Download pdf - Stakeholders' Conference on the Development of a Thematic ...ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/ppps/pdf/pest_conf_report.pdfStakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic

Stakeholders' Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of

Pesticides

Brussels - November 4, 2002

– Conference Proceedings –

Stakeholders Conference on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides

Conference Report – December 12, 2002 p. 2/37

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................2

Executive Summary.................................................................................3

1. Introduction ...................................................................................7 1.1 The European Commission's Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the

Sustainable Use of Pesticides" ...................................................................... 7 1.2 Objectives of the Stakeholders’ Conference .................................................... 8

2. Conference proceedings .................................................................9 2.1 Plenary session .......................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Introduction: Issues, Context, Process................................................. 9 2.1.2 Stakeholders presentations: Experiences, Issues, options..................... 10 2.1.3 Questions and answers.................................................................... 14

2.2 Breakout group discussions........................................................................ 15 2.2.1 Working Group I: Water Resources ................................................... 15

Working Group I: Presentations .............................................................. 15 Working Group I: Discussion................................................................... 18

2.2.2 Working Group II: Integrated Crop Management................................. 19 Working Group II: Presentations ............................................................. 19 Working Group II: Discussion ................................................................. 21

2.2.3 Working Group III: National Plans for Hazard, Risk and Dependence Reduction................................................................................................ 23

Working Group III: Presentations ............................................................ 23 Working Group III: Discussion ................................................................ 26

2.3 Conclusions of the Conference.................................................................... 29 Conclusions of Working Group I: Water Resources ........................................ 29

What Role for the thematic strategy? ....................................................... 29 Goals .................................................................................................. 29 Sources ............................................................................................... 29 Tools................................................................................................... 30 Incentives............................................................................................ 30

2.3.2 Conclusions of Working Group II....................................................... 30 Discussion Items................................................................................... 30 IPM/ICM Common Standards .................................................................. 30 ICM and good farming practices .............................................................. 30 ICM and CAP ........................................................................................ 30 Substitution ......................................................................................... 31 Training............................................................................................... 31 Communication..................................................................................... 31 Research ............................................................................................. 31

2.3.3 Conclusions of Working Group III...................................................... 31 National Plans on Risk Reduction ............................................................. 31 Monitoring and Indicators....................................................................... 31 Taxes and Levies .................................................................................. 32 Education and Training .......................................................................... 32 Obsolete Pesticides in CEE Countries........................................................ 32

2.3.4 Closing Remarks............................................................................. 32

Annex 1: Summary list of issues, instruments and initiatives for working group discussions...............................................................................................................................................33

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed



Executive Summary

The European Commission organised a conference to gather input from key stakeholders on the Development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallström opened the Conference, she highlighted the priorities and the process towards a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of plant protection products (PPP).

Stakeholders gave their input on important issues pertaining to the Commission's Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides" during plenary sessions and three breakout groups sessions. The first working group addressed water resources, the second focussed on Integrated Crop Management (ICM), while the third group concentrated on national plans for hazard, risk and dependence reduction. This Executive Summary presents an overview of working group conclusions.

– Working Group Conclusions: Common Views –

Thematic Strategy

• The objectives addressed in the Communication are relevant. • The thematic strategy should put emphasis on necessary co-ordination at all levels. • Clear attribution of responsibilities is needed in order to avoid duplication and/or

confusion between different legislative frameworks (e.g., WFD and PPP). • All uses/sources of PPP should be addressed: agricultural and non-agricultural,

professional and non-professional. • Proper uses and misuses have to be differentiated when identifying the source of PPP.

Tools

• Even within agricultural sources, identifying the (main) sources is a pre-requisite to developing a risk-reduction tool.

• Identifying the appropriate level for tool definition and application is important. • A mix of tools should be used, depending on local conditions. • The toolbox must be kept sufficiently broad. • Best practices should be promoted at all levels, including EU level. • There is a need to look at substituting chemicals by non-chemical methods and practices

and address all methods of risk reduction. • Certification of professional users, distributors, and equipment, is needed. • Minimum storage standards are needed.

IPM / ICM

• There is a necessity for an EU Policy framework on Integrated Crop Management /Integrated Pest Management (ICM/IPM) common standards.

• EU harmonised guidelines/criteria on essential requirements for ICM/IPM. Common standards are necessary, taking into account regional/local aspects based on environmental and agricultural situations and international obligations e.g., WTO,…

• Good farming practices are the basis (conformity with EU legislation) and could include some aspects of ICM.



• As ICM is knowledge-intensive, research is crucial. • There is a need for more research on ICM in general such as application techniques,

modern technologies (e.g., precision farming), and extension to other prediction methods like early warning system,...

• There is not enough knowledge on the interaction of different ICM tools. • ICM should be able to benefit from CAP support (agri-environment).

National Plans

• National Plans on risk reduction are useful, they should be developed in all Member States. They should be comprehensive, include a wide range of measures – network of mandatory and voluntary instruments – and economic incentives.

• Studies at national level are needed to explore possibilities for use reduction. • Despite differences in MS North / South, there are many common problems and

objectives. • Subsidiarity should apply. The role of EU can be modelled on the IPPC Directive: the EU

provides a general framework and standards, and details are decided at Member State level.

• Overall targets should be translated into something that is applicable at farm level. • Coherence of national plans with other plans such as WFD or Rural Development plans is

important.

Water

• Reduction of PPP residues in water is needed, in the interest of both ecology and drinking water supply.

• Goals for surface water and groundwater should be discussed in a differentiated way.

Research and Training

• Education and training are very important, they should be part of the National Plans, in particular for ICM which is knowledge intensive.

• Common EU training standards are needed. • It is important to link research to practical applications. • Backup of proposed measures through research and development (including economic

cost/benefit analysis) and extension is needed.

Information, Communication and Participation

• Communication (e.g., about ICM) to farmers, consumers, and other stakeholders is important.

• Stakeholders' involvement is essential. • Labelling is useful for transparency and market access, but does not give a premium price.

Incentives

• Target groups for incentives should be defined. • With respect to incentives, funding aspects become crucial and have to be addressed in the

Thematic Strategy. • Links should be made to the CAP Review.



Indicators and monitoring

• Indicators and monitoring are needed to measure progress. • Getting data for indicators can be difficult.

Taxes and levies

• Support for harmonisation of VAT. • Threat of levy or other economic tools can trigger behavioural change towards more

sustainable practices.

– Working Group Conclusions: Diverging Views –

Thematic strategy

• Need for mandatory quantified targets.

Tools

• Which mix of voluntary and mandatory instruments should be used. • Use reduction as an essential tool for risk reduction was supported by several

stakeholders, but many others disagreed. • Some stakeholders agreed on the implementation of the substitution principle at farm level

but several other stakeholders did not support this.

Water

• What level of reduction of PPP residues in water is needed? Divergences on criteria for surface water.

Indicators

• Most suitable indicator – divergent views: - Frequency of treatment indicator may be useful as a start but others are important too; - operator exposure and exposure during re-entry; - environmental Monitoring (water, soil, …); - residues in food.

Taxes and levies

• Levies or environmental taxes and their effectiveness for reducing risks/uses/dependency.

– Working Group Conclusions: Elements needing more reflection & precision –

Thematic strategy

• Clarification is needed in terms of "what" best practices are (good farming practices, good agricultural practices, good plant protection practices, best farming practices, etc.).

• Resistance issues must be acknowledged. • Further discussions are necessary on the implementation of labelling at EU level. • European funding for initiatives modelled along existing pilot experiences is required for

obsolete pesticides in CEE Countries.



Incentives

• A right balance between incentives ("carrots") and disincentives ("sticks") should be found.

IPM / ICM

• ICM in general goes beyond good farming practices, but more thought is necessary, a minority of participants consider ICM as the minimum.

• Application equipment and techniques of dose optimisation are relevant to ICM and good farming practices. More thought is necessary. Progress on development of standards ISO/CEN should be checked.

Information

• Access to information by consumers is necessary, but it not clear how to organise it.

*

As indicated by the European Commission several times during the Conference this is not the last time stakeholders will be able to express their opinion on the thematic strategy. Mrs. Catherine Day re-affirmed this fact when closing the Conference and called for stakeholders to keep contributing to the consultation in order to ensure that the Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides is successful and reflects a balanced approach.



1. Introduction

1.1 The European Commission's Communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides"

The 6th Environment Action Programme (6EAP) as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council1 provides for the development of a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides with the objective of reducing the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment and more generally of achieving more sustainable use of pesticides and a significant overall reduction in risks and in use, while ensuring necessary crop protection.

The present legislative framework referred to in the 6EAP – in particular Directive 91/414/EEC and the directives on residues in food – mainly concentrates on the start and end-of-life stages of pesticides, i.e. the authorisation of substances for use in plant protection products (PPP) before they are placed on the market (prevention at source) and maximum residue levels (MRLs) on food and feedstuffs. Revision of these Directives is under way. The thematic strategy will complement the existing legislative framework by targeting the use-phase of plant protection products.

