COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning the position of the Council at first reading on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on protective measures against pests of plants
Date: 2016-08-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: biodiversity, destruction of crops, health certificate, import (EU), import restriction, marketing standard, plant health control, plant health treatment, plant propagation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.8.2016  COM(2016) 544 final 2013/0141 (COD)   COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union  concerning the position of the Council at first reading on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on protective measures against pests of plants  
 
 
2013/0141 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

concerning the 

position of the Council at first reading on the adoption of a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on protective measures against pests of plants 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to 
the Council 
(document COM (2013) 267 final – 2013/0141 COD): 

6 May 2013. 

Date of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: 

10 December 2013 

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading: 

15 April 2014 

Date of transmission of the amended proposal: 

* 

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: 

18 July 2016 

* 

Taking  into  account  the  developments  in  the  informal  discussions  between  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  following  the  European  Parliament  first 
reading,  the  Commission  did  not  prepare  an  amended  proposal  but  expressed  its 
views on the Parliament amendments in the "Communication de la Commission sur 
les suites données aux avis et résolutions adoptés par le Parlement eropéen lors de 
la  session  d'avril  2014"  (document  SP  (2014)471)  sent  to  the  European  Parliament 
on 7 July 2014. 

2. 

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE COMMISSION 

The proposal repeals and replaces the Union legislation on protection from pests of 
plants,  which  consists  of  Directive  2000/29/EC  on  protective  measures  against  the 
introduction  into  the  Community  of  organisms  harmful  to  plants  or  plant  products 
and against their spread within the Community, and six more Directives concerning 
plant health measures and pests. The current legislative framework has been in place 
since 1977 and needed to be adapted in view of the new challenges of increased trade 
and  climate  change.  The  proposal  was  part  of  a  package  of  reviews  relating  to  the 
health of plants, health of animals, official controls concerning plants, animals, food 
and feed, and Union expenditures for those policies. 

The  proposal  covers  the  assessment  and  management  of  risks  of  pests  of  plants. 
Those pests are classified  as quarantine pests and regulated non-quarantine pests in 
accordance with  criteria of international standards. Quarantine  pests are themselves 
classified  between  Union  quarantine  pests  (applicable  to  the  entire  Union  territory) 
and  protected  zone  quarantine  pests  (applicable  to  particular  protected  zones  only). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
All  those  pests  shall  only  be  listed  on  the  basis  of  a  risk  assessment  in  accordance 
with  international  standards.  It  was  also  proposed  that  10  percent  of  Union 
quarantine pests with the most severe impacts on economy, society and environment 
will be classified as priority pests, on which more stringent requirements will apply 
with regards to surveys and eradication action plans. 

The  proposal  introduces  new  and  more  specific  obligations  with  regards  to  the 
notification  of  pests  by  all  sides  (competent  authorities,  professional  operators  as 
well as private  persons). It further  sets out  new and  more specific rules concerning 
eradication of pests; surveys; multi-annual surveillance plans; contingency plans and 
simulation  exercises  concerning  priority  pests;  provisional  measures  to  be  taken  on 
pests not yet listed as Union quarantine pests; national more stringent measures for 
the purpose of eradication; and exceptions for the purposes of science, trials, varietal 
selections, and breeding or exhibitions. 

The  proposal  further  sets  out  a  more  proactive  system  concerning  the  introduction 
into,  and  movement  within,  the  Union  of  plants,  plant  products  and  other  objects 
which may host such pests and pose an unacceptable phytosanitary risk. It simplifies 
the  rules  on  certification  by  requiring  a  uniform  plant  passport  for  all  plants  for 
planting. Moreover, it establishes the pre-export certificate that ensures a better co-
ordination  between  Member  States  in  case  a  plant,  plant  product  or  other  objects 
moves between them before being exported to a non-EU country. 

