2016/2903(RSP) | [ParlTrack]

Mireille D'ORNANO, Jean-François JALKH, Sylvie GODDYN

Citation 2

— having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides2 , and in particular Article 124 thereof; _________________ 2 OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p.71.

Amendment 10 #

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose ~~for human health~~not only for the health of those who use them, but also for the health of the rest of the population and the environment;

Amendment 100 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, and then to the authorisation and registration of biological low-risk plant protection products;

Amendment 101 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, authorisation and registration of ~~biological low-risk plant protection product~~low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 102 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, authorisation and registration of ~~biological low-risk plant protection products;~~low-risk plant protection products of biological origin; (This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout, from "biological pesticides/plant protection products/active substances" to "pesticides/plant protection products/active substances of biological origin".)

Amendment 103 #

Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Encourages Member States to exchange information and good practices deriving from the results of research into pest control, enabling the provision of alternative solutions that are viable in environmental, health and economic terms;

Amendment 104 #

Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Invites the Member States to include the use of low-risk biological pesticides in their national action plans on the protection of the environment and of human health;

Amendment 105 #

Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Commission to identify low-risk substances already on the market;

Amendment 106 #

Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ

Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation of Regulation 1107/2009; ~~stresses that this~~calls on the Commission to prioritize a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 with a view to a fast- track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as a vital incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides; in view of the urgency expressed by European farmers, low-risk pesticides producers and consumers, calls on the Commission to finalize the thus required adaptation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in less than 2 years; stresses that the REFIT initiative must not lead to the lowering of food safety and environmental protection standards;

Amendment 107 #

Paragraph 8

8. ~~Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation~~Calls upon the Commission to undertake a Fitness Check procedure leading to the adaptation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 before the end of 2018 and to not use a REFIT regarding the totality of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 which might take more than eight years; stresses that this ~~REFIT initiative~~Fitness Check must not lead to the lowering of food safety and environmental protection standards;

Amendment 108 #

Paragraph 8

8. ~~Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation~~Calls on the Commission to undertake a Fitness Check procedure of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009~~; stresses that this REFIT initiativ~~ in maximum two years; stresses that the Fitness Check procedure must not lead to the lowering of human health, food safety and environmental protection standards;

Amendment 109 #

Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation of Regulation 1107/2009; stresses that this REFIT initiative must not lead to the lowering of food safety and environmental protection standards and should continue to safeguard the competitiveness of EU agriculture;

Amendment 11 #

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health, animals and the environment;

Amendment 110 #

Paragraph 8

8. Welcomes the 2016 Commission REFIT initiative to carry out an evaluation of Regulation 1107/2009; stresses that this REFIT initiative must ~~not~~ lead to ~~the lowering of~~an improvement in food safety and environmental protection standards;

Amendment 111 #

Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ

Paragraph 9

Amendment 112 #

Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need to revise Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to foster the development, authorisation and placing on the EU market of biological low-risk pesticides and conventional plant protection products; is concerned that the current authorisation process for placing plant protection products on the market is sub-optimal ~~for biological low-risk pesticides~~;

Amendment 113 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need to revise Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to foster the development, authorisation and placing on the EU market of biological low-risk pesticides; is concerned that the current authorisation process for placing plant protection products on the market is sub-optimal for biological low-risk pesticides; points out that the current registration process for low-risk basic substances sometimes, in practice, acts as a kind of patent, making it difficult to use a product based on the same substance which is not registered in another Member State;

Amendment 114 #

Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need to revise Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to foster the development, authorisation and placing on the EU market of biological low-risk pesticides; is concerned that the current authorisation process for placing plant protection products on the market is sub-optimal for biological low-risk pesticides, while keeping in mind the necessity of respecting Member State prerogatives, including the authorisation of plant protection products containing these active substances;

Amendment 115 #

Paragraph 9

9. Stresses the need to revise Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to foster the development, authorisation and placing on the EU market of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides; is concerned that the current authorisation process for placing plant protection products on the market is sub- optimal for all pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 116 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Paragraph 9 a (new)

9 a. Is aware that the general revision of the entire Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in connection with its REFIT evaluation will take up to ten years; believes that Regulation (EC) No 1107/2007 should swiftly be amended specifically with a view to boosting the availability of biological low-risk pesticides, outside of the general revision of that Regulation;

Amendment 117 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to ~~submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to~~develop a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay; calls for open-ended approval of biological low- risk active substances as an important incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides; urges to implement the above-mentioned mechanism through a Commission Communication, thereby simultaneously setting out a Commission action plan which shall include a concrete legislative proposal to partially yet swiftly revise Regulation (EC) 1107/2009;

