Article 105 Assistance without request in the event of non-compliance
1. When the competent authorities in a Member State become aware of a case of non-compliance, and if such non-compliance may have implications for another Member State, they shall notify such information to the competent authorities of that other Member State without being requested to do so and without undue delay. 2. The competent authorities notified in accordance with paragraph 1 shall: (a) acknowledge receipt of the notification without undue delay; where the notifying competent authority so specifies, indicate within ten working days from the date of receipt of the notification: (i) what investigations they intend to carry out; or (ii) the reasons why they consider that no investigations are necessary; and where the notifying competent authority so specifies, indicate within ten working days from the date of receipt of the notification: (i) what investigations they intend to carry out; or (ii) the reasons why they consider that no investigations are necessary; and (c) where investigations referred to in point (b) are considered necessary, investigate the matter and inform the notifying competent authorities without delay of the results and, where appropriate, of any measures taken.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 105 Assistance without request in the event of non-compliance):
1. When the competent authorities in a Member State become aware of a case of non-compliance, and if such non-compliance may have implications for another Member State, they shall notify such information to the competent authorities of that other Member State without being requested to do so and without undue delay.
Article 106 Assistance in the event of non-compliance creating a risk or a repeated or potentially serious infringement
1. Where, during official controls performed on animals or goods originating in another Member State, the competent authorities establish that such animals or goods do not comply with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) in such a way as to create a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment, or to constitute a potentially serious infringement of those rules, they shall, without delay, notify the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch and of any other concerned Member State in order to enable those competent authorities to undertake appropriate investigations. 2. The notified competent authorities shall without delay: (a) acknowledge receipt of the notification; (b) where the notifying competent authority so specifies, indicate what investigations they intend to carry out; and (c) investigate the matter, take all necessary measures and inform the notifying competent authorities of the nature of the investigations and official controls performed, of the decisions taken and of the reasons for such decisions. 3. If the notifying competent authorities have reason to believe that the investigations performed or the measures taken by the notified competent authorities do not adequately address the non-compliance established, they shall request the notified competent authorities to complement the official controls performed or the measures taken. In such cases the competent authorities from the two Member States shall: (a) seek an agreed approach with the aim of appropriately addressing the non-compliance, including through joint official controls and investigations performed in accordance with Article 104(3); and (b) inform the Commission without delay where they are not able to agree on appropriate measures. 4. When official controls performed on animals or goods originating in another Member State show repeated cases of non-compliance as referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the Member State of destination shall inform the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States without delay.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 106 Assistance in the event of non-compliance creating a risk or a repeated or potentially serious infringement):
1. Where, during official controls performed on animals or goods originating in another Member State, the competent authorities establish that such animals or goods do not comply with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) in such a way as to create a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment, or to constitute a potentially serious infringement of those rules, they shall, without delay, notify the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch and of any other concerned Member State in order to enable those competent authorities to undertake appropriate investigations. 4. When official controls performed on animals or goods originating in another Member State show repeated cases of non-compliance as referred to in paragraph 1, the competent authorities of the Member State of destination shall inform the Commission and the competent authorities of the other Member States without delay.
Article 107 Assistance on the basis of information provided by third countries
1. When competent authorities receive information from a third country indicating non-compliance with rules referred to in Article 1(2) or a risk to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment, they shall, without delay: (a) notify such information to the competent authorities in other concerned Member States; and (b) communicate such information to the Commission where it is or may be relevant at Union level. 2. Information obtained through official controls and investigations performed in accordance with this Regulation may be communicated to the third country referred to in paragraph 1, provided that: (a) the competent authorities which have provided the information consent to such communication; (b) the third country has undertaken to provide the assistance necessary to gather evidence of practices that are or appear to be non-compliant with Union rules or that pose a risk to humans, animals or plants or the environment; and (c) relevant Union and national rules applicable to the communication of personal data to third countries are complied with.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency.
Article 108 Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission
1. Where the competent authorities in the Member States concerned are unable to agree on appropriate action to address the non-compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), the Commission shall coordinate without delay the measures and actions undertaken by competent authorities in accordance with this Title where information available to the Commission either: (a) reports activities that are, or appear to be, non-compliant with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), and such activities have, or might have, ramifications in more than one Member State; or (b) indicates that the same, or similar, activities that are, or appear to be, non-compliant with the rules referred to in Article 1(2) might be taking place in more than one Member State. 2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may: (a) in collaboration with the Member State concerned, send an inspection team to perform an on-the-spot official control; (b) request, by means of implementing acts, that the competent authorities in the Member State of dispatch and, where appropriate, in other Member States concerned, appropriately intensify official controls and report to it on the measures taken by them; (c) take any other appropriate measure in accordance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2). 3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation by establishing rules for the rapid exchange of information in the cases referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 108 Coordinated assistance and follow-up by the Commission):
3. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 144 to supplement this Regulation by establishing rules for the rapid exchange of information in the cases referred to in paragraph 1.
