Plenary session PART II abstracts

European Commission “ Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides” Brussels, November 4, 2002 Plenary session PART II abstracts Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides Table of Contents Plenary session Part II Page 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The conditions for an effective EU wide risk reduction…………………… Mr. Stefan Scheuer, European Environmental Bureau 3 Sustainable Use of PPPs: industry view………………………………….…………… 4 Dr. Friedhelm Schmider, European Crop Protection Association The European farmers & growers viewpoint……………………………………… 5 Dr. Christopher Wise, COPA/COGECA How to improve the CAP in order to reduce the use of pesticides… 6 Mr. Gerard Choplin, CPE The Consumer co-operatives’perspective…………………………………………… 8 Mrs. Louise Ousted Olsen, EURO COOP Consumer perspective……………………………………………………………………………… 9 Mrs. Beate Kettlitz, BEUC Need for a Directive on Pesticides Use Reduction……………………………… 10 Mrs. Catherine Wattiez, Pesticides Action Network- Europe November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 2 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 1. The conditions for an effective EU wide risk reduction Mr. Stefan Scheuer, European Environmental Bureau (EEB) The EEB welcomes the Commissions initiative to develop a strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides. But it does not believe that the elements proposed will deliver effective risk reduction and instead would allow continuous increase in exposure of pesticides to human and environment. In principle all pesticides are not acceptable to occur and accumulate in the environment or contaminate our foodstuff. This is widely recognised and has been already addressed politically by establishing virtual zero standards for drinking water and groundwater. Risk reduction comprises therefore not only banning the most problematic pesticides, like very persistent or hormone disrupting pesticides, but additionally reduction and minimisation of pesticide use. Instead of following such an approach the Commissions strategy seems to delay necessary action into the far future or leave it up to Member State’ discretion. s Together with PAN-Europe the EEB presented its position in different occasions and made concrete suggestion for an EU strategy. In specific the EEB believes that a strategy, which effectively reduces the human health and environmental risk stemming from pesticides uses, has to be based on two Community management systems: Market Authorisation and Use Reduction. Current EU pesticides management is only based on the first one, which did not deliver for several reasons: wrong placing of burden of proof and lack of precaution. The EEB urges for a revision in line with the EU obligations under the Water Framework Directive and the Commissions White Paper for a Future Chemicals Policy. The EEB welcomes the Commission’ work in this field and urges for a rapid revision s of 91/414 Directive ensuring that: • the burden of proof is reversed; • pesticides with PBT, vPvB, EDC, CMR properties or properties giving rise to a similar level of concern are withdrawn from the market; and • the decision making process is made transparent for all stakeholders. Finally this revision has to be complemented by a European answer to the dependency of European Farmers on pesticides use. European farmers and Member State authorities can not minimise and reduce pesticides use, without a proper European framework, which sets the targets and timetables and establishes the right incentives to shift into less intensive pesticide use practices and pesticide free alternatives. This is the second management tool – a European Pesticides Use Reduction Strategy, with legally binding targets and timetables. European Environmental NGOs have presented a draft Directive text to implement this and encourage the Commission, politicians, Member State authorities and stakeholders. November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 3 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 2. Sustainable use of PPPs : industry view Dr. Friedhelm Schmider, Director General, European Crop Protection Association Sustainable agriculture in Europe is the number one priority of every participant at today’ stakeholder consultation. Using crop protection products in a sustainable way s is undoubtedly critical to achieving sustainable agriculture; the way forward lies in the safe use of as little products as possible but as much as necessary to support an economically viable, socially responsible and environmentally sound European agricultural sector. The crop protection industry is committed to contributing its knowledge and expertise on the issues addressed by the Commission Communication. Crop Protection is a fundamental need, whichever technique is used. We strongly believe that the focus of the future Thematic Strategy has to lie in the following areas: • Education and training of CPP users • Regular technical inspection of application equipment and standards for storage of CPPs • Promotion of good practices and integrated