Amendment 118 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a ~~legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to~~Communication for a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an important incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 119 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of ~~biological~~ low-risk pesticides; calls for open-ended approval of ~~biological~~ low-risk active substances as an important incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 12 #

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the serious risks that they pose for human health and the environment;

Amendment 120 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides; ~~calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an important incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides;~~

Amendment 121 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a ~~fast-track~~n evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides which is fast-track but at the same time has adequate safety guarantees; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an ~~important~~additional incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides, accompanied by a requirement for the periodic confirmation and updating of the information which appears in the authorisation report;

Amendment 122 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a, within two years, a specific legislative proposal for the ~~revision~~amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 with a view to a fast- track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of biological low-risk pesticides; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an important incentive for the development of biological low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 123 #

Paragraph 10

10. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation 1107/2009 with a view to a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process of ~~biological~~ low-risk pesticides~~; calls for open-ended approval of biological low-risk active substances as an important incentive for~~, including biological low-risk pesticides, without lowering the dlevel~~opment of biological low-risk pesticides~~ of protection of protection of human health or the environment;

Amendment 124 #

Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Calls on the Commission to create the opportunity to develop an integrated system that includes an appropriate database of low-risk biological pesticides with that information being made available to all interested parties: the competent authorities, researchers, farmers, users, the general public, etc.;

Amendment 125 #

Herbert DORFMANN

Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the need for a definition of “biological plant protection product” within Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, covering plant protection products where the active substance ~~of which~~ is a microorganism or a molecule existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetized as identical to the natural molecule~~, in contrast to “synthetic chemical plant protection products”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature~~;

Amendment 126 #

Paragraph 11

Amendment 127 #

Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the need for a definition of “biological plant protection product”, covering plant protection products the active substance of which is a microorganism or a molecule existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetized as identical to the natural molecule, in contrast to “synthetic chemical plant protection products”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature; proposes that it should be possible, on less stringent terms, to authorise and use repellents and products to protect against browsing whose active substances are molecules which occur in nature and are either obtained from a natural process or synthesised as identical to the natural molecule;3a _________________ 3a Some products which are designed to deter browsing animals do so by means of their mechanical effect (in a similar way to a fence - e.g. quartz sand) or their odour. These products should be subject to authorisation and use on less stringent terms.

Amendment 128 #

Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the need for a detailed and comprehensive definition of “biological plant protection product”, covering plant protection products the active substance of which is a microorganism or a molecule or a combination of molecules and polymers existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetizsed as identical to the natural ~~molecule~~version, in contrast to “synthetic chemical plant protection products”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature;

Amendment 129 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco AFFRONTE

Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the need for a definition of “~~biological~~ plant protection product of biological origin”, covering plant protection products the active substance of which is a microorganism or a molecule existing in nature, either obtained from a natural process or synthetized as identical to the natural molecule, in contrast to “~~synthetic chemical~~ plant protection products of synthetic chemical origin”, meaning plant protection products the active substance of which is a synthetic molecule not existing in nature;

Amendment 13 #

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment, especially for the maintenance of biological diversity;

Amendment 130 #

Paragraph 12

12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, whose input it requests and whom it invites to engage in dialogue.

Amendment 14 #

Recital A a (new)

A a. whereas the number of active substances available on the EU market used for plant protection is decreasing; whereas EU farmers continue to require a variety of crop protection tools;

Amendment 15 #

Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas it is important to promote the development of alternative procedures or techniques to reduce dependence on conventional pesticides;

Amendment 16 #

Recital A b (new)

A b. whereas preventing food waste is a priority in the EU, and access to appropriate plant protection solutions is essential in preventing damage caused by pests and diseases which results in food waste; whereas, according to the FAO, 20% of fruit and vegetable production in Europe is lost in the fields; 1a _________________ 1aFAO (2011) “Global food losses and food waste”.

Amendment 17 #

Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas it is still possible to find undesirable pesticide residues in soil, water and the environment in general, and even a certain percentage of agricultural products of plant or animal origin may contain pesticide residues above the maximum residue levels for pesticides;

Amendment 18 #

Recital B

B. whereas ~~the term “~~Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 defines criteria to identify low risk substances that apply independently of the origin of the substance and low-risk pesticides” co~~vers both~~uld be of biological a~~nd synthetic chemical pesticides~~s well as of synthetic origin;

Amendment 19 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco AFFRONTE

Recital B

B. whereas the term “low-risk pesticides” covers both biological and synthetic chemical pesticides, but it is a general term which may prove deceptive;

Amendment 2 #

Citation 2

— having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides2 , and in particular Article 1 and Article 12 thereof; _________________ 2 OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p.71.