The main objectives of the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, as defined by the 6th Environmental Action Programme are:2

1. to minimise the hazards and risks to health and environment from the use of pesticides;

2. to improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides;

3. to reduce the levels of harmful active substances including through substituting the most dangerous with safer, including non-chemical, alternatives;

4. to encourage the use of low input or pesticide free cultivation among others through raising users' awareness, promoting the use of codes of good practices, and promoting consideration of the possible application of financial instruments;

5. to establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress made in fulfilling the objectives of the strategy including the development of suitable indicators.

On July 1, 2002, the European Commission published a Communication entitled "Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides".3 It contains:

• an analysis of the present situation in the Community and the Member States on the basis of available preparatory work, including quantitative data on PPP use and the benefits, costs and risks associated with their use;

• an overview of the relevant Community legislation (Directive 91/414/EEC, the Directives on the setting of maximum residue levels (MRLs) in foodstuffs, and Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive));

• an exploration of the numerous links between the thematic strategy and other Community policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (especially agri-environmental

1 OJ L 242, 10.9.2002 2 OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 11 3 COM (2002) 349, available from: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.



measures), health and consumer protection, the new chemicals policy and other thematic strategies called for in the 6EAP (e.g. soil protection);

• a short summary of policies and initiatives already in place in some Member States, which are not yet co-ordinated;

• a review of available statistics and indicators and identification of issues pertaining to effective monitoring;

• a review of the implications for enlargement and the Community’s international commitments;

• a core chapter which suggests the possible elements of a thematic strategy, and states the Commission’s preferences as to which measures could be included.

The purpose of the Communication is to launch a broad consultation involving all stakeholders such as farmers and growers, NGOs, industry, other social partners, the scientific community, public authorities, and in particular the European Parliament and the Council. To this aim, the Commission organised an Internet consultation whereby stakeholders could send their comments and have them posted on the Commission's PPP website before 30 November 2002. In addition an open stakeholders conference was convened in Brussels on 4 November 2002.

Following the consultation process, and taking into account the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament and all comments received, the Commission will develop the thematic strategy, specifying the detailed measures to be taken and present it to the Parliament and the Council at the beginning of 2004.

1.2 Objectives of the Stakeholders’ Conference

The role of the Conference was to bring together the major stakeholders to discuss the European Commission’s Communication Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. The main objective was to identify convergences and divergences of opinion, as well as concrete proposals to bridge these differences. The Conference also gathered experiences gained from the practical application of the current regulatory framework and facilitated exchange of this information.

The inputs from the Conference will feed into the preparation of the thematic strategy with a view to helping the Commission develop the instruments and measures necessary for a sustainable use of plant protection products entailing an effective balance between environmental, social, and economic objectives.

The Conference convened in Brussels on 4 November 2002 and brought together more than 190 stakeholders.

The morning was dedicated to plenary session presentations by policymakers, authorities and stakeholders. During the afternoon session, three breakout groups discussed specific topics in more depth and prepared conclusions that were presented in the final plenary session. The first working group addressed water resources, the second focussed on Integrated Crop Management, while the third group concentrated on national plans for hazard, risk and dependence reduction. Working groups were asked to consider:

- policy issues, potential problems and solutions; - ways to avoid any overlaps or contradictions in the system; - ways to harmonise, improve, and speed-up implementation of existing instruments; - ways to improve accountability of the current regulatory system; - ways to address gaps in the existing system;



- potential needs and ways to develop an extended regulatory framework in order to achieve the objectives of the thematic strategy;

- ways to address sustainable use of pesticides at member state level and local level (regional variability), including in the context of enlarged EU;

- EU-level co-ordination; - ways to involve all stakeholders in the monitoring/control system; - ways to build-up stronger public confidence;

- the role of the future thematic strategy in addressing these issues.

For each working groups a preparatory "Thought Starter" document was made available before the conference.4 It contained background elements from the Communication; Commission proposals for instruments and initiatives as presented in the Communication; and stakeholders' input from: (i) position papers, (ii) comments sent to the Commission, and (iii) presentations prepared for the Conference. (See Annex 1 for a Summary list of issues, instruments and initiatives for working group discussions, based on the Thought Starters).

*

2. Conference proceedings

All conference abstracts, presentations and Commissioner speech are available on DG ENV's PPP website at : http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.

2.1 Plenary session

2.1.1 Introduction: Issues, Context, Process

Mrs. Eva Hellsten, Head of the Chemicals Unit (European Commission DG Environment), was chairing the plenary session. She welcomed the participants and stressed the importance of gathering stakeholders' input in the process of designing the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides.

Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström addressed the priorities and the process towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable use of Plant Protection Products (PPP). She stressed that, in line with their pledges on new governance practices and better regulation, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are keen to involve stakeholders already in the early steps of the development of the Thematic Strategy. The Communication adopted in July 2002 was a key milestone to launch such broad consultation process.

She recalled that although PPP are recognised as necessary to maintain food safety and security, it must be guaranteed that the level of use and risks to human health and the environment associated with the use of PPP are kept to an absolute minimum. In this context, the 6th Environment Action Programme requires a two-track approach:

• On the one hand – full implementation of the existing regulatory framework, especially Directive 91/414, which is also being revised,

• On the other hand – more attention to the use phase of products. This is where the thematic strategy plays an important role.

Mrs. Wallström then stressed the need for indicators against which to measure and monitor progress in implementing the future thematic strategy. She pointed to the fact that there are still instances where residues in plant products exceed Maximum Residue Levels, which

4 Available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.



raises concern. Moreover, not enough information is available on environmental monitoring of PPP, and what little there is gives rise to concern regarding the presence of pesticides in different environmental compartments.

The Commissioner highlighted the three major objectives of the consultation period:

1. Collection of information and experience gained by Member States, industry, farmers organisations, the food and retail sector and NGOs, and the sharing of views on what is feasible in a Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

2. Stimulation of an exchange of views among stakeholders with the objective of seeking compromises and areas of convergence, rather than focusing on divergent positions.

3. Identification of the guiding principles stakeholders would like to see developed in the Thematic Strategy for the near future and longer term.

Lastly, she underlined that not all solutions must be in the form of legislation. The full commitment to action and voluntary measures from Stakeholders', will be essential to achieving more sustainability and a minimal impact from PPP on health and the environment.

2.1.2 Stakeholders’ presentations: Experiences, Issues, options

The plenary session then turned to presentations by the Presidency, the European Economic and Social Committee, Environmental NGOs, the PPP industry, farmers and growers, and Consumer NGOs.

Mr. Søren Bukh Svenningsen from the Danish EPA, presented the Danish experience with pesticide management. He stressed the following points:

• The Danish experience to date has been quite successful. It is based on a multi-stakeholders approach and a combination of various tools (legal measures, economic instruments, information, voluntary agreements, R&D, decision support tools, warning systems, demonstration farms, individual farming plans,…).

• Treatment frequency is used as the main indicator. Frequency targets are set as political objectives

• Involvement of stakeholders in the ‘Bichel Committee’ has been constructive and co-operative. Sound background analysis to the Committee's work led to a shared understanding between stakeholders on the need to reduce pesticide uses. Even though stakeholders cannot be expected to all agree on everything, stakeholders involvement has allowed cross-learning, better decision-basis for policy makers and enhanced credibility of the action plans.

• Co-operation with farmers is crucial to the success of the action plans.

• The PPP issue is a priority for the Danish presidency. The Communication will be discussed at the December Council, after a preparation of conclusions in the Council Working Party on the Environment, starting discussions on November 8th, 2002.

Mr. Staffan Nilsson, Rapporteur of the European Economic and Social Committee, indicated that the EESC would start its discussions on the Communication on November 5th, 2002. As a group representing different interests of society (consumers, producers, farmers…) the EESC will strive to give a balanced opinion that is representative of what could be a compromise.

He stressed the following points:

• EESC already gave an opinion on the sustainable use of pesticides in its opinion on the chemical strategy. Activities to reduce risks were identified, many of which are present in



the Communication: product registration, eliminating hazardous pesticides, codes of practice, measures to reduce workers' risk (training, education), promotion of sustainable farming methods, development of thresholds, research for alternative pest-control practices, identification of pest-resistant crop varieties, integrated pest management (IPM) and green labelling.

• The Communication focuses on risk reduction, but use reduction must also be a goal, as reduced use means reduced costs to farmers. Both risk and use reductions can be attained through appropriate farming practices such as e.g., ICM, organic, and others.

• More attention needs to be paid to implementation of EU regulations. The Commission needs competence to control, monitor, and sanction Member States, especially if national plans are to be implemented.

• Issues pertaining to applicant countries need to receive more attention. Applicant countries should be asked to conduct analysis of their national situation.

• Taxes could be considered as means to raise money to fund research and education programmes.

