Awaiting committee decision
2017/2284(INI) Implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides
Lead committee dossier: ENVI/8/11439
Legal Basis RoP 052
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | AGRI | RIBEIRO Sofia (EPP) | |
Lead | ENVI | GUTELAND Jytte (S&D) | FLORENZ Karl-Heinz (EPP), DOHRMANN Jørn (ECR), HUITEMA Jan (ALDE), HÄUSLING Martin (Verts/ALE), PEDICINI Piernicola (EFD), GODDYN Sylvie (ENF) |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Subjects
Activites
-
2018/01/18
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
Amendments | Dossier |
85 |
2017/2284(INI)
2018/09/05
AGRI
85 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its dissatisfaction with the
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Regrets that in some Member States the training and certification requirements of the Directive are not fully met; underlines the importance of training of users to ensure the safe and sustainable use of PPPs; considers it fitting to distinguish between professional and amateur users, given that they are not subject to the same obligations; emphasises that professional and non- professional users of PPPs should receive adequate training; stresses that PPPs are not only used in agriculture, but also for weed and pest control in urban areas, including public parks and railways;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that the implementation report on the Directive presented in October 2017 was due from the Commission on 26 November 2014 1a and that it will take significant efforts to recover from this time lost, especially regarding shortcomings in the NAPs; Deplores the low priority accorded to the control of pesticide use that this 3-year delay implies. _________________ 1a https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/p lant/docs/pesticides_sup_report- overview_en.pdf
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Underlines the importance of Directive 2009/128/EC in providing a framework for the safe and sustainable use of plant protection products (PPP); stresses that this framework provides for monitoring and measuring the use of PPPs, guidance on their safety, uses and storage, and training of users;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Appreciates the efforts made to ensure success regarding the sustainable use of pesticides in the EU by reducing the risks and the impact of pesticide use on human and animal health and the environment and promoting the use of practices and techniques that are an ecological alternative to pesticides;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Considers it essential to evaluate the implementation of this directive in conjunction with the EU’s overarching pesticide policy, including the rules laid down by Regulation (EU)1107/2009 (the Plant Protection Products Regulation), Regulation (EU) 528/2012 (the Biocides Regulation), Regulation (EC) 396/2005 (the Maximum Residue Level Regulation), and Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (the General Food Law);
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that, while Member States generally have systems to gather information on pesticide acute poisoning, the accuracy of this data and its use is questioned; highlights that systems for gathering such information on chronic poisoning are not widely implemented;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Highlights that sustainable and responsible use of pesticides is a precondition for the authorisation of plant protection products;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2.
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used; regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no real commitment to integrated pest management (IPM) and thus developing a more environmentally-sustainable agriculture with lower costs for farmers; calls on the Member States to include in their national strategic plans provisions striking a balance between the requirements of food production on the one hand and respect for the environment on the other;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used; regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no real commitment to integrated pest management (IPM) and thus developing a more environmentally-sustainable agriculture with lower costs for farmers, as well as reducing the dependence of agricultural holdings on the agro- chemical industry;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks
Amendment 23 #
2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used, something which needs to be rectified soon; regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no real commitment to integrated pest management (IPM) and thus developing a more environmentally-sustainable agriculture with lower costs for farmers;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used; regrets the fact that in many Member States there is no real commitment to integrated pest management (IPM) and thus developing a more environmentally-sustainable agriculture which is more human health- friendly with lower costs for farmers;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used; regrets the fact that in
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Notes that many Member States have changed their initial targets, focusing more on reducing the risks that pesticide use entails, rather than on actual reductions in the quantities used;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers that a faster approvals process would stimulate industry research into the development of new low-risk active ingredients, including new, innovative low-risk substances, thus ensuring that farmers have sufficient plant-protection tools at their disposal and enabling them to switch more rapidly to sustainable plant protection products and increase integrated pest management efficacy.
