Thought Starter for Working Group 3

Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides - Thought Starter Working Group III: National Plans for Hazard, Risk and Dependence Reduction The role of this Conference is to bring together all of the major stakeholders to discuss the European Commission’s Communication Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. It is hoped that by the end of the day's discussions, all stakeholders will have had a chance to express their views on the Communication and the future strategy, and that convergences and divergences of opinion, as well as concrete proposals to bridge them, will be identified. The workshop will gather all experience so far gained from the practical application of the current regulatory framework and facilitate exchange of this information. * The main objectives of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, as defined by the 6th Environmental Action Programme are:1 1. to minimise the hazards and risks to health and environment from the use of pesticides; 2. to improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides; 3. to reduce the levels of harmful active substances including through substituting the most dangerous with safer, including non-chemical, alternatives; 4. to encourage the use of low input or pesticide free cultivation among others through raising users' awareness, promoting the use of codes of good practices, and promoting consideration of the possible application of financial instruments; 5. to establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress made in fulfilling the objectives of the strategy including the development of suitable indicators. This working group will address actions needed to establish co-ordinated national plans for plant protection products (PPP) hazards, risks and dependence reduction in Europe, it will focus on: • • • • • • policy issues, potential problems and solutions related to national plans; ways to avoid any overlaps or contradictions in the system; ways to harmonise, improve, and speed-up implementation of existing instruments; ways to improve accountability of the current regulatory system; ways to address gaps in the existing system; potential needs and ways to develop an extended regulatory framework in order to achieve the identified objectives for the implementation of national plans; ways to co-ordinate national plans at EU level, including in the context of enlarged EU; ways to integrate local level variability in national plans; ways to involve all stakeholders in the monitoring/control system; • • • 1 OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 11 p. 1/11 Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides • • ways to build-up stronger public confidence in the future thematic strategy; the role of the future thematic strategy in addressing these issues. * This Thought Starter is divided into 3 sections: Section I – Background from the Communication – contains an overview of key points identified in the Commission Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides", which relate to the topic of the working group. Section II – Commission proposals for instruments and initiatives – contains a list of Commission proposals as presented in the Communication. Section III – Stakeholders' input – contains proposals and comments put forward by stakeholders in: (i) position papers; (ii) comments on the Communication sent to the European Commission; (iii) presentations and posters for this conference. There are clear overlaps between issues to be addressed by the 3 working groups and relevant information might also be found in the other working groups' thought starters. Working groups should however focus their work on their specific topic. * Section I: Background from the Communication National plans • In 1998, the final workshop of the joint project by the European Commission and the Dutch authorities on the development and evaluation of future strategies for PPP highlighted "the need for additional European Community PPP risk reduction policy instruments" and suggested that: "these instruments should have common goals and be tailored to meet the needs at EU, national and local levels". The major concerns in connection with PPP use in Member States are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Contamination of water resources used for human consumption Possible adverse effects on the ecology, e.g., non-target species Risks to consumers from food via residues Effects of exposure to residues in water, soil and air Contamination of surface water or marine environments Risks to users of agricultural chemicals Misuse of PPP due to lack of knowledge among the users Specific concern about adverse effects on an ecosystem element Dependence of agriculture on chemicals for pest control • 10. Frequent and large-scale use of PPP These concerns have led to a number of national policy initiatives, the most frequent of which are: Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 p. 2/11 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides - Protection of watercourses, especially in sensitive zones, by monitoring and prohibition of use of certain products in water catchment areas. Training and education programmes for PPP applicators and users. National use reduction plans which have been developed and applied in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. Technical checks and certification of application equipment. Efforts to increase Integrated Pest Management forecasting techniques, and biological control methods. (IPM), pest Prohibition of aerial spraying for targeted protection of sensitive species and habitats, and protection of waters in general. Mandatory or voluntary collecting of packaging and unused products for safe destruction. Several Member States (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Belgium) introduced taxes on PPP to contribute to rationalising their use. have Some Member States have developed strategies to promote organic farming. Additionally, within the Codes of verifiable Good Farming Practices in the Rural Development Programmes established under Regulation 1257/1999, some Member States have addressed the questions of safe use and good practices in regard to pesticides. In some Member States, producer groups and food retailers are developing accounting systems in relation to PPP use. many of the risks