Pesticides: Tough negotiations ahead as MEPs back bans

Ahead of the vote, Dimitri Giotakos, a member of the cabinet of Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, said the views of the co-legislators, the Council and the Parliament, differed because the environment committee felt "more emotional" about the dossier while the Council discussed it from an agricultural perspective. The Commission is however confident that a constructive second reading agreement will be found, he said. 

A Spanish MEP Pilar Ayuso (EPP-ED) deplored the "lack a common vision" on the issue in the Parliament as northern and southern member states look at pesticides from a completely different perspective. "Northern countries can't understand how these amendments will affect southern countries," to whom pesticides are much more important, she said.

German Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer, rapporteur on the authorisation dossier, said the environment committee had "set a strong negotiating position for upcoming discussions with the Council and the European Commission by strengthening the cut-off criteria". She welcomed backing for additional bans for substances deemed to be of significant risk to the development of the immune or nervous systems and hailed the rejection of zonal authorisation for pesticide products. "As rapporteur, I support harmonised rules for product authorisation but this must not be at the expense of EU member states," she said. 

Christa Klaß MEP (EPP-ED), rapporteur on the sustainable use of pesticides, said the use of plant protection products had to be based on the "precautionary principle and the knowledge of the effects". They should should be "the guideline of the EU-wide use of the products". 

The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) stated that while some of the more extreme cut-off criteria proposed by the Parliament were "strategically dropped to ease the passing of the regulation, the remaining criteria are still ideologically driven and have no scientific or practical basis".

It restated that additional cut-off criteria would lead to "an unnecessary ban on a number of products which have been shown to meet high safety standards and are currently being used safely by European farmers". It also deplored that the three-zone authorisation concept was removed and "exemptions were introduced which would allow member states to easily reject a pesticide authorisation granted by other member states". 

In addition, it argues that amendments adopted for the Sustainable Use Directive would fix "arbitrary use reduction targets" which had already failed in the past. "Pesticide use responds to real, local pest management needs, not to targets. Hence, the way forward is through improving practices," said ECPA Director general Friedhelm Schmider. 

The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) deplored that "the Committee backed away from previous commitments to eliminate hazardous pesticides from use in food produce" instead agreeing "a substantially diluted set of proposals". They argued that "a complex set of loopholes and derogations now added to the text could bring substantial delays in replacing the worst pesticides".

Such derogations include the inclusion of immunotoxic and neurotoxic substances to the cut off criteria only if the risk is proven significant to one in a million citizens, "which is very difficult to assess," said HEAL Deputy Director Monica Guarinoni. The committee also "diluted" the Parliament's first reading agreement ban to use pesticides in and around public places (schools, parks, etc.) to a ban in public places alone and not around them, she explained.

Conservative MEP Robert Sturdy says the legislation "threatens already hard-pressed consumers who are now even more likely to see their monthly food bill go up". "With the current worries over food prices and food security, it seems absurd that MEPs are voting on these proposals without the benefit of an impact assessment to make a more informed decision," he continued.