In a recent communication sent to the delegations of the Council of the European Union, ahead of the Working Party on Plants and Plant Health Questions (Pesticides/Plant Protection Products) on 16th of October 2023, the Spanish Presidency shared a Steering Note and Joint comments from BG, CZ, EE, HU, IT, LV, LT, MT, PL, RO and SK. These 11 Member States deviate far from the Commission’s proposal for the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products, suggesting sever watering down the vital parts of the proposal related to national reduction targets and IPM.
The note aims for the deletion of binding national pesticide reduction targets and proposed the implementation of IPM "when appropriate". The outcome of such provisions would be detrimental to the European Green Deal goal of a 50% reduction in pesticide use and risk. Experience teaches that, without result-based approach and clear obligations and rules for Member States, no progress in pesticide reduction will take place: since IPM became mandatory for all Member States in 2014 through the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD), no national enforcement of IPM took place. These 11 Member States thus propose that the SUR becomes even weaker than the SUD. This is in total contradiction with the result of the successful European Citizens Initiative (ECI) 'Save Bees and Farmers' 1 , the 6th successful ECI from the EU since 2012, and already the second anti-pesticides ECI, that asked for a phase-out of synthetic pesticides by 2035.
In their statement, Member States ask also for the possibility to revise the National Action Plans in case of special circumstances, so-called “unpredictable reasons”, which cover a wide range of events that would cover for the lack of Member States' ambitions. For example, the document suggests even allowing the possibility to increase the use of more hazardous plant protection products, due to the lack of alternatives, while the best and most pressing alternative is the implementation of IPM. An EU-funded research project 2 shows that IPM is a cost-effective alternative to pesticides. Such a request for additional 'derogations' is not supported by science nor by facts. A true IPM starts with agronomic measures, including crop rotation, undersowing, intercropping, etc., to continue with mechanical and physical control, forecasting and monitoring, after which biocontrol can be used when needed. Only after these measures do not prevent the damage of a crop beyond economic thresholds, the use of chemical pesticides should be allowed.