegetable crops: 

Figure 12: Number and provenance of maintainers in the Dutch national list 

Location of maintainers in national list NL (VEG)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Series1

NL

US

UK

IT

JP

DE

BE

FR

IL

AU

CH

EL

TW

AT

DK

ES

HU

In  The  Netherlands,  with  regards  to  vegetable  variety  maintainers,  43%  are  located  in  the 
Netherlands, 21% are coming from non EU countries (12% from US, 6% from Japan and also 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Israel  and  Taiwan).  This  reflects  the  situation  where  a  lot  of  vegetable  seed  companies  are 
located in the Netherlands or have a subsidiary there. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX X: INSPECTION COSTS FOR FOREST REPRODUCTIVE MATERIAL 

(Source : EFNA - European Forest Nurseries Association – summary of questionnaire results 
from AU, BE, CZ, DE, FR, HU, ES, NL, SE, UK participants)  

* Registration of new Selected Seed Stands or Qualified Seed Orchards:  

generally done by State authorities (except in DK) 

FR, ES 

No cost  

AU 

BE 

CZ 

DE 

HU 

UK 

SE 

Cost: small fee 

For  new  Selected  Seed  Stands  or  Orchards,  no  cost  for  registration  but  an 
inspection  is  needed  by  the  INBO  (Institute  of  Nature  and  Forestry 
Research). 

Costs for seed stand and qualified orchards: EUR 20/hour and travel costs.
Registering of identified source is for free. 

Variable from Land to Land, e.g. EUR 150-200 in Lower Saxony. 

EUR  120/stand  plus  a  sliding  fee  scale  from  EUR  10-100  depending  on 
stand size 

£70 to inspect, no cost of registration 

EUR 1000/hour for registration 

* Inspections during collection  

DK, IE 

AU, UK 

CZ 

FR 

Number of inspections 

1-2 

1 – 3 

Minimun two 

1 inspection at the collection. 1 inspection for certification 

BE, ES 

1 inspection every day of collection and per seed stand 

DE 

NL 

Some  collections  are  controlled  daily,  some  only  as  spot  check.
Before collection, the possibility of doing a collection should get checked. 

1-5 depending upon species and crop 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
HU 

SE 

 Not specified but they take place 

Normally no inspection during collection 

Cost for supervising seed collection 

AU,  CZ,  ES,  FR,  IE, 
UK 

No cost for nurseries 

DE  

HU 

NL 

SE 

DK 

Variable among Landers  

EUR 40 plus EUR 10 Euros for each specified quantity of seed collected /
1000 kg Quercus, 100 kg Robinia, 50 kg Fagus, 10 kg Salix, Populus, 1000 
kg cones of any species.     

EUR 88/hour (accounted by half hours) for any inspection made 

EUR 96 plus travel if outside NL 

Included in the yearly fee 

EUR 300 Euro each number/origin 

* Master Certificate of provenance/origin for a seed lot  

AU, CZ, ES, FR, IE 

No cost 

BE 

DE 

DK 

HU 

NL 

SE 

If the seeds are collected for own purpose and if they are sown out in own 
nursery 
cost.
The only cost to be paid is EUR 10.5 € for every lot of FRM 

additional 

trade), 

there 

(no 

no 

is 

Variable among Landers: from EUR 15 to max EUR 300 per certificate 

EUR 500 in DK 

Sealing carried out by authorities at EUR 100 per batch 

cost 

45/certificate 
basic 
+  additional  cost  depending  upon  species  and  weight  collected
(Conifers  EUR  15/kg,  Oak/Sweet  chestnut  EUR  0.75/kg,  Beech/other  broadleaves 
collected  green  EUR  1.4/kg,  Other  broadleaves  collected  dry  EUR  3.0/kg,  Alder/Birch 
EUR 15/kg) 

EUR 

: 

If  an  FRM  species  is  sown  for  non-forestry  purposes  a  fee  of  EUR  45  is 
charged for the certificate “not for forestry use” 

inclusion in the annual fee 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   * Inspection of seed companies, nurseries 

Number of inspections 

AU, CZ, DK, HU 

Once a year 

IE 

BE 

DE 

ES 

FR 

NL 

SE 

UK 

One to two 

+/- 20 times a year 

Variable  among  Landers  and  upon 
from several times a year until once every 5th year. 

the  size  of 

the  enterprise: 

Forest nurseries: minimum of 2 times/year  

Every 2 weeks 

1-5 depending upon crop 

Not every year 

Some every year some less frequently 

Cost for inspections 

AU,  CZ,  DE,  ES, 
FR54, IE, UK 

No cost 

BE 

DK 

HU 

Fixed cost of EUR 52.50 + EUR 105.00 for suppliers of FRM 

+ EUR 10.5 for every lot of FRM (yearly cost) 

one for nursery and one for Seed company   

+ EUR 100-125/hour according to number of FRM plants  

Annual charge EUR 40 plus sliding scale 

50-100 (thousands of seedlings or transplants) EUR 90 

100-200 -> EUR 100                700-800 -> EUR 300   

200-300 -> EUR 130                 800-900 -> EUR 330  

300-400 -> EUR 170                 900-1000 -> EUR 370  

54 FR: a fee is paid in the context of the deliverance of the phytosanitary passport  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
400-500 -> EUR 200                 1000-1500 -> EUR 420  

500-600 -> EUR 230                 1500-2000 -> EUR 470  

600-700 -> EUR 270                 2000-2500 -> EUR 570                                 

above 2500 000  -> EUR 200/each million.   

