EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.6.2022 COM(2022) 305 final 2022/0196(COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (Text with EEA relevance) {SEC(2022) 257 final} - {SWD(2022) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 170 final} - {SWD(2022) 171 final}



EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 1.CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL •Reasons for and objectives of the proposal Pesticides are mixtures of one or more formulated active substances and co-formulants that are widely used to protect plants by repelling, mitigating or destroying harmful organisms. They are mainly used in agriculture but also in forestry and green urban areas and along transport networks such as roads and railways. Since pesticides can have harmful effects on the environment and on human health they are strictly regulated at EU level. For the purpose of this proposal, the term ‘pesticides’ will be used synonymously with the term ‘plant-protection products’. The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD) was adopted in 2009 as one of the follow-up actions of the Commission thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides . Member States were required to bring into force the national provisions transposing the SUD into their domestic law by 26 November 2011. The Commission considered it appropriate to carry out an evaluation of the SUD that also considered the problems identified with its implementation, enforcement and application in Member States. This work was performed as a back-to-back assessment, incorporating both an evaluation and an impact assessment. The Commission hoped to use the assessment to help bring forward a new legislative proposal to revise the SUD by Q1 2022 as stated in the farm-to-fork strategy. There are currently weaknesses in the implementation, application and enforcement of the SUD. These weaknesses have been highlighted by Commission audits and fact-finding visits to Member States and implementation reports by: (i)the Commission; (ii)the European Parliamentary Research Service study on the implementation of the SUD; and (iii)a recent report of the European Court of Auditors on plant-protection products. In addition, growing societal concerns about the use of pesticides can be seen in the many petitions, two European citizens’ initiatives, and European Parliamentary questions on this issue. Feedback received during the public consultation on the Commission’s evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment pointed to serious deficiencies in the implementation of the SUD in some Member States. This feedback also urged the Commission to introduce stricter rules, for example in the form of a regulation at EU level to increase coherence and introduce more effective policies in individual Member States. The harmonisation of national pesticide-use policies could help improve the functioning of the internal market and reduce trade distortions between Member States. Achieving safe, sustainable, just, climate responsible, and affordable production of food, respecting sustainability principles, the environment, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, while ensuring food security, is of great concern for citizens and feature among the 49 proposals included in the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, published on 9 May 2022. Citizens also ask the Union to protect and restore biodiversity, the landscape and oceans, and eliminate pollution, as well as to take decisive measures to promote and guarantee a more ecological and climate-oriented agriculture. As part of the European Green Deal, the Commission’s farm-to-fork strategy highlights the need to transition to a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. The farm-to-fork strategy also stresses the importance of improving the position of farmers (who are key to managing this transition) in the value chain. It proposes two specific targets to reduce the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides and more hazardous pesticides by 2030. EU regulation in this area is a crucial tool to achieve the targets outlined in the farm-to-fork strategy and should therefore be strengthened. As explained in the accompanying impact assessment, and taking account of the supporting evaluation, the proposal has the following four objectives. ●The first objective is to: (i)reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides, in particular those containing more hazardous active substances; (ii)increase the application and enforcement of integrated pest management (IPM); and (iii)increase the use of less hazardous and non-chemical alternatives to chemical pesticides for pest control. ●The second objective is to improve the availability of monitoring data, including on: (i)the application, use of, and risk from pesticides; and

(ii)health and environmental monitoring. This will ensure a better framework to measure progress. ●The third objective is to improve the implementation, application and enforcement of legal provisions across all Member States to improve policy effectiveness and efficiency. ●The fourth objective is to promote the adoption of new technologies, such as precision farming that makes use of space data and services (including geospatial localisation techniques), with the aim of reducing the overall use and risk of pesticides. The recent evaluation of the SUD confirmed the long-standing difficulties identified in its application, implementation and enforcement. Given these difficulties, this proposal for a regulation on the sustainable use of plant-protection products (SUR) aims to: (i)replace the SUD in regulating the use of pesticides; and (ii)better align with the objectives of the European Green Deal and farm-to-fork strategy. This proposal aims to reduce the risks from – and impacts of – pesticide use on human health and the environment by: (i)achieving pesticide-reduction targets contained in the farm-to-fork strategy; and (ii)promoting the use of IPM and alternatives to chemical pesticides. A regulation is appropriate to both ensure that the level of ambition in the farm-to-fork strategy is met and remedy the problems identified with the implementation of the SUD by providing clear and uniform rules. •Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area The proposal is consistent with the European Green Deal’s objective that all EU policies should contribute to preserving and restoring Europe’s natural capital. It is also consistent with the aims of: (i)reducing the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides; and (ii)reducing the use of more hazardous pesticides. These aims are present in the following documents: (i)the farm-to-fork strategy; (ii)the biodiversity strategy; (iii)the zero-pollution action plan; and (iv)the soil strategy. This aim is also consistent with meeting the objectives of the EU pollinators initiative, the EU chemicals strategy for sustainability and the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027.

The proposal is also consistent with European Commission targets to have at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming – and a significant increase in organic aquaculture – by 2030. The proposal also complements other current initiatives. For example, Regulation xxx/xxx on statistics on agricultural inputs and outputs of the agricultural sector [reference to adopted act to be inserted] will allow the Commission to publish more data on the sale and use of pesticides broken down by individual active substances. As part of the farm-to-fork action plan, the Commission has prepared four draft Regulations regarding the data requirements, the approval criteria and evaluation principles for active substances that are micro-organisms and the plant protection products containing them with the objective of facilitating access to the market for alternative products to chemical pesticides. These texts will be adopted and become applicable in the autumn of 2022. The objective is to provide farmers with tools to substitute chemical plant protection products. By facilitating the placing on the market of these biological plant protection products, farmers – including those producing organic crops - will have more alternatives available for sustainable crop protection. The proposal is also relevant to the EU’s outermost regions, as listed in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), located in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Due to permanent constraints such as their remoteness to the EU continent, insularity and dependence on few products and high exposure to climate change, they are entitled to specific measures to support their socio-economic development. As also provided for in the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, a particular focus should be placed on protecting and restoring the outermost regions’ ecosystems, given their exceptionally rich biodiversity value. •Consistency with other Union policies Common agricultural policy (CAP) Under the new CAP (due to be implemented from 1 January 2023), Member States will be helped to: (i) fund actions in line with the pesticide-reduction targets in the farm-to-fork strategy; and (ii) promote sustainable farming practices. Relevant elements of the current SUD are already included in the system of conditionality under the CAP. The new CAP also includes various instruments to promote precision farming. Member States can use eco-schemes and environmental, climate and other management commitments to support the implementation of precision farming practices. Furthermore, the CAP includes the possibility to fund investments, for instance in machinery equipment, and risk management tools as well as technical knowledge building support such as training, advice, cooperation and knowledge exchange. More specifically, through the CAP’s farm advisory services, Member States are to offer advice to farmers on the sustainable use of pesticides, innovation, digital technologies, reduction of exposure to pesticides and sustainable management of nutrients. Capacity building for the uptake and effective deployment of digital technologies by farmers can also be reinforced through support, cooperation and the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). In addition, in their CAP strategic plans, Member States are to explain how they will use CAP instruments to meet relevant needs and objectives. Environmental and chemicals policy This proposal interacts with a number of environmental policies and legislative acts, for example: (i)planned nature-restoration targets; (ii)the pollinators initiative to address the decline of pollinators in the EU and contribute to global conservation efforts; (iii)the lists of pollutants and regulatory standards in the Environmental Quality Standards Directive, the Groundwater Directive and the Drinking Water Directive. It is key to delivering on the objectives set out in the EU water laws including the Water Framework Directive. It also links with the nature conservation requirements in the Habitats and Birds Directives. EU policy on Occupational Health and Safety The proposal is complementary to the provisions of the relevant EU occupational health and safety acquis, in particular Framework Directive 89/391/EEC, Directive 98/24/EC, Directive 2004/37/EC, Directive 2009/104/EC and Directive 89/656/EEC. It is in line with the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021-2027, which draws specific attention to the need to strengthen training to increase farmers’ skills and awareness on the health and safety rules on farms, including safe use of chemical substances, in particular plant protection products. Initiative for a Sustainable Union Food System This proposal is complementary to the planned legislative initiative on a sustainable food system framework, which aims to promote policy coherence at EU and national level, mainstream sustainability in all food-related policies and strengthen the resilience of the Union food system. This planned initiative is based on a horizontal approach that will introduce sustainability-related objectives, common definitions, general principles as well as requirements for a Union sustainable food system, while addressing the responsibilities of all actors in the food system. Combined with labelling on the sustainability performance of food products and with targeted incentives, the framework will allow operators to benefit from sustainable practices and ensure that food in the EU market and food-related operations increasingly become sustainable. The provisions of this regulation will act as lex specialis in relation to the requirements set out by the planned initiative to the extent that the provisions of this regulation include more specific provisions with the same objective, nature and effect compared with those to be laid down in the planned initiative. 2.LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY •Legal basis The legal basis for action in this area is Article 192(1) of the TFEU, which empowers the European Union to take action to preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment and to protect human health. EU action in this area is justified by the environmental and public health issues at stake. •Subsidiarity The SUD created a framework to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. Continued inconsistency in the measures taken in Member States combined with varying/incomplete implementation of the SUD (as outlined in the evaluation accompanying this proposal) would lead to different levels of protection of health and the environment. This would also lead to diverging conditions for the main users of pesticides, contrary to the objectives of the Treaties. The threat to biodiversity and ecosystems linked to the use of pesticides crosses borders and requires strong action at EU level. A level playing field across the internal market is being hampered by current variations in the levels of action taken in different Member States.

