EU PESTICIDES DRAFT REGULATION
1 August 2008
Key issues








In July 2006 the Commission published its pesticides package which proposes a
regulation to update a 1991 directive on the market authorisation procedures for
plant protection products (pesticides), and a framework directive that sets out the
common objectives and requirements on the day-to-day use of pesticides.
The proposals are aimed at protecting human health and the environment from
dangerous or excessive use of pesticides in agriculture, reducing animal testing
and boosting competition among pesticides manufacturers.
They are part and parcel of a European Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable
Use of Pesticides. Discussions on this began 6 years ago as part of the 6th
Environment Action Programme, which was adopted in 2002.
Within the European Parliament the Environment Committee is the lead
Committee on this dossier.
The dossier has been split into 3 parts: the Parliament’s view on the placing of
plant protection products on the market is being drafted by the German Green
MEP, Hiltrud Breyer; a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides is
being drafted by the Slovakian non-attached MEP Irena Belohorska and Christa
Klass, a German Christian Democrat MEP is the rapporteur on a Framework
Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides.
The European Parliament has a key role to play since it shares the right to take
the final decision on this issue with the national governments in the EU Council.
As Scotland’s only full member of the EP’s Agriculture Committee Alyn has
worked hand in glove with the NFUS and the British Agricultural Bureau
(BAB) in Brussels on this issue and is backing the views of NFUS
completely.
Alyn has invited the key rapporteur, Hiltrud Breyer, to Scotland to meet
with the NFUS and the Scottish Crofting Foundation to discuss with them
the implications of these proposals for Scotland’s farmers.
Timeline
 The revised text agreed by the EU Farm Ministers in June will be sent to the
Parliament late September.
 The Parliament’s Environment Committee will discuss its second reading view on
the revised text during October/November. The Committee is scheduled to adopt
its report on 5 November with the plenary vote in Strasbourg possibly 3
December, though this could fall into January 2009.
 25-26 November 2008 the French EU Presidency is hosting a conference in
Paris on sustainable development and pesticides.
Key points of the Commission proposal
The draft regulation seeks to:
 Tightening up the environmental and health criteria for approving active
substances before they are allowed at EU level. Approved substances would
appear in a positive list while the others would be banned by default. The list
would be open for revision at any moment, using a fast-track 'comitology'







procedure. This would bring down the time limit to approve new substances from
4-6 years to two years. The role of the European Food Safety Agency in the
authorisation process is strengthened.
Encouraging the replacement of dangerous substances by placing them on a
"candidate list" for substitution. Assessments as to whether suitable alternatives
exist would be done at member state level.
Compulsory mutual recognition of authorised products within a specified
geographical zone (except for products using substances on the candidate list)
The draft regulation also introduces new rules concerning data protection, that
chemical manufacturers consider crucial to safeguard their intellectual property
rights.
Under the proposal, authorisations of active substances will no longer have to be
renewed every 10 years but only once, after an initial 10 year period. The
protection would fall after this period to allow further health and safety
assessments. At the moment, active substances are approved at EU level, while
the pesticides containing the substances are authorised at member state level.
Under the new Commission proposal, a product which has received approval in
one member state would be automatically approved in others within a determined
geographical zone.
Three zones have been defined, on the basis of climatic factors and ecological
conditions - North, Central and South. However, member states would still be
allowed to adopt specific risk mitigation measures if they wished to.
Farmers would be required to keep a record of pesticides use and make them
available on request of the drinking water providers. A new regulation will be
tabled at a later stage to deal with statistical aspects of pesticide use.
In addition, as part of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides, the
Commission proposes:
 Banning aerial spraying except for strictly defined cases
 National action plans on the safer handling of pesticides
 Training for professional users
 Certification and control of equipment
 Protection of the aquatic environment
View of European Parliament at First Reading
 MEPs voted to approve the Commission’s proposed pesticides package with
amendments at its first reading on 23 October 2007.
