The European Commission presented in July 2006 a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides proposing new rules for plant protection products aiming at reinforcing the protection of public health and the environment. The Commission has proposed a Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. This Draft Regulation is aiming at tightening up the environmental and health criteria in regard of approval of active substances (key ingredients of pesticides) before they are authorized at EU level replacing council Directive 91/414/EEC.
Last December, the French Presidency, the European Commission and the European Parliament’s rapporteurs have reached, behind closed doors, a compromise agreement on the pesticides package. The European Parliament debate and vote on this legislative proposal were public however this means nothing as such important decision was made behind closed doors with no accountability. The agreement reached last December was presented to the plenary which has solely confirmed it. Hence, on 13 January the European Parliament voting at second reading by an overwhelming majority, 577 votes in favour, approved the EU legislation on pesticides tightening pesticide use in Europe.
The so called “pesticides regulation” will have far reaching impacts on farmers, consumers and food security. It will have terrible consequences for the production of many crops in Europe. The new legislation will substantially reduce pesticides available in the market, consequently crop protection will be reduced and there will be an increase on food prices and dependency on food imports.
It should be recalled that the Commission has not presented a full impact assessment of the proposed new measures on EU agriculture or consumers. According to Hilary Benn "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health, and we are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be." Moreover, he said "While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
The Conservative party called for a full impact assessment on the legislation and more derogations for Member States. However, the Conservative amendments and attempt to reject the compromise were not approved.
Several plant protection products which have been used by British producers for many years will be banned. The legislation will have a terrible impact on food production in the UK. Such measures might reduce UK crop yields from 20% by up 50%. The ban will cause in the UK a reduction in the production of several vegetables such as carrots, broccoli, cabbage and cereals whilst the consumers will see the prices increasing. According to the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) the EU rules “could add 10% to annual rises in food prices.” Robert Sturdy, MEP, has said “This law will drive up the cost of the weekly food shop at the worst time for British families. Without crop protection products, our food supplies will be volatile at a time when food security is rising up the political agenda.”
Under the proposal active substances would only be included in plant protection products if it has been demonstrated that they represent a clear benefit for plant production and they will not have any harmful effect on human or animal health. The decision on acceptability or non-acceptability of such substances is to be taken at Community level on the basis of harmonised criteria. Under the Draft Regulation, active substances that can be used in the pesticide production would appear in a positive list drawn up at EU level while the others would be banned. The pesticides will be authorised at national level taking into account that list. The Member States will have to follow the strict EU criteria for the authorization process of plant protection products. The plant protection product shall only contain active substances approved at EU level.
The criteria for substances approval as well as the substances that should be banned from authorization have been very controversial issues. The European Parliament not only supported the Commission’s proposal but it has tried to expand the scope of substances banned from usage in the production of pesticides in the EU. Under the compromise deal reached by the Council, Commission and European Parliament negotiators more active substances will be banned compared to the Council Common position.
Under the compromise deal substances that are “genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction” will be banned. Moreover, neurotoxic, immunotoxic and certain endocrine-disrupting substances will be also banned if they are considered to pose a significant risk.
The compromise text allows a possible derogation to the prohibition. Hence, in exceptional cases, if available products do not provide enough effective plant protection, other hazardous substances may be used, but under strictly regulated conditions. Those substances may be allowed to be used for a limited period of five years if they are necessary to combat a serious danger to plant health. However, this derogation will not apply “to active substances which are or have to be classified (…) as carcinogenic category 1, carcinogenic category 2 without a threshold, or toxic for reproduction category 1.” It is not a general exception, Member States may authorise plant protection products containing active substances which do not meet the safety criteria but solely “when it is necessary to control that serious danger to plant health in their territory.”
It is expected that such regulation will ban 22 products from the EU market. The EU strict criteria for the approval of active substances will have a negative impact on the European agriculture as it will reduce the availability of pesticides.The EU regulation will ban several substances which have been extensively and safely used for many years.
Member States must not allow for use in a given crop a plant protection product if safer alternatives are available. The draft proposal provides for a comparative assessment of products intend to encourage the substitution of dangerous substances by safer alternatives. Farmers as well as chemical manufacturers will be required to replace plant protection products that are considered to be hazardous with safer alternatives. Member States are required to verify before authorising plant protection products containing active substances which are candidates for substitution whether there are possible alternatives which could be used instead. Under the draft regulation products containing certain hazardous substances ("candidates for substitution") will have to be replaced if there are safer alternatives. Whereas the European Commission has proposed a five years maximum replacement period the European Parliament was successful in cutting this replacement period for three years.
According to the Professor John Lucas, Head of the Plant Pathology and Microbiology Department at Rothamsted Research is not possible “(…) to replace the substances banned at the speed that policy makers believe.” He said “The industry is only able to launch about five new active ingredients per year. This is ten times less than the rate at which they have been removed from the market, but pests develop resistance faster than the industry finds solutions. Farmers need to have a variety of pesticides to maintain efficient pest management programs."
The Commission has proposed to divide the EU into 3 geographic zones, a northern zone, a central zone and a southern zone. The draft proposal provides for a system of zonal authorization of plant protection products and for the compulsory mutual recognition of authorisations in Member States belonging to the same zone. The European Parliament Environment Committee has proposed a single EU zone but the European Parliament has accepted the three licensing zones as part of the compromise. Plant protection products authorised by one Member State will automatically be approved for use in the other Member States in that particular zone. In case of specific national environmental or agricultural circumstances Member States will be allowed to refuse the mutual recognition of registration of certain pesticides or limit their application.
It also includes provisions on packaging, labelling and advertising of plant protection products and obligations to keep records and official controls.
It has been argued that the EU regulation has no scientific basis. Such legislation is based on a hazard approach to chemicals instead of a risk-based assessment of substances. It should be noticed that Britain’s leading scientists are fully against such legislative proposal. According to Dr. Colin Ruscoe of the British Crop Production Council “There is no evidence of public health benefit to justify these proposals.” Moreover, the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) Director General Friedhelm Schmider has said “Just because a product has hazardous properties does not mean it is dangerous. At a time when the global population is worried about high food prices, the current proposal will make it more difficult for European farmers to continue producing high quality food at affordable prices."
Moreover, the regulation would harm developing countries as the EU is not considering the risks of not using pesticides. Professor Donald Roberts, a medical entomologist, said "It seems that EU regulators have no idea about the real risks to health and development to which most people in developing countries are exposed. They not only ignore real-world risks of chemical use but also ignore the risks of NOT using insecticides to protect crops and human health."
This Regulation implementing measures would be adopted through the untransparent comitology procedure.
The compromise text voted by the European Parliament must be formally endorsed by the Council. However, this will be a formality. The permanent representatives of EU Member States (Coreper), have already indicated, with the exception of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Hungary, that they will support the text. The UK will not be able to form a blocking minority for a qualified majority vote in the Council. The draft Regulation on pesticide use and market authorisation is likely to be adopted as an 'A point' (adopted without debated). As regards “A points” there is no vote at all as the agreement is reached by Coreper therefore the Council presidency simply mentions that they have been adopted. As regards “B points” usually the Presidency notes that the required majority has been achieved. The UK will vote against it but there is no veto therefore it will be forced to accept the legislative measure.