Coordinated EU action can effectively supplement and strengthen national and local actions on the sustainable use of pesticides. The EU also possesses other key instruments in agricultural and food policies which have synergies with the measures set out in the proposal. Combined with incentives and possible risk mitigation measures, it is expected that stronger action at EU level on pesticides (including in association with related policies such as the CAP) can: (i)help to reduce current variations in national approaches; and (ii)contribute to a more homogenous approach in the future. These objectives cannot be set by the Member States acting on their own: the scale of the action required means that these objectives can be better achieved at EU level. Uniform EU action is therefore justified and necessary. •Proportionality This proposal complies with the proportionality principle because it does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure: (i)an appropriate level of ambition; and (ii)improved policy efficiency and effectiveness. It achieves this by taking into account the findings of the evaluation accompanying this proposal. The proposal provides for both improved data, and better monitoring/implementation of measures to reduce the use of – and risk from – pesticides. On Member State targets, this proposal avoids fixing uniform mandatory targets for Member States. This is because the current baseline of pesticide use varies widely between Member States. The proportionality of the target-setting process has been ensured by providing for a legislative formula that allows differences in progress and in intensity of pesticide use between Member States to be taken into account. •Choice of the instrument The available evidence on deficiencies in implementing the SUD in Member States shows that the previous approach of leaving the detailed rules to national transposition under a Directive has not worked to the extent envisaged by the original SUD proposal. The findings of the SUD evaluation confirm the divergent and uneven implementation, application and enforcement of the SUD across Member States. These findings were confirmed by a Commission compliance-monitoring index described in the evaluation. The European Court of Auditors also found that there was a need for clearer criteria and more specific requirements on IPM to help ensure enforcement and assess compliance. Because there are so many complex agricultural variables in pest management, rules that are clear and uniform should simplify compliance and improve enforcement. The consistent application of the policy across Member States is better achieved by means of a regulation, as opposed to a directive. In addition, a regulation would facilitate a more level playing field among pesticide users, as different rules on pesticide use across Member States tend to create unfair competition and undermine the proper functioning of the single market. 3.RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS •Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation The evaluation accompanying this proposal found that the internal and external coherence of the SUD with other EU policies and instruments is generally strong, with no major inconsistencies or overlaps. The objectives of the SUD were, and still are, highly relevant to address the risks that pesticide use poses to the environment and human health. However, the SUD has only been moderately effective. Weaknesses identified by the Commission and others concern the implementation and enforcement of IPM, and the limited effectiveness of Member State national action plans (NAPs). Many Member States do not set quantitative targets or indicators in their NAPs to promote the sustainable use of pesticides or better protect human health and the environment. There is also no effective monitoring system, which has resulted in limited data on the use of pesticides. This has made it difficult to reach a conclusion on the extent to which the SUD has protected human health and the environment from the adverse effects of pesticides. Previously introduced measures under the CAP were not able to incentivise farmers to achieve the more sustainable use of pesticides. The Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) gave a negative opinion on the Commission’s draft impact assessment for this proposal on 26 November 2021. The draft impact assessment was in the form of a staff working document. The RSB requested that the document be revised to: (i)be clearer on the available data and evidence for the initiative; (ii)provide a more robust analysis or narrative for the pesticide-use and risk-reduction targets; (iii)be clearer on the availability and affordability of precision-farming techniques and less hazardous alternatives to chemical pesticides; and (iv)identify and better analyse the impacts and trade-offs of the initiative for the environment, health and the economy.

The RSB gave a second opinion – this time positive with reservations – on 26 January 2022 on the revised impact assessment staff working document. After this second opinion, the document was further amended to address the RSB’s reservations so that the document would: ●explain clearly both the lack of evidence on pesticide sales and use and the corresponding limitations this lack of evidence places for the problem definition, option formulation and impact analysis; ●better justify the choice for the twin 50% binding reduction targets and how they relate to each other; ●specify the level of progress necessary in individual Member States for them to be compliant with the twin binding EU reduction targets, and specify how this will be measured, allocated, or result in a fair burden sharing; ●clarify the flanking initiatives included in the baseline for the impact assessment; and ●set out a more credible basis and timeframe for the future evaluation of the initiative. The final impact assessment was produced in the form of a Commission staff working document and has been revised in line with these RSB opinions, comments and points for improvement. •Stakeholder consultations A combined evaluation roadmap and inception impact assessment on this proposal was published and made open for public feedback from 29 May to 7 August 2020. In total, 360 responses were received. The public consultation ran from 18 January to 12 April 2021 and received a total of 1 699 responses. The feedback received represented a wide spectrum of views, as outlined in the synopsis report that summarised the stakeholder consultation (this synopsis report is annexed to the impact assessment accompanying this proposal). Professional users of pesticides emphasised the need to protect crop yield and crop quality. Other stakeholders emphasised the need to promote IPM, increase the availability of alternatives to chemical pesticides, and better assess the health and environmental impacts of using chemical pesticides. The Commission organised remote stakeholder events on this initiative on 19 January, 25 June and 5 October 2021. A number of issues emerged at these stakeholder events, including: (i)concerns from pesticide users about the possibility of fewer pesticides being available on the market; (ii)the limited financial support under the CAP for implementing IPM; (iii)the need to protect farmers’ incomes; (iv)promoting the role of new technologies; (v)protecting human health and the environment; and (vi)whether to continue a prohibition on aerial application of pesticides. Most NGOs stressed the importance of achieving the European Green Deal’s ambitions and related targets. Another issue emphasised at the stakeholder events was the need to improve implementation of the NAPs. Targeted surveys, workshops and case-studies were also carried out in: (i)a Commission-contracted external study supporting the evaluation and impact assessment; and (ii)a supplementary foresight study on future vision scenarios on the sustainable use of pesticides. Details of the stakeholder consultations have been published on the Commission’s website and the Better Regulation Portal. Stakeholders who were involved and contributed to these consultation activities included: (i)farmers and contractors applying pesticides;