 In the report drafted by Christa Klass on a draft directive on the sustainable use
of pesticides, MEPs backed a ban on aerial spraying (under which derogations
would be allowed). MEPs rejected an amendment calling for farmers to be
required to inform neighbours in advance if they plan to spray with pesticides.
 While agreeing that there should be buffer zones around water courses such as
rivers and lakes, they rejected the idea that such zones should be 10 metres
wide or indeed any specific width, preferring to leave this decision to Member
States.
 MEPs agreed that pesticide use should be banned or restricted to a minimum in
public areas such as parks and public gardens, and added further areas such as
public healthcare facilities and substantial no-spray zones around these areas.












Member States will be required to set up National Action Plans for reducing
pesticide use, but the Commission proposed leaving the details to each state.
MEPs rejected the precise EU-wide figures for pesticide reduction proposed by
its Environment Committee, opting instead for reduction targets in some cases
only, e.g. for substances of "very high concern".
MEPs voted against the idea that Member States must fund their National Action
Plans through taxes or levies or that a Community level tax should be introduced
to discourage pesticide use.
The EP also voted on the report drafted by Hiltrud Breyer on a draft regulation on
the authorisation of new plant protection products. Under the regulation, a
positive list of active substances (the key ingredients of pesticides) will be drawn
up at EU level. New plant protection products (i.e. pesticides) will then be
authorised at national level on the basis of this list.
The Commission proposed that most new substances should 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 EP voted to cut the period to 5 years to encourage
the use of non-chemical alternatives.
The Commission proposed that all subsequent renewals should be for unlimited
periods but MEPs took a more cautious line, voting for approvals to be renewed
"once or repeatedly for a period not exceeding 10 years".
MEPs voted against the Commission's idea of dividing the EU into three
geographical zones for pesticide approvals, opting instead for a single EU-wide
mutual recognition system, within which Member States would have a degree of
flexibility.
The EP backed the Commission's proposed ban on substances that are
genotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic or endocrine-disrupting, and it added
substances with neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects to the banned category.
The proposed rules state that substances must not have harmful effects on
human health, including vulnerable groups. The EP added "residents,
bystanders" to these categories.
MEPs accepted the Commission's proposal that authorisations of products may
include, in the "conditions of use", an obligation to warn any neighbours who
could be exposed to spray drift before the product is used and who have
requested to be informed. But they rejected a series of amendments which would
have imposed tougher requirements, such as an obligation to warn residents at
least 48 hours in advance.
MEPs also voted on an own-initiative report by Irena Belohorská on a proposed
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. MEPs acknowledged
the need for a European legal framework on pesticide use, as existing legislation
is not sufficient to prevent risks to health and the environment from pesticides.
The aim of a pesticides strategy, MEPs believe, should definitely be to reduce
the use of pesticides. A key point of the report is a call for "quantitative use
reduction targets" to prompt governments to lower the amount of pesticides
used. Low pesticide-input farming needs to be promoted, giving priority to nonchemical methods and meaningful support to organic farming.


MEPs also urged the Commission to ensure that biocides are included in the
strategy and that there should be a ban on imports into the EU of food produced
with pesticides whose use is not allowed in the EU.
The report calls for existing EU funding to be used for the safe disposal of
obsolete pesticides, given that within the EU more than 200,000 tonnes of
pesticides are still being stored in both underground dumps and open-air
stockpiles.
View of EU Farm Ministers
 After several attempts to reach an agreement on the Commission’s proposed
pesticides package, EU farming ministers reached a political agreement on a
compromise text put forward by the Slovenian Presidency on 23 June 2008.
 The compromise text was strongly backed in particular by the French, Italian and
Czech delegations, while the UK was the strongest opponent, supported by
Ireland, Romania and Hungary.
 The political agreement reached bans the marketing and use of substances
proven to be carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction. However, "in
exceptional cases", if available products are not effective enough to protect
plants, other hazardous substances may be used "under strictly regulated
conditions" for a maximum period of five years.
Impact assessment of EP’s First Reading proposals
 The UK Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) published a report in May 2008 on
the possible implications of the Commission’s proposals and those of the EP’s
first reading proposals on almost 300 substances.
