Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2022)305 - Sustainable use of plant protection products - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)305 - Sustainable use of plant protection products. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2022)305 |
| date | 22-06-2022 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Pesticides 1 are mixtures of one or more formulated active substances and co-formulants that are widely used to protect plants by repelling, mitigating or destroying harmful organisms. They are mainly used in agriculture but also in forestry and green urban areas and along transport networks such as roads and railways. Since pesticides can have harmful effects on the environment and on human health they are strictly regulated at EU level. For the purpose of this proposal, the term ‘pesticides’ will be used synonymously with the term ‘plant-protection products’.
The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD) 2 was adopted in 2009 as one of the follow-up actions of the Commission thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides 3 . Member States were required to bring into force the national provisions transposing the SUD into their domestic law by 26 November 2011. The Commission considered it appropriate to carry out an evaluation of the SUD that also considered the problems identified with its implementation, enforcement and application in Member States. This work was performed as a back-to-back assessment, incorporating both an evaluation and an impact assessment. The Commission hoped to use the assessment to help bring forward a new legislative proposal to revise the SUD by Q1 2022 as stated in the farm-to-fork strategy 4 .
There are currently weaknesses in the implementation, application and enforcement of the SUD. These weaknesses have been highlighted by Commission audits and fact-finding visits to Member States and implementation reports by:
(i)the Commission;
(ii)the European Parliamentary Research Service study on the implementation of the SUD; and
(iii)a recent report of the European Court of Auditors on plant-protection products. In addition, growing societal concerns about the use of pesticides can be seen in the many petitions, two European citizens’ initiatives 5 , and European Parliamentary questions on this issue.
Feedback received during the public consultation on the Commission’s evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment pointed to serious deficiencies in the implementation of the SUD in some Member States. This feedback also urged the Commission to introduce stricter rules, for example in the form of a regulation at EU level to increase coherence and introduce more effective policies in individual Member States. The harmonisation of national pesticide-use policies could help improve the functioning of the internal market and reduce trade distortions between Member States.
Achieving safe, sustainable, just, climate responsible, and affordable production of food, respecting sustainability principles, the environment, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, while ensuring food security, is of great concern for citizens and feature among the 49 proposals included in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe 6 , published on 9 May 2022. Citizens also ask the Union to protect and restore biodiversity, the landscape and oceans, and eliminate pollution, as well as to take decisive measures to promote and guarantee a more ecological and climate-oriented agriculture 7 .
As part of the European Green Deal 8 , the Commission’s farm-to-fork 9 strategy highlights the need to transition to a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. The farm-to-fork strategy also stresses the importance of improving the position of farmers (who are key to managing this transition) in the value chain. It proposes two specific targets to reduce the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides and more hazardous pesticides by 2030. EU regulation in this area is a crucial tool to achieve the targets outlined in the farm-to-fork strategy and should therefore be strengthened.
As explained in the accompanying impact assessment, and taking account of the supporting evaluation, the proposal has the following four objectives.
●The first objective is to:
(i)reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides, in particular those containing more hazardous active substances;
(ii)increase the application and enforcement of integrated pest management (IPM); and
(iii)increase the use of less hazardous and non-chemical alternatives to chemical pesticides for pest control.
●The second objective is to improve the availability of monitoring data, including on:
(i)the application, use of, and risk from pesticides; and
(ii)health and environmental monitoring. This will ensure a better framework to measure progress.
●The third objective is to improve the implementation, application and enforcement of legal provisions across all Member States to improve policy effectiveness and efficiency.
●The fourth objective is to promote the adoption of new technologies, such as precision farming that makes use of space data and services (including geospatial localisation techniques), with the aim of reducing the overall use and risk of pesticides.
The recent evaluation of the SUD confirmed the long-standing difficulties identified in its application, implementation and enforcement. Given these difficulties, this proposal for a regulation on the sustainable use of plant-protection products (SUR) aims to:
(i)replace the SUD in regulating the use of pesticides; and
(ii)better align with the objectives of the European Green Deal and farm-to-fork strategy.
