REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Member State National Action Plans and on progress in the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides
Date: 2017-10-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: action programme, health policy, market approval, national implementing measure, pesticide, pesticides industry, plant health control, protection of plant life, water protection

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.10.2017  COM(2017) 587 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On Member State National Action Plans and on progress in the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides  
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The EU benefits from the most stringent system in the world for the authorisation and control 
of  pesticides1.  In  spite  of  this,  there  is  a  strong  desire  throughout  society  to  move  towards 
sustainable  food  production,  and  a  reduction  or  even  ban  on  the  use  of  pesticides.  In  this 
context,  as  part  of  modern  production  systems,  sustainable  agriculture  is  one  of  the  UN 
Development  Goals,  and  the  promotion  of  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  is  one  of  the 
important actions being undertaken by the EU in support of the achievement of the UN 2030 
Agenda for Sustainable Development2. 

The  2006  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides3  led  to  a  new  legislative 
framework  for  the  approval  and  use  of  pesticides4.  This  includes  a  strict  framework  for  the 
approval  of  active  substances  by  the  European  Commission  and  the  authorisation  of  plant 
protection products by Member States, which, if used according to the authorised conditions 
of use, have no identified harmful effects on human and animal health, and no unacceptable 
effects  on  the  environment5.  This  strict  system  for  placing  on  the  market  has  led  to  an 
approximate  50%  reduction  in  the  number  of  approved  active  substances6.  Controls  on  the 
marketing  and  use  of  pesticides  aim  to  ensure  that  authorised  pesticides  are  marketed  and 
used according to these conditions. Plants treated with authorised pesticides in line with the 
product label can be marketed and consumed as safe food, with pesticide residues within the 
EU maximum residue levels (MRLs)7. 

Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use 
of pesticides8, (the “Directive”), adopted on 21 October 2009 as part of this strategy, provides 
for a range of actions to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides in the EU by reducing the risks 
and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of 
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and of alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-
chemical alternatives to pesticides. 

Member  States  were  required  to  adopt  National  Action  Plans  (NAPs)  to  implement  the 
Directive  for  the  first  time  by  November  2012.  These  plans  should  contain  quantitative 
objectives, targets, measurements and timetables to reduce the risks and impacts of pesticide 
use. The Regulation on the placing of plant protection products on the market also includes a 

1 In this report, the term ‘pesticides’ refers to plant protection products which include herbicides, fungicides and 
insecticides used for plant protection. 
2http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/file/50450/download_en?token=KLkUmH5y  
3 COM/2006/0372 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A thematic strategy on the sustainable use 
of pesticides.  
4  Pesticides  are  defined  by  Directive  2009/128/EC  (Article  3)  as  including  either  plant  protection  products  or 
biocidal  products.  Currently  the  Directive  applies  to  plant  protection  products  only  (Article  2).  The  term 
pesticides is used widely in this report as it is more commonly used but the report does not deal with biocidal 
products. 
5 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning 
the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the  market  and  repealing  Council  Directives  79/117/EEC  and 
91/414/EEC, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=homepage&language=EN 
7 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum 
residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 
91/414/EEC, OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, P1-16 
8  Directive  2009/128/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  October  2009  establishing  a 
framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71–86. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
number of provisions linked to the Directive, including the facilitation of the rapid approval of 
low risk substances and the use of these products following the IPM principles. 

The Directive identifies specific measures that Member States are required to include in their 
plans  for  proper  implementation.  The  main  actions  relate  to  training  of  users,  advisors  and 
distributors, inspection of pesticide application equipment, the prohibition of aerial spraying, 
limitation  of  pesticide  use  in  sensitive  areas,  and  information  and  awareness  raising  about 
pesticide  risks.  A  cornerstone  of  the  Directive  is  the  promotion  of  IPM,  for  which  general 
principles  are  laid  down  in  Annex  III  to  the  Directive.  The  deadlines  established  by  the 
Directive for implementation  of all above  measures were  phased over the period  November 
2011  to  November  2016.  Since  November  2016,  (when  inspection  of  pesticide  application 
equipment inspection became compulsory), Member States have been required to implement 
all the relevant measures of the Directive.  

The Commission has established a working group with Member States, which regularly meets 
to discuss implementation of the Directive and exchange best practice.  

This  report  addresses  the  reporting  requirements  under  both  Articles  4(3)  and  16  of  the 
Directive. Article 4(3) requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and to 
the  Council  a  report  on  the  national  action  plans  communicated  by  the  Member  States,  and 
Article 16 requires it to report on the progress in the implementation of the Directive. 

This report is based on four sources of information; 

  Commission assessment of the national action plans, concluded in 2015. 
  Two  audit  series  on  pesticides  performed  between  2012-2014  and  2015-2016 
respectively the first on controls on plant protection products9 and the second on the 
marketing and use of pesticides10, which included certain aspects of implementation of 
the Directive within their scope. 

  A survey and a questionnaire11 sent in 2016 to all Member States to get an update on 

progress with the implementation of Action Plans. 

  Fact-finding  visits  to  six  Member  States  in  201712  specifically  to  investigate  the 
overall  progress  made  with  implementation  of  the  Directive.  These  Member  States 
were  chosen  to  give  a  cross  section  of  different  Member  States  covering  varying 
geographical regions. In addition to the individual mission reports, the main findings 
of these six missions will be published in an overview report later this year, and will 
include  a  more  detailed  analysis  of  the  results  of  the  above  questionnaire,  including 
examples of good practice in implementation identified by Member States.  

The NAPs, reports of the Commission, including audit reports as well as the overview reports 
are  available  on  the  Commission  webpage  for  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  at 
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides_en 

9 http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=79 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=109 
11  The  information  and  data  provided  in  response  to  this  survey  were  incomplete  and  results  need  further   
exploration  with  Member  States.  The  UK  did  not  provide  a  response  to  the  questionnaire,  but  provided 
information  on  some  of  the  topics  later  on.  There  were      data  gaps  in  the  responses  provided  by  Bulgaria, 
Romania, Greece and France.  