Stefan Scheuer, from the European Environmental Bureau, called for a Community management system to effectively reduce pesticides risks based on two pillars:

(1) Market authorisation – Directive 91/414 on PPP authorisation should be rapidly revised, ensuring that: (i) industry becomes more active, bears the burden of proof, and receives a substitution duty; (ii) persistent, bioaccumulative, CMR or hormone disrupting pesticides are immediately prohibited at EU level; and (iii) the decision making process is transparent for all stakeholders.

(2) Use reduction – A EU legislation should set EU-wide use reduction targets and timetables and establish the right incentives to shift into less intensive pesticide use practices and pesticide free alternatives.

He also stressed the following points:

• Soil accumulation of pesticides and pesticide residues is an important issue as it carries the problem to future generations, yet little information is available.

• The EU approach should end farmers' pesticide dependency and encourage substitution to non-chemical alternatives.

• The workings of the European food market system must be changed to make it less resource intensive, reflect external costs, show direction for future innovation and create new markets for safer healthier foodstuff.

• Citizens do not accept pesticides in foodstuff, in drinking water and in their environment. They do not trust the current system. Future food production must re-establish citizens’ trust.

Dr. Friedhelm Schmider, Director General of the European Crop Protection Association, proposed that the way forward lies in the safe use of as little plant protection product as possible but as much as necessary. A quantitative use reduction approach in agriculture would not be sustainable, as use reduction cannot be defined as a prerequisite for risk minimisation.

He also stressed the following points:

• Sustainable agriculture is simultaneously (i) socially responsible – it satisfies increasing demands for high quality food at affordable prices; (ii) economically viable – it ensures competitiveness and survival of agricultural holdings; and (iii) environmentally sound – it minimises environmental impacts.

• The sustainable use of crop protection products makes a major contribution to the sustainability of the agricultural sector. The sustainability of chemical treatment in crop



production is affected by two factors: the crop protection products themselves, and their handling and use throughout their lifecycle.

• Sustainable use relates to all on-farm activities such as application, storage, transport and disposal of crop protection products. It demands that farmers be trained to the highest professional standards in crop protection practices.

• Partnership and communication are two key factors to ensure a sustainable use of crop protection products and to produce healthy and affordable food.

Mr. Christopher Wise, from COPA-COGECA, called for a thematic strategy based on:

• Reducing to a minimum any risk to health and/or environmental harm by taking the following measures: - training and provision of information to farmers; - adoption of ‘Best Agricultural Practices’; - pan-European Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) standards, taking into account

different local conditions; - harmonising EU maximum residue levels; - improving the co-ordination of residue monitoring programmes.

• Strengthening the controls on the use and distribution of plant protection products, including for non-agricultural purposes.

• Reducing the levels of harmful active substances, in particular by replacing the most harmful ones by safer alternatives: - increased EU harmonisation using Directive 91/414/EEC; - the substitution principle with a careful consideration of the role of older substances

in pest resistance management, in IPM-schemes ; needs to be conducted at field level - research on alternative non-chemical plant protection methods and accelerated

authorisation of these methods. • Encouraging conversion to agricultural husbandry that uses limited quantities of plant

protection products. He also stressed the following points:

• A serious shortcoming of the Communication is that it does not contain any analysis of the costs and benefits regarding the use of PPP. Any measure should be proportionate to the issues being tackled. Many of the suggested measures are very demanding practically and will increase the burden on the whole food production chain.

• Shortage of PPP for minor crops can lead to distortions at WTO level and to adverse effect on rural areas in the EU. Importation from third countries of foodstuff treated with active substances that have been withdrawn from the EU market should not be allowed.

• If the EU wants to reduce PPP uses, then there must be willingness by society to pay the additional costs that farmers will incur to meet new standards/constraints.

Mr. Gérard Choplin, from European Farmers Coordination (CPE), pointed to the excessive use of pesticides as the result of over-intensification of production leading to low farm prices to the benefit of the agro-industry and food distribution sectors. He pointed out that the CAP reform proposal of the Commission (Mid Term Review) will not favour the environment: the most intensive productions (poultry, pig, fruits & vegetables) are not affected by the proposal and de-coupling is driven by WTO concerns, not environmental concerns (see the example of de-coupling in grain production since 1992).

To protect health and the environment and to produce better quality food, he called for changing the direction of the CAP in order to depart from intensification and the objective of producing as cheap as possible. This reform should include a combination of:



- des-intensification instruments and supply management; - community preference to avoid cheap imports with dumping and too low agricultural

prices in the EU, which are leading to low-cost, intensive production; - suppression of all dumping instruments (export subsidies, or the combination of low

prices and direct payments which has dumping effects)

Other proposed de-intensification measures in his views include:

- ban on straw shorteners in grain production, - rotation of cultures on the same field encouraging farms to use less inputs; - supporting the development of organic farming; - supporting farms which respect stricter environmental standards to preserve higher

level of biodiversity; - a total ban on GMOs which represent a supplementary step in the control of

agriculture by the chemical/seeds/gentech industry.

Mrs. Louise Ousted Olsen, Senior Advisor, Euro Coop, stressed the importance of linking the strategy with other EU policies, particularly:

• the revision of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); • the new chemicals policy; • the 6th Environment Action Programme; • the soon expected European Commission Action Plan on Organic Farming, organic

farming being an important tool to achieve the strategy’s objectives; • the follow-up to the Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, in order to have a true

reflection of costs in the final price of a product, so that consumers do not pay more for a sustainable product than a non-sustainable one.

She also stressed the following points:

• The role and responsibilities of the various stakeholders are not properly addressed in the Communication. The consumer is not mentioned at all. Consumer information via labelling, information brochures, etc., is an important tool to promote sustainable consumption and development by giving consumers the option to make informed choices.

• In the long term the strategy must focus on how to minimise the use of pesticides and to find out where it is unnecessary to use pesticides, hence finding safer – including non chemical – alternatives.

• Clear timetables and indicators must be introduced in the strategy to monitor quantitative progress. There should be a transparent system for reporting and monitoring any progress made, based on regular reporting on national risk reduction programmes and the development of suitable indicators.

Mrs. Beate Kettlitz, from the European Consumers' Organisation BEUC, focused her presentation on food. She stressed the following action points for the thematic strategy:

• Levels of residues and contaminants in food should be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), this could be achieved in particular through: - national pesticide reduction plans; - promotion of alternative pest control methods; - use of less harmful alternatives;

- control of unsafe pesticide application practices;

• Publication of test results in an easily accessible way.



• Objectives for reduction of use and dependency. Specific targets and timetables at national levels to progressively achieve more stringent qualitative and quantitative reductions in the use of pesticides on specific crops and overall.

• Development of principles for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) which specifically aim at reducing the dependency of agriculture on plant protection chemicals. This may be facilitated by establishing an EU-supported ‘GAP research facility’.

• Application of best environmental practices. • Development and promotion of least-harmful plant protection practices wherever feasible

and practicable. • The use of pesticides should ultimately give rise to appropriate control measures of the

residue levels. Mrs. Catherine Wattiez from Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), highlighted some serious concerns that call for action such as the increasing consumption of PPP, groundwater contamination, trends in food residues contamination and threats to vulnerable groups such as foetuses, infants, and children. Recalling commitments for use reduction already made in the 5th Environment Action Programme (EAP) and those of the 6th EAP, she called for the urgent adoption of a Directive on pesticide use reduction which would apply to all PPP (not only those used in agriculture) and would include in particular:

• Frequency of application as the indicator to define EU quantitative targets, as this is the most straightforward indicator currently available to measure PPP dependency reduction and hence exposure reduction for all pesticides. As such, reduction of the value of this indicator can be linked to general risk reduction. Moreover, its calculation is easy and transparent.

• Mandatory national reduction plans with EU targets and timetables for use reduction and increased percentage of land in organic farming, including, for each member State, a target reduction of 50% of the treatment frequency index within 10 years of entry into force (25% within 5 years). Risk indicators, still in development, can be used by Member States as a further tool to assess the success in achieving the goals of their reduction plan.

• IPM/ICM as mandatory minimum practices for all agricultural PPP uses, within 2 years of definition by Member States of IPM/ICM standards.

• Member States funds to promote and control IPM/ICM application, and sanctions in case of non-compliance with standards.

• Designation of a Community agency on IPM/ICM to co-ordinate national and Community-level research, and facilitate exchange of information on national standards, with a view towards ensuring coherence and consistency in the implementation of the future Directive.

• Cross-compliance with ICM as a minimum condition for CAP subsidies; agri-environmental support for practices that go beyond ICM (e.g. organic farming).

2.1.3 Questions and answers

The presentations were followed by comments and debate. The following statement were made:

• A participant [Frangenberg -IAE- Bonn] referred to a US study indicating that there is more risk in not using PPP than in using them (because of problems of availability and quality of food in the former case). In response Environmental NGOs [Scheuer] indicated that the study has been criticised as heavily flawed by a panel of scientists.



• Regarding cocktail effects, the UK study indicates that there is little evidence of anything else than additive effects. While on endocrine disruption, the WHO report states that there is little evidence of human health effects. [Industry – Rutherford] Consumers NGOs [Kettlitz] agreed that endocrine disruption has not been identified as an immediate health risk in the report but, as there is concern, the need for further research is emphasised.

