EUROPEAN NURSERYSTOCK ASSOCIATION npo (ENA)
ENA
ENA is the European network representing the common interests of nursery stock growers and traders.
Lobbying Activity
European Nursery Association demands CAP inclusion for young growers
14 Jul 2025
Message — ENA calls for nurseries to receive direct payments and equal funding under the CAP. They also urge for improved land access and specialized financial support for young entrepreneurs.12
Why — Inclusion in EU support schemes would provide nurseries with financial stability and growth opportunities.3
Impact — Construction firms would face higher project costs due to mandatory spending on greenery.4
Meeting with Christine Schneider (Member of the European Parliament) and Bund deutscher Baumschulen
15 May 2025 · Nursery
Response to Updating the list of invasive species threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services across the EU
24 Mar 2025
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents nurseriesproducers of live plantsat the European level. We comment on the proposed inclusion of the invasive flatworm species Obama nungara. While we recognise the ecological rationale for regulation, we express serious concerns regarding the economic and operational impacts on nursery and horticultural sectors. Nurseries face rigorous regulations under EU Plant Health Legislation, which imposes extensive controls. Additional regulations without clear, economically viable management measures create uncertainty and risk severe economic consequences if Obama nungara is found in production batches. Some Member States have started national control measures for Obama nungara, leading to significant costs and operational challenges for affected nurseries. Research funding for effective detection and control methods and compensation for impacted nurseries are currently inadequate. The estimated financial burden of managing Obama nungara for EU nurseries is between 400.000.000 and 600.000.000 annually. This includes higher costs due to lengthy delivery times, extra labour for inspections, treatment of infected plants, and destruction of heavily infested plants. These costs do not cover the expenses incurred by authorities for inspections and enforcement, which remain unfunded. We call for dedicated financial aid to support affected nurseries, covering increased operational costs, research for effective management strategies, and compensation for destroyed plants to maintain sector viability. We highlight two perspectives among nurseries: Some support the inclusion of Obama nungara on the IAS list to enable coordinated EU assistance, especially concerning import controls. Others oppose listing due to potential stringent production controls and eradication measures, leading to significant economic burdens. Due to limited detection efforts, there is a lack of comprehensive data on Obama nungara's distribution and prevalence in European nurseries. To address these differing views, we propose that extensive surveys and research be conducted before any decision on Obama nungara. Coordinated actions by DG ENV and DG SANTE should define feasible management measures, anticipating impacts on compliant nurseries and ensuring financial support. We urge the European Commission to delay the inclusion of Obama nungara on the IAS list until precise data is available, focusing instead on stringent import controls to prevent further introductions. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonisation at the EU level. An EU mechanism should ensure that all Member States align their measures consistently, preventing overly lenient or strict policies. Regulatory decisions must consider practical implications for agriculture and nurseries to ensure environmental effectiveness and economic sustainability.
Read full responseEuropean nurseries call for flexible rules in supply chain
10 Mar 2025
Message — ENA requests making written contracts voluntary for most transactions. They want electronic communications accepted as valid agreements. They seek to keep cost prices confidential.123
Why — This reduces administrative burdens and allows flexible inventory management through discounted sales.45
Response to Measures related to specific plant pests - Xylella fastidiosa
26 Jul 2024
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries plant growers and traders at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding this proposal, which are included in the attached document. The key points are summarised here. The current focus on eradication may no longer be suitable, particularly in regions where Xylella fastidiosa subspecies multiplex is established, such as Southern France. Alternative practical measures could be proposed for combinations of Xylella fastidiosa subspecies and cultivated plant species scientifically known to be of lower risk. Amendments to Regulation (EU) 2020/1201: Article 2: The proposed survey requirements for pest detection in non-open-air environments lack specificity. ENA advocates for a clear definition of affected MS, locations and agroclimatic conditions, the establishment of an official list by EFSA if necessary, and a broader scope of surveillance to include all potential risk areas. Article 8: ENA supports enhanced vector control measures but recommends including a provision that ensures the availability of plant protection products for all vector stages and all crops, and that Member States publish control timing based on local conditions in their plans of action. Article 24: The requirement for physical protection against pests might be impractical for large or open-ground plants. ENA proposes alternative measures such as additional testing of plants and mother plants when physical protection is unfeasible. Articles 25, 28, and 29: ENA agrees with the proposed lists of high-risk plants but suggests including synonyms for these plants, particularly Salvia rosmarinus (Rosmarinus officinalis), to avoid issues due to changing botanical nomenclature. Including synonyms or EPPO codes in the regulation would ensure uniform application and prevent control gaps. ENA appreciates the consideration of these proposals to enhance the effectiveness and practicality of the plant health regulations and remains available for further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Measures related to specific plant pests - Agrilus planipennis