12 Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Poland, Sweden 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2.  NATIONAL ACTION PLANS  

Article 4 of the Directive required Member States to adopt the first round of national action 
plans  and  to  communicate  these  to  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States  by  26 
November  2012.  These  plans  should  be  reviewed  at  least  every  five  years.  They  should 
establish  quantitative  objectives,  targets,  measures  and  timetables  to  reduce  the  risk  and 
impact  of  pesticide  use  on  human  health  and  the  environment.  All  Member  States  have 
adopted such plans13, in many cases with significant delays. The plans were communicated to 
the  Commission,  and  have  been  made  available  in  English  language  on  the  Commission 
website14. 

The national action plans are the basis of Member State controls of the Directive, but there 
is huge diversity in their completeness and coverage. Member States should improve their 
plans  significantly  to  address  the  shortcomings  below,  and  to  establish  more  precise  and 
measurable targets. 

Member  States  had  different  starting  points  for  the  development  of  the  NAPs.  Seven  had 
previously  developed  action  plans,  whereas  for  all  others,  this  was  their  first  plan.  To  date, 
only France and Lithuania have produced a revised NAP. The level of implementation of the 
action  plans  will  be  clearer  once  all  Member  States  have  completed  these  reviews  and 
communicated them to the Commission. 

NAPs reflect positively on the efforts made by Member States in their preparation. However, 
they vary greatly in terms of detailing how exactly they plan to implement measures pursuant 
to Articles 5-15 of the Directive. In most cases, not all aspects of these Articles were covered. 
The plans deal comprehensively with some areas, for example testing of pesticide application 
equipment  and  training  of  pesticide  users,  but  many  provide  little  detail  in  other  areas,  for 
example  in  relation  to  aerial  spraying,  information  to  the  public  and  gathering  information 
regarding poisoning cases. 

inconsistent  as  regards  establishing  quantitative  objectives, 

NAPs  are  also 
targets, 
measurements  and  timetables  for  the  various  action  areas.  In  some  areas,  for  example  the 
testing  of  pesticide  application  equipment,  the  plans  are  excellent  with  almost  all  of  them 
setting specific targets to achieve full compliance. On the other hand, most Member States did 
not  establish  targets  and  timetables  for  measures  to  protect  the  aquatic  environment  from 
pesticides. 

In  addition,  in  around  80%  of  cases,  action  plans  do  not  specify  how  the  achievement  of 
targets  or  objectives  will  be  measured.  The  absence  of  clear  measurable  targets  makes  it 
difficult to assess the progress with implementation and to identify areas where further actions 
are needed. 

21  Member  States15  reported  risk  reduction  targets,  and  916  use  reduction  targets.  Only  five 
Member States set measurable targets, of which four17 aim at risk reduction and one18 at use 

13  The  Directive  does  not  prescribe  a  format  for  National  Action  Plans  and  for  this  reason,  the  plans 
communicated  to  the  Commission  are  not  fully  comparable.  In  some  cases,  they  do  not  contain  all  national 
measures being taken to implement the Directive. The scope of the Commission’s assessment of the plans was 
limited to the plans themselves and any measures not included in these plans could not be taken into account. 
14 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides_en 
15 Spain, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Latvia, 
Italy, Portugal, Croatia, Austria, Denmark, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Ireland and France. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
reduction. The main target of the French national action plan is to reduce the use of pesticides 
by  50%  by  2025,  with  an  initial  25  %  milestone  in  2020,  and  thus  to  lower  the  risks  and 
impacts on human health and the environment. Good examples of risk reduction targets can 
be found in Germany, the Netherlands19, Finland and Denmark who developed risk reduction 
indicators based on pesticide hazard classification, with higher risk pesticides having a higher 
weighting. 

All  the  NAPs  include  some  measures  on  the  promotion  of  IPM,  in  particular  to  encourage 
availability  of  IPM  guidelines,  and  the  provision  of  training  or  demonstration  farms. 
Nevertheless,  the  plans  do  not  specify  how  the  application  of  IPM  by  farmers  can  be 
measured,  do  not  set  targets  or  indicate  how  implementation  will  be  ensured.  IPM  is  a 
cornerstone of the Directive, and implementation of IPM is the intended means to reduce the 
dependency  on  pesticide  use  in  sustainable  agriculture,  and  thus  the  lack  of  clear  steps  that 
can be assessed, measured and enforced is a significant area for improvement in the ongoing 
review of national action plans by Member States. 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

3.1. TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION 

Article  5  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  establish  training  and  certification  for 
professional  users,  distributors  and  advisors  of  pesticides.  Article  6  requires  that  Member 
States ensure that  distributors have sufficient  staff in  their employment holding a certificate 
referred  to  under  Article  5.  It  also  requires  Member  States  to  restrict  sales  of  pesticides 
authorised for professional use to persons holding a certificate referred to in Article 5. Finally, 
Article  6  states  that  Member  States  shall  require  distributors  selling  pesticides  to  non-
professional users to provide general information regarding the risks for human health and the 
environment of pesticide use. 

Overall,  there  is  a  high  level  of  compliance  in  the  area  of  training  and  certification  of 
professional  users,  distributors  and  advisors.  There  is  no  accurate  data,  however,  on  the 
total number of professional operators in this area and therefore it cannot be certain that all 
are trained. 

Twenty six20 national action plans address the provision of training, but eleven of these do not 
provide sufficient detail.21 

The  implementation  of  the  training  requirement  was  assessed  in  the  course  of  Commission 
audits  in  19  Member  States  in  the  period  2012  –  2014  and  in  the  fact-finding  visits  to  six 
Member States in 2017 (5 were visited in both cases). In 3 of the 20 Member States visited, 
training  systems  for  farmers  had  been  in  place  before  adoption  of  the  Directive,  and  after 
entry into force the training was extended to other groups, such as distributors.  

16 Luxemburg, Slovenia, Cyprus, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Germany and France 
17 Belgium, Denmark, Greece and Germany 
18 France 
19 In the Netherlands, these were not included in the NAP. 
20 The plans of Belgium and Denmark have no reference or objectives for training and certification of operators. 
21 Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia 

and Slovenia. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
All Member States (except Luxembourg) had established a training and certification system 
by the deadline of 26 November 2013, and Member States reported in response to the 2016 
questionnaire  that  almost  four  million  professional  operators  had  been  trained.  There  were 
delays in training and  certification of operators in six Member States22. In addition, no data 
was  provided  by  three  Member  States23.  According  to  a  farm  structure  survey24,  there  are 
roughly 10 million agricultural holdings in Europe, of which only 0.3 million are large scale 
operators, farming 50 % of the total utilisable agricultural area. The training courses typically 
take  2-4  days,  depending  on  the  type  of  operator  and  previous  knowledge,  and  trained 
operators receive a certificate, which is required for the purchase of pesticides for professional 
use.  