• Industry [Schmider] stressed that risk of pesticides is a potentiality but this is different from occurrence of the risk.

• Environmental NGOs [Wattiez] acknowledged the difference between a property such as endocrine disruption and the proven effect which is rather impossible to establish in epidemiological research due to numerous existing confounding factors. But the potential risk does exist, as do alternative production methods, hence precaution and prevention principles should be applied.

• Industry [Rutherford] indicated that it shared the concerns about groundwater contamination. It was stressed however that concentrations in groundwater are at extremely low levels and that changes in that media are slow and incremental and that it is not surprising that the 0.1 µg/l limit is sometimes exceeded since it is a virtual zero standard.

• Environmental NGOs [Scheuer] recalled that there are studies showing consumers' willingness to pay more for safer food. Hence there is a need to look for the right market incentives. Food prices are the combined results of costs (PPP) and subsidised agriculture.

2.2 Breakout group discussions

2.2.1 Working Group I: Water Resources

Working group I was chaired by Mr. Joachim D'Eugenio from the Water, Marine and Soil Unit of DG ENV, Mr. Bob Breach, from EUREAU was the rapporteur.

The chairman indicated that the working group was to address the protection of water resources from PPP pollution and that the objective was to draft key conclusions to be presented during the final plenary session and which will feed in subsequent discussions on the preparation of the thematic strategy.

Working Group I: Presentations Mr. Joachim D'Eugenio gave a synthetic presentation on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD contains various provisions that complement other Community legislation on pesticides and will contribute to a sustainable use of pesticides. For surface and groundwaters, there will be harmonised quality standards. River basin management plans will need to consider pesticide legislation. In addition, the resources for the abstraction of drinking water are being protected. Measures will be established if water quality requirements are not being met.

For surface waters, environmental quality standards (EQS) will be defined by the end of 2003. EQS will be harmonised for the 13 PPP which are on the list of priority substances. For other PPP, EQS could be set at river basin level.

Most important for PPP is to tackle the use phase. PPP and residues are still found in water so there is a need to develop effective tools to address this.

- There could be river basin specific restrictions on authorised substances if EQS are exceeded.

- Risk reduction measures could be enforced at river basin level (e.g., buffer strips).



- Emission limit values can be set for point sources. - The Strategy on the Sustainable use of PPP should be implemented.

For groundwater, due to slow reaction time, it is important to reverse significant upward trends in contamination. A proposal for a daughter directive will be ready in March 2003.

Mr. Leo Joosten, from EUREAU, presented the views of water suppliers. He stressed that the problem of surface and groundwater PPP contamination in Europe is widespread. However, at EU level, for water-supply, only 8 out of 840 pesticides cause the bulk of the problem, while at national level there is in total between 10 and 20 more. So the solution proposed is a twin-track approach:

- Directive 91/414 for the limited number of PPP causing most problems. - Sustainable use for the majority of PPP that only cause problems "sometimes,

somewhere, somehow".

He further stressed that:

• There is already a lot of excellent examples of sustainable use efforts in the EU. The bottleneck is to ensure widespread adoption. So there is a need for strong incentives to encourage and promote full uptake of best practices. For farmers’ competitiveness, the EU should create a level playing field by defining a framework for sustainable use, together with flexibility for national/local implementation (subsidiarity).

• An EU policy on sustainable use is a necessary addition to Directive 91/414. For certain PPP the former could also be an alternative to bans under the latter.

• The objectives of the WFD cannot be achieved without specific initiatives in the field of pesticides.

• Agri-environmental measures under the CAP could provide a strong incentive for sustainable use.

• The influence of markets, retailers, and consumers is under-emphasised in the Communication. More attention should go to co-operation with retailers. A ‘consumer-pull’ can very much facilitate the introduction of sustainable use programmes.

• Non-agricultural uses of PPP are missing in the Communication. Although small in volume, they can have large negative impacts on drinking water supply from surface water. In particular the use of herbicides on hard surfaces by municipalities, railroads and other groups. All source should be addressed, also for equity's sake.

• The Thematic Strategy should be developed into a Directive with legally binding objectives, targets, timetables, and other necessary requirements.

Mr. Michel Rapinat, from Générale des Eaux - Vivendi Environnement, presented a utility perspective. Recalling that the public does not want its drinking water to be treated (treatment is considered as a licence to pollute) and does not want to pay for water treatment, he stressed the following points:

• Treatment is not consistent with the polluter pays principle. • A better understanding of water supply constraints is needed. • In the long term, all surface water should comply with the 0.1 µg/l limit. • Until this happens, treatment is needed. Many different pesticides and metabolites are

detected in water. For detection processes, there is a need to know which pesticides are likely to be present in one's water resources, hence knowledge of local PPP use is needed.

• For treatment, reducing impact of run-offs is important as there are a lot of high peaks in rivers.



• The market authorisation procedure needs to be reinforced. Drinking water requirements and possibilities and limits of treatment should be taken into account in the authorisation process.

• Non-agricultural uses of PPP also cause contamination problems, e.g. gardening. • The goals of the substitution process should not only be compliance with the 0.1 µg/l but

also to integrate efficiency of control and treatment. • Co-operation is a good way forward to develop "good" regulation. In particular,

partnerships with local actors to develop innovative processes, good practice selection, and dissemination.

Mrs. Serenella Sala, from the Department of Environmental and Landscape Sciences of the University of Milano Bicocca, presented a GIS-based system for surface water risk assessment of agricultural chemicals. She stressed the importance of a broad approach to pesticide use management considering concomitantly chemical-physical characteristics, toxicological properties, effects on non-target organism and landscape sensitivity evaluation. Based on a methodology that allows a site-specific definition of risks – i.e. a risk related to all geographical and territorial components – the development of site-specific decision support systems for the management of PPP uses in agriculture can be envisaged.

Mr. Stuart Rutherford from the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), stressed that the WFD provides an EU framework for local action. He illustrated his presentation with examples of co-operative stewardship projects. He emphasised the following points:

• Practical measures should be established in the framework of river basin management. They may be regulatory measures, codes of practice, voluntary measures, or a combination of these.

• There are already many examples from across the EU where local considerations have been accommodated and generic lessons can be learned.

• Various guidance and training resources are developed nationally and by companies. Practical examples were presented.

• Combination of product stewardship and joint stakeholders approaches is an effective way to promote physical, technical and educational solutions. Authorities have a critical role in facilitating such approaches. The task of compiling the right stakeholder catchment teams must not be underestimated.

• EU wide bans are not favoured as a solution. It was pointed out that in 1993 there were approximately 840 PPPs available in the EU, while it is estimated that of these as many as 500 will have disappeared from the market in the near future as a direct result of the implementation of the existing EU PPP authorisations solution.

• Transient peaks can be reduced by product stewardship. Mr. Andreas Tilche, from the Water Cycle, including soil related aspects Unit of DG RTD, presented research activities related to pesticides within the Water Key action of the Fifth European Community Framework Programme of Research and Technological Development (FP5):

• The PEGASE project – Pesticides in European groundwaters: detailed study of representative aquifers and simulation of possible evolution scenarios – represents the major co-ordinated effort to give an overall appreciation of the problem of groundwater contamination in Europe.

• Other projects deal with diffuse pollution and try to develop best management practices for reducing pesticides spreading in the environment (AGRIBMPWATER) or to evaluate the sustainability of irrigated agriculture, taking also into account the contamination of surface and groundwater caused by pesticides (WADI).



• Other projects deal with technologies for removing pesticides from drinking water (P-THREE, Photox and PEBCAT) or for the recycling of industrial wastewater (CADOX).

• The “WeKnow” concerted action is a web-based knowledge collection and contact point for research on drinking water.

He indicated that in FP6, there will be specific activities on the development of risk assessment methodologies.

Working Group I: Discussion The presentations were followed by a discussion during which the following points were stressed:

• An important question is how the future strategy will fit between directive 91/414 and the WFD. Co-ordination between the various legal instruments is crucial. Overlap of competencies must be avoided. There needs to be a lead area for discussing water issues in order to avoid having the same issues discussed by different people in different places. [Industry – Rutherford] It was added that sustainable use is not only about water issues, so it needs to be looked at specifically in the thematic strategy, but co-ordinated with the WFD. [Water industry – Joosten] The group agreed that in the thematic strategy co-ordination and attribution of responsibilities are crucial.

• The communication process is important, concepts should be clearly defined and communicated so that people understand the same thing where certain terms are used (e.g. there are 2 definitions for 'metabolites'). [Water industry – Rapinat]

• As regards surface water, some stakeholders insisted that the 0.1µg/l groundwater limit is in no way automatically extendable to surface water, stressing the entirely different situation regarding possibilities to prevent entry into groundwater vs entry into surface water,and behaviour/persistence in groundwater vs surface water.Furthermore it was stated that should such a limit be extended to surface water, the implications for European agriculture could be disastrous. [Industry – Rutherford] Others did not agree with this position and called for consistency: saying that the aim should be no need for treatment for drinking water the limit must be 0.1µg/l for surface water also, even though it will not be achievable in the short term. [Water industry – Rapinat] However there was mutual agreement on the need to start reducing the pollution of water by PPPs.

