1. Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
Thank you Mr Chairman.
This is indeed interesting to complement the information given few moment ago by Wolf on the other instrument being currently developed by the Commission.
(If necessary, personal presentation ….)
European Commission
DG Environment C-3
Eric Liégeois
EAF (4) Priority Substances
14 February 2003

2. EAF(4) Priority Substances
Framework
6th Environment Action Programme (EAP) (Decision 1600/2002 of 22 July 2002) calls for :
full implementation of existing legal framework
revision incl. comparative assessment + Community authorisation procedure
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
The framework of the EU-policy on plant protection products is now firmly defined in the 6th Environment Action programme, which was adopted …..
Among others it establishes for pesticides a two-track approach:
Furthermore, it looks beyond the borders of the EU and calls for: …
Ratification of PIC&POP Conventions
Support to management obsolete pesticides in candidate and developing countries
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

3. Existing Legislation:
Community legislation existing since 1979 for PPP, focuses on :
Beginning of Life-cycle:
Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing on the market of PPP Prevention at source
End of Life-cycle:
Directives on setting MRL’s in food and feedstuff
Let us first have a critical look at the existing legislation.
Although the Decision by Council and Parliament uses the term pesticides, it only refers to legislation on plant protection products (or agricultural pesticides), although the term as such could also include biocides. In the following, Commission will therefore only look at legislation on PPP and will first develop instruments to tackle problems caused by PPP. Biocides will come later when the review program.
Plant Protection Products have been regulated at EU level already since 1979, which is a very early stage. Legislation in the Member States existed already much longer.
Community legislation is focussing on the very beginning ……
…. and on the the end of the life-cycle of PPP, through
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

4. Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
New approach in 6 EAP (altogether 7 TS)
Two-step process - ‘knowledge based’
first: Consultation ‘Green Paper’
second: Development of strategy + detailed proposals
Commission Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ adopted 1st July 2002 (COM (2002) 349 final)
available at:
Let’s now turn to the second main pillar of the EU-policy on plant protection products, the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, that will complement the legislative pillar.
The concept of thematic strategies is a relatively new one, and the 6EAP calls overall for the development of 7 such strategies, which in addition to pesticides, concern for example the protection of soil, the marine environment, use of resources etc.
Thematic strategies are to be developed in a two-step process, that should be strictly ‘knowledge-based’. First, the Commission is to organise a broad consultation process, involving all stakeholders concerned, on the basis of an option paper. The outcome of this process will then help to develop the actual strategy and the detailed proposals necessary for its implementation.
For our thematic strategy, we could build on a number of background studies and preparatory work that had already been carried out in the nineties in the framework of the 5th Environment Action Programme.
So, in a relatively swift response to the 6EAP, we could adopt the Commissions Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ in July The precise reference is indicated here and also the webpage were you can find the text of the Communication and all relevant background material.

5. Why a European Strategy ?
Many risks have a cross-border character or are similar in various Member States
Unilateral actions taken by Member States like risk reduction programmes lead to
 unfair competition in the internal market.
 unequal levels of protection of human health and environment.
So why is a Community Strategy necessary, instead of just leaving the matter with the Member States as has been done so far.
Well, many of the risks linked to the use of pesticides have a cross-border character, e.g all those linked to the aquatic environment, residues on food, or are similar in the various Member States.
Unilateral risk reduction measures taken by the Member States, such as the national risk reduction programmes, can lead to unfair competition in the internal market (in particular for farmers), and also an unequal level of protection of human health and the environment. Both are clearly against the objectives of the Treaty founding the European Community.
The Communication therefore proposes a number of potential measures that could be part of a Community Thematic Strategy. These are proposed for each of the five specific objectives outlined by Parliament and the Council and could be either in a legally binding, mandatory form, or voluntary in nature, or in the form of economic incentives.
On certain issues, the Commission has also indicated already its preferences, whereas on other issues, the consultation is fully open as regards the outcome.
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

6. Objectives proposed by COM
Thematic Strategy on Pesticides has to address:
minimising the hazards and risks to health and environment from the use of pesticides
improved controls on the use and distribution of pesticides
reducing the levels of harmful a.s. including through substituting the most dangerous with safer, including non-chemical, alternatives
encouragement of the use of low input or pesticide free cultivation
transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress including the development of suitable indicators
ECPA 10th anniversary Conference

7. Process for developing the TS
COM(2002) 349 final in July 2002
Presentation to institutions (Council, EP, EESC)
Internet Consultation :
So were are we in the process of developing the thematic strategy:
The Communication for consultation was adopted in July 2002 and then published and specifically presented to the European institutions. We have requested all stakeholders to submit written comments via internet and and organised a conference on 4 October with more than 190 participants.
Stakeholder Conference : 4th November
Thematic Strategy proposal : approxim.2004
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

8. Stakeholders’ Conference
Broad public (+/-190)/30 speakers/10 posters
This slide summarises the composition of the audience at the conference with a relatively balanced representation of the various groups.
The conference opened with two plenary sessions and then split up into three Working Groups, which examined more closely water protection issues, concepts for IPM/ICM, and the experience of national reduction plans.
Proceedings and outcome of the conference are available on our website.
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