Article 109 Multi-annual national control plans (MANCP) and a single body for the MANCP
1. Member States shall ensure that official controls governed by this Regulation are performed by the competent authorities on the basis of a MANCP, the preparation and implementation of which are coordinated across their territory. 2. Member States shall designate a single body tasked with: (a) coordinating the preparation of the MANCP across all competent authorities responsible for the official controls; (b) ensuring that the MANCP is coherent; (c) collecting the information on the implementation of the MANCP in view of submitting the annual reporting referred to in Article 113 and of its review and update as necessary in accordance with Article 111(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 109 Multi-annual national control plans (MANCP) and a single body for the MANCP):
1. Member States shall ensure that official controls governed by this Regulation are performed by the competent authorities on the basis of a MANCP, the preparation and implementation of which are coordinated across their territory.
Article 110 Content of the MANCPs
1. MANCPs shall be prepared so as to ensure that official controls are planned in all the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 9 and with the rules provided for in Articles 18 to 27. 2. MANCPs shall contain general information on the structure and organisation of the systems of official control in the Member State concerned in each of the areas covered, and shall contain information on at least the following: (a) the strategic objectives of the MANCP and on how the prioritisation of official controls and allocation of resources reflect these objectives; (b) the risk categorisation of the official controls; (c) the designation of competent authorities and their tasks at central, regional and local level, and on resources available to those authorities; (d) where appropriate, the delegation of tasks to delegated bodies; (e) the general organisation and management of official controls at national, regional and local level, including official controls in individual establishments; (f) control systems applied to different sectors and coordination between the different services of competent authorities responsible for official controls in those sectors; (g) procedures and arrangements in place to ensure compliance with the obligations of the competent authorities provided for in Article 5(1); (h) the training of staff of the competent authorities; (i) the documented procedures provided for in Article 12(1); (j) the general organisation and operation of contingency plans in accordance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2); and (k) the general organisation of cooperation and mutual assistance between competent authorities in the Member States.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 110 Content of the MANCPs):
1. MANCPs shall be prepared so as to ensure that official controls are planned in all the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 9 and with the rules provided for in Articles 18 to 27.
Article 111 Preparation, update and review of MANCPs
1. Member States shall ensure that the MANCP provided for in Article 109(1) is made available to the public, with the exception of those parts of the plan the disclosure of which could undermine the effectiveness of official controls. 2. The MANCP shall be regularly updated to adjust it to changes to the rules referred to in Article 1(2), and reviewed to take account at least of the following factors: (a) the emergence of new diseases, pests of plants or other risks to human, animal or plant health, animal welfare or, in the case of GMOs and plant protection products, also to the environment; (b) significant changes to the structure, management or operation of the competent authorities in the Member State; (c) the outcome of Member States’ official controls; (d) the outcome of Commission controls performed in the Member State in accordance with Article 116(1); (e) scientific findings; and (f) the outcome of official controls performed by the competent authorities of a third country in a Member State. 3. Member States shall provide the Commission, upon request, with the latest up-to-date version of their respective MANCP.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 111 Preparation, update and review of MANCPs):
1. Member States shall ensure that the MANCP provided for in Article 109(1) is made available to the public, with the exception of those parts of the plan the disclosure of which could undermine the effectiveness of official controls. 3. Member States shall provide the Commission, upon request, with the latest up-to-date version of their respective MANCP.