This proposal aims to reduce the risks from – and impacts of – pesticide use on human health and the environment by:
(i)achieving pesticide-reduction targets contained in the farm-to-fork strategy; and
(ii)promoting the use of IPM and alternatives to chemical pesticides.
A regulation is appropriate to both ensure that the level of ambition in the farm-to-fork strategy is met and remedy the problems identified with the implementation of the SUD by providing clear and uniform rules.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The proposal is consistent with the European Green Deal’s objective that all EU policies should contribute to preserving and restoring Europe’s natural capital. It is also consistent with the aims of:
(i)reducing the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides; and
(ii)reducing the use of more hazardous pesticides.
These aims are present in the following documents:
(i)the farm-to-fork strategy;
(ii)the biodiversity strategy 10 ;
(iii)the zero-pollution 11 action plan; and
(iv)the soil strategy 12 .
This aim is also consistent with meeting the objectives of the EU pollinators initiative 13 , the EU chemicals strategy 14 for sustainability and the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027 15 .
The proposal is also consistent with European Commission targets to have at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming – and a significant increase in organic aquaculture – by 2030. The proposal also complements other current initiatives. For example, Regulation xxx/xxx on statistics on agricultural inputs and outputs of the agricultural sector [reference to adopted act to be inserted] will allow the Commission to publish more data on the sale and use of pesticides broken down by individual active substances. As part of the farm-to-fork action plan, the Commission has prepared four draft Regulations regarding the data requirements, the approval criteria and evaluation principles for active substances that are micro-organisms and the plant protection products containing them with the objective of facilitating access to the market for alternative products to chemical pesticides. These texts will be adopted and become applicable in the autumn of 2022. The objective is to provide farmers with tools to substitute chemical plant protection products. By facilitating the placing on the market of these biological plant protection products, farmers – including those producing organic crops - will have more alternatives available for sustainable crop protection.
The proposal is also relevant to the EU’s outermost regions, as listed in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), located in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Due to permanent constraints such as their remoteness to the EU continent, insularity and dependence on few products and high exposure to climate change, they are entitled to specific measures to support their socio-economic development. As also provided for in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, a particular focus should be placed on protecting and restoring the outermost regions’ ecosystems, given their exceptionally rich biodiversity value.
• Consistency with other Union policies
Contents
Under the new CAP 16 (due to be implemented from 1 January 2023), Member States will be helped to: (i) fund actions in line with the pesticide-reduction targets in the farm-to-fork strategy; and (ii) promote sustainable farming practices. Relevant elements of the current SUD are already included in the system of conditionality under the CAP. The new CAP also includes various instruments to promote precision farming. Member States can use eco-schemes and environmental, climate and other management commitments to support the implementation of precision farming practices. Furthermore, the CAP includes the possibility to fund investments, for instance in machinery equipment, and risk management tools as well as technical knowledge building support such as training, advice, cooperation and knowledge exchange. More specifically, through the CAP’s farm advisory services, Member States are to offer advice to farmers on the sustainable use of pesticides, innovation, digital technologies, reduction of exposure to pesticides and sustainable management of nutrients. Capacity building for the uptake and effective deployment of digital technologies by farmers can also be reinforced through support, cooperation and the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). In addition, in their CAP strategic plans, Member States are to explain how they will use CAP instruments to meet relevant needs and objectives.
This proposal interacts with a number of environmental policies and legislative acts, for example:
(i)planned nature-restoration targets 17 ;
(ii)the pollinators initiative 18 to address the decline of pollinators in the EU and contribute to global conservation efforts;
(iii)the lists of pollutants and regulatory standards in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive 19 , the Groundwater Directive 20 and the Drinking Water Directive 21 .
It is key to delivering on the objectives set out in the EU water laws including the Water Framework Directive 22 . It also links with the nature conservation requirements in the Habitats and Birds Directives.
The proposal is complementary to the provisions of the relevant EU occupational health and safety acquis, in particular Framework Directive 89/391/EEC 23 , Directive 98/24/EC 24 , Directive 2004/37/EC 25 , Directive 2009/104/EC 26 and Directive 89/656/EEC 27 . It is in line with the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027, which draws specific attention to the need to strengthen training to increase farmers’ skills and awareness on the health and safety rules on farms, including safe use of chemical substances, in particular plant protection products.