The proposal pursues the objectives of better regulation, since it simplifies the rules 
on listing of all pests (quarantine and regulated non-quarantine) under a single legal 
framework, it sets out clearer and more detailed rules on how to react to outbreaks of 
pests  and  harmonises  and  clarifies  the  requirements  for  certification  of  regulated 
commodities  for  their  introduction  into,  and  movement  within,  the  Union  territory. 
Moreover,  it  establishes  more  transparent  rules  concerning  assessment  and 
management of phytosanitary risk. 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE POSITION OF THE COUNCIL 

3.1  General comments 

The Commission's proposal was transmitted to the European Parliament and to 
the Council on 6 May 2013. The European Parliament adopted its position at 
first  reading  on  15  April  2014  and  supported  the  main  goals  of  the 
Commission's  proposal.  In  particular,  the  European  Parliament  agreed  on  the 
classification  of  pests,  the  measures  on  notifications,  eradication,  surveys, 
contingency plans, simulation exercises, the need for a more proactive import 
system, and the new approach concerning certification of plants, plant products 
or  other  objects.  The  European  Parliament  proposed  to  abolish  the  top-
10 percent  threshold  for  priority  pests,  introduced  several  amendments  for 
more stringent requirements on imports and transit of plants, plant products or 
other objects, and also initiated reporting obligations concerning the expansion 
of  the  scope  of  plant  passports  and  the  effect  of  import  measures.  The 
European  Parliament  also  proposed  the  inclusion  of  all  regulated  pests  in  the 
Annexes of the Regulation. 

The  position  of  the  European  Parliament  included  136  amendments  to  the 
original Commission's proposal.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
No modified Commission's proposal was issued. In the "Communication de la 
Commission  sur  les  suites  données  aux  avis  et  résolutions  adoptés  par  le 
Parlement eropéen lors de la session d'avril 2014" (document SP (2014)471) 
sent to the European Parliament on 7 July 2016, the Commission indicated that 
it could accept in full, in part, in principle or subject to rewriting 50 of the 136 
amendments, as it considered that these amendments could clarify or improve 
the Commission's proposal and were consistent with its general aims. 

Following  adoption  of  the  European  Parliament's  first  reading  position, 
informal  discussions  continued  between  the  delegations  of  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council  Presidency  and  the  Commission,  with  a  view  to 
concluding an agreement at the common position stage ('early second reading 
agreement').  

These discussions proved successful and are reflected in the common position 
of  the  Council,  which  was  adopted  with  qualified  majority.  The  Commission 
considers that the common position of the Council reflects the original goals of 
the  Commission's  proposal  and  takes  into  account  many  concerns  of  the 
European  Parliament.  Although  on  certain  elements,  the  common  position 
differs  from  the  Commission's  original  proposal,  the  Commission  considers 
that it represents a carefully balanced compromise and is satisfied that it covers 
all issues considered essential by the Commission when adopting its proposal. 

3.2  Amendments  of  the  European  Parliament  accepted  by  the  Commission 
and  incorporated  in  full,  in  part  or  in  principle  in  the  position  of  the 
Council at first reading 

Information  of  relevant  professional  operators  concerning  contingency 
plans. The European Parliament introduced an amendment (56) setting out that 
Member States shall communicate their contingency plans to the Commission 
and  to  the  other  Member  States  on  request,  ‘and  shall  inform  all  relevant 
operators’.  The  information  of  all  relevant  operators  is  a  useful  addition  that 
has been accepted by the Commission and the Council and has been included 
in the text of the Regulation. 

Involvement  of  stakeholders  in  simulation  exercises.  The  European 
Parliament introduced an amendment (57) setting out that those exercises shall 
take  place  with  regards  to  all  priority  pests  concerned  within  a  reasonable 
period of time ‘and with the involvement of the stakeholders concerned’. The 
involvement  of  the  stakeholders  concerned  is  a  useful  addition  that  has  been 
accepted by the Commission and the Council. 

