European Commissioner for Health Stella Kyriakides acknowledged on Monday, 28 November, that the proposal on the sustainable use of pesticides was “not set in stone”.
Before members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture, the commissioner thus wanted to show that she was open to compromise on certain elements of the proposal and admitted that the war in Ukraine and the crisis of high food and fertiliser prices were having an effect on food security (see EUROPE 13069/21).
Ms Kyriakides was open to the idea of facilitating “workable compromises” between the European Parliament and the EU Council on this issue.
She reiterated that the objectives to be achieved must be to reduce pesticide use despite the challenges of biodiversity loss and the decline in the number of pollinating insect species.
With regard to ‘sensitive’ areas, the European Commission initially wanted to ban all pesticides in these areas.
The commissioner is ready to find compromise solutions. Referring to the European Commission’s recent paper that envisages making [pesticide] measures less strict, Stella Kyriakides said that a total ban on pesticides in all sensitive areas would be set aside.
Regarding the targets to be achieved by countries in terms of reducing pesticide use, she stated that the European Commission is prepared to factor in flexibility.
MEPs—especially those from the EPP group—strongly criticised the European Commission’s proposal. Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italian) reproached the European Commission for wanting to do away with pesticides when farmers need them. He suggested that the European Commission withdraw its proposal.
Clara Aguilera (S&D, Spanish) agreed with the objectives of the European Commission’s proposal. However, she believes, “The proposal needs to be corrected”, criticising the requested 50% reduction in pesticide use at the EU level. Adjustments also need to be made with regard to bans in sensitive areas, and EU funds other than common agricultural policy (CAP) credits need to be found, in Ms Aguilera’s opinion.
Ulrike Müller (Renew Europe, German) advocated [creating] a useful toolbox [for farmers]—not a total ban in sensitive areas.
Martin Häusling (Greens/EFA, German) is in favour of a significant reduction in pesticide use. However, he lamented the European Commission’s “mistakes”, particularly in defining sensitive areas.
Commissioner Kyriakides expressed her opposition to conducting an additional impact study, which the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have nevertheless requested.
Work in the EU Council. EU Council experts, on their side of things, have prepared a draft Council decision that actually requests that the European Commission carry out an “additional study” on the impact that the proposed pesticides regulation would have on the agricultural sector (see EUROPE 13065/6).
The Council of the EU considers the impact assessment accompanying the proposal to be inadequate on the grounds that the study was conducted before the war in Ukraine and the crisis of [high] food and energy prices.
According to the draft, the EU Council is reportedly requesting additional quantitative analysis in a number of areas: the impact on agricultural yields and on food availability and prices, the risk of increased dependence on imports, and the risk of introducing and spreading pests in the event there is no alternative to pesticides.
The Council of the EU is asking for the impact of a total or partial ban on pesticides in sensitive areas to be measured.
It would give the European Commission 3 or 6 months to carry out the requested analyses. This draft decision could be amended by the Czech Presidency of the Council of the EU before it is adopted by the EU Council around the end of December. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)