Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee: Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides" (COM(2002) 349 final)
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, EU programme, environmental cooperation, environmental policy, environmental protection, pesticide, sustainable development

C 85/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

396th PLENARY SESSION, 22 AND 23 JANUARY 2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social
Committee: Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides’

(COM(2002) 349 final)

(2003/C 85/24)

On 1 July 2002 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned communication.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 January 2003. The rapporteur
was Staffan Nilsson.

At its 396th plenary session on 22 and 23 January 2003 (meeting of 23 January), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes in favour, with two dissenting votes
and 11 abstentions.

1. Summary

quantities of chemicals used, particularly when tailored to
national, regional and local requirements.

1.1.
The EESC supports the Commission’s effort to draw
up a thematic strategy on pesticides along the lines set out in
the present communication. The strategy should include
measures already to be found in existing directives, along with
supplementary measures, to be implemented in an organic
and coherent way so as to avoid overlaps that could lead to
confusion over roles or to excessive cost increases for econ-
omic operators. The Committee also feels that mention should
be made of crop protection, which can be secured through the
use of pesticides, the risks and benefits of which must be
assessed on a sound scientific basis.

1.2.
The new measures to be proposed in the future strategy
should include common EU criteria, guidelines and other
parameters regarding what measures should be taken; although
the practical details of the action programme must be deter-
mined at national level. The EESC prefers this approach as it
enables general criteria to be tailored to local circumstances
and to the nature of the problems faced.

1.5.
The revision of Directive 91/414/EEC is welcomed,
and aspects such as the substitution principle and regional
tests are regarded as positive.

2.

Introduction

In agriculture pesticides are very often a necessary expedient
to protect crops against attacks by harmful insects, fungi and
plant diseases which would otherwise destroy or damage the
harvest. However, the use of chemical pesticides in agricultural
production is still questioned by many consumers. Strong
opposition
environmental organisations,
accompanied by calls for a rapid and sizeable reduction in
their use. At
the same time the manufacturing industry
constitutes an important force for a continued research and
development drive to find better and safer pesticides (both
chemical and biological). High priority must therefore be given
to the Commission’s and Member States’ work in this field.

exists within

1.3.
An important part of the measures to reduce environ-
mental and health risks consists of training of, and advice to,
farmers,
farm workers, seasonal workers and other users.
The EESC thinks that the Commission should consider the
possibility of part-funding measures through a fair levy on
pesticides. In order to avoid distortion of competition, the
Commission should seek to ensure that corresponding levies
are also introduced in non-EU countries.

1.4.
It is right to focus attention primarilyon reducing
pesticide-related risks, which may also involve reducing the

3. Summary of the Commission communication

3.1.
In the sixth environment action programme, it is stated
that a thematic strategy will be drawn up on the sustainable
use of pesticides. The European Commission has now issued a
communication which constitutes one stage in taking this
strategy forward. In tandem, interest groups were invited to
take part in a conference on 4 November 2002 to discuss the
strategy. In addition, the Commission’s internet site contains
all the relevant documentation and statements; the public can
also express their views there.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/113

3.2.
The strategy aims to reduce the impact of pesticides on
the environment and human health, while ensuring adequate
plant protection; it has the following objectives:

— to minimise the hazards and risks to health and environ-

ment from the use of pesticides;

— to improve controls on the use and distribution of

pesticides;

— to reduce the levels of harmful active substances,

in
particular by replacing the most dangerous by safer
(including non-chemical) alternatives;

— to encourage the use of low-input or pesticide-free crop

farming;

— to establish a transparent system for reporting and
including the development of

monitoring progress,
appropriate indicators.

