Brussels, Belgium
February 11, 2014

ESA takes note of the AGRI Committee’s decision to reject the Commission proposal on the production and making available on the market of Plant Reproductive Material. Over the past few weeks, there has been growing support for this position because of the very little time left before the end of this parliamentary term to finalise a position in first reading, the large number of delegated acts foreseen in the proposal, and the very technical nature of the file.

The Parliament has also been subject to a massive misinformation campaign with regard the scope and nature of the Commission’s proposal, which has manipulated and distorted a debate that is necessary for Europe’s 12 million professional farmers who rely on seed as one of the main farming inputs contributing to sustainability and competitiveness.

“The debate could have taken place in this Parliament, but there were too many basic questions being addressed on top of the more technical ones”, comments Garlich v. Essen, Secretary-General of ESA. “Time and time again, we have stressed that this Regulation has got nothing to do with private gardeners exchanging seeds, intellectual property rights or farmers’ rights, or favouring market concentration in the sector”.

On the contrary, this is a fundamental piece of legislation that sets out the rules and requirements of the seed sector in Europe in order to meet the needs of users of seed in Europe. Like in many other markets, these rules relate to basic principles of consumer protection, consumer information, traceability, quality and health. “Sometimes, people forget that farmers are consumers operating in a number of markets upstream of agricultural production. The agricultural inputs sector is vibrant, innovative and dynamic, composed of a number of products and services, of which seed is an important, if not vital, part. We need to focus our minds on understanding the specific characteristics of the seed market and the requirements of professional agriculture and horticulture”, adds von Essen. “That is what the legislators did back in the 1960s with a large degree of success. What we need now is a modernised, simplified and harmonised legal framework that reflects the realities of the 21st Century and above all, that takes into account that the internal market for seed is composed of 28 Member States”.

Commenting on the Committee decision, von Essen explains: “If Parliament feels it does not have enough time to finalise a position, we respect that decision. On such an important file for the sector, content is more important than deadlines”. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the European Commission will amend its proposal. “As with any Commission proposal, some areas require clarification, as for instance in this case forest reproductive material, ornamentals, amateur markets and the marketing and conservation of old varieties. But that is precisely what the decision-making process is there for. We consider that the Commission’s proposal is a good basis for further discussion with Parliament and Member States and we remain committed to an open and constructive debate on these issues. In fact, we are convinced that positions are not as fundamentally opposed as they are sometimes made out to be”, von Essen concludes.

The pdf can be accessed via our ESA website following this link: http://www.euroseeds.org/news-room/news-archive
 

Website: http://www.euroseeds.org

Published: February 11, 2014