18 Amendments of Pavel TELIČKA related to 2017/2128(INI)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the implementation of the Regulation is notshould be in line with related EU policies, including in the field of pesticides;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas the available evidence shows that the practical implementation of the three main instruments of the Regulation – approvals, authorisations and enforcement of regulatory decisions – is unsatisfactory and does not ensure the fulfilment of the purpose of the Regulationcould be improved;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. Considers that the burden of proof should remain on the applicant, so as to ensure that public money is not spent on studies which can eventually benefit private interests; at the same time, stresses that transparency must be ensured at each step of the authorisation procedure fully in line with intellectual property rights while ensuring that good laboratory principles are consistently upheld throughout the Union;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas there are concerns associated with the practical implementation of the established evaluation approach; whereas in particular there are major concerns associated with the incomplete harmonisation of data requirements and methodologies used in some scientific fields that may hinder the evaluation process and thus may lead to direct negative effects on public health and the environment;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the performance of national competent authorities was found to be a major factor influencing the evaluation of active substances; whereas there are substantial differences among Member States as regards available expertise and staff; whereas the Regulation and relevant supporting legal requirements are not uniformly implemented across Member States with relevant health and environment implications;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas transparency in all stages of the approval procedure is insufficient and leads to negative effects on health and the environment and provokescould be improved, which would lead to increased public mistrust in the system regulating pesticide substances; whereas the transparency of the authorisation related activities of competent authorities iscould also unsatisfactorybe improved; welcomes the proposed changes to the General Food Law to address this problem;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the importance of a regulatory framework on plant protection products at EU level, that protects the environment and human health, and also stimulates research and innovation in order to develop effective and safe plant protection products;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Highlights that special attention should be given to the role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the development of new plant protection products, as SMEs often lack the significant resources that are necessary it develop new substance;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1e. Emphasises that special attention and support should be given to plant protection products for minor uses, as there is currently little economic incentive for companies to develop these products;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the objectives and instruments of the Regulation and its implementation are not in always sufficiently streamlined with EU policies in the fields of agriculture, food security, water quality, climate change, sustainable use of pesticides and maximum residue levels of pesticides in food and feed;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Is concerned by the steadily increasing use and identified cases of misuse of emergency authorisations granted under Article 53; Considers that further efforts are needed to ensure that both Union and national agencies have sufficient capacities to process applications for PPP authorisations in order to avoid frequent use of emergency authorisations; Is concerned that Article 53 has been misused for the authorisation of plant protection products;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is concerned that the incomplete harmonisation of data and testing requirements in some scientific fields may lead to direct negative effects on health, the environment and agricultural producthe evaluation of plant protection products has not been fully achieved, leading to inefficient working methods, lack of trust among national authorities, and unnecessary delays of authorisations;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Is concerned that, in some cases, the PPPs available on the market and their application by users do not necessarily comply with the relevant authorisation conditions as regards their composition and usage; underlines the importance of training for professional users; emphasizes that non-professional use should be limited when possible in order to reduce misuse;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses the added value of biological products to the market of plant protection products; acknowledges the need for more research into these products as their composition and functioning is radically different from conventional products; underlines this also includes the need for more expertise within EFSA to evaluate these biological active substances; and more expertise in the national competent authorities to evaluate these products;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Highlights that many authorised PPPs have not been evaluated against EU standards for more than 15 years, as a consequence of delays in the authorisation procedures;
Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to limit the authorisations granted under better implement the national authorisation procedures, in order to limit derogations usingnder Article 53 of the Regulation;