(ii)non-agricultural users of pesticides; (iii)health and environmental NGOs; (iv)professional associations representing industry and economic actors in relevant sectors (e.g. beekeepers, the chemical industry, the pesticide-application equipment industry, the seed industry etc.); (v)consumer associations; (vi)social partners (employers and workers organisations); (vii)the general public; (viii)EU and non-EU national and regional competent authorities; and (ix)scientific experts. Responses to the different activities showed that stakeholder views were largely divided into two broad points of view. The first group was of the view that pesticide use should be reduced in line with the goal of risk reduction in a manner which works with users of plant-protection products. The second group was of the view that pesticide use should be reduced significantly if not completely. The proposal has been developed as a proportionate and realistic – yet still ambitious – approach to addressing societal concerns around the use and risk of pesticides. It is an approach that: (i)still allows pesticides to be used when necessary and appropriate and in a safe manner; and (ii)promotes training and advisory systems for alternative pest-control techniques and the better implementation of IPM. As described in the impact assessment, a number of policy options were discarded based on stakeholder feedback. The level of ambition of the finally selected policy options also took into account the feedback received from stakeholders. •European citizens’ initiatives Two European citizens’ initiatives address the use of pesticides and call for ambitious reduction targets. The successful European citizens’ initiative ‘ Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides ’ called on the Commission, under its third aim, ‘to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future’. In its reply adopted on 12 December 2017 , the Commission stated that it would re-evaluate the need for EU-wide mandatory targets for pesticides. The initiative ‘ Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment ’ calls on the Commission ‘to propose legal acts to phase out synthetic pesticides in EU agriculture by 80% by 2030, starting with the most hazardous, and to become free of synthetic by 2035.’ The initiative has collected over 1 million statements of support by 30 September 2021, which are currently being verified by Member States authorities. If validated and officially submitted, the Commission will outline the actions it intends to take, if any, in a communication. •Collection and use of expertise The initiative was supported by two Commission-contracted external studies, which included an in-depth literature review, workshops, case-studies, and surveys. The impact assessment also drew on additional information from a number of other studies that used economic modelling to estimate the potential impact of achieving the targets in the farm-to-fork strategy, including the targets for pesticide use and risk reduction. •Impact assessment The executive summary sheet for the impact assessment is available here . The positive opinion of the RSB is available here .

The proposal’s aim of reducing the use of – and risk from pesticides – to protect health, biodiversity and the environment is relevant to the Commission’s ambition to deliver on the UN sustainable development goals. In particular, it is relevant to goals 3 (health and wellbeing), 6 (clean water), 8 (decent work and economic growth), 11 (sustainable cities), 12 (sustainable consumption and production), 14 (life below water) and 15 (life on land). In line with the objectives of the European Green Deal, the proposal also complies with the ‘do no significant harm’ principle. According to this principle, activities should not do significant harm to any of the six environmental objectives, within the meaning of Article 17 in accordance with Article 9 of the Taxonomy Regulation. The six objectives are: climate-change mitigation; climate-change adaptation; sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; transition to a circular economy; pollution prevention and control; and protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. The following main policy options were assessed against a likely baseline scenario where the SUD remains unchanged. Option 1: The EU targets to reduce pesticide use by 50% and reduce pesticide risks by 50% to be achieved by 2030 remain non-legally binding. Advisory systems and guidance for pesticide users would be improved. Precision-farming techniques would be promoted to cut the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides. Option 2: The 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at EU level. Member States would set their own national reduction targets using established criteria. These national targets would then be legally binding (under national law) and subject to governance mechanisms linked to regular annual reporting by Member States. The use of more hazardous pesticides would be prohibited in sensitive areas such as urban green areas. Professional pesticide users would need to keep electronic records on pesticide use and on IPM to help reduce pesticide use. National authorities would collect and analyse those records to monitor progress and devise corrective measures at national level if necessary. Independent advisory services would advise pesticide users on alternative techniques and IPM. Option 3 would be similar to option 2. However, under option 3, the 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at both EU and national level. The use of all chemical pesticides would be prohibited in sensitive areas such as urban areas and protected areas in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC, Natura 2000 areas etc. The preferred option is option 3, except for the targets, where option 2 is preferred. In this case, the targets to reduce both pesticide use and pesticide risk by 50% would become legally binding at EU level, with Member States setting their own national reduction targets under national law. The options have been assessed against a likely baseline scenario where the SUD remains unchanged. Prohibiting the use of all plant protection products in sensitive areas will maximise associated health and environmental benefits. The preferred option is consistent with the ambitions of the European Green Deal, the farm-to-fork strategy, the biodiversity strategy, and the zero-pollution action plan. This preferred option will provide a range of benefits to society, biodiversity and ecosystems by reducing risks to human health and the environment from pesticide use. Protecting biodiversity will also help to reduce CO2 emissions. This is consistent with the EU-wide 2050 carbon-neutrality objective and the intermediate target to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030, set out in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the European Climate Law. Under this preferred option, pesticide users will be better informed about effective alternatives to chemical pesticides, enabling them to reduce their pesticide use and related expenses, while still producing food products that are competitive on the market. Thanks to more detailed data on pesticide use and IPM under this preferred option, Member State authorities can ensure that national measures benefit farmers, the public, other stakeholders and the environment as much as possible. The preferred option also ensures that Member State actions would be more transparent and clear. Consistent with the objectives of the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy and the Biodiversity strategy, the reduction of the use of chemical plant protection products aims not only at ensuring public health, but also at preserving biodiversity and protecting the environment, particularly where global issues are at stake, like safeguarding pollinator populations. Under this preferred option, production costs per unit will increase due to: (i)stricter and more detailed reporting requirements; (ii)the expected reduction of yields due to lower pesticide use; and (iii)the inclusion of an additional cost layer for those professional users not currently using advisers. Under this proposal, Member States will be able to provide support under the CAP to cover the costs to farmers of complying with all legal requirements imposed by this proposal for a period of 5 years. This should prevent any increases in food prices arising from new obligations set out in this proposal. Many of the provisions contained in this proposal already existed under the SUD and therefore should have no impact on food prices or crop yields. The changes introduced by this proposal will be gradual, therefore further minimising any impact on food security. Potential off-setting and risk mitigation measures would also be needed to counter any undesired negative consequences for non-EU countries, especially developing countries. Such EU measures could support the FAO’s work to: (i)reduce the risk from pesticides through a sound lifecycle-management approach; (ii)help governments and stakeholders in the developing world to adopt ecosystem-based practices; and (iii)improve the management of pesticides in agriculture globally. The SMEs affected will include: (i)farmers and other SMEs using and selling pesticides and pesticide-application equipment;

(ii)handlers of agricultural produce and pesticides; (iii)food processors and intermediaries; (iv)agricultural contractors; and (v)agricultural advisers. Different costs and benefits will accrue to SMEs under the preferred policy option. Member States may apply incentives or mitigation, including under the CAP, to address some of the option’s impacts. Furthermore, more consistent and uniform application of the rules on pesticide use will reduce market distortions between pesticide users across Member States, which currently apply the existing rules to varying degrees. There will be control and administration costs for Member States in implementing and enforcing the updated rules and in collecting and analysing the relevant monitoring data. This is especially true for any initial set-up costs to introduce a data collection system. •Regulatory fitness and simplification In line with the Commission commitment to better regulation, the proposal has been prepared inclusively, based on transparency and continuous engagement with stakeholders. The evaluation did not identify possible legislative simplifications or reductions of regulatory burden that would make it easier to achieve the objectives of sustainable pesticide use. Micro-enterprises are not exempted from this proposal given the importance of uniform implementation of measures to reduce both the use of pesticides and the risk they pose to human health and the environment. This proposal is in line with a digital-ready policy by promoting electronic record-keeping and online publication of trends in progress towards meeting: (i)pesticide-reduction targets; (ii)implementation of NAPs; (iii)annual progress and implementation reports; (iv)Commission recommendations; and (v)Member State responses. Relevant provisions for cost-efficient, user-centric and interoperable digital services will be considered in implementing rules for the electronic registers that will be created as a result of the proposal. •Fundamental rights The proposal respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, it contributes to the objective of a high level of environmental protection in accordance with the principle of sustainable development as laid down in Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Better policy enforcement to reduce the risk from pesticide use and protect health could also contribute to the fundamental right of ‘fair and just working conditions’ (Article 31, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU). In particular, it could contribute to the right to working conditions that respect workers’ health, safety and dignity. 4.BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS This proposal does not have an impact on the EU budget. 5.OTHER ELEMENTS

•Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements The existing indicator to measure the achievement of the two pesticide targets in the farm-to-fork strategy will form the basis of the annual central monitoring of progress towards these targets at EU and Member-State levels. It should be noted that data indicating whether the 2030 targets on reducing the use and risk of pesticides have been achieved will likely only become available in 2032. Member States will need to monitor: ●the set-up and use of independent advisory services; ●the implementation of IPM rules at farm level through the electronic integrated pest management and plant protection product use register; ●the inspection of application equipment in professional use through specific registers; ●the training of professional users, distributors and advisers; ●the use of plant protection products through an electronic register. Member States will report information gathered through this monitoring annually to the Commission. The Commission will assess the information and supplement it with its own audits. To supplement this annual monitoring, the Commission proposes that it formally evaluates this initiative at the earliest 7 years after the planned legal proposal becomes applicable. Moreover, the monitoring data as described here and in the accompanying impact assessment can also be used directly to monitor the overall policy objectives set out under the European Green Deal and the 8th Environment Action Programme, including: the farm-to-fork strategy; the biodiversity strategy; and the zero-pollution monitoring and outlook. •Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal Chapter I sets out the subject matter, scope and definitions. Chapter II sets out the EU’s targets to reduce the use of – and risk from – pesticides by 50% in line with the farm–to-fork strategy and to which Member States shall (collectively) contribute. It provides that Member State should adopt targets binding under their national law that may deviate from the 50% level of EU targets within the parameters of a binding formula. This formula permits Member States to take account of historical progress and intensity of pesticide use in setting national targets. Provision is made for the Commission to issue recommendations to set increasing targets in certain cases and to publish trends towards meeting the EU’s 2030 reduction targets. Chapter III describes what NAPs should contain as well as the requirements for: (i)public consultation on these NAPs; and (ii)these NAPs to be coherent with CAP strategic plans. This chapter also sets out the details to be included on indicative targets for alternatives to chemical pesticides. It provides for: (i)Member States to include in annual progress and implementation reports their trends on progress to meeting the two targets as well as other quantitative data; and (ii)the Commission to analyse these reports and make recommendations.

Chapter IV sets out the requirements for professional users in IPM in cases where crop-specific rules have or have not been adopted by Member States. It requires record-keeping by professional users on IPM and the use of independent advisers. It provides for the adoption and oversight of crop-specific rules for IPM that must be followed by professional users. It also provides for the creation of an electronic IPM register. Chapter V sets out requirements for professional users, distributors and advisers to hold a certificate of training in certain circumstances. It also sets out general requirements for the use of pesticides and application equipment. In addition, it contains provisions on: (i) the use of pesticides in sensitive areas; (ii) the protection of the aquatic environment and drinking water; (iii) aerial application; (iv) storage, disposal and handling; and (v) advice on the use of pesticides. Chapter VI sets out requirements for the sale of plant protection products. It also sets out the type of information on pesticides that must be provided to purchasers at the time of sale. Chapter VII requires Member States to set up a system for the training and certification of professional users, advisers and distributors. It provides for the creation of an independent advisory system. It requires Member States to raise awareness of pesticide issues and publish key information online. It also requires Member States to gather information on acute and chronic poisoning incidents due to pesticides. Chapter VIII relates to pesticide application equipment. It lays down requirements for the inspection of application equipment in professional use. It provides for an electronic register(s) to record information on all application equipment in professional use. It sets out notification requirements for transfer of ownership or withdrawal from use. It requires inspections at three year intervals, with the possibility of derogating from those inspection requirements for certain application equipment. Chapter IX sets out the methodology for calculating harmonised risk indicators and for calculating progress towards the 2030 reduction targets. Chapter X sets out administrative and financial provisions for: (i)notifying the relevant competent authorities to the Commission; (ii)penalties; and (iii)fees and charges. Chapter XI provides the conditions for the adoption of delegated and implementing acts under the SUR. Chapter XII repeals the SUD and provides for the entry into force and into application of the SUR. 2022/0196 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 192(1) thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee , Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, Whereas: (1)The Treaty requires a high level of protection of human health and of the environment to be ensured in the definition and the implementation of all Union policies and activities and provides that Union policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection. (2)Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council established a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of the use of pesticides on human health and the environment. The evaluation of that Directive found that it has not achieved its overall objectives and that the Member States did not implement it in a satisfactory manner. This conclusion was confirmed in reports from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council in 2017 and 2020. (3)The European Parliament resolution of 12 February 2019 on the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides noted that the Union must act without delay to transition to a more sustainable use of pesticides and called on the Commission to propose an ambitious Union-wide binding target for the reduction of pesticide use. The European Parliament re-affirmed its call for binding reduction targets in its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. (4)In 2018, a study by the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) found progress in many Member States but a limited overall achievement of the objectives of Directive 2009/128/EC. A 2020 special report from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on the sustainable use of plant protection products found that there is limited progress in measuring and reducing the risks of plant protection product use and identified weaknesses in the current Union framework. As noted in its information report in relation to evaluation of Directive 2009/128/EC, the European Economic and Social Committee also considers it essential to reassess the requirements, targets, conditions and timetables set under national action plans. (5)In order to ensure full attainment of the objectives of the Union legal framework on sustainable use of plant protection products, it needs to be adapted by laying down clearer and directly applicable rules for operators. In addition, a number of rules should be clarified, including the rules on the application of integrated pest management, restrictions of use of plant protection products and the inspections of equipment used to apply plant protection products. It is therefore appropriate to repeal Directive 2009/128/EC and replace it with a regulation. (6)The rules concerning biocidal products are laid down in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and an evaluation of that Regulation is planned. It is therefore not appropriate to introduce new rules on the use of biocidal products in this Regulation. (7)The Commission Communication entitled ‘the European Green Deal’ set out a roadmap of key measures, including legislative, to significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides. In the Farm to Fork Strategy, EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Commission committed to take action to reduce by 50% the overall use and risk from chemical pesticides by 2030 and reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides (plant protection products containing one or more active substances approved as candidates for substitution in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and listed in Part E of the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, or containing one or more active substances listed in the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408) by 2030. The sustainable use of plant protection products is also complementary to the promotion of organic farming and achieving the Farm to Fork Strategy target of at least 25% of the Union’s agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. It supports the objectives of the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work and thereby contributes to the implementation of principle 10 of the European Pillar of Social Rights on a healthy, safe and well-adapted work environment. (8)Two European citizens’ initiatives address the use of pesticides and call for ambitious reduction targets. The initiative ‘ Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides ’ submitted to the Commission on 6 October 2017 called on the Commission, under its third aim, ‘to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future’. In its reply adopted on 12 December 2017 , the Commission stated that it would re-evaluate the need for EU-wide mandatory targets for pesticides. More recently, the initiative ‘ Save bees and farmers! Towards a bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment ’ calls on the Commission ‘to propose legal acts to phase out synthetic pesticides in EU agriculture by 80% by 2030, starting with the most hazardous, and to become free of synthetic by 2035.’ The initiative has collected over 1 million statements of support by 30 September 2021 which are currently being verified by Member States authorities. (9)In the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, published on 9 May 2022, when it comes to the proposals on agriculture, food production, biodiversity and ecosystems, pollution, citizens ask the Union in particular to significantly reduce the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, in line with the existing targets, while still ensuring food security, and support for research to develop more sustainable and natural-based alternatives. Citizens ask for more research and innovations, including in technological solutions for sustainable production, plant resistance, and precision farming, and more communication, advisory systems, and training for and from farmers as well as asking the Union to protect insects, in particular indigenous and pollinating insects. (10)In its conclusions of 19 October 2020, the Council of the European Union, when taking note of the Commission’s reduction targets for the use of pesticides set out in the Farm to Fork Strategy, pointed out that achieving those targets will require efforts from Member States and all stakeholders and intensive co-operation, consultation and collaboration. The Council also requested the Commission to ensure that these targets are Union targets to which all Member States must contribute through action at national level. The Council conclusions request such targets to be set taking into account achievements to date, as well as Member States' different starting points, circumstances and conditions.

