67 Amendments of Mairead McGUINNESS related to 2017/2128(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that an implementation report for Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is being undertaken with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health as well as the environment, food safety and environmental protection, while safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector by providing a level playing field through access to a broad range of active substances and Plant Protection Products (PPP) for allto farmers and producers, irrespective of thewhich Members States they are operating in;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the evaluation of the implementation of the Regulation revealed that the health and environmental protection objectives are not being achievedshowed its objectives to be relevant while identifying areas for improvement;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that an implementation report for Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is being undertaken with the aim of ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health as well as the environment, while safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector by providing access to a broad range of reasonably-priced active substances and Plant Protection Products (PPP) for all farmers and producers, irrespective of the Members States they are operating in;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the EU authorisation system for plant protection products is internationally recognised as one of the strictest systems in the world; whereas its elements, inter alia the thorough peer- review process as well as the strict separation between risk assessment and risk management, already ensure a high level of food safety;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the evaluation of the implementation of the Regulation should be considered in conjunction with the EU’s overarching pesticide policy including regulations: Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128/EC, Biocides Regulation EU 528/2012 Maximum Residue Level EC 396/2005, and General Food Law 178/2002;
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 14 #
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 18 #
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 unsatisfactoryleaves room for improvement and does not ensure the complete fulfilment of the purposeobjectives of the Regulation;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas there are concerns associated with the evaluation approach, as established by law, in particular as regards who should produce the evidence forscientific studies and evidence for the active substance evaluations and the use of the hazard- based approach during these evaluations;
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 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas there are concerns associated with the practical implementation of the establishedtwo-tier evaluation approach; whereas in particular there are major concerns associated with the incomplete harmonisation of data requirements and methodologies used in some scientific fieldduring evaluations of the products that may hinder the evaluation process and thus may lead to direct negative effects on public health and the environmentelays in the approval process;
Amendment 30 #
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 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 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas transparency inat all stages of the approval procedure is insufficient and leads to negative effects on health and the environment and provokes public mistrustcould be improved; increased transparency may help to encourage public confidence in the system regulating pesticide substancelant protection products; whereas the transparency of the authorisation related to the activities of competent authorities is also unsatisfactorcan be further developed; whereas the European Commission has proposed changes to the General Food Law with an aim to address concerns relating to the data and evidence supplied during the evaluation process and to increase transparency;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that this regulation is part of the wider EU Plant Protection Products (PPP) regime, which also includes the Sustainable Use Directive (SUD) and the regulation setting Maximum Residue Levels (MRL), and that all three parts must be considered together in order to identify whether they are fit for purpose, including with a view to reducing the total volume of PPPs used;
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 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that all future reviews of the regulatory framework for PPPs should encourage competitiveness and innovation in order to produce PPPs that are compatible with sustainable agriculture systems, environmentally sound, effective and affordable;
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Stresses the need to distinguish between the professional and the private use of PPPs, given that they do not share the same framework obligations, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to clearly distinguish between these two kinds of use and to amend the rules accordingly;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the non-application of plant protection products in crop production can also lead to health consequences for example build-up of mycotoxins; whereas plant protection products play a role in food safety;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Highlights the important role PPPs play in enabling crops to be grown and harvested with reduced losses arising from diseases and pest infestations, and increasing quality yields and rural incomes;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notes that PPPs represent a significant expense for farmers as part of their crop production systems;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. Whereas a wide variety of safe and effective tools are needed to protect plant health;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I c (new)
Recital I c (new)
Ic. Whereas there has been no new active substances put forward for approval since May 31st 2016; whereas innovation and development of new products, particularly low-risk products, is important;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I d (new)
Recital I d (new)
Id. Whereas the availability of counterfeit pesticides on the market is of real concern; whereas counterfeit pesticides can be harmful to the environment and also damage the effectiveness of the Regulation;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers that the EU is the appropriate level at which regulatory action in the field of pesticides should continue to take place; notes that the EU plant protection products approval process is one of the most stringent in the world;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of a science-based approach in authorising any active substance, in line with the EU’s risk analysis principles and the precautionary principle as established in the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002); calls therefore for an adequate and sufficient funding as well as for the appropriate amount of staff of the relevant agencies such as for example EFSA, ECHA, etc. in order to ensure an independent, transparent and timely authorization process;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of a science-based approach in authorising any active substance, in line with the EU’s risk analysis principles and the precautionary principle as established in the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002); expresses concern about the impact of recent political debates on EFSA and ECHA and their role in the authorisation of active substances;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of a science-based approachn approach based on sound, objective and non-discriminatory scientific principles in authorising any active substance, in line with the EU’s risk analysis principles and the precautionary principle as established in the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002);
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 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Expresses concerns about the low number of new active substances that have been approved, both conventional, low-risk and biological active substances; stresses the importance of a broad range of plant protection products to tackle plant health issues and to secure the EU's food supply;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned by the fact that the Regulation has not been effectively implemented and that as a result its objectives are not being achieved in practicehas led to significant delays in the approval process;
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 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the objectives and instruments of the Regulation and its implementation are not inshould be line with EU policies in the fields of agriculture, food security, climate change, sustainable use of pesticides and maximum residue levels of pesticides in food and feed;
Amendment 89 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Underlines the role of Member States in the effective implementation of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009; highlights the benefits of efficient authorisation, including more timely access to PPPs including low risk alternatives;
Amendment 97 #
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; notes that some member states use Article 53 significantly more than others; notes the Commission’s decision to mandate EFSA to investigate Member States' use of emergency authorisations in 2017 in light of the 2013 restrictions on the three neonicotinoids;
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 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need to encourage work sharing and information exchange between Member States by fostering the availability and use of harmonised methodology and models to conduct evaluations, while reducing the existence of additional national requirements, in order to ensure the optimal operation of the internal market;
Amendment 108 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need to encourage workinformation sharing betweenamong Member States by fostering the availability and use of harmonised methodologyies and models to conduct evaluations, while reducing the existence of addiin order to reduce unnecessary duplicational by national requirementauthorities;
Amendment 112 #
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 productionthe evaluation of products has not yet been fully implemented;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Stresses that PPPs are not only used in agriculture but also for weed and pest control in urban areas including public parks and railways; emphasises that professional and non-professional users of PPPs should receive adequate training;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Regrets the limited public availability of information on the evaluation and authorisation procedure, as well as the limited access to information; regrets that the level of transparency of the rapporteur Member States is low (acting in the framework of the approval procedure), suggests that accessibility and user friendliness of information at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stage is problematiccould be improved, and that transparency at the risk management stage seems to be lacking and is also considered problematic by stakeholders; welcomes efforts by ECHA to increase transparency and user friendliness through its website and considers this could be a model employed in the future to improve transparency;
Amendment 120 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regards the application of the mutual recognition procedure as an important tool to increase work sharing and ensure compliance with deadlines whilst guaranteeing optimum protection for users, as it allows applicants to apply for authorisation in another Member State which makes the same use of the product in question for the same agricultural practices, based on the assessment carried out for the authorisation in the original Member State;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Highlights the importance of continuous training for users to ensure the proper and appropriate use of plant protection products; considers it fitting to distinguish between professional and amateur users; notes that plant protection products are used in private gardens, railways and public parks;
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regards the application of the mutual recognition procedure as an important tool to increase work sharing and ensure compliance with deadlines, as it allowsing applicants to apply for authorisation in another Member State which makes the same use of the product in question for the same agricultural practices, based on the assessment carried out for the authorisation in the original Member State;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Emphasises that the Regulation should better reflect the need to promote agricultural practices based on integrated pest management as appropriate, including by stimulating the development of low- risk, high-efficacy, substances;
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 136 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the contribution that the authorisation of low-risk PPPs makes to a sustainable EU farming sector, and draws attention to the importance of contributing to a better functioning agricultural ecosystem and a sustainable farming sector, while pointing out that the lack of availability of PPPs could jeopardise the diversification of agriculture and the quality of Europe's agricultural production and cause harmful organisms to become resistant to PPPs.
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 138 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the contribution that the authorisation of low-risk PPPs makes to a sustainable EU farming sector, and the importance of ensuring their availability; draws attention to the importance of contributing to a better functioning agricultural ecosystem and a sustainable farming sector, while pointing out that the lack of availability of PPPs could jeopardise the diversification of agriculture and cause harmful organisms to become resistant to PPPs.;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Is concerned that the harmonisation of guidelines in fields like ecotoxicology or environmental fate and behaviour isare not yet complensolidated;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. 13. Welcomes the concept of the zonal system and its aim to facilitate the efficient authorisation of plant protection products; considers the mutual recognition procedure as vital for sharing the work load and to encourage compliance with deadlines;
Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Notes with concern that farmers have fewer tools available to them due to the low number of new active substances approved since the implementation of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009; notes that research and technology have an important role to play in increasing available tools to meet current and future challenges to agriculture such as counteracting resistance.
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Regrets the lack of trust between Member States in the zonal system leading to significant delays in the approval process; calls on the Commission to improve the functioning of the zonal system.
Amendment 148 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls for the development of low- risk PPPs to be encouraged, with the proviso that an assessment of their effectiveness and risks, and of their capacity to meet the environmental, health and economic needs of agriculture, must be guaranteed;
Amendment 153 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Stresses the importance of research and innovation in developing low-risk PPPs; highlights that public- private partnerships may help funding of research and ensure sustainable agriculture meets the demands of a growing global population, as well as addressing environmental and health concerns; notes that existing EU agricultural policies and research programmes can play a role in encouraging investment in precision agriculture;
Amendment 155 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the Member States to undertake an exchange of information and good practice resulting from research into combating organisms which are harmful to crops, thereby paving the way for alternative solutions which are practicable in environmental, health and economic terms;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. CThe purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment and at the same time to safeguard the competitiveness of Community agriculture; calls on the Commission and the Member States to acknowledge that plant health and environmental protection objectives should take priority over the objective of improving plant protection; plays an important role in meeting our health and environmental protection objectives;
Amendment 164 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Considers that products imported from outside the EU grown using PPPs should be subject to the same strict criteria as products produced inside the EU; is concerned that PPPs not registered in the EU may be used in the production of imported produce;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on industry to provide all data and scientific studies in a uniform electronic and machine readable format to the Rapporteur Member States and the EU agencies; calls on the Commission to develop a harmonised model for data inputs to facilitate easier data exchange between member states at all stages of the process; acknowledges that this data must be handled within the parameters of EU data protection and intellectual property laws;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Calls on the Commission, the agencies and competent authorities to review and improve their communication on risk assessment procedures and risk management decisions in order to improve public trust in the authorisation system;
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;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Is concerned about public perception of plant protection products of biological origin; notes that these substances are not automatically 'low- risk' and should be subject to the same rigorous evaluations as other substances;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Commission to limitconsider how to address concerns regarding the use of the confirmatory data procedure and notes that complete dossiers are important for active substance approvals;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Calls for an awareness campaign on the availability of counterfeit pesticides on the market and the damage they pose to the effective implementation of the Regulation, urges action to combat their use;