COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115
Date: 2022-06-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental impact, environmental protection, pest, pesticide, pesticide residue, plant health control, public health

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.6.2022  SWD(2022) 169 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Subsidiarity Grid Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115           {COM(2022) 305 final} - {SEC(2022) 257 final} - {SWD(2022) 170 final} - {SWD(2022) 171 final}  
 
 
Subsidiarity Grid 

1.  Can the Union act? What is the legal basis and competence of the Unions’ intended action? 

1.1 Which article(s) of the Treaty are used to support the legislative proposal or policy initiative? 

EU competence to act in the area of the sustainable use of pesticides1 stems from Article 192(1) of the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  which  transfers  powers  to  the  EU 
institutions to take actions for preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment and 
protecting human health.  

1.2 Is the Union competence represented by this Treaty article exclusive, shared or supporting in 
nature? 

The Union’s competence in the field of environment mentioned in section 1.1 above is shared. 

Subsidiarity does not apply for policy areas where the Union has exclusive competence as defined in 
Article 3 TFEU2. It is the specific legal basis which determines whether the proposal falls under the 
subsidiarity control mechanism. Article 4 TFEU3 sets out the areas where competence is shared 
between the Union and the Member States. Article 6 TFEU4 sets out the areas for which the Unions 
has competence only to support the actions of the Member States. 

2.  Subsidiarity Principle: Why should the EU act? 

2.1  Does the proposal fulfil the procedural requirements of Protocol No. 25: 

-  Has there been a wide consultation before proposing the act? 
- 

Is there a detailed statement with qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators 
allowing an appraisal of whether the action can best be achieved at Union level? 

There  has  been  a  wide  consultation  before  proposing  the  act.  A  combined  evaluation  roadmap-
inception  impact  assessment  was  published  and  was  open  for  public  feedback  from  29  May  to  7 
August  2020.  In  total,  360  responses  were  received  (2  identified  as  being  from  public  authorities). 
Member  State  competent  authorities  (Sustainable  Use  of  pesticides  Directive  (SUD)  working  group 
members)  were  consulted  on  possible  future  policy  options  at  a  Better  Training  for  Safer  Food 
workshop  in  November  2020  and  by  a  written  consultation  in  December  2020.  The  online  public 
consultation ran from 18 January to 12 April 2021 and received a total of 1699 responses (35 public 
authority identified respondents). Feedback received represented a wide spectrum of views, as outlined 
in  the  stakeholder  consultation  synopsis  report  annexed  to  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the 
proposal.    The  Commission  organised  public  remote  stakeholder  events  on  this  initiative  on  19 
January,  25  June  and  5  October  2021  with  the  support  of  the  Portuguese  and  Slovenian  Council 
Presidencies. Member States have been regularly updated and consulted via the SUD working group 
and Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed. Several technical discussion meetings on 

1 Pesticides, used synonymously with the term plant protection products for the purpose of this proposal, are 
mixtures of one or more formulated active substances and other co-formulants that are widely used to protect 
plants by repelling, mitigating or destroying harmful organisms, mainly in agriculture but also in forestry and 
green urban areas. 
2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E003&from=EN  
3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12008E004&from=EN  
4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12008E006:EN:HTML  
5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12016E/PRO/02&from=EN  

1 

 
 
 
  
                                                           
specific possible policy options were organised with national competent authorities. 

Targeted  surveys,  workshops  and  case  studies  were  also  carried  out  in  a  Commission-contracted 
external study supporting the evaluation and impact assessment and a supplementary foresight study 
on future vision scenarios on the sustainable use of pesticides. As part of the external study supporting 
the  evaluation  and  impact  assessment,  12  in-depth  interviews  and  19  case  study  interviews  were 
organised  with  Member  State  national  authorities  and  2  case  study  interviews  with  Member  State 
regional  authorities.  The  evidence  collection  phase  deployed  three  targeted  survey  questionnaires  to 
three  core  stakeholder  groups:  [1]  Member  States,  Iceland  and  Norway  SUD  competent  public 
authorities  and  related  authorities,  [2]  professional  users  of  plant  protection  products  and  other 
industry  stakeholders,  and  [3]  environmental  NGOs,  consumer  organisations  and  civil  society 
organisations, with a total of 275 respondents, 55 from Member State SUD competent authorities and 
competent authorities  from  Norway  and  Iceland.  Over  the  course  of the study,  several  contributions 
and consultations were also provided/undertaken on an ad-hoc basis. This particularly applied to the 
case-based fact-finding work which was undertaken as part of the impact assessment supporting study. 
This  included  targeted  questions,  primarily  to  Member  State  authorities,  on  the  costs  for 
implementation of various provisions of the SUD. 