In the case of the six Member States visited by the Commission in 2017, this requirement is 
included in the scope of official controls on farms by competent authorities, and compliance 
rates  were  more  than  95  %  in  five  of  the  six  Member  States25.  However,  based  on  the 
responses to the questionnaire, one issue identified was that certification systems do not cover 
advisors on pest management in five Member States26. In addition, the Netherlands does not 
require advisors, who are not directly involved in selling pesticides, to be certified, but they 
plan  to revise the national legislation to bring it into line with the Directive.  

All  Member  States  have  restrictions  in  place  on  the  sale  of  pesticides  to  non-professional 
users, such as home gardeners. For example, in some Member States, pesticides intended for 
non-professional  users cannot be purchased freely  and must  be stored  behind the counter in 
retail premises. 

The Commission organised twelve Better Training for Safer Food (BTSF)27 courses in 2015 
and  2016  for  Member  State  experts,  which  covered  several  elements  of  the  Directive, 
including the training of operators. The course aimed at providing a consistent and high level 
understanding on how to achieve implementation and provided an opportunity for exchange 
of good practice.  All 28 Member States participated and some 338 staff were trained. 

3.2. PESTICIDE POISONING 

Article 7 (2) of the Directive requires Member States to put into place systems for gathering 
incidents,  as  well  as  chronic  poisoning 
information  on  pesticide  acute  poisoning 
developments  where  available,  among  groups  that  may  be  exposed  regularly  to  pesticides 
such as operators, agricultural workers or persons living close to pesticide application areas. 

While  Member  States  generally  have  systems  to  gather  information  on  pesticide  acute 
poisoning, the accuracy of this data and its use was questioned. Systems for gathering such 
information on chronic poisoning are not widely implemented. 

22 Italy, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Malta.  
23 Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Farm_structure_survey_2013_-

_main_results#Agricultural_holdings  

25 Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden 
26 Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Sweden and the UK 
27 https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/btsf_en  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Eighteen  NAPs describe the systems for gathering  information  on pesticide acute poisoning 
incidents in their Member State, while just four address the issue of gathering data on chronic 
poisoning. The remaining plans do not give specific details in this area. 

This topic was not addressed in the course of Commission audits in the 19 Member States in 
the period of 2012 – 2014, and the available information comes from the 2016 questionnaire 
to Member States and the fact-finding missions to six Member States in 2017. 

Based  on  the  responses  to  the  2016  questionnaire,  specific  information  on  pesticide  acute 
poisoning incidents is gathered by all but five Member States. The number of reported cases 
of  acute  poisoning  involving  pesticides  varies  considerably  between  Member  States,  and 
authorities  raised  doubts  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  data.  For  example,  in  Sweden,  the  data 
recorded  refers  to  the  number  of  queries,  rather  than  the  number  of  poisoning  cases.  Ten 
Member  States28  have  a  dedicated  system  for  gathering  data  on  chronic  poisoning.  In  the 
remaining  17  Member  States,  chronic  poisoning  is  not  monitored  systematically.  Member 
States  emphasised  that  it  is  particularly  challenging  to  gather  information  on  chronic 
poisoning developments, as it is very difficult to link clinical symptoms to pesticide exposure, 
which may have taken place many years previously. 

In  order  to  improve  the  comparability  of  information,  Article  7(3)  of  the  Directive  requires 
that  the  Commission,  in  co-operation  with  the  Member  States,  shall  develop  a  strategic 
guidance document on monitoring and surveying of impacts of pesticide use on human health 
and the environment. The Commission plans to finalise this guidance document by the end of 
2017. Furthermore, consideration will be given to the establishment of systems for collecting 
information  on  suspected  poisoning  from  pesticides  under  Art  24(4)(b)  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 2017/625. 

3.3. PESTICIDE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT 

Article 8 requires Members States to ensure that pesticide application equipment, i.e. field and 
orchard  sprayers,  is  inspected  at  regular  intervals,  and  that  by  26  November  2016,  all 
equipment in use has been tested at least once. They are also required to establish certificate 
systems to allow the verification of the inspections. 

Member  States  had  generally  established  systems  as  required,  but  there  is  an  incomplete 
picture  regarding  the  overall  rate  of  compliance  which  varies  widely  between  Member 
States.  The  Commission  is  currently  assessing  the  evolution  of  the  situation  since 
November 2016. 

Twenty six29 NAPs had an objective of ensuring that pesticide application equipment would 
be tested as required by the Directive. Fifteen plans indicated that a sprayer testing scheme of 
some type was already in operation prior to the adoption of the Directive. 

To assist Member States in  this  area, as  envisaged under Article 20 of the Directive, a new 
harmonised  standard  for  testing  pesticide  application  equipment  EN  ISO  16122,  was 

28 The Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Germany, France and 

Bulgaria 

29 Plans of Denmark and Sweden did not contain such an objective 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
published in 201530. This standard covers horizontal boom sprayers, bush/tree crop sprayers 
and  fixed  and  semi-mobile  sprayers.  It  clarifies  the  essential  health  and  safety  and 
environmental  requirements  to  be  examined  in  the  inspection.  This  harmonised  standard 
should  facilitate  efforts  by  Member  States  to  recognise  the  certificates  granted  in  other 
Member States as required under Article 8(6) of the Directive.  

The 2016 questionnaire shows that twenty six Member States had set up inspection systems, 
and  approximately  900,000  sprayers  had  been  inspected  by  the  deadline  of  26  November 
2016.  Only  Malta  and  Cyprus  had  yet  to  start  these  inspections.  Member  States  have  no 
reliable data on the total number of sprayers in use, but based on their own estimates, up to 
50% of sprayers in the EU were not tested by the deadline, with over 95% of the estimated 
number  of  sprayers  not  tested  by  the  deadline  in  Latvia  and  Greece  and  70  %  in  Italy.  
Belgium, the Netherlands and Finland reported close to 100% testing. 