(11)Biological control agents are a sustainable control alternative to the use of chemical products for the control of harmful organisms. As noted in Council Decision (EU) 2021/1102, biological control agents have a growing importance in sustainable agriculture and forestry and have an instrumental role to play in the success of integrated pest management and organic farming. Access to biological controls facilitates moving away from chemical plant protection products. It is appropriate to encourage farmers to switch to low input agricultural methods including organic farming. It is therefore appropriate to define the concept of biological control as a basis for Member States to set indicative targets to increase the percentage of crops on which biological control agents are used. (12)The objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy is to make substantial progress in the reduction of the use of chemical plant protection products in an economically viable way. In order to achieve that aim, it is necessary to set quantified targets at Union and Member State levels for the reduction in the use and risk of chemical plant protection products and the use of more hazardous plant protection products to monitor progress. National targets should be established by national law in order to ensure adequate progress and accountability in relation to them. These binding national targets should also be achieved by Member States by 2030. The reduction in the use of chemical plant protection products is expected to significantly reduce occupational safety and health risks for professional users. (13) Given the different levels of historical progress and differences in intensity of pesticide use between Member States, it is necessary to allow Member States some flexibility when setting their own binding national targets (“national 2030 reduction targets”). Intensity of use is best measured by dividing the total quantity of active substances placed on the market, and therefore used, in the form of plant protection products in a particular Member State by the surface area over which the active substances were applied. Intensity in the use of chemical pesticides, and in particular of the more hazardous pesticides, correlates with greater dependency on chemical pesticides, greater risks to human health and the environment and less sustainable farming practices. It is therefore appropriate to allow Member States to take their lower intensity of use of chemical pesticides than the Union average into account in setting their national 2030 reduction targets. It is also appropriate to require them to take their higher intensity of use of chemical pesticides than the Union average into account in setting their national 2030 reduction targets. In addition, in order to give recognition to past efforts by Member States, they should also be allowed to take into account historical progress prior to the adoption of the Farm to Fork Strategy when setting national 2030 reduction targets. Conversely, where Member States have increased, or made only limited reductions in, their use and risk of chemical plant protection products, they should now make a greater contribution to the achievement of the Union 2030 reduction targets, while also taking account of their intensity of pesticide use. In order to ensure a fair and collective effort towards the achievement of Union-wide targets and an adequate level of ambition, minimum limits should be laid down for national 2030 reduction targets. The EU’s outermost regions, as listed in Article 349 of the Treaty, are located in the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean. Due to permanent constraints such as their remoteness to the European continent, insularity and high exposure to climate change, it is appropriate to allow Member States to take into account the specific needs of these regions as regards the use of plant protection products and measures tailored to specific climatic conditions and crops. In order to ensure a fair and collective effort towards the achievement of Union-wide targets, where a Member State reaches the level of its 2030 national reduction target before 2030, it should not be required to undertake additional reduction efforts, but it should closely monitor annual fluctuations in the use and risk of chemical plant protection products and in the use of more hazardous plant protection products to ensure progress towards meeting the respective 2030 national reduction target. In the interests of transparency, Member State responses to any Commission recommendations in relation to the level of ambition of national targets and the annual progress made towards them should be publicly accessible. (14) Member States should draft and publish national action plans. In order for the Member State national action plans to be effective, they should contain quantitative objectives, references to binding national 2030 reduction targets as set out in national law, together with related indicative targets set out in the national action plans, measures, timetables and indicators to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. This will allow for a structured approach to the setting of quantitative objectives and targets, with a clear link to the national 2030 reduction targets. In order to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Regulation, Member States should also be required to report annually on targets and precise quantitative data relating to compliance with provisions on use, training, application equipment and integrated pest management. (13)In order to achieve the Union-wide reduction targets (‘Union 2030 reduction targets’) as well as national 2030 reduction targets, it is necessary to increase the availability and use of biological control and other non-chemical alternatives. Availability of these alternatives will incentivise the adoption of low pesticide-input pest management practices such as organic farming. (14)The implementation of policies and measures in the areas of sustainable use of plant protection products has an impact on the environment, public health and working conditions. Member States should therefore ensure that the public and social partners are given sufficient opportunities to participate in and to be consulted on the preparation of Member State national action plans in accordance, where applicable, with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (15)In order to ensure consistency and complementarity with related legislation, Member State national action plans should take into account Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 92/43/EEC, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directive 91/676/EEC, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directive (EU) 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation xxx/xxx on nature restoration [reference to adopted act to be inserted] and should be consistent with the Common Agricultural Policy (“CAP”) Strategic Plans drawn-up in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (16)Economic instruments, including those under the CAP that provide support to farmers, can play a crucial role in the achievement of objectives relating to the sustainable use of plant protection products and, in particular, reducing the use of chemical plant protection products. Member States have to show in their national CAP Strategic Plans that their implementation of the CAP contributes to and supports other relevant Union legislation and their objectives, including objectives under this Regulation. (17)For the sake of transparency and in order to encourage greater progress, it is necessary to measure the progress made by Member States in relation to the achievement of the national 2030 reduction targets and other national indicative reduction targets. This should be done on an annual basis by means of annual progress and implementation reports. In order to monitor the level of compliance with this Regulation in a streamlined, easily comparable manner, Member States should also include quantitative data in relation to the implementation of this Regulation as regards use, training, application equipment and integrated pest management. In order for the Commission to encourage progress towards achieving national 2030 reduction targets and other national indicative reduction targets, including any measures in support of such achievement, the Commission should analyse such progress and measures every 2 years. (18)An approach to pest control that follows integrated pest management in ensuring careful consideration of all available means that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms, while keeping the use of chemical plant protection products to levels that are economically and ecologically justified and minimising risks to human health and the environment is necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. ‘Integrated pest management’ emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems, encourages natural pest control mechanisms and uses chemical control only when all other control means are exhausted. To ensure that integrated pest management is implemented consistently on the ground, it is necessary to lay down clear rules in this Regulation. In order to comply with the obligation to follow integrated pest management, a professional user should consider and implement all methods and practices that avoid the use of plant protection products. Chemical plant protection products should only be used when all other control means have been exhausted. In order to ensure and monitor compliance with this requirement, it is important that professional users keep a record of the reasons why they apply plant protection products or the reasons for any other action taken in line with integrated pest management and of advice received in support of their implementation of integrated pest management from independent advisors. These records are also required for aerial applications. (19)To avoid unnecessary duplication, the Commission should establish a standard template for Member States to integrate records kept by professional users of actions taken in line with integrated pest management with those kept under Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (20)In order to facilitate compliance with integrated pest management, it is necessary to lay down crop-specific rules that a professional user must follow in relation to the specific crop and region in which the professional user operates. Such rules should convert the requirements of integrated pest management into verifiable criteria that apply to the specific crop. To ensure that the crop-specific rules are in accordance with the requirements of integrated pest management, detailed rules should be laid down as to what they should contain and the Commission should verify their development, implementation and enforcement on the ground. (21)In order to verify compliance by professional users with integrated pest management, an electronic integrated pest management and plant protection product use register should be maintained with the aim of verifying compliance with the rules on integrated pest management set out in this Regulation and supporting the development of Union policy. Access to the register should also be granted to national statistical authorities for the development, production and dissemination of official statistics in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. This register should record any preventative measure or intervention and the reasons for that preventative measure or intervention. This will provide the competent authorities with the information necessary to verify whether a professional user has carried out a decision-making process, in accordance with integrated pest management, before determining the specific preventative measure or intervention. The register should also contain details in relation to advice required annually in support of integrated pest management in order to verify that such strategic longer term planning in relation to integrated pest management is taking place. (22)In order to ensure that plant protection products and related application equipment are used in a manner that protects human health and the environment, it is necessary to provide for general requirements on professional users in relation to the training required to use certain plant protection products or application equipment, the use of more hazardous plant protection products and the need to comply with inspection requirements for application equipment in professional use. (23)Use of plant protection products may have particularly negative impacts in certain areas that are frequently used by the general public or by vulnerable groups, communities in which people live and work and ecologically sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites protected in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 92/43/EEC. If plant protection products are used in areas used by the general public, the possibility of exposure of humans to such plant protection products is high. In order to protect human health and the environment, the use of plant protection products in sensitive areas and within 3 metres of such areas, should therefore be prohibited. Derogations from the prohibition should only be allowed under certain conditions and on a case-by-case basis. (24)The aquatic environment and drinking water supplies are especially sensitive to plant protection products. In order to protect the aquatic environment, the use of plant protection products in and around surface waters areas should therefore be prohibited. Member States should have in place appropriate measures to avoid deterioration of surface and groundwater as well as coastal and marine waters and allow achievement of good surface and groundwater status, to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies from the impact of plant protection products. In addition, it is important that professional users are trained in how to minimise or eliminate applications of certain plant protection products classified as “harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects”, “very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” or “toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects”. It is also important that professional users are trained on the importance of giving preference to low risk plant protection products or non-chemical alternatives, use of drift reducing technology and risk mitigation measures. (25)Precision farming refers to agricultural management systems carefully tailoring crop management to fit localised conditions such as those found within land parcels. The application of existing technology, including the use of Union space data and services (Galileo and Copernicus), has the potential to significantly reduce pesticide usage. It is therefore necessary to provide for a legislative framework that incentivises the development of precision farming. Application of plant protection products from an aircraft, including application by planes, helicopters and drones, is usually less precise than other means of application and may therefore potentially cause adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Aerial application should therefore be prohibited, with limited derogations on a case-by-case basis where it has a less negative impact on human health and the environment than any alternative application method or there is no viable alternative application method. It is also necessary to record the numbers of aerial applications carried out on the basis of permits granted for aerial application in order to have clear data on how many aerial applications for which permits were granted actually took place. (26)It is however likely that certain unmanned aircraft (including drones) will allow for the targeted aerial application of plant protection products. Such unmanned aircraft are likely to help reduce the use of plant protection products due to targeted application and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to set criteria in this Regulation for an exemption of certain unmanned aircraft from the prohibition of aerial application. It is also appropriate to defer the application of this exemption for 3 years given the current state of scientific uncertainty. (27)Handling of plant protection products, including storage, dilution and mixing of such products, cleaning of application equipment after use, recovery and disposal of tank mixtures and disposal of empty packaging and remnants of plant protection products pose particular risks of exposure to humans and to the environment. Therefore it is appropriate to provide for specific measures addressing these activities. To the extent that the use, storage and disposal of plant protection products require compliance with minimum health and safety requirements at the workplace, those requirements are laid down by, inter alia, Council Directive 89/391/EEC, Council Directive 89/656/EEC, Council Directive 98/24/EC, Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2009/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. (28)Given the importance of advice on the use of plant protection products as a means to support their use in a manner that protects human health and the environment in accordance with integrated pest management, it is important that advisors are adequately trained.