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Regrets that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) remains underused by Member States despite the fact that the number of EU-approved low risk/non- chemical pesticide substances has doubled since 2009; notes that IPM is a cornerstone of Directive 2009/128/EC, but compliance with the principles of IPM at individual grower level is not being systematically checked by Member States; highlights, furthermore, that Member States have not yet set clear criteria in order to ensure that the general principles of IPM are implemented by all professional users;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Encourages the focus on reducing risks that pesticides entail, as limited use of a high-risk plant protection products can be more harmful then extensive usage of a low-risk plant protection products; underlines that this risk reduction should go hand in hand with use reduction;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to promote the harmonisation of risk indicators at EU level and to oblige the Member States to provide more comprehensive information in their National Action Plans, which must be coherent and include measurable and
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls therefore for the collection of data on pesticide use as foreseen in Reg. 1185/2009 on pesticide use statistics, including the use of simple indicators and giving more attention to EU-wide monitoring tools.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recommends that Member States step up their efforts to raise awareness regarding the use of pesticides and the effects thereof;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Underlines that there is always a certain amount of risk involved when one interferes in nature, whether it is with chemical, biological or low-risk plant protection products. Risks can never be excluded, however, they can be managed. Therefore, legislation in the field of plant protection products should set up criteria and levels for acceptable risk;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Recalls that procedures for plant protection from harmful organisms are an integral part of all good agricultural practice guidelines, bearing in mind that the use of pesticides is frequently essential for cultivation purposes;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 b (new) 2b. Notes in this context the importance of transparency on pesticide use statistics, as it has effects on the public and public goods, which are broader than mere commercial interests.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 c (new) 2c. Notes that increased use and dependency on pesticides comes at a high input cost to farmers; Notes also the organic farmers who suffer economic losses from their neighbours' pesticide use, whereby drift from pesticide spraying and movement of persistent active substances in the environment contaminate organic produce and soils; Notes that consequently, organic farmers are forced to sell that produce as conventional, losing out on their price premium, or worse become decertified, due to actions that are not their own.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 d (new) 2d. Notes the unintentional effects of pesticides on soil and non-target species, in particular the recent scientific study illustrating the "insect Armageddon" whereby 75% winged insects have become regionally extinct in Germany 2a, even in nature reserves where no agricultural pesticides have been used; Notes further that studies also show common bird species are declining across Europe 2b, which could be attributed to the decline in insect populations; recognises the importance of NAPs and IPM in significantly reducing pesticide usage to avoid ecological collapse; _________________ 2a More than 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas; Hallmann et al, 2017. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id =10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 2b https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1111/ele.12387
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing losses caused by
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing losses caused by pests, and therefore help stabilise farmers’ incomes so that they can produce safely and at affordable prices; highlights the fact that EFSA’s latest report on pesticide residues in food showed that 97.2 % of samples throughout Europe were within the legal limits of EU legislation, which bears witness to a very rigorous and safe food production system; notes that the use of pesticides is attributable to CAP promotion of an intensive export-led production model that is totally unsustainable;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that p
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to promote the harmonisation of risk indicators at EU level and to oblige the Member States to provide more comprehensive information in their National Action Plans, which must be coherent and include measurable and achievable goals and targets, and to collect more reliable data on the health impacts of exposure to pesticides with regard to consumers, animals and soil quality;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing losses caused by pests, and therefore help stabilise farmers’ incomes so that they can produce safely and at affordable prices; highlights the fact that EFSA’s latest report on pesticide residues in food showed that 97.2 % of samples throughout Europe were within the legal limits of EU legislation, which bears witness to a very rigorous and safe food production system; in any case, however, excessive use of pesticides should be avoided.
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing, eliminating and preventing losses caused by pests, and therefore help stabilise farmers’ incomes so that they can produce safely and at affordable prices; highlights the fact that EFSA’s latest report on pesticide residues in food showed that 97.2 % of samples throughout Europe were within the legal limits of EU legislation, which bears witness to a very rigorous and safe food production system;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that pesticides are important tools for the agricultural sector, not least for reducing losses caused by pests, and therefore help stabilise farmers’ incomes so that they can produce safely and at affordable prices; highlights the fact that EFSA’s latest report on pesticide residues in food showed that 97.2 % of
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new) Notes that the increased availability of low-risk plant protection products on the market would reduce the risk of resistance to active ingredients and the effects on non-target species linked to commonly used plant protection products.