Article 112 Coordinated control programmes and information and data collection
With a view to conducting Union-wide targeted assessment of the state of application of the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or establishing the prevalence of certain hazards across the Union, the Commission may adopt implementing acts concerning: (a) the implementation of coordinated control programmes of limited duration in one of the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (b) the organisation, on an ad hoc basis, of the collection of data and information in relation to the application of a specific set of the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or regarding the prevalence of certain hazards. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 113 Annual reports by the Member States
1. By 31 August every year, each Member State shall submit to the Commission a report setting out: (a) any amendments made to its MANCP to take account of the factors referred to in Article 111(2); (b) the outcome of official controls performed in the previous year under its MANCP; (c) the type and number of cases of non-compliance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2), per area, detected in the previous year by the competent authorities; (d) the measures taken to ensure the effective operation of its MANCP, including enforcement action and the results of such measures, and (e) a link to the web page of the competent authority containing the public information on fees or charges referred to in Article 85(2). 2. In order to ensure the uniform presentation of the annual reports provided for in paragraph 1, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt and update as necessary standard model forms for the submission of the information and data referred to in that paragraph. Those implementing acts shall, whenever possible, allow the use of the standard model forms adopted by the Commission for the submission of other reports on official controls that the competent authorities are required to submit to the Commission in accordance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 113 Annual reports by the Member States):
2. In order to ensure the uniform presentation of the annual reports provided for in paragraph 1, the Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, adopt and update as necessary standard model forms for the submission of the information and data referred to in that paragraph. Those implementing acts shall, whenever possible, allow the use of the standard model forms adopted by the Commission for the submission of other reports on official controls that the competent authorities are required to submit to the Commission in accordance with the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 114 Annual reports by the Commission
1. By 31 January every year, the Commission shall make available to the public an annual report on the operation of official controls in the Member States, taking into account: (a) the annual reports submitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 113; and (b) the results of Commission controls performed in accordance with Article 116(1). 2. The annual report provided for in paragraph 1 may, where appropriate, include recommendations on possible improvements to official control systems in Member States and to certain official controls in certain areas.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 114 Annual reports by the Commission):
2. The annual report provided for in paragraph 1 may, where appropriate, include recommendations on possible improvements to official control systems in Member States and to certain official controls in certain areas.
Article 115 Contingency plans for food and feed
1. For the application of the general plan for crisis management provided for in Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Member States shall draw up contingency plans for food and feed setting out measures to be applied without delay when food or feed is found to pose a serious risk to human or animal health either directly or through the environment. 2. The contingency plans for food and feed provided for in paragraph 1 shall specify: (a) the competent authorities to be involved; (b) the powers and responsibilities of the authorities referred to in point (a); and (c) channels and procedures for sharing information between competent authorities and other parties concerned as appropriate. 3. Member States shall review regularly their contingency plans for food and feed to take into account changes in the organisation of the competent authorities and experience gained from implementing the plan and simulation exercises. 4. The Commission may adopt implementing acts concerning: rules for the establishment of the contingency plans provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article to the extent necessary to ensure the consistent and effective use of the general plan for crisis management provided for in Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002; and (b) the role of stakeholders in the establishment and operation of those contingency plans. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 115 Contingency plans for food and feed):
1. For the application of the general plan for crisis management provided for in Article 55(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Member States shall draw up contingency plans for food and feed setting out measures to be applied without delay when food or feed is found to pose a serious risk to human or animal health either directly or through the environment. 3. Member States shall review regularly their contingency plans for food and feed to take into account changes in the organisation of the competent authorities and experience gained from implementing the plan and simulation exercises. 4. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 116 Commission controls in Member States
1. Commission experts shall perform controls, including audits, in each Member State to: (a) verify the application of the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and those provided for in this Regulation; (b) verify the functioning of national control systems in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and those provided for in this Regulation, and of the competent authorities which operate them; investigate and collect information: (i) on official controls and enforcement practices in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and those provided for in this Regulation; (ii) on important or recurring problems with the application or enforcement of the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (iii) in relation to emergency situations, emerging problems or new developments in the Member States in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) and those provided for in this Regulation. 2. The controls provided for in paragraph 1 shall be organised in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States and shall be performed on a regular basis. 3. The controls provided for in paragraph 1 may include on-the-spot verifications. The Commission experts may accompany the staff of the competent authorities performing official controls. 4. Experts from the Member States may assist the Commission experts. National experts accompanying Commission experts shall be given the same rights of access as the Commission experts.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 116 Commission controls in Member States):
2. The controls provided for in paragraph 1 shall be organised in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States and shall be performed on a regular basis. 3. The controls provided for in paragraph 1 may include on-the-spot verifications. The Commission experts may accompany the staff of the competent authorities performing official controls. 4. Experts from the Member States may assist the Commission experts. National experts accompanying Commission experts shall be given the same rights of access as the Commission experts.
