MEPs softened their stance on new pesticides legislation

Date:11-17-2008

EURO-MPs softened their stance on new pesticide legislation last week after Farmers Guardian stepped up its Backing British Growers campaign.

However, experts admitted the environment committee vote was still a “huge disappointment” for farmers.
Before the controversial vote, Farmers Guardian sent a detailed impact assessment to all environment committee members. The assessment described how committee proposals could seriously hamper farmers’ ability to protect crops from debilitating pests and disease.

Farmers Guardian warned: “With European food mountains a thing of the past and world population increasing rapidly, it is clear farmers now need to produce more food than ever before.

“According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, world food production will have to increase 50 per cent by 2030 to meet the growing demand.

“However, industry experts, eminent scientists and farmers from across Europe havetold us European production would decrease and foodprices would increase if your report is accepted. This is clearly unsustainable.”

Farmers’ armoury
It appears the message has started to filter through to some MEPs who back-tracked on their hard stance.
Yet they stopped short of voting for the more favourable Council common position supported by the industry.
The committee report, albeit watered down, still looks set to remove key pesticides from farmers’ armoury.
MEPs confirmed certain toxic chemicals would be banned, except where there is a serious danger to plant health.

The chemicals banned would be endocrine-disrupting (affect hormones), genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction.

Proposals disaster
And while the figure may no longer be the cataclysmic 85 per cent of pesticides experts had initially predicted could be lost, the new amendments could still remove any number between 5 and 50 per cent, depending on so far unsubstantiated assessments.

European Crop Protection Association director general Friedhelm Schmider said the parliament’s proposals were still a disaster.

“The proposals made by the environment committee will hamstring European farmers who are striving to produce high quality food at affordable prices in response to European consumers who want more nutritious, fresh fruit and vegetables, produced locally,” he said.

Industry will have one last chance to influence the European Parliament when all 785 MEPs vote on the environment committee report in January. how you can lobby your MEP on the vote.

NFU vice-president, Paul Temple, gives his verdict on the controversial vote
“WE were disappointed with the outcome of the vote for two reasons:
The failure to consider many of the positive amendments submitted, and the failure to accept the Council common position. However, the environment committee position has shifted a long way from that adopted last year which is a positive move.

Overall, our concern remains that anything other than acceptance of the Council common position will be disastrous for certain sectors. In horticulture, for example, some crops are already down to their last herbicide and even that is now under threat.

What happens next 
A compromise agreement between the Council common position and the parliament position is now much closer than before and meetings are being held to explore this.?

The environment committee report is likely to be voted on by all MEPs in the January plenary and we will urge MEPs to support the Council common position and reject the environment committee amendments.

What will the NFU do 
We will continue to use all our resources to fight to get the final version of these proposals into a form which will allow UK farmers to continue to produce sufficient quantities of safe and affordable food.

Key issues remain over the need for a full EU-wide impact assessment, the need to consider what to do with imported food stuffs that contain banned pesticides and the need to clarify many areas of the text.

Lobbying is clearly working – we congratulate campaigns including Farmers Guardian’s Backing British Growers for raising the profile in Europe – but more must be done to avoid a disastrous outcome. Please play your part too.”

What the vote means
After the environment committee vote last week Farmers Guardian has worked with NFU plant health advisor, Paul Chambers, to break down the highly technical report.

POSITIVES
MEP opinion is slowly changing.
The MEPs:
Did vote for several improvements on last year’s first reading.
Did only win the committee vote by a narrow margin – one third voted against.
Did accept an amendment to consider bee toxicity on risk, not hazard-based criteria.
Did accept an amendment to allow the derogation for active ingredients to stay on the market in the absence of alternatives.
Did accept an amendment to renew candidates for substitution in the absence of alternatives.
Did accept an amendment on funding for minor uses.
Did accept an amendment to put Persistent Organic Polluters in line with international standards.

NEGATIVES
However, the MEPs:
Did not consider an amendment to conduct an EU-wide impact assessment covering crop yields, food prices and economic activity before new pesticide rules come into force.

Did not consider an amendment to improve rules on the derogation.
Did not accept an amendment to better define negligible exposure.
Did not accept the Council common position to adequately define endocrine disruptors.
Called for increased record keeping, bureaucracy and paperwork for all pesticide users.
Rejected the three-zone concept, which would provide faster and more equal access to new pesticides.
Extended cut-off criteria that will dramatically reduce access to certain pesticides.?

IN ADDITION, a separate MEP vote on the sustainable use directive (part of the pesticides package) threw up some potential problems with suggestions to introduce a pesticide tax, use reduction targets and buffer zones in residential areas.