7 Dec 2023
The European Nurserystock Association, ENA, represents nurseries, plant growers and traders at the European level. ENA is pleased to share its views on the proposed Commission Implementing Regulation that seeks to prevent the spread and establishment of Agrilus planipennis within the Union's territory. We celebrate that the EC is prioritising Plant Health, and we want to emphasise the critical importance of plant health as the primary asset for nurseries. It is imperative that the EU and MS implement robust plant health controls and surveys as forecasted in the proposal, ensuring they are executed with precision, to avoid the introduction of Agrilus planipennis. It is important to note that the Plant Health Regulations do not permit pests on plants in nurseries. Although this is not the primary goal of the Regulation, we urge the EC and MSs to permit the use of Plant Protection Products in nurseries fully. The obligation to grow and keep pest-free plants must be accompanied by the permission to use the necessary tools to deliver pest-free plants to the maximum extent possible. We suggest reducing the buffer zone of the demarcated areas from 10 km to 5 km, given that the controls at import and the surveys within the Union will be well executed as written in the proposal. Therefore, we propose: Article 3, 1. (b) a buffer zone with a width of at least 5 km beyond the boundary of the infested zone; instead of: Article 3, 1. (b) a buffer zone with a width of at least 10 km beyond the boundary of the infested zone. ENA remains at the European Commission's disposal for further clarification and discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Measures related to specific plant pests - Xylella fastidiosa
25 May 2023
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries plant growers and traders at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding Draft Commission Implementing Regulation amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1201 as regards the lists of plants known to be susceptible to Xylella fastidiosa. We agree with the proposed lists of plants, as they result from scientific and technical progress. However, the lists of plants should be undeniably clear for all producers and traders in addition to scientifically sound. Although European professional operators use botanical names and not common plant names in their production and marketing materials, the latest developments in the international nomenclature the name changes made by scientists are not immediately adopted. Usually, it takes years before they become standard in the nursery and retail sectors. Therefore, we propose including the synonyms, the previously used names of some plant species, to minimise plants escaping control because their names are not recognised as subject to this Regulation. Synonyms in the Regulation are particularly relevant for Xylella fastidiosa high-risk species grown and traded in significant quantities in the EU. Additionally, to ensure that everyone in the EU follows the same references, we propose to include the EPPO code for Xylella fastidiosas high-risk plant species that are of utmost relevance on the market and whose name has been substantially modified. This will guarantee that all professional operators and competent authorities quickly have a reliable reference. In the attached document we include the particular changes we are proposing.
Read full responseResponse to Measures related to Popillia japonica
28 Apr 2023
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries plant growers and traders at the European level, welcomes the opportunity to share the viewpoints regarding this Draft Commission Implementing Regulation on Popillia japonica, and remains at the disposal of the EC and MS to assist in the preparation of effective legislation.
Read full responseEuropean Nurserystock Association urges simplified pesticide record-keeping rules
3 Nov 2022
Message — Nurseries request a specific category to simplify complex reporting for their diverse plant species. They want to remove growth stage requirements and use standard plant naming lists. They also propose replacing electronic logging with a single annual declaration.123
European nursery sector warns pesticide cuts threaten plant health
19 Sept 2022
Message — The association argues that nurseries require specific rules and exemptions from generic pesticide reduction targets. They request the removal of new bureaucratic requirements and demand financial compensation for losses.123
Why — Exemptions would lower administrative costs and protect nurseries from expensive new reporting requirements.45
Impact — Environmental groups lose as the proposal to reject reduction targets keeps pesticide levels high.6
Response to Measures related to the containment of specific plant pests - Aleurocanthus spiniferus
22 Aug 2022
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX establishing measures for the containment of Aleurocanthus spiniferus (Quaintance) within certain demarcated areas.