• The Danish water supply industry [Vansgård] commented on the situation in Denmark. More than 10% of Danish groundwaters exceed the standards. And more than 10% of water wells are closed. However, although many substances have been banned, farmers are already almost complying with best agricultural practice, and the Danish national strategy has been widely implemented, there are still problems of water contamination. So there are two solutions: either ban PPP use in catchment areas or pay farmers for not using PPP.

• Farmers [Hind] recalled that incentives are preferred to penalties, which are difficult to accept for farmers. They prefer voluntary approaches. Hence skill development and knowledge/technology transfer are important elements to be developed in the thematic strategy.

• Farmers [Bendz] indicated that in Sweden some farmers have already gone very far, others still have a long way to go, while some still need increased awareness on how to properly use pesticides. Disinterested or unaware farmers do not act spontaneously. Voluntary action reaches mostly people who are already aware, while compulsory action does not always work. Hence the key is in training and education but it takes time and money. To upscale pilot programmes, one needs funds. The group agreed that an important issue is the question of scaling up from individual examples to full uptake of best practices.



• Both "carrots" and "sticks" are needed. One can start with voluntary measures in a first phase, but it will still be necessary to move on to heavier incentives and penalties to get all actors on board. [Water industry – Joosten] Moreover there exist incentives, which can provide multi-benefits, not only for water issues.

• On best practices, the issues are: at what level and how to define them. [COM ENV – d'Eugenio] They will need to be defined at all levels (EU/national/local) with general rules/codes at EU level and interpretation at local level. [Industry – King] Deadlines are needed for the uptake of best practices. [Water industry – Joosten]

• On the issue of diffusion of best practices: in some Member States training is only provided by industry. Could we envisage voluntary agreements with PPP producers to take on the training responsibility (as a corporate social responsibility issue)? [COM RTD – Tilche]

• More attention should be paid to definitions. Clarification is needed on whether good agricultural practice, good farming practice, good plant protection practice, etc. is meant when best or good practices are discussed.

• Often 80-90% of emissions are caused by 10-20% of the sources, e.g., the use of herbicides on hard surfaces, although less than 1% of the total use, causes 10-30% of the problems of the water-industry. For best results it is crucial to prioritise on the main sources (MS-NL – Faasen).

• Bridging research with practical advice to farmers is crucial. For instance, many problems come from applying PPP when weather conditions are not appropriate. Can a simple system of real-time advice to farmers based on sound science be developed? [Water industry – Breach]

• More involvement from southern Member States in the thematic strategy is needed. [Industry –King]

Based on this discussion, the thought starter document, and the presentations, the group agreed on common conclusions to be presented in the plenary session. See section 2.3.1 on page 29.

2.2.2 Working Group II: Integrated Crop Management

Working group II was chaired by Mr. Paul Gray from the Royal Institute for Sustainable Development, Mr. Bernhard Berger from the Water, Marine and Soil Unit of DG ENV was the rapporteur.

The chairman indicated the issues to be discussed in the working group:

1. IPM/ICM: common standards; relationship between Good Farming Practices (GAP) and ICM/IPM; IPM and CAP

2. Substitution

3. Training and Communication

4. Research

Working Group II: Presentations Mr. Jürgen Fröhling, from the European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture, stated that chemical crop protection – as one element of IPM – is an indispensable part of sustainable crop production. IPM is a dynamic and holistic system that needs high flexibility. Rather than definition of strict European rules or regulations, what is needed is a framework, which must include five core elements:



• An overall concept of Integrated Farming – such as e.g. the Common Codex of EISA – in which the full span of IPM can be applied.

• A flexible set of regional rules and guidelines of IPM. • Strengthening of independent regional advisory services. • A general acceptance of crop protection products (CPP) rather than diffuse fears and

uncertainties, fed by people and organisations promoting solely "reduction strategies". • Europe-wide harmonisation of regulations concerning CPP, in particular regarding

registration, use, monitoring and residues in food. Mr. Hans Muilerman, from the Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe, called for ICM as a minimum requirement for crop growing. He stressed that reducing PPP uses is difficult. It needs a combination of bans and better practices/management. He suggested the following actions:

• For better practices: a 80-20 rule of thumb could be set by which ICM uptake would reach a level in 2004 that reduces pesticide uses by 50%.

• Because voluntary schemes do not work, ICM could function as a minimum requirement, but it needs a clear definition and targets defined in an effective way.

• An effective system could combine two elements. On the one hand the definition of an ICM hierarchy of methods – there could be a one page ICM scheme for every crop. And, on the other hand, implementation of ICM in the authorisation process 5.

Mr. Bruno Huyghebaert, from the Agricultural Research Centre, Gembloux - Belgium, addressed sprayer inspection as a risk management tool. He presented the Belgian experience and stressed the following points:

• Good functioning of sprayers is one of the key elements to improve the quality of crop protection, users' and consumers' safety, and environmental protection.

• Voluntary or mandatory inspection of crop sprayers to ensure conformity is carried out in several European countries. However inspection rules are different from one country to another.

• Technical standards have been developed by CEN European Standardisation Organism and are available. There is a need for EU-wide harmonisation for new sprayer registration and inspection of sprayers already in use.

His final recommendation was to establish a compulsory control of spraying equipment in order to guaranty the overall application of quality standards for machinery in each Member States and also enforce training obligations.

Mr. Jean-François Misonne, from the Research Institute for Sugar Beet, Tienen – Belgium, presented an array of techniques that have been applied to sugar beet production and which can bring successful reductions in use of PPP. These included:

For insecticides and fungicides:

- Use of warning systems (crop damage thresholds, information systems). - More effective treatments (punctual applications, seed treatments that allows to reduce

the insecticide dose per ha by more than 90%). - Use of resistant varieties.

For herbicides:

5 See the presentation and schemes as proposed by Muilerman at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.



- Development of techniques (low dosages) using the same chemicals but on a different way that allows to reduce the dose per ha by 50%.

- Use of mechanical weed control. - Use of information systems.

Mr. Paul Leonard, from BASF and the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee, stressed that the diversity of control mechanisms (including chemical and non-chemical methods used in IPM and ICM) is an essential component of resistance management, and therefore also of sustainable agriculture. He insisted on the following points:

• Due to loss of crop protection products resulting from the review programme under Directive 91/414/EEC, the resistance management toolbox is getting smaller and this is not limited to minor crops.

• Crop protection products and non-chemical alternatives remaining on the market after re-registration will be subject to increased risk of resistance.

• Once lost, products and use patterns are effectively gone forever. • Further use restrictions are likely to increase resistance management problems. • For economic reasons, the greatest loss of product diversity is likely to occur in minor

crops. He concluded that this situation should be kept in mind when interpreting regulatory guidelines and that new active ingredients, modes of action and use patterns are badly needed to reverse this trend. However, the current rate of approval of new active ingredients in the EU is not likely to solve the problem in the foreseeable future. Sustainable use of crop protection products will therefore be increasingly dependent on resistance management to maintain efficacy of a rapidly decreasing tool-box of existing chemicals.

Mr. Maico Centis, from Provincia de Pordenone, addressed the issue of PPP information for consumers. He stressed the following points:

• the need to link the monitoring of pesticides with a flow of information and knowledge; • the importance of creating a stronger partnership between EU-Institutions and their

organisms (Eurostat, EEA, IES,…) to ensure more effective environmental indicators in the sector;

• the importance of bringing together national and regional authorities; • the need for a combination of a top-down approach of know-how transfer – from central

to local authorities (health, economic and political ones), from chemical producers to farmers – with a bottom-up approach for evaluation and benchmarking.

Working Group II: Discussion The presentations were followed by a discussion during which the following points were stressed:

On IPM/ICM common standards:

• Minimum standards are needed. General standards are an essential requirement for compliance. [Grain traders – Gruner]

• There is a need for EU common ICM standards and a link with WTO to develop global standards for ICM. [Farmers – Stallknecht]

• Some insisted that common criteria are needed for setting ICM standards, such as e.g., the hierarchy proposed in PAN presentation. Then local and crop standards must be defined. EU-wide or global standards are meaningless since local situations are not taken into account. [ENGOs – Muilerman] Others called for flexibility inside the ICM framework to



apply to different situations. [Frangenberg] Some pointed that regions with similar agro-environmental situations make more sense than national groupings. [Farmers - Ottenheim]

• It was stressed that ICM is a much broader concept than IPM. [Fröhling] Others agreed but consider that both have to be tackled. [COM – Berger] Others pointed to integral farm management and the need to look at the borders of the system [Farmers - Ottenheim]

• Definition of IPM and ICM concepts remains difficult. Different Members states have different definitions. But there is a need for common EU standards for ICM, which include IPM. [Research – Maraite] The group agreed on the need for an EU framework or guidelines.

