45 Amendments of Michel DANTIN related to 2017/2128(INI)
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 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 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 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 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 32 #
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 increasingly reducing the total volume of PPPs used and encouraging the use of low-risk PPPs;
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 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 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 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Deplores therefore unilateral decisions by Member States which can lead to the abolition or a restriction in the use of products approved by other Member States, and the lack of harmonisation in the time taken to process requests for authorisation, which gives rise to distortions of competition in the internal market and forces farmers into technical dead-ends which are both harmful to the environment and counter- productive for the competitiveness of farms;
Amendment 75 #
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 practice, notably the procedure for mutual recognition by Member States in a particular geographical region, the aim of which was to simplify procedures within the single market and increase trust among Member States;
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 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses its concern about systematic delays in the authorisation processes and the increasing use of derogations as laid down in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; considers that any derogation should be duly justified and reassessed at regular intervals, while underlining the necessity for Member States to comply with the legal deadlines to ensure predictability and legal security for applicants and facilitate the market introduction of innovative PPPs that are in line with more stringent requirements;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Deplores unilateral decisions by Member States which can lead to the abolition or a restriction in the use of products approved by other Member States, and the lack of harmonisation in the time taken to process requests for authorisation, which gives rise to distortions of competition in the internal market and forces farmers into technical dead-ends which are both harmful to the environment and counter-productive for the competitiveness of farms;
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 91 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Stresses that the aim, in terms of the single market, of the procedure of mutual recognition by Member States in a particular geographical region was to simplify procedures and increase trust among the Member States; is of the opinion that, given the discrepancies in practice among the Member States and the list of products which are effectively authorised, these objectives have not been achieved;
Amendment 95 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the aim of the zonal evaluation of PPP applications, which allows applicants to propose one zonal Rapporteur Member State (zRMS) to carry out the assessment, shouldwas to lead to the concerned Member States (cMS) taking a decision within the maximum time limit of 120 days after the zRMS has issued the registration report;
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 106 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the need to encourage work sharing between Member States by fostering the availability and use ofmaking available a harmonised methodology and models to conduct evaluations, while reducing the existence of additional national requirements, which often give rise to distortions of competition;
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 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 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regards the applicaCalls attention tof the mutual recognition procedure as an important tool to increase work sharing and ensure compliance with deadlines, as it allows applicants to apply forfact that, if the significant discrepancies between the Member States with regard to authorised PPPs and the mistrust between them persist, the principle of mutual recognition, according to which a PPP which is authorised in one Member State may be authorisationed 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, cannot be applied effectively; therefore calls on the Commission to proceed in two stages;
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 122 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point a (new)
Paragraph 7 – point a (new)
(a) review the mutual recognition procedure with the aim of increasing its effectiveness and improving implementation, meeting deadlines and mutual trust between the Member States;
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 – point b (new)
Paragraph 7 – point b (new)
(b) carry out an impact assessment in order to gauge the feasibility of setting up an authorisation procedure for PPPs (at European level and directly spearheaded by the Commission), taking into account specific geographical characteristics, with the aim of harmonising the rules among the Member States, dramatically reducing costs and time limits and resolving problems of unfair competition by strengthening the internal market for PPPs, and bearing in mind the fact that this kind of procedure will not be possible without sufficient budget resources and expertise from the Member States;
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 125 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Takes the view that an authorisation procedure for PPPs which is harmonised at European level might provide common solutions for small farms which are currently in technical dead- ends because of the cost of obtaining authorisation and the lack of investment and research on the part of private and public stakeholders;
Amendment 130 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses the contribution that the authorisation of low-risk PPPsPPPs which pose little risk to human health and the environment makes to a sustainable EU farming sector, and draws attention to the importance of contributingfact that this category currently contains only ten substances, while some substances which were granted authorisation before 2011 might satisfy the conditions, and that it is therefore necessary to reassess these in order to increase this number and contribute 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 141 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Stresses that PPPs can contribute to reducing biodiversity and to the poor state of bodies of water and soil in the Member States, and that there is a need to encourage investment in research to develop new low-risk PPPs and meet the growing demand so that agricultural production can be brought more into line with the protection of health and the environment; underlines, however, the importance of not depriving farmers of PPPs and of replacing these with other substances or production methods which would be more harmful to the environment and human health;
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 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 150 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Draws attention to the fact that, if the significant discrepancies and mistrust between the Member States with regard to authorised PPPs persist, the principle of mutual recognition - according to which a PPP authorised in one Member State may be authorised in another Member State for the same agricultural practices, on the basis of the authorisation assessment carried out in the first Member State - cannot be applied effectively;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Paragraph 13 b (new)
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 c (new)
Paragraph 13 c (new)
13c. Takes the view that an authorisation procedure for PPPs which is harmonised at European level might provide common solutions for small farms which are currently in technical dead- ends as a result of the cost of obtaining authorisation and the lack of investment and research on the part of private and public stakeholders;
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 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 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;