For conifers you pay only the 50% of the amounts above. 

Every business selling FRM has to pay a minimum fee of EUR 200 which 
includes the first 0.5ha of the nursery or first EUR 5000 of turnover.   

+ sliding scale based which varies from EUR 1610/ha for nurseries 0.5-1 ha 
in size to a charge of EUR 1811.16 + EUR 490/ha for nurseries over 20 ha.
Nurseries can choose to pay according to turn-over rather than area for three 
year periods; the rate is about 1.5% of gross turn-over. 

If  a  nursery  has  to  be  re-checked  due  to  some  irregularity,  a  levy  of  96 
Euros on top of the normal EUR 88 hourly rate is charged. 

Standard 
fee  of  EUR  17.5/  batch  of  FRM  grown/inspected. 
+ proposal for an additional inspection charge of EUR 0.20/1000 plants for 
nurseries  with  more  than  10,000,000  plants  to  EUR  0.5/1000  plants  up  to 
one million plants  

Yearly  fee:  company  who  sells  and/or  produces  more  10000  plants  has  to 
(4500SEK)
pay  EUR 
+ EUR 659 (6000 SEK)/visit 

other  EUR 

(13000SEK); 

1428 

493 

NL55 

SE 

Proportion for document and stock looking 

AU, SE, CZ 

Variable 

BE, IE 

DE, UK 

80% administration, 20% looking at stock 

90%  books;  10% field 

DK, FR, ES 

50 % of each 

* quantity of seed sown, number of plants produced and sold 

Methods 

AU 

seed lot samples stored at the “Federal office of Forests” for comparison 

55 NL: charge per plant passport  of  0,08€  and  suppliers document of 7,50€ 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
BE 

CZ. 

DE 

ES 

FR 

SE 

UK 

seed lot number estimated according to seed viability and field germination 

Forest  research  institute:  table  with  theoretically  plant  numbers  produced 
species. 
seed 
from 
All batches should have analysis and every year every FRM nursery has to 
send stocktaking and amount of sold stock to Forest management institute.  

forestry 

for 

kg 

of 

1 

Germination % test from the seeds and %  lost during production.  

number of plants in some samples during the growing season inspection 

Germination controlled once a year and surviving plants after transplanting; 
numbers of saleable plants are checked on beds before lifting. 

Correlation  between  the  amount  of  seed  sold  per  master  certificate  and  of 
produced plants  

Audit trial 

Audit for seeds or plants sold over more than one year 

AU, BE, CZ, DE, DK, 
FR, ES, SE, IE 

Yes 

AU 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

FR 

Notice to the authority, punishment 

no  possibility  to  sell  more  plants  than  estimated  once  the  field  inspection 
took place 

Fine up to EUR 40 000 

Added  control  /  inspection  and  punishment  by  losing    rights  to  sell  FRM 
plants. 

Warning system: eventual destruction + legal action against the nurseryman 

ES, SE, UK 

? 

The French Organisations for Forest Seeds and Nursery 

GIE Improved Forest Seeds: harvesting 1 ton of certified seed of seed orchards. It combines 
the Vilmorin private Company and the ‘’Office National des Forêts’’.  

French Forest Nursery (nursery growers and poplar producers): 80% of French production of 
seedlings (60 million in 2008-2009). 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

THE  FOREST  NURSERY  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  CZECH  REPUBLIC:  76  MEMBERS 
MANAGING  1.400  HA  OF  FOREST  NURSERIES,  I.E.  ABOUT  90%  OF  TOTAL  CZECH 
FOREST SEEDLING PRODUCTION AREA. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XI: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE FIVE SCENARIOS 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V
a
r
i
e
t
y

r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
f

l
o
t
s

SCENARIO 1 - Cost recovery

  Agricultural species

Other regulated species

DUS

VCU*

DUS

National Catalogue/List

National Catalogue/List

EU common catalogues

EU common catalogue/List

                                Agricultural species + fruit plants

Choice of supplier

Choice of supplier

Official examination

Examination under 
official supervision
(lower marketing 
categories) 

Official examination

Control by supplier 
(lower marketing 
categories)

Official label

Official label

Official label

Supplier's label

* VCU not harmonised

Legend:

      private operator

               official control

                    official supervision

              CPVO

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
V
a
r
i
e
t
y

r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
f

l

SCENARIO 2 - Co-system

Agricultural species

Other regulated species

DUS*

VCU*

DUS*

National catalogue/list

National catalogue/list

EU common catalogue

EU common 
catalogue/list

Examination*
under official supervision

Examination*
under official supervision

Control by supplier

Choice of supplier

Official label

Official label

Supplier's label

133 

 
 
 
         
 
 
                                           
 
V
a
r
i
e
t
y

r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
f

l
o
t
s

                                             A gricultural species

  Other regulated species**

SCENARIO 3 - Deregulation

VCU* Opt ional
Harmonised
Test s

Choice
of supplier

DUS*

National
Catalogue

Common 
catalogues

Examination*
under official 
supervision

Official label

DUS*

National
Catalogue

Common 
catalogues

Supplier
control

Supplier's
label

        *  Official testing and control possible on request

Legend:

      **  Ornamentals no longer covered

private operator 

official control

official supervision

CPVO

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCENARIO 4 - Enhanced flexibility
        ALL REGULATED SPECIES