We agree with all provisions published in this draft EU Regulation. It describes the establishment of demarcated areas for containment, the measures within these areas, the surveys, and the annual reporting. However, there are no requirements or criteria for the movement of the specified plants outside the demarcated areas, and the requirements in point 17.1 of ANNEX VIII of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 do not match exactly the same specified plants. This means there could still be a risk of Aleurocanthus spiniferus spreading outside the demarcated areas.
To minimise the risk of the spread of Aleurocanthus spiniferus, and for the best practical implementation of the Plant Health Regulations, we suggest harmonising both pieces of legislation by citing the same specified plants in this draft Regulation on Aleurocanthus spiniferus and in point 17.1 of ANNEX VIII of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072; or, alternatively, by adding to this draft Regulation a provision requiring that the specified plants should be free from Aleurocanthus spiniferus for the movement from the demarcated areas, within the buffer zones, and from the respective infected zones into the buffer zones as required by the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072.
ENA remains at the European Commission's disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Updating the list of invasive species threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services across the EU
14 Dec 2021
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding the update of the list of invasive alien species. The national live plant producers' organisations from sixteen EU Member States are members of ENA.
We fully agree on the strict control of IAS; however, we believe that a different solution should be adopted for one of the IA plant species added to the Union list: Celastrus orbiculatus. We propose to add it only to the National lists -or Regional list- in the EU Member States or Regions where its risk is high and unacceptable.
Celastrus orbiculatus can be found in the assortment of plants specialised in facade greening and assortment of full range assorted products. The Federation of German Nurseries (BdB) collected the following data within its membership: on average, each business generates around € 30,000 per year with the culture of several Celastrus orbiculatus varieties. In addition, an average of 1.5 workers per year are assigned to the culture of Celastrus. In Poland, 10% of nurseries offer Celastrus orbiculatus; there are 3 native species of climbers only – Humulus lupulus (perennial), Lonicera periclymenum and Hedera helix – but none of them can be use in such an effective way as Celastrus orbiculatus on urban sites, especially for covering walls or road screens. We have to plant and cultivate alien species of climbers in our cities, and C. orbiculatus is one of the best climbers for that purpose.
Plant biology & nature conservation relevant facts:
The flowering from May to June plant offers, due to its lush flowers, splendour as a beehive tree. In the course of the often internationally documented bee mortality, the urban space is increasingly being used as a retreat for native species of animals. The theme of vertical urban greening receives a lot of attention worldwide. It is a valuable instrument for sustainable urban development and the ecological upgrading of urban space. Celastrus orbiculatus offers, in addition to its suitability as a facade greener, a rich supply of food in the form of flowering for various nectar eaters (such as species of wild bees) or in the form of fruits in female plants for multiple species of birds (especially in autumn and winter). Celastrus orbiculatus is a unisexual plant, which means that, given proper consideration of this plant trait, the risk of vegetative proliferation can be further minimised.
The consequence for the nursery industry:
The nurseries in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden are the most impacted by the inclusion of Celastrus orbiculatus on the Union list of IAS, as it would cause massive and immediate damage to plant growers. Due to the production process, which needs several years, the economic loss will directly impact nurseries.
We propose to include Celastrus orbiculatus in the National or Regional EU lists. If Celastrus orbiculatus is included in any IAS list, we ask the EC to create a compensation scheme for the stocks in production at the time of entry into force of this update so as not to penalise the nurseries that are legally producing this species. The competent authorities of each Member State have access to the production data of Celastrus orbiculatus, as all plant species production in the EU is under control following Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and the legislative acts based thereon.
Read full responseResponse to Integrated Farm Statistics - List of variables and their description for the reference year 2023
30 Aug 2021
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX on the data to be provided for the reference year 2023 pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 of the European Parliament and of the Council on integrated farm statistics as regards the list of variables and their description and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1200/2009.
We propose to separate 'flowers and ornamental plants' into two categories, ‘flowers’ and ‘ornamental plants’ in section II. VARIABLES OF LAND of ANNEX I, CLND 046 and 082.
Production systems and market channels are different, and European Regulations on Plant Health and on Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature consider both to be different products. This differentiation is necessary and valuable for the EU and the MS to have the knowledge of surfaces devoted to cut flowers production and to ornamental plants production; it is easy to implement and doesn't burden the farmers.
Please refer to the entire feedback in the annexed document.
ENA remains at the European Commission's disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of protective measures against pests of plants
23 Aug 2021
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 as regards the listing of pests, prohibitions and requirements for the introduction into, and movement within, the Union of plants, plant products and other objects, and repealing Decisions 98/109/EC and 2002/757/EC and Implementing Regulations (EU) 2020/885 and (EU) 2020/1292.