3.3.
The Commission states that the communication con-
centrates on the use of plant protection products (PPPs), with
particular emphasis on agriculture. Even if the environment
action programme uses the term ‘pesticides’, it is clear that it is
primarily a matter of PPPs. Pesticides is a generic term for all
products used in agriculture, and to some extent for non-
agricultural purposes (railway embankments, parks and as
consumer products). The bulk of them are chemical com-
pounds but pesticides can have both chemical and biological
components.

legal
The communication contains an analysis of
3.4.
provisions in force in the European Union. It emphasises the
links with other EU policy areas and initiatives, and account is
also taken of enlargement and the Union’s international
commitments. Moreover, examples are given of effective
measures already taken by some Member States, and several
possible measures are proposed which could become part of
the thematic strategy.

3.5.
In 2003, once the wide-ranging consultation process
has been completed, the Commission will frame a thematic
strategy encompassing all the proposed measures and initiat-
ives and present it for approval to Council and Parliament at
the beginning of 2004.

4. General comments

The EESC welcomes the Commission’s move to draw
4.1.
up a strategy for sustainable use of pesticides. When the
chemical preparations applied are alien to the environment

it

is expedient

and can be harmful,
to focus action on
risk reduction. Ultimately the overriding long-term objective
should be to make farming less dependent on chemical
pesticides. Efforts should concentrate on developing various
biological alternatives, the plants’
inherent resistance and
farming methods which could minimise pesticide use. At the
same time, agriculture today needs to be able to use pesticides
to stop various forms of harmful organisms. The Commission
communication therefore constitutes an important
step
towards sustainable use.

Environment and health are naturally influenced by a
4.2.
large number of activities and by substances other than
pesticides. The strategy should therefore place pesticide-related
risks in the context of risks stemming from other day to day
activities.

4.3.
The Committee supports the Commission’s work with
a view to the presentation of a thematic strategy in 2004, and
hopes for a clearer and more detailed description of the
benefits and dangers associated with pesticides. In the EESC’s
view, the proposals presented by the Commission are rightly
founded on environmental and health concerns, and can
realistically be implemented on a timescale yet to be decided.

4.4.
The EESC does not consider that this strategy should
complement existing legislation such as Directive 91/414/EEC,
but that the strategy should operate as an umbrella framework
and include existing legislation, probably also proposing new
legislation. It is important for the Commission to clarify the
role of the future strategy, taking care to avoid overlaps
between legislation at different levels, both European and local,
at the risk of causing confusion and increasing costs.

4.5.
Although the Commission deals in one section with
the advantages of using pesticides, it does not describe the
benefits that directly result from the possibility of curbing
damage to farm crops, viz. that food production can be
maintained at a sufficiently high level (in terms of quantity,
quality and variety of crops), in order to guarantee the supply
of food. A future strategy should also spell out how food
prices are influenced by access to chemical pesticide use. Had
it not been for these benefits, the use of pesticides could have
been phased out within a foreseeable period.

C 85/114

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

4.6.
The EESC advocates a more detailed description of the
threats involved than that given by the Commission — i.e. the
true reason for use of pesticides. Understanding why pesticides
are used presupposes a sound knowledge of the problems with
which agriculture has to contend as regards weeds, fungi and
insects. The EESC wishes the future strategy to include a
description of
the threats involved, the scale of damage
currently inflicted by weeds, fungi and insects, the potential
damage if currently known alternative methods were used, and
the impact of absence of pesticides on food supply and prices
in Europe.

4.7.
In the drive to reduce pesticide-related risks, clashes of
aims can arise between different types of environmental
measure. For example, the impact of mechanical methods on
the climate can be set against the risks involved in the use of
pesticides. A pesticide strategy needs to address these clashes
of aims.

4.8.
Even if the communication focuses on reducing risks
involved in the use of pesticides, it is important for the strategy
also to seek to reduce the scale of use. For agriculture,
pesticides are a valuable input. Reduction in use can be
achieved through more effective utilisation, adapting use to
requirements, improved methods and other measures relating
to use. The Commission should also have a use-reducing
strategy for non-agricultural areas that use pesticides (private,
public etc.). Reduced use may lead to risk reduction.