Choice of supplier

DUS*

sustainable
VCU*

Breeder's 
description

 "Tested varieties"
part of national catalogue 

 "Non-tested varieties"
part of national catalogue

 "Tested varieties"
part of EU common catalogue 

"Non-tested varieties"
part of EU common catalogue

Choice of supplier

Examination *
under official supervision

Control by supplier

Official label

Supplier's label

* Official testing and control possible on request

Legend:

 private operator

 official control

            official supervision

CPVO

V
a
r
i
e
t
y

r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
f

l
o
t
s

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V
a
r
i
e
t
y

r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

o
f

l
o
t
s

SCENARIO 5 - Centralisation

    Agricultural species

                       Other regulated species

DUS

sustainable
VCU

DUS

sustainable
VCU

EU common catalogue/list

EU common catalogue/list

Examination*
under official supervision

Official label

Choice of supplier

Official examination

Control by supplier
(lower marketing categories) 

Official label

Supplier's label

Legend:

private operator
official control

official supervision
CPVO

* Official testing and control possible on request

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  XII:  VARIETY  REGISTRATION  AND  SEED  CERTIFICATION 
SYSTEMS IN MAJOR THIRD COUNTRIES 

AUSTRALIA – Variety registration and seed certification  

The Australian Seeds Authority (ASA) is responsible for supervising the implementation of 
both the OECD and the Australian Seed Certification Schemes in relation with harmonised 
technical  standards  and  quality  control  procedures  for  the  production,  processing  and 
labelling  of  certified  seed.  To  meet  this  obligation  ASA  has  commissioned  the  National 
Association  of  Testing  Authorities  (NATA),  as  an  independent  authority  for  the 
accreditation  of  inspection  bodies,  to  implement  a  national  accreditation  scheme  for 
certification agencies. NATA accreditation of Plant Laboratories requires compliance with 
the international quality management systems standard ISO/IEC 17020. 

To be eligible for certification under the OECD or Australian Seed Certification Schemes a 
variety  must  be  listed  with  ASA.  ASA  is  responsible  for  maintaining  and  publishing  a 
national list of varieties which have been accepted in Australia as eligible for certification 
in the OECD and Australian Seed Certification Schemes. 

Additional  information  on  the  variety  must  accompany  the  application  for  listing.  A 
statement  detailing  the  origin  and  breeding  history  of  the  variety,  a  morphological 
description of the variety, a statement of authorisation from the breeder (if the applicant is 
not the breeder) to apply for certification and to  multiply  the  variety  in  Australia,  a  brief 
statement of the expected agronomic value of the variety in Australia, and a maintenance 
plan  indicating  the  number  of  generations  and  the  number  of  harvests  allowed  for  each 
generation, are required. 

DUS:  Evidence  must  be  provided  on  the  uniformity  and  stability  of  the  variety  having 
regard  to  the  species  concerned  and  the  breeding  system  used.  It  must  be  indicated  the 
period  over  which  the  generations  of  seed  multiplication  have  been  observed  as  being 
uniform and stable. If off-types have been observed, their frequency must be stated and a 
description  of  them  supplied.  A  detailed  morphological  description  of  the  variety  is 
required. Comparative information with other varieties of the same species currently in use 
should be included.  

VCU:  There  are  no  standards  for  agronomic  value  but  applicants  must  indicate  the 
anticipated  agronomic  value  of  the  variety  in  Australian  agriculture  relative  to  other 
commonly grown varieties. 

The applicant must provide details of the maintenance plan adopted for the production of 
Pre-Basic,  Basic  and  Certified  Seed.  The  Variety  Maintainer  is  responsible  for  ensuring 
that multiplication of Breeders and Pre-Basic Seed is carried out in a satisfactory manner so 
that only authentic, uncontaminated seed of the variety is released for further multiplication 
under the certification schemes.   

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ASA  must  have  access  to  all  records  of  maintenance  of  varieties  in  the  certification 
schemes. The Maintenance Plan should also indicate whether or not a certification agency 
will be overseeing and assisting with the production of Pre-Basic Seed; this collaboration is 
encouraged as it can often result in the identification and correction of any varietal purity 
issues prior to larger scale production of Certified Seed. 

ASA  also  co-ordinates  official  Australian  interaction  with  the  International  Seed  Testing 
Association  (ISTA)  on  international  seed  testing  policy  and  practice,  and  has  signed 
Authorisation  Agreements  with  four  ISTA-accredited  laboratories  to  test  certified  seed 
prior to its final release as certified seed.  

CANADA – Variety registration and seed certification 

The  Canadian  Food  Inspection  Agency  is  responsible  for  the  administration  of  the Seeds 
Act and Regulations to help to ensure that seeds sold in, imported into and exported from 
Canada  meet  established  standards  for  quality  and  are  labelled  so  that  they  are  properly 
represented in the marketplace, and are registered prior to sale in Canada (most agricultural 
crop varieties). In 2009, amendments to the Seeds Regulations were introduced in order to 
increase the flexibility of the variety registration system. This is accomplished by dividing 
the list of all crop kinds that require variety registration, into three parts with three levels of 
registration requirements. For all parts, basic variety registration information continues to 
be  required,  including  information  demonstrating  conformity  with  minimum  health  and 
safety  standards,  information  confirming  the  identity  of  new  varieties,  information 
supporting  the  verification  of  claims,  and  information  required  for  seed  certification 
purposes.  