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to study in advance the EC's proposals to amend these necessary prohibitions and requirements that apply to the Plant Health Regulations.
ENA does agree with the proposed amendments related to plants for planting, our core business.
We have no opinion on the phytosanitary requirements related to seeds, fruits, cut flowers or wood.
For future amendments, we would appreciate it if the professional sectors concerned were informed in advance, providing them with the scientific information supporting the proposed changes when necessary.
ENA remains at the European Commission's disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Revision of the plant and forest reproductive material legislation
13 Jul 2021
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding the revision of the plant and forest reproductive material legislation. The national live plant producers' organisations from sixteen EU Member States are members of ENA.
Our feedback is from the point of view of plant producers; therefore, it is mainly related to current PRM Directives on ornamentals, fruit plants, vine and FRM.
We favour changing the current legislation because the problems, well described in the document, need to be tackled. In principle, we are in favour of a full harmonisation of the legislation. The future legislation must guarantee harmonisation, both among MS and at the technical level, and the simplification of the processes.
We want to highlight two basic concepts and we think a distinction should be made between them:
- Reproduction = Propagation (Seed, Vegetative, NGTs)
- Production: growing the plants previously reproduced.
In our opinion, reproduction and production must have different approaches, at least in the ornamental plants' sector.
Additionally, we would like to remark that the plant species controlled in each crop type should be the same in the entire EU.
Certain definitions should be narrowed down to prevent, in different MS, different interpretations and higher requirements than those laid down in EU legislation.
We are in favour of some exceptions for amateur gardeners and seed conservation purposes, although clearly stating the borders of these activities to avoid fraud.
We support that one set of DUS data may be used for both variety listing and protection purposes ('one key several doors'); it saves costs and provides an additional incentive for innovation. However, and this is fundamental for ornamental plants, DUS examination should be compulsory for the Protection of new plant varieties only and not for those varieties already in the market.
The criterion of a variety's value for cultivation and use (VCU) assures that every new variety constitutes a relevant improvement to the comparable existing ones with a view to the intended use. VCU criteria therefore clearly respond to challenges like sustainable agriculture, food security and consumer demand for special products. Nevertheless, VCU should not be included as a requirement for ornamental plants.
Plant health assurances as provided by the Plant Health Regulations must be applicable for all plant materials and all users to effectively prevent the unwanted spread of pests and diseases in and from the territory of the European Union. Consequently, we advocate for simplifying plant health requirements in the PRM legislation, or at least harmonise them when technically higher plant health requirements are necessary.
The new harmonised legislation should not increase the current requirements. Plant producers expect simplification of procedures, and even bureaucracy, related to the production of ornamental plants. We have the impression that the industry is currently overburdened with onerous procedures and obligations.
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules
6 Aug 2020
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views regarding the update of the EU rules on sustainable pesticide use. ENA is committed to the sustainable use of Plant Protection Products and supports an improved implementation of the SUD. ENA's feedback is included in the attachment.
Read full responseResponse to Update of measures to control Xylella fastidiosa
7 Jul 2020
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries – plant growers and traders – at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views regarding this Implementing Regulation. We think that this Regulation will be useful to prevent the risk of the introduction into or the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa.
We propose one change only, on Article 23. Where is written:
Movement within the infected zones and within the buffer zones of specified plants which have been grown for part of their life in a demarcated area
The movement within the infected zones and within the buffer zones of specified plants which have been grown for at least part of their life in a demarcated area may only be allowed where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
We suggest writing:
Movement within the infected zones, within the buffer zones and from the buffer zones into the infected zones of specified plants which have been grown for part of their life in a demarcated area
The movement within the infected zones, within the buffer zones and from the buffer zones into the infected zones of specified plants which have been grown for at least part of their life in a demarcated area may only be allowed where all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
Article 27 b), on plant passports, already refers to the movement of specified plants from the buffer zones into the infected zones.
ENA remains at the European Commission’s disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Rules on plant passports
10 Jan 2020
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX on types and species of plants for planting not exempted from the traceability code requirement for plant passports under Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Directive 92/105/EEC.
