Pesticides: friend or foe?

Current EU legislation on pesticides deals with two stages in their life: the "placing on the market" stage and the "end of life-cycle" stage (when pesticides turn into residue or waste).  To "fill the gap", or deal with the period in between when pesticides are actually being used, the Commission in July 2006 put forward a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.  

 

The first piece of legislation generated by the strategy is a draft framework directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, on which the Environment Committee gave its verdict today when voted on a first-reading report by Christa Klass (EPP-ED, DE). 

 

Measures proposed by the European Commission to tackle the use of pesticides include:

 

- national action plans by Member States to identify the crops, activities or areas most at risk from pesticides, together with targets for tackling the problems; 

- training for professional users of pesticides and awareness-raising for the public;

- rules on inspections of pesticide equipment and on the handling and storage of pesticides; 

- special measures to protect water from pesticide pollution;

- special measures to identify areas where zero or very little pesticide use is to be allowed;

- a ban on aerial spraying with pesticides, albeit with derogations.

 

 

A proposal in the draft report to replace the Commission's proposed ban on aerial spraying with a requirement for Member States simply to "regulate" such spraying was rejected by the committee, which thus opted to endorse the ban, with some modifications. 

 

Many of the amendments adopted by the committee lay down tougher rules than the Commission proposed and go further than the rapporteur herself wished. 

 

 

MEPs voted variously to minimise or eliminate rather than just "reduce" the risks of pesticides.  Elsewhere they seek to scale down not just the "risks" of pesticides (as the Commission proposes), but the very "use" of these products.  The report also insists that the directive should apply not only to agricultural contexts but also to non-agricultural ones. 

 

 

The committee backs the idea of national action plans (NAPs) but insists they include a specific EU reduction target of 25% within 5 years, and 50% within 10 years, as well as national targets for particularly active or toxic substances.  The report also calls for Member States to set up a system of taxes or levies on pesticides to fund the NAPs.

 

 

MEPs back the Commission's plans to require training for pesticide users and distributors but lay down more stringent, detailed rules on this point, as they also do for the clauses on awareness and information programmes for pesticide users.

 

To protect water courses, the Commission proposed "buffer zones" where pesticides may not be used or stored. MEPs specified that these zones should be at least 10 metres wide. They also voted to ban pesticides in all areas used by the general public (e.g. parks, school grounds, residential areas) and in "substantial no-spray zones" around them. 

 

The draft report, as amended, was adopted by 34 votes to 11, with 5 abstentions.

 

 

The committee also adopted - by 54 votes to 0, with 1 abstention - an own-initiative report by Irena Belohorská (NA, SK) on the Thematic Strategy itself.  The report welcomes the strategy and its main objective of filling the legislative gap on pesticides by dealing with the "use phase".  However, MEPs urge the Commission to extend the scope of the strategy to include biocides. 

 

The committee endorses the "'substitution principle" whereby more dangerous substances will be removed from the market where safer alternatives exist. It also stresses that only "quantitative use reduction targets" in the national action plans will push governments to lower the amount of pesticides used.  The Member States are urged to promote low pesticide-input farming and organic farming, giving priority to non-chemical alternatives.

 

 

The benefits of pesticides are that they maximise farm yields and product quality, minimise labour input, help meet plant health requirements and allow trade in farm products.  Outside farming, pesticides are used for wood and fabric preservation and public health protection.

 

On the other hand, pesticides have been linked to immunological and endocrine-disrupting effects as well as cancer. Foetuses, children, pregnant women and the elderly are particularly vulnerable.