Article 117 Reports by the Commission on controls in Member States
The Commission shall: (a) prepare a draft report on the findings and on recommendations addressing the shortcomings identified by its experts during controls performed in accordance with Article 116(1); (b) send to the Member State where those controls have been performed a copy of the draft report provided for in point (a) for its comments; take the comments of the Member State referred to in point (b) into account in preparing the final report on the findings of the controls performed by its experts in the Member States as provided for in Article 116(1); and (d) make publicly available the final report referred to in point (c) and the comments of the Member State referred to in point (b).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 117 Reports by the Commission on controls in Member States):
The Commission shall: (a) prepare a draft report on the findings and on recommendations addressing the shortcomings identified by its experts during controls performed in accordance with Article 116(1); (b) send to the Member State where those controls have been performed a copy of the draft report provided for in point (a) for its comments; (d) make publicly available the final report referred to in point (c) and the comments of the Member State referred to in point (b).
Article 118 Programme of the Commission controls in Member States
1. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts: (a) establish an annual or multiannual control programme for the controls to be performed by its experts in the Member States as provided for in Article 116(1); and (b) by the end of each year, communicate to the Member States the annual control programme or any update to the multiannual control programme for the following year. 2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, amend its control programme to take account of developments in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Any such amendment shall be communicated without delay to the Member States.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 118 Programme of the Commission controls in Member States):
2. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, amend its control programme to take account of developments in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Any such amendment shall be communicated without delay to the Member States.
Article 119 Obligations of the Member States as regards Commission controls
Member States shall: (a) take appropriate follow-up measures to remedy any specific or systemic shortcomings identified through the controls performed by the Commission experts in accordance with Article 116(1); (b) give the necessary technical assistance and provide the available documentation, including the results of the audits referred to in Article 6, upon justified request, and other technical support that Commission experts request to enable them to perform controls efficiently and effectively; and (c) give the necessary assistance to ensure that the Commission experts have access to all premises or parts of premises, animals and goods, and to information, including computing systems, relevant for the execution of their duties.
Article 120 Commission controls in third countries
1. Commission experts may perform controls in third countries in order to: (a) verify the compliance or equivalence of third-country legislation and systems, including official certification and the issuance of official certificates, official labels, official marks and other official attestations, with the requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (b) verify the capacity of the third country control system to ensure that consignments of animals and goods exported to the Union comply with relevant requirements established by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or with requirements recognised to be at least equivalent thereto; (c) collect information and data to elucidate the causes of recurring or emerging problems in relation to exports of animals and goods from a third country. 2. The controls provided for in paragraph 1 shall have particular regard to: (a) the legislation of the third country; (b) the organisation of the third country’s competent authorities, their powers and independence, the supervision to which they are subject and the authority they have to enforce the applicable legislation effectively; (c) the training of staff of the competent authority of the third country in the performance of official controls; (d) the resources including analytical, testing and diagnostic facilities available to competent authorities; (e) the existence and operation of documented control procedures and control systems based on priorities; (f) where applicable, the situation regarding animal health, animal welfare, zoonoses and plant health, and procedures for notifying the Commission and relevant international bodies of outbreaks of animal diseases and pests of plants; (g) the extent and operation of controls performed by the competent authority of the third country on animals, plants and their products arriving from other third countries; and (h) the assurances which the third country can give regarding compliance with, or equivalence to, the requirements laid down in the rules referred to in Article 1(2). 3. In order to facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the controls provided for in paragraph 1, the Commission may, prior to performing such controls, request that the third country concerned provide: (a) the necessary information referred to in Article 125(1); and (b) where appropriate and necessary, the written records on the controls its competent authorities perform. 4. The Commission may appoint experts from Member States to assist its own experts during the controls provided for in paragraph 1.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 120 Commission controls in third countries):
4. The Commission may appoint experts from Member States to assist its own experts during the controls provided for in paragraph 1.
Article 121 Frequency of Commission controls in third countries
The frequency of Commission controls in third countries referred to in Article 120 shall be determined on the basis of the following criteria: (a) a risk assessment of the animals and goods exported to the Union from the third country concerned; (b) the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (c) the volume and nature of animals and goods entering the Union from the third country concerned; (d) the outcome of controls already performed by the Commission experts or by other inspection bodies; (e) the outcome of official controls on animals and goods entering the Union from the third country concerned and of any other official controls that competent authorities of Member States have performed; (f) information received from the EFSA or similar bodies; information received from internationally recognised bodies such as: (i) the World Health Organization; (ii) the Codex Alimentarius Commission; (iii) the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE); (iv) European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and any other regional plant protection organisations established under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC); (v) the secretariat of the IPPC; (vi) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; (vii) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; (viii) the secretariat of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity; (h) evidence of emerging disease situations or other circumstances that might result in animals and goods entering the Union from a third country presenting health or environmental risks or a risk of fraudulent or deceptive practices; (i) the need to investigate or respond to emergency situations in individual third countries.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 121 Frequency of Commission controls in third countries):
The frequency of Commission controls in third countries referred to in Article 120 shall be determined on the basis of the following criteria: (a) a risk assessment of the animals and goods exported to the Union from the third country concerned; (b) the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (c) the volume and nature of animals and goods entering the Union from the third country concerned; (d) the outcome of controls already performed by the Commission experts or by other inspection bodies; (e) the outcome of official controls on animals and goods entering the Union from the third country concerned and of any other official controls that competent authorities of Member States have performed; (f) information received from the EFSA or similar bodies; (h) evidence of emerging disease situations or other circumstances that might result in animals and goods entering the Union from a third country presenting health or environmental risks or a risk of fraudulent or deceptive practices; (i) the need to investigate or respond to emergency situations in individual third countries.
