Following on from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission, which were the first to appear before the European Parliament’s PEST special committee to explain the procedure for the authorisation of pesticides in the EU (see EUROPE 12000), representatives of competent national authorities will be heard in Brussels on Thursday 26 April.
The PEST special committee, chaired by French MEP Éric Andrieu (S&D) was set up in the wake of the controversial five-year renewal of the glyphosate licence in the EU, granted against a backdrop of conflicting scientific opinions between the European agencies (EFSA and ECHA) and the WHO.
An exchange of views will be held on Thursday afternoon (2.00pm-5.30pm) with the competent authorities of France (ANSES), Sweden (KIMI) and the United Kingdom (HSE) on the various stages of the pesticide authorisation procedure governed by the 2009 EU regulation (1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market). They have already been sent 72 preparatory questions.
Member states play a role in both the assessment of requests for authorisation of the active substances and authorisation of the finished products.
In the assessment of requests for authorisation of active substances, a submission is made to the competent authority of a member state (known as the rapporteur state). This authority delivers an assessment of the request with one year (the deadline may be extended if necessary), then prepares the draft evaluation report which it sends to EFSA. In the case of the active substance glyphosate, Germany was the rapporteur state.
With regard to authorisation of the plant health products, three zones have been defined in the EU to manage authorisation applications (zone A – North, zone B- Centre and zone C – South). Applications are assessed within a year by one rapporteur state per zone before authorisation is granted or refused.
Products authorised by a rapporteur member state can thereafter be authorised by other member states by virtue of the principle of mutual recognition. In certain cases, however, member states can opt not to recognise an authorisation – for example, if it is considered that the product in question presents an unacceptable risk to human or animal health or to the environment. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)