(29)Sale of a plant protection product is an important element in the distribution chain because it allows distributors to provide the necessary information to support its proper use. Specific advice on safety instructions for human health and the environment should be available to the purchaser or end user at the time of sale in order to allow questions to be answered that will facilitate the correct use of the relevant plant protection product. For non-professional users, general information should be available at point of sale on safe use, handling and storage of plant protection products and on disposal of the packaging of such products, since those users do not generally have the same practical knowledge as professional users. (30)It is essential that Member States establish and maintain systems of both initial and follow-up training for distributors, advisors and professional users of plant protection products and certification systems to record such training, in order to ensure that those operators are fully aware of the potential risks to human health and the environment and of the appropriate measures to reduce those risks as much as possible. The training for advisors should be more extensive than that of distributors and professional users since they need to be able to support the proper implementation of integrated pest management and crop-specific rules. The use or purchase of a plant protection product authorised for professional use must be limited to persons in possession of a training certificate. In addition, in order to ensure safe use of plant protection products for human health and the environment, distributors should be required to provide both professional and non-professional purchasers of plant protection products with product specific information at point of sale. (31)In order to ensure a planned approach to harmful organism control techniques across a number of growing seasons with a view to minimising the use of chemical plant protection products as much as possible and to ensure a proper implementation of integrated pest management, professional users should be required to regularly consult trained, independent advisors on pest management, so that plant protection products are only used as a last resort. (32)Considering the possible risks to human health and the environment from the use of plant protection products, the public should have access to better information on the overall impacts of the use of such products through awareness-raising programmes, information passed on through distributors and other appropriate measures. (33)In order to better understand the trends regarding acute poisoning incidents and chronic poisoning arising from exposure of persons to plant protection products, information on such trends should be compiled by each Member State. The Commission should also monitor the overall trends at Union level. (34)In order to minimise the adverse impacts of plant protection products on human health and the environment, it is necessary to provide for systems for regular technical inspection of application equipment in professional use. Given the potentially reduced impact of application equipment in professional use which represents a very low scale of use, it is also appropriate to allow Member States to lay down less stringent inspection requirements and provide for different inspection intervals in relation to such equipment. In addition, due to the relatively low cost of purchasing new handheld application equipment and knapsack sprayers compared to the costs of inspection, it is appropriate to provide for the possibility of national derogations from the mandatory inspection of such equipment, subject to the carrying out of a risk assessment covering the risks to human health and the environment posed by such equipment. That assessment should include an estimation of the scale of use of the equipment. To ensure compliance with the inspection requirements, it is necessary to require that each Member State establish a register of application equipment in professional use and keep that register up to date. As some of the application equipment does not have unique IDs, it is necessary to make provision for the supply of a unique ID to such application equipment to ensure that all equipment is physically identified. (35)In order to monitor progress achieved in the reduction of risks and adverse impacts to human health and the environment from the use of plant protection products it is necessary to continue using the system of harmonised risk indicators established under Directive (EU) 2009/128/EC. (36)Statistical data on plant protection products collected in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council should be used in calculating these harmonised risk indicators and progress towards achieving binding Union and national targets based on the Farm to Fork Strategy. Given that pesticide use fluctuates between years depending, in particular, on the weather, a three year baseline period is appropriate to take account of such fluctuations. The baseline period for the calculation of harmonised risk indicators 1 and 2 is 2011–2013, as this was the first three year period for which data was received by the Commission under Regulation (EC) No 1185/2009 and coincides with the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC. The baseline period for the calculation of progress towards the Union 2030 reduction targets is 2015–2017, as this was the three most recent years for which data was available at the time of the announcement of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The baseline period for the calculation of a new harmonised risk indicator 2a is 2022–2024, as this will be the first three year period for which data on the areas treated under each authorisation for an emergency situation in plant protection will be available. (37)For the moment, the only robust statistical data available at Union level relating to the marketing and use of plant protection products are the statistics on the quantities of active substances in plant protection products placed on the market, and the data on the number of authorisations for emergency situations in plant protection granted under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Those statistics are used in the calculation of harmonised risk indicators 1 and 2 under Directive 2009/128/EC and in calculating progress towards the binding Union 2030 reduction targets and national 2030 reduction targets based on the Farm to Fork Strategy. The new harmonised risk indicator 2a will be calculated using statistics on the number of authorisations for emergency situations in plant protection, the properties of the active substances in plant protection products subject to these authorisations, and the areas treated under these authorisations to better quantify the risks arising from authorisations for emergency situations in plant protection. (38)For reasons of transparency, and to ensure uniform implementation by all Member States, the methodology for calculating progress towards achieving the two Union and two national 2030 reduction targets and the methodology for the calculation of harmonised risk indicators at Union and national level should be set out in an Annex to this Regulation. (39)The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 recognises the need for urgent action to protect biodiversity. There is evidence of a widespread reduction of species, in particular insects and pollinators, in the Union. Biodiversity loss is, amongst other factors, driven by the use of plant protection products, while Member States actions under current Union policy instruments have not yet been able to stop this trend of biodiversity loss. It is therefore essential to ensure that plant protection products are used in such a way as to mitigate the risk of harmful effects of such products on wildlife, through a number of measures including training, inspection of application equipment in professional use and protection of the aquatic environment and sensitive areas. (40)In order to facilitate communication between the Commission and competent authorities responsible for the implementation of this Regulation at national level, Member States should inform the Commission of the competent authorities designated under this Regulation. (41)In order to enforce the obligations set out in this Regulation, Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and ensure that those rules are enforced. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. It is also important to provide for Member States to recover costs related to carrying out obligations under this Regulation by means of fees or charges in order to ensure that adequate financial resources are available to competent authorities. (42)Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to protect human health and the environment from risks and impacts associated with the use of plant protection products and to achieve the targets set out in the Farm to Fork Strategy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of the scale of their use and the complexity and effects of the risk profiles associated with them, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. (43)Activities performed by the competent authorities, or by other bodies or natural persons to which official control tasks have been delegated, in order to verify compliance by operators with this Regulation, are, with the exception of control tasks related to equipment used to apply plant protection products, regulated by Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Therefore, this Regulation only needs to provide for controls and audits in respect of inspection of application equipment in professional use. (44)In order to take into account technical progress and scientific developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to amend the provisions on obligations of professional users and advisors related to integrated pest management, inspection of application equipment in professional use, calculation of harmonised risk indicators, the data to be provided in annual progress and implementation reports and the notification form in relation to application equipment as well as Annexes II III, IV, V and VI. Likewise, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to supplement this Regulation by specifying precise criteria in relation to certain factors regarding unmanned aircraft, once technical progress and scientific developments allow for the development of such precise criteria. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. (45)In order to assess whether this Regulation reaches its objectives effectively and efficiently, is coherent and still relevant and provides added value at Union level the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Regulation. (46)In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation on the entries to be made by professional users in the electronic integrated pest management and plant protection product use register, for the summary and analysis by the competent authorities of the information in that register and provision of information on acute poisoning incidents and chronic poisoning, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (47)The implementation of this Regulation by Member States will result in new and enhanced obligations for farmers and other pesticides users. Some of them constitute statutory management requirements and standards of good agricultural and environmental conditions of land as listed in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which, in accordance with that Regulation, farmers must comply with to receive CAP payments, whereas other requirements, which go beyond the baseline of mandatory requirements, may be rewarded with additional payments under voluntary regimes like eco-schemes pursuant to Article 31 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115. Article 31(5), points (a) and (b), and Article 70(3), points (a) and (b), of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 provide that the CAP funding is only available for practices implemented under an eco-scheme or agri-environmental-climate commitment which go beyond the relevant statutory management requirements and the standards of good agricultural and environmental conditions of land established under that Regulation and the relevant minimum requirements for the use of fertiliser and plant protection products, animal welfare, as well as other relevant mandatory requirements established by national and Union law. Since farmers and other users need to be financially supported in their transition toward a more sustainable use of pesticides, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 needs to be amended to allow the financing of requirements imposed in accordance with this Regulation during a transitional period. This exceptional option for Member States to provide additional funding for measures taken in implementing this Regulation should apply to any obligation for farmers and other users resulting from the application of this Regulation, including compulsory farming practices imposed by the crop-specific rules for integrated pest management. Further, pursuant to Article 73(5) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, investments by farmers to comply with new requirements imposed by Union law may be supported for a maximum of 24 months from the date on which they become mandatory for the holding. Similarly, a longer transition period should be set out for investments complying with requirements imposed on farmers in accordance with this Regulation. Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 should therefore be amended accordingly. (48)The application of this Regulation should be deferred in order to allow competent authorities and operators to prepare for the requirements introduced by it,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 Subject matter This Regulation lays down rules for the sustainable use of plant protection products by providing for the setting, and achievement by 2030, of reduction targets for the use and risk of chemical plant protection products, establishing requirements for use, storage, sale and disposal of plant protection products and for application equipment, providing for training and awareness raising, and providing for implementation of integrated pest management. Article 2 Scope This Regulation shall apply to products, in the form in which they are supplied to the user, consisting of or containing active substances, safeners or synergists, and intended for one of the following uses: (a)protecting plants or plant products against all harmful organisms or preventing the action of such organisms, unless the main purpose of these products is considered to be for reasons of hygiene rather than for the protection of plants or plant products; (b)influencing the life processes of plants, such as substances influencing their growth, other than as a nutrient or a plant biostimulant; (c)preserving plant products, in so far as such substances or products are not subject to special Union provisions on preservatives; (d)destroying undesired plants or parts of plants, except algae unless the products are applied on soil or water to protect plants; (e)checking or preventing undesired growth of plants, except algae unless the products are applied on soil or water to protect plants. These products are referred to as ‘plant protection products’. Article 3 Definitions For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions apply: (1)‘chemical plant protection product’ means a plant protection product containing a chemical active substance excluding plant products using natural means of biological origin or substances identical to them, such as micro-organisms, semiochemicals, extracts from plant products as defined in Article 3(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, or invertebrate macro-organisms; (2)‘low-risk plant protection product’ means a plant protection product authorised in accordance with Article 47(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;