presented by pesticide use are similar in all Member States; risks have a cross-border character, especially in terms of water and air pollution; many Member States have already started risk reduction programmes and such unilateral action can expose farmers in different Member States to unfair competition in the Internal Market and give rise to unequal levels of protection of health and environment in the Community; • Given that - it seems first and foremost necessary for all existing instruments and initiatives to be harmonised and fully implemented in a co-ordinated way. • There is room for improvement of existing instruments, particularly concerning matters such as potential synergistic or cumulative effects of PPP, long-term risks for the marine environment, incentives for substitution and an effective shift of use from more dangerous active substances to safer alternatives, improvement of provisions on enforcement and controls on distribution or sales of PPP, educational requirements for users and technical requirements for application equipment. Monitoring and indicators • Statistics on PPP sales (in tonnes of active ingredient) are gathered annually in most Member States and transmitted to Eurostat. Data are available for the period 1990 to 1999, but there are gaps for some years and some Member States. Only a few Member States collect regular statistics on the quantities of individual active ingredients used on farms. For this reason, the Commission p. 3/11 • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides has encouraged Member States to set up specific PPP use data collection systems and DG Agriculture has via Eurostat provided financial support to Member States wishing to carry out pilot studies on the collection of PPP use data. So far, the only more detailed information comes from industry, collected under contract to Eurostat. • Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) have been set for many PPP commodity combinations, and national as well as co-ordinated Community programmes are in place for monitoring PPP residues in food. The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission carries out audits and checks in the Member States, and reports its findings and recommendations, on monitoring of pesticides residues in foodstuffs, the application of Article 17 of Directive 91/414/EEC, and Directive 96/23/EC. It also puts together the data provided by Member States on their national and EU-wide pesticide residue monitoring. In addition, national monitoring programmes for pesticide residues (including fruit, vegetables, cereals and food of animal origin) have been developed. There is currently no harmonised environmental monitoring of PPP in all Member States. Some data exist in certain Member States, e.g. on water contamination, but neither agricultural nor forest soil is subject to regular or harmonised monitoring throughout the Community. The definition of adequate monitoring requirements, collection of use data and harmonised systems to report any incidents related to health or the environment could be most efficiently regulated at Community level (in close co-operation with Member States). Sales (kilograms/ hectare) is a frequently used indicator in national plans for "use" reduction. However it is not directly related to a reduction of "risks", as decreases in sales could be due to increased use of higher-activity substances and possibly higher risks. Frequency of application is considered a better general indicator (mainly by NGO’s and the Northern Member States). The Communication "Indicators for the integration of environmental concerns into the CAP" has identified a core set of indicators and areas where indicators need to be developed further. Among those are several related to risks from PPP to the environment. The most important are: consumption of pesticides: however, the risks posed by pesticides vary considerably, depending on specific characteristics (i.e. toxicity, persistence) of active ingredients and use patterns (i.e. volumes applied, application period, method, type of crop treated, type of soil). Two complementary indicators can be envisaged: (i) index of pesticide use, weighted to take into account different types of toxicity and use patterns, (ii) pesticide use, classified according to intrinsic characteristics, e.g. toxicity to non-target species, long term effects, persistence in the environment, etc; soil contamination: extent to which pesticide residues or metabolites accumulate in soil; water contamination: the evolution of pesticide concentrations in ground and surface water. • • • • • Within the OECD specific work has been started recently on risk reduction indicators based on the intrinsic characteristics of individual PPP. Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 p. 4/11 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides • All these initiatives, if developed further and well co-ordinated, should contribute to a more comprehensive picture of the situation. Taxes and levies • Some Member States have already introduced specific levies, while others are planning to do so. Introduction of an environmental charge would raise awareness of the detrimental effects of over-intensive PPP use and further reduce reliance on chemical inputs in modern agriculture. Such a levy would also make non-chemical methods more competitive and could contribute to the additional funds, needed to cover the external costs of PPP, research and development work into more sustainable alternatives and further protection of sensitive areas and population groups. The experience of two real cases of levies applied in practice (Denmark and Sweden) seems to indicate a certain impact, albeit more limited than originally expected. In Sweden the levy is set at a fixed amount per kg of active ingredient regardless of the type of PPP. In Denmark, fixed rates have been set for all insecticides (37% of retail price), fungicides, herbicides and growth regulators (25%) and microbiological agents (3%). Demand for PPP did decrease, indicating some price elasticity, but it was unclear whether this could be attributed to the levy alone or was due to a number of 'accompanying measures' taken at the same time. Instead, an important aspect has been the revenue-raising role of the levy. The funds raised were used (at least in part) to finance support programmes (such as advisory