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views regarding this Implementing Regulation. We want to make the following remarks:
We think that the Regulations to minimise the risks of spreading plant pests are enough to ensure healthy plants and plant material, and additional demands for traceability codes are unnecessary. The administrative burden and costs on the producers of ornamental plants would be too high and not be in coherence with the raise in plant healthy safety.
The risks of plant pests and pathogens should be managed way earlier in the chain before the plants are ready for the final user, the journey during the pre-propagation/cultivation phase. They are controlled throughout their growth and should thus be free from plant pests and pathogens when they are ready for sale. To have to include a traceability code on a plant passport will affect many times rapid trade flows and increase the administrative burden and cost for producers.
Regarding article 69 in the plant health regulation, there are other ways to ensure traceability. In many cases the plant passport will be thrown away after purchase and planting of the plants by the final consumer. We, therefore, think that the requirement for a traceability code should thus only be used in a few specific cases of plant species where there is an identified risk for pests and pathogens that can be present in plants that are ready for sale to final users.
Point 1 in the Annex to the proposal ´All plants for planting that produce a persistent wood stem, including trees, shrubs, vines and climbing plants´ is too broad, and also, not at all clear enough what species are meant. It is also not clear if the requirement in point 1 also covers plants for planting that at the time of selling as a plant ready for sale to final user, have not yet produced a ´persistent wood stem´. Instead, we would urge the Commission to have a short and specific list containing the name of the possible concerned species and a clear reason why these species should be included; otherwise there is a high risk that the requirement will be implemented in different ways among MS.
Regarding distance sales, for which the plants must have a plant passport, and for the same above reasons, we think that giving a unique traceability code to each plant unit should not be necessary.
ENA remains at the European Commission’s disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office
23 Sept 2019
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/… of XXX amending Regulation (EC) No 1238/95 as regards the fees payable to the Community Plant Variety Office.
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views regarding this Implementing Regulation.
WE POSITIVELY VALUE THE WORK OF THE COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY OFFICE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO INCREASE COSTS FOR EXAMINATIONS.
However, and although it is not the goal of this Implementing Regulation, we would draw your attention to some issues – although not unexpected- we are facing now, regarding the Plant Breeders Rights within the United Kingdom borders in case of the no-deal scenario in the withdrawal of the UK from the EU:
- From the 1st of November 2019, CPVO will protect plant variety rights in a significantly smaller territory and market. An applicant will have to make a new application to the UK, with extra costs for what used to be done easier and cheaper.
- The samples of many applications coming from our members had to be examined in Cambridge (UK). The procedure from the shipment of samples until the final answer used to take up to 6 months. We have been informed on the 19th of February 2019 that: “All varieties with a Community plant variety right granted by 29 January 2019 will continue to be protected in the UK by giving them rights under UK legislation. No action will be required by right holders.” We all understand that this probably means a new application must be made to the UK office. However, this decision has an immediate effect on all samples sent before the 19th of February 2019, the results of which may be announced in August 2019.
- Until today, many samples still have to be sent to Cambridge and be examined in UK territory, and the examination centre has not been transferred to another EU country.
- The breeders are now confronted with an application that has value in smaller territory than the one considered the day of sample shipment.
- The decision that new applications to UK office may be required was taken with the old deadline for an agreement which was the 29th of March 2019. The new deadline is seven months later, on 31 October 2019.
For these reasons, we propose the CPVO to make a new effort, so the UK Government gives plant variety rights without the need of a new application to holders of Community Plant Variety Rights granted before 30 of August 2019.
Read full responseResponse to Listing regulated pests, plants, plant products and other objects
10 Sept 2019
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/… of XXX establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views regarding this Implementing Regulation. We want to make the following remarks:
1
Article 14 states: Plant passports referred to in paragraph 1 shall bear the designation 'ZP'. The same designation is used in Annex XIV List of plants, plant products and other objects for which a plant passport with the designation "ZP" is required for introduction into, and movement within certain protected zones as referred to in Article 14. On the other hand, the Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2313 always use the designation ‘PZ’ for Plant Passports required for plants being introduced into, or moved within, protected zones. To avoid any confusion on Plant Passports, we ask to reconsider that either the same designation 'PZ' is used in all Regulations or both designations 'ZP' and 'PZ' are allowed to be used interchangeably following all Regulations.