farming systems including ICM ECPA supports several of the measures outlined within the Communication, particularly those that are geared towards intelligent and workable further risk reduction. By contrast we oppose any plan aimed at an arbitrary (quantitative) reduction of the use of crop protection products. Use reduction cannot be defined as a prerequisite for risk minimisation. ECPA feels that plans to reduce risks would be best placed at the national level. The respective authorities are best positioned to identify the most appropriate measures to be taken, adapted to national, regional or local needs. For some areas the best solutions can be found on the local level (at farm or even field), and a general EU-wide measure would not be appropriate. In these cases flexibility is needed and it should be left to Member States to prioritise local needs and decide on the best means to tackle specific problems. November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 4 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 3. The European farmers & growers viewpoint Dr. Christopher Wise, Chairman of COPA/COGECA's Phytosanitary Working Group COPA/COGECA appreciates the desire of Council and the European Parliament to address the sustainable use of pesticides having already started the process by reviewing the products available to farmers under Directive 91/414/EEC. COPA /COGECA recognises the principal objective of the ‘ Thematic Strategy’to reduce the risks associated with pesticides and notes that in achieving this, the Commission makes several proposals to regulate and modify the "downstream" use of pesticides at farmer level. COPA/COGECA wishes to convey to the Commission that the level of sophistication of farmers and the attendant infrastructures vary widely between Member States and the delivery of the proposed measures will need to reflect this. The level of commitment by farmers to adopt risk-reducing practices reflects the intensity of use, the commercial imperative to meet customer specifications and consumer sensitivity to possible residue contents (ie. salad vegetables are higher than cereals). In attempting to harmonise the "diligence" that farmers must reach, caution has to be taken to ensure that perverse distortions to the production costs do not ensue. The Commission has introduced suggestions to address the following policy questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Which? - production strategy What? – plant protection product choice Who? - operator competency Where? - fidelity of the application technology When? - recording and reporting treatments to the food chain COPA/COGECA contends that farmers will have justifiable sensitivities on how the Commission’ proposals will affect their returns, both within the supported and s unsupported sectors. The imposition of levies (taxes) will not lead to the enhancement of environmental protection that the Council and the European Parliament wish to see achieved - unless they were hypothecated in some way to assist farmers to facilitate beneficial crop husbandry practises. Once the outcome of the Mid-Term Review of the CAP is known, the feasibility of using the withholding of support payments as a means of incentivisation will become apparent. The legal bases for different cross-compliance interpretations needs to be transparent if untoward distortions are to be avoided. Nevertheless, COPA/COCEGA would agree that the encouragement of integrated crop/farm management is the most sustainable route forward. But the maintenance of the natural self-regulating capacity of the agricultural and ecology system by using the minimum quantity of pesticides and facilities requires a high level of management skill. COPA/COGECA insists that more attention should be paid to the tracing, and information provision to, farmers, technicians and advisors. COPA/COGECA stresses that proper knowledge is the correct starting point for any concerted action aimed at reducing the risk of pollution from legitimate pesticide use. November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 5 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 4. How to improve the CAP in order to reduce the use of pesticides Mr. Gerard Choplin, European Farmers Coordination CPE is working for sustainable family farming against the industrialisation of food production. The former and present CAP have been favouring the intensification of the production, including an over-use of pesticides in the production of grain, vegetables, fruits, etc…. The most important objective of the intensification of the production was to reduce the production costs in order to reduce the price of agricultural products for the agro-industry and supermarkets. To produce more, with less labour, more machines, more fertilizers, more pesticides, in order to produce cheaper. This objective did not change with the CAP reforms in 92, 99 and with the present mid term review. The production of fruits and vegetables, with about the same status in the CAP as poultry and pig production, that means without common market organisation, without supply