4.9.
The food trade and industry has its own schemes
and regulations which make demands on pesticide use in
agriculture. A number of supermarket chains, food producers
and farming cooperatives require farmers to comply with
certain delivery conditions with a view to boosting their brand
names; this has spin-off effects for pesticide use. Consumers’
choices and hence the specific requirements made by com-
merce and the food industry, have a decisive impact on
farm production methods. Further, consumers often prefer
foodstuffs of unblemished appearance, which in turn acts as an
additional incentive to protect crops from harmful organisms.
However, market-driven development — in which increased
product marking can be a promotion ploy — can encourage
reduced use and sustainable development of pesticides, as
compared with legislation-driven development.

5. Specific comments

Chapter VI

lists the possible components of

5.1.
the
Commission’s future thematic strategy for pesticides. The
various proposals are commented on in detail below; the
points indicated in brackets refer to the relevant parts of the
communication.

farmers and their organisations,

5.2.
(1a) The EESC supports the drawing up of national
plans and wishes to place special emphasis on the participation
of
farmworkers and the
chemical industry. However, it is important for this to build
on common EU criteria, guidelines and other parameters for
the measures to be taken to avoid distorting competition in
the internal market. Many of the remaining measures in the
proposed strategy ought to be incorporated into these national
plans, which should be assessed at regular intervals.

it

5.3.
(1b) On the introduction of special precautionary
measures in particularly sensitive areas, e.g. water protection
is
areas and areas defined according to Natura 2000,
important for local conditions to be taken into account. The
EESC is in favour of laying down common rules and minimum
levels, but
the details of how to achieve the necessary
protection will depend on local conditions. It is reasonable
and essential for individual rights that it should be possible to
award compensation for changes in the value of land and
crops when the existing land use is affected. To the extent that
these areas need extra protection, this ought to be made clear
in the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) or in the framework
directive on water (2000/60/EC) and related subordinate
directives which deal with the whole range of threats.

5.4.
(1c,d) The EESC takes the view that it is important to
keep the public constantly updated on pesticide-related risks
and what can be done to reduce the risks. One aspect which
the Commission fails to highlight is how it will be possible to
measure not only pesticide residues in water but also the
products of their decomposition. A future thematic strategy
should sketch out what can be changed or complemented
in daily work procedures. The Commission’s intention to
cooperate in the development of suitable indicators can also
make this possible.

5.5.
(2a,b,c) It is important not to build up the reporting
system and administration with the associated costs unless
there is a clear benefit to be gained from them. The information
to be provided by users should be of such a kind that they feel
it is worthwhile in production terms to collect the information.

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/115

5.6.
(2d) As regards the collection of packaging containing
pesticide residues, it is important in drawing up the rules to
make it possible to cooperate in the collection of other
dangerous waste, e.g. batteries, waste oil and fluorescent lamp
tubes. There are many good examples of campaigns organised
in various Member States (e.g. Germany and Belgium) to
collect used pesticides and packaging. It is important to raise
awareness of contamination connected with the filling and
cleaning of equipment and with the handling of packaging.

5.7.
(2e,f) The EESC supports the proposed measures to
introduce technical inspection of spraying equipment and to
require the training and qualification of all pesticide users
(farmers, farm workers, seasonal workers, etc.). Several surveys
in different Member States indicate that training, and providing
advice to, users can significantly curb risks. Training should
also be given to increase knowledge and understanding
of existing legislation. Training, qualification and technical
inspection of equipment should be made compulsory.

5.7.1.
(2) On points 2a-f, the Commission intends to return
with proposals for suitable mandatory requirements within
two years of the strategy being adopted. It also proposes to
link compliance with the proposed requirements to the CAP
(‘cross-compliance’). Hence aid beneficiaries will not receive
aid if they fail to observe certain rules, in this instance rules
relating to pesticide use. In its opinion on the mid-term review
of the CAP the EESC has stated that it is necessary to get a
clearer idea of how these rules are framed before a position
can be taken on the ‘cross-compliance’ rules. Further, it must
be deemed reasonable that the same mistake can trigger both
criminal proceedings and withdrawal of aid.

