The debate on Wednesday 24 May in the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the sustainable use of pesticides showed the willingness of all political groups, including the EPP, to compromise on this sensitive issue.
Sarah Wiener (Greens/EFA, Austrian), rapporteur on the dossier, said that European Parliament members “are trying to find solutions together”. She said she hoped the whole EPP would show a willingness to compromise, while criticising the amendments tabled to reject the Commission’s proposal (see EUROPE 13176/7).
The European Commission stated that the proposal was not intended to be a death sentence for chemicals, but to reduce the level of risk. The Commission has assured that alternative products are available.
Alexander Bernhuber (EPP, Austrian) noted that almost 3,000 amendments had been tabled at this stage and that more flexibility was needed in the proposal, especially on the targets for reducing pesticide use. He said he hoped that the additional data soon to be provided by the Commission would bring clarity on how to achieve the [reduction] targets in the different Member States. The Commission’s proposal is not a good reference, he summarised.
Maria Arena (S&D, Belgian) stressed the need to drastically reduce the use of pesticides and therefore to support the Commission’s proposal. She mentioned as well the need for flexibility in the area of Integrated Pest Management and for support for farmers. Ms Arena also considered the rejection of the Nature Restoration Act by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture as “dramatic” and denounced this rejection approach.
Jan Huitema (Renew Europe, Dutch) wanted legislation to focus on alternatives, not just on reducing pesticides.
The Committee on the Environment plans to adopt Sarah Wiener’s draft report in September (see EUROPE 13154/9), with a view to a European Parliament vote in October. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)