Amendment 20 #

Recital B

B. whereas the term “low-risk ~~pesticides” covers both biological and synthetic chemical pesticides~~active substance” covers active substances of biological and chemical origin;

Amendment 21 #

Recital Γ

C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be pesticides based on microorganisms, botanicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones and rotenone), but also substances and processes derived naturally from them, such as RNA interference (RNAi); whereas the present regulatory framework for pesticides (plant protection products) does not differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products;

Amendment 22 #

Recital C

C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be pesticides based on microorganisms, botanicals, bio-derived chemicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones and various essential oils); whereas the present regulatory framework for pesticides (plant protection products) does not legally differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products;

Amendment 23 #

Recital C

C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be pesticides based on microorganisms, botanicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones) and their by-products; whereas the present regulatory framework for pesticides (plant protection products) does not differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products;

Amendment 24 #

Recital C

C. whereas biological pesticides are generally understood to be p~~esticide~~lant protection products based on microorganisms, botanicals or semiochemicals (such as pheromones); whereas the present regulatory framework for ~~pesticides (~~plant protection products)1a does not differentiate between biological and synthetic chemical plant protection products; _________________ 1a The concept of 'pesticides' also covers biocidal products to which this resolution does not apply.

Amendment 25 #

Recital C a (new)

C a. whereas recent scientific studies have stated that sublethal exposure to certain herbicides may cause negative changes in antibiotic susceptibility in bacteria1a and that a combination of high use of herbicides and antibiotics in proximity to farm animals and insects could drive greater use of antibiotics by a possible compromising of the therapeutic effects of the same; _________________ 1ae.g. Kurenbach B, Marjoshi D, Amábile-Cuevas CF, Ferguson GC, Godsoe W, Gibson P, Heinemann JA. 2015. Sublethal exposure to commercial formulations of the herbicides dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate cause changes in antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio 6(2):e00009-15. doi:10.1128/mBio.00009-15.

Amendment 26 #

Recital D

D. whereas the use of biological low- risk pesticides may co~~nstitute a viable alternative to~~mplement the use of conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to ~~a more~~ sustainable agriculture; whereas ~~some~~ biological low-risk pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option foroffer a choice in plant protection solutions available to non- professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 27 #

Recital D

D. whereas ~~biological low-risk pesticides~~low-risk plant protection products of biological origin may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some plant protection products of biological ~~pesticides~~origin possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas ~~biological low- risk pesticides~~low-risk plant protection products of biological origin should be one of the preferred options, together with other non- chemical control or prevention methods, for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 28 #

Recital Δ

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess ~~new~~innovative and extremely varied modes of action, which is legitimate and probably beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option, and the one to be encouraged, for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 29 #

Recital D

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture, especially if it is based on the implementation of good agronomic practices; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 3 #

Citation 6 a (new)

- having regard to the Action Plan against the rising threats from Antimicrobial Resistance (COM (2011) 748) and the upcoming Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Action Plan of the European Commission to be launched in 2017;

Amendment 30 #

Recital D

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides ~~may~~ constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 31 #

Recital Δ

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides ~~may~~should constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for ~~non-professional users and home gardening~~sustainable agriculture;

Amendment 32 #

Recital D

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which iscould be beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limitsing the impact on non- target organisms; whereas ~~biological~~ low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 33 #

Recital D

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional pesticides and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for untrained, non-professional users ~~and home gardening~~;

Amendment 34 #

Recital D

D. whereas biological low-risk pesticides may constitute a viable alternative to conventional plant protection products, both for conventional and for organic farmers, and contribute to a more sustainable agriculture; whereas some biological pesticides possess new modes of action, which is beneficial with a view to evolving resistance to conventional p~~esticide~~lant protection products and limits the impact on non- target organisms; whereas biological low- risk pesticides should be the preferred option for non-professional users and home gardening;

Amendment 35 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Recital D a (new)

D a. whereas developing resistance to pesticides, including biological low risk pesticides, is of growing concern; whereas there is evidence that semio-chemicals (belonging to biological tools) begin to lose efficacy after 4-5 years1a ; whereas the highly specific modes of action possessed by some biological low risk pesticides can lead to resistance quickly; whereas according to the draft Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances, micro-organisms may only be considered low-risk unless at strain level they have demonstrated multiple resistance to antimicrobials used in human or animal medicine;1b _________________ 1aJapanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology (2002) 37(2), 99-30.

Amendment 36 #

Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, with regard to the ongoing debate about introducing a certain percentage threshold for chemical pesticides in organic farming, the development of biological pesticides would seem to be the best defence against such a move, which would see the sector lose its product integrity, its health-related quality and, consequently, consumer confidence;

Amendment 37 #

Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas, in order to adequately meet food and feed needs, the use of plant protection products is necessary and whereas the precautionary principle2a is applied in the procedure for authorising such products and their active substances; _________________ 2aArticle 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009

Amendment 38 #

Recital E

E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of biological low-risk pesticides represents an ~~important economic barrier to manufacturers~~economic and administrative barrier to manufacturers, and whereas this is an artificial, institutional barrier which might be necessary in order to maximise the protection of public health;

Amendment 39 #

Recital E

E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of ~~biological~~ low-risk pesticides represents an important economic barrier to manufacturers;

Amendment 4 #

Citation 9 a (new)

- having regard to Protocol No 1 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the role of National Parliaments in the European Union,

Amendment 40 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Recital E

E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides represents an important economic barrier to manufacturers;

Amendment 41 #

Recital E

E. whereas the long approval and registration process before commercialization of biological low-risk pesticides represents an important economic barrier to manufacturers; whereas, additionally, there is an oligopolistic situation in the agrochemicals sector, where the presence of giant firms makes it extremely difficult for competitors to enter the market, especially when they are seeking to develop biological pesticides, even though sufficient competition is a prerequisite for innovation;

Amendment 42 #

Recital E a (new)

E a. whereas Integrated Pest Management implementation is mandatory within the EU and more emphasis is placed by Member States on sustainable pesticides use including low- risk plant protection alternatives;

Amendment 43 #

Recital E a (new)

E a. whereas Integrated Pest Management implementation is mandatory in the Union according to Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides;

Amendment 44 #

Recital E b (new)

E b. whereas both Member States as well as local authorities place more emphasis on the sustainable use of available pesticides including low-risk plant protection solutions and techniques, including their use in Ecological Focus Areas;

Amendment 45 #

Sylvie GODDYN, Mireille D'ORNANO, Jean-François JALKH

Recital ΣΤ

F. whereas there are two parallel, complementary structures, because under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, active substances are approved at Union level, while the authorisation of plant protection products containing those active substances lies within the remit of the Member States;

Amendment 46 #

Recital H a (new)

Ha. whereas no natural essential oil- based substance has been authorised, despite numerous applications for such substances to be authorised for use in organic farming;

Amendment 47 #

Recital I

I. whereas biological low-risk pesticides ~~are oft~~have been refused authorisation by a certain number of Member States due to ~~their~~a perceived lower efficacy as compared to synthetic chemical pesticides, without any regard to the ongoing innovation in the biological low-risk pesticides sector, without considering the resource efficiency benefits for organic farming and without considering agricultural and environmental costs of certain other plant protection products;

Amendment 48 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Recital I

I. whereas ~~biological~~products containing low- risk ~~pesticides~~active substances of biological origin are often refused authorisation by Member States due to their lower efficacy, as compared to synthetic chemical pesticides, without sufficiently considering health and environmental costs;

Amendment 49 #

Recital I

I. whereas biological low-risk pesticides ~~are often refused authorisation by Member States due to their lower efficacy as compared to~~regularly fail to be authorised because, until now, they have often been regarded as less effective than synthetic chemical pesticides;

Amendment 5 #

Citation 9 b (new)

- having regard to Protocol No 2 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,

Amendment 50 #

Recital Θ

I. whereas, regrettably, biological low-risk pesticides are often refused authorisation by Member States due to their lower efficacy as compared to synthetic chemical pesticides;

Amendment 51 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Recital Θ

I. whereas ~~biological low-risk pesticides are often refused authorisation by Member Stat~~Member States are reluctant to authorise biological low-risk pesticides due to their lower efficacy as compared to synthetic chemical pesticides;

Amendment 52 #

Recital I a (new)

Ia. whereas comparisons of efficacy between chemical and biological pesticides should be regularly updated to take account of the growing resistance to widely used chemical pesticides; whereas, to be applicable, these comparisons must weigh the effectiveness of chemical pesticides against the risks they pose to human health and the environment;

Amendment 53 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco AFFRONTE

Recital K

K. whereas Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC provides that the use of ~~low- risk plant protection products shall be prioritised~~ pesticides shall be minimised or prohibited in certain specific areas, such as areas used by the general public and protected areas; whereas in such cases appropriate risk management measures shall be taken and the use of low-risk plant protection products and biological control measures shall be considered in the first place;

Amendment 54 #

Recital K

K. whereas Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC provides that the use of low- risk plant protection products shall be prioritised in specific areas, such as areas used by the general public ~~and protected areas~~, areas used by vulnerable groups and protected areas such as those which form the Natura 2000 ecological network across the EU;

Amendment 55 #

Recital K

K. whereas Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC provides that the use of low- risk plant protection products shall be prioritised in specific areas, such as areas used by the general public and protected areas; whereas some Member States have, for a long time now, prohibited the use of pesticides in these specific areas;

Amendment 56 #

Recital L

L. whereas the Commission submitted a draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed; whereas this draft provides an assumption of low-risk status for active substances which are micro- organisms;

Amendment 57 #

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay, assigning absolute priority to specific areas such as those used by the general public and conservation areas;

Amendment 58 #

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay in order to reduce the use of conventional plant protection products;

Amendment 59 #

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the ~~need to increase~~importance of increasing research and innovation and the availability of biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay;

Amendment 6 #

Recital A

~~A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment;~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides without any further delay;

Amendment 61 #

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of ~~biological low-risk pesticides~~low-risk plant protection products of biological origin without any further delay;

Amendment 62 #

Sylvie GODDYN, Mireille D'ORNANO, Jean-François JALKH

Paragraph 1

1. Stresses the need to increase the availability of biological low-risk pesticides in the Union without any further delay;

Amendment 63 #

Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls on the Commission to authorise the use of natural essential oil- based pesticides in organic farming in order to expand the available plant health arsenal;

Amendment 64 #

Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses the vital importance of giving special emphasis to products protected by biological low-risk pesticides, as opposed to products protected by conventional means;

Amendment 65 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will best and most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of ~~various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides,~~different tools including biological low- risk pesticides, ~~as a component~~following the principles of integrated pest management;

Amendment 66 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides, including biological pesticides, as a component of integrated pest management, and considers that farmers should be informed in an informal, coordinated and institutional manner of the options available to them;

Amendment 67 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages ~~wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticide~~efficient use of plant protection methods, including the use of biological pesticides, as a component of integrated pest management and maintenance of land in good agricultural and environmental condition;

Amendment 68 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides, including biological ~~pesticides~~control measures and low-risk pesticides of biological origin, as a component of integrated pest management;

Amendment 69 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical p~~esticide~~lant protection products, including biological pesticides, as a component of integrated pest management;

Amendment 7 #

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health ~~and the environment~~, the environment, biodiversity and the robustness of food chains and food webs in the medium and long term;

Amendment 70 #

Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox at hand to protect their crops and to decide which measure will most sustainably protect their crops, thereby boosting sustainable agriculture; therefore encourages wider use of various alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides, including biological pesticides, as a component of integrated pest management;

Amendment 71 #

Merja KYLLÖNEN

Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Calls on the CAP post 2020 reform to have better financial support mechanisms for the farmers under EAFRD to compensate the income lost or additional costs created by ensuring the sustainability of farming including crop protection going beyond the requirements of the legislation;

Amendment 72 #

Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. stresses the need to increase the availability of a pest management toolbox for organic farming, which complies with both organic farming as well as resource efficiency requirements;

Amendment 73 #

Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Emphasizes that consumers' demand for safe food that is both affordable and produced in a sustainable way must be satisfied;

Amendment 74 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of low-risk pesticides, including new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way ~~not to hinder their development and market entry~~to provide farmers with an appropriate level of plant protection;

Amendment 75 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry; stresses that their market entry should not in general be artificially hindered in any way whatsoever, for example because of chemical pesticides already on the market;

Amendment 76 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of their efficacy ~~in comparison wi~~and risks and of their capacity to respond to the e~~xisting chemical pesticides~~nvironmental, health-related and economic needs of agriculture should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry;

Amendment 77 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development and use of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry;

Amendment 78 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new ~~biological~~ low- risk p~~esticides~~lant protection products of biological origin, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry;

Amendment 79 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing synthetic chemical pesticides should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry;

Amendment 8 #

Recital A

A. whereas the upurpose of ~~conventional plant protection products is increasingly con~~Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is to ensure that the approval and use of plant protection products ensures a high level of protenctio~~us, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment;~~n for human health and the environment whilst at the same time safeguarding the competitiveness of Community agriculture1a ; _________________ 1aRecital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

Amendment 80 #

Paragraph 3

3. Underlines that in order to promote the development of new biological low-risk pesticides, the evaluation of efficacy in comparison with existing chemical p~~esticide~~lant protection products should be designed in a way not to hinder their development and market entry;

Amendment 81 #

Eleonora EVI, Marco ZULLO, Piernicola PEDICINI, Marco AFFRONTE

Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Stresses that in order to assess the effectiveness of low-risk pesticides and their sustainable use, Member States should be encouraged to use economic instruments, without this prejudicing the applicability of state aid rules;

Amendment 82 #

Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Underlines that the increased promotion and use of alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides by farmers who adopt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches can also be beneficial to neighbouring organic farmers;

Amendment 83 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about ~~making~~the benefits and risks of both biological and synthetic pesticides and about making a wider choice of substances, i.e. biological low- risk alternatives to conventional pesticides, available to farmers and growers~~, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledg~~ to facilitate targeted plant protection in an efficient and sustainable way; further underlines the necessity to educate on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection;

Amendment 84 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about ~~making biological low-risk alternatives to conventional pesticides available~~the availability of low-risk pesticides, including biological low-risk pesticides to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection;

Amendment 85 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the ~~need to engage in a wider~~importance of a public debate about making biological low- risk alternatives to conventional pesticides available to farmers and growers, and the ~~necessity to~~importance of educateing and propagateing knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection, and encourages research and innovation on pesticides in general in order to find the solutions that are most viable in environmental, health and economic terms;

Amendment 86 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about making biological low-risk alternatives to conventional p~~esticide~~lant protection products available to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection, in order also to draw attention to the need for plant protection products in food and feed production;

Amendment 87 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about making biological low-risk alternatives to conventional pesticides available to farmers and growers~~, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensur~~; stresses the need to educate and inform the general public, through awareness campaigns, on the effects of the sus~~tainability of crop protection~~e of biological pesticides on human health and the environment;

Amendment 88 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about making ~~biological low-risk~~ alternatives to conventional pesticides available to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection by using low-risk plant protection products of biological origin and other biological control measures;

Amendment 89 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the need to engage in a wider public debate about making biological low-risk ~~alternatives to conventional~~ pesticides available to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection;

Amendment 9 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN, Jean-François JALKH

Recital A

A. whereas the use of conventional plant protection products ~~is increasingly contentious, due to the risks that they pose for human health and the environment~~and their potential risks for human health and the environment is increasingly subject to public debate; whereas the safety of biological pesticides is discussed far less;

Amendment 90 #

Paragraph 4

4. Underlines the ~~need to engage in a wider public debate about~~importance of greater awareness of the necessity of making biological low-risk alternatives to conventional pesticides available to farmers and growers, and the necessity to educate and propagate knowledge on the need to ensure sustainability of crop protection;

Amendment 91 #

Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need to launch a wide public debate on the advantages of consuming products protected by alternative low-risk pesticides;

Amendment 92 #

Mireille D'ORNANO, Sylvie GODDYN

Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the “Implementation Plan on increasing low-risk plant protection product availability and accelerating representative, integrated pest management implementation in Member States” as endorsed by the Council and gives its support to this plan; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) to follow up on the implementation of this plan;

Amendment 93 #

Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the “Implementation Plan on increasing low-risk plant protection product availability and accelerating integrated pest management implementation in Member States” as endorsed by the Council; recalls that this plan was drawn up by a group composed of representatives from the Member States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) to follow up on the implementation of this plan;

Amendment 94 #

Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the “Implementation Plan on increasing low-risk plant protection product availability and accelerating integrated pest management implementation in Member States” as endorsed by the Council; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) to follow up on the implementation of this plan;

Amendment 95 #

Paragraph 6

6. Calls for swift adoption of the draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as regards the criteria for the approval of low risk active substances to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed; calls on the Commission to continuously update the criteria in line with the most up-to-date scientific knowledge;

Amendment 96 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ~~give priority to~~accelerate the evaluation, authorisation and registration of biological low-risk plant protection products;

Amendment 97 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, authorisation and registration of biological low-risk plant protection products while maintaining risk assessment at a high level;

Amendment 98 #

Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give priority to the evaluation, authorisation ~~and~~, registration and monitoring of the use of biological low- risk plant protection products;

Amendment 99 #