(3)‘chemical active substance’ means an active substance other than a micro-organism, a semiochemical or an extracts from a plant product as defined in Article 3(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; (4)‘biodiversity’ means biodiversity as defined in Article 3(29) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; (5)‘more hazardous plant protection product’ means a plant protection product containing one or more active substances approved as candidates for substitution in accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and listed in Part E of the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, or containing one or more active substances listed in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408; (6)‘utilised agricultural area’ means utilised agricultural area as defined in Article 2, point (e) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1091 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (7)‘professional user’ means any person who uses a plant protection product in the course of their professional activities; (8)‘distributor’ means any person who makes a plant protection product available on the market, including a wholesaler, a supplier or retailer; (9)‘advisor’ means any person who advises on integrated pest management and the safe use of plant protection products, in the context of a professional capacity or commercial service, including private and public advisory services; (10)‘application equipment’ means any equipment the use of which for the application of a plant protection product is reasonably foreseeable at the time of manufacture and accessories that are essential for the effective operation of such equipment, with the exception of equipment designed for the sowing or planting of propagating material treated with plant protection products; (11)‘application equipment in professional use’ means any of the following: (a)application equipment which is used by a professional user for the application of plant protection products; (b)application equipment with horizontal or vertical booms or orchard blast sprayers, irrespective of whether it is being used for the application of plant protection products; (12)‘aerial application’ means application of a plant protection product from an aircraft; (13)‘unmanned aircraft’ means any aircraft operating or designed to operate autonomously or to be piloted remotely without a pilot on board; (14)‘plant protection product authorised for professional use’ means a plant protection product that has been authorised for professional users only in accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; (15)‘integrated pest management’ means careful consideration of all available means that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms, while keeping the use of chemical plant protection products to levels that are economically and ecologically justified and minimise risks to human health and the environment; (16)‘sensitive area’ means any of the following: (a)an area used by the general public, such as a public park or garden, recreation or sports grounds, or a public path; (b)an area used predominantly by a vulnerable group as defined in Article 3(14) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/ 2009; (c)human settlements (community in which people live and work), defined as the most up to date CORINE (Coordination of information on the Environment) system maintained by the EEA Land Cover Level 1 classification (Artificial Surfaces) (excluding Level 2 – 1.2: Industrial, commercial and transport units and Level 2 – 1.3: Mine, dump and construction sites); (d)an urban area covered by a watercourse or water feature;

