EU lawmakers facing a difficult time agreeing on a text to reduce the use of pesticides, with a debate in the European Parliament on Tuesday replicating some of the controversies seen earlier in the year for the bloc’s nature restoration bill.

Ahead of Wednesday’s vote, the MEPs discussed on Tuesday a text by rapporteur Sarah Wiener (Greens) on the European Commission’s proposal “for a regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products”, also known as the sustainable pesticide use directive (SUD).

First tabled in June 2022, the bill already faced delay due to emergency measures being established on food security owing to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disruption normal import routes.

The proposal would set legally binding targets at EU level to reduce by 50% the use and the risk of chemical pesticides as well as the use of the more hazardous pesticides by 2030, in line with the EU’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy for a sustainable agriculture, while allowing some flexibilities at a member state’s level.

Both the Parliament and Council of member states are scrutinising the bill in a parallel process that will eventually require both the legislative institutions to agree for the bill to pass into law.

In Parliament, Wiener proposed a more ambitious plan (that resulted in almost 3,000 amendments tabled within the committee) including measures to:

• raise reduction targets to 80% by 2030;
• shift the reference period for the targets to 2018-2020, instead of 2015-2017;
• adjust the definition scope (exclusion of nitrate-sensitive areas, inclusion of nationally protected areas limited to those where the conservation objectives relate to nature, biodiversity, and/or habitat protection);
• expand buffer zones to 10 metres (50 meters for areas primarily frequented by vulnerable populations and for the use of highly hazardous plant protection products);
• allow derogations from the general ban on pesticide use to products approved for organic farming for certain types of areas;
• create a state fund which could also be fed by a risk-based levy or tax on plant protection products, to ensure that enough resources are available for implementing the regulation.

In the Council, work is still ongoing, with discussions on hold after ministers had asked the Commission to prepare an impact study.

In response to the Council request, the Commission submitted the report last July, confirming the need for reduction in chemical pesticide use and risk, and concluding that the pesticide reduction goals envisaged in the proposal would not threaten food security, but rather safeguard it in the longer term.

A Council spokesperson told Carbon Pulse that the aim is to reach a general approach at December’s meeting of the Agrifish Council. In the meantime, technical sessions are scheduled at working party level, where the Spanish presidency may propose a compromise text.

POLITICS BEHIND FOOD SECURITY

Following a pattern experienced with the nature restoration law, the proposal’s opponents cited food security as a citizens’ right that would be threatened by more careful practices.

For the centre-right EPP group’s chief negotiator Alexander Bernhuber, reducing pesticides “without suitable low-risk alternatives while simultaneously placing additional burdens on farmers is not a sustainable solution”.

“New legislation must not make food more expensive, must not reduce food production in Europe and must not lead farmers quitting their business,” he said.

Franc Bogovic, the EPP group’s negotiator of the law in the agriculture committee, professed to be “on the side of farmers, consumers and technological progress”.

Similarly to what the EPP argued for nature protection, Bogovic insisted “the current proposed law is simply not fit for purpose”.

On the other hand, the centre-left S&D group highlighted that reducing pesticides is a pillar of the European Green Deal.

Marie Arena, the S&D negotiator on the file, underlined that “the European Parliament has the chance to adopt an ambitious law that addresses the looming threat of pesticides in Europe”.

“The new pesticides regulation goes beyond restrictions; it offers substantial support to facilitate our farmers’ transition to greener and healthier agriculture,” she said.

Today’s testy debate comes just a week after the Parliament’s environment committee’s chair, Pascal Canfin, said he was positive that the deep parliamentary divisions sown over the nature restoration bill had seem “more and more behind us”.

By Emanuela Barbiroglio – emanuela@carbon-pulse.com