U.K. Department of Agriculture
Seed certification - Review of fees consultation update
A Summary of the Discussion (20 KB) between Plant Variety Seeds Division, Agricultural Industries Confederation, British Society of Plant Breeders and the National Farmers Union has been published.
Source document: http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pvs/pdf/seedcer-reviewfees.pdf

Plant Variety Rights And Seeds Division
Seed Certification – Review Of Fees England And Wales

Summary of Discussion between Plant Variety Seeds Division, Agricultural Industries Confederation, British Society of Plant Breeders and the National Farmers Union
Friday 17 November 2006

Purpose of Meeting

1. To explain Defra’s proposals for new seed certification fees and provide clarification of points raised in response to the consultation.

2. Andy Mitchell welcomed attendees and, by way of introduction, set out the parameters for the discussion which was to clarify the cost elements that led to the new fee options. He made clear that the costs were not up for negotiation but once implemented would be subject to annual review. He reminded the meeting that the fee proposals had been driven by three key objectives – namely full cost recovery, transparency and the need to avoid cross subsidy.

Consultation Outcomes

3. As a result of the comments to the consultation the following had been agreed : -
i. Option 3 - fees paid per seed lot and per hectare for seed crops was the preferred option.
ii. Implementation date would be 1 July 2007 rather than 1 January 2007
iii. Annual reviews would be held and any changes implemented on 1 July thereafter.

Fees Composition

4. Andy proposed to work through the agenda items by showing tables with a breakdown of the costs per activity. The costings for work done by NIAB were based on actual data from the contract so the information presented was commercial in confidence. The first presentation would be the costs based on applications submitted by paper followed by ESP.

Official crop inspections

5. There was much discussion concerning the charge for official crop inspections. Most attendees thought the charge was too high compared with their own costs for licensed inspections. At this stage, the industry was not asking for a change but needed to know for the future and in the interests of transparency how PVS had arrived at the cost. Andy said this was a realistic, flat rate charge, based on the contract tendering process. It would apply throughout the term of the contract but innovations could be applied. A requirement of the contract as a whole is that the work required by EU directives doe

s not make a profit. Any change would be as result of adjustments to the system and therefore a reduction. Andy agreed to circulate an explanation of how the crop inspection cost was made up.

Second and Subsequent Crop Inspections

6. The meeting also discussed the charges for second and subsequent crop inspections. Andy explained that the charge has the same base costs as the first inspection, taking account of reduced costs for locating the field etc, but still including travel which was a significant element regardless of time spent in the crop itself. He said that Defra could not carry the cost of the second/subsequent inspections or cover it through cross-subsidy. He then drew attention to a draft Temporary Experiment (for extending licensed inspections to basic and pre-basic seed) which if approved by the Commission would result in a significant reduction in the fees. This was part of the Better Regulation initiative being pursued by the UK.

Seed Lots

7. Andy explained how the seed lot fees were made up - they included charges for check testing (replacing the throughput fee charged to LSTS’s) and post control. For re-entries, if the original seed lot is of a multiplication category, the re-entry fee will be the same as for a final generation seed lot. A multiplication seed lot fee will be charged for re-entry from final generation to a multiplication category. Attendees asked about the difference between the charge for a seed lot and a crop entry. Andy explained that attention had been made to the direct cost and the question of cross subsidy addressed so that some applicants would pay more and others less.

ESP

8. Andy Mitchell gave details of the costs applicable to online applications. The fees had been calculated on the basis that 80% of the forms received for certification would be submitted using the online facility. Therefore with the lower costs and the volume of forms sent in there was a real incentive for using ESP.

Annual Reviews

9. Andy Mitchell supported BSPB’s proposal for review meetings between the industry, PVS and NIAB, suggesting that they should be annual. The first review would be held in February 2008 when information for almost a full seeds year would be available and possible changes to be introduced from 1 July 2008 could be considered. If other issues require discussion/resolution before February 2008, these could be added to the Agenda of the regular six monthly meetings with AIC and BSPB.

AOB

10. The NFU suggested that the proposed fees frame work favoured the larger companies and asked about the potential for small farmers to be free of charges as in other areas of Defra. Andy Mitchell said it is difficult to have cross subsidy and not recover full costs but promised to consider option/ possibilities.

11. The trade asked how other Member States handled seed certification fees and suggested that this might be the starting point for future reviews. Andy Mitchell said while it would be possible to get details of the fees it would be difficult to obtain the underlying costs, and therefore difficult to make realistic comparisons. Nevertheless, he would try to gather some information.

Operations - Seed Marketing
December 2006