Briefing item

Pesticides have a three-stage life-cycle: the placing on the market of new pesticide products;  the day-to-day use of pesticides; and the end-of-life or "waste" stage.  The pesticides package deals only with the first two stages, as waste is covered by other legislation. The package consists of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (a set of policy guidelines) together with legislation to implement the Strategy.

 

Parliament's response to the Strategy itself is contained in an own-initiative report by Irena Belohorská (NA, SK), adopted by the Environment Committee by 54 votes to 0, with 1 abstention. The committee makes various recommendations, including a call on Member States to promote low pesticide-input farming, giving priority to non-chemical alternatives. It also stresses that only "quantitative use reduction targets" (set by the Member States themselves) will prompt governments to lower the amount of pesticides used.

 

 

Turning to the legislation on the first stage - the placing of new plant protection products on the market - the first-reading co-decision report by Hiltrud Breyer (Greens/EFA, DE) examines a regulation on this subject which updates an EU directive from 1991.  Procedures for approving new pesticides will be overhauled with the aim of improving environmental and health protection and reducing animal testing, while boosting competition among manufacturers, to the benefit of farmers and other users.

 

 

Under the regulation, a positive list of active substances (the key ingredients of pesticides) will be drawn up at EU level, with the European Food Safety Authority playing a major role. New plant protection products (i.e. pesticides) will then be authorised at national level on the basis of this list.  The new rules on pesticide ingredients are separate from the REACH regulation, so these substances will not have to undergo two approval procedures.

 

 

Under the Commission proposal, most new substances would be approved initially for 10 years though low-risk ones would be approved for 15 years. Those which could be replaced by less toxic substances would be approved for only 7 years. In the latter case, the Environment Committee wants to cut the period to 5 years to encourage the use of non-chemical alternatives.  The Commission proposes that all subsequent renewals should be for unlimited periods but the Environment Committee is more wary, voting for approval to be renewed "once or repeatedly for a period not exceeding 10 years".

 

The committee supports the Commission's proposed ban on substances that are genotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic or endocrine-disrupting, but it wants to further restrict even those minor exceptions the Commission would allow. The committee has also added substances with neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects to the banned category and is calling for special account to be taken of vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, foetuses and children.

 

In addition, it wishes to tighten up the proposed rules on animal testing, saying this should only be used "as a last resort". 

 

 

For product approval, the Commission suggests dividing the EU into three geographical zones (north, centre and south): any product authorised by one Member State within a zone would be approved by the other countries in that zone. The Environment Committee voted against this idea, preferring a single EU-wide system of mutual recognition within which Member States would have some flexibility to confirm, reject or restrict the approval depending on their national circumstances

 

The committee also insists that suspected "cocktail" effects of combining different ingredients in a product must be carefully evaluated.

 

 

The second phase in the life-cycle, the manner in which pesticides are used in everyday life (e.g. in farming, forestry and parks), is not yet governed by EU law.  To fill this gap, the second piece of legislation generated by the Strategy is a directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. Among the many measures proposed by the Commission:

 

 

In a first-reading co-decision report adopted by 34 votes to 11, with 5 abstentions, the Environment Committee voted in some cases for tougher rules than the Commission or Parliament's rapporteur Christa Klass (EPP-ED, DE) proposed.

 

While backing the idea of National Action Plans (NAPs), MEPs insist - following the line of the Belohorská report - that the NAPs should meet a specific EU reduction target of 25% within 5 years and 50% within 10 years, and contain national targets, including special ones for particularly active or toxic substances.  They also want taxes or levies on pesticides, for two reasons: at Member State level to fund the NAPs and at Community level to discourage pesticide use.

 

 

The committee endorses the Commission's proposal for a ban (with derogations) on aerial spraying with pesticides (a widespread practice, for example in forestry and vinegrowing), given the risk that the spray can drift into populated or environmentally sensitive areas.  In addition, the committee wants compulsory advance warning for "neighbours" of any spraying operations allowed under the derogations. 

 

To protect water courses, the Commission proposes "buffer zones" where pesticides may not be used or stored. MEPs specify that these zones should be at least 10 metres wide.   

 

Lastly, the Commission is proposing a ban on pesticides in areas used by the general public, namely "parks, public gardens, sports grounds, school grounds and playgrounds".  The Environment Committee goes further, adding "residential areas" and areas around "public healthcare facilities" and demanding "substantial no-spray zones" around all these areas.

 

 

Under the co-decision procedure the EP has an equal say with the Council on the final shape of this legislation, which looks set to go at least to second reading. Following Parliament's first-reading vote on 23 October, the Portuguese presidency, which has made this legislation one of its priorities, hopes to broker an agreement on a common position between Member States at the Agriculture Council meeting on 26 November. 

 

Listen to the three rapporteurs in this European Parliament audio programme via the links hereunder.