This proposal is complementary to the planned legislative initiative on a sustainable food system framework, which aims to promote policy coherence at EU and national level, mainstream sustainability in all food-related policies and strengthen the resilience of the Union food system. This planned initiative is based on a horizontal approach that will introduce sustainability-related objectives, common definitions, general principles as well as requirements for a Union sustainable food system, while addressing the responsibilities of all actors in the food system. Combined with labelling on the sustainability performance of food products and with targeted incentives, the framework will allow operators to benefit from sustainable practices and ensure that food in the EU market and food-related operations increasingly become sustainable. The provisions of this regulation will act as lex specialis in relation to the requirements set out by the planned initiative to the extent that the provisions of this regulation include more specific provisions with the same objective, nature and effect compared with those to be laid down in the planned initiative.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis for action in this area is Article 192 i of the TFEU, which empowers the European Union to take action to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and to protect human health. EU action in this area is justified by the environmental and public health issues at stake.
• Subsidiarity
The SUD created a framework to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Continued inconsistency in the measures taken in Member States combined with varying/incomplete implementation of the SUD (as outlined in the evaluation accompanying this proposal) would lead to different levels of protection of health and the environment. This would also lead to diverging conditions for the main users of pesticides, contrary to the objectives of the Treaties 28 . The threat to biodiversity and ecosystems linked to the use of pesticides crosses borders and requires strong action at EU level. A level playing field across the internal market is being hampered by current variations in the levels of action taken in different Member States.
Coordinated EU action can effectively supplement and strengthen national and local actions on the sustainable use of pesticides. The EU also possesses other key instruments in agricultural and food policies which have synergies with the measures set out in the proposal. Combined with incentives and possible risk mitigation measures, it is expected that stronger action at EU level on pesticides (including in association with related policies such as the CAP) can:
(i)help to reduce current variations in national approaches; and
(ii)contribute to a more homogenous approach in the future.
These objectives cannot be set by the Member States acting on their own: the scale of the action required means that these objectives can be better achieved at EU level. Uniform EU action is therefore justified and necessary.
• Proportionality
This proposal complies with the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure:
(i)an appropriate level of ambition; and
(ii)improved policy efficiency and effectiveness.
It achieves this by taking into account the findings of the evaluation accompanying this proposal. The proposal provides for both improved data, and better monitoring/implementation of measures to reduce the use of – and risk from – pesticides.
On Member State targets, this proposal avoids fixing uniform mandatory targets for Member States. This is because the current baseline of pesticide use varies widely between Member States. The proportionality of the target-setting process has been ensured by providing for a legislative formula that allows differences in progress and in intensity of pesticide use between Member States to be taken into account.
• Choice of the instrument
The available evidence on deficiencies in implementing the SUD in Member States shows that the previous approach of leaving the detailed rules to national transposition under a Directive has not worked to the extent envisaged by the original SUD proposal. The findings of the SUD evaluation confirm the divergent and uneven implementation, application and enforcement of the SUD across Member States. These findings were confirmed by a Commission compliance-monitoring index described in the evaluation. The European Court of Auditors also found that there was a need for clearer criteria and more specific requirements on IPM to help ensure enforcement and assess compliance 29 . Because there are so many complex agricultural variables in pest management, rules that are clear and uniform should simplify compliance and improve enforcement. The consistent application of the policy across Member States is better achieved by means of a regulation, as opposed to a directive. In addition, a regulation would facilitate a more level playing field among pesticide users, as different rules on pesticide use across Member States tend to create unfair competition and undermine the proper functioning of the single market.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The evaluation accompanying this proposal found that the internal and external coherence of the SUD with other EU policies and instruments is generally strong, with no major inconsistencies or overlaps. The objectives of the SUD were, and still are, highly relevant to address the risks that pesticide use poses to the environment and human health. However, the SUD has only been moderately effective. Weaknesses identified by the Commission and others concern the implementation and enforcement of IPM, and the limited effectiveness of Member State national action plans (NAPs). Many Member States do not set quantitative targets or indicators in their NAPs to promote the sustainable use of pesticides or better protect human health and the environment. There is also no effective monitoring system, which has resulted in limited data on the use of pesticides. This has made it difficult to reach a conclusion on the extent to which the SUD has protected human health and the environment from the adverse effects of pesticides. Previously introduced measures under the CAP were not able to incentivise farmers to achieve the more sustainable use of pesticides.
The Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) gave a negative opinion on the Commission’s draft impact assessment for this proposal on 26 November 2021. The draft impact assessment was in the form of a staff working document. The RSB requested that the document be revised to:
(i)be clearer on the available data and evidence for the initiative;
(ii)provide a more robust analysis or narrative for the pesticide-use and risk-reduction targets;
(iii)be clearer on the availability and affordability of precision-farming techniques and less hazardous alternatives to chemical pesticides; and
(iv)identify and better analyse the impacts and trade-offs of the initiative for the environment, health and the economy.
The RSB gave a second opinion – this time positive with reservations – on 26 January 2022 on the revised impact assessment staff working document. After this second opinion, the document was further amended to address the RSB’s reservations so that the document would:
●explain clearly both the lack of evidence on pesticide sales and use and the corresponding limitations this lack of evidence places for the problem definition, option formulation and impact analysis;
●better justify the choice for the twin 50% binding reduction targets and how they relate to each other;
●specify the level of progress necessary in individual Member States for them to be compliant with the twin binding EU reduction targets, and specify how this will be measured, allocated, or result in a fair burden sharing;
●clarify the flanking initiatives included in the baseline for the impact assessment; and
●set out a more credible basis and timeframe for the future evaluation of the initiative.
The final impact assessment was produced in the form of a Commission staff working document and has been revised in line with these RSB opinions, comments and points for improvement.
• Stakeholder consultations
A combined evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment on this proposal was published and made open for public feedback from 29 May to 7 August 2020. In total, 360 responses were received. The public consultation ran from 18 January to 12 April 2021 and received a total of 1 699 responses. The feedback received represented a wide spectrum of views, as outlined in the synopsis report that summarised the stakeholder consultation (this synopsis report is annexed to the impact assessment accompanying this proposal). Professional users of pesticides emphasised the need to protect crop yield and crop quality. Other stakeholders emphasised the need to promote IPM, increase the availability of alternatives to chemical pesticides, and better assess the health and environmental impacts of using chemical pesticides. The Commission organised remote stakeholder events on this initiative on 19 January, 25 June and 5 October 2021. A number of issues emerged at these stakeholder events, including:
(i)concerns from pesticide users about the possibility of fewer pesticides being available on the market;
(ii)the limited financial support under the CAP for implementing IPM;
(iii)the need to protect farmers’ incomes;
(iv)promoting the role of new technologies;
(v)protecting human health and the environment; and
(vi)whether to continue a prohibition on aerial application of pesticides. Most NGOs stressed the importance of achieving the European Green Deal’s ambitions and related targets. Another issue emphasised at the stakeholder events was the need to improve implementation of the NAPs.
Targeted surveys, workshops and case-studies were also carried out in:
(i)a Commission-contracted external study supporting the evaluation and impact assessment; and
(ii)a supplementary foresight study on future vision scenarios on the sustainable use of pesticides.
Details of the stakeholder consultations have been published on the Commission’s website 30 and the Better Regulation Portal 31 . Stakeholders who were involved and contributed to these consultation activities included:
(i)farmers and contractors applying pesticides;
(ii)non-agricultural users of pesticides;
(iii)health and environmental NGOs;
(iv)professional associations representing industry and economic actors in relevant sectors (e.g. beekeepers, the chemical industry, the pesticide-application equipment industry, the seed industry etc.);
(v)consumer associations;
(vi)social partners (employers and workers organisations);
(vii)the general public;
(viii)EU and non-EU national and regional competent authorities; and
(ix)scientific experts.