Article 122 Reports by the Commission on controls in third countries
The Commission shall report on the findings of each control performed in accordance with Articles 120 and 121. Its report shall, where appropriate, contain recommendations. The Commission shall make its reports publicly available.
Article 123 Programme of the Commission controls in third countries
The Commission shall communicate its programme of controls in third countries to Member States in advance and shall report on the results. The Commission may amend that programme to take account of developments in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2). Any such amendment shall be communicated to the Member States in advance.
Article 124 Third-country controls in Member States
1. Member States shall inform the Commission of planned controls in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) on their territory, by the competent authorities of third countries. 2. Commission experts may participate in the controls referred to in paragraph 1, at the request of the competent authorities of Member States where those controls are being performed. 3. The participation by Commission experts in the controls referred to in paragraph 1 shall serve in particular to: (a) provide advice on the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (b) provide information and data available at Union level that may be useful for the control performed by the competent authorities of the third country; (c) facilitate consistency and uniformity with regard to controls performed by the competent authorities of third countries in different Member States.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 124 Third-country controls in Member States):
1. Member States shall inform the Commission of planned controls in the areas governed by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) on their territory, by the competent authorities of third countries. 2. Commission experts may participate in the controls referred to in paragraph 1, at the request of the competent authorities of Member States where those controls are being performed.
Article 125 Information on third countries' control systems
1. The Commission shall request third countries which intend to export animals and goods to the Union to provide the following accurate and up-to-date information on the general organisation and management of sanitary and phytosanitary control systems in their territory: (a) any sanitary or phytosanitary rules adopted or proposed within their territory; (b) risk-assessment procedures and factors taken into consideration for the assessment of risks and for the determination of the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection; (c) any control and inspection procedures and mechanisms, including, where relevant, on animals or goods arriving from other third countries; (d) official certification mechanisms; (e) where appropriate, any measures taken following recommendations provided for in the first paragraph of Article 122; (f) where relevant, results of controls performed on animals and goods intended to be exported to the Union; and (g) where relevant, information on changes made to the structure and functioning of control systems adopted to meet Union sanitary or phytosanitary requirements or recommendations provided for in the first paragraph of Article 122. 2. The request for information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate, taking account of the nature of the animals and goods to be exported to the Union and of the specific situation in, and structure of, the third country.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 125 Information on third countries' control systems):
2. The request for information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate, taking account of the nature of the animals and goods to be exported to the Union and of the specific situation in, and structure of, the third country.
