SUD Implementation in the EU Member States

Madrid, 2nd July 2012

Claudia MichelDirector

Sustainability & Stakeholder RelationsECPA

Content

SUD Requirements and Timeline

SUD Implementation in the EU Member States

General Overview

Country Specific Outline - Examples

SUD requirements and challenges

Directive 128/2009 Implementation

TimelineIssues

By 26 November 2011

Entry into force of National laws, regulations and administrative provisions to Implement SU DIR (if not specified otherwise)

- Measures to ensure risk or use reduction in public areas- Certificate system for equipment inspection

By 26 November2012

Communication of NAPs by MS to the Commission

MS to determine penalties applicable to infringement of national provisions adopted

Commission and MS to develop strategic guidance document on surveying impacts of pesticides

As from 2013 MS to ensure that aircraft are equipped with best available technology

By 30 June2013

MS to report on measures taken to promote low pesticide input pest management/IPM/organic & in particular on establishment of necessary conditions for IPM implementation

Directive 128/2009Implementation Timeline Issues

By 26 November2013

Establishment of training certificate systems for prof. users, distributors & advisors

By 1st January2014

MS to report (in NAPs) on how it is ensured that IPM is implemented by all professional users by 1.1.2014

By 26 November 2014

Submission of Report by Commission to EP and CS on NAPs content

By 26 November 2015

Distributor 1 staff to be trained. Training implemented Restriction of sales of products for professional use to professional users holding a certificate

By 26 November 2016

Ms to ensure that all (despite exemptions) equipment to be inspected at least once. Only inspected equipment to be in professional use

2017 (first) Review of NAP by MS

By 26 November 2018 Report by the Commission to EP and Council on the national experience with national targets. Accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals

SUD requirements and challenges

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Current Situation – legal background

In many Member States new plant protection legislation is already in force and requirements of the SUD are legally implemented including legal background for NAP’s.

Some Member States have already an NAP: BE, DE, DK, FR, SE, UK. Several will nevertheless revise it (BE, DE, DK).

Considering regional differences and allocations of competences, the NAP’s will be a challenge for several Member State, for example: AT, BE, DE

In most Member States, the draft of the NAP is in the phase of internal consultation or stakeholder involvement.

Main areas of actions

Training of farmers and advisors

IPM,

Advice, in particular on IPM

Inspection of sprayers

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Quantitative and qualitative targets

Considered qualitative and quantitative targets in NAP’s are focused on different areas, e.g.:

Reduction of risks arising from the