Responses to the different activities showed that stakeholder views were largely divided into two broad points of view. The first group was of the view that pesticide use should be reduced in line with the goal of risk reduction in a manner which works with users of plant-protection products. The second group was of the view that pesticide use should be reduced significantly if not completely. The proposal has been developed as a proportionate and realistic – yet still ambitious – approach to addressing societal concerns around the use and risk of pesticides. It is an approach that:
(i)still allows pesticides to be used when necessary and appropriate and in a safe manner; and
(ii)promotes training and advisory systems for alternative pest-control techniques and the better implementation of IPM.
As described in the impact assessment, a number of policy options were discarded based on stakeholder feedback. The level of ambition of the finally selected policy options also took into account the feedback received from stakeholders.
• European citizens’ initiatives
Two European citizens’ initiatives address the use of pesticides and call for ambitious reduction targets. The successful European citizens’ initiative ‘ Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides ’ called on the Commission, under its third aim, ‘to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future’. In its reply adopted on 12 December 2017 , the Commission stated that it would re-evaluate the need for EU-wide mandatory targets for pesticides.
The initiative ‘ Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment ’ calls on the Commission ‘to propose legal acts to phase out synthetic pesticides in EU agriculture by 80% by 2030, starting with the most hazardous, and to become free of synthetic by 2035.’ The initiative has collected over 1 million statements of support by 30 September 2021, which are currently being verified by Member States authorities. If validated and officially submitted, the Commission will outline the actions it intends to take, if any, in a communication.
• Collection and use of expertise
The initiative was supported by two Commission-contracted external studies, which included an in-depth literature review, workshops, case-studies, and surveys.
The impact assessment also drew on additional information from a number of other studies that used economic modelling to estimate the potential impact of achieving the targets in the farm-to-fork strategy, including the targets for pesticide use and risk reduction.
• Impact assessment
The executive summary sheet for the impact assessment is available here . The positive opinion of the RSB is available here .
The proposal’s aim of reducing the use of – and risk from pesticides – to protect health, biodiversity and the environment is relevant to the Commission’s ambition to deliver on the UN sustainable development goals. In particular, it is relevant to goals 3 (health and wellbeing), 6 (clean water), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 11 (sustainable cities), 12 (sustainable consumption and production), 14 (life below water) and 15 (life on land).
In line with the objectives of the European Green Deal, the proposal also complies with the ‘do no significant harm’ principle. According to this principle, activities should not do significant harm to any of the six environmental objectives, within the meaning of Article 17 in accordance with Article 9 of the Taxonomy Regulation 32 . The six objectives are: climate-change mitigation; climate-change adaptation; sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; transition to a circular economy; pollution prevention and control; and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
The following main policy options were assessed against a likely baseline scenario where the SUD remains unchanged.
Option 1: The EU targets to reduce pesticide use by 50% and reduce pesticide risks by 50% to be achieved by 2030 remain non-legally binding. Advisory systems and guidance for pesticide users would be improved. Precision-farming techniques would be promoted to cut the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides.
Option 2: The 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at EU level. Member States would set their own national reduction targets using established criteria. These national targets would then be legally binding (under national law) and subject to governance mechanisms linked to regular annual reporting by Member States. The use of more hazardous pesticides would be prohibited in sensitive areas such as urban green areas. Professional pesticide users would need to keep electronic records on pesticide use and on IPM to help reduce pesticide use. National authorities would collect and analyse those records to monitor progress and devise corrective measures at national level if necessary. Independent advisory services would advise pesticide users on alternative techniques and IPM.
Option 3 would be similar to option 2. However, under option 3, the 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at both EU and national level. The use of all chemical pesticides would be prohibited in sensitive areas such as urban areas and protected areas in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC, Natura 2000 areas etc.
The preferred option is option 3, except for the targets, where option 2 is preferred. In this case, the targets to reduce both pesticide use and pesticide risk by 50% would become legally binding at EU level, with Member States setting their own national reduction targets under national law. The options have been assessed against a likely baseline scenario where the SUD remains unchanged. Prohibiting the use of all plant protection products in sensitive areas will maximise associated health and environmental benefits.
