COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document 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) 171 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document 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) 169 final} - {SWD(2022) 170 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet  

Impact assessment on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive  

A. Need for action  

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level?  

Chemical  pesticides  contribute  to  biodiversity  decline.  The  European  Green  Deal  aims  to  reduce  both  the  use  of 
chemical pesticides and the risk they present. The Farm to Fork strategy sets EU targets to reduce the use of – and 
risk from – pesticides by 50% by 2030. The current Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive does not reflect these 
ambitions.  It  has  not  kept  up  with  technological  progress  and  is  failing  to  achieve  effective  sustainable  use  of 
pesticides.  Implementation  of  the  Directive  is  also  uneven  and  incomplete.  Member  States  could  do  more  to 
promote alternative, non-chemical methods of pest control. Many have not set national targets to cut the use of and 
risk from pesticides.  

What should be achieved? 

The  specific  objective  of  the  Commission  proposal  is  to  protect  biodiversity,  the  environment  and  health  by 
reducing the use of chemical pesticides – and the risk from these pesticides – across the EU. To achieve this, 
Member States must share the ambition of the targets set out in the farm-to-fork strategy. The Commission proposal 
aims to improve data gathering on the use of pesticides and to support alternatives to chemical pesticides.  

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)?  

The effects of pesticides on biodiversity, water quality and other environmental parameters transcend borders. That 
is why we need coordinated EU action to supplement and boost national and local actions.  Such actions will also 
help to meet relevant sustainable development goals set out by the United Nations. 

B. Solutions  

What are the options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why not? 

Option 1: The EU’s targets to reduce  pesticide  use by 50% – and also reduce the  risk from pesticides by 50% – 
would  remain  non-legally  binding.  Advisory  systems  and  guidance  for  pesticide  users  would  be  improved. 
Precision-farming techniques to cut the use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides would be promoted.  

Option 2: The 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at EU level. Member States would set their own 
national  reduction  targets  using  established  criteria.  These  national  targets  would  then  be  legally  binding  and 
enforceable.  The  use  of  more  hazardous  pesticides  would  be  prohibited  in  sensitive  areas.  Professional  pesticide 
users  would  need  to  keep  electronic  records  on  pesticide  use  and  on  integrated  pest  management.  National 
authorities would analyse those records to monitor progress. Independent advisory services would advise pesticide 
users on alternative techniques and integrated pest management.  

Option 3 would be similar to option 2. However, under option 3 the 50% reduction targets would become legally 
binding at both EU and national level. The use of all chemical pesticides would be prohibited in sensitive areas.  

The  preferred  option  is  option  3,  except  for  the  targets,  where  option  2  is  preferred.  In  this  case,  the  preferred 
option would see the 50% reduction targets become legally  binding at EU level, with Member States setting their 
own  national  reduction  targets.  The  options  have  been  assessed  against  a  likely  baseline  scenario  where  the 
Directive remains unchanged. 

What are different stakeholders’ views? Who supports which option?  

Views among stakeholders vary. Many members of the public, environmental organisations and the water industry 
demand strong actions and legally binding targets to reduce pesticide use and the risk from pesticides. In contrast, 
some  pesticide  users  and  pesticide-industry  members  see  no  need  to  reduce  pesticide  use.  Pesticide  users  worry 

1 

 
 
about a lack of effective alternatives to chemical pesticides 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                     

The preferred option lowers the risks to human health and the environment from pesticide use. Pesticide users will 
be better informed about effective alternatives to chemical pesticides. National authorities will have also better tools 
to monitor the use of pesticides and implementation of integrated pest management.  

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise of main ones)?                                    

Professional pesticide users will face additional costs for record keeping and for using advisory services. Banning 
the  use  of  chemical  pesticides  in  sensitive  areas  may  result  in  lower  crop  yields  from  those  areas.  The  pesticide 
industry may see reduced demand for their products. Higher production costs may also trigger a rise in food prices 
for EU consumers. EU reliance on imports such as cereals may increase. However, future adjustments, supports and 
mitigating actions are expected to reduce these costs over time.  

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness?  

Profitability along the production chain will be impacted in different ways. This will affect SMEs such as farmers 
and other food-business operators. It will also affect the businesses that support these SMEs, such as suppliers of 
pesticides  and  equipment,  agricultural  suppliers,  contractors,  and  advisers.  The  EU  common  agricultural  policy 
offers Member States means to mitigate some negative impacts. Furthermore, more consistent application of EU law 
will reduce the competitive differences between SMEs currently operating in different Member States. 

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?  

National authorities will face control and administrative costs for data collection and official checks. 

Will there be other significant impacts?  

Enforcing higher EU standards on pesticide use is like to impact global patterns of trade in agricultural products. 

Proportionality?  

The  proposed  actions  are  proportional  to  the  overall  objective  of  addressing  the  uneven  and  incomplete 
implementation  of  the  current  Directive  to:  (i)  better  protect  health,  biodiversity  and  the  environment;  and  (ii) 
reduce chemical pesticide use and risk.  

D. Follow-up 

When will the policy be reviewed?  

Every year, the Commission will review progress by the EU and Member States towards achieving the pesticide-use 
and risk-reduction  targets. The legal act  will be reviewed  in due course, based on advances in scientific evidence 
and new technologies to reduce the use of – and risks from – pesticides. 

2