Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides COM(2006) 373 final — 2006/0132 (COD)
Date: 2007-03-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, EU initiative, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, pesticide, pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, prevention of pollution

C 161/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve
a sustainable use of pesticides

COM(2006) 373 final — 2006/0132 (COD)

(2007/C 161/15)

On 15 September 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

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 19 February 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Pezzini.

At its 434th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 147 votes with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1
The EESC agrees that it is important to make the use of
pesticides more sustainable, so as to optimise their beneficial
effects and reduce their adverse effects on farming, the environ-
ment, the consumer, operators and society as a whole.

The EESC welcomes the Commission's proposal in prin-
1.2
ciple, in that it addresses an issue of great importance as regards
the European public's well-being, safeguarding the quality of life
and of the ecosystem, and rural development, and, moreover, as
regards a positive product trend ensuring that products remain
competitive on the internal and international markets, with
continual improvements in quality.

1.3
The EESC agrees that action plans should be drawn up at
national level to identify the objectives in respect of reducing
risk and to launch a genuine EU harmonisation policy.

The plans' provisions must be converted into appro-
1.3.1
in particular
priate national,
taking into consideration the three dimensions of sustainability,
i.e. economic, social and environmental impact.

regional and local measures,

The EESC believes

1.4
training and information
that
campaigns are essential to achieve rational, sustainable use of
crop protection systems, avoiding potential adverse environ-
mental impact.

Training must be

stakeholders,
1.4.1
including public authorities and bodies and non-professional
users. Clearly, national
training systems, which are already
managed by properly approved bodies, must be preserved.

extended to all

The EESC believes

1.5
that awareness-raising campaigns
should be objective and neutral, highlighting the benefits for
crops and the risks and targeting non-professional users in par-
ticular, especially local public bodies and authorities.

1.6 When introducing precautionary measures in particularly
sensitive contexts, as when laying down rules on aerial spraying,
the EESC believes that it would be preferable to ensure a certain
degree of subsidiarity.

The EESC feels that it is important for due consideration
1.7
to be given to agricultural and plant protection research,
in
order to minimise the risk which is always present when chemi-
cals and mixtures of chemicals are used.

1.8
The EESC believes that due attention should also be
given to cooperation, both with international bodies such as the
FAO, the OECD and the WHO and with neighbouring regions.

1.9
Globalisation of the agricultural and food markets calls,
in the EESC's view, for a Community initiative to disseminate
European production and health standards internationally,
in
particular by incorporating them into the Codex Alimentarius.

2. Reasons

2.1
The term pesticides denotes active substances and
products designed to influence fundamental processes in living
organisms and which, therefore, have the potential to kill or
control harmful organisms (1). However,
the Commission
proposal also uses the more specific term ‘plant protection
products’ (2).

(1) International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO,
November 2002), Art. 2 of Resolution 1/123, of the 123rd Session of
the FAO Council, 2002.

(2) Cf. COM(2006) 388 final, Article 2(1).

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/49

2.2
Pesticides are considered to be essential to protect crops
from insects, rodents and natural pathogens, but they can also
accumulate in the environment and cause serious risks to
human and animal health, particularly when they pollute
drinking water. The potential risks in humans include cancer,
genetic disorders and permanent damage to the immune
system.

Risks to human health can occur through direct or
in particular during or

2.3
indirect exposure, misuse or accident,
after use in agriculture, landscaping and other activities.

2.7.1 Moreover, all fungicides, insecticides and herbicides are
already subject to a rigorous approval process before marketing
and use are authorised.

2.8
The EESC agrees that it is important to make the use of
pesticides more sustainable, so as to optimise their beneficial
effects and reduce their adverse effects on the environment, the
consumer and operators: this would also improve the image of
operators and farms which use plant protection products
prudently.

The risks related to each individual active substance
2.4
contained in pesticides are evaluated during the relevant authori-
sation procedures, but there is no satisfactory assessment at
Member-State level of the effects of exposure to mixtures of
chemicals. Thus, as things stand, it would be very difficult to
evaluate the overall impact on human health of all substances
currently in use (3).

2.9
The EESC believes that more emphasis should be placed
on the potential benefits for farmers of more rational, judicious
use of plant protection products. Farmers themselves have, for
some years, been engaged in developing more rational techni-
ques such as Integrated Crop Management and Integrated Pest
Management with a view to promoting integrated farming in a
more tangible way, and this trend should be encouraged.