The preferred option is consistent with the ambitions of the European Green Deal, the farm-to-fork strategy, the biodiversity strategy, and the zero-pollution action plan. This preferred option will provide a range of benefits to society, biodiversity and ecosystems by reducing risks to human health and the environment from pesticide use. Protecting biodiversity will also help to reduce CO2 emissions. This is consistent with the EU-wide 2050 carbon-neutrality objective and the intermediate target to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030, set out in Articles 2 i and 4 i of the European Climate Law 33 . Under this preferred option, pesticide users will be better informed about effective alternatives to chemical pesticides, enabling them to reduce their pesticide use and related expenses, while still producing food products that are competitive on the market. Thanks to more detailed data on pesticide use and IPM under this preferred option, Member State authorities can ensure that national measures benefit farmers, the public, other stakeholders and the environment as much as possible. The preferred option also ensures that Member State actions would be more transparent and clear.
Consistent with the objectives of the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy and the Biodiversity strategy, the reduction of the use of chemical plant protection products aims not only at ensuring public health, but also at preserving biodiversity and protecting the environment, particularly where global issues are at stake, like safeguarding pollinator populations.
Under this preferred option, production costs per unit will increase due to:
(i)stricter and more detailed reporting requirements;
(ii)the expected reduction of yields due to lower pesticide use; and
(iii)the inclusion of an additional cost layer for those professional users not currently using advisers.
Under this proposal, Member States will be able to provide support under the CAP to cover the costs to farmers of complying with all legal requirements imposed by this proposal for a period of 5 years. This should prevent any increases in food prices arising from new obligations set out in this proposal. Many of the provisions contained in this proposal already existed under the SUD and therefore should have no impact on food prices or crop yields. The changes introduced by this proposal will be gradual, therefore further minimising any impact on food security.
Potential off-setting and risk mitigation measures would also be needed to counter any undesired negative consequences for non-EU countries, especially developing countries. Such EU measures could support the FAO’s work to:
(i)reduce the risk from pesticides through a sound lifecycle-management approach;
(ii)help governments and stakeholders in the developing world to adopt ecosystem-based practices; and
(iii)improve the management of pesticides in agriculture globally.
The SMEs affected will include:
(i)farmers and other SMEs using and selling pesticides and pesticide-application equipment;
(ii)handlers of agricultural produce and pesticides;
(iii)food processors and intermediaries;
(iv)agricultural contractors; and
(v)agricultural advisers.
Different costs and benefits will accrue to SMEs under the preferred policy option. Member States may apply incentives or mitigation, including under the CAP, to address some of the option’s impacts. Furthermore, more consistent and uniform application of the rules on pesticide use will reduce market distortions between pesticide users across Member States, which currently apply the existing rules to varying degrees.
There will be control and administration costs for Member States in implementing and enforcing the updated rules and in collecting and analysing the relevant monitoring data. This is especially true for any initial set-up costs to introduce a data collection system.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
In line with the Commission commitment to better regulation, the proposal has been prepared inclusively, based on transparency and continuous engagement with stakeholders. The evaluation did not identify possible legislative simplifications or reductions of regulatory burden that would make it easier to achieve the objectives of sustainable pesticide use. Micro-enterprises are not exempted from this proposal given the importance of uniform implementation of measures to reduce both the use of pesticides and the risk they pose to human health and the environment.
This proposal is in line with a digital-ready policy by promoting electronic record-keeping and online publication of trends in progress towards meeting:
(i)pesticide-reduction targets;
(ii)implementation of NAPs;
(iii)annual progress and implementation reports;
(iv)Commission recommendations; and
(v)Member State responses.
Relevant provisions for cost-efficient, user-centric and interoperable digital services will be considered in implementing rules for the electronic registers that will be created as a result of the proposal.