Article 126 Establishment of additional conditions for entry into the Union of animals and goods
2. The conditions laid down in the delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall identify animals and goods by referring to their codes from the Combined Nomenclature and may include: (a) the requirement that certain animals and goods shall only enter the Union from a third country or region of a third country which appears on a list drawn up by the Commission for that purpose; (b) the requirement that consignments of certain animals and goods from third countries be dispatched from, and obtained or prepared in, establishments which comply with the relevant requirements referred to in paragraph 1 or with requirements recognised to be at least equivalent thereto; (c) the requirement that consignments of certain animals and goods be accompanied by an official certificate, an official attestation, or by any other evidence that the consignments comply with the relevant requirements referred to in paragraph 1 or with requirements recognised to be at least equivalent thereto, including the results of the analysis performed by an accredited laboratory; (d) the obligation to provide the evidence referred to in point (c) in accordance with a specific format; (e) any other requirement necessary to ensure that certain animals and goods offer a level of protection of health and, as regards GMOs, also of the environment, equivalent to that ensured by the requirements referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the format and type of official certificates, official attestations, or evidence required in accordance with the rules provided for in point (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 126 Establishment of additional conditions for entry into the Union of animals and goods):
3. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the format and type of official certificates, official attestations, or evidence required in accordance with the rules provided for in point (c) of paragraph 2 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 127 Inclusion in the list of third countries referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2)
1. The inclusion of a third country or region thereof in the list referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2) shall be made in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 2. The Commission shall approve, by means of implementing acts, the request transmitted to it for the purpose referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article by the third country concerned, accompanied by appropriate evidence and guarantees that the animals and goods concerned from that third country comply with the relevant requirements referred to in Article 126(1) or with requirements equivalent thereto. Those implementing acts shall be adopted and updated in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 3. The Commission shall decide on the request referred to in paragraph 2 taking into account, as appropriate: (a) the third country’s legislation in the sector concerned; (b) the structure and organisation of the competent authorities of the third country and its control services, the powers available to them, the guarantees that can be provided with regard to the application and enforcement of the legislation of the third country applicable to the sector concerned, and the reliability of the official certification procedures; (c) the performance by the competent authorities of the third country of adequate official controls and other activities to assess the presence of hazards for human, animal or plant health, for animal welfare or, in relation to GMOs and plant protection products, also for the environment; (d) the regularity and rapidity of information supplied by the third country on the presence of hazards for human, animal or plant health, for animal welfare or, in relation to GMOs and plant protection products, also for the environment; the guarantees given by the third country that: (i) conditions applied to the establishments from which animals or goods are exported to the Union comply with requirements that are equivalent to those referred to in Article 126(1); (ii) a list of the establishments referred to in point (i) is drawn up and kept up to date; (iii) the list of establishments referred to in point (i) and updates thereof are communicated to the Commission without delay; (iv) the establishments referred to in point (i) are the subject of regular and effective controls by the competent authorities of the third country; (f) the findings of controls performed by the Commission in the third country in accordance with Article 120(1); (g) any other information or data on the capability of the third country to ensure that only animals or goods which provide the same or an equivalent level of protection as that afforded by the relevant requirements referred to in Article 126(1) enter the Union. 4. The Commission shall delete the reference to a third country or a region of a third country from the list referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2) where the conditions for inclusion on the list cease to be met. The procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall apply.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 127 Inclusion in the list of third countries referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2)):
1. The inclusion of a third country or region thereof in the list referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2) shall be made in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. 2. The Commission shall approve, by means of implementing acts, the request transmitted to it for the purpose referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article by the third country concerned, accompanied by appropriate evidence and guarantees that the animals and goods concerned from that third country comply with the relevant requirements referred to in Article 126(1) or with requirements equivalent thereto. Those implementing acts shall be adopted and updated in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 4. The Commission shall delete the reference to a third country or a region of a third country from the list referred to in point (a) of Article 126(2) where the conditions for inclusion on the list cease to be met. The procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall apply.
Article 128 Special measures regarding the entry into the Union of certain animals and goods
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall identify animals and goods by referring to their codes from the Combined Nomenclature, and may include: (a) the prohibition of entry into the Union of the animals and goods referred to in paragraph 1 originating in or dispatched from the third countries concerned or regions thereof; (b) the requirement that the animals and goods referred to in paragraph 1 originating in or dispatched from certain third countries or regions thereof be subject, prior to dispatch, to specific treatment or controls; (c) the requirement that the animals and goods referred to in paragraph 1 originating in or dispatched from certain third countries or regions thereof be subject, upon entry into the Union, to specific treatment or controls; (d) the requirement that consignments of the animals and goods referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article originating in or dispatched from certain third countries or regions thereof, be accompanied by an official certificate, an official attestation, or by any other evidence that the consignment complies with requirements established by the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or with requirements recognised to be at least equivalent thereto; (e) the requirement that the evidence referred to in point (d) be provided in accordance with a specific format; (f) other measures necessary to contain the risk. 3. When adopting the measures referred to in paragraph 2, account shall be taken of: (a) the information collected in accordance with Article 125; (b) any other information that the third countries concerned have provided; and (c) where necessary, the results of Commission controls provided for in Article 120(1). 4. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency relating to human health and animal health or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the protection of the environment, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 145(3).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 128 Special measures regarding the entry into the Union of certain animals and goods):
4. On duly justified imperative grounds of urgency relating to human health and animal health or, as regards GMOs and plant protection products, also to the protection of the environment, the Commission shall adopt immediately applicable implementing acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 145(3).