management, are really the worst for the environment and should not be taken as model , as the MTR is doing for the other productions. If we want really to reduce the over-intensification of agriculture, we need to reform the objectives and instruments of the CAP on several levels. First I will give two concrete examples : Why the EU still permit to use hormones in grain production ? The straw shorters, which are plant hormones to reduce the length of straw, are a clear product for intensify the grain production. In order to rasie the yield, they permit to use more nitrates, that obliges the farmer to use more pesticides. That means a lot of external costs with too much nitrates and pesticides in ground water, costs paid by the tax payers or water consumers, and not by the agro-industry, who can buy very cheap grain. We propose to ban these straw shorters , with the same arguments that the EU used to ban beef hormones. We produce also too much grain. 2) Why the EU Commission is proposing a 10 years set-aside without rotation and explains that it will be good for the environment ? In the same time, the possibility to grow proteaginous on organic set aside is abandoned. It is much better for having sustainable grain production to have rotation. That should be an obligation. For supply management, it should be better to reduce the intensification factors as set aside, because in Europe, contrary to the USA, grain surpluses does not come from to great grain area, but from too high yields. We need basically to get rid of the objective to produce as cheap as possible for down stream industry and trade, as the present CAP and WTO are forcing farmers to do. To produce at lowest price does not mean to produce with less pesticides: the contrary is true : look at fruits and vegetables. We need a combination of: • community preference to avoid cheap imports with dumping and too low prices in the EU, • supply management and des-intensification to avoid surpluses • to delete all instruments of dumping at export (export subsidies, or the combination low prices + direct payments, which have the same dumping effects) November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 6 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides Some of the mandatory des-intensification instruments we propose : • strict application of nitrates directive (to be improved), • prohibition of straw shorters, • to encourage the farms to use less inputs, to practice the rotation of cultures, to replace silage-maize in Northern Europe by mixing grass with leguminous, • to support farms which respect stricter environmental standards to preserve biodiversity, We ask naturally for banning GMOs. November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 7 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 5. The Consumer co-operatives’perspective Mrs. Louise Ousted Olsen, Senior Adviser, EURO COOP The EU’ current legislative framework governing pesticides revolves around Directive s 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and the Directives on residues in food. Euro Coop welcomes the European Commission’ s initiative to elaborate a strategy to complement the existing legislative framework by targeting the use-phase of plant protection products, in this way aiming to reduce the impact of pesticides on the environment and human health. Euro Coop believes that it is important to link the strategy with other EU policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the new chemicals policy and the 6th Environmental Action Programme, in order for the strategy to have an effective impact in achieving sustainable development. Therefore the presentation will evolve around the following four main issues: • The question of sustainable use and non-use of pesticides. • The importance of timetables and indicators. • Knowledge of pesticides and in this connection the importance of educational measures. • The link to the CAP and, in particular, the importance of organic farming. November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 8 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 6. Consumer perspective Mrs. Beate Kettlitz, BEUC In May 2002 the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission published the report of the year 2000 pesticide residue monitoring program. The report highlighted the results of the analysis of pesticide residues in 45 000 samples of fruits, vegetables and cereals and revealed that 96% of the food samples did not exceed Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). Although the results might not seem to be alarming, there is still a series of remaining questions, which express the need for: harmonised monitoring and surveillance systems in Europe; comparable consumption data; harmonisation of substances allowed for use in Europe; the establishment of particularly designed control groups if residues are ubiquitous; • setting of MRLs. On top of it, it is important for consumers to have reassurance that special attention is being paid to: • vulnerable groups of populations; • bound residues of pesticides and pharmaceuticals; • the