The  Commission  organised  six  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  (BTSF)  courses  in  2015  and 
2016 on pesticide application equipment, with 102 Member State inspectors from 25 Member 
States,  and  a  further  6  courses  will  be  run  in  2017  and  2018.  This  will  help  address  the 
weaknesses outlined above and thus facilitate more uniform testing by Member States. 

3.4. AERIAL SPRAYING 

Article 9 of the Directive prohibits aerial spraying of pesticides, except under derogation. 

Aerial spraying is banned and derogations are only granted under strict conditions. The area 
sprayed is low, is declining and is effectively controlled. 

All  Member  States  have  prohibited  aerial  spraying  under  national  legislation,  even  if  not 
explicitly  stated  in  their  national  action  plan.  While  the  granting  of  derogations  in  special 
cases is legally possible in twenty one Member States31, in 2014 and 2015 only 14 Member 
States actually granted derogations32. Under these derogations, pesticides were applied on 1.1 
million  hectares,  of  which  70  %  was  agricultural  land  and  30  %  forestry,  covering 
approximately 0.2 % and 0.1 % of the total respective areas. 

In 2015, almost 95 % of the reported aerial spraying was accounted for by only two Member 
States; Spain with 339,000 hectares, Hungary with 88,000 hectares, which represented 0.7 % 
and 0.9 %, respectively, of the surface area of these two Member States. 

30 Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action 
to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, OJ C 196, 12.6.2015, p. 4–5 

31 Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United 
Kingdom. 

32 Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg,  Poland, Portugal, 
Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom. Greece provided no information on aerial spraying, Bulgaria, the Czech 
Republic and France provided no data on the area treated. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: Reduction of aerial pesticide application in two Member States 

The Commission has examined this topic in the course of audits in eleven Member States in 
2015-2016 and in the fact-finding missions to six Member States in 2017. In all cases where 
derogations  were  granted,  aerial  spraying  was  performed  under  the  strict  conditions  for 
derogations  as  specified  by  the  Directive.  Finally,  the  areas  treated  under  derogation  have 
decreased significantly in recent years as demonstrated in the graphs above. 

The  Commission  will  nonetheless  continue  assessing  how  Member  States  assess  derogation 
requests, including through audits, to ensure that the strict conditions for these derogations are 
respected and properly controlled. 

3.5. INFORMATION AND AWARENESS RAISING 

Article 7(1) of the Directive requires Member States to take measures to inform the general 
public  and  to  promote  and  facilitate  information  and  awareness-raising  programmes  and  to 
promote  the  availability  of  accurate  and  balanced  information  relating  to  pesticides  for  the 
general public. Article 10 states that Member States may include in their plans provisions on 
informing persons who could be exposed to spray drift. 

This provision is used comprehensively in some Member States and in some areas but there 
remains  the  potential  for  disseminating  good  practice  and  for  these  practices  to  be  used 
more widely, in order to inform the public and stakeholders. 

All NAPs include planned measures to provide information to the public. Only Romania and 
Spain establish defined targets in this area. 

The  main  tool  used  by  Member  State  authorities  for  providing  the  general  public  with 
accurate  and  balanced  information  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  is  by  means  of  their 
websites.  These  national  websites  are  complemented  by  a  dedicated  Commission  website 
which is currently being upgraded to a web-portal with links to all Member State websites and 
other information sources. This will provide a means to share information within and between 
them on a range of topics, including guidance material on IPM and decision support systems. 

In their response to the 2016 questionnaire, six Member States33 informed the Commission of 
national provisions whereby farmers must inform their neighbours and local residents before 
pesticide  applications,  at  least  on  request.  As  an  example,  in  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands 
operators who plan to use pesticides in areas where the general public has access must put up 

33 Spain, Croatia, Sweden, Netherlands, Hungary, Malta 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
a  sign  with  detailed  information  at  least  one  week  before  application.  In  the  course  of  the 
Commission’s  fact-finding  missions  in  2017,  Member  States  provided  examples  of  targeted 
information  campaigns,  including  awareness  campaigns  to  inform  home  gardeners  about 
pesticide  risks  in  Denmark,  Poland  and  Sweden,  and  competitions  on  pesticide  risks  for 
school children in Poland and Italy.  

3.6. AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AND DRINKING WATER 

Article  11  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  appropriate  measures  are 
taken  to  protect  the  aquatic  environment  and  drinking  water  supplies  from  the  impact  of 
pesticides. 

Member  States  have  taken  a  range  of  measures  to  protect  the  aquatic  environment  from 
pesticide  use,  but  in  the  absence  of  measurable  targets  in  most  national  action  plans  it  is 
difficult to assess the progress achieved.  

Twenty seven national action plans include considerable detail in this area, with only France 
omitting  this.  The  range  of  actions  covers  several  areas.  As  regards  pesticide  application, 
measures include the use of drift reduction technology and a ban on sprayer filling from water 
courses.  Financial  incentives  are  available,  including  for  buffer  zones  adjacent  to  water 
courses in agro-environmental schemes, capital grants for purchase of low drift nozzles, and 
construction  of  bio-beds  to  capture  runoff  from  sprayer  washing.  However,  the  coverage  of 
the territory by these measures is, in most Member States, very limited. Other measures relate 
to  education  and  knowledge  transfer.  While  Member  States  have  in  place  a  wide  range  of 
measures in this area as outlined above, the targets and timelines established either refer to the 
achievement  of  actions  e.g.  areas  of  buffer  zones  adjacent  to  water  courses,  or,  in  some 
Member States, achievement of existing water quality standards under other legislation. 