2
Annex II, Part B, table E. Nematodes includes Meloidogyne chitwoodi and Meloidogyne fallax. These are pests with a broad range of host plants and listing these pests as quarantine organisms known to occur in the Union territory, will have a major impact on cultivation of nursery stock and perennials if these nematodes are found, due to phytosanitary measures aimed to eliminate these pests. Until now, these nematodes are not seen as a risk for growing nursery stock and perennials.
3
The special requirements stated in Annex VII [List of plants, plant products and other objects, originating from third countries and the corresponding special requirements for their introduction into the Union territory, as referred to in Article 8(1)] point 1 [Growing medium, attached to or associated with plants, intended to sustain the vitality of the plants, with the exception of sterile medium of in-vitro plants] cannot be realised for nursery stock material, and plants for planting of pot- and garden plants which are grown outdoors in nurseries in the open field. The Commission should take in account that the EU is mostly exporter of live plants intended for planting and, because the drafted requirements will severely limit the imports, in particular of ornamental plant, it will cause the reaction of third countries that will decide to apply similar phytosanitary barriers. For these reasons, in Annex VII, point 1, column ‘Special requirements, we suggest:
• paragraph a) sub-paragraph (i), inserting ‘practically’ after ‘was’:
Official statement that:
a) the growing medium, at the time of planting of the associated plants:
(i) was practically free from soil and organic matter and had not been previously used for growing plants or for any other agricultural purposes,
• removing paragraph b) and, instead, making a ‘systems approach’ possible. This would offer an opportunity to import plants (trees) with soil when other mentioned requirements are not possible to comply with.
Additionally, establishing a transitional period of two years would help professionals to adapt to these strict measures.
ENA remains at the European Commission’s disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
10 September 2019
Read full responseResponse to Labelling of propagating material of fruit plants
31 Jul 2019
ENA feedback to the Draft Commission Implementing Directive (EU) …/… of XXX amending Implementing Directive 2014/96/EU on the requirements for the labelling, sealing and packaging of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production, falling within the scope of Council Directive 2008/90/EC as regards the colour of the label for certified categories of propagating material and fruit plants and the content of the supplier’s document.
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views regarding this Implementing Directive.
We positively value the aim and the requirements of the Implementing Directive, and we are in favour of harmonisation at EU level of the colours used in the labels of fruit plants, but we must make some remarks regarding the colour of the CAC label:
• CAC fruit trees are the most produced and commercialised category,
• in many countries, the colour of the CAC fruit plants is not yellow as proposed in the Draft,
• the Directive has not been approved yet,
• the MS have until 13 December 2019 to transpose this Directive,
• 14 December 2019 the fruit tree nurseries in most countries will be in the middle of the harvesting season (fruit trees are harvested bare root when plants have no leaves),
• nurseries have a stock of labels from previous seasons or have already ordered the labels for next season,
• nurseries cannot prepare the new labelling overnight,
• changing category colours in the middle of the season might create confusion to fruit growers in the concerned countries.
For these reasons, we propose the EC to amend this draft Commission Implementing Directive to include the following:
In Member States whose legislation currently allows or requires CAC material to be labelled with a colour other than yellow, the CAC fruit plants may be labelled for two more seasons in the colour that is currently being used, if sold in the same MS (maximum until 30 June 2021).
For example, if XYZ country is currently using orange colour for its CAC fruit tree labels, they should be allowed to use it for two more seasons for sales within XYZ country, although they should use yellow labels for sales to other MS.
Additionally, the EC should ensure that Plant Passports for movement within the Union territory, combined with a certification label pursuant to the Article 83(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, may use the same colours of the labels used in fruit plants under this Implementing Directive.
ENA remains at the European Commission’s disposal for any clarification and further discussion.
Read full responseResponse to Rules on plant passports and criteria for professional operators issuing plant passports
25 Dec 2018
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders- at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views about this initiative. We value the plant health as the most important asset in the European plant production, we agree on having common criteria to be fulfilled by professional operators authorised to issue plant passports, and we’d like to make a few remarks:
- Article 1 (e): it states that professional operators must be in “POSSESSION of the necessary equipment and facilities for the performance of the required examinations”. We suggest changing the word ‘possession’ for other words that do not imply ownership: professional operators must have ‘at their disposal’ / ‘available’ / ‘access to’ the necessary equipment and facilities. This change would avoid interpretations of the Delegated Regulation that could force the professional operator to make costly investments or purchases to comply with the legislation.