• For a standard definition, there is a need to look at current ISO and CEN activities and to refer to those in the communication and future work. [Industry –Hagenvall]

• Best practices and varietal susceptibility to pests and diseases should be looked at when defining IPM. [ENGO – Williamson]

On the relationship between good farming practices (as a minimum environmental standard), ICM/IPM, and organic farming:

• Some consider that Good Farming Practices (GFP) include IPM and that IPM is used in organic farming.[ENGO] IPM is a strategy that brings together a range of technologies which farmers can use; organic farming choose to limit their use of some of these technologies. [Industry – Jones] COM [Berger] recalled that Good Farming Practices are minimum requirements, which farmers must comply with for environmental legislation and that organic farmers have their own rules. Some identified the need for a model, guidelines, and advisory services. [Frangenberg]

• Others ask for ICM to become the minimum requirement. CAP-related subsidies should be for farmers who go beyond. [ENGO – Muilerman] The link between GFP and ICM to subsidies under the CAP is crucial as farmers not using ICM would not get money. [COM – Berger]

• On labelling, some pointed out that ICM could lead to a total quality management label (such as the German TUF label on animal husbandry) rather than to a market label, whereas organic farming is a market label. [Fröhling] The question is whether an ICM label generates a price premium or whether it simply provides for good crop management and market access. The role of intermediate purchasers is important in this regard. [COM – Berger] Farmers indicated that higher production costs do not necessarily mean better prices, only market access. [Crop producers - Stallknecht] Also, labels need to be verifiable. [Grain traders – Gruner] ENGO [Muilerman] stressed the right to know, and the need for communication, information and transparency.

On substitution:

• The need to consider sustainability of IPM was stressed, in particular in case of substitution of one product by another, and considering resistance issues. [Industry – Kyndt] Others also insisted that resistance issues be acknowledged. [Industry – Jones]

• To implement ICM, a broad toolbox is needed. Hence farmers need high level of training and education. [Fröhling] The need for a balanced toolbox approach was also acknowledged by others. [Industry – Lorenz]

• Better application is an aspect of substitution, e.g., with microsprayers lower dosages can be reached. [Sprayer industry – Bals]

• Mechanical systems, which aim for better application, should be looked at as they can reduce use by up to 50%. [Research – Balsari] Spray producers support this approach as experience has shown improved application.



On training and communication:

• Grain traders [Gruner] stated that because of subsidies and compliance issues, training and help to farmers to implement ICM is needed.

• There is a link between Good Farming Practices and training: a definition of GFP and standards for training are needed. [Research – Ferrero]

• Moreover, training should help farmers to learn exactly what is necessary to achieve IPM standards. [ENGO – Williamson]

• Although training is important, one has to reflect on the impact training may have on small farmers and the growth of their activity. It could result in an increase in intensive farming and decrease in ICM. [Farmers - Ottenheim]

• Some indicated that training on spraying may result in a rise in use of chemicals, so training on sprayers needs to be combined with training on ICM/IPM. [Fröhling] Others consider that combined spraying and ICM training could push non-chemical options and substitution, hence reduce use of pesticides. [COM – Berger]

• Training and research must be accessible to all farmers. [Frangenberg] • Training must include techniques to evaluate the risk of not spraying. [Research –

Maraite] Based on this discussion, the thought starter document, and the presentations, the group agreed on common conclusions to be presented in the plenary session. See section 2.3.2 on page 30.

2.2.3 Working Group III: National Plans for Hazard, Risk and Dependence Reduction

Working group III was chaired by Mr. Klaus Berend from the Chemicals Unit of DG ENV, Mrs. Jeanne Richards, from OECD, was the rapporteur.

Working Group III: Presentations Mr. Herman Fontier, from the Belgian Ministry of Public Health, presented the Belgian experience and perspectives on the sustainable use of pesticides. As of today, Belgium has implemented the following measures:

- Obligation for sellers and users of pesticides to be licensed (dependent on PPP classification + derogation for professional farmers).

- Levy on PPP containers, unless 80% of used containers are collected, which led to the implementation of a voluntary collection schemes.

- Mandatory technical inspection of spraying equipment (since 1995). - Collection of data on sales and uses. - Levy on certain active substances. - Promotion of IPM (legal framework for IPM in pome fruits). - Record keeping of use of pesticides (today limited to certain vegetables in glasshouses

and pome fruits). - Financial support for scientific research related to sustainable use of pesticides.

- Severe restrictions on aerial spraying.

Future developments will be in the framework of the Federal Plan on Sustainable Development. For PPP, the following elements can be found in the Plan:

- a PPP use reduction plan, taking into account PPP properties; - codes of conduct; - legal and economic tools;



- coverage of sales of PPP to amateurs and use of PPP by authorities; - aim at the reduction and even the absence of residues in food;

- focus on substances which are highly prioritised in international agreements or conventions.

As a first step, the legislation on PPP is in the process of being amended to introduce:

- distinct authorisations of PPP destined for professional agricultural use, professional non-agricultural use, and amateur use;

- maximum traceability for all professional use products; - mandatory licences for all professional users, with permanent education requirements.

As a second step, the levy system on certain substances will be reconsidered to link it with (non-) respect of mitigation measures.

Mr. Peter Bergkvist, from the Swedish National Chemical Inspectorate, presented the Swedish experience. The first 15 years of the Swedish national reduction programme included the following key elements:

- Extensive review of all existing pesticides from 1990 to 1994. - The use of comparative assessment, the precautionary principle and decision-making

criteria to facilitate prompt and easy authorisation procedures. - Phase-out activities on certain unacceptable pesticides are considered to be

indispensable. - Mandatory training. A four-day training course is required for all farmers using

pesticides professionally. - Advisory service focusing on integrated and need-based crop protection. Examples of

areas covered are: pest forecasting and warning services, demonstration trials (for example on unsprayed edge zones), information on possibilities to reduce the dose rates.

- Research and development on need-based crop protection, spraying techniques etc. - Programme for voluntary testing of spraying equipment. - Farmer driven information campaign. - Monitoring programmes on pesticide residues in food and water. - Environmental levies (20 SEK per kg active substance).

The proposal for the next stage of the programme (2002-2006) includes:

- continuing the successful activities already implemented; - focussing on a number of selected use areas; - putting high priority on water contamination issues; - targeting the horticultural sector; - increasing farmers participation; - redefining present risk indicators and developing new indicators to be used at farm

level.

Factors of success included:

- balance between mandatory and voluntary elements; - activities performed at different levels and driven by different stakeholders; - full support of the programme from farmer organisations; - a joint work between environmental and agricultural authorities.

Mrs. Lise Nistrup Joergensen, from the Institute of Agronomic Sciences (Denmark), presented Danish experiences. She stressed the following points:



• Treatment frequency index (TFI) is used as a steering tool at farm level. It has the potential for being used as an overall tool in relation to intelligent crop protection practices.

• Advisory services need to: - focus on ‘translating’ information from research to farmers; - improve existing prognoses and warning systems on a national and regional basis; - establish demonstration farms; - calculate TFI at farm level (Target points); - establish farmers’ field groups with focus on low pesticide input.

• On-farm reduction should include: - less preventive application; - creation of weed maps and use of spot treatments against certain weed species; - minimisation of "cosmetic" treatments; - use of resistant varieties; - monitoring pests, weeds and insects in the field, and use of local warning systems; - creation of spray windows.

• On motivation: action plans have had a significant impact on farmers perception on the use of pesticides. Farmers are positive about the 2.0 TFI target. Further reductions of TFI (1,4-1,7) would require changes of common crop practises and further motivation of farmers.

Mrs. Gretta Goldenman, from Milieu Ltd., presented the case for mandatory use reduction elements in EU legislation, based on three main arguments: (i) the increasing presence of pesticides in EU groundwater is an indicator that voluntary "Good Plant Protection Practice" is not sufficient; (ii) use reduction can reduce both risk and dependency; and (iii) significant reductions in pesticide use have been shown to be economically possible (DK & D studies). She stressed the following points:

• Risk reduction strategies are most effective when set forth in explicit and comprehensive plans.

• National programmes are needed because of differences among Member States. • It is important to identify what the possible reductions in pesticide use are, by agricultural

sector and by crop. • National plans should include the following mandatory elements:

- national studies to determine levels of reductions in use that can be practicably achieved;

- qualitative and quantitative goals to achieve reductions in specific uses; - specific measures to achieve those goals; - financial capacity to implement the selected measures.

• Other mandatory measures should include: - ICM and IPM as a minimum standard; - minimum requirements for training and certification of pesticide dealers and extension

officers; - minimum levels of training as pre-conditions for licensing of pesticide operators,

including in non-chemical methods of pest control; - record-keeping (including at farm-level) and reporting.