 According to the NFU, despite the best efforts (which NFU acknowledges) of
some UK MEPs, especially on the Agriculture Committee to produce a balanced
package at First Reading, the final report on the approvals regulation that the EU
Farm Council voted on in June 2008 included numerous additional cut-off criteria
that would determine whether an active substance could be approved for the
market. The PSD took these criteria, measured against existing substances and
estimated that 85% could be at risk of being outlawed or be what are known as
candidates for substitution (removed if other, safer if less effective substances
exist).
 The result on the Framework Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides was
much less contentious thanks largely to efforts by the UK MEPs.
Annex: Press releases from Alyn on the proposed pesticides package
12 September 2007
SNP MEP SLAMS "SLEDGEHAMMER" PESTICIDE VOTE
Scotland's only full member of the European Parliament's Agricultural
Committee SNP MEP Mr Alyn Smith today (Tuesday) slammed the outcome of a
vote in the Parliament's Environment committee which if adopted by the
full Parliament in plenary will result in unworkable and unjustified
controls on the use of pesticides by farmers.
Mr Smith has committed himself to fight the proposals when they come
before the full Parliament and to present alternative proposals based on
best practice in Scotland as a compromise.
Speaking in Brussels Mr Smith said:
"Nobody would argue that pesticide use should not be regulated, but the
package accepted today by the Environment committee is unworkable and
unjustified. It owes more to dogma than common sense.
"We in Scotland have higher standards than most EU countries, and I will
be working with the Farming Unions to put forward details of how things
work in Scotland which I believe can form the basis of a compromise.
"This vote in the Environment Committee is in no way binding upon the
Parliament as a whole and this dossier will now go forward to the plenary
meeting in October. We have plenty of time to win the argument, to put
down suitable amendments and ensure that this dossier when eventually
passed is workable and helps farmers rather than hinders them."
Mr Smith has agreed with the NFU office in Brussels to work on and present
to MEPs details on the voluntary pesticide rules in force in
Scotland. The Scottish rules are considered workable and effective in
cutting pesticide use. The proposals voted upon this morning by the
environment committee go much further in terms of imposing additional
bureaucratic controls which Mr Smith and Farming Unions fear will not
achieve the aims and could in fact undermine the system in Scotland which
is working well.
For immediate release 17 October 2007
SNP MEP CALLS FOR MORE WORKABLE EU PESTICIDES LEGISLATION
Scottish National Party MEP Alyn Smith has today called on MEPs to
ensure next week's crucial vote in Strasbourg on new EU rules for
pesticide use leads to more workable legislation that safeguards the
environment and public health but without imposing additional
bureaucratic controls on their use by farmers, consumers and businesses
alike.
MEPs are set to vote on a package of three reports setting out a new EU
strategy and framework for reducing the risks and use of pesticides.
Last month MEPs on the Environment Committee backed tougher
authorisation rules for the sustainable use and distribution of
pesticides, which go further than the Commission's original proposals.
If adopted by the full Parliament in plenary many substances that have
previously been used safely could be banned. This could have serious
implications for many business sectors, not least agriculture and the
European golf industry.
Speaking ahead of next week's vote in Strasbourg, Mr Smith said:
"While I agree that pesticide use should be regulated to improve public
and animal health and protect the environment, I also think there needs
to be sufficient flexibility in this legislation to take account of
specific conditions within member states and what is appropriate for
their own special needs and priority areas.
"For example, many of Europe's golf courses need to access pesticides to
maintain the quality of their turf without which the sustainability of the
industry in the long term could be at risk.
"While the actual usage of pesticides on golf courses is very small,
much is being done to develop and promote new technologies and alternative
environmental approaches for reducing pesticide use. An increasing number
of golf facilities across Europe are involved in some form of
environmental management system which shows that golf courses are being
managed in an environmentally sustainable way.
"Scotland has a vibrant golf industry. It is the home of golf as well as
home to one of the world's most famous golf tournaments - the Open
Championship.
