Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides
Date: 2008-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU initiative, drafting of EU law, environmental protection, pesticide, pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, prevention of pollution

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.7.2008 
COM(2008) 457 final 

2006/0132 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the 
common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to 
achieve a sustainable use of pesticides 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2006/0132 (COD) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the 
common position of the Council on the adoption of a Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to 
achieve a sustainable use of pesticides 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1 

BACKGROUND 

Date of transmission of the proposal to the EP and the Council 
(document COM(2006)373 final – 2006/0132COD): 

14 July 2006 

Date  of  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee: 

14 March 2007 

Date of the opinion of the Committee of the Regions: 

13 February 2007 

Date of the opinion of the European Parliament, first reading: 

23 October 2007 

Date of adoption of the common position (by unanimity): 

19 May 2008 

2 

OBJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

The  aim  of  the  proposal  is  to  fill  the  current  legislative  gap  regarding  the  use-phase  of 
pesticides at EU level, and to provide for common minimum rules on the use of pesticides so 
as to reduce risks to human health and the environment. 

This  proposal  contains  a  series  of  measures  implementing  the  main  actions  proposed  in  the 
Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides, COM (2006)372 final of 12 July 2006. 
It is the most important part of a package of legislative and non-legislative actions under the 
Strategy. 

3 

3.1 

COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION 

General comments 

The Commission accepted in full, in part or in principle 94 of the 123 amendments adopted by 
the  European  Parliament  in  its  first  reading.  37  amendments  have  now  been  incorporated, 
either verbatim or in spirit, in the common position. 

The  Commission  accepted  the  amendments  clarifying  or  improving  the  text,  or  introducing 
appropriate  reference  to  the  new  rules  of  comitology.  The  Commission  did  not  accept  the 
amendments  which  changed  the  legal  base  of  the  proposal,  which  were  superfluous,  lacked 
clarity or introduced legal uncertainty, which created disproportionate administrative burden, 
or which were not consistent with the overall objective of the Directive. 

The Council has agreed to incorporate the Parliamentary amendments relating in particular to 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
the new rules of comitology, the addition of the promotion of alternatives in the subject matter 
of  the  Directive,  the  establishment  of  an  internet  portal  by  the  Commission,  the  notion  of 
further training, a maximum interval between inspection of equipment, the specification of the 
general principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in annex. 

The Commission considers that the common position does not alter significantly the approach 
or aims of the proposal and can thus support it as it stands. 

3.2 

Detailed comments 

3.2.1 

Parliamentary amendments accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full, in 
part or in principle in the common position 

Amendments 17, 52, 62, 103, 137 and 155 have been incorporated in the common position, 
as they introduce the appropriate reference to the new rules of comitology. 

Amendments  6,  43,  49,  60,  61,  63,  68,  85,  93,  95,  106,  112,  114  and  122  have  been 
incorporated in principle in the common position. They added a reference to further training, 
provided general principles of IPM in a new annex, specified that the implementation of the 
measures  of  the  Directive  had  to  be  described  in  the  National  Action  Plans,  highlighted  the 
importance of monitoring aerial spraying, and provided clarifications. 

Parts of amendments 13, 18, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 48, 51, 54, 59, 64, 87, 90, 146 and 164 have 
been incorporated to varying degrees, to provide clarifications or explanations. 

3.2.2 

Parliamentary amendments rejected by the Commission but incorporated in full, in 
part or in principle in the common position 

Amendment 29, adding a definition of pesticides as plant protection products, was rejected by 
the Commission as it is not correct and not consistent with the intention of the Commission to 
consider  biocides  inclusion  at  a  later  stage.  It  has  been  incorporated  in  principle  in  the 
common position, as both the European Parliament and the Council agreed on the need to add 
a definition of "pesticides". However the definition voted by the EP represents only a part of 
the  definition  agreed  upon  in  the  common  position  (which  defines  pesticides  as  plant 
protection products and biocidal products). 

3.2.3 

Parliamentary  amendments  rejected  by  the  Commission  and  the  Council  and  not 
incorporated in the common position 

Amendment 1 was rejected by both the Commission and the Council as it changes the legal 
base of the proposal. 

Amendment 5 was rejected as it restricts the exchange of experience to objectives achieved 
only. 

Amendment  16  could  lead  to  confusion  as  it  introduces  provisions  pertaining  to  liability 
whilst there is already a directive on environmental liability. It was therefore rejected by both 
the Commission and the Council. 

Amendments  22  and  99  were  found  as  not  acceptable  by  the  Commission  and  were  not 
incorporated in the common position as they would have introduced legal uncertainty. 

Amendments  23,  30  and  37  were  rejected  by  both  the  Commission  and  the  Council  due  to 
lack of clarity. 

Amendment  28  was  not  incorporated  in  the  common  position  as  this  new  definition  is  not 
necessary. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Amendment  32  is  not  consistent  with  the  Commission  proposal  (reduction  of  dependence 
does  not  only  refer  to  reduction  of  use  but  also  to  overall  reliance  on  pesticides)  and  was 
therefore rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendments  40,  120  and  121  would  have  created  disproportionate  administrative  burden 
without clear benefits and were therefore rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendment 55 is unworkable (amateurs would not be able to purchase products, and advice 
would be systematically needed prior to purchase) and was thus found not acceptable by the 
Commission and was not incorporated in the common position. 