Mr. Willem Kemmeren, from the Dutch Ministry of Environment, stressed the fact that stocks of obsolete pesticides are widespread in the world and form a severe threat of irreversible damage to human health and the environment. The situation in Central and



Eastern Europe (CEE) is an alarming one as stocks of obsolete pesticides are often left under poor management and control.

He presented the Dutch project: "Inventories of Obsolete Pesticides Stocks in Central and Eastern Europe", which aims at:

• assisting the Hungarian NGO Ipelska únia in setting up and carrying out pilot surveys in Slovakia and Hungary, following a 'bottom-up' approach involving all stakeholders including local governments and NGOs;

• assisting the establishment of mechanisms for regional collaboration by: - preparing a practical manual for (pilot) surveys for CEE countries and - developing a regional CEE web site for obsolete chemicals and a regional database of

stocks of obsolete pesticides.

Mr. John Vijgen, from International HCH and Pesticides Association, discussed the establishment of a "Central & Eastern European Fund" for the disposal and elimination of obsolete stockpiles of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). He called upon the EU to join forces with CEE countries to set a common strategy. In particular he urged the European Commission to:

• create temporary pilot projects in accession countries co-ordinated by IHPA; • use a careful step-by-step approach as shown by the Dutch Ministry project; • create awareness and commitment; • move towards an appropriate structure within a CEEC overall strategy.

Mrs. Tamsin Rose, from the European Public Health Alliance, listed the public health issues relating to PPP: (i) consumers' exposure; (ii) soil, groundwater and rain contamination; and (iii) exposure of farm workers and their families. She stressed the following points:

• PPP residues are a concern in the context of a healthy diet advice, which aims at greater consumption of fruits and vegetables, favouring plant-based oils, and good hydration.

• Exposure of vulnerable populations is a major health concern. • An effective PPP policy should include:

- the use of the precautionary principle in setting Maximum Residue Levels (MRL); - withdrawal from the market of the most toxic chemicals; - ongoing research into health impact of pesticides on adults and children; - reduction in pesticide use and treatment frequency; - effective monitoring and enforcement; - specific targets set at European levels for reduction of pesticide use; - support measures for farmers to adapt, training in good practice; - promotion of non chemical alternatives, including organic farming; - making data available to the public.

Working Group III: Discussion The presentations were followed by a discussion during which the following points were stressed:

On the role of the Community in a thematic strategy based on National Plans:

• There was a lively debate on risk vs. use reduction. Use reduction as an element of risk reduction seems to be an objective endorsed by the Community. [ENGO] Some see it as a positive point, as use reduction is a large part of risk reduction. [MS-FR – Portalez] While others consider that the use reduction approach is not appropriate and that a risk reduction



approach is the way to go. [Farmers - Pommaret] The approach should be a global risk reduction approach and not a series of isolated actions. [MS-PT – Alfarroba] Others also called for a combination of tools on top of a quantitative target. [Research – Steurbaut]

• The Community could provide guidance or standards for the national plans (comparable and uniform), e.g. taking IPPC Directive as a model. [MS-authority, Industry]

• Instead of plans, a network of measures could be created. [MS-authority – DE] • National plans need some harmonisation at Community level. To be effective, they should

include measures relating to users, packaging, equipment, etc. [MS-authority – DE] • On Natura 2000 sites, the approach proposed in the Communication is seen as not

appropriate by some. Risks in such areas should first be identified, then it should be identified whether pesticides must be limited. [Farmers - Pommaret]

• The thematic strategy has to be coherent and consistent with other frameworks (CAP, WFD, …). The link with CAP review is important. [MS authority – NL]

• International dimensions should be addressed in order not to export bad practices. Pesticides residues in imported food should be addressed [DG DEV – Legrand]

• Consumers need to recognise efforts made by farmers. For instance, GAP-code using farmers should be labelled. [MS authority – FR]

• Inspection and certification of equipment could be made mandatory in all of EU. [MS authority – BE]

• Enforcement is an important issue. • Some stated that southern EU MS need to do more and that the task will be more difficult

there. [Industry] Others disagreed, recalling that a lot has already been done in Italy, such as for instance an inventory of non-chemical alternatives. [IT-Industry]

• Essential requirements for the storage conditions at manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer and farmer levels should be considered [O’Brien - IE]

On indicators:

• The kind of data that is required needs to be identified. • Data collection can be a very challenging task. • Targets must have a foundation. Cost benefit analysis is needed. [Industry] • To set mandatory targets, the best available indicator should be chosen. Some advocate

treatment frequency indicator (TFI). [DK – Nistrup] But it was stressed that TFI is climate/pest dependant so that numbers vary from year to year. [Research – Steurbaut]

• Percentage of operator exposure was proposed as another possible indicator. [MS authority – NL]. Another possibility for indicator is residue data.

• A risk indicator can be developed as an additional tool. • Comparability of monitoring tools should be addressed (e.g. MRLs) [Research –

Steurbaut] On taxes and levies:

• Tax revenues go to central government funds whereas levies go back to the community they were raised from. The latter are favoured. Distortions of competition can happen if Member States all apply different levies.[Farmers – Wise + Industry]

• Some believe that taxes will not change behaviours. All recognise that funds are needed for education, training, extension services. [Industry]

• Some proposed that these funds be raised based on the polluter pays principle. [COM ENV - Berend]



On education and training:

• Training and education is needed for all life-cycle steps (use, storage, …) and all actors involved in the life-cycles. [MS authority - PT – Alfarroba + MS authority - IE]

• Training should be mandatory. • Information on pesticide use needs to be made available to consumers for each product on

the shelves [Consumer NGO]. A ‘pesticide pass’ is too much [UK Farmers] Based on this discussion, the thought starter document, and the presentations, the group agreed on common conclusions to be presented in the plenary session. See section 2.3.3 on page 31.



2.3 Conclusions of the Conference

In the final plenary session, the three break out groups presented their conclusions.

2.3.1 Conclusions of Working Group I: Water Resources

What Role for the thematic strategy? What role can the thematic strategy play for complementing existing legal instruments (WFD & PPP directive)?

There is a role and there are elements to support existing legislation. Emphasis should be put on :

• Necessary co-ordination at all levels. • Clear attribution of responsibilities in order to avoid duplication and/or confusion.

Goals

• While there is disagreement about the level of reduction needed, there is agreement that reduction of pesticides residues in water is needed.

• Goals for surface water and groundwater should be discussed in a differentiated way. • There exist differences in views in particular regarding criteria for surface water.

Sources

• All sources should be addressed: agricultural and non-agricultural. • Even within agricultural sources, identifying the (main) sources is a pre-requisite to

developing a tool. • Proper uses and misuses have to be differentiated when identifying the source of

pesticides.

THEMATIC STRATEGY OVERVIEW-WATER

GOALS

INCENTIVISATION

TOOLS

PESTICIDESOURCES

WFD/PPPDHow can the thematic strategy complement the legislation?

•Differences of opinion regarding the extent to which existingcontamination needs to be reduced - agreement about the need tostart reducing residues in water•Differentiate between surface and groundwater

SURFACE GROUND

•Agriculture key but do not forget others•Identification of main sources is prerequisite

•What tools are available at EU and MS level?•Which work best at which level - EU/MS/local?

•Which are best deployed at EU level - funding?•How to balance the sticks and carrots?



Tools

• A variety of tools were presented (training, awareness raising, technology transfer,…). • It is important to link research to practical applications. • Identifying the appropriate level for tool definition and application is important. • Best practices should be promoted at all levels. In this regard there is a role for initiatives

at all levels but also at EU level. However clarification is needed in terms of "what" practices (good farming practices, good agricultural practices, good plant protection practices, best farming practices, etc.)

• A mix of tools should be used, depending on local conditions, however there is a debate on voluntary vs. mandatory instruments.

Incentives

• Discussion on incentives (rather than penalties) was appreciated. This also links to a wider non-water specific debate.

• A right balance between "carrots" and "sticks" should be found. • Target groups for incentives should be defined. • With respect to incentives, funding aspects become crucial and have to be addressed in the

Thematic Strategy.

2.3.2 Conclusions of Working Group II

Discussion Items

• IPM/ICM Common Standards • Substitution • Training • Communication • Research

IPM/ICM Common Standards

• WG II agreed on the necessity for an EU Policy framework. • EU harmonised guidelines/criteria on essential requirements are necessary taking into

account regional/local aspects based on environmental and agricultural situations and international obligations e.g., WTO…

ICM and good farming practices

• WG II agreed that good farming practices are the basis (conformity with EU legislation) which could include some aspects of ICM.

• ICM in general goes beyond good farming practices (more thought necessary; some participants consider ICM as minimum).

• Control and certification of application equipment, training and techniques on dose optimisation relevant to ICM and good farming practices (more thought necessary; check progress on development of standards ISO/CEN).

• Acknowledge resistance issues.

ICM and CAP

• ICM should be able to benefit from CAP support (agri-environment).



Substitution

• At farm level look at substituting chemicals by non-chemical methods and practices and address all methods of risk reduction.