3.3  Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and 
incorporated in full, in part or in principle in the position of the Council at 
first reading 

Abolition  of  10%  threshold  for  priority  pests.  The  European  Parliament 
considered that upper limit of 10% out of the total number of Union quarantine 
pests  as  arbitrary, 
its  abolition  (amendment  40).  The 
Commission  rejected  that  amendment  to  ensure  that  the  principle  of 
prioritisation is respected when adopting the list of priority pests. The Council 
accepted  the  amendment  and  the  10%  threshold  has  been  removed  from  the 
Regulation.  The  Commission  can  accept  that  position  in  the  spirit  of 

thus  proposed 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
compromise  and  because  it  will  still  be  possible  to  respect  the  spirit  of 
prioritisation without establishing a specific limit through legislation. 

Reporting  on  plant  passports.  The  European  Parliament  introduced  an 
amendment  setting  out  an  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  to  the 
European Parliament and the Council the experience gained from the extension 
of the plant passport system to all movement of plants, plant products and other 
objects  within  the  Union  territory.  That  report  must  include  a  clear  costs 
benefits  analysis  for 
the  operators  (amendments  108  and  109).  The 
Commission  rejected  that  amendment  because  it  has  been  assessed  by  the 
impact assessment that the expansion of the scope of the plant passport to all 
plants for planting will have no significant impact on operators and the trade of 
plants. The Council accepted the amendment. The Commission can accept the 
Council’s position in the spirit of compromise. 

including  a  cost-benefit  analysis,  on 

Reporting  on  import  measures.  The  European  Parliament  proposed  an 
obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
the  enforcement  and 
Council, 
effectiveness  of  measures  relating  to  imports  into  the  Union  territory 
(amendment  98).  The  Council  accepted 
the 
Commission  had  originally  rejected  the  amendment  by  the  European 
Parliament because it was considered too burdensome, it can accept the text as 
taken  over  in  the  Council's  position  in  the  spirit  of  finding  a  compromise 
solution. 

that  amendment.  While 

3.4  Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission in 
full,  in  part  or  in  principle,  but  not  incorporated  in  the  position  of  the 
Council at first reading 

Some  small  amendments  were  accepted  by  the Commission  in  part,  but  were 
not  specifically  included  in  the  final  Council  position  as  in  the  course  of  the 
negotiations they had become  redundant  or were already explained elsewhere 
or implicitly included in the proposal (for example amendments 43, 44, 45, 46, 
51, 52, 53). 

3.5  Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and 

not incorporated in the position of the Council at first reading 

Inclusion  of  invasive  alien  species  in  the  definition  of  pest.  The  European 
Parliament proposed the inclusion of invasive alien species in the definition of 
pests (amendment 19). The Commission rejected that amendment because such 
a  widening  of  the  scope  would  create  overlaps  with  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1143/2014  on  the  prevention  and  management  of  the  introduction  and 
spread  of  invasive  alien  species  and  it  would  overstretch  the  available 
resources  concerning  assessment  and  management  of  pests.  The  Council  also 
rejected such widening of the scope, however agreed to include in the scope of 
‘pests’, and under certain conditions, the non-parasitic plants (see point 3.6). 

Listing  of  pests  in  the  Annex  of  the  Regulation  instead  of  under  an 
Implementing Act.  The European Parliament proposed an amendment to  list 
all pests under the Annexes of the Regulation (for example amendments 14, 30 
and  31).  The  Commission  rejected  that  amendment.  It  considers  that  the 
criteria to decide on the listing of pests is an essential element of the scope of 
the Regulation, not the listing itself which is transient. The status of pests in the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
lists changes frequently and is entwined with measures against those pests and 
the specific third countries / Member States concerned. Pests should therefore 
be listed in implementing acts, not in Annexes to the Regulation. The Council 
also rejected that amendment for the same reasoning. 