Article 129 Equivalence
(a) a thorough examination of information and data provided by the third country concerned pursuant to Article 125(1); and (b) where appropriate, the satisfactory outcome of a control performed in accordance with Article 120(1). Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 2. The implementing acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall set out the practical arrangements for the entry of animals and goods into the Union from the third country concerned, or regions thereof, and may include: (a) the nature and content of the official certificates or attestations that have to accompany the animals or goods; (b) specific requirements applicable to the entry into the Union of the animals or goods and the official controls to be performed at entry into the Union; (c) where necessary, procedures for drawing up and amending lists of regions or establishments in the third country concerned from which the entry of animals and goods into the Union is permitted. 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, repeal without delay the implementing acts provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article where any of the conditions for the recognition of equivalence cease to be fulfilled. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 129 Equivalence):
1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2). 3. The Commission shall, by means of implementing acts, repeal without delay the implementing acts provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article where any of the conditions for the recognition of equivalence cease to be fulfilled. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 130 Training and exchange of staff
1. The Commission may organise training activities for the staff of the competent authorities and, where appropriate, for staff of other authorities of the Member States involved in investigations of possible infringements of this Regulation and of the rules referred to in Article 1(2). The Commission shall organise those activities in cooperation with the Member States concerned. 2. The training activities referred to in paragraph 1 shall facilitate the development of a harmonised approach to official controls and other official activities in Member States. They shall include, as appropriate, training on: (a) this Regulation and the rules referred to in Article 1(2); (b) control methods and techniques relevant for the official controls and for the other official activities of the competent authorities; (c) production, processing and marketing methods and techniques. 3. The training activities referred to in paragraph 1 may be open to staff of the competent authorities of third countries and may be organised outside the Union. 4. Competent authorities shall ensure that the knowledge acquired through the training activities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is disseminated as necessary and appropriately used in the staff training activities referred to in Article 5(4). Training activities aimed at disseminating such knowledge shall be included in the training programmes referred to in Article 5(4). 5. The Commission may organise, in cooperation with the Member States, programmes for the exchange of staff of the competent authorities performing official controls or other official activities between two or more Member States. Such exchange may take place through the temporary secondment of staff of the competent authorities from one Member State to the other or through the exchange of such staff between the relevant competent authorities. 6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the organisation of the training activities referred to in paragraph 1, and of the programmes referred to in paragraph 5, of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Legislation on protective measures against pests of plants or plant products has been established at Union level since the 1970s. That legislation has been of major importance for the protection of the agriculture, the landscape and the environment in the Union. The first evaluation and revision of the Union phytosanitary policy took place between 2008 and 2016 and resulted in the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council 1 (‘the Regulation’), which repealed and replaced Council Directive 2000/29/EC 2 . Th e Regulation is currently the basic legal framework for the U nion plant health policy. Article 50 and Article 79(6) of the Regulation prescribed that the Commission submits, by the end of 2021, to the European Parliament and the Council reports on the enforcement and effectiveness of the import measures, and the experience gained by operators from the extension of the plant passport to all plants for planting (‘the reports submitted in accordance with Article 50 and Article 79(6)’). The Commission submitted those reports on 10 December 2021. The report on import measures concluded that it could be considered that those import measures, as well the inclusion of the plant health controls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council 3 have contributed towards achieving the objectives to enhance the phytosanitary protection of the Union and to increase proactive action against pests in compliance with the rules of the International Plant Protection Convention ( IPPC) through risk-based and transparent approaches. The report on the extension of the plant passport system to all plants for planting concluded that that extension has contributed towards achieving the objectives of the Regulation. More specifically it contributed to increased effectiveness of the protection against quarantine pests, improved preparedness for the identification of new plant pests of Union concern, improved understanding and awareness on the part of relevant stakeholders concerning the plant health importance, and increased possibility to identify pests. The reports identified areas for further discussion to enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the rules for plant health but also for official controls. Those discussions took place in 2022 with the Member States’ Chief Plant Health Officers, as well as with Union associations relevant to plant health. They led to the conclusion that certain improvements of the system were needed, which were only possible by amending the Regulation. Those improvements refer to the need for (i) declarations on the phytosanitary certificate for regulated non-quarantine pests (RNQPs), (ii) reporting the non-compliances with the RNQP rules in the electronic notification notification system (Information Management System for Official Controls – IMSOC), (iii) procedural rules for the submission and examination of non-EU countries’ requests for temporary derogations from import prohibitions, (iv) procedures for identifying and listing of high-risk plants and (v) rationalising