2.5
Indirect exposure of bystanders, residents (via spray drift)
and those who could be described as consumers (via residual
amounts in agricultural produce or water) can be even more
serious for especially vulnerable population groups. In particular,
recent research (4) has shown the special sensitivity of foetuses
whose neurological development has been affected when their
mothers are exposed to pesticides.

2.6
Account must be taken of risks caused to the environ-
ment by unintended and excessive flows of chemical substances
to water, air and soil, resulting in adverse effects on plants, wild-
life, quality of the environmental compartments and biodiversity
in general.

At the same time, the fact must not be overlooked that
2.6.1
modern society relies on a wide range of fertilisers, biocidal
products, food additives, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides,
with numerous beneficial effects in terms of higher levels of
food safety and quality.

2.7
If used responsibly, they guarantee the availability on the
market of high-quality fruit and vegetable produce, raw mate-
rials and foodstuffs at low prices which are affordable for all
consumers. The use of crop protection products ensures high
yields, reduces the levels of natural toxins produced by fungi
and bacteria, reduces crop losses and helps to secure sufficient,
sustainable food supply on the internal and international
markets.

(3) It should be noted that, at international level, there are already meth-
odologies widely in use, particularly in the United States of America.
See
http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/innovations.htm.

(4) Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals, Lancet 2006;

368:2167-78.

2.10
The real challenge of the future is not just to provide
high-quality, safe conventional and organic products to the
‘most discerning’ consumers, but also to satisfy those seeking
products which are both reasonably priced and of guaranteed
quality.

2.11
The problems involved in integrating environmental
issues into the use of pesticides are covered by the priorities
Environment Action
outlined in the
Programme 2002-2012, which provides for the development
and implementation of seven thematic strategies.

Sixth Community

2.12
There are clear interactions between the recommenda-
tions in the thematic strategies adopted — particularly the stra-
tegies on the protection of ground water and natural fauna and
flora, soil protection, waste management, and residues and
packaging — and the proposal for a framework directive.

2.12.1
The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides sets out four new measures for environmental and
health protection, including the proposal for a directive estab-
lishing a framework for more sustainable use of pesticides,
which is addressed by this opinion.

2.12.2
The Commission has also drawn up an impact assess-
ment of the various scenarios which might result from the
implementation of the measures laid down for sustainable use
of pesticides and their cost:
‘losses (for the PPP industry and for
farmers paying for training and the certification and maintenance of
application equipment) and benefits (for less consuming farmers, and
training, maintenance or certificating firms) are equal.’ (5)

(5) Cf. SEC(2006) 914, point 5, second paragraph.

C 161/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

2.13
The net overall impact, considering the reduced extern-
alities, is thus clearly positive: ‘Extrapolation from a comprehensive
study in Germany leads to the conclusion that the optimised use in
pesticides should create an overall benefit to the EU which would
exceed EUR 200 million each year, through reduced externalities such
as adverse effects on the environment and human health.’ (6)

The EESC has already,

in 2003 (7), expressed support
2.14
for the Commission's effort to draw up a thematic strategy on
pesticides. The EESC feels that explicit mention should be made
of both the crop protection role of pesticides, and other techni-
i.e. biopesticides, plant extracts, prevention methods,
ques,
organic methods and plant resistance to certain pests, the risks
and benefits of which must be assessed on a sound scientific
basis.

3. The Commission proposal

3.1
The Commission proposal seeks to protect human and
animal health and the environment from the hazardous, inap-
propriate or excessive use of pesticides in farming and the
ecosystem, reducing the risks and adverse impact of pesticide
use ‘in a way that is consistent with the necessary crop protec-
tion’.

3.2

It provides, in particular, for:

— mandatory establishment of National Action Plans (NAPs) to
identify types of crops, activities and areas of higher risk
which should be addressed as priorities, with the involve-
ment of stakeholders in the setting-up, implementation and
adaptation of the NAPs;

— creation of a system of training and awareness-raising for
distributors and professional users of pesticides, and of
information for the general public through awareness-raising
and information campaigns;

— mandatory regular inspection of application equipment in
order to reduce adverse impacts of pesticides on human
health and the environment during application;

— prohibition of aerial spraying (with derogation possible), to
limit the risks of adverse impacts on human health and the
environment;

— specific measures to protect the aquatic environment from

pollution by pesticides;

— defining areas of reduced or zero pesticide use (ZPU) in line

with measures taken under other legislation;

— handling and storage of pesticides and their packaging and

remnants (pesticides life cycle);

(6) Idem.
(7) OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003, pp. 112-118.