combined effect of multiple pesticide residues, including possible synergistic effects of multiple residues; • multiple sources of exposure to pesticides. Given the challenges that are involved in the use of pesticides in general and the risk perception by consumers in particular, it is all-important that pesticides must be used at levels “ low as reasonably achievable” Consequently, the use of chemicals for as . crop protection should be part of an integrated crop protection system within the startegy on a sustainable use of pesticides: • Specific targets should be designed at national levels to progressively achieve more stringent qualitative and quantitative reductions in the use of pesticides on specific crops and overall. • Principles for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) should be developed which specifically aim at reducing the dependency of agriculture on plant protection chemicals. This may be facilitated by establishing an EU-supported ‘ GAP research facility’ . • Least-harmful plant protection practices should be developed and promoted wherever feasible and practicable. • Best environmental practices should be applied. • The use of pesticides should ultimately give reason to appropriate control measures of the residue levels. To achieve this aim all players in the chain should have the appropriate knowledge about the responsible use of pesticides, and ongoing training should take place. • • • • November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 9 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of Thematic Strategy on Sustainable Use of Pesticides 7. Need for a Directive on Pesticides Use Reduction Mrs. Catherine Wattiez, Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe L’ utilisation des produits phytopharmaceutiques (PPP) en Europe n’ pas diminué a depuis 10 ans et une tendance à l’ augmentation de leur consommation est perceptible depuis 1996. Pourtant, l’ ampleur des problèmes occasionnés par les pesticides est sérieuse et va croissant. Dans l’ état actuel de nos connaissances relatives aux effets à long terme et combinés des pesticides auxquels nous sommes exposés, il est nécessaire de protéger les groupes vulnérables1. En effet, l’ état de contamination des eaux souterraines est préoccupant, le dernier rapport sur état de contamination en résidus des fruits, légumes et céréales confirme une lente détérioration de la situation, les fœ tus, nouveau-nés et jeunes enfants sont plus sensibles et plus exposés aux pesticides alors que les tests requis et les méthodologies d’ évaluation des risques sont inadéquats pour leur garantir un niveau élevé de protection de la santé. Une action communautaire afin de réduire, de façon significative, l’ utilisation des pesticides est donc urgente. Cette réduction de la dépendance vis-à-vis des pesticides est une approche complémentaire indispensable à la réduction du risque. Le PAN Europe, soucieux de contribuer à accélérer le processus, soumet à discussion un texte pour une Directive relative à la réduction de l’ utilisation des pesticides, massivement soutenu par de nombreux groupes d’ intérêt. Parmi les mesures essentielles, nous proposons la mise en œ uvre et l’ évaluation obligatoires, par les Etats membres (EM), de programmes intégrés de réduction de l’ utilisation des pesticides dotés d’ objectifs communautaires chiffrés, à atteindre selon un calendrier précis. Le recours à un indicateur commun pour la définition de l’ objectif de réduction et l’ évaluation du succès du programme est indispensable pour assurer la comparabilité de l’ information et éviter le biais dans l’ évaluation des réduction des risques par les EM individuels. Nous préconisons, à cet effet , le recours à l’ indice de fréquence de traitement utilisé au Danemark (objectif de réduction de 50% en 10 ans), ce d’ autant plus qu’ indicateur de risque idéal un mettra encore du temps à être développé et accepté par tous et que cette absence ne peut servir de prétexte à différer l’ action efficace, au niveau européen. Cet indicateur d’ utilisation intègre les effets biologiques potentiels des pesticides individuels y compris ceux actifs à plus faible dose et est un bon indicateur de la charge imposée à l’ environnement. Nous préconisons parallèlement des objectifs précis pour le développement de l’ agriculture biologique (30% de la surface agricole de chaque EM en 10 ans). Une autre mesure essentielle proposée par notre Directive consiste en la définition, par les EM, de la lutte intégrée (IPM) pour les usages non agricoles des PPP et des systèmes intégrés (ICM) pour les toutes les terres cultivées qui ne le sont pas en agriculture biologique. Ces pratiques minimales seront rendues obligatoires dans les 2 ans de la définition de ces standards. Le PAN Europe et le BEE, préconisent également, à terme, l’ application des pratiques ICM comme condition de base à l’ octroi, par les agriculteurs, de tout subside dans le cadre de la Politique Agricole Communautaire. 1 Communication de la Commission relative au 6 ième Programme d’ Action pour l’ Environnement November 4, 2002 Presentation Abstracts 10