b'QUALITY SEED FOR PROFESSIONAL USETHE EU SEEKS TO FOSTER A MODERN AND EFFECTIVE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR PLANT BREEDING AND SEED PRODUCTION.BY: PIVI MANNERKORPIRECENT DEVELOPMENTS importance. The EP is sensitive to the public WHY IT MATTERS On the 8th of November 2019, the EU Memberdebate. Therefore, it is important to increase the More than halfStates in the Council requested a study on theknowledge of the European seed sector, how it is of all productivityEuropean Unions options to update the exist- working, within the public. For example, that it is gains across cropsing legislation on the production and marketingnot made up of only big and global companies, but is due to improvedof plant reproductive material, and a proposal, ifalso many SMEs. The discussions on GMOs have genetics and thisappropriate in view of the outcomes of the study. not necessarily given the correct picture of the share is expected tosector. We in the Commission should also do better grow even further.SO, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST? to communicate and exchange with the EP and in The EU CommissionThe Commission submitted in May 2013 a proposalparticular with its Committee of Agriculture and has defined seedon a Regulation on plant reproductive materialRural Development. On NGOs, we can do better too.security and diversityreplacing 12 Directives marketing seed and otherIt would be important to stay abreast of the as a specific goalplant reproductive material. It was based on andiscussion and debate, in particular through for the Farm-to-Forkexternal evaluation (2007-2008), a stakeholdersocial media. Nowadays in advocating policies and (F2F) strategy asconference and Action Plan (2009) and an impactamending legislation a well-prepared communica-sustainable foodassessment (2011-2012). The proposal was part of ation strategy is of the utmost importance. There systems rely onbroader package to modernise the EU animal healthare in social media, a wide diversity of perceptions them. This articlelaw, plant health law and official controls law. and non-factual information. At the end of the day, links this goal to theThe proposal was rejected by the Europeanit is the question of which narrative will win?ongoing evaluationParliament in March 2014, by a vast majority, andFinally, the expectations were huge: the of the EUs seedthen consequently withdrawn by the Commissionproposal was supposed to solve problems on con-marketing legislation,in March 2015. centration in the seed market, biodiversity loss, concentrating onfacilitate the marketing of all kinds of conserved the expectationsWHY DID WE FAIL? traditional seeds, etc. however, other specific legal and needs ofIt is useful to look into the report of the leadframeworks are in place for these objectives.professional seedparliamentary Committee of the European users and seedParliament (Committee on Agriculture and RuralARE OUR OBJECTIVES STILL VALID?suppliers called:Development) ) to the Plenaryreferring to theThe main objective at the time was to create a Quality seed foropinion Committee on Environment, Public Healthcommon and simplified framework for all sectors of professional use,and Food Safety (of 30 January 2014) and askingplant reproductive material. Others were to grant where seed is theto reject the proposal and to submit a new one.more responsibility and flexibility to operators, cut key input for farming. The report can be summarised as follows:red tape and costs by making the rules more flex-keep the individual legal frameworks, do notible and efficient across the EU, to enhance biodi-include forest reproductive material, add moreversity and opportunities for niche markets and for rules in the basic legislation and reduce the admin- small producers and to make the rules more com-istrative burden. It is questioned whether sellingpatible with policy aims such as sustainable inten-to final consumers (hobby gardeners) should be insification of agriculture and the conservation of the scope, what role the CPVO should have and thebiodiversity. Moreover, the aim was to streamline impact assessment is criticised. Moreover, biodi- administrative procedures to support innovation versity aspects had not been adequately addressed.and to establish a level playing field by introducing Other reasons expressed by some MEPs concernthe principle of cost recovery. It seems that most the unfortunate timing (shortly after the CAPof these objectives are still very valid!review and before elections) and the need for more time for discussions. WHAT IS OUR MOTIVATION NOW?Since 2012-2013 many things have changed, and HOW CAN WE LEARN FROM OURwe have the request of the Member States to take FAILURE? action. The concerns that existed around seven First of all, the communication and discussion withyears ago are still very relevant in the European the European Parliament (EP) is of the utmostUnion and indeed in the entire world, such as:6IEUROPEAN SEEDIEUROPEAN-SEED.COM'