Brussels, 11/03/2014 (Agence Europe) - As announced, the European Parliament decided on Tuesday 11 March to reject the proposed regulation on the production and marketing of plant reproductive material (“seed regulation”).
The MEPs' concern is that the text will give the Commission excessive powers and will not leave the member states with any margin to adapt the provisions to their own requirements. Following the Commission's refusal to withdraw its text and propose another, the Parliament has concluded the first reading of this text. The Council has still to take position on the same text.
In the vote, 650 MEPs voted against the Commission's proposal (15 voted in favour and 17 abstained). During the debate the day before, European Commissioner for Health Tonio Borg spared no efforts in defending his proposal, which came under attack from all sides of the hemicycle. The directive provides for the exact opposite of what its critics claim, Borg argued. For example, the idea that traditional seeds will now be regulated gives the impression that they are not regulated today. On the contrary, today they are regulated, and with the new proposal they will have a lighter registration procedure, said Borg. He added that the proposal seeks to regulate the marketing of seeds, not the use of seeds, “so all these criticisms that we are regulating the use of seeds, whether on farms or in private gardens, are just not true", he said. He added that the proposal aims to reduce the administrative burden, particularly for micro-enterprises.
“Today's vote shows the depth of Parliament's dissatisfaction with the Commission's proposal, which failed to meet its core objectives such as simplifying the rules and promoting innovation. It also prompted many concerns among MEPs, for instance about merging 12 directives into a single directly-applicable regulation with no leeway for member states to tailor new rules to their needs”, said the chair of the committee on agriculture, Paolo De Castro (S&D, Italy). “We hope member states will be strong enough to follow Parliament's position and reject this unsatisfactory proposal', De Castro added.
'As members of the European Parliament, we want to take full responsibility for this legislation. For this reason, we cannot decide in a hasty manner on this proposal, which is crucial for many growers' associations, companies and citizens. The high number of delegated acts (90!) would give the Commission excessively wide powers over certain issues in areas which, due to their sensitivity, should be defined in the legal text”, explained rapporteur Paolo Francesco Silvestris (EPP, Italy). He explained that the Parliament was rejecting a text which “delays dealing with certain concepts for niche materials, heterogeneous materials”. He lamented the fact that the Commission had refused to withdraw this “highly controversial” text and presented a new, “improved” version.
Albert Dess (EPP, Germany) also spoke out against the high number of delegated acts and the fact that the proposal makes the system more complicated. “There is no urgent need to conclude this dossier. The system in place has proven its worth”, he stressed. He would have liked the Commission to take its time and make a new proposal, involving a consultation of the stakeholders. Karin Kadenbach (S&D, Austria) described the proposal as “lopsided” and likely to increase red tape. “This text is designed for industry. Small players will be overwhelmed with pieces of paper”, she said.
The Greens at the Parliament welcome the fact that the proposal has been thrown out. However, José Bové lamented the fact that the EPP and S&D groups “declined to send out a clear message, stating the precise reasons for their disagreement with the text”. The Greens feel that the Commission should “review its copy to acknowledge the right of peasant farmers to reuse, trade and improve seeds adapting to climate change in full respect of cultivated biodiversity”. “We cannot be content with a few mini-niches for the farmers and small businesses. To get us on board, the European Commission needs to stop favouring the large seed companies privatising living things (biotechnology, patents)”, Bové remarked.
Next steps. As the European Commission refused to withdraw its proposal after the Parliament rejected it, the MEPs finalised the first reading and sent their position to the Council. If the Council supports the Parliament's rejection, the legislation process will end. Alternatively, the Council could amend the Commission's original proposal. If it does, then the Parliament could either reject the Council's amendments at second reading - and thus kill the legislative proposal for good - or start negotiations with the Council. (LC)