Part  I  (status  quo):  The  registration  of  new  varieties  requires  pre-registration  testing  and 
merit  assessment  to  determine  whether  the  variety  performs  as  well  as  or  better  than 
reference varieties (Merit assessment VCU). This part is intended for crop kinds for which 
there is a continuing need for government oversight to ensure that varieties meet standards. 

Part  II:  The  registration  of  new  varieties  requires  pre-registration  testing,  but  not  merit 
assessment.  This  part  is  intended  for  crop  kinds  where  official  oversight  to  confirm  the 
validity  of  pre-registration  testing  data  is  useful,  but  where  merit  assessment  is 
burdensome. 

Part III: New varieties are subject to only basic variety registration requirements.  

Seed  crop  certification  is  a  program  of  planned  production,  record  keeping,  inspections, 
and  standards  to  ensure  the  production  of  high  quality  seed.  Certified  is  labelled  with  an 
official  blue  certified  tag  (or  bulk  pedigreed  certificate)  and  graded  with  a  Canada 
pedigreed  grade  name  when  sold  in  Canada.  The  pedigreeing  of  seed  ensures  varietal 
purity.  This  is  especially  important  to  maintain  yield,  quality,  disease  resistance  and  the 
other  distinguishing  characteristics  of  a  variety.  There  are  3  categories:  (i)  Breeder  Seed 
from plant breeders of public research institutions and private companies, (ii) Foundation 
Seed produced from Breeder seed and rogued for off-types to meet variety descriptions and 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
purity standards, (iii) Certified Seed produced from Foundation seed by seed growers for 
sale  to  farmers  to  use  in  planting  their  commercial  grain  acreage.  Seed  certification  is 
performed for seed growers and processors dedicated to taking the extra steps necessary in 
planting, harvesting, handling, storage, and conditioning to produce Certified seed. 

NEW ZEALAND - Variety registration and seed certification  

The  New  Zealand  Seed  Certification  Scheme  operates  on  a  voluntary  basis.  The  scheme 
aims at providing the consumer with seed of high varietal purity but gives no guarantee of 
this other than to certify that an acceptable procedure has been followed to attain this goal. 
It gives no warranty as to the germination of the seed but requires a minimum standard of 
physical purity. 

There are four main classes in certification:  

•  Breeders  Seed  (Pre-Basic):  Produced  from  nucleus  material  grown  by  the  plant 

breeder. 

•  Basic  Seed:  Produced  from  areas  sown  with  Breeders  seed.  It  is  produced  by 

selected growers under the supervision of the breeder or his agent. 

•  Certified  Seed  1st  Generation:  Produced  from  areas  sown  with  Basic  seed  and  is 

traded freely both in New Zealand and overseas. 

•  Certified  Seed  2nd  Generation:  Produce  from  areas  sown  with  certified  seed  1st 
Generation  and  applies  to  certain  arable  crops  only.  (See  under  standards  for 
varieties). 

Any merchant, exporter and seed cleaning operator involved in seed certification must have 
a MAFB NZ approved organisation system detailing their operating procedures. 

A  grower  must  be  registered  with  the  SCB  to  be  eligible  to  grow  certified  seed. 
Applications for certification of proprietary varieties cannot be accepted from growers who 
do not hold a contract or agreement with the owner of the variety. 

A seed variety must be registered with the SCB for it to be eligible for certification. 

The variety registration conditions for the Acceptance of Agricultural Varieties (Arable and 
Herbage) into the New Zealand Seed Certification Scheme) are the following: 

DUS:  Evidence  must  be  provided  of  the  uniformity  and  stability  of  the  variety  having 
regard  to  the  species  concerned  and  the  breeding  systems  used.  An  acceptable  way  of 
providing this evidence would be to indicate the period over which the generations of seed 
multiplication  have  been  observed  as  being  uniform  and  stable.  If  off-types  have  been 
observed,  state  their  frequency  and  supply  a  description  of  them.  A  morphological 
description of the variety is required. Comparative information with other varieties of the 
same species currently in use should be included.  

VCU:  There  are  no  standards  for  agronomic  value  but  applicants  are  required  to  indicate 
the anticipated use or place in New Zealand agriculture.  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition, NZ puts strong regulation for the importation of seeds: 

•  Biosecurity Act 1993 
•  Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act 1996) 
•  MAF  Biosecurity  Standard  PBC-NZ-TRA-PQCON:  Specification 
Registration ofa Plant Quarantine or Containment Facility, and Operator. 

for 

the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Variety registration and seed certification 

Seed certification in the United States is the responsibility of each individual state; within 
each, there is an agency designated to certify seed. 

Certification  programs  in  the  United  States  are  generally  non-profit  programs,  but  must 
generate funds to cover salaries, overhead, and operating expenses. 

A four generation scheme has been devised to do this:  

1.  Breeder  seed  is  produced  under  the  direct  supervision  or  authorization  by  the  plant 
breeder and represents the true pedigree of the variety. 

2. Foundation seed  is the first generation seed from breeder seed and is produced under 
contract by a foundation seed organization as authorized by the plant breeder. Foundation 
seed is also labelled with white certification tags. 