- The EC should ensure that the competent authorities in the Member States shall prepare the ELECTRONIC GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, stated in Article 2, WELL IN ADVANCE before requiring the compliance of the criteria stated in Article 1, to allow professional operators enough time to prepare for it and to make the necessary improvements or adaptations. Furthermore, previously authorised professional operators should keep their authorisation while the competent authorities are proceeding to publish the guidance document stated in Article 2, and to verify that professional operators fulfil the criteria stated in Article 1.
- It should be mentioned, in this Delegated Regulation, that OPERATORS selling through DISTANCE CONTRACTS are considered professional operators and must fulfil the criteria stated in Article 1. Although Plant Passport shall not be required for the movement of plants supplied directly to final users, there is an exception for sales through distance contracts (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, Article 81). Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce which allows consumers to directly buy plants over the Internet, and that may pose a high risk to the European plant health if it is not under control.
Read full responseResponse to Commission Delegated Regulation on the methodology for risk assessments of invasive alien species
22 Dec 2017
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views about this initiative.
The item 3 of the Article 2 states that where published scientific information does not exist, or is insufficient, other sources may be used.
We strongly believe that information used for the risk assessment must be based on reliable scientific information only. Scientific information also ensures the transparency of the Risk Assessment.
In the ANNEX, regarding the element b) of the risk assessment according to the Article 5. 1 of Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 (a description of its reproduction and spread patterns and dynamics including an assessment of whether the environmental conditions necessary for its reproduction and spread exist) a 4th item should be added to ensure that the assessment takes also into account sterile cultivars of invasive alien species. Sterile cultivars cannot reproduce; therefore, these would be out of the definition of ‘alien species’ of Article 3 (1) of the Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 and, consequently, exempted. Anyway, this risk must be properly assessed.
In the ANNEX, regarding the element e) of the risk assessment according to the Article 5. 1 of Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 (a description of the current distribution of the species, including whether the species is already present in the Union or in neighbouring countries, and a projection of its likely future distribution) we’d like the EC to consider the following:
- The EU is a large and diverse territory with differences inside all biological and geographical regions.
- Most Member State boundaries are unrelated to biogeographic regions and many Member States are large, having areas in multiple and different biogeographic regions.
For these reasons, the list of biogeographic region(s) is not enough and we ask for the Risk Assessment to clearly include the area at risk (surface or percentage of the Member State territory and surface or percentage of the EU territory) in the description of the current and likely future distributions.
For the same reasons, we ask to specify the area at risk (surface or percentage of the Member State territory and surface or percentage of the EU territory) that allows to clearly classify each species as being IAS of Union Concern or IAS of Regional Concern.
In the ANNEX, regarding the element h) of the risk assessment according to the Article 5. 1 of Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 (a description of the known uses for the species and social and economic benefits deriving from those uses) we’d like to point out that recital number 12 of the Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 states that special attention should be given to species that are widely used and provide significant social and economic benefits in a Member State. This consideration has been neglected for some of the species already listed or that are currently being assessed. We strongly believe that the social and economic benefits are also a key part of the Risk Assessment and must be properly analysed by experts. As the members of the Scientific Forum are not required to be experts in this topic, we ask that the known uses and socio-economic benefits of the species to be properly assessed by specialists able to evaluate economic and social benefits of plant species.
Read full response19 Dec 2017
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries - plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views about this initiative.
We agree with all terms of the Implementing Directive and we suggest a slight improvement on article 3a, (b). It states that plants of Palmae shall have been grown in the two years prior to their marketing in a site within the Union with …, or in a site within the Union where the appropriate preventive treatments have been applied with respect to that harmful organism.
As the Plant Protection Products are authorised at Member State level, as using PPP on Palmae is considered a minor use which could lead to not having a proper registration in each Member State; to avoid the use of the inappropriate preventive treatment and to avoid the lack of information, we suggest adding the following paragraph at the end:
"The Member States shall inform all relevant professional operators, through publication on the internet, of the appropriate preventive treatments."
Read full responseResponse to Commission Implementing Regulation laying down rules on plant passports
25 Oct 2017
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant growers and traders - at the European level and welcomes the opportunity to share its views about this initiative. As nurseries’ business is based on selling plants, and it obviously implies moving plants from one place to another, the Plant Passporting process is one of the most important issues.
ENA does not believe that Implementing Regulations can be used to change the adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.