As  emphasised  in  the  Commission  staff  working  document  on  agriculture  and  sustainable 
water  management  in  Europe34,  the  Directive  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  is  an 
important instrument to fulfil the objectives of good water status under the Water Framework 
Directive  2000/60/EC35.  Nevertheless,  Member  State  targets  and  timetables  to  protect  the 
aquatic  environment  are  not  always  explicitly  linked  to  the  environmental  objectives  of 
Directive  2000/60/EC.  Member  States  implemented  environmental  monitoring  programmes 
under  Directive  2000/60/EC,  Directive  2006/118/EC36 
for  Groundwater,  Directive 
2008/105/EC37  on  Environmental  Quality  Standards  in  Surface  Water  and  under  Directive 
1998/83/EC  for  drinking  water38.  The  monitoring  programmes,  and  linked  indicators  and 
targets,  need  to  cover  several  compartments,  including  biota  and/or  sediment,  to  adequately 

34 SWD(2017) 153 final:, https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/abff972e-203a-4b4e-b42e-

a0f291d3fdf9/SWD_2017_EN_V4_P1_885057.pdf  

35 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a 

framework for Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327 , 22.12.2000, p 1 - 73 

36 Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection 

of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19–31 

37  Directive  2008/105/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2008  on 
environmental  quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council 
Directives  82/176/EEC,  83/513/EEC,  84/156/EEC,  84/491/EEC,  86/280/EEC  and  amending  Directive 
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84-97 

38 Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ 

L 330, 05.12.1998, p. 32 - 54 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
cover the risk posed by compounds which can bio-accumulate. Results from water monitoring 
show  that  pesticides  from  different  sources  contribute  to  poor  status  of  water  bodies  in  16 
Member States, affecting 20 % of groundwater and 16 % of the rivers and transitional water 
bodies  classified  as  being  in  poor  chemical  status  according  to  the  EEA  Report  No  8/2012 
"European waters - assessment of status and pressures"39,40. 

In response to the 2016 questionnaire, Member States reported to the Commission that over 
one million water samples were tested for pesticide residues in 2014 and 2015 together. This 
compares to the 84,000 official food samples analysed for pesticide residues in 2015. Water 
samples were taken from surface, ground and drinking water. Most samples were taken from 
drinking  water,  where the results indicated a high compliance  rate  (99%) with the EU legal 
limit  established  by  Directive  1998/83/EC.  Nevertheless,  samples  are  taken  after  any 
necessary treatment for the removal of pesticides. 

The range of pesticides analysed in the environmental monitoring programmes varied within 
and between the Member States visited in 2017. Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark had 
established  clear  targets  in  relation  to  compliance  with  these  provisions,  which  helps  the 
authorities to assess and demonstrate the progress made. In many regions in Italy, substances 
additional  to  priority  substances  listed  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  were  also 
monitored. In Poland, however, the list of pesticides monitored included only the EU priority 
substances.  In  both  Germany  and  Denmark,  findings  of  pesticides  in  groundwater  mainly 
related to persistent pesticides which are no longer authorised, marketed or used in the EU.  

3.7. REDUCTION OF PESTICIDE USE IN SPECIFIC AREAS 

Article  12  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  use  of  pesticides  is 
minimised  or  prohibited  in  certain  specific  areas.  These  include  areas  used  by  the  general 
public or by vulnerable groups, protected areas and recently treated areas used by agricultural 
workers.  Appropriate  risk  management  measures  shall  be  taken  and  the  use  of  low-risk 
pesticides and biological control measures shall be considered in the first place. 

The Commission acknowledges the extensive measures put in place by Member States for 
the reduction of pesticide use in specific areas, and the positive effect this has achieved, but 
notes also the absence of measurable targets in the majority of Member States. 

In  their  NAPs,  26  Member  States41  describe  measures  to  minimise  pesticide  use  in  public 
areas,  but  most  of  them  set  no  specific  use  reduction  targets  for  public  areas.  Nevertheless, 
some good practices were noted, such as Denmark which has an overall use reduction target, 
and in addition, is setting pesticide quotas for each golf course. In other public areas, the aim 
is to phase out pesticide use. Only NAPs from Latvia, Malta, Spain and Italy contain specific 
measures dealing with recently treated areas in terms of protecting agricultural workers. 

39 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-waters-assessment-2012 
40 These figures probably underestimate the proportion of river and transitional waterbodies at risk because of 
pesticides, Because of the way the first reporting of the River Basin Management plans was done, it was not 
possible at the time to determine precisely the proportion of surface waterbodies in which pesticides identified 
as  specific  pollutants  posed  a  risk.  The  Commission's  assessment  of  the  second  River  Basin  Management 
Plans (2016-2021) is currently on-going, and updated figures will be available in the course of 2018. 

41 The plans of Romania and Portugal do not make any reference to such measures 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In response to the 2016 questionnaire, 26  Member States42  reported that they prohibited or 
restricted  the  use  of  pesticides  in  protected  areas  (as  defined  in  Directive  2000/60/EC),  and 
conservation areas (as defined in Directives 79/409/EEC43 and 92/43/EEC44). In the course of 
the  2017  fact  finding  missions,  the Commission  saw  examples  of  restrictions applied  in  the 
Member States: Poland prohibits the use of harmful, toxic or very toxic pesticides in public 
areas  such  as  playgrounds,  primary  schools  and  kindergartens,  without  the  possibility  of 
derogations.  Other  Member  States  banned  pesticides  containing  glyphosate  in  non-
agricultural  areas  (for  example  Italy),  or  in  national  parks  and  nature  reserves  (for  example 
Germany). In Germany, only 17 derogations in two years had been granted for pesticide use 
in public areas. Denmark reported that the use of pesticides in public areas has been reduced 
by 90 % since 1995. 

3.8. HANDLING AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDES 

Article 13 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that the handling and storage of 
pesticides and treatment of their packaging and remnants do not endanger human health or the 
environment. 

While systems for controlling the handling and storage of pesticides are in place in nearly 
all  Member  States,  their  effectiveness  cannot  always  be  assessed  due  to  the  lack  of 
measureable targets. 

NAPs  generally  address  this  issue  but  only  the  Italian  plan  specifically  addresses  all  the 
requirements of the Directive, i.e. storage, handling, dilution and mixing of pesticides before 
application,  handling  of  packaging,  disposal  of  remnants  and  tank  mixtures  and  cleaning  of 
equipment. Initiatives relating to disposal of empty pesticide containers are referred to in 18 
plans,  making  it  the  most  common  action  proposed  in  this  area.  Nine  plans  refer  to  storage 
standards. Other actions described in the plans include revised storage standards, cleaning of 
application equipment, and safe disposal of old non-registered pesticides/remnants. 