3.  Registered  seed  is  the  seed  from  foundation  seed  and  is  intended  for  the  purpose  of 
increasing seed another generation before the production of certified seed. Registered seed 
is not intended to be a commercial class of seed. In two states (Michigan and Wisconsin), 
all certified seed is the progeny of foundation seed, and no registered class is used.  

4. Certified seed is  produced  from  foundation  or  registered seed  and represents the final 
product of the certification program.  

Varietal Release 

To be eligible for certification, a variety must be properly released, named, and described. 
Regardless of the releasing agency, a procedure must be available for evaluating potential 
varieties  and  recommending  their  release.  When  plant  breeders  have  a  candidate  for 
release,  they  submit  to  the  appropriate  review  board  a  description  of  their  variety,  its 
identifying characteristics, and performance data.  

To help clarify this situation, an ad hoc committee representing the USDA, the Association 
of  Official  Seed  Certifying  Agencies,  the  American  Society  of  Agronomy,  and  the 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
American Seed Trade Association56, has developed a comprehensive consensus definition 
of different kinds of varieties.  

Individual  certification  agencies  are  aided  in  determining  the  eligibility  of  varieties  for 
certification  by  national  variety  review  boards  which  have  been  established  by  AOSCA. 
Four review boards have been established representing alfalfa, grasses, soybeans, and small 
grains.  

However,  in  actual  practice,  many  individual  agencies  still  require  varieties  to  meet 
adaptability and performance standards established for their particular state. 

56 The Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA) is an organization of certification agencies in 
the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Its purposes are: (1) to establish minimum standards for 
genetic purity and recommend minimum standards for the classes of certified seed. (2) to standardize 
seed  certification  regulations  and  procedures.  (3)  to  encourage  cooperation  with  all  individuals, 
agencies, groups, and organizations to accomplish these purposes, and (4) to assist its member agencies 
in seed promotion, production, and distribution. 

141 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX  XIII:  DETAILED  PRESENTATION  OF  THE  MEASURES  INCLUDED  IN  THE 
PREFERRED OPTION 

General principles 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Cost  recovery  for  services  carried  out  by  competent  authorities. 
Exemptions are possible depending on the degree of public interest in 
the  respective  variety’s  marketing.  The  latter  exemption  will  mainly 
affect conservation varieties. 

Operators  can  carry  out,  under  official  supervision  by  the  competent 
authority,  as  many  activities  as  possible  for  themselves.  Official 
examination  or  inspection  services  shall  always  be  available  in  case 
that operators do not possess the resources to carry out these tasks. 

All operators have to be registered. 

Specific and strict obligations concerning registration and certification 
shall apply to a closed list of species. General minimum requirements 
shall  apply  to  all  other  PRM  on  the  market  and  shall  cover  labelling 
obligations and a provision of fitness for use. 

Inspections for plant health and certification shall be combined. 

Forest  reproductive  material:  Following  the  Impact  Assessment  and 
the stakeholder consultation the basic approach on FRM identification 
and  certification  will  not  be  changed  and  official  controls  will  be 
maintained.  A  separate  chapter  in  the  proposed  Regulation  is 
dedicated to FRM. 

Specific provisions 

Variety registration: DUS technical examination 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CPVO holds a database with the description of all these varieties.  

CPVO audits the national examination offices for a full harmonisation 
of DUS examination. 

The  possibility  is  offered  to  the  private  sector  to  carry  out  DUS  and 
VCU technical examination. 

Support the extension of bilateral agreements in order to facilitate the 
flow of DUS reports in the EU. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Have a same and unique DUS testing for registration of varieties with 
a view to market and for Community Plant Variety Rights protection 
(‘one key- several doors’ approach). 

The registration of officially tested varieties in national and common 
registers  shall be an option that is given to conservation and amateur 
varieties  for  reasons  of  public  good.  The  listing  of  this  latter  group 
shall be based on an officially recognised description by the breeder. 

Quantitative  restrictions  for  the  marketing  of  conservation  varieties 
shall be abolished. 

National  catalogues  shall  continue  to  exist.  Inclusion  in  the  National 
catalogue will be the only precondition for the marketing throughout 
the EU for all crops.  

CPVO shall take over practical arrangements for the publication of the 
EU common catalogues as a database.  

CPVO verifies denominations for all applications. 

As  an  alternative 
to  national  registration,  centralised  variety 
registration  by  CPVO  shall  be  offered  for  species  that  do  require  to 
undergo VCU-evaluation. 

Variety registration: VCU evaluation 

• 

• 

• 

• 

VCU shall be maintained and shall be decided on a species-by species 
basis.  VCU  criteria  shall  focus  more  on  public  goods  and  become  a 
“VCU for sustainability and health”. 

VCU shall be continuously improved as much as possible to take care 
of any evolution of public and private needs. Harmonisation of VCU 
protocols  is  most  likely  to  be  practical  and  useful  across  agro-
ecological  regions.  Coordination  between  Member  States  of  official 
observations and national decisions for VCU, possibly under bilateral 
agreements, should be encouraged.  

VCU should be a set of species-specific endorsed information made as 
widely available as possible to users of PRM.  

At the EU level, a high level group including all relevant stakeholers 
shall  be  established  for  providing  policy  guidance  on  variety 
registration.  

Certification/inspection of lots  

•  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. 

143 

 
 
 
• 

• 

The  examination  under  official  supervision  shall  be  widened  to  all 
species and all categories (i.e. basic and pre-basic crops). 