(3) The process of assessing active substances with a
5.8.
view to including them in Annex 1 to Directive 91/414/
EEC must continue to have priority and further delays are
unacceptable. To include a substitution principle in this
Directive, as proposed by the Commission, is a reasonable
suggestion with a view to constantly reducing the environmen-
tal and health risks associated with the use of pesticides. The
EESC assumes that the Commission proposal will allow
reasonable periods of time for the phasing out of substances
in order to reassure the
under the substitution principle,
manufacturers and give them an incentive to develop new, less
harmful substances.

5.8.1.
It is also important for the amended version of
Directive 91/414/EEC to assess how the testing of various
preparations can be made more effective. For example, this
could be done through regional testing, without encroaching
on individual Member States’ right of decision. A regional
testing procedure would mean that certain products with a
narrow field of application, which at present are perhaps
withdrawn from the market for economic reasons, could still
have access to it. In the EESC’s view, preparations with the
highest environmental and health risks are the ones which
should disappear from the market, not necessarily those with
few users.

(4a) To promote in various ways farm practices which
5.9.
reduce dependence on pesticides is a welcome and very
important measure. We also need to be open to the idea of
supporting a whole range of practices which in their different
ways reduce both utilisation and risks. In its own-initiative
opinion on The future of the CAP (1), the EESC pointed to
a number of possible ways of taking better account of
environmental aspects in agricultural policy. The ‘second pillar’
of the CAP gives Member States the opportunity to compensate
farmers who succeed in reducing the risks involved in their
use of chemical plant protection products. The action pro-
gramme can also be funded under the Social Fund or through
a harmonised levy on pesticides.

5.10.
(4b) In the development of good farming practice it
is important to respect the existing rules on the handling of
pesticides. To devise a system of rules which the users, for
technical or knowhow-related reasons, do not manage to
comply with will result in criminalizing users and scarcely be
conducive to a continuous drive for improvement, which
presupposes their commitment.

5.11.
(4c) An environmental charge levied on pesticides
can be justified, partly to reduce their use and partly for
collective funding of certain activities. Since many of the
measures proposed by the Commission require funding, it is
reasonable for the users of pesticides to meet part of the costs.
It would therefore be conceivable to levy a very limited charge
for every kilo of active substance used, with a view to financing
some of the proposed measures, such as information and
training. Even a modest harmonised levy would provide
significant funds for the national risk-reduction plans. How-
ever, a limited charge would also further push up the cost of
production in the EU. To avoid a distortion of competition,
the Commission should seek to ensure that corresponding
charges are also introduced in other countries. The Committee

(1) OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, p. 87-99.

C 85/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

thinks it important for the EU to have a global perspective in
drawing up rules which aim to bring about environmental
improvements. When corresponding measures are also intro-
duced in other countries, measures to improve the environ-
ment can be taken while maintaining the competitiveness of
European agriculture.

5.12.
(4d) The Commission indicates that the Member
States’ rates of VAT on pesticides vary from 3 % to 25 %. The
EESC considers that one prerequisite for an effective internal
market with a level playing field is the harmonisation of VAT
rates as well as levies on pesticides.

(5)

5.13.
It is necessary to have a suitable system for
showing the results of measures taken, in order to be able to
assess them and make improvements. It is therefore important
that the indicators show the impact of the drive for improve-
ment. To measure the change in residues in foodstuffs or in
the blood of users,
it is technically possible to carry out
chemical analyses. As regards the monitoring of reduction of

risks to the ecosystem and to water, the Committee supports
the Commission’s proposal to find indicators which do not
focus on quantity used, but focus on the properties of the
preparations concerned and of how they are handled in use.