— development of Community-wide standards on Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) — mandatory as of 2014 — and
establishment of conditions for implementation;

— a system of harmonised indicators for the mandatory collec-
tion and reporting of information on the placing on the
market and use of pesticides, to measure progress in overall
risk reduction.

4. Comments

4.1
The EESC welcomes the Commission proposal in that it
addresses an issue of great importance as regards the European
public and consumer's well-being, safeguarding quality of life,
farming and the ecosystem.

even though these markets

4.2
Annual world pesticide sales are estimated at EUR 25
billion and the use of pesticides is still very high in developing
countries,
sluggish or
shrinking (8). Moreover, globalisation of agricultural and food
markets calls for increasingly careful compliance with appro-
priate production and health standards of the Codex Alimen-
tarius by all concerned, to prevent these markets suffering the
effects of Gresham's law as well (9).

are

4.3 Moreover, in various parts of the world, a huge quantity
of pesticides is wasted or used needlessly, and a large number of
people suffer from poisoning because farmers, operators and
local authorities do not know or have not been updated about
new technological applications and because the equipment used
for pesticides is often obsolete or poorly maintained. In addi-
tion, dangerous substances already banned in the EU are still in
use in developing countries (10).

The EESC believes that

4.4
the introduction of National
Action Plans incorporating quantitative targets and implementa-
tion schedules is particularly necessary in order
to define
measures geared to the need to reduce risks, at national, regional
and local level, taking into consideration the three dimensions
of sustainability, i.e. economic, social and environmental impact.

4.5
The socially responsible use of crop protection products
is essential to achieve increasingly advanced social objectives,
ensuring that farmers discharge their responsibilities in the food
chain and produce high-quality foodstuffs for consumers, while
also securing sufficiently high levels of agricultural competitive-
ness on both the internal and international markets as regards
the Lisbon Strategy.

4.6
The economic dimension of sustainability ensures that
products are only used to the extent necessary to keep the
various diseases below the danger line, thus increasing yield and
farm product availability as well as reducing the costs of farm
management.

(8) Resolution 1/123, FAO Council 11/2002 (www.fao.org).
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law.
(10) For example, lindane was banned from the EU market in 2005 and it is

still in use in developing countries.

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/51

4.7
As regards the environment, the risks caused by the
excessive accidental presence of chemical substances in water,
soil, air and processed farm and food products would be
avoided. These substances are harmful to man, flora and fauna,
the quality of
the environment and biological diversity in
general. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that it is
essential
the spread and proliferation of plant
diseases.

to prevent

4.8
In order to avoid distorting competition in the internal
market, the measures adopted when National Action Plans are
introduced should be based on directives and criteria which are
common to the whole of the EU.

Education, training and information campaigns are essen-
4.9
tial
to achieve rational, sustainable use of crop protection
systems, and for ensuring that best farming practices are used
and avoiding potential adverse environmental impact. Integrated
including public authorities and
training of all stakeholders,
bodies and non-professional users, is of particular importance
here.

4.10 Member States have set up different training systems,
based on national provisions and legislative requirements and
managed by properly approved bodies. The EESC therefore
believes that a flexible Community reference framework is
necessary in order to cater for the needs of different user
groups. It could be based inter alia on teaching methods and
course content agreed on by stakeholders at European level (11)
and discussed as part of a sectoral dialogue between the social
partners in each country.

The same may be said of information and awareness-
4.11
raising campaigns, which must be objective and neutral, on the
benefits of potential crop protection practices and the risks of
harmful effects. These campaigns could be financed in the indi-
vidual Member States by means such as a tax levied on crop
protection products. The funds obtained in this way could be
channelled into resources
simple technical guides
such as
updated online to raise awareness among users, particularly
non-professional users.

4.12
The EESC believes that it is essential for Member States
to set up a system for regular technical inspection and mainte-
nance of pesticide application equipment in use, on the basis of
common, harmonised standards founded on essential require-
ments.

4.13
As regards the introduction of precautionary measures
in particularly sensitive contexts, such as the protection of
water (12) — which must be in line with the Water Framework
local
Directive — and the sectors defined by Natura 2000,

(11) Cf. ECPA Training resource for trainers on ICM and Guidelines on the

Sustainable use of crop protection products.

(12) Cf. best practices introduced under Directive 91/414.

conditions and types of crops such as rice need to be taken into
account.