“Reference  Certification  Centres”  shall  be  established  to  develop, 
harmonise and disseminate best practices in PRM certification. 

144 

 
 
 
ANNEX  XIV:  COST  STRUCTURE  OF  REGISTRATION  AND  CERTIFICATION  FOR 
SEED  

Variety registration 

The major costs centres identified are:  

•  Pre-registration  costs:  costs  related  to  the  production  of  preliminary  data  on  the  main 
characteristics  of  the  variety  and  administrative  costs  for  applications  preparation  and 
submission. 

•  Registration  costs:  DUS  and  VCU  management  costs,  for  each  the  following  sub-costs 

centres: 

Technical and administrative management of demands 
Planning of experimentation 
Reception and disposal of materials 
Conducting of experimentation 
Networks management and co-ordination 
Trials approval including field visits 
Validation and treatment of data 
Maintenance of reference collections  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Costs related to the administrative management of approved varieties, i.e. denomination 

and publications 

Post-registration costs:  

• 

Costs for the examination of the maintenance of varieties.  

Certification: The Seed Directives allow the sampling and testing of all categories of seed 
and the field inspection of certified seed to be carried out either officially (certification under 
official  examination)  or  under  official  supervision  (certification  under  official  supervision). 
The structure of costs varies accordingly and the major costs centres identified are: 

•  Certification costs under official supervision   

•  Registration of operators, testing laboratories and staff belonging to the operators or 

companies by certification authority 

•  Field inspection by trained and competent staff  
•  Seed lot sampling and seed sample testing by trained and competent staff  
•  Labelling of packages, containers by trained and competent staff 

•  Certification costs under official examination 

•  Registration of operators, testing laboratories by certification authority 
•  Official inspection of production  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Official lot sampling and sample testing 
•  Official labelling packages, containers 

•  Post-labelling test 

•  Official post-control examination of varietal identity and purity 
•  Official recording of control by certification authority 
•  Official control of marketing 

•  Other 

•  Granting of equivalence for importation of PRM from third countries  
•  Comparative trials 

The total costs for the 8 Member States are estimated at around EUR 82.5 million per year. 
As these 8 Member States represent about 70% of the EU market value, by extrapolation to 
all Member States, the total registration and certification costs for competent authorities for 
the  group  ‘Seed’  can  reasonably  be  estimated  to  around  EUR  120  million57  per  year  (in 
reality vary +/- 10%).  

Table 1 - Total annual registration and certification costs – All seed crops 

National 
Authorities

Variety registration costs

Certification costs

MS

Pre-
registration 
costs 
(K.EUR)

DUS costs 
(K.EUR)

VCU costs 
(K.EUR)

Post-
registration 
costs 
(K.EUR)

Total variety 
registration 
costs 
(K.EUR)

Certification 
under 
official 
examination 
(K.EUR)

Certification 
under 
official 
supervision 
(K.EUR)

Post-
certification 
costs 
(K.EUR)

Total 
certification 
costs 
(K.EUR)

Total costs 
(K.EUR)

AT
BE
DE
DK
FR
IT
SE
UK
Total

22

17
383
422

187
30
6.699
716
5.194
597
64
1.153
14.640

4.442
700
7.812
730
5.400
801
244
145
20.274

50
80
36
92

28

285

4.700
810
14.547
1.538
10.594
1.398
352
1.681
35.621

1.377
1.250
8.328
4.004
3.871
5.534
1.958
2.842
29.165

201

930
694
9.684
98
90
1.078
12.775

338
400
2.412
450
769

159
467
4.994

1.916
1.650
11.670
5.148
14.324
5.632
2.207
4.387
46.934

6.617
2.460
26.217
6.687
24.918
7.030
2.559
6.068
82.555

FP: Fodder Plant, C: Cereal, B: Beet, VG: Vegetable Seed, P: Potatoes, OF: Oil and Fibre plant. 
A  GBP/EUR  conversion  rate  of  1,4187  (April  2007-March  2008)  has  been  used  for  the  costs  estimated  by  UK 

Based  on  the  figures  for  the  overall  costs  of  implementation  of  the  Community  legislation 
and on the statistics addressing the domestic seed market value, a ratio Costs/Market Value 
has been calculated concluding that implementation of the Community legislation costs for 

57 117.94 million EUR = 82.555 million EUR/0.7 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
competent  authorities  represents  2.8%  of  the  domestic  market  value  (on  average  on  the 
major seed markets in the EU, variability from e.g. IT just over 1% to e.g. AT nearly 7%) 

The  registration  and  certification  costs  respectively  represent  43%  and  57%  of  total 
annual costs incurred by the national authorities of the 8 Member States considered for the 
analysis (caveat see above). 

Graph 1 - Distribution between registration costs and certification costs for national authorities  

43%

Variety registration costs 

Certification costs

57% 

Registration 

Seed  registration  costs  represent  around  1.3%  of  the  sum  of  the  values  of  the  domestic 
commercial market for seed of 19 selected EU Member States (FR, DE, IT, UK, PL, ES, NL, 
HU, DK, SE, AT, CZ, GR, BE, SK, FI, IE, PT, SI). Some Member States have transferred 
totally or partially the registration costs to the industry.  