5.14.
(6) The measures proposed for the candidate countries
are reasonable, and suitable funding methods need to be found
for them. In addition, we must all be aware of the fact that
modernisation of the candidate countries’ agriculture is likely
to lead to increased use of pesticides. The EESC takes the view
that the Commission should prioritise monitoring of the
evolution of the situation in the candidate countries. Systems
should be developed for collection and rendering substances
harmless.

5.15.
(7) The EU should not allow a higher level of residues
in imported products than in goods produced within the
Community. This is not
just a question of ensuring fair
competition; major public health aspects are the primary
concern. The EESC therefore supports the work the Com-
mission is doing in this direction.

Brussels, 23 January 2003.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH

8.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/117

APPENDIX

to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

The following proposals for amendments, which secured at least one-quarter of the votes cast, were defeated during
the Committee’s discussions:

Point 4.5

Amend the second part of the first sentence of this point to read as follows:

‘... food production can be maintained at a sufficiently high level (in terms of quantity and quality and variety of
crops), in order to guarantee the supply of food.’

Reason

The scope for using pesticides has made a major contribution to the genetic impoverishment of species and varieties.

Result of the vote

For: 27, against: 44, abstentions: 11.

Point 5.2

Amend the first sentence to read as follows:

‘... the participation of farmers and their organisations, farmworkers, environmental conservation associations,
consumer protection associations and the chemical industry.’

Reason

It is essential to have wide-ranging participation of the social players in the organisations concerned when drawing
up national plans.

Result of the vote

For: 25, against: 55, abstentions: 3.

Point 5.9

Insert the following new sentence after the second sentence of this point:

‘... reduce both utilisation and risk. By means of a redistribution of financial aid, the “first pillar” of the CAP must also
be geared towards paving the way towards stepping up the reduction in the use of pesticides in agriculture in general.
In its own-initiative opinion ...’

C 85/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2003

Reason

The way in which financial aid is distributed under the first pillar of the CAP has a decisive influence on the type of
cultivation and crops selected by farmers. This pattern of distribution of aid therefore determines, to a decisive
degree, whether or not pesticides are required at a later stage and how much is used.

Result of the vote

For: 26, against: 53, abstentions: 5.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘XXXIst Report on Competition
Policy 2001’

(SEC(2002) 462 final)

(2003/C 85/25)

On 29 April 2002, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the ‘XXXIst Report
on Competition Policy 2001’.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 December 2002. The rapporteur was
Mr Barros Vale.

At its 396th plenary session of 22 and 23 January 2003 (meeting of 22 January), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 120 votes in favour, nine votes against and five
abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The report opens with a reaffirmation of the import-
ance of enforcing competition rules as one of the central
elements in the economic functioning of the single market and
as one of the Commission’s key tasks. Emphasis is placed on
the essential role of competition policy in establishing an ever
more balanced and equitable framework which becomes more
forceful the more the economy becomes globalised.

1.2.
Referring to the main topics to be addressed, the
introduction sketches out the broad content of the report,
covering antitrust rules, EU enlargement, state aid and the
prominence which all these measures should be given as
instruments of benefit to European citizens.

2. General background

The final phase of

2.1.
unprecedented enlargement of

introducing the euro and the
the EU create a need to

modernise the rules on antitrust, mergers and state aid, which,
if not met, will mean that the Commission’s action is out of
step with this rapidly evolving economic environment.

2.1.1.
In this respect, ensuring a level playing field in the
new markets where competition is not yet fully established
will continue to be a priority activity for the Commission.

2.2. With the globalisation of markets,
there are now
worldwide concentrations, making it necessary to intensify
international cooperation between various bodies, namely
through the International Competition Network.

The adoption of the state aid scoreboard and the
2.3.
opening to the public of an online state aid register are
evidence of significant improvements in this field in 2001.