In the EESC's opinion, it is important to ensure that
4.13.1
best practices are followed to reduce risks,
laying down
balanced, sensible common provisions and minimum para-
meters. The choice of measures and stringent monitoring
thereof should be the responsibility of the Member States. The
Committee is not in favour of a general ban, as it feels this
would be excessive.

As regards the introduction of stringent restrictions on
4.14
aerial spraying,
the EESC believes that careful consideration
should be given to the fact that there are geographical areas and
situations where no other technique is feasible. In such circum-
stances it might be appropriate to allow only very limited dero-
gations for this kind of operation, so as to secure the greatest
possible level of safety and professional skill among operators
and thus avoid adverse effects on human health and the envir-
onment. Member States and the various tiers of public authority
responsible should use standardised risk assessment procedures
to monitor safety and competence levels systematically.

Under

the common agricultural policy,

4.15
increasing
support is being given to the development of Integrated Crop
Management (ICM) techniques (13).
In this context, new Inte-
grated Pest Management (IPM) methods should also be phased
in on a consensual basis. The EESC firmly supports ICM techni-
ques (14), which are a milestone for sustainable farming systems.

4.16
It is very difficult to distinguish the various effects of
crop protection from the effects of a whole series of other
farming practices (rotation etc.): if general IPM ‘target-standards’
are to be drawn up and made mandatory by the Member States
before 2014, the EESC feels that users must be given incentives
to participate fully in this and that general ICM techniques, tech-
nical progress and technological research in the sector —
supported and consolidated in the Seventh Community RTD
Framework Programme work programmes — must be taken
fully into account.

tender under

The EESC feels

that work programmes and calls
4.17
for
the Seventh RTD Framework Programme
2007-2013 should give due consideration to agricultural and
plant protection research into the degrees
to which new,
advanced technologies are harmless, and into minimising the
risk caused by the use of chemicals and mixtures of chemicals.

(13) CEAS Report on CM Systems in the EU carried out for DG Environment
and the Codex on Integrated Farming of the European Initiative on
Sustainable development in Agriculture (EISA). The Codex was also
recognised by the CEAS report.

(14) Report on CM Systems in the EU, European Commission, May 2003.

Comments from PAN Europé and the EEB, 9/2002.

C 161/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

In its Own-initiative opinion on The future of

4.18
the
CAP (15), 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 requires Member States, in
the new 2007-2013 Structural Funds programming period and
national and regional development plans for rural areas,
to
provide incentives for mechanisms to compensate farmers who
succeed in reducing the risks involved in their use of chemical
plant protection products (16).

4.19
The definition of IPC techniques must be in line with
new provisions on the placing on the market of crop protection
products, and standards on IPM techniques must
take into
account the varying natural and climatic conditions within the
EU.

4.20
Crop protection products must be handled and stored
in such a way as to prevent any potential risk to health or the
environment. The EESC believes that, in addition to the propo-
sals, a framework of minimum standards on storage for whole-
salers, retailers and farmers should be defined at Community
level (17).

As regards the system of harmonised indicators for the
4.21
mandatory collection and reporting of statistical information on

Brussels, 14 March 2007.

placing on the market and use of pesticides, the EESC fully
agrees that there is a need for statistical information and that it
should be mandatory for this data to be collected regularly on
the basis of risk and use indicators harmonised at European
level.

4.22
The EESC stresses the importance of standardising the
information to be requested from all stakeholders the need to
avoid any duplication or excessive burdens in terms of either
red tape or technical complexity.

The indicators should be based on risk rather than on
4.23
the quantity of products used or of residues present, and on the
impact on health. WHO studies could be used here. They
should also cover the spread of diseases and pathogens affecting
crops.

The EESC calls for due consideration to be given to
4.24
aspects of
international cooperation, as regards both bodies
such as the FAO (18) and the OECD (19), and neighbouring
regions, particularly the countries of the Mediterranean Basin,
the Balkans and bordering countries.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(15) OJ C 125 of 27.5.2002, pp. 87-99.
(16) OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003, pp. 112-118.
(17) Cf. also Guidelines for Packaging and Storage of Pesticides (FAO 1985).
Current Community legislation on the storage of chemical substances
only lays down standards for large quantities while there are no
requirements governing small quantities of pesticides held by indivi-
dual operators, despite the need for this.

(18) Particularly as regards the monitoring, implementation and updating
of the International code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides.
Nov. 2002.

(19) Particularly where the definition of indicators is concerned.