Follow-up to Commission's answer to Question E‑005616/2012

31.8.2012

Question for written answer E-007754/2012
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

In response to the Commission’s answer to Question E‑005616/2012, I have two follow-up questions:

What reasons, in the Commission’s view, can there be for the external consultants’ failure to find the 2005 study on the Convention of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and conclude from it that there is quantitative evidence that plant variety protection does in fact act as an incentive for the production of new plant varieties?

According to the external consultants used by the Commission, representatives of plant breeding firms consider that plant variety protection does in fact provide protection for new plant varieties, while representatives of the Council and the Member State governments consider that this protection does in fact provide an incentive to the production of new plant varieties. Does the Commission have any plans to investigate how it can be that stakeholders in the industry see a different set of advantages in the legislation than the legislators themselves?

OJ C 234 E, 13/08/2013