WRITTEN QUESTION P-0567/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Disparities in the authorisation of plant protection products in the EU

The use of plant protection products by growers of fruit and vegetables is controlled differently in the Member States of the European Union. Many of these products are banned in Germany but permitted in neighbouring Member States.

Evidently, directives and regulations concerning consumer protection and the environment are being interpreted differently in the individual Member States, as a result of which distortions of competition are occurring in the EU.

What is the Commission's general view of this problem?

What measures will the Commission take to eliminate these distortions of competition?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection products on the market provides for a harmonised Community system of evaluation of active substances at Community level and a system of evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products containing those substances at national level. The Directive, in its Annex VI, provides a set of Uniform Principles for risk assessment that Member States must use when completing their evaluations. Pending the completion of Community evaluations and Commission Decisions on individual active substances, the Directive provides transitional measures whereby Member States may continue to apply national criteria in granting authorisations as long as the safety requirements in the Directive are met.

Differing uses and authorisations of plant protection products in the Member States can arise for several reasons including (i) different marketing strategies by the companies producing the products (i.e. companies might choose not to apply for authorisation of their products in certain Member States), (ii) different crops, (iii) different pest pressures, (iv) different environmental conditions, and (v) the levels of environmental or worker protection, higher than those laid down in the directive, that some Member States choose to apply when evaluating requests for authorisations. The Commission does not feel that this situation resulted for the moment in significant distortion of competition to the disadvantage of German farmers.

For substances in Annex I to the Directive, then Article 10 of the Directive applies. This requires Member States to give mutual recognition to products evaluated in accordance with the uniform principles and containing only Annex I active substances, but permits them to impose conditions relating to the health and safety of workers in accordance with Community law. Further, it allows dietary and environmental, agricultural and plant health factors to be taken into account. However, where authorisation based on mutual recognition is refused on these latter grounds, the Commission must be informed and a decision then taken under the comitology procedures in the Directive to determine whether or not the Member State was correct to refuse authorisation on the basis of the different circumstances between the Member State which gave the original authorisation and the Member State where mutual recognition is sought. Once the Directive is fully applicable (i.e. all active substances in Annex I and uniform principles fully applied), this means that Member States could not refuse approval except where this is justified by objective differences.

With the exception of the above case, the Commission does not have the competence to intervene unless the Directive is not being respected and the Commission has no evidence that this is currently the case. The question of eventual market distortion could be addressed when the Directive is amended. The Commission intends to propose such an amendment to the Council and Parliament late in 2002.