• Keep the toolbox sufficiently broad.

Training

• ICM is knowledge intensive, therefore training is a crucial element. • Common EU training standards are needed.

Communication

• Communication of ICM to farmers, consumers , and other stakeholders is important. • Labelling is useful for transparency and market access but does not give premium price. • Further discussions are necessary on implementation of labelling at EU level.

Research

• As ICM is knowledge intensive, research is crucial. • There is not enough knowledge on interaction of different ICM tools. • Need more research on ICM in general such as:

- Application techniques - Modern technologies such as precision farming - Risk assessment methods such as prediction methods.

2.3.3 Conclusions of Working Group III

National Plans on Risk Reduction

• Considered useful – should be developed in all Member States. • Use reduction as an essential tool for risk reduction was supported by several

stakeholders. • Subsidiarity – Role of EU modelled on IPPC Directive: EU provides general framework

and standards; details are decided at M/S level. • Comprehensive – wide range of measures – network of instruments – mandatory and

voluntary and economic incentives. • Coherence with other plans such as WFD or Rural Development. • Link to CAP Review. • Despite differences in M/S North – South, many common problems and objectives. • No agreement on Mandatory Quantified Targets • Stakeholders involvement is essential • Overall targets should be translated to something that is applicable at farm level. • Backup of proposed measures through Research & Development (including economic

cost/benefit analysis) & extension. • Studies at national level to explore possibilities for use reduction.

Monitoring and Indicators

• Need to measure progress. • Most suitable indicator – divergent views:



- frequency of treatment indicator useful as a start but others important too; - operator exposure and exposure during re-entry; - environmental Monitoring (water, soil, …); - residues in food.

• Getting data for indicators can be difficult

Taxes and Levies

• Support for Harmonisation of VAT. • Divergent views on levies or environmental taxes. • Threat of levy or other economic tools can trigger behavioural change (example

packaging BE).

Education and Training

• Broad support – very important – should be part of National Plans. • Certification of users, distributors, and equipment. • Access to information by consumers – necessary but not clear how. • Minimum storage standards.

Obsolete Pesticides in CEE Countries

• European funding for initiatives modelled along existing pilot experiments is required.

2.3.4 Closing Remarks

Mrs. Catherine Day, Director General, Environment DG, reminded the participants that such extensive discussions with stakeholders in advance of legislative or other proposals is still a relatively new way to work for the European Commission. She thanked the participants for their fruitful input, which will feed into the open questions that were outlined in the Communication and help the Commission write the proposal for the future thematic strategy.

The Conference again showed that there is no simple answer to the complex issue of sustainable use of pesticides as there is a need to combine a variety of instruments.

She thanked the participants for their openness, transparency and clarity, which are necessary elements for a proper consultation and she called upon stakeholders to further contribute to the debate, in particular through the Internet consultation, in order to ensure that the future Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides is successful and reflects a balanced approach.

*


Annex 1: Summary list of issues, instruments and initiatives for working group discussions NATIONAL PLANS

Issues Possible instruments /initiatives National Plans • Mandatory preliminary studies for the design of national plans

• EU level mandatory targets and timetables for establishment of national plans • National plans to include detailed description of how targets and timetables will be met • Focus on risk reduction vs. use reduction • Local infrastructure specificity to be accounted for in design of national plans • EU level system of incentives to shift to less PPP-incentive / PPP-free practices • Participation of all stakeholders and public authorities in the design of national plans • Regular reporting and evaluation of results of national plans • National plans to include reduction measures for all areas under control of public authorities • Co-ordination of national plans with river basin management plans • Co-ordination of national plans with rural development plans • Specific measures to reduce PPP use in environmental sensitive areas • Definition of areas of zero PPP use • Inclusion of process of dissemination of research in national plans • Inclusion of demonstration programmes on reduction of frequency of application in national plans • Organisation of EU workshop on PPP use reduction strategies and exchange of MS experience

Monitoring and indicators • Agreement on indicators preliminary to national plans • Reporting of progress on national plans initially based on most suitable available indicators • Use of frequency of application as the main indicator in first phase • Definition of baselines • International development of indicators and implementation in member states • Toxicity and ways of use to be considered in indicator design • Input use to be considered against output in indicator design • Monitoring to include agricultural and forest soils, aquatic environment, residues in food and feedstuff • Co-ordinated data collection programmes on production, import, export, sales, distribution and use of PPP


• Reinforcement, enlargement and co-ordination of current residue monitoring programmes • Mid- to long-term epidemiological research programme on PPP users at risk • Research on cocktail effect • Monitor multiple source of exposures • Co-ordinated monitoring programme on PPP residue levels, in particular for groups at risk • Monitoring programme on biodiversity • Monitoring programme on soil • Co-ordinated reporting and analysis system on incidents linked to exposure • Monitoring of imported products • Public access to all test results • "pesticide pass" for products

Taxes and levies • Normal rate harmonisation of VAT • Further research into cost, benefits and externalities of PPP use and alternative methods to assess

appropriateness of EU levies on PPP • Use of income from levies to assist farmers in shift to beneficial practices

Education, training, access to information

• Introduction of system of mandatory education, awareness raising, training and certification for all PPP users, including users licensing and system to assess compliance

• Special regulation on training • Refresher training on new development, best practices and environmental matters • Link between compliance to training requirements and support under the CAP • Flexibility for implementation of training in member states • Redefinition of business confidential information • Full access to information on pesticides • Better and more complete information of the public on pesticides

Packaging • System of regular and safe collection, re-use and destruction of PPP packaging under the responsibility of PPP producers and approved by competent authorities


ICM

IPM/ICM • Develop common standards for ICM • Minimum requirements for promotion of IPM/ICM at Community level • Integration of IPM in codes of good farming practice • Further development of agri-environment schemes to promote ICM • Agri-environment schemes as incentives to go beyond ICM • Impose penalties on users for non-respect of environmental requirements • Improve market access for ICM products • Allow for flexibility on IPM implementation • Reinforce rural development provisions to promote ICM • Target for mandatory uptake of ICM • Harmonise rules for withholding of support payment as incentives • Mandatory IPM in all significant non-agricultural measures • Address resistance management needs when developing IPM systems

Organic production • Minimum requirements for promotion of organic farming at Community level • Further development of agri-environment schemes to promote organic farming • Reinforce rural development provisions to promote organic farming • Target of 30% of cultivated land in organic farming within 10 years

GMT • Examine potential of GMT as alternative to chemical control • Exclude GMT as alternative to chemical controls • Exclude GMT from IPM

Substitution • Amend directive 91/414 to include substitution principle • Substitution principle not at farmer's level, rather at MS level or product level • Substitution principle not only for more dangerous PPPs • Maintenance of product diversity • Create EU database on alternatives to PPPs

Application and storage equipment

• System of regular mandatory inspection of application equipment with compliance monitoring and link to CAP support

• Mandatory technical inspection of storage facilities • Harmonised minimum standards for PPP storage at wholesale, retail and farm level


• Mandatory technical inspection of dealers Aerial spraying • General ban on aerial spraying

• Allow derogations from general ban on aerial spraying based on environmental and economic considerations Training • More training and enhanced information fluxes on ICM

• Develop EU-level training standards on ICM • Improve communication about ICM, IPM, organic, etc. • Use inspections as a platform to increase users' awareness

Research • Support R&D on IPM • Support R&D on organic farming • Support R&D on less hazardous methods of application and handling • Support R&D on point source contamination • Designate Community agency to co-ordinate research on IPM / ICM and application / handling • Improve transfer of research to final user • Establish a GAP research facility


WATER RESOURCES

Specific PPP initiatives for WFD implementation

• Co-ordination of national plans under thematic strategy with river basin management plans of WFD • Define baseline of good farming practice at river basin level • Introduce best practices in river basin management • Include PPP-use in WFD codes of good practices that may be set as supplementary measures (Art. 11(4)) • Quantitative goals for elimination of residues from groundwater (on uses? on residues? on some priority

substances? progressive?) • Sustainable use programmes • Bans for priority substances • Bans near drinking water wellheads • Bans in vulnerable zones • Bans in buffer zones • Establishment of pilot catchment forums to assess best practices • Incentives for development and uptake of water treatment technologies

Financial support to farmers • Investment aids for more environment-friendly application equipment under rural development plans • Specific agri-environment measures to reduce PPP pollution in sensitive areas beyond legal requirements and

GAPs • Farmer compensation for new legal restrictions from WFD regarding pesticides application • Linkage of CMO support with river basin-level GAP codes which would include use limitations for priority

substance PPP and rules on plant protection practice Non-agricultural uses • All products containing priority substances as identified in WFD excluded for non-professional uses Handling/cleaning operations • Mandatory application equipment inspection

• Rules for handling/cleaning/application in GAPs Training • Farming practice training for more water-friendly agricultural production Monitoring • Co-ordination of monitoring under PPP regulations with monitoring under WFD

• Implement incidents reporting systems and centralise information at EU level • Creation of EU Observatory for pesticides