Competent  authorities  to  have  the  right  to  apply  containment  instead  of 
eradication.  The  European  Parliament  proposed  in  its  amendment  that 
competent  authorities  have  the  possibility  to  apply  on  their  own  decision, 
containment,  instead  of  eradication,  of  Union  quarantine  pests,  where  they 
consider  that  eradication  is  not  possible  (amendment  47).  The  Commission 
rejected  that  amendment  because  it  is  important  for  the  phytosanitary 
protection  of  Union  territory  that  eradication  remains  the  only  option  for  the 
competent  authorities.  Containment  should  only  be  allowed  if  decided  so  at 
Union  level  by  a  Commission  Implementing  Decision.  The  Council  also 
rejected that amendment on the basis of the same reasoning. 

Co-ordination  of  compensation  of  professional  operators.  The  European 
Parliament  introduced  an  amendment  indicating  that  where  Member  States 
compensate  professional  operators  for  the  value  of  plants,  plant  products  or 
other objects destroyed as part of the eradication measures and implemented in 
a  cross-border  area,  they  should  ensure  that  adequate  compensation  is 
coordinated between the concerned Member States to  avoid market distortion 
(amendment  48).  The  Commission  rejected  that  amendment  because  this 
addition  does  not  concern  the  subject  of  this  proposal  but  the  financial 
regulation  for  Commission  measures  and  given  it  declaratory  nature,  it  goes 
against  the  rules  on  legislative  technique.  The  Council  also  rejected  that 
amendment on the basis of the same reasoning. 

Stringent requirements for phytosanitary transit. In the case of plants, plant 
products  or  other  objects  moving  through  the  Union  in  transit,  the  European 
Parliament  proposed  more  stringent  requirements,  including  the  use  of  an 
officially-approved phytosanitary seal and close supervision of that movement 
(amendments  91,  92).  The  Commission  rejected  those  amendments  because 
they are burdensome and disproportionate to the potential phytosanitary risk of 
those commodities. The Council also rejected that amendment on the basis of 
the same reasoning, and also because provisions on transit will be covered in a 
horizontal  manner  under  the  new  Regulation  on  Official  Controls  (COM 
(2013) 265 final – 2013/0140 COD). 

Consultation  of  Advisory  Group.  The  European  Parliament  introduced  an 
amendment  setting  out  that  the  Commission  should  consult  the  Advisory 
Group  on  the  food  chain  and  animal  and  plant  health  established  under  the 
Commission Decision 2004/613/EC and that the Group should provide inputs 
during  the  preparation  of  implementing  and  delegated  acts  (amendment  113). 
The Commission rejected that amendment because such practice should be left 
up to the discretion of the Commission instead of establishing it in a legislative 
act. The Commission consults the Advisory Group on a regular basis on plant 
health issues and a permanent Working Group on Plants was established under 
the Advisory Group in 2013 for this. The Council also rejected that amendment 
on the basis of the same reasoning. 

3.6  New provisions introduced by the Council 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The  Council  introduced  many  amendments  in  almost  all  Articles  of  the 
proposal.  Most  of  those  amendments  constitute  a  further  development  of  the 
provisions  of  the  proposal  and  do  not  introduce  a  new  or  fundamentally 
amended  approach.  However,  following  provisions  add  to  the  scope  or 
requirements of the proposal. 

Inclusion  of  non-parasitic  plants  in  the  definition  of  pests.  The  proposal 
excluded non-parasitic plants from the definition of pest. The Council added a 
provision  according  to  which  whenever  there  is  evidence  that  non-parasitic 
plants  (with  the  exclusion  of  invasive  alien  species)  pose  phytosanitary  risks 
which have a severe economic, social and environmental impact for the Union 
territory,  those  non-parasitic  plants  may  be  considered  as  plants  injurious  to 
plants or plant products (pests). The Commission accepted that amendment in 
the spirit of compromise. 