From the different activities described above, triangulation of the data uncovered that the stakeholder 
views were largely divided across two broad points of view: [1] pesticide use should be reduced in line 
with risk reduction in a manner which works with plant protection product users, and [2] pesticide use 
should be reduced significantly, if not completely. 

The  explanatory  memorandum  of  the  proposal,  and  chapter  3  of  the  impact  assessment,  contain 
sections  on  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  that  include  qualitative  indicators  allowing  an  appraisal 
demonstrating  that  the  action  can  best  be  achieved  at  Union  level.  The  text  of  the  explanatory 
memorandum and impact assessment on subsidiarity is summarised in answer to question 2.2 below.  

2.2  Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the conformity with the 
principle of subsidiarity? 

The SUD established a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides. A continued divergence 
of  measures  taken  in  Member  States  and  varying  and  incomplete  implementation  of  the  SUD  (as 
outlined in the evaluation accompanying the proposal and demonstrated in a Commission compliance 
monitoring  index  for  specific  legislative  provisions  detailed  therein)  will  lead  to  different  levels  of 
protection of health and environment and diverging conditions for the main users of pesticides which 
would be against objectives of the Treaties. The threat to biodiversity and ecosystems linked to the use 
of pesticides crosses boundaries and necessitates a strong and EU-level action. Achievement of a more 
level  playing  field  for  pesticide  users  is  hampered  by  current  varying  levels  of  action  in  different 
Member States.  

Coordinated  EU  action  can  effectively  supplement  and  reinforce  national  and  local  actions  on  the 
sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  The  EU  also  possesses  other  key  instruments  in  agricultural  and  food 
policies  with  which  synergies  exist.  Linked  to  incentives  and  possible  mitigation  measures,  it  is 
expected  that  stronger  action  at  EU  level,  including  in  association  with  related  policies  such  as  the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  can  help  to  reduce  currently  varying  national  approaches  and 
contribute  to  a  more  homogenous  approach  in  the  future.    These  objectives  cannot  be  set  by  the 
Member States acting in isolation: the scale of the action required means that this is better achieved at 
Union level. Uniform EU action is therefore justified and necessary. 

A  continued  divergence  of  measures  taken  in  Member  States  would  lead  to  the  maintenance  of 
different levels of protection of health and environment and diverging conditions for the main users of 
pesticides. The threat to biodiversity and ecosystems crosses boundaries and necessitates a strong and 

2 

 
 
 
 
EU-level action. Achievement of a more level playing field for pesticide users is hampered by current 
varying levels of action in different Member States to reduce the risks for health and the environment 
linked  to  pesticide  use.  Moreover,  pesticides  pollution  is  transboundary  and  affects  waters  and  the 
marine environment downstream in one Member State whilst the pesticide use may have taken place 
upstream in another Member State. Stakeholder views differ, but tend to call overall for a stronger EU 
action  on  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides.  The  deficiencies  in  implementing  the  SUD  in  some 
Member  States  suggest  that  the  previous  approach  of  leaving  the  detailed  rules  to  national 
transposition  under  a  Directive  has  not  worked.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  found  a  need  for 
clearer  criteria  and  more  specific  requirements  in  relation  to  IPM  to  help  ensure  enforcement  and 
assess compliance.   

2.3  Based on the answers to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

achieved sufficiently by the Member States acting alone (necessity for EU action)? 

The  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States  acting 
alone. EU action in this area is justified by the need to protect human health and the environment as 
part of  EU environmental policy. The SUD established a framework to achieve a sustainable use of 
pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and 
improving  the  uptake  of  IPM.  The  deficiencies  in  implementing  the  SUD  in  some  Member  States 
suggest  that  the  previous  approach  of  leaving  the  detailed  rules  to  national  transposition  under  a 
directive has not worked. For example, the European Court of Auditors in a 2020 report on sustainable 
use  of  plant  protection  products  found  a  need  for  clearer  criteria  and  more  specific  requirements  in 
relation to IPM to help ensure enforcement and assess compliance. A regulation would also have the 
advantage of ensuring a more level playing field for pesticide users across the Member States. 

