A campaign for pesticide use reduction in Europe

At the October 2000 PAN Europe Conference, 70 delegates representing public interest groups from 17 European countries agreed unanimously to co-operate on a campaign to set in place pesticide use reduction measures throughout the European Union. In the intervening months, the Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) Campaign has started to take shape. Catherine Wattiez and Gretta Goldenman report on the latest developments.

Pesticide use reduction in Europe has been a primary focus of PAN Europe’s annual conferences since 1999. At the 1999 conference, PAN Europe partners agreed on a series of policy options and legislative initiatives to be taken at European level in order to reduce overall pesticide use, and put these options forward to the European Commission in correspondence and during lobbying visits. The PURE Campaign is an escalation of this effort. 

Unfulfilled promise 
The 5th Environmental Action Plan (EAP)(1), which covered the period 1993-2000, called for the EU to achieve a substantial reduction in pesticide use per unit of land under production by the year 2000. It also recommended farmers convert to methods of integrated pest-control, at least in all areas of importance for nature conservation. It listed three actions for meeting the targets set: (i) registration of sales and use of agricultural pesticides; (ii) control on sale and use of agricultural pesticides; and (iii) promotion of ‘Integrated Control’ (in particular training activities) and promotion of bio-agriculture. 
    The goals set by the EU in the 5th EAP were not achieved. In fact, the EU changed the goals. In 1998, following a review of progress, the European Commission revised certain objectives(2). With respect to pesticides, the stated goal became to ‘further develop integrated strategy to reduce risks to health and environment from the use of plant protection products and pesticides.’ The substitution of the term ‘reduce risks to health and environment’ instead of ‘reduce pesticide use per unit of land in production’ indicates the new strategy of the EU to use risk assessment in all chemical-related policies, instead of concrete measures to implement the Precautionary Principle. 

The case for PURE
Over the past decade, the pesticide industry has blocked policy initiatives aimed at European-wide pesticide use reduction by arguing that a reduction in the volume of pesticides applied has occurred without regulatory intervention. They point to the development of new plant protection products (pesticides) that use smaller volumes of active ingredients and target specific pests. But many of these newer pesticides have a more concentrated effect. 
    Moreover, if a slight pesticides use reduction had been observed in Europe in the late 1980s, usage of pesticides has risen since 1994. An increase in pesticides use in the EU accession countries has also been forecast(3).
    In the meantime, according to a study on environmental trends(4) released by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 1995, pesticides levels in groundwater are increasing and are estimated to exceed the target (maximum 0.5 µg/l for total amount of pesticides) in 75% of (EU/EFTA) agricultural land.
    Other studies corroborate this trend. Recently released monitoring data(5) from 1997 and 1998 shows that one-third of waters used in France as sources for drinking water (surface and groundwater) contain pesticide levels high enough to require special treatment to remove the chemicals.

Only national level programmes so far
Several Member States have already demonstrated that pesticide use reduction programmes aimed at addressing the impacts of pesticides on health and environment, including biodiversity, are politically and economically feasible(6). 
    Given these positive experiences it is surprising EU policymakers have done little since the 5th EAP was adopted in 1992, except for a series of studies.
    In the early 1990s, the European Commission, together with the Dutch Ministry of Environment (VROM), carried out a project: ‘Possibilities for future EC environmental policy on plant protection products’. Two studies were carried out in Phase 1 of the project(7), and another six studies in Phase 2(8). In May 1998, the Commission and VROM presented the research findings at a stakeholders conference(9). Participants reached a broad consensus concerning the need for additional EU level measures to control pesticides, but agreement could be reached only on minimal specific measures(10). Following the 1998 conference, a Commission Communication on sustainable use of pesticides was drafted, but then blocked inside the Commission. 

