WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/01

by Christel Fiebiger (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Problems relating to the EU-wide harmonisation of approval of plant protection products for indicated uses only (particularly in horticulture)

Approval for indicated uses only in the field of plant protection has been in force in Germany since 1 July 2001. This means that plant protection products can be used only for crops for which there is a clearly defined indication. The new rules are causing considerable problems for horticulture in particular,

since a series of gaps in the list of indications have yet to be closed. This shows that the transitional period was too short and should have been extended. This was not done, and the result is that Germany is now applying a rule which is to be welcomed from the point of view of the environment and consumers but which is causing economic problems for producers, may be encouraging illegal practices and could lead to an unintended transfer of production. Given that not all EU Member States have transposed rules regarding approval for indicated uses only into national law or apply such rules themselves, products are reaching Germany under internal market conditions which have been treated in the producer country with plant protection products banned in Germany.

1. Does the Commission share the view that the fact that approval of plant protection products for indicated uses only is being introduced at different times in the various countries represents a distortion of competition, in this case to the detriment of German producers?

2. Would the Commission have any legal objections if Germany were to suspend implementation of the rules brought into force on 1 July 2001 in cases where there are gaps in the list of indications which cannot be closed in the short term, and adopt legal provisions allowing strictly limited transitional periods? If so, what are these objections?

3. How will the Commission ensure that the desired harmonisation of legal provisions does not lead to similar contradictions between Member States in the future and does not thereby pose problems for the internal market and the necessary EU-wide implementation of harmonisation measures?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

1. According to Article 4(1) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1), Member States are obliged to apply the Uniform Principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products (as provided for in Annex VI to the Directive) only for those substances, which are included in Annex I. Nevertheless, there are Member States that apply the same criteria already now on a voluntary basis for other substances, as they undergo assessments in national review programmes. This is the case not only in Germany, but also in several Nordic countries, and in Portugal. For this and other reasons which are outlined under Point 3 below, the Commission does not share the opinion of the Honourable Member that this discrepancy leads to a significant distortion of competition in agriculture to the disadvantage of German farmers.

2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC(2) acknowledged that, if necessary, it may be appropriate to re-examine certain uses which are essential and for which there is no alternative to protect efficiently plants or plant products. The Commission considers this provision, and possibly also the use of the derogation provided in Article 8(4) of the Directive 91/414/EEC, as more suitable measures to deal with urgent pest problems than the proposal of the Honourable Member.

3. The Commission has no means at this time to quantify exactly the effect of an earlier implementation of the uniform principles on the common market. It is however, not likely that the impact would be significant, for two reasons:

- firstly, already now, all Member States authorise plant protection products under their national schemes with a view to minimise risk. Although current rules and criteria may vary slightly in those cases where Annex VI does not yet apply, it is unlikely that authorities come to totally incompatible results in their assessments;

- secondly, also in future, not all substances included in Annex I will be authorised in all Member States. It may be, for example, that a certain active substance poses a risk to groundwater in the Netherlands, but it can be used safely in certain crops in Spain. A completion of the European review programme will, therefore, not result in a totally equal inventory of substances used in all Member States and there will also in future be some substances which are available to farmers in certain countries but not in others.

The Commission expects that a major influence towards levelling the playing field will be the withdrawal from the market of a significant number of active substances in July 2003. This aspect was also addressed in the Commissions Report to Parliament and Council made in June 2001(3).

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.

(3) COM(2001) 444 final.