(e)non-productive areas as defined under the EU standards on good agricultural and environmental condition of land (GAEC), GAEC standard 8 listed in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2021/2115. (f)an ecologically sensitive area, which means any of the following: (i)any protected area under Directive 2000/60/EC, including possible safeguard zones as well as modifications of those areas following the risk assessment results for drinking water abstraction points under Directive (EU) 2020/2184 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (ii)sites of Community importance in the list referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC and the special areas of conservation designated in accordance with Article 4(4) of that Directive, and special protection areas classified pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC, and any other national, regional, or local protected area reported by the Member States to the Nationally designated protected areas inventory (CDDA); (iii)any area for which the monitoring of pollinator species carried out in accordance with Article 17(1), point (f), of Regulation xxx/xxx [reference to adopted act to be inserted] establishes that it sustains one or more pollinator species which the European Red Lists classify as being threatened with extinction. (17)‘quarantine pest’ means quarantine pest as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament of the Council; (18)‘invasive alien species’ means invasive alien species as defined in Article 3, point (2), of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council; (19)‘surface water’ means a body of surface water as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Directive 2000/60/EC; (20)‘groundwater’ means a body of groundwater as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Directive 2000/60/EC (21)‘risk indicator’ means a measurement indicating the relative change in risks for human health or the environment associated with the use of plant protection products, and calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in Annex VI; (22)‘non-chemical methods’ means alternatives to chemical plant protection products; (23)‘biological control’ means the control of organisms harmful to plants or plant products using natural means of biological origin or substances identical to them, such as micro-organisms, semiochemicals, extracts from plant products as defined in Article 3(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, or invertebrate macro-organisms. CHAPTER II REDUCTION TARGETS FOR CHEMICAL PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS Article 4 Union 2030 reduction targets for chemical plant protection products 1.Each Member State shall contribute, through the adoption and achievement of national targets in accordance with Article 5 to achieving by 2030 a 50 % Union-wide reduction of both the use and risk of chemical plant protection products (‘Union 2030 reduction target 1’) and the use of more hazardous plant protection products (‘Union 2030 reduction target 2’), compared to the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 (collectively referred to as ‘the Union 2030 reduction targets’). 2.Progress towards achieving the Union 2030 reduction targets shall be calculated annually by the Commission in accordance with the methodology set out in Annex I. Article 5 Member States 2030 reduction targets for chemical plant protection products

1.By … [OP: please insert the date – 6 months after the date of application of this Regulation] each Member State shall adopt national targets in its national legislation to achieve by 2030 a reduction set in accordance with this Article, from the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, of the following: (a)the use and risk of chemical plant protection products as defined in Annex I (‘national 2030 reduction target 1’); (b)the use of more hazardous plant protection products as defined in Annex I (‘national 2030 reduction target 2’). For the purposes of this Regulation, the two national reduction targets listed in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph, are collectively referred to as the ‘national 2030 reduction targets’. 2.The progress of each Member State towards achieving the national 2030 reduction targets shall be calculated annually by the Commission in accordance with the methodology set out in Annex I. 3.Each Member State shall reach the targets referred to in paragraph 1 by 2030. A Member State that reaches the level of one of its 2030 national reduction targets before 2030 shall not be required to undertake additional reduction efforts. It shall monitor annual fluctuations in order to maintain the progress achieved in relation to that 2030 national reduction target. 4.Subject to paragraphs 5 to 8, the national 2030 reduction targets shall be set at such level so as to achieve a reduction between the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 and the year 2030 in the relevant Member State that at least equals 50%. 5.A Member State may reduce its national target for the use and risk of chemical plant protection products referred to in paragraph 4 to a percentage that is a mid-point between the figure related to intensity as laid down in the second subparagraph of this paragraph and the figure related to the use and risk as laid down in the third subparagraph of this paragraph. Where that percentage is higher than 50%, the Member State shall increase its national target to that percentage. The figure related to intensity shall be the following: (a)35% where a Member State’s weighted intensity of use and risk of chemical plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is less than 70% of the Union average; (b)50% where a Member State’s weighted intensity of use and risk of chemical plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is between 70% and 140% of the Union average; (c)65% where a Member State’s weighted intensity of use and risk of chemical plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is more than 140% of the Union average. The figure related to the use and risk shall be the following: (a)where a Member State has achieved a greater reduction in the use and risk of chemical plant protection products than the Union average between the average of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, a figure that is established by subtracting from 50% the difference between the reduction achieved and the Union average reduction; (b)where a Member State has increased the use and risk of chemical plant protection products, or has made a smaller reduction than the Union average between the average of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, a figure that is established by adding to 50% the difference between the reduction or, as applicable, increase achieved and the Union average reduction, but without surpassing 70%. For the purposes of this paragraph ‘weighted intensity of use and risk of chemical plant protection products’ means a value corresponding to the kilograms of chemical active substances in plant protection products sold per year in a Member State, weighted according to their hazard weightings as set out in row (iii) of the Table of Annex I, divided by the number of hectares of utilised agricultural area in that Member State. 6.A Member State may reduce its national target for the use of the more hazardous plant protection products referred to in paragraph 4 to a percentage that is a mid-point between the figure related to intensity as laid down in the second subparagraph of this paragraph and the figure related to use as laid down in the third subparagraph of this paragraph. Where that percentage is higher than 50%, the Member State shall increase its national target to that percentage. The figure related to intensity shall be the following: (a)35% where a Member State’s intensity of use of the more hazardous plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is less than 70% of the Union average; (b)50% where a Member State’s intensity of use of the more hazardous plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is between 70% and 140% of the Union average;

(c)65% where a Member State’s intensity of use of the more hazardous plant protection products during the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 is more than 140% of the Union average. The figure related to the use shall be the following: (a)where a Member State has achieved a greater reduction in the use of the more hazardous plant protection products than the Union average between the average of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, a figure that is established by subtracting from 50% the difference between the reduction achieved and the Union average reduction; (b)where a Member State has increased the use of the more hazardous plant protection products, or has made a smaller reduction than the Union average between the average of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, a figure that is established by adding to 50% the difference between the reduction or, as applicable, increase achieved and the Union average reduction, but without surpassing 70%. For the purposes of this paragraph ‘intensity of use of the more hazardous plant protection products’ means a value corresponding to the kilograms of chemical active substances in the more hazardous plant protection products sold per year in the Member State concerned divided by the number of hectares of utilised agricultural area in that Member State. 7.Member States with outermost regions, as listed in Article 349 of the Treaty, may take into account the specific needs of these regions as regards the use of plant protection products when adopting national 2030 reduction targets, due to the particular climatic conditions and crops in these regions. 8.In no case may the application of paragraph 5, paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 result in either of the 2030 national reduction targets being lower than 35%. 9.By … [OP: please insert the date – 7 months after the date of application of this Regulation], each Member State shall communicate its national 2030 reduction targets to the Commission. 10.If a Member State fails to adopt a national 2030 reduction target by … [OJ: please insert the date –6 months after the date of application of this Regulation], that target shall be deemed to be either 50%; or, where the percentage would be above 50% in accordance with paragraph 5 or paragraph 6, that higher percentage. Article 6 Initial assessment of national targets by the Commission 1.The Commission shall review the national 2030 reduction targets communicated to it in accordance with Article 5(9) and the information explaining any lowering of targets made in accordance with Article 5(5) or Article 5(6). 2.Where the Commission concludes, on the basis of the information made available to it, that the national 2030 reduction targets communicated by a Member State need to be set at a more ambitious level, it shall, by … [OP: please insert the date – 1 year after the date of application of this Regulation], recommend that Member State to increase the level of its national 2030 reduction targets. The Commission shall make that recommendation public. 3.Where a Member State adjusts its national 2030 reduction targets as recommended by the Commission, it shall amend the national targets set in its national legislation in accordance with Article 5 and include the adjusted targets in its national action plan together with the Commission’s recommendation. 4.Where a Member States decides not to adjust its national 2030 reduction targets, as recommended by the Commission, it shall include the justifications for such decision in its national action plan together with the text of the recommendation. 5.Member States which have received a Commission recommendation referred to in paragraph 2 shall communicate the adjusted targets, or their justification for not adjusting them, as applicable, to the Commission by… [OP: please insert the date – 18 months after the date of application of this Regulation]. 6.Having assessed the level of national 2030 reduction targets of all Member States set in accordance with Article 5, the Commission shall verify whether their average at least equals 50% so as to achieve the corresponding Union 2030 reduction target. 7.If the average of national 2030 reduction targets of all Member States is lower than 50%, the Commission shall recommend that one or more Member States increase the level of their national 2030 reduction targets in order to achieve the Union 2030 reduction targets. The Commission shall make any such recommendation public. 8.Within one month of receiving the recommendation referred to in paragraph 7, a Member State shall take one of the following actions:

(a)adjust its national 2030 reduction targets as recommended by the Commission, amend the national targets set in its national legislation in accordance with Article 5 and include the adjusted targets in its national action plan together with the Commission recommendation; (b)provide justifications for not adjusting its national 2030 reduction targets as recommended by the Commission, and include the justifications for such decision in its national action plan together with the Commission recommendation