• Fundamental rights
The proposal respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 34 . In particular, it contributes to the objective of a high level of environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as laid down in Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Better policy enforcement to reduce the risk from pesticide use and protect health could also contribute to the fundamental right of ‘fair and just working conditions’ (Article 31, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU). In particular, it could contribute to the right to working conditions that respect workers’ health, safety and dignity.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
This proposal does not have an impact on the EU budget.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The existing indicator to measure the achievement of the two pesticide targets in the farm-to-fork strategy will form the basis of the annual central monitoring of progress towards these targets at EU and Member-State levels. It should be noted that data indicating whether the 2030 targets on reducing the use and risk of pesticides have been achieved will likely only become available in 2032.
Member States will need to monitor:
●the set-up and use of independent advisory services;
●the implementation of IPM rules at farm level through the electronic integrated pest management and plant protection product use register;
●the inspection of application equipment in professional use through specific registers;
●the training of professional users, distributors and advisers;
●the use of plant protection products through an electronic register.
Member States will report information gathered through this monitoring annually to the Commission. The Commission will assess the information and supplement it with its own audits.
To supplement this annual monitoring, the Commission proposes that it formally evaluates this initiative at the earliest 7 years after the planned legal proposal becomes applicable.
Moreover, the monitoring data as described here and in the accompanying impact assessment can also be used directly to monitor the overall policy objectives set out under the European Green Deal and the 8th Environment Action Programme, including: the farm-to-fork strategy; the biodiversity strategy; and the zero-pollution monitoring and outlook.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Chapter I sets out the subject matter, scope and definitions.
Chapter II sets out the EU’s targets to reduce the use of – and risk from – pesticides by 50% in line with the farm–to-fork strategy and to which Member States shall (collectively) contribute. It provides that Member State should adopt targets binding under their national law that may deviate from the 50% level of EU targets within the parameters of a binding formula. This formula permits Member States to take account of historical progress and intensity of pesticide use in setting national targets. Provision is made for the Commission to issue recommendations to set increasing targets in certain cases and to publish trends towards meeting the EU’s 2030 reduction targets.
Chapter III describes what NAPs should contain as well as the requirements for:
(i)public consultation on these NAPs; and
(ii)these NAPs to be coherent with CAP strategic plans.
This chapter also sets out the details to be included on indicative targets for alternatives to chemical pesticides. It provides for:
(i)Member States to include in annual progress and implementation reports their trends on progress to meeting the two targets as well as other quantitative data; and
(ii)the Commission to analyse these reports and make recommendations.
Chapter IV sets out the requirements for professional users in IPM in cases where crop-specific rules have or have not been adopted by Member States. It requires record-keeping by professional users on IPM and the use of independent advisers. It provides for the adoption and oversight of crop-specific rules for IPM that must be followed by professional users. It also provides for the creation of an electronic IPM register.
Chapter V sets out requirements for professional users, distributors and advisers to hold a certificate of training in certain circumstances. It also sets out general requirements for the use of pesticides and application equipment. In addition, it contains provisions on:
(i) the use of pesticides in sensitive areas;
(ii) the protection of the aquatic environment and drinking water;
(iii) aerial application;
(iv) storage, disposal and handling; and
(v) advice on the use of pesticides.
Chapter VI sets out requirements for the sale of plant protection products. It also sets out the type of information on pesticides that must be provided to purchasers at the time of sale.
Chapter VII requires Member States to set up a system for the training and certification of professional users, advisers and distributors. It provides for the creation of an independent advisory system. It requires Member States to raise awareness of pesticide issues and publish key information online. It also requires Member States to gather information on acute and chronic poisoning incidents due to pesticides.
Chapter VIII relates to pesticide application equipment. It lays down requirements for the inspection of application equipment in professional use. It provides for an electronic register(s) to record information on all application equipment in professional use. It sets out notification requirements for transfer of ownership or withdrawal from use. It requires inspections at three year intervals, with the possibility of derogating from those inspection requirements for certain application equipment.
Chapter IX sets out the methodology for calculating harmonised risk indicators and for calculating progress towards the 2030 reduction targets.
Chapter X sets out administrative and financial provisions for:
(i)notifying the relevant competent authorities to the Commission;
(ii)penalties; and
(iii)fees and charges.
Chapter XI provides the conditions for the adoption of delegated and implementing acts under the SUR.
Chapter XII repeals the SUD and provides for the entry into force and into application of the SUR.