Amendment  57  and  84  are  unrealistic  (it  is  difficult  to  shorten  these  deadlines)  and  were 
rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendment 58 is superfluous and thus was rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendment  69  is  incorrect:  the  problem  is  whether  products  cause  harm  to  the  aquatic 
environment and not whether they enter it. It was found as not acceptable by the Commission 
and was not incorporated in the common position. 

Amendment  72  would  have  duplicated  other  provisions  under  this  Directive  (provisions  on 
training)  and  under  other  pieces  of  legislation  (Directive  91/414/EEC).  It  was  therefore 
rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendment 77 may be unworkable (risk assessments may not always be available) and not 
consistent  with  the  Commission  proposal  (precautionary  principle  applies  in  point  (a)),  and 
was  found  as  not  acceptable  by  the  Commission  and  was  not  incorporated  in  the  common 
position. 

Amendments  88  and  102  would  interfere  with  the  power  of  decision  of  the  Commission. 
They were rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

Amendments 91, 96, 98, 104 were found as not acceptable by the Commission as indicators 
are not needed to evaluate use since use data are relevant for this. They were not incorporated 
in the common position. 

Amendments  138  and  139  are  not  consistent  with  the  Commission  proposal.  They  were 
rejected by both the Commission and the Council. 

3.2.4  Parliamentary amendments accepted in full, in part or in principle by the Commission 
but not incorporated in the common position 

Amendments 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 44, 46, 47, 50, 53, 
56, 65, 66, 70, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 92, 94, 97, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 
111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 133, 135, 141, 143, 151 and 153 were accepted in full, in 
part  or  in  principle  by  the  Commission  but  were  not  incorporated  in  the  common  position. 
They  clarify  or  improve  the  provisions  concerned,  and  relate  to  quantitative  use  reduction 
targets, fiscal measures, background reports to prepare National Action Plans, the prevention 
of  illegal  use  of  products,  the  information  of  the  general  public,  the  warning  of  neighbours 
before  any  spraying,  the  establishment  of  pesticide-free  zones  around  vulnerable  areas,  and 
the topics covered by training. 

3.2.5  Additional changes made by the Council to the Proposal 

In  Article  3,  the  definition  of  "use"  was  deleted  as  this  term  only  appears  in  the  title.  The 
notion  of  professional  capacity  or  commercial  service  was  incorporated  in  the  definition  of 
"adviser". The definition of "pesticide application accessories" was deleted and merged with 
that of "pesticide application equipment". The definition of "integrated pest management" was 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
transferred from the proposal for a Regulation on the placing of plant protection products on 
the market into this proposal. A definition of "surface water" and "groundwater" referring to 
the Water Framework Directive was added. 

In Article 4, the encouragement of the development and introduction of alternative approaches 
or techniques such as integrated pest management was added in the objectives of the national 
action plans as a means to achieve the reduction of the dependency on the use of pesticides. 

Article 6 was amended to allow the staff holding a certificate not to be physically present at 
the place of sale. 

Article 8 was reorganised and amended to introduce provisions for the first inspection of new 
equipment,  and  to  allow  total  exemptions  from  inspection  for  handheld  equipment  or 
knapsacks,  or  use  of  different  timetables  and  inspection  intervals  for  handheld  equipment, 
knapsacks,  non-spraying  equipment  or  spraying  equipment  used  at  very  low  scale  (except 
equipment  mounted  on  aircraft  or  trains,  or  boom  sprayers  larger  than  3  meters).  An 
amendment was added to ensure that users carry out regular calibrations and technical checks 
of  their  equipment.  Provisions  regarding  mutual  recognition  between  certificates  granted  in 
different Member States were incorporated. 

Article 9 was reorganised and amended to specify that approval of products must be based on 
a specific risk assessment, to introduce provisions on the transitional period where certificate 
systems  are  not  yet  in  place,  and  to  introduce  a  requirement  for  the  certification  of  the 
enterprise  responsible  for  aerial  applications.  An  amendment  was  added  to  introduce  the 
possibility to implicitly approve the requests in case of no reply after a certain time period to 
be established by competent authorities. 

Article  10  was  reorganised  and  amended  to  give  preference  to  products  that  do  not  contain 
priority  hazardous  substances,  and  to  render  the  establishment  of  appropriately-sized  buffer 
zones not mandatory any more. 

Article  11  was  amended  to  introduce  provisions  regarding  recently  treated  areas  used  by  or 
accessible  to  agricultural  workers,  and  to  give  Member  State  authorities  the  possibility  to 
reduce risks instead of prohibiting or reducing the use of pesticides. 

Article  12  was  amended  to  widen  the  provisions  not  only  to  users  but  also  to  distributors, 
where  applicable,  to  incorporate  a  reference  to  recovery  or  disposal  of  remnants  and 
packaging, and to specify that provisions under paragraphs 1 and 3 apply to professional users 
only. 

Article  13  was  amended  to  replace  the  term  low  pesticide-input  farming  by  low  pesticide-
input pest management and to specify that this notion includes IPM and organic farming. 

Article 14 was reorganised. 

An Article 16a on fees and charges was incorporated in the proposal. 

A specific annex has been added for listing the risk indicators. 

4- 

CONCLUSION 

A  number  of  changes  introduced  by  the  Council  help  clarify  the  proposal.  Although  some 
amendments weaken the proposal, notably regarding the inspection of application equipment, 
the handling of request for derogations, the protection of the aquatic environment, the overall 
text remains acceptable. The Commission therefore accepts the common position adopted on 
19 May 2008. 

EN 

5 

   EN