‘Sustainable’ pesticides strategy for Europe

The European Commission is proposing that all EU countries adopt national pesticide action plans to reduce the use risk and dependence on chemical pesticides. European environmental groups welcome the proposals but warn that they lack the mechanisms to deliver effective reduction. Catherine Wattiez reports.

The Commission paper Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides follows a mandate given to it by the European Parliament and the Council of Member State Ministers in the framework of the sixth Environmental Action Plan. 
    The present legislative framework for agricultural pesticides is based on Directive 91/414 (see also page 8) that defines rules for pesticide authorisation prior to approval and for use on farms. Community rules also exist that define maximum residue limits in food and drinking water, and that relate to the aquatic environment through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). The concept of Thematic Strategies is seen by the Commission as a broad approach that adds to the existing regulatory framework.

Objectives for pesticides
The main purpose of the Thematic Strategy communication is to launch a broad consultation involving all stakeholders including farmers and growers, public interest groups, industry, other social partners and public authorities. The European Commission is holding a conference for stakeholders on 4 November in Brussels.
    Following consultations, the Commission will propose measures to present to the European Council (of member state ministers) and the Parliament for approval at the beginning of 2004. The Commission has outlined five key objectives.

1. Minimize the hazards and risks to health and environment.
Within two years (from 1 July 2002) all Member States will have to establish national plans to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control. Existing experience from member states (such as Denmark and Sweden) has shown the efficacy of risk or use reduction plans. Programmes have to be tailored to local conditions, and different regions should map out their specific needs such as particular pressures and impacts on water catchment areas.
    Environmentally sensitive areas and improving knowledge of risks: The Commission has indicated that it may fund mid to long-term epidemiological research on pesticide users and launch broad investigation and monitoring programmes on pesticide residues levels for consumers, with particular emphasis on groups of the population at risk. Centralized recording and analysis of data is required for all pesticide incidents (occupational and domestic) that effect health or the environment. The Commission and member states will collect and analyze economic data on pesticide use (both the benefits and costs) and on alternatives to chemical control.
    Increasing research and development: A range of issues are outlined including less hazardous methods of application; integrated pest management techniques; means of addressing possible synergistic effects, and the risks from residues to infants and children.

2. Improved controls on the use and distribution of pesticides.
The Commission will propose mandatory requirements within two years of the adoption of the Thematic Strategy for a number of controls over pesticides. These include the reporting of production and import/export quantities, pesticide usage applied per crop, product, area and time of application. There needs to be a system of regular and safe collection, possible reuse and controlled disposal of pesticide packaging and unused products. Education, awareness raising, training and certification for all pesticides users will be required.

3. Encouraging safer alternatives.
The Commission proposes to amend Directive 91/414 in order to include among other modifications the substitution principle to reduce the levels of harmful substances by substituting the most dangerous with safer (including non chemical) alternatives (see also page 11). The Commission will study feasibility and possible methodologies for its application in practice. 

4. Adopting low-input or pesticide-free crop farming.
Low input farming will be achieved by raising user awareness, promoting the use of good codes of practice and consideration of financial instruments such as pesticides levies.
    The Commission is keen to promote the development of alternatives to chemical control through IPM agriculture, organic farming and biological control. It sees the potential for GM technology, so long as the application is considered safe for health and the environment. The Commission has put pesticide levies on hold, calling for further research into the full costs and benefits (including external costs) of using pesticides or alternative methods of pest control. 

5. Access to information and monitoring.
Member states will be required to report regularly on progress with national risk reduction programmes. Pending the development of harmonized indicators pesticide impacts, they should report on progress by using the most suitable indicators currently available to them. Monitoring should include agricultural land, and where appropriate, forest soils, the aquatic environment, and residues in food and feedstuff.

Environmentalist concerns
Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe and European Environmental Bureau (EEB) are concerned that there will be no immediate action resulting from the Communication. The Thematic Strategy lacks any new specific legislative requirements to reduce the dependency on pesticides. There are for example no targets or timetables for the establishment of national plans to reduce the hazards, risks and dependence on pesticides.
    According to Stefan Scheuer of the EEB, ‘The Communication Paper adequately covers many aspects of sustainable pesticides use, but will effectively result in delaying urgently needed action to reduce the risks to human and environmental health that are caused by the current irresponsible and intensive use of pesticides. He concluded: ‘There must be immediate EU action to curb the growing use of pesticides.’
    Catherine Wattiez of PAN Europe said ‘we need an EU Directive that specifically focuses on a more stringent and integrated approach that clearly defines how to reduce pesticide use.’
    PAN Europe and the EEB have strongly challenged the suggestion that genetically modified crops are a means of reducing pesticide use, and are concerned that the paper does not go far enough in promoting alternative methods of pest management.

NGOs for use reduction Directive
In anticipation of this Communication PAN Europe released its suggested text for a new Pesticides Use Reduction Directive (see PN 56 p10-11). Supported by EEB and many other public interest groups, the directive aims to speed up the European Commission’s development of effective legislation on pesticide use reduction. 

Towards a Thematic Strategy of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, Communication from the European Commission, 1 July 2002, DG Environment. Conference details: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm

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. 57, September 2002, page 9]