The EU member states have been invited by the European Commission to vote at the next meeting of the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed (PAFF) on 9 November on a revised Commission proposal which, this time, seeks “a renewal of the approval of glyphosate for five years”, and not any more for a ten-year period as in the last proposal tabled.
The news was announced by the Commission in the evening of Thursday 26 October in a brief press release, which noted that the amended proposal had been submitted to the member states on that same day “following the exchange of views with the member states on 25 October”.
Following the PAFF committee meeting on 25 October, during which no vote had been held, the Commission refused to say whether an amendment had already been put on the table (see EUROPE 11891). It was the round-table discussion which took place that day that led the Commission, after sounding out the member states on a range of options, this time to propose the shortest span in the five- to seven-year span it had announced in the wake of the European Parliament vote calling on the Commission to go back to the drawing board and propose the phasing out of glyphosate, with a total ban on the substance from 15 December 2022 (see EUROPE 11890).
Time is of the essence as the EU licence for this highly controversial active substance used in Monsanto’s total herbicide expires on 15 December. The Commission’s amended proposal would see approval renewed from 16 December 2017 until 15 December 2022 (rather than the previous proposal’s 2027). That is the only change that has been brought to the previous proposal. If it is passed, by qualified majority, this implementing regulation, amending implementing regulation (EU) No 540/2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of approved active substances, will apply from 16 December 2017.
No plans for ending glyphosate use. The text makes no provision for either an immediate ban on non-professional usage or a total ban on glyphosate after the five-year period, as the European Parliament had advocated. The recommendations to the member states remain unaltered. The Commission recommends that, when they authorise the finished glyphosate product, member states pay particular attention to groundwater in vulnerable areas, to protection of users, to the risks to terrestrial vertebrates and untargeted terrestrial plants and to ensure that usage at pre-harvest time is in line with sound agricultural practice.
The member states are also asked to take steps to minimise risks: - in areas used by the general public or vulnerable groups, including parks and gardens, sports and leisure fields, school grounds and children’s play areas, and in the general vicinity of healthcare establishments; - in areas that are protected or identified for conservation measures and in areas recently treated, used by agricultural workers or to which they have access. This is in line with Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.
The member states are also asked to ensure that plant protection products containing glyphosate do not also contain the co-formulant POE-tallowamine, which has been banned.
Compromise able to gather qualified majority required. In the minutes of the last meeting of the PAFF committee, now available on the Commission website, the Commission states that, according to the information given by the member states, renewal for seven years might win the support of 13 member states, with seven voting against and eight abstaining. Among the potential abstainers, several member states said that it was the lack of a mandate for such a proposal that was the cause of their stance.
Several member states indicated that they would have preferred renewal for 15 years and that they could not agree to anything less than seven years.
A proposal for a three-year renewal, which the Commission also put, received the support of 12 member states, while seven said they would vote against and nine that they would abstain. Some member states prepared to agree to a three-year renewal period as a compromise said ultimately that they would prefer a longer period.
The Commission decided, therefore, to split the difference with a proposal half-way between three and seven years. There would appear to be a greater likelihood of licence renewal for five years winning sufficient support to carry the qualified majority required and sought by the Commission (55% of countries representing 65% of the population). (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)