EU pesticide legislation is set for a major shake-up. Mike Abram explains what the EU parliament decided, and what it could mean if it gets passed into law
[Q] Why should I worry about something as boringly titled as the Thematic Strategy on Pesticides?
[A] Mainly because it could have a huge impact on what, and also how you use, pesticides once it comes into force, probably in 2010. Some lobbying groups suggest that, if what was voted through by EU Parliament MEPs on 23 October gets passed into law, 75% of all current pesticides might have to be withdrawn.
[Q] OK, That’s sounds serious. What’s it all about?
[A] It is part of the EU’s plans to modernise pesticide laws, and there are two main pillars – one governing how pesticides are approved, the other how they are used.
[Q] So what changes are going to be made to product approvals?
[A] This is updating an existing piece of EU legislation – Directive 91/414/EEC – implementation of which itself saw many commonly-used products, such as trifluralin, atrazine, simazine, etc., withdrawn from use.
The Directive governs the placing of pesticides on to the market, and requires each active ingredient and product to go through a comprehensive risk assessment before being approved for sale.
[Q] Why is it being updated?
[A] A review in 2001 concluded protection of human health and the environment needed improving, animal testing reducing, and to improve competition among manufacturers, to the benefit of farmers and users.
[Q] Sounds reasonable enough. What’s been proposed?
[A] Firstly, substances will be approved at EU level, products at national level. This is how the previous regulation worked, but there is a desire to speed up approval decisions.
[Q] But why will products be withdrawn?
[A] As part of the plan to tighten up protection of human health and the environment, the Commission proposed there should be specific criteria on which to automatically exclude products. It means any product that “meets” those criteria will fail the approval procedure and be withdrawn or not approved in the first place. Currently, products are assessed on the risks of actual exposure.
The Parliament decision to adopt this proposal, and to take the lead Environment Committee’s amendment to toughen it further by adding extra criteria could lead to 75% of all current pesticides, and 90% of insecticides being withdrawn, as well as making it much tougher to get new materials approved, according to the European Crop Protection Association.
[Q] Anything else?
[A] Yes, substances could also be removed from the EU approved list if safer alternatives exist or become available. The MEPs voted that new substances should be approved initially for 10 years, but those could that could be replaced by less toxic substances would be approved for only five years to encourage the use of non-chemical alternatives.
At this time it is not clear how comparative assessment would work. The proposal makes it clear resistance management would be take into account, but it could hit minor crops, if assessed on a crop-by-crop basis. For example, if a substance approved for both minor crop and cereal use, had its cereals approval removed, the manufacturer might not think it worthwhile to continue marketing the product for the minor crop.
[Q] OK, so it looks like I might have fewer products to choose from. What about using them?
[A] Pesticide use is not yet governed by EU law, so a new directive on the sustainable use of pesticides has been proposed.
Among the measures suggested by the Commission is that member states will draw up National Action Plans (NAPs) to reduce risks from using pesticides, including targets for tackling problems. Proposals included obligatory training, sprayer testing and enhanced protection of water courses requirements.
[Q] Wouldn’t that be covered already in schemes like NRoSO and the Voluntary Initiative?
[A] It looked like the original proposal from the Commission would do just that, and the aim would be to bring other member states up to our standards. But the European Parliament’s lead Environment Committee (ENVI) proposed some amendments that go much further.
[Q] Did they get passed?
[A] In the main, no. The headline one was the requirement for member states to reduce pesticide use by 25% over five years, and 50% over 10 years, but MEPs rejected that. Member states will be required to set up NAPs for reducing pesticide use, but the details will be left to each state, with no precise targets set, except for some “substances of high concern”.
ENVI also wanted taxes on pesticides to fund NAPs and to discourage pesticide use, but that too was rejected.
[Q] What does it propose to protect water courses?
[A] MEPs voted for buffer zones to be used around water courses, but rejected the ENVI committee plan for these to be 10m wide. Instead the decision will be left to member states.
[Q] Will I need to inform neighbours that I will be spraying?
[A] No, MEPs rejected an amendment calling for farmers to be required to inform neighbours in advance if they plan to spray.
However, MEPs did decide to accept 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.
[Q] So what happens next?
[A] It is not just down to the European Parliament, the Agricultural Council (the agricultural ministers from the 27 EU countries) has equal say, and it looks likely to go to a second reading. But the Portuguese presidency has made this legislation one of its priorities, and hopes to broker a common position between member states in November.
Click here for the News story.