Table  2  –  Current  distribution  of  seed  registration  costs  between  public  and  private  bodies  in  the 
Member States  

MS 

Transfer of 
registration costs 

Additional information 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

- 

Yes 

Not available 

Partial transfer of costs  (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

No transfer of DUS costs, partial transfer of VCU costs 

Yes  

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs  (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Partial transfer of costs  (between 70% and 80% of DUS and VCU costs) 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs (around 50% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs (around 2/3 of DUS and VCU costs are transferred 
to the industry) 

Partial transfer of costs  

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs (around 25 to 30% of DUS and VCU costs) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Almost no DUS testing performed in Slovenia, around 70% of VCU costs are transferred 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs (around 70% of VCU costs) 

Full transfer of DUS and VCU costs (100%) 

Source: compiled on the basis of the data provided in the qualitative and the cost questionnaire 

Total variety registration costs 

The  total  costs  incurred  by  the  national  authorities  vary  in  each  Member  State  and  can  be 
grouped into 3 groups as regards the category ‘all seed crops’, by taking into consideration 
the annual number of DUS and VCU applications received as well as the estimated value of 
the domestic market share of each Member State:  

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 – Grouping of Member States by based on the total variety registration costs, the annual number 
of DUS and VCU applications received and the estimated value of the domestic market size  

MS 

FR 
DE 
AT 
IT 
DK 
UK 
SE 
BE 

Crops 

All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 
All seed crops 

Annual number of 
DUS applications 
received 

Annual number of 
VCU applications 
received 

Estimated value of 
the domestic market 
size (EUR million) 

Total variety 
registration costs 
(K. EUR) 

1150 
800 
546 
1790 
300 
468 
115 
50 

900 
700 
675 
1240 
317 
420 
111 
156 

1396.1 
974.0 
97.4 
649.4 
162.3 
259.7 
155.8 
123.4 

10.594 
14.547 
4.700 
1.398 
1.553 
1.681 
352 
810 

Cost per applicant  

The following table presents the annual number of DUS and VCU applications received by 
the national authorities having responded to the costs questionnaire and the registration costs 
per application. 

Table 4 –Annual number of DUS and VCU applications received by the national authorities 

MS

Crops

AT
BE
CY
CY
CZ
DE
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
DK
EE
FI
FR
IE
IT
LT
NL
RO
SE
SK
SK
UK

All seed crops
All seed crops
FP, C
FP, C,VG, OF
C
All seed crops
C
FP
B
VG
P
OF
All seed crops
FP,C,P,OF
All seed crops
FP,C,P,OF
All seed crops
All seed crops
All seed crops
All seed crops
All seed crops
VG-Winter barley
VG-6 species of grasses
All seed crops

Annual 
number of 
DUS 
application 
received

Annual 
number of 
DUS 
application 
received 
per country

Annual 
number of 
VCU 
application 
received

Annual 
number of 
VCU 
application 
received 
per country

546
50
8
11
78
800
116
10
49
6
0
119
65
54
1150
6
1790

950
854
115
325
325
468

546
50

19

78
800

300

65
54
1150
6
1790

950
854
115

650

468

675
156
8
8
78
700
176
9
47
0
4
81
65
110
900
307
1240
200
160
516
111
275
275
420

675
156

16

78
700

317

65
110
900
307
1240
200
160
516
111

550

420

                                                                          Total DUS 7895           Total VCU 6521 

FP: Fodder Plant, C: Cereal, B: Beet, VG: Vegetable Seed, P: Potatoes, OF: Oil and Fibre plant. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The registration costs per application for national authorities are (DUS and the VCU costs, 
without pre-and post-registration costs): 

Graph 2- Registration costs per application for national authorities 

UK-All seed crops
SK-VG-6 species of grasses
SK-VG-Winter barley
SE-All seed crops
RO-All seed crops
NL-All seed crops
LT-All seed crops
IT-All seed crops
IE-FP,C,P,OF
FR-All seed crops
FI-FP,C,P,OF
EE-All seed crops
DK-OF
DK-P
DK-VG
DK-B
DK-FP
DK-C
DE-All seed crops
CZ-C
CY-FP, C,VG, OF
CY-FP, C
BE-All seed crops
AT-All seed crops

2.809

1.935

2.754

989

466

1.080

979

3.532

2.870

1.213

3.046

6.250

6.733

4.397

4.580

5.087

6.923

2.737

1.755

2.099

10.517

8.353

20.111

19.534

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

20.000

22.000

Registration costs (DUS costs + VCU costs) / application

EUR/application

FP: Fodder Plant, C: Cereal, B: Beet, VG: Vegetable Seed, P: Potatoes, OF: Oil and Fibre plant. 

The annual variety registration costs estimated by associations of suppliers. These costs can 
concern  one  or  several  crops.  These  costs  are  not  representative  of  the  total  costs  for  the 
private operators in the Member States concerned, as they are rough estimations not based on 
detailed accounting system.   

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 - Total annual variety registration costs per Member State and crop for private operators 

MS

Crops

Annual 
budget 
figures

Pre-
registration 
costs (K.EUR)

DUS cost 
(K.EUR)

VCU costs 
(K.EUR)

Post-
Registration 
costs (K.EUR)

Total costs 
(K.EUR)

DK
FR
FR
FR
IT
PL

C
VG
OF
C
All seed crops
All seed crops

2007
2007
2005/2006
2007/2008
2006/2007
2007

150

1.000

340
993
450
950
620
190

300

550
1.150
780
238

300
507
150
300

1.090
1.500
1.150
3.400
1.400
428  

FP: Fodder Plant, C: Cereal, B: Beet, VG: Vegetable Seed, P: Potatoes, OF: Oil and Fibre plant. 