Temporary  protected  zones.  The  Council  added  a  provision  that  the 
Commission may recognise a temporary protected zone to which the conditions 
of  ordinary  protected  zones  shall  apply.  However  for  the  establishment  of  a 
temporary  zone  only  a  one-year  survey  shall  be  required,  instead  of  a  three-
years  survey  which  is  required  for  the  ordinary  protected  zones.  The 
recognition of a temporary protected zone shall last no longer than three years 
after  recognition,  and  shall  expire  automatically  after  three  years.  The 
Commission  accepted  that  provision  because  it  could  ensure  a  more  flexible 
approach concerning the establishment of protected zones. 

Import  of  high  risk  plants,  plant  products  or  other  objects.  The  Council 
proposed that when a preliminary assessment reveals that a plant, plant product 
or other object originating in a third country and which is not subject to other 
requirements  presents  a  pest  risk  of  an  unacceptable  level  for  the  Union 
territory, it shall be referred to as ‘high risk plant’, ‘high risk plant product’ or 
‘high risk other object’ and its introduction into the Union shall be prohibited. 
That  preliminary  assessment  shall  take  into  account,  as  appropriate  for  the 
plant, plant product or other object concerned, certain prescribed criteria. The 
Commission  shall  adopt  an  implementing  act,  provisionally  listing  on  the 
appropriate  taxonomic  level,  the  high  risk  plants,  plant  products  or  other 
objects and, where appropriate, the third countries, group of third countries or 
specific areas of third country concerned. That listing may be amended if a full 
risk assessment proves that those plants, plant products or other objects should 
be  de-regulated  or  subject  to  prohibitions  or  special  measures  under  this 
Regulation.  The  Commission  accepted  that  amendment  in  the  spirit  of 
compromise, and because it can ensure a proactive import policy in compliance 
with the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures. 

Rules  on  wood  packaging  material.  The  Council  added  more  specific  rules 
on the introduction into, movement within and movement out of the Union of 
wood packaging material. Such introduction and movement must be in explicit 
compliance with the respective international standard (standard ISPM 15 of the 
International  Plant  Protection  Convention  (IPPC)).  The  Commission  accepted 
that amendment because it will provides for more clarity concerning the rules 
on wood packaging material. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Confinement  facilities.  To  complement 
the  proposal’s  provisions  on 
quarantine stations, the Council also added a set of provisions for confinement 
facilities,  as  several  Member  States  may  not  be  in  position  to  establish  and 
manage  quarantine  stations.  The  Commission  accepted  that  amendment 
because it offers more flexibility to certain Member States. 

Phytosanitary  certificates  for  the  import  of  all  plants.  According  to  the 
Commission proposal, living plants (including entire plants, fruits, vegetables, 
cut flowers, etc) which are subject to specific import requirements may only be 
introduced  into  the  Union  if  accompanied  by  a  phytosanitary  certificate.  The 
Council expanded the scope of that obligation. It added the provision that the 
Commission  shall,  by  means  of  an  implementing  act,  set  out  that  such  an 
obligation  will  apply  to  all  plants  (and  not  only  the  plants  for  which  import 
requirements have been set out). However that implementing act shall set out 
that  a  phytosanitary  certificate  is  not  required  for  those  plants  where  an 
assessment,  based  on  evidence  about  pest  risks  and  experience  with  trade, 
demonstrates that such a certificate is not necessary. That assessment shall take 
into  account  certain  prescribed  criteria.  The  Commission  accepted  that 
expansion  of  the  scope  of  the  phytosanitary  certificate  because  it  will  offer 
better overview of the imported plants and will also offer better phytosanitary 
guarantees. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  common  position  adopted  by  the  Council  with 
qualified majority reflects the original goals of the Commission's proposal and takes 
into  account  many  concerns  of  the  European  Parliament.  Although  on  certain 
elements, the common position differs from the Commission's original proposal, the 
Commission  considers  that  it  represents  a  carefully  balanced  compromise  and  is 
satisfied  that  it  covers  all  issues  considered  essential  by  the  Commission  when 
adopting its proposal. 

For  the  reasons  outlined  above  the  Commission  supports  the  common  position 
adopted on 18 July 2016. 

EN 

8 

   EN