The legend item #7 of the Annex requires, in the case of replacement of the plant passport, to include the registration number of the professional operator who issued the initial plant passport.
ENA refers to Article 93 and Annex VII of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 as they relate to Replacement Plant Passports. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 does not require that the unique identification code of the original issuer of the Plant Passport should be included on a replacement Plant Passport. ENA does agree that traceability must be maintained and be visible to competent authorities. The issuer of any replacement Plant Passport must be able to demonstrate this to Inspectors of the Competent Authority through their own systems. In fact, the use of the traceability code is already planned (legend item #5). Having to openly show the registration number of a previous professional operator would compromise the Commercial Confidentiality.
ENA accepts that the size of a Plant Passport is not regulated, but wishes to stress the importance that the models allowed must enable those issuing plant passports be allowed to use the same size labels for Plant Passports for general movement as for Plant Passports for movement into Protected Zones. If this is not allowed, it could add significant extra costs for those issuing Plant Passports because most nurseries must issue both types.
ENA refers to Annex VII Part A of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding the Format of Plant Passports.
Plant passports for movement within the Union territory as referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 83(2)
(1) The plant passport for movement within the Union territory shall contain the following elements:
(a) the words ‘Plant Passport’ in its upper right-hand corner, in one of the official languages of the Union and in English, if different, separated by a slash;
The wording in the draft Implementing Regulation (legend item #1 of the Annex) is significantly different. ENA asks that the Implementing Regulation uses the same clear wording as contained in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031.
Read full responseResponse to Commission Implementing Act updating the List of invasive alien species (IAS) of Union concern
28 Mar 2017
The Gunnera tinctoria, the Pennisetum setaceum and the Asclepias syriaca do not fulfil the requirements of Regulation 1143/2014 for listing as invasive alien species of Union concern.
For the Gunnera tinctoria the overall conclusion of the risk assessment is that the species poses a moderate risk to Member States that have a territory with a hyper-oceanic climate, which only concerns a very minor part of the EU and therefore cannot be considered to be an invasive alien species of Union concern.
For the Asclepias syriaca, the current impact of the organism on biodiversity within the EU has been assessed as minimal and for the future in the EU as moderate. The present and future importance of the alteration of ecosystem function within the EU has also been assessed as moderate. The current importance for the decline in conservation status has been assessed as minimal and for the future as moderate. The overall potential impact of the organism in the EU has been assessed as moderate. Therefore, the Asclepias syriaca does not quality for listing on the Union list of invasive alien species.
The Pennisetum setaceum can only be considered as an invasive alien species of Member State concern and not as an invasive alien species of Union concern, as the risk-assessment on introduction, spread and establishment clearly concerns the Canary Islands, Spain and the Baleares. The Canary Islands qualify as the outermost regions and therefore cannot be considered relevant under this risk-assessment. Assessment of spread of the species in other Member States is completely lacking so there’s no evidence the species is capable of establishing a viable population and spreading in the environment under current conditions and in foreseeable climate change conditions in one biogeographical region shared by more than two Member States or one marine subregion excluding their outermost regions. Furthermore, Pennisetum setaceum is an ornamental specie whose sterile cultivars are commonly used. The exclusion of Pennisetum setaceum will exclude all the cultivars without considering the efforts made by the growers to use the safest plants possible.
The assessment of introduction, spread and establishment of the Gunnera tinctoria clearly concerns Ireland and Great Britain and to a very limited extend the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula. Furthermore, the invasive potential of this species is restricted to the hyper-oceanic climates. Considering the serious decline of the hyper-oceanic climate in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula, the area in which the Gunnera tinctoria could become invasive is so restricted listing the species as an invasive alien species cannot be justified as, according to the Recital to the Regulation, regional cooperation should be explored for species that are not able to establish a viable population in a large part of the Union.
Read full responseResponse to Amendment of the technical Annexes of the Plant Health Directive 2000/29/EC
14 Oct 2016
ENA, the European Nurserystock Association, represents the nurseries -plant’s growers and traders- at European level and welcomes the opportunity to share our views about this initiative.
ENA is strongly in favor of the robust measures adopted by the EC to avoid the import of infected plants into the European countries and considers fundamental to have UPDATED protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community.
Considering that the last amendments were made in 2014 and that the trade and the pests are both quite dynamic, we kindly request the EC to carry out more frequent and faster changes to Council Directive 2000/29/EC.
Read full response