(a)  Are  there  significant/appreciable  transnational/cross-border  aspects  to  the  problems  being 

tackled? Have these been quantified? 

The  threat  to  biodiversity  and  ecosystems  crosses  boundaries  and  necessitates  a  strong  EU-level 
action.  Pesticides  pollution  is  transboundary  and  affects  waters  and  the  marine  environment 
downstream in one Member State whilst the pesticide use may have taken place upstream in another 
Member State. 

(b)  Would national action or the absence of the EU level action conflict with core objectives of 

the Treaty6 or significantly damage the interests of other Member States? 

A  continued  divergence  of  measures  taken  in  Member  States  would  lead  to  different  levels  of 
protection of health and environment and diverging conditions for the main users of pesticides which 
would be against the objectives of the Treaties.  

The evaluation accompanying the impact assessment confirms the clear EU added value of action on 
the sustainable use of pesticides. A more level playing field across the Member States, for example 
for  pesticide  users,  is  hampered  by  current  varying  levels  of  action  (uneven  and  incomplete 
implementation of existing rules)  in different Member States to reduce the risks for health and the 
environment  linked  to  pesticide  use.  This  leads  to  an  uneven  playing  field  for  pesticide  users 
(primarily  farmers)  and  the  pesticide  industry,  which  risks  giving  rise  to  unfair  competition  for 
economic actors in the EU. This variation means that the potential for harmonisation of rules is not 
fully  realised  and  competitiveness  distortions  between  pesticide  users  (especially  farmers)  in 
different Member States continue to exist.   

6 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
(c)  To  what  extent  do  Member  States  have  the  ability  or  possibility  to  enact  appropriate 

measures? 

Subsidiarity is respected throughout the legal text in providing Member States with the ability to judge 
the most appropriate measures in cases where local agricultural factors need to be taken into account. 
Thus,  Member  States  have  the  ability  to  define  the  most  appropriate  level  for  national  pesticide 
reduction  targets  within  certain  parameters.  Similarly,  Member  States  may  adopt  crop-specific  rules 
that  are  appropriate  to  local  agronomic  conditions.  The  proposal  also  allows  Member  States  to 
introduce  stricter  national  rules,  where  justified  by  the  need  to  protect  public  health  and  the 
environment as appropriate. 

(d)  How  does  the  problem  and  its  causes  (e.g.  negative  externalities,  spill-over  effects)  vary 

across the national, regional and local levels of the EU? 

National  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  SUD  has  differed  substantially  between  Member 
States.  In  addition,  climatic  and  agronomic  factors,  such  as  the  types  of  crops  grown  in  individual 
Member States, affect the challenges in relation to pest control by sustainable means. 

(e)  Is the problem widespread across the EU or limited to a few Member States? 

Pesticides are used in all Member States. Environmental (e.g. pollinator decline, biodiversity loss) and 
health (potential exposure to pesticides) problems identified at the time of adopting the SUD in 2009 
have remained unchanged or even been aggravated. These problems are widespread across the EU. 

(f)  Are Member States overstretched in achieving the objectives of the planned measure? 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  burden  on  Member  States  in  applying  the  current  rules  was  not 
excessive, but that the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing SUD in achieving the sustainable 
use  of  pesticides  was  also  limited.  Consultations  with  Member  State  competent  authorities  (SUD 
working  group  members)  did  not  identify  significant  legislative  simplifications  or  reductions  of 
administrative  burdens  that  would  not  jeopardise  the  objectives  of  protecting  health  and  the 
environment  from  the  use  of  pesticides.  Stakeholder  consultation  activities  and  European  Citizens’ 
Initiatives have confirmed strong demands for stricter and more effective rules to reduce the use and 
risk  of  pesticides.  The  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  legislative  proposal  concludes  that  the 
planned measures are proportionate to the objectives to be achieved of protecting health, biodiversity 
and the environment. 

