The general objectives are to remove any obstacle or barrier in the internal market in order to ensure a level playing field for the marketing of PRM. For all types of users and consumers, a wide diversity of choice of PRM should be ensured. The revision also supports innovation and competitiveness of the EU PRM industry. Finally, it should contribute to the objectives of the Green Deal and its related Farm to Fork, Biodiversity, EU Climate Adaptation, European Digital and New EU Forest Strategies. In particular, it should support adaptation to, and mitigation of, the impact of climate change, and contribute to food security, sustainable production and biodiversity protection.
The specific objectives are to:
Increase coherence of the legislation through simplified and harmonised basic rules on fundamental principles (e.g. scope of application, definitions of ‘marketing’ and ‘operator’);
Eliminate fragmentation of requirements that results in adjustment of costs for operators;
Increase the efficiency/effectiveness of the PRM sector through the establishment of simplified, more flexible and proportionate procedures;
Clarify rules for seed conservation networks and PRM marketed to amateur gardeners;
Establish appropriate conditions for the development of organic varieties suitable for the organic production;
Empower Competent Authorities to allocate control resources through a harmonised and risk-based framework for official controls;
Support the conservation and sustainable use of plant and forest genetic resources to promote the development of diverse farming systems, defend biodiversity, adapt to, and mitigate, the impact of climate change and contribute to food security;
Introduce lighter requirements for conservation varieties for all PRM sectors and, where appropriate, for amateur varieties;
Support innovation and the development of digital technologies and bio-molecular techniques in the PRM sector.
To address the identified problems, and achieve the above objectives, several policy options will be considered in the impact assessment. Those options will be developed on the basis of the following options.
Policy choices
Baseline: Do nothing.
No changes to the current legislation; focus on implementing the legislation in a way, which takes into account, to the extent possible, the objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy.
Option 1: Alignment of definitions and structure of the legislation
This option would keep all 12 marketing Directives. It would include alignment and simplification of the structure of the legislation and decision-making procedures and introduce flexibility for operators. It would also introduce measures in support of sustainability. It would focus on the needs of the professional sector. It would establish a lighter registration system for PRM marketed by seed conservation networks and PRM marketed to amateur gardeners but PRM would still need to comply with the requirements of the marketing legislation as regards identity, health and quality of the material. Exchange of PRM between farmers would remain in the scope of the PRM other than FRM legislation, meaning that it would be considered as ‘marketing’.
The amendments would concern:
Aligning the structure, definitions and decision-making procedures between the Directives;
Adding definitions on terms such as operator/marketing where missing and/or streamline definitions across Directives;
Establishing and aligning instruments for protecting conservation varieties in all Directives and, where appropriate, for amateur varieties;
Removing duplications in inspections, inconsistent rules applicable to the same material and ensuring coherence with the plant health, GMO and organic legislation;
Relying on tertiary legislation to set requirements and to adapt these requirements to technical and scientific developments;
Increasing the number of tasks that operators may carry out under supervision of the competent authorities such as the tests carried out for registration and certification;
4 --------------------------------------
· Including guidance on how to record the characteristics determining the identity of FRM in relevant documentation;
· Supporting the Green Deal objectives through measures addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation, the conservation and sustainable use of plant and forest genetic resources and the protection of biodiversity;
· Supporting the Farm to Fork Strategy by facilitating the marketing of varieties adapted to the needs of organic agriculture through e.g. adapted DUS and VCU tests and contributing to reaching the organic objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy;
· Amending existing official control rules and adding new rules, catering for the specific needs of the respective sector.
Option 2: Alignment of definitions and structure of the legislation while matching needs of professional sector, seed conservation networks and users
This option would include the general amendments as described under option 1 and additionally would exempt seed conservation networks and marketing to amateur gardeners from the scope of application of the legislation. Exempting the marketing of limited amounts of PRM, in particular by seed conservation networks for non-profit purposes, would incentivise PRM diversity, and boost and promote the marketing of more local and traditional products. It would be analysed if, and how, reducing the overall number of Directives is advantageous and/or constitutes a legal simplification. The FRM legislation would still be kept as a separate legal instrument because the production and certification process of FRM, as well as its basic concepts, are distinct from the one of the other sectors.
The further amendments would concern:
· Scope of application of the PRM other than FRM legislation: clarifying exemptions and in particular create a specific EU framework for the exchange in kind between farmers of PRM and services restricting this activity e.g. to farmers belonging to an association/network; limiting the scope of application of the PRM other than FRM legislation to the professional sector, excluding seed conservation networks and amateur gardeners from the scope of the legislation. No EU rules or national rules should regulate seed conservation networks and the amateur market. Those sectors could be self-regulated;
· Introducing modern and flexible processes adapted to new technologies to enhance the efficiency of the certification/inspection and variety registration systems, and label security, traceability and integrity of PRM;
· Introducing mandatory sustainability criteria into variety testing;
· Including or excluding the PRM legislation in the scope of the Official Controls Regulation;
· Keeping the scope of the FRM legislation or extending the scope to certain clearly defined non-forestry purposes (agroforestry and biodiversity purposes, biomass and energy generation).