the obligation to attach a plant passport to certain plants. Further improvements were identified through elements deriving from the experience gained by the Commission during the first 5 years of the application of the Regulation, with regard to (i) measures against pests qualifying as quarantine pests but not yet fully assessed, (ii) the need for autonomous acts for adopting temporary derogations from import prohibitions, and special import requirements, (iii) the need for setting temporary import requirements for the introduction into the Union of palnts, plant products or other objects which have been removed from the list of high risk plants but for which the phytosanitary risk has not been fully assesed, (iv) setting out requirements for third countries’ equivalence, and (v) the alternative official attestations. Finally, certain reporting elements were identified as falling under the scope of the Commission’s commitment to rationalise the reporting obligations of Member States and professional operators on the basis of its Communication on ‘ Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’ 4 . Rationalisation of the reporting obligations As regards the rationalisiation of reporting obligations, the Commission has taken a horizontal initiative. In its Communication on ‘Long-term competitiveness of the EU: looking beyond 2030’, it stressed the importance of a regulatory system that ensures that objectives are reached at minimum costs. It has committed therefore to a fresh push to rationalise and simplify reporting requirements, with the ultimate aim to reduce such burdens by 25%, without undermining the related policy objectives. Its overall objectives are summarised as follows: (a) to improve legal certainty and clarity for competent authorities and professional operators, both in the Union and in third countries; (b) to increase transparency, flexibility and consistency of the Union regulatory procedures; (c) to contribute through digitalisation, to the rationalisation of reporting obligations and the administrative tasks linked to them . Reporting requirements play a key role in ensuring correct enforcement and proper monitoring of legislation. Their costs are overall largely offset by the benefit they bring, in particular in monitoring and ensuring compliance with key policy measures. Reporting requirements can however also impose disproportionate burden on stakeholders, particularly affecting SMEs and micro-companies. Their cumulation over time can result in redundant, duplicating or obsolete obligations, inefficient frequency and timing, or inadequate methods of collection. The proposal thus aims also at rationalising reporting obligations by a combination of measures: – removal of reports which are not necessary any longer; – digitalisation of transmission of information; – reduction of frequency of reporting requirements The reporting requirements concern public authorities and, in certain cases, indirectly, professional operators. According to the proposed amendments, certain reporting obligations are removed, while others are digitalised or are requested with reduced frequency. 
Revised version (Article 130 Training and exchange of staff):
1. The Commission may organise training activities for the staff of the competent authorities and, where appropriate, for staff of other authorities of the Member States involved in investigations of possible infringements of this Regulation and of the rules referred to in Article 1(2). The Commission shall organise those activities in cooperation with the Member States concerned. 3. The training activities referred to in paragraph 1 may be open to staff of the competent authorities of third countries and may be organised outside the Union. 4. Competent authorities shall ensure that the knowledge acquired through the training activities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article is disseminated as necessary and appropriately used in the staff training activities referred to in Article 5(4). Training activities aimed at disseminating such knowledge shall be included in the training programmes referred to in Article 5(4). 5. The Commission may organise, in cooperation with the Member States, programmes for the exchange of staff of the competent authorities performing official controls or other official activities between two or more Member States. Such exchange may take place through the temporary secondment of staff of the competent authorities from one Member State to the other or through the exchange of such staff between the relevant competent authorities. 6. The Commission may, by means of implementing acts, lay down rules on the organisation of the training activities referred to in paragraph 1, and of the programmes referred to in paragraph 5, of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 145(2).
Article 131 Information management system for official controls (IMSOC)
1. The Commission shall, in collaboration with the Member States, set up and manage a computerised information management system for official controls (IMSOC) for the integrated operation of the mechanisms and tools through which data, information and documents concerning official controls and other official activities are managed, handled, and automatically exchanged. 2. The processing of personal data by the Member States and the Commission through the IMSOC and any one of its components shall only be carried out for the purpose of performing official controls and other official activities in accordance with this Regulation and with the rules referred to in Article 1(2).
Article 132 General functionalities of the IMSOC
The IMSOC shall: (a) allow for the computerised handling and exchange of information, data and documents necessary for the performance of official controls, resulting from the performance of official controls or the recording of the performance or outcome of official controls in all cases where this Regulation, the rules referred to in Article 1(2) or the delegated and implementing acts provided for in Articles 16 to 27 provide for the exchange among competent authorities, between the competent authorities and the Commission, and where appropriate with other authorities and the operators, of such information, data and documents; (b) provide a mechanism for the exchange of data, information and documents in accordance with Articles 102 to 108; (c) provide a tool to collect and manage the reports on official controls provided by Member States to the Commission; (e) integrate the existing computerised systems managed by the Commission and used for the rapid exchange of data, information and documents in relation to risks to human, animal health and welfare, and plant health, as established by Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and provide appropriate links between those systems and its other components.