And now, the 6th EAP
On 24 January 2001, the European Commission published two documents concerning the 6th Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP). The first document is a Commission Communication(11) and, as such, is simply an expression of the intentions of the Commission over the next ten years. The second document, a proposed Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council(12), will be submitted to the co-decision procedure for formal adoption, and therefore has more legal weight. 
    According to both the Commission Communication and the proposed Decision, the draft ‘Commission Communication on sustainable use of pesticides’ has become a ‘thematic strategy on sustainable use of pesticides’. It is now scheduled for release by the Commission in the 4th quarter of 2001. A ‘thematic strategy’, according to the Commission Communication on the 6th EAP, may include a range of instruments from proposals for legislation to dissemination of information. 
    Article 2 of the proposed Decision states that this ‘thematic strategy’ is aimed at ‘ensuring that the levels of pesticides in the environment do not give rise to significant risk to or impacts on human health and the environment and, more generally, to achieve an overall reduction in the use of pesticides’. Though the aim to achieve an overall reduction in the use of pesticides is welcome, the inclusion of the term risk is extremely worrying. It reflects the risk assessment strategy underlying the Commission’s approach towards all man-made contaminants.
    It is difficult to reconcile this risk assessment approach with the section in the Commission Communication on the 6th EAP which recognises the lack of information on the effects of contaminants such as pesticides: ‘We still have a poor understanding of the effects of small quantities of pollutants that accumulate in our bodies as well as the way different contaminants interact with each other in our bodies. Furthermore, some of our existing standards have been established without taking into account the need to protect particularly vulnerable groups such as children and elderly people’. 
    In line with the Precautionary Principle, the PURE Campaign will seek to amend the proposed Decision aims as follows: ‘Reduce the impacts on or risks to human health and the environment from the use of pesticides by achieving a significant overall reduction in pesticides use’.

Legal instrument urgent 
The 6th EAP and the draft ‘thematic strategy on sustainable use of pesticides’ will be policy documents only. Though the proposed Decision sets priority actions to meet the objectives in its Article 2, as far as pesticide use is concerned, the only action proposed is a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. The joint Commission Communication provides a few elements that may be included in such a strategy, but nowhere is there a mention of any linked legislative initiative on measures for reduction of impacts to health and environment from use of pesticides.
    It is essential that the proposed Decision commit to legislative action to set in place EU-wide measures to achieve pesticide use reduction. It is equally essential that the ‘thematic strategy’ be linked to new legislation establishing pesticide use reduction. 
    At the October 2000 PAN Europe conference, participants endorsed the following resolution: ‘Require all EU Member States to establish pesticide use reduction programmes within two years, based on a common framework, with specific numerical targets designed to achieve progressively more stringent, qualitative and quantitative reductions in pesticide use and with regular evaluation and revision involving stakeholder participation.’
    Participants also adopted an initial outline of the provisions that could be included in a new EU legal instrument, as the first step towards developing a PAN Europe position paper calling for a new Directive. These provisions are summarised below. The full text is available through PAN Europe.

• Establishment of national pesticide use reduction programmes within two years, including specific numerical targets designed to achieve progressively more stringent qualitative and quantitative reductions in use of pesticides overall and on specific crops, e.g., 40% reduction in frequency of applications within five years, 50% within eight years, 60% within 10 years, along with regular review and adaptation of the programmes as needed to meet the progressively more stringent targets;
• Promotion of alternative pest control methods through inter alia development of principles for Good Agricultural Practices specifically dealing with how to reduce dependency on chemicals for plant protection and establishment of an EU-supported ‘GAP research facility’ to develop and promote best available (least-harmful) plant protection practices;
• Mandatory application of the substitution principle (i.e. use of least-harmful option wherever feasible and practicable);
• More financial support for research and extension on biological and low-input agriculture, non-chemical plant protection measures, and IPM, and for conversion to biological and low-input agricultural practices;
• Controls over unsafe pesticide application practices, including mandatory ‘best environmental practices’ to cover all uses of chemical pesticides, to be defined at EU-level, bans on applications of pesticides in ecologically vulnerable zones and in areas where high risk of exposure to persons, e.g., schools, bans on aerial application of pesticides, and mandatory inspections of distributors and users;
• Mandatory training and accreditation/certification requirements for distributors (wholesale and retail), crop protection advisors, extension service experts, and professional users, and access to high-risk pesticides restricted to certified users; 
• Minimum standards for application equipment, including annual calibration of sprayers;
• Monitoring and data collection to determine impact of pesticides on health and environment;
• Publicly accessible inventories of pesticide sales and applications, based on mandatory record-keeping/registration of pesticide sales and farm-level record-keeping of pesticide usage, e.g., Denmark;
• VAT and/or levies on pesticide products high enough to impact levels of sales of pesticides, funds to be earmarked for support for conversion to pesticide-free agriculture and research on measures to further reduce pesticide use and associated risks. 