Option 3: Full harmonisation of the legislation
This option would create a full harmonisation by proposing one single policy instrument with specific chapters for the different crop groups. The policy instrument on FRM would still be kept separate. The professional sector, seed conservation networks and marketing to amateur gardeners would be covered by the scope of the legislation. Exchange of PRM between farmers would remain in the scope of the PRM other than FRM legislation, meaning that it would be considered as ‘marketing’. This option would focus on PRM quality and high guarantees for users and would improve conditions for its free circulation within the internal market. Derogations and exemptions from the requirements of the legislation would be kept to a strict minimum, by restricting the possibility for Member States to establish less or more stringent national requirements for marketing in comparison to the respective EU requirements. PRM would be included in the scope of the Official Controls Regulation.
In addition to the measures proposed under the bullet points under option 1, the amendments would concern:
· Scope/applicability of the PRM other than FRM legislation to the marketing of varieties of PRM to professional and non-professional end users;
· Applicability of the FRM legislation exclusively to FRM marketed for forestry purposes;
· Including PRM into the scope of the Official Controls Regulation.
|
C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts
|
5 -----------------------------------------
Likely economic impacts
|
Offering more flexibility to operators would increase the responsiveness and adaptability of companies in bringing PRM to the market. It would continue contributing to food and nutritional security for EU citizens and ensure the availability of sufficient and diverse FRM for afforestation and reforestation. This would have an overall positive economic impact on operators and consumers. The sector’s international competitiveness would also be improved. The possibility to carry out variety testing and field inspections and to produce PRM under official supervision would increase the efficiency of the sector and, in addition, would decrease administrative burdens and costs for Competent Authorities. Many SMEs and smaller companies with limited human resources, however, would continue to depend on the expertise and human resources of the Competent Authorities for variety registration and certification and this may limit the savings made by Competent Authorities. Lighter and less costly registration requirements for certain variety types (e.g. conservation varieties) would create more equal conditions for operators across the EU Member States and improve income of small companies producing for niche markets, reducing also costs for other operators. More responsiveness of the legislation to new technical developments in the PRM sector by simplifying procedures to adapt the legislation would support innovation and research, and therefore also competitiveness, in an already research-intensive sector, with positive economic impacts on all types of operators in the sector. A more harmonised implementation of the Directives through, for example, clearer definitions of exemptions to the scope of application and a harmonised and risk-based framework for controls, would help achieve more even conditions and create similar opportunities for producers in different Member States.
|
Likely social impacts
|
The PRM sector, in particular the breeding industry and FRM sector are highly innovative involving a highly skilled workforce and state of the art facilities. A strong, sustainable and internationally competitive breeding industry and FRM sector would support the creation and maintenance of skilled employment in rural and remote areas. European cultural heritage finds it expression also in landscape and agricultural diversity, and diversity of forests. Facilitated procedures for the registration of conservation and amateur varieties and FRM naturally adapted to local and regional conditions would contribute to the protection and continued viability of this heritage.
|
Likely environmental impacts
|
Supporting PRM, which contributes to species diversity, genetic diversity within tree species (FRM) and within-field genetic diversity (mixtures of varieties, heterogeneous material, organic varieties) would help lowering the environmental impact of agriculture and forestry. Genetic diversity of a crop in the field could ensure a greater likelihood that, for example, not all plants in the field will be lost in extreme weather events (e.g. better resistance to drought of individual plants) or when the plants are attacked by damaging plant pests. Likewise, genetic diversity within a single tree species is of utmost importance to avoid that entire forests can be wiped out by, for example, bark beetle infestations. Lighter rules for the registration of conservation varieties and creating conditions for amateur gardeners to have a wide choice of old and new varieties, would establish conditions for the conservation of genetic diversity in fields and in gardens, which will therefore remain available for future breeding efforts.
In the testing of new varieties during the registration process, sustainability criteria would address resistance to threats from plant pests and from adverse weather conditions. Introducing mandatory sustainability criteria into variety testing would support the development of more climate-proof varieties, which are e.g. resilient in the face of extreme weather events and/or are tolerant or resistant to plant pests. This would contribute to enhancing food security. Establishing a specific system for the registration of organic varieties would support the growth of organic agriculture and help avoiding the use of plant protection products and other external inputs, thereby supporting two core aims of the Farm to Fork Strategy. It is the combination of actions and characteristics at species and variety level that would support adaptation in land ecosystem management and allow adapting to, and mitigating, the impact of climate change.
Improved FRM legislation combined with sustainable forest management would result in healthy and resilient forests that would contribute to adaptation to, and mitigation of, the impact of climate change, and would better protect biodiversity.
|
Likely impacts on fundamental rights
|
None
|
Likely impacts on simplification and/or administrative burden
|
Legal simplification would improve the coherence of the legislation and lead to a better implementation, with less burdens for operators active in more than one Member State or in more than one sector.
Increased flexibility would be achieved by widening the possibility for operators to carry out tasks (inspection/certification, elements of variety testing, FRM production) under the supervision of the Competent Authorities. Companies could more efficiently plan their operations in line with their needs and capacities and could make effective use of in-house expertise. Reducing the complexity of procedures and cumbersome
|
|