15 Amendments of Fredrick FEDERLEY related to 2017/2284(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Regrets that in some Member States the training and certification requirements of the Directive are not fully met; underlines the importance of training of users to ensure the safe and sustainable use of PPPs; considers it fitting to distinguish between professional and amateur users, given that they are not subject to the same obligations; emphasises that professional and non- professional users of PPPs should receive adequate training; stresses that PPPs are not only used in agriculture, but also for weed and pest control in urban areas, including public parks and railways;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Highlights that sustainable and responsible use of pesticides is a precondition for the authorisation of plant protection products;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used; regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no real commitment tostresses the importance of commitment from Member States to apply integrated pest management (IPM) and thusto developing a more environmentally- sustainable agriculture with lower costs for farmers;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Encourages the focus on reducing risks that pesticides entail, as limited use of a high-risk plant protection products can be more harmful then extensive usage of a low-risk plant protection products; underlines that this risk reduction should go hand in hand with use reduction;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Underlines that there is always a certain amount of risk involved when one interferes in nature, whether it is with chemical, biological or low-risk plant protection products. Risks can never be excluded, however, they can be managed. Therefore, legislation in the field of plant protection products should set up criteria and levels for acceptable risk;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Underlines the central role IPM plays to reduce pesticide use; acknowledges the willingness of farmers to use IPM, but understands that farmers are reluctant to apply new methods for pest management, if they face an unacceptably high risk to their economic viability in case these methods do not work;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Stresses the importance of the availability of low-risk pesticides, adequate research and the sharing of best practices within and among Member States to fully utilise the potential of integrated pest management.
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no realt sufficient commitment to IPM practices, which are the cornerstone of the directive; underlines the fact that rigorous implementation of IPM is one of the key measures to reduce dependency on pesticide use in sustainable agriculture, which is environmentally friendly, economically viable and socially responsible and contributes to Europe’s food security while strengthening biodiversity and human and animal health, boosting the rural economy and reducing costs for farmers by facilitating the market uptake of low-risk and non-chemical alternatives; stresses that additional financial incentives are needed to strengthen the uptake of IPM practices by individual farms;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Stresses the importance of the availability of low-risk pesticides, adequate research and the sharing of best practices within and among Member States to fully utilise the potential of integrated pest management.
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. Acknowledges the willingness of farmers to use IPM, but understands that farmers are reluctant to apply new methods for pest management if they face an unacceptably high risk to their economic viability in case these methods do not work;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Stresses that the common agriculture policy (CAP), in its current form, is not sufficiently capable of reducing farms’ dependency on pesticides; considers that specific policy instruments in the post- 2020 CAP are required in order to help change farmers’ behaviour as regards pesticide use, such as fiscal measures at national level, cross- compliance between IPM and CAP direct payments etc.;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Encourages more focus on risk reduction, as extensive use of low-risk substances might be more harmful than limited use of high-risk substances;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Regrets that in some Member States the training and certification requirements of the Directive are not fully met; underlines the importance of training of users to ensure the safe and sustainable use of PPPs; considers it fitting to distinguish between professional and amateur users, given that they are not subject to the same obligations; emphasises that professional and non- professional users of PPPs should receive adequate training; stresses that PPPs are not only used in agriculture, but also for weed and pest control in urban areas, including public parks and railways;
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Highlights that sustainable and responsible use of pesticides is a precondition for the authorisation of plant protection products;
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16 a. Recommends to give Member States the flexibility to apply IPM as part of the greening measures under the CAP;