Golf is the backbone of our tourist industry in Scotland. I was fortunate
enough during the summer to spend some time working at the Open in
Carnoustie and saw for myself just how important the golf industry is to
our economy and the environmental and social benefits it brings to local
communities."
For immediate Use: Tuesday 23 October 2007
SCOTS AGRICULTURE MEP DERIDES "MUDDLED" EU PESTICIDES VOTE
SNP Member of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee Mr Alyn
Smith has today slammed a vote by the full Parliament on the EU Pesticides
regime. The Parliament voted on a package of legislation from the Environment Committee and
after two hours of voting a number of provisions
are now contradictory and will make the lives of groundsmen, gamekeepers,
farmers, foresters and crofters across Scotland more complicated, not
better.
Speaking after the vote Mr Smith said:
"The Parliament had a bad day today, and the outcome of this mammoth vote
is a package of legislation best described as a booroch. Nobody would
argue that pesticides do not need to be regulated, clearly they do, but
pesticide use is a necessary part of agriculture and the maintenance of
the land and this package will neither protect Europe's citizens nor
effectively regulate pesticide use.
"The impact of this legislation is way beyond agriculture. Golf courses,
football and rugby pitches, parks, gardens, public land and forests are
all within the scope of the proposed directive. The SNP sits in the
European Parliament with the European Green parties and we get on very
well, but today I am sad to say that the Environment Committee did the
Parliament a disservice and the full Parliament today allowed too many
unworkable and often conflicting provisions to go through. We in Scotland
have long operated a workable voluntary scheme whereby users of pesticides
abide by tough environmental standards and the system more or less works.
This legislation makes life more complicated for no real benefit.
"This was of course a vote at first reading so it will, thankfully, be
capable of amendment at later stages in the legislative process but as
things stand today the package is unworkable, illogical and confusing. If
this package does pass as now written then there would be no potatoes in
Scotland this year because we would not be able to spray them for blight.
“The intention of this legislation is laudable but the Environment
Committee lost the place. It is unfortunate that the full plenary has not
yet weeded out all the daft bits of this package but the story is not over
yet."
For immediate use - 15 July 2008
EU PRESIDENCY PRESSED ON SHEEP EID AND PESTICIDES PROPOSALS
Scotland's only full member of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee Mr Alyn Smith
has today (Tuesday) pressed the French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier on the upcoming
debate on the EU Pesticides package and on Sheep Electronic Identification proposals. The
Minister was giving evidence to the Committee in Brussels as France takes over the Presidency of
the EU, and assured Mr Smith that the French Presidency "will take a pragmatic approach" to
both dossiers.
The reassurance comes a day before a delegation from Scotland comprising the National Sheep
Association and National Farmers Union of Scotland will come to Brussels to join Smith in
presenting the "Scottish Farmer" petition against Sheep EID proposals to the Public Petitions
Committee of the Parliament. The petition has attracted some 6000 signatures from across
Scotland.
Speaking after today's Committee meeting Smith said:
"Minister Barnier is a credible man, and a former European Commissioner to boot, so he knows
his stuff. When I questioned him in the spirit of the old alliance that he could win a lot of friends
in Scotland by taking a pragmatic approach on Sheep EID and the pesticides proposals he clearly
knew the issues.
"He explicitly said that the French Presidency would take a pragmatic approach, and
acknowledged the complexity of the coming negotiations over the pesticides regime. Interestingly
he mentioned long phase in periods suggesting that a five year phase in period on some products
would allow research into new products, so this is some progress on a frustrating issue.
"On EID he was less forthcoming, he stressed that he himself comes from a sheep producing
mountainous area, that the sheep and goat sector is one of his own top priorities and that we
should be doing all we can to help the sector. I had however asked him his views on making the
whole EID package voluntary and he did not answer that question, so this fight goes on.
"Meantime we're looking forward to the Scots delegation arriving tomorrow to press the case on
EID and underline the strength of feeling back home, and elsewhere, about the unworkable,
expensive and illogical EID proposals. As with all things in Brussels, it is up to us to put our case,
and we certainly shall tomorrow."