Most of the EU agriculture ministers were very critical of the proposed regulation on the sustainable use of pesticides.
The ministers expressed their concern about the EU-wide targets to reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides and the use of the most hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030 (see EUROPE 12977/16).
Almost all of them criticised the text’s provisions for a ban on the use of all pesticides in sensitive areas (and within a 3-metre radius of such areas), such as public parks or gardens, playgrounds, recreation or sports grounds, public paths and environmentally sensitive areas.
Poland, in particular, spoke of a disappointing proposal, which is not acceptable as it stands. This country has talked about a proposed drastic reduction of pesticides without providing robust scientific data and impact studies on the effects of this reduction, including on food safety. These efforts could jeopardise food security and increase the EU’s dependence on imports of certain agricultural products, summarised Poland, whose comments on food security were echoed by several other delegations (Ireland, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy). France argued for the integration of mirror clauses (ban on imported products containing unauthorised pesticides).
Spain considered that the calculation to reach these pesticide reduction targets should be known.
Germany was more open than the other countries, mentioning a coherent proposal, even if the successive crises call for a good balance.
The Netherlands was pleased to see this proposal, but is said to be wary of the impact on food safety.
Sensitive areas. Almost all Member States (Spain, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Hungary, Finland...) have spoken out against provisions to ban pesticides in sensitive areas. For Spain, this ban is not realistic, as it may lead to the creation of a reservoir of pests (insects). This proposal is totally unacceptable, Slovenia said, as it would make cultivation in these areas impossible. In this context, Portugal mentioned potential problems with rice cultivation.
‘Business as usual’ is not an option. Stella Kyriakides, the Commissioner for Health, took note of the concerns expressed by the ministers. The targets are ambitious, but there are flexibilities in the proposed text, the Commissioner replied. She recalled the negative effects of plant protection products on biodiversity and human health and warned that ‘business as usual’ is not an acceptable solution, especially as the text does not have to be implemented tomorrow.
Measures are also planned to help farmers meet the new requirements and find alternative solutions and develop new technologies, Ms Kyriakides said.
Finally, she said that it was impossible to ensure food security without food sustainability. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)