The implementation of these requirements had been assessed by the Commission audits in 19 
Member States in the period of 2012 – 2014. At the time of the audits, 15 Member States had 
adopted  measures  regarding  handling  and  storage  of  pesticides,  including  recovery  and 
disposal  of  their  packaging  and  remnants.  Collection,  transport  and  safe  disposal  of  both 
packaging and remnants was being carried out by approved companies, in four Member States 
in co-operation between authorities and pesticide industry. Member States complemented the 
implementation  of  national  legislation  for  the  safe  handling  and  storage  of  pesticides  by 
inspections of storage facilities. 

In response to the 2016 questionnaire, 25 Member States45 replied that they had put in place 
systems for the collection and safe disposal of empty containers and packaging of PPP. In 21 
Member  States,  these  systems  extend  to  the  collection  and  safe  disposal  of  obsolete  and 

42 Ireland and the UK did not provide a response 
43 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1–18 
44 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50 

45 In Greece, there is no system in place for collection of empty packages and containers, and Bulgaria and the  
   UK did not provide a response 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
expired pesticides and  their remnants. Fifteen  Member States put  in  place approval  systems 
for pesticide storage facilities at manufacturers and distributors. 

3.9. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 

Article  3  of  the  Directive  provides  a  definition  of  IPM  and  Article  14(4)  requires  Member 
States  to  describe  in  their  NAPs  how  they  ensure  that  the  general  principles  of  IPM  are 
implemented  by  all  professional  users  by  1  January  2014.  Also,  Article  55  of  Regulation 
1107/2009  provides  that  the  proper  use  of  pesticides  also  requires  compliance  with  the 
provisions of the Directive, and in particular the IPM requirements. 

What is IPM? 

  Along  with  the  promotion  of  organic  farming,  IPM  is  one  of  the  tools  for  low-

 

 

pesticide-input pest management; 
IPM  involves  an  integrated  approach  to  the  prevention  and/or  suppression  of 
organisms  harmful  to  plants  through  the  use  of  all  available  information,  tools  and 
plant protection methods; 
IPM  aims  at  keeping  the  use  of  pesticides  and  other  forms  of  intervention  to  only 
levels that are economically and ecologically justified and that reduce or minimise risk 
to human health and the environment; 

  Sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to 

chemical methods if they provide satisfactory pest control. 

Member  States  need  to  develop  clearly  defined  criteria  so  that  they  can  assess 
systematically whether the eight  principles of IPM are implemented,  and take appropriate 
enforcement  measures  if  this  is  not  the  case.  Such  tools  could  confirm  that  the  intended 
outcome of IPM as specified in the Directive, a reduction of the dependency on pesticide 
use, is being achieved. 

The eight general principles of integrated pest management are specified in Annex III of the 
Directive.  However,  how  these  principles  are  to  be  applied  in  practice  is  not  explicitly 
defined.  Partly  due  to  the  diversity  of  EU  agriculture  in  terms  of  climate,  crops  grown  and 
production  techniques  and  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  the  eight  IPM  principles  are 
implemented in a variety of ways by professional users of pesticides across the EU. Member 
States  continue  supporting  organic  agriculture  as  a  low  pesticide  input  system,  and  the 
number of organic farms has continued to increase. The organic area in the EU covered 6.2 % 
of the total agricultural area in 2015. 

In  their  national  action  plans,  all  Member  States  indicate  they  are  taking  a  broad  range  of 
comprehensive measures to promote the implementation of IPM. In 24 Member States46, there 
are publicly funded systems in place for forecasting, warning and early diagnosis for pest and 
disease  control,  and  established  economic  thresholds  for  significant  pests,  to  help  farmers 
with  decision  making.  IT  tools  are  available  for  this  purpose  on  official  websites.  Twelve 

46 The UK did not provide a reply, and there were no publicly funded systems in place in the Netherlands,  
    Cyprus and Malta 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member States established networks of IPM demonstration farms to develop and disseminate 
IPM  techniques  for  the  local  climatic  conditions  and  crops  grown.  In  addition,  professional 
users  have  access  to  a  wide  range  of  IPM  guidelines,  drawn  up  by  official  services  and 
organisations  representing  professional  groups.  Member  States  are  required  to  include  the 
IPM  general principles in their  farm advisory  system under Article 12 (2) (e) of Regulation 
(EU)  No  1306/201347.  Member  States  highlighted  that  official  advisory  services,  which  are 
independent of commercial interest, are very important for IPM implementation. 

The Commission and Member States have co-financed the ENDURE network48, which brings 
together agricultural research, teaching and knowledge transfer with a special interest in IPM. 
The Commission has supported, under the European Union’s seventh framework programme, 
the  project  C-IPM49,  to  create  a  forum  for  IPM  research  and  development  of  priorities,  to 
connect existing research initiatives, and to propose new research. A high number of further 
research  projects  were  financed  by  the  Commission50.  Two  EU  IPM  workshops  were 
organised  in  2014  and  2016  in  Germany,  in  co-operation  with  the  German  authorities.  The 
Commission  through  the  ''Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  ''  programme  will  run  a  series  of 
training courses from 2018 onwards for Member State experts on the implementation of IPM. 

Member States have not converted the IPM principles into prescriptive and assessable criteria. 
They see IPM mainly as an education tool for farmers, and have no methods in place to assess 
compliance with IPM principles. While Member States take a range of measures to promote 
the use of IPM, this does not necessarily ensure that the relevant IPM techniques are actually 
implemented  by  users.  Farmers  are  economic  operators,  and  while  IPM  techniques  are 
sustainable from a long-term perspective, IPM can mean a higher economic risk in the short-
term. For example, it may be seen as preferable to grow maize or wheat in monoculture for 
economic  reasons.  However,  this  short  term  approach  to  land  management  comes  at 
considerable  risk  of  longer  term  cost,  for  example  due  to  increasing  populations  of  pests  or 
weeds  in  monoculture.  Ultimately,  monoculture  can  cause  loss  of  biodiversity,  soil  erosion 
and  even  desertification.  As  an  example  of  a  short-term  approach,  Romania  granted 
emergency authorisations for using neonicotinoids as seed treatment in an undefined area of 
maize, without investigating the potential of crop rotation as an alternative. 