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that resistance to pesticide active substances is a biological inevitability in fast-reproducing pests and diseases and is a growing problem; Stresses therefore the IPM approach that chemical pesticides should be used selectively and in a targeted manner, as a last rather than a first resort after exhausting all possible physical or biological alternatives; Calls therefore for the Commission and Member States to advocate a similar approach used to tackle antibiotic resistance, and limit regular, systematic, blanket /metaphylactic treatments.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses the importance of small and medium-sized farms using less aggressive and invasive techniques and assuming responsibility for the preservation of races, species and native seeds and of traditional farming methods and practices that respect the environment; notes that small and medium-sized farms are also an important repository of this genetic heritage, thereby helping to conserve biodiversity;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that horticulture is reliant on a variety of plant protection products (PPPs), and urges the Commission to take a risk-based approach to the regulation of these products that is justified by peer- reviewed, independent, scientific evidence; emphasises that minor uses are particularly vulnerable owing to the scarcity of the relevant active substances.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Welcomes that training and certification schemes on the use of PPPs have been established in all member states; acknowledges that approximately 4 million users have been trained to date but notes that due to data deficiencies there is a lack of information on the number of PPP users who have yet to receive training;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Considers that Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a cornerstone for this Directive and is important to reduce dependency on PPPs, representing a valuable tool for farmers to combat pests and disease and to ensure production yields; notes that a more intensive effort is needed to encourage the uptake of IPM through research and member states' advisory bodies; recalls that IPM is not a silver-bullet solution to combat all threats to plant health but can play a role in reducing the quantities and varieties of PPPs used;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Notes that a farmer's "toolbox" is a set of agronomic practices based on physical methods as well as chemical substances and alternatives to those, such as organisms or their extracts (biological control). Notes that this broader definition of a toolkit is the basis of IPM, which can cut pesticide use by between 50-30%, and can be as simple as shallow ploughing at key times, crop rotation, allowing proliferation of beneficial species that are predators of pest species, and avoiding monocultures;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Stresses that farmers need to have a bigger toolbox of crop protection solutions, including a wide range of active substances, low risk substances and those of natural origin in order to ensure a comprehensive IPM strategy that can be implemented by European farmers.
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 c (new) 3c. Notes that within the IPM toolkit, biological control involves boosting or introducing beneficial species that predate upon and so regulate pest populations, keeping them in check; Emphasises, therefore, the importance of using chemical pesticides as a last resort in IPM following other physical and biological methods and always applied in a selective and targeted manner, otherwise these beneficial pest control agents risk being wiped out, leaving the crops more susceptible to future attacks.
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the fact that European waters are becoming cleaner and calls for greater investment in practices that prevent pesticides from reaching surface and deep water; notes that both surface water and ground water resources need continued protection; encourages in this connection, measures to contain possible leaching of these substances into watercourses, rivers and seas and recommends that their use be prohibited in soils possibly draining into groundwater;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the fact that European waters are becoming cleaner and calls for greater investment in and adaption of practices that prevent
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Welcomes the fact that European waters are becoming cleaner
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that Member States have taken a range of measures to protect the aquatic environment from the impact of pesticides, to reduce the use or risks of pesticides in specific areas (such as public parks) and to promote the safe handling and storage of pesticides and remnants; highlights, however, that progress is difficult to assess given the lack of measurable targets in most NAPs in these areas;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to promote the harmonisation of risk indicators at EU level and to oblige the Member States to provide more comprehensive information in their National Action Plans, which must be coherent and comparable, and include measurable and achievable goals and targets, and to collect more reliable data on the health and environmental impacts of exposure to pesticides;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture and developing biocontrol methods, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; underlines the need for research into new low-risk substances as well as into plant protection methods based on the use of natural mechanisms, and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public. Recalls the importance of mobilising the Horizon Europe programme to search for more environmentally friendly mechanical or chemical solutions;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture, so as to prevent the dispersion of p
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; underlines the need for research into new low-risk substances and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; calls for more comprehensive funding to give farmers access to the latest digital technologies; underlines the need for research into new low-risk substances and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public.
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; underlines the need for research into new low-risk substances and their ability to meet the environmental, health and economic requirements of agriculture and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public.
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture and to provide funding for this from the budget for the Common Agricultural Policy among other sources, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; underlines the need for research into new low-risk substances and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public.
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Highlights the need to focus on precision and digital agriculture, so as to prevent the dispersion of pesticides in areas where they are not needed; underlines the need for innovation and research into new low-risk substances and into the equipment and technology that could render them more efficient and reduce the potential exposure of farmers, operators and the general public.
Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new) (1) Maintains that neonicotinoid- based pesticides have a particular role to play in the worrying decline in bee populations across Europe, as can be seen from a range of international studies which have formed the basis for petitions from citizens bearing hundreds of thousands of signatures from all over the continent;
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – point 1 (new) (1) Stresses the need for Member States to introduce mandatory training schemes, which also involve small and micro-businesses;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to promote the harmonisation of risk indicators at EU level and to oblige the Member States to provide more comprehensive information in their National Action Plans, which must be coherent and include measurable and achievable goals and targets, and to collect more reliable data on the health impacts of exposure to pesticides with regard to consumers, animals and the environment;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – point 2 (new) (2) Calls on the Commission to propose legislation banning the production, sale and use of all neonicotinoid-based pesticides throughout the EU, with no derogations and as a priority measure, in order to protect bee populations;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – point 3 (new) (3) Points to the growing body of scientific research connecting the extinction of bee colonies to the use of neonicotinoid pesticides;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 – point 4 (new) (4) Calls on to member states to follow strictly the ban of import of forbidden pesticides into the EU from third countries.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the fundamental need to step up information and awareness campaigns regarding the use of pesticides and their harmful effects, ensuring that farmers know how to use them properly and how to protect their health and that of others; calls for the promotion of comprehensive protection through information and awareness campaigns and for agricultural advisors in the field of pesticides and integrated protection to be more widely established, providing solutions adapted to the situation in each case; welcomes the almost total ban on the aerial application of pesticides;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need for investment to develop, maintain or obtain type-approval for the more restricted use of plant protection products for a limited number of staple crops cultivated in outermost regions, one of the aims being to make them more economically viable and competitive, particularly following the opening of markets to third country imports;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the importance of low-risk organic pesticides and the need to promote the development, authorisation and marketing thereof in the EU; calls on the Commission to promote the necessary changes in the current regulations to introduce a common definition, making a clear distinction between organic and synthetic chemical plant protection products.
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Stresses the need for a new CAP focused on the defence and promotion of small and medium-sized farms, which play an irreplaceable role maintaining equilibrium within the community by producing quality food, preserving biodiversity and ensuring food sovereignty by meeting local needs in this area;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that although precision/digital agriculture can be used to better target pesticide use where it is genuinely needed, in principle reducing the volumes used, it can in some cases simply shift the type of input dependency at a time when many farmers want to become more autonomous and cut input costs.
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Underlines the central role IPM plays to reduce pesticide use; acknowledges the willingness of farmers to use IPM, but understands that farmers are reluctant to apply new methods for pest management, if they face an unacceptably high risk to their economic viability in case these methods do not work;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that drones can now carry tanks of fertilisers and pesticides in order to spray crops with far more precision than a tractor, which helps reduce costs and potential pesticide exposure to farmers who would have needed to spray those crops manually;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes further that the best pesticide volume reductions are likely to arise from systemic changes that reduce susceptibility to pest attack, favour structural and biological diversity over monocultures and continuous cropping, and reduce pest resistance to active ingredients; Highlights therefore the need to focus on, fund and mainstream agroecological methods which make the whole farming system more resilient to pests.
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Stresses the essential need for regular assessment of proportionality between the quantity of pesticides sold and the agricultural area of application, based on user databases and sales records; calls on the Commission and Member States to create platforms for good practice in the use of pesticides and integrated protection at regional and local level;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Stresses the importance of the availability of low-risk pesticides, adequate research and the sharing of best practices within and among Member States to fully utilise the potential of integrated pest management.
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 c (new) 5c. Urges the Commission to make the 8 general principles of IPM legal requirements; Calls for the integration of IPM into the revision of the CAP with proven reductions in pesticide dependency being an indicator of success.
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 d (new) 5d. Highlights the importance of farm advisory services (FAS) to help farmers reduce pesticide use and to successfully and affordably incorporate IPM as standard practice, resorting only to chemical pesticides if necessary after using physical and biological alternatives; Underlines the need for knowledge sharing and skill acquisition regarding alternatives to chemical pesticides and IPM, including finding the optimum crop rotation for farmers' market and climatic situations; Notes further that this was already foreseen in the horizontal regulation of the CAP, notably also FAS and EIP innovation partnerships, both financed by the CAP within Rural Development;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 e (new) 5e. Highlights the pilot project supported by the agriculture and the budget committees on the IPM toolkit for farmers, allowing them to be aware of and chose from the various alternative and combined pest control options available to them, in order to best suit their needs and mainstream IPM, cutting chemical use.
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Expresses its satisfaction with the overall degree of progress shown by the Member States in implementing Directive 2009/128/EC; urges the Commission to promote the harmonisation of risk indicators at EU level and to
source: 627.042
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2018-09-12Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 052New
Rules of Procedure EP 52 |
2018-03-16Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052New
Rules of Procedure EP 052 |
2018-03-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
2018-01-30Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
activities/0 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
ENVI/8/11439
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2018-01-20Show (5) Changes
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|