Certification 

Seed  certification  costs  represent  between  1  and  2%  of  the  total  production  costs.  Seeds 
produced in the EU have a high quality, so that the original ‘quality’ objective of certification 
can  be  considered  as  largely  achieved.  Currently,  in  most  of  the  Member  States,  the  focus 
tends to be on reducing the certification costs while maintaining the same level of quality for 
seed.  

Certification  costs  for  competent  authorities  represents  57%  of  the  total  costs  linked  to 
the  implementation  of  the  Community  legislation  and  represents  about  1.7%  of  the  sum  of 
the sizes of the internal commercial market for seed of the 8 selected EU Member States (FR, 
DE, IT, UK, DK, SE, BE, and AT). 

Table  6  –  Current  distribution  of  seed  certification  costs  between  public  and  private  bodies  in  the 
Member States 

MS 

Certification costs are 
transferred to industry 

Additional information 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs 

30% of costs are transferred to the industry 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Between 30% and 70% depending on the Federal Land concerned 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

97% for seed, 65% for vine 

The  fee =  (reference  price)  x  (certified  quantity)  x  3%.  The  rate  of  the  reference 
price  is  fluctuating  between  the  farmer’s  price  and  the  final  selling  price  of  the 
seed. 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

8% is financed by private sector 

Certification is mostly financed by national authorities 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Partial transfer of costs 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Full transfer of costs (100%) 

Full transfer of costs (100%)  

Full transfer of costs (100%)  

70-80 of costs transferred to the industry and target of 100%  

Source: compiled on the base of the answers provided to the cost questionnaire and by official authorities to the preliminary 
questionnaire.  

The  annual  certification  costs  incurred  by  the  national  authorities  can  concern  one  or 
several crops.  

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  7:  Total  annual  certification  costs  per  Member  State  and  crop  for  national 
authorities 

Countries and Crops

Annual budget 
figures

Costs of 
certification 
under official 
examination 
(K.EUR)

Costs of 
certification 
under official 
supervision 
(K.EUR)

Post-
certification 
costs (K.EUR)

Total 
certification 
costs (K.EUR)

AT-All seed crops
BE-All seed crops
CZ-C
DE-All seed crops
DK-FP,C,B,VG,OF
DK-P
EE-FP, C, VG, OF
FI-FP,C,P,OF
FR-FP, C, B, P, OF

IE-FP,C,P,OF
IT-All seed crops
LT-All seed crops
SE-All seed crops
SK-All seed crops
UK-P
UK-FP, C, B, OF

2007-2008
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006-2007

2007
2008
2007
2008
2007
2007-2008
2007-2008

1.377
1.250
393
8.328
2.873
1.131
180
1.897

3.871
3.040
5.534
64
1.958
610
2.388
455

201

29
930
626
69
11
10

9.684

98

90
22

1.078

338
400
132
2.412
450

2
65

769
207

26
159
32

467

1.916
1.650
554
11.670
3.948
1.200
193
1.972

14.324
3.248
5.632
90
2.207
664
2.388
2.000     

FP:  Fodder  Plant,  C:  Cereal,  B:  Beet,  VG:  Vegetable  Seed,  P:  Potatoes,  OF:  Oil  and  Fibre 
plant. 

Four main cost centres have been considered per certification structure: 

•  Registration of companies and seed-testing laboratories; 
•  Official field inspection; 
•  Official seed lot sampling and testing; 
•  Official labelling of lots. 

The  following  table  presents  the  annual  certification  costs  estimated  by  the 
responding  associations  of  suppliers  in  the  Member  States.  These  costs  can 
concern  one  or  several  crops.  Each  line  of  the  table  corresponds  to  the  data 
provided by one association of suppliers in a Member State. These costs are not 
representative  of  the  total  costs  for  the  private  operators  in  the  Member  State 
concerned,  as  they  are  rough  estimations  not  based  on  detailed  accounting 
system. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 - Total annual certification costs per Member State and crop for private operators 

MS and Crops

Annual budget 
figures

Costs for 
certification 
under official 
examination 
(K.EUR)

Costs for 
certification 
under official 
supervision 
(K.EUR)

Post-
certification 
costs (K.EUR)

Total 
certification 
costs (K.EUR)

DK-C
EE-FP,C,VG,OF
FR-OF
FR-C
IT-All seed crops
PL-All seed crops

2007
2007
2005/2006
2007/2008
2006/2007
2007

1.500
21

6.200
1.850

1.450
6
900
4.775

1.314

320

20

310

3.270
28
900
4.795
6.200
3.474  

      FP: Fodder Plant, C: Cereal, B: Beet, VG: Vegetable Seed, P: Potatoes, OF: Oil and Fibre 
plant. 

Total certification costs incurred by the private operators vary in each Member 
State (e.g.: in Poland: EUR 3.473 K and Italy: EUR 6.200 K). 

Under certification under official examination, the two main costly activities for 
national  authorities  are  seed  lot  sampling  &  analysis  and  field  inspections.  In 
most of the Member States, seed lot sampling and analysis represents more than 
50% of the total certification costs. Field inspection costs represent in between 
20-30%  on  average.  It  should  be  highlighted  that  these  ratios  are  quite 
similar for certification under official examination and certification under 
official supervision.  

154