During  their  fact  finding  missions  to  Member  States  in  2017,  the  Commission  identified 
examples of how IPM implementation was being assessed. In many cases, this was based on 
self-evaluation by farmers which showed that IPM practices were more widely implemented 
in  vegetable  production,  greenhouses  and  nurseries  than  in  arable  land.  In  addition, 
verification  of  IPM  implementation  takes  place  for  voluntary  schemes  and  for  private 
certification to Good Agricultural Practice standards. 

In all six Member States visited, the authorities stated that in their view, some IPM techniques 
could be adopted on a more widespread basis, such as crop rotation, proper selection of seed 
and  planting  material  and  use  of  adequate  cultivation  techniques.  A  survey  in  Denmark 

47 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the 
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 
485/2008, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 549–607. 

48 http://www.endure-network.eu/endure  
49 http://c-ipm.org/  
50 Seventh framework programme: CO-FREE, TEAMPEST, BIOCOMES, SharCo, DROPSA, Fruit Breedomics, 
EU-Berry,  INNOVINE,  MARS  EUPHOROS,  VALORAM,  PRATIQUE,  ISEFOR,  QBOL,  Q-Detect, 
TESTA; Horizon 2020: EUCLID, EMPHASIS, BLOSTER: http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
corroborated  this  view  by  showing  that  while  awareness  of  IPM  techniques  had  increased 
among  farmers,  the  actual  level  of  implementation  of  these  techniques  had  only  increased 
marginally.  An  analysis  carried  out  by  the  Netherlands  showed  that  IPM  principles  are 
implemented by farmers generally, but none of the IPM general principles is used to their full 
potential. 

Member  States  highlighted  the  insufficient  availability  of  low  risk  and  non-chemical 
pesticides as a barrier for further IPM development. Incentives for the registration of low risk 
and  non-chemical  products  are  mentioned  however  in  only  a  few  national  action  plans. 
Therefore, the authorisation and promotion of low-risk and non-chemical pesticides is another 
important measure to support low pesticide-input pest management. In three Member States51, 
the  proportion  of  non-chemical  active  substances  contained  in  pesticides,  compared  to  all 
active substances in authorised pesticides was high, at over 10% in 2015. 

3.10. 

RISK INDICATORS 

To measure the progress achieved in the reduction of risks and adverse impacts from pesticide 
use  for  human  health  and  the  environment,  Article  15  of  the  Directive  requires  that 
harmonised risk indicators be established. It also provides for Member States to continue to 
use existing national indicators or adopt additional ones as appropriate. 

The  Commission  has  informed  Member  States  that  it  will  commence  discussions  to  see 
whether  a  consensus  can  be  reached  on  the  development  of  harmonised  risk  indicators, 
without replacing complementary national indicators. 

To  date,  no  EU  wide  harmonised  risk  indicators  have  been  established  by  the  Commission. 
While  the  Commission  has  recently  identified  certain  shortcomings  concerning  the 
availability and quality of statistics on pesticides52, many of which cannot be currently used 
for  confidentiality  reasons  and  limitations  imposed  by  legislation,  the  experience  gained 
shows that the  measurement  of risk is  complex, and given the data available at EU level, it 
cannot be achieved simply by reference to overall sales of plant protection products. This is 
because  the  risks  posed  by  pesticides  vary  according  to  a  range  of  factors,  particularly  the 
constituent active substances, but also how pesticides are used.  

In the absence of harmonised risk indicators, Member States continue using their existing risk 
indicators,  as  described  in  some  of  the  national  action  plans.  Denmark  for  example  has 
developed  a  "Pesticide  Load  Indicator",  which  calculates  the  potential  environmental  and 
human  health  load  of  individual  pesticides  on  the  market  on  the  basis  of  their  toxicological 
classification.  

3.11. 

LOW RISK PRODUCTS 

Article  14  of  the  Directive  provides  for  Member  States  to  take  all  necessary  measures  to 
promote  low  pesticide-input  pest  management,  giving  wherever  possible  priority  to  non-
chemical  methods  so  that  professional  users  of  pesticides  switch  to  practices  and  products 
with the lowest risk to human health and the environment. 

51 Austria, Italy and Sweden 
52 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Regulation 

(EC) No 1185/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 concerning 
statistics on pesticides,  COM(2017) 109 final 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
The Commission is taking measures to accelerate the availability of low-risk pesticides. 

When substances are identified as low-risk, the relevant incentives provided for in Regulation 
(EC)  No  1107/2009  can  be  applied.  These  include  a  longer  period  of  approval  of  15  years, 
(instead  of  the  standard  10  year  period),  longer  data  protection  period  and  accelerated 
authorisation procedure of low-risk PPP (120 days instead of one year). 

In  order  to  increase  the  availability  of  low-risk  substances,  the  Commission  prioritised  the 
assessment of potential low-risk active substances in the ongoing review programme53. With 
the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/1432, the Commission clarified existing criteria for the 
identification  and  approval  of  low-risk  substances54.  Currently  only  ten  substances  are 
approved  as  low-risk  out  of  a  total  of  almost  500.  However,  it  is  estimated  that  among  the 
substances already approved under Directive 91/414/EEC, more than 70 are likely to comply 
with  the  newly  adopted  low  risk  criteria.  In  the  next  three  years,  these  substances  will  be 
reassessed for the renewal of their approval and this will potentially increase the total number 
of low risk active substances.  

In  addition  to  low-risk  products,  Regulation  (EC)  No  1107/2009  also  includes  specific 
provisions for basic substances. These are substances such as food compounds typically used 
for  purposes  other  than plant  protection  e.g.  vinegar.  These  are  mainly  of  biological/natural 
origin, and often traditionally used in organic farming. There are currently 15 basic substances 
approved  and  the  Commission  and  Member  States  are  actively  involved  in  extending  the 
approved range of these  substances. Other so called "bio-control  agents",  such  as  beneficial 
insects or nematodes, can be used as alternative pest management techniques and are out of 
the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Low risk

Basic

Others ( semiochemicals, salts,
fatty acids..)

Plant-extracts

Micro-organisms

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Figure 2: Increase in numbers of alternative substances approved by the EU 

53 Commission Implementing Decision of 28 September 2016 on the establishment of a work programme for the 
assessment of applications for the renewal of approvals of active substances expiring in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in 
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council,  OJ C 357 of 
29.09.2016  p 9-11 
54 Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1432 of 7 August 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  concerning  the  placing  of  plant  protection  products  on  the  market  as 
regards the criteria for the approval of low-risk active substances, OJ L 205 of 8.8.2017, p. 59–62. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Finally,  the  Commission  through  its  research  and  innovation  programmes  continues  to 
support  a  wide  body  of  research  in  plant  protection  to  identify  new  low-risk  products  and 
biological control techniques55. 