Next steps in the Campaign 
The 5th EAP already recognised the need for EU-level action to reduce pesticide use. In the early 1990s, the European Commission and the Dutch Ministry of Environment started to co-operate to that effect, but the political will to press through new legislation was lacking. 
    To get a Directive adopted at EU level will require a multi-year effort. It will involve contacting Commission officials, Member State ministers of environment, health and agriculture, and members of the European Parliament, in order to present the case for pesticide use reduction throughout Europe and the urgent need for new EU legislation to achieve this.
    At the October 2000 PAN Europe Conference, participants agreed to support such a campaign at the national as well as EU level. National contact persons were named for each of the 15 Member States, and many of the EU candidate countries.
    In October 2000 PAN Europe sent a letter to Commissioner Margot Wallström demanding that the EU commitment to pesticide use reduction made in the 5th EAP be maintained in the pending 6th EAP, and calling for new EU legislation to make pesticide use reduction a reality. Several meetings have since taken place with key Commission officials concerning the 6th EAP and the ‘thematic strategy on sustainable use of pesticides’ under preparation. 
    At the end of January 2001, thanks to a grant received from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, PAN Europe was able to hire Ceri Lewis for the PURE Campaign. All PAN Europe partners will have to work hard in the months and years ahead to achieve the ambitious legislative goals of the PURE Campaign. But without effective EU level legislation in place to make pesticide use reduction mandatory throughout Europe, pesticide use may well continue to increase, at the expense of human health and the environment.

References
1. Towards Sustainability: http://europa.eu.int/comm
/environment/env-act5/howorder.htm
2. Decision N° 2179/98/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 24 September 1998 on the review of the European Community Programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ‘Towards Sustainability’: OJ L 275/1 of 10 October 1998: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/actionpr.htm
3. Environment in the European Union at the turn of the century, EEA, 1999: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
environment/newpr/index.htm
4. Environment in the EU: Environmental trends: http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/’3-yearly/env95/en/env954en.htm
5. France records high pesticide level in water, Ends Daily 28/08/00; see also French environment ministry at: http://www.environnement.gouv.fr or French Environment Institute at: http://www.ifen.fr
6. Pesticide use reduction programmes are in place in Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Belgian region of Flanders. 
7. Towards a future EC pesticide policy, April 1994, Centre for Agriculture and Environment, Utrecht, NL.
8. (i) Further analysis of presence of residues and impacts of PPPs in the EU (ii) Regional analysis of use patterns of PPPs in six EU countries (iii) analysis of agricultural policy in relation to use of ppps (iv) Elaboration on possible arguments and objectives of an additional EC policy on PPPs (v) Additional EU policy instruments for PPPs (vi) Assessment of the benefits of PPPs:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pps
9. Second workshop on a framework for sustainable use of PPPs in the EU: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
environment/ppps/workshop.pdf
10. Ibid, pp 46-49.
11. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions On the 6TH EAP of the European Community ‘Environment 2010: Our future, Our choice’
12. Proposal for the European Parliament and of the Council Laying down the Community EAP 2001-2010.

For more details: coordinator@pan-europe.de Website: www.pan-europe.net.

Contact details:

• Ceri Lewis, ceri_lew@yahoo.com
• Dr. Ute Meyer, PAN Europe’s new co-ordinator out of PAN Germany’s Hamburg office, will be another important link. 
• Heike Schmitt continues her involvement by joining the PAN Europe Board. 
• Gretta Goldenman is an environmental lawyer based in Brussels. 
• Catherine Wattiez is a member of the PAN Europe Board, and represents the Inter Environment Wallonie in Brussels.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.51, March 2001, p10-11]