9. EAF(4) Priority Substances
Next steps
Institutional consultation
EESC : report adopted on 23 January 2003 in section (plenary in February)
Council : conclusions released in December 2002
Parliament : rapporteur K. Van Bremdt (BE) - report presented on January
Drafting Thematic Strategy
Internal approval within the Commission
Submission to institutions early 2004
Currently we are finalising the consultations of the other European Institutions. The Council adopted its conclusions in December 2002 under the Danish Presidency. There was overall broad support for the intentions of the Commission. However, the Member States were a bit jealous about subsidiarity and did not want the Commission to get too prescriptive with regard to the definition of the national plans, guidelines for IPM/ICM, training requirements, as this is considered as exclusive MS competence. We will have to see, how much sense this makes, when we consider the thematic strategy to be a European one.
The Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on 23 January. It is also expressing broad support for the Commissions intentions, but is very concerned about the impact of some of the possible measures on farmers, in particular with regard to international competitiveness. This holds for example for some more formal requirements, as the maintenance of application registers and direct economic measures, such as possible levies on PPP.
The European Parliament is currently discussing in both the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Whereas the former in its draft opinion is rather critical of the Commission for not being ambitious enough, the latter thinks we are going to far, putting unnecessary and unjustified burdens on farmers. So we have probably got it almost right. The EP will vote on its final opinion probably in March.
We will then digest all this input and prepare the thematic strategy for …..
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

10. Specific Results for Water issues
Institutional consultation
EESC : necessary protection measures decided at local level
Council :guidance only for national action plans (NAP)
Parliament (possibly evolution !) : comprehensive mandatory requirements mixed with volountary measures in the NAP’s + improved monitoring in environmental media + concerns about treatment cost for dinking water + promotion of compulsory safety buffer strip along waterways taking into account the potential risk and technical measures to prevent pesticides entering the water directly
Currently we are finalising the consultations of the other European Institutions. The Council adopted its conclusions in December 2002 under the Danish Presidency. There was overall broad support for the intentions of the Commission. However, the Member States were a bit jealous about subsidiarity and did not want the Commission to get too prescriptive with regard to the definition of the national plans, guidelines for IPM/ICM, training requirements, as this is considered as exclusive MS competence. We will have to see, how much sense this makes, when we consider the thematic strategy to be a European one.
The Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion last week. It is also expressing broad support for the Commissions intentions, but is very concerned about the impact of some of the possible measures on farmers, in particular with regard to international competitiveness. This holds for example for some more formal requirements, as the maintenance of application registers and direct economic measures, such as possible levies on PPP.
The European Parliament is currently discussion in both the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Whereas the former in its draft opinion is rather critical of the Commission for not being ambitious enough, the latter thinks we are going to far, putting unnecessary and unjustified burdens on farmers. So we have probably got it almost right. The EP will vote on its final opinion probably in March.
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

11. Stakeholders’ Conference
Working group 1: water resources
Role : TS is considered as a necessary complement of existing regulations (91/414 and WFD) as a co-ordination tool fixing clear attribution of responsibilities
Objective (=end-point) for reduction should be residues in water, with a differentiation btw. ground and surface water. Level of reduction, not agreed however.
Scope : agri and non-agri, but identification of sources and qualification of the type of uses are pre-requisites to choose the right tools
Mandatory or voluntary : no convergence about the legally binding character of the tools (‘sticks’), but well on the necessity of incentives (e.g.CAP = ‘carrots’)

12. EAF(4) Priority Substances
In Concreto, now
Options to be evaluated and implement in the Strategy
Improved control on distribution and use
statistics by producers and distributors (monitoring)
collection of data on use for professional uses (monitoring)
collection of packaging (point source !)
control of spraying equipment (diffuse emission)
education/training of users (awareness)
Low-imput farming + substitution,…..
Currently we are finalising the consultations of the other European Institutions. The Council adopted its conclusions in December 2002 under the Danish Presidency. There was overall broad support for the intentions of the Commission. However, the Member States were a bit jealous about subsidiarity and did not want the Commission to get too prescriptive with regard to the definition of the national plans, guidelines for IPM/ICM, training requirements, as this is considered as exclusive MS competence. We will have to see, how much sense this makes, when we consider the thematic strategy to be a European one.
The Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion last week. It is also expressing broad support for the Commissions intentions, but is very concerned about the impact of some of the possible measures on farmers, in particular with regard to international competitiveness. This holds for example for some more formal requirements, as the maintenance of application registers and direct economic measures, such as possible levies on PPP.
The European Parliament is currently discussion in both the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Whereas the former in its draft opinion is rather critical of the Commission for not being ambitious enough, the latter thinks we are going to far, putting unnecessary and unjustified burdens on farmers. So we have probably got it almost right. The EP will vote on its final opinion probably in March.
We will then digest all this input and prepare the thematic strategy for …..
14/02/2003
EAF(4) Priority Substances

13. Sustainable Use of PPP Thematic Strategy
Adoption early in 2004.
With that I would like to conclude, but I am happy to reply to your questions.
Thank you very much for your attention.
14/02/2003