4.  CONCLUSIONS 

Substantial  legislation  and  support  measures  have  been  in  place  in  the  European  Union  for 
more  than  20  years,  designed  to  deliver  safe,  reduced  and more  precise  use  of  pesticides in 
agriculture.  The  Directive  offers  the  potential  to  greatly  reduce  the  risks  derived  from 
pesticide  use.  However,  until  it  is  more  rigorously  implemented  by  Member  States,  these 
improvements are limited, and certainly insufficient to achieve the environmental and health 
improvements  the  Directive  was  designed  to  achieve.  National  Action  Plans  with  clear 
measurable  targets  can  enable  Member  States  to  demonstrate  to  citizens  that  they  are  duly 
implementing the Directive, and even going beyond it to propose innovative ways to reduce 
risks from pesticides. 

4.1 National Action Plans and Implementation of the Directive  

The NAPs are the means by which Member States establish targets and actions to achieve the 
objective  of  the  Directive,  and  they  can  be  seen  to  represent  a  significant  step  towards  the 
sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  Member  States  are  currently  working  on  reviewing  their  first 
plans and the full picture of the state of implementation will only be clear when the plans have 
been reviewed. 

Despite this substantial progress, this report identifies that there are significant gaps in many 
areas  of  the  plans,  for  example  in  relation  to  aerial  spraying,  information  to  the  public,  the 
gathering  of  information  regarding  poisoning  cases  and  measures  to  protect  the  aquatic 
environment. Integrated Pest Management is a cornerstone of the Directive, and it is therefore 
of  particular  concern  that  Member  States  have  not  yet  set  clear  targets  and  ensured  their 
implementation, including for the more widespread use of land management techniques such 
as  crop  rotation.  Member  States  need  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  plans,  primarily  by 
establishing  specific  and  measurable  targets  and  indicators  for  a  long  term  strategy  for  the 
reduction of risks and impacts from pesticide use. These improvements should be included in 
the revised action plans, which would allow Member States to continuously monitor progress 
with implementation and adjust strategy as necessary.  

The  Commission  has  written  to  those  Member  States  where  there  are  noted  omissions  in 
either  the  plans  or  their  implementation,  to  remind  them  of  their  obligations  and  the 
importance of the implementation of this Directive. Building on the series of six fact-finding 
visits to Member States in 2017, the Commission will continue evaluating the NAPs and to 
monitor implementation  of the Directive by Member States through its audits,  other actions 
and  follow-up  activities  to  ensure that  the  objectives  of  the  Directive are  being  achieved. If 
necessary, the Commission will give consideration to infringement action.  

55 For example, the following Seventh Framework Programme projects: 
AGROCOS (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/94701_en.html),  
PURE (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/98869_en.html),  
CO-FREE (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/101750_en.html),  
BIOCOMES (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/111189_en.html),  
Prolarix (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/110948_en.html). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4.2 Commission Activities Supporting Member States 

In its report to the Council, the Expert Group on sustainable plant protection, set up under the 
Dutch Presidency, presented an implementation plan on increasing low-risk plant protection 
product availability and accelerating integrated pest management implementation in Member 
States56.  This  plan  was  endorsed  by  the  Council  in  June  2016.  One  of  the  complementary 
actions  proposed  was  that  the  Commission  should  develop  the  existing  website  on  the 
Directive into a web portal linking to the currently available relevant information on IPM at 
EU and Member State level. Work on this development is well advanced. The Commission's 
forthcoming overview report on the series of six fact-finding missions on the implementation 
of the Directive will also be published on this site. 

While  Member  States  generally  have  systems  to  gather  information  on  pesticide  acute 
poisoning  incidents  they  need  to  improve  the  accuracy  of  the  data  received.  Systems  for 
gathering  such  information  on  chronic  poisoning  cases  are  not  widely  developed.  It  is 
essential  that  Member  States  develop  and  maintain  a  functioning  surveillance  system  on 
occupational  pesticide  poisoning  as  a  basis  for  appropriate  preventive  interventions.  The 
Commission will finalise guidance on monitoring and surveying of impacts of pesticide use 
on  human  health  and  the  environment  by  the  end  of  2017  and  will  explore  with  Member 
States  how  such  systems  can  be  further  developed.  The  Commission  will  also  consider 
establishing systems for collecting information on suspected poisoning from pesticides under 
Article 24 (4) b of Regulation (EU) No 2017/625. 

Once this Directive has been implemented in all Member States and the obligations directly 
applicable  to  farmers  have  been  identified,  the  Commission  will  be  addressing  the  Joint 
Statement by the European Parliament and the Council in Regulation (EU) No 1306/201357, 
which invites the Commission to include the relevant parts of the Directive in the system of 
cross-compliance.  Moreover,  in  the  meantime,  the  Commission  will  support  the  Member 
States  in  the  development  of  methodologies  to  assess  compliance  with  the  eight  IPM 
principles, taking into account the diversity of EU agriculture and the principle of subsidiarity. 

In order to measure the progress achieved in the reduction of risks and adverse impacts from 
pesticide  use  for  human  health  and  the  environment,  the  Commission  will  commence  work 
with  Member  States  in  the  second  half  of  2017  towards  reaching  a  consensus  on  the 
development of harmonised risk indicators. 

The Commission will also continue to work with Member States in disseminating examples 
of good practice in implementation through Working Groups and training, with priority being 
given  under  the  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  programme  to  strengthen  Member  States 
capacity in their understanding and implementation of sustainable use principles. 

56 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/register/en/content/out/?&typ=ENTRY&i=ADV&DOC_ID=ST-10041-2016-ADD-1 

57 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013  on the 
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 
485/2008, OJ L 347/549; 20.12.2010, p.59 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Following  the  adoption  of  revised  national  action  plans,  and  with  the  updated  information 
available  to  it,  the  Commission  will  produce  a  further  report  which  will  enable  a  more 
comprehensive assessment of the state of implementation of the Directive. 

19