services) to optimise pesticide use. In both countries, significant organic agriculture sectors have developed as well. The current situation with VAT on PPP ranging between 3 and 25% puts farmers in various Member States in an unequal situation. The current Community legislation allows Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT for PPP. It distorts the internal market and can lead to illegal import with increased uncertainties concerning potential negative consequences for health and environment resulting from the use of those illegally imported PPP, like for example the increased risk from a label which is in a language unknown to the user. • • Education and training • Implementation of education and training programmes for users fall currently within the purview of the Member States. In order to achieve a higher level of harmonisation and better implementation, it might, however, be necessary to define minimum requirements at Community level. Section II: Commission proposals for instruments and initiatives National plans • Experience in Member States has shown the efficacy of risk or use reduction plans. Programmes have to be tailored to local conditions. Different regions should map out their specific needs, such as particular pressures and impacts in water catchment areas. Broad participation by all parts of society, particularly farmers, their unions, extension services and public authorities should be encouraged when designing the specific programmes, targets and timetables. The plans could necessitate Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 p. 5/11 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides preliminary studies to evaluate different scenarios and their consequences. The results of these national plans must be regularly reported and evaluated. The Commission proposes that all Member States establish national plans to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control within two years and report regularly. Reduction measures for all areas under the control of public authorities should be exemplary parts of these plans. The plans should be closely co-ordinated or integrated with similar actions under other Community legislation such as the river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive or rural development plans under the CAP. • Risks from chemical control measures in environmental sensitive areas – as defined e.g. in NATURA under Directive 92/43/EEC, which requires, in Article 6(2), measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats as well as disturbance of species and which encourages positive measures such as environmentally friendly farming – should be reduced. The Commission proposes that the Member States introduce measures to increase the protection of such areas by reducing the overall use of PPP and defining areas of zero PPP use. Monitoring and indicators • Most indicators currently used include quantitative change in volumes used and application frequency. But, because of the different chemical characteristics and methods of use of different PPP, such parameters do not necessarily correlate with the decrease in risk. Therefore other types of measurement are needed, such as the percentage of certified applicators, of the area treated with PPP and others still to be developed or a combination of all these. The Commission proposes that the Member States report regularly on progress with national risk reduction programmes. Pending the development of harmonised indicators, they should report on progress by using the most suitable indicators currently available to them. Monitoring should include agricultural and, where appropriate, forest soils, the aquatic environment, and residues in food and feedstuff. The Commission and the Member States should actively contribute to the international development of indicators (in particular within the OECD) and their subsequent use. • Current residue monitoring programmes need to be reinforced and enlarged in scope (to a broader range of food and feedstuff) and better coordinated among the Member States (all ministries and agencies concerned) with enhanced support from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the Commission. The Commission proposes that the Member States, including through possible Commission funded research programmes, initiate mid to long-term epidemiological research on PPP users at risk and launch broad investigation and monitoring programmes on pesticide residue levels for consumers, with particular emphasis on groups of the population at particular risk. National monitoring efforts should be co-ordinated for better efficiency with enhanced support by the FVO. • The Commission proposes that Member States create new (where needed) or modify existing reporting systems for recording and analysis of incidents having consequences for health and environment of workers and private p. 6/11 Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides users, which should then be co-ordinated. Information should be centralised and evaluated for the whole Community. Taxes and levies • In the light of experience to date, the Commission does not propose at this time to develop a fully-fledged EU-wide scheme of levies on PPP that would reflect real marginal externalities. Further research into the full costs and benefits (including externalities) of using PPP or alternative methods will be necessary first. The Commission considers that, if such a levy was to be introduced, Member States should be encouraged to apply tax differentiation, taking into account the general principles of the EC Treaty and their specific environmental concerns. Taxation should provide sufficient incentive to pesticide users to opt for pesticides less harmful for the environment in the particular context of the Member State concerned and contribute to internalise at least partly the external effects of the use of PPP. It could further contribute to the financing of a number of measures under the national risk reduction plans and research and development as proposed in various earlier points. The Commission proposes that the harmonisation of VAT at the normal Community rate should be considered as the necessary first step to respect the requirements of a single market and to reduce risks of illegal imports. • Education and training • The Commission proposes to introduce within two years of the adoption of the thematic strategy relevant mandatory requirements for the creation of a system of mandatory education, awareness raising, training and certification for all PPP users (farmers, local authorities, workers, distributors, traders and extension services). The training should put emphasis on safe use, covering both human health and environmental aspects. It would further contribute to the free movement of workers through common and recognised training requirements. Best practice guidelines for the most essential parts of the training should be developed. This could be done against the background of the education programmes provided for in article 9 of Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 1257/99. The scheme should include adequate monitoring measures to assess compliance and, where appropriate, a link between support to farmers under the CAP and compliance with the required measures should be established. Section III: Stakeholders' input National plans • The Communication lacks any consideration of new, specific legislation to tackle reduction of the dependency on and the impact of pesticides, as well as lacking mandatory targets and timetables for the establishment of national plans to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on pesticides control. European farmers and Member State authorities can not minimise and reduce pesticides use, without a proper European framework – including direct EU-level action – which sets legally binding targets and timetables and establishes the right incentives to shift into less intensive pesticide use practices and pesticide free alternatives. p. 7/11 • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides • Immediate EU action is needed to curb the growing pesticides use, without waiting for a Thematic Strategy to be ready in 2004. A Directive specifically focusing on a more stringent, preventive approach is urgently needed – and one that clearly defines, in an integrated way, the use-reduction measures to be taken. The focus of any kind of plan should be on appropriate risk reduction measures as opposed to plans aiming at an arbitrary (quantitative) reduction of the use of crop protection products. A reduction in PPP use will not automatically achieve environmental improvements and the risks of other approaches should not be ignored. 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. Specific targets and timetables 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. In the context of a Directive, national action plans must set forth how each Member State will achieve the progressive reductions of uses of pesticides and in particular for all areas under control of public authorities and for agricultural uses. It is proposed that, for each MS, a target of 50% reduction in the frequency of application (use indicator) within 10 years is set. Frequency of application – as used in the Danish pesticide use reduction programme – is the most straightforward indicator currently available. The current lack of a widely accepted "ideal" risk indicator cannot be used as an excuse for delaying action. For some areas the best solutions can be found at 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. Subsidiarity is of particular importance when it comes to the practical implementation of potential measures. The thematic strategy will need to reflect the fact that the level of sophistication of farmers and the attendant infrastructures vary widely between Member States. Mandatory national studies must be made and used to determine, on the basis of current pesticide use patterns, the feasibility and consequences of various scenarios for the progressive reduction or phasing out the use of chemicals for pest control. These studies should serve as a basis for Member States to determine how they will achieve the mandatory targets. PPP are often needed within sensitive (NATURA) areas to control invasive pests (e.g. bark beetles) that otherwise would threaten the protected species or biodiversity. While there might be a potential for some areas of zero PPP use, this does not apply to all the NATURA areas per se. The choice and implementation of specific measures to protect NATURA areas should remain in the competence of the Member States, where the local situation can best be analysed and appropriate measures can be taken. National plans should include mandatory designation of pesticide vulnerable zones where use of pesticides is banned or severely restricted p. 8/11 • • • • • • • • • • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides due to ecological and human health vulnerability, according to objective criteria. • The and the this introduction of a system of regular and safe collection, possible re-use controlled destruction of PPP packaging and unused products should be responsibility of pesticide producers. Any system established to meet responsibility should however be approved by the competent authority. • • It is suggested to call an EU workshop on strategies to minimise pesticide use and exchange relevant experience among Member States. Demonstration programmes on how to reduce frequency of application by use of non-chemical pest control methods and systems should be included in national plans. The process of dissemination of research to farmers is a very important element of national plans, as shown by the Danish experience. In particular, overall national goals are too abstract as a steering tool for farmers. It is important that farmers can translate the aims of the action plan in terms of their own farming situation. • Monitoring and indicators • There is a need for harmonised monitoring, data collection and surveillance systems in Europe, including the identification of results from imported products to get objective national reports and to check for the success of national measures. Co-ordinated monitoring and data collection of the impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment, including long-term research programmes, is needed. Co-ordinated systems for collecting information on production, import, export, sales, distribution and use of pesticides, including mandatory record keeping and reporting of all applications of pesticides including amounts used per crop and frequency of treatments, are needed. Suggested measures on reporting and information/data collection are very demanding with regard to their practical implementation and involve significant costs and administrative burden for the whole food production chain including, manufacturers, farmers, importers and exporters. Before embarking on such proposals, it is essential to clarify how the data will be used and how it helps in achieving the goals of the Thematic Strategy. Existing residue monitoring programmes on pesticide residue levels on food commodities need to be better co-ordinated within the European Union. Sample collection and selection, data generation and reporting have to be done in a harmonised manner in order to ensure a high quality and comparability of the results throughout all Member States. Perceived potential risks to consumers and lack of data need to be considered for the selection of commodities and residues to be analysed. However potential risks to all consumer groups need to be taken into account. Better co-ordination of reporting systems and scientific analyses of the data on incidents is needed to improve knowledge on areas of potential risks. For a proper risk assessment it needs to be ensured that the data collected is directly and unambiguously linked to the exposure of PPP. • • • • • • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 p. 9/11 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides • Indicators should be based on risk rather than the amount of PPP used or their mere presence in trace amounts. Neither the volume used nor the application frequency necessarily correlate with the decrease in risks. If the quantity used is significant, the toxicity of the individual active ingredient and the way in which it is used will markedly influence risk. Furthermore, the amount of input used would also need to be considered against the output. All test results should be published in an easily accessible way. • Taxes and levies • Efficient risk reduction can be achieved through approaches other than taxes or levies, such as general improvement in user education and the adoption of Integrated Crop Management. Any move towards a discussion on taxes at national level would be inappropriate in the light of the overall goal of achieving the sustainable use of crop protection products. 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. Harmonisation of the VAT to facilitate trade and establish a level playing field for all users of PPP is seen as a positive step towards the smooth functioning of the internal market. • • Education and training • • The future Thematic Strategy should in particular focus on education and training of CPP users. Mandatory requirements are needed for training and certification of pesticide dealers and extension workers according to minimum Community standards, and licensing of pesticide operators only if they have completed minimum levels of training. Training and refresher training on new developments, best practices and environmental matters for users of PPP and advisors should be part of the Thematic Strategy. Training could lead to deliverance of certificates of competence. Flexibility should be provided for the implementation of systems and specific training requirements in the Member States. All players in the chain should have the appropriate knowledge about the responsible use of pesticides, and ongoing training should take place. • • General Comments • The Strategy should be based on consistent application of the precautionary principle in setting strict rules to ensure the absence of harmful pesticide residue in food. Any duplication or overlap with other legislation (particularly Directive 91/414/EEC) should be avoided. The measures relating to agricultural production systems need to be co-ordinated with the outcome of a future CAP reform, in order to prevent duplication and unnecessary additional burden for the farming community. There is concern that an inappropriate link is made between the overall objective of reducing potential risks associated with the use of PPP and p. 10/11 • • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides measures aimed at reducing dependence on chemical control (PPP). The focus must not lie on reduction for reduction purposes but rather on sustainable and safe use. • • Dependence reduction is a necessary complementary approach to risk reduction. The benefits of PPP need specific attention and further research will be necessary to bridge existing knowledge gaps. This is particularly important given that some still argue for quantitative use reduction measures without providing appropriate cost-benefit analysis and thus without understanding the consequences of such proposals. Rapid revision of 91/414 Directive is needed, ensuring that: (i) the burden of proof is reversed; (ii) pesticides with PBT, vPvB, EDC, CMR properties or properties giving rise to a similar level of concern are withdrawn from the market; and (iii) the decision making process is made transparent for all stakeholders. Empowerment at Community level is needed to ensure enforcement of a future strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. 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. More complete information for the public about pesticides is needed. The Thematic Strategy should provide for full access to information on pesticides held by authorities, including information supporting specific regulatory decisions in due time to allow for response from the general public. The future legislation should list types of information on pesticides held by public authorities for which request for information cannot be refused. Confidential business information has to be redefined. It has to be demonstrated to be prejudicial to the financial or competitive interests of the persons to whom it belongs. The thematic strategy should provide for public participation in regulatory decision making on pesticides and their use, including for authorisations of PPP. There is a lack of research and evidence on the impact on the human body of the 'cocktail effect' or the exposure to several pesticides. Special attention should be given to multiple sources of exposure to pesticides. Definition of the necessary minimum in the use of pesticides is needed to define baselines and formulate common objectives such as environmental and quality standards. Green labelling should be considered in the thematic strategy. • • • • • • • • • • • Thought Starter – Working Group III – National Plans – November 4, 2002 p. 11/11