The impact assessment addresses who is affected by the initiative and how. National authorities would 
need  to  set  up  record  keeping  systems  on  pesticide  use  and  application  of  IPM  and  registers  of 
pesticide  application  equipment.  It  is  not  anticipated  that  the  setting  up  of  these  systems  will 
overstretch national administrations. Such electronic registers already exist in some Member States. In 
fact more effective IPM guidelines and better clarification of existing SUD requirements will possibly 
reduce  enforcement  and  compliance  costs  for  Member  States.    Existing  training  and  certification 
schemes would need to be extended. Member States which do not yet have crop-specific guidelines in 
place  will  face  costs  in  developing  them,  however  these  costs  are  proportionate  to  the  objective  of 
ensuring  implementation  of  IPM  which  in  turn  is  essential  to  reducing  the  risk  and  use  of  plant 
protection  products.  All  options  have  been  assessed  in  the  impact  assessment  against  the  criteria  of 
proportionality to ensure that measures are proportionate to the benefits that can be expected. Several 
stakeholders in various consultations expressed the view that the legal instrument of a regulation rather 
than the current directive might contribute to a more harmonised and effective approach in this policy 
area  in  the  future.  The  evaluation  accompanying  this  proposal  also  confirmed  that  the  burdens  and 
costs  imposed  on  Member  States  were  limited  and  proportionate  to  the  overall  objectives  to  be 
achieved.  

4 

 
 
(g)  How do the views/preferred courses of action of national, regional and local authorities differ 

across the EU? 

The stakeholder consultations carried out, including via the SUD working group in particular, did not 
identify  any  particular  or  geographically  consistent  trend  of  differing  views  or  preferred  course  of 
action among national, regional and local authorities across the EU. 

2.4  Based on the answer to the questions below, can the objectives of the proposed action be 

better achieved at Union level by reason of scale or effects of that action (EU added value)? 

The evaluation confirmed that EU actions in this area have a clear EU added value in  comparison to 
national or regional initiatives alone, in particular establishing a more level playing field and ensuring 
that all Member States have a policy framework in place for pesticide risk reduction. 

Coordinated  EU  action  can  effectively  supplement  and  reinforce  national  and  local  actions  on  the 
sustainable use of pesticides. More effective EU policies in this area will improve biodiversity, water 
and  soil  quality,  other  environmental  parameters  and  human  health.  Due  to  the  cross-border  and 
transboundary dimension of pollution, coordinated actions  at EU level are appropriate. The EU also 
possesses other key instruments in agricultural and food policies with which synergies exist and  that 
can  be  further  improved,  including  by  increasing  legal  and  policy  clarity  and  coherence,  especially 
with the CAP. This proposal is also relevant to the development of organic farming and achieving the 
farm  to  fork  strategy  target  of  at  least  25%  of  the  EU’s  agricultural  land  under  organic  farming  by 
2030.  Scale  efficiencies  arise  from  common  standards  across  a  number  of  areas,  including  general 
principles  of  IPM,  training  (of  advisers,  distributors  and  professional  users),  testing  of  application 
equipment, and record keeping. 

(a) Are there clear benefits from EU level action? 

EU action can more effectively achieve a sustainable use of pesticides, avoiding discrepancies due to 
different level of ambitions in the Member State which could hinder achieving the reduction of use of 
pesticides which have an EU-dimension. Besides the  above  mentioned  advantages for human health 
and  the  environment,  the  reduction  of  current  national  differences  in  pesticide  use  policies  could 
contribute  to  ensuring  a  more  level  playing  field  for  pesticide  users  across  the  Member  States  and 
reduce competitiveness differences which are exacerbated by pesticide use policies varying at Member 
State levels. Insofar as the present initiative provides for clear, uniform rules on the sustainable use of 
pesticides, it will ensure a more harmonised and effective approach to the sustainable use of pesticides, 
thus  protecting  the  environment  and  human  health  more  effectively  and  also  ensuring  a  more  level 
playing  field  for  pesticide users.  Addressing  the  cross-boundary  dimension  is  a  matter  that  Member 
States cannot address in isolation.  

(b) Are there economies of scale? Can the objectives be met more efficiently at EU level (larger 
benefits per unit cost)? Will the functioning of the internal market be improved? 

Scale  efficiencies  arise  from  common  standards  across  a  number  of  areas  of  the  proposal  aimed  at 
ensuring  the  protection  of  human  health  and  the  environment,  including  general  principles  of  IPM, 
training  (of advisers,  distributors  and  professional  users),  testing  of  pesticide  application  equipment, 
and record-keeping.  

The reduction of current national differences in pesticide use policies could contribute to  ensuring  a 
more level playing field and a reduction of competitiveness differences for pesticide users in different 
Member  States  which  are  exacerbated  by  pesticide  use  policies  varying  at  Member  State  levels. 

5 

 
 
Efficiency is also improved because the EU also possesses other key instruments in agricultural and 
food  policies  with  which  synergies  exist  and  can  be further  improved,  including  by  increasing  legal 
and policy clarity and coherence, especially with the CAP. Other initiatives foreseen under the farm to 
fork strategy are complementary, for example the organic farming action plan, research and innovation 
policies and Commission implementing acts revising the data requirements and assessment rules for 
pesticides  containing  active  substances  that  are  micro-organisms  (as  alternatives  to  chemical 
pesticides).  These  initiatives  aim  at  facilitating  the  placing  on  the  market  of  these  products  and 
increasing their availability to farmers. 

(c) What are the benefits in replacing different national policies and rules with a more homogenous 
policy approach? 

The legal instrument of a regulation will contribute to a more harmonised and effective reduction of 
pesticide use across the EU, to be achieved in line with the headline ambition of the EU Green Deal. 
This assessment was supported by stakeholders in various consultation activities. 

(d) Do the benefits of EU-level action outweigh the loss of competence of the Member States and the 
local and regional authorities (beyond the costs and benefits of acting at national, regional and local 
levels)? 

The  Union’s  competence  is  shared  with  the  Member  States  in  the  areas  covered  by  this  policy 
proposal.  The  benefits  of  EU-level  action  outweigh  the  loss  of  competence  at  national,  local  and 
regional  levels  because  every  effort  has  been  made  to  ensure  that  the  particular  circumstances  in 
individual  Member  States  and  regions  have  been  taken  into  account,  for  example  in  relation  to  the 
setting of national pesticide reduction targets or the adoption of crop-specific rules.  

(e) Will there be improved legal clarity for those having to implement the legislation? 

The  proposal  provides  greater  legal  clarity  on  a  number  of  issues  identified  in  the  evaluation  as 
hampering the implementation of sustainable pesticide use. IPM will be clarified through crop-specific 
rules that will make them easier to apply. The proposed regulation contains clear prescription on the 
quantitative objectives to be included in National Action Plans and the quantitative data to be included 
in Annual Progress and Implementation Reports. 

3.  Proportionality: How the EU should act 

3.1   Does the explanatory memorandum (and any impact assessment) accompanying the 

Commission’s proposal contain an adequate justification regarding the proportionality of 
the proposal and a statement allowing appraisal of the compliance of the proposal with the 
principle of proportionality? 

This  proposal  complies  with  the  proportionality  principle  because  it  does  not  go  beyond  what  is 
necessary  in  order  to  ensure  an  adequate  level  of  ambition  and  improved  policy  efficiency  and 
effectiveness,  taking  into  account  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  accompanying  this  proposal.  The 
proposal provides for improved data, monitoring and implementation of measures to reduce the use 
and risk of pesticides. 

In  relation  to  Member  State  targets,  this  proposal  avoids  fixing  uniform  mandatory  targets  on 
Member  States  given  that the  baseline  of current  use  of  pesticides  varies  widely  between Member 

6 

 
 
States and the differences between the agricultural sectors in the Member States. The proportionality 
of  the  target-setting  process  has  been  ensured  by  providing  for  a  legislative  formula  that  allows 
differences between Member States to be taken into account. 

3.2  Based on the answers to the questions below and information available from any impact 
assessment, the explanatory memorandum or other sources, is the proposed action an 
appropriate way to achieve the intended objectives? 

The  proposed  action  is  an  appropriate  way  to  achieve  the  intended  objectives.  The  initiative  is 
limited to those aspects that the Member States cannot achieve as effectively on their own and where 
divergent national measures risk distorting competition for pesticide users across the Member States. 
The legal instrument of a  regulation was chosen to ensure direct applicability, uniform application 
and uniform enforcement throughout the EU. The generally looser language of a directive has been 
insufficiently  precise  to  ensure  an  adequate  level  of  compliance,  as  demonstrated  in  the 
accompanying evaluation of the present directive. 

(a) Is the initiative limited to those aspects that Member States cannot achieve satisfactorily on their 
own, and where the Union can do better? 

The initiative is limited to those aspects that the Member States cannot achieve as effectively on their 
own and where divergent national measures risk distorting competition for pesticide users across the 
Member States. For example, in order to ensure an effort-sharing approach in line with the ambition in 
the  farm  to  fork  strategy,  a  Union-wide  approach  is  needed  in  relation  to  targets.  In  order  to  better 
achieve  the  objects  of  the  proposal,  achieve  economies  of  scale,  prevent  transboundary  pollution  or 
distortion of the level playing field for farmers, a degree of harmonisation of the rules is required in 
relation to issues such as IPM, training of professional users, distributors and advisors and inspection 
of  pesticide  application  equipment.  At  the  same  time,  Member  States  are  recognized  to  have  better 
expertise  in  relation  to  local  conditions  affecting  crop-specific  rules  and  derogations  for  both  aerial 
application and use of chemical pesticides in sensitive areas. 

(b) Is the form of Union action (choice of instrument) justified, as simple as possible, and coherent 
with  the  satisfactory  achievement  of,  and  ensuring  compliance  with  the  objectives  pursued  (e.g. 
choice  between  regulation,  (framework)  directive,  recommendation,  or  alternative  regulatory 
methods such as co-legislation, etc.)? 

The legal instrument of a  regulation was chosen to ensure direct applicability, uniform application 
and  uniform  enforcement  throughout  the  EU.  The  approach  of  leaving  detailed  rules  to  national 
transposition  of  the  SUD  has  yielded  inadequate  results  in  many  cases.  The  generally  looser 
language of a directive has been insufficiently precise to ensure an adequate level of compliance, as 
demonstrated  in  the  accompanying  evaluation  of  the  present  directive,  the  SUD.  Where  national 
adaptation is still needed, as for example  with IPM, the European Court of Auditors found  in their 
2020  report  on  sustainable  use  of  plant  protection  products  a  need  for  clearer  criteria  and  more 
specific requirements to help ensure enforcement and assess compliance. In the case of IPM, while it 
is  impossible  to  provide  for  sufficiently  specific  rules  for  each  local  crop  and  region  in  one  text, 
given the numerous geographic, climatic and crop-specific variables across the EU, an obligation for 
Member  States  to  adopt  crop-specific  localized  binding  rules  can  provide  clarity  together  with 
flexibility. Clarity arises from the fact that  localised crop-specific rules are required to convert the 
general  principles  of  IPM  into  verifiable  criteria  for  crops  while  taking  into  account  relevant 
agronomic conditions. A regulation is the policy intervention that is as simple as possible bearing in 
mind  the  objectives  to  be  achieved.  It  is  expected  to  reduce  enforcement  and  compliance  costs  as 
compared to a directive. It is also proportional and effective in achieving the policy objectives of this 

7 

 
 
 
project. 

(c)  Does  the  Union  action  leave  as  much  scope  for  national  decision  as  possible  while  achieving 
satisfactorily  the  objectives  set?  (e.g.  is  it  possible  to  limit  the  European  action  to  minimum 
standards or use a less stringent policy instrument or approach?) 

As noted above, every effort has been made to ensure that the particular circumstances in individual 
Member  States and regions  have  been taken into  account,  for  example  in relation  to  the setting  of 
national pesticide reduction targets or the adoption of crop-specific rules. This has occurred within 
the  parameters  necessary  to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment  and  avoid  competitive 
distortions.  Thus,  Member  State  national  targets  may  be  set  in  a  manner  that  takes  account  of 
national  circumstances  such  as  intensity  of  pesticide  use  and  historical  progress,  within  certain 
parameters.  Similarly, Member States are required to adopt crop-specific rules that are appropriate 
to local agronomic conditions. 

d)  Does  the  initiative  create  financial  or  administrative  cost  for  the  Union,  national  governments, 
regional or local authorities, economic operators or citizens? Are these costs commensurate with the 
objective to be achieved? 

While there will be administrative costs both for the Union and for national governments, regional or 
local  authorities,  and  economic  operators,  the  costs  are  commensurate  with  the  objectives  to  be 
achieved  and  must  also  be  compared  to  the  cost  of  a  decline  in  biodiversity  due  to  inaction.  The 
evaluation of the existing directive did not identify significant possible legislative simplifications or 
reductions of regulatory burden which would not undermine achieving the objectives of the SUD or 
this proposal. 

(e)  While  respecting  the  Union  law,  have  special  circumstances  applying  in  individual  Member 
States been taken into account? 

The setting of national pesticide reduction targets allow Member States to take local conditions into 
account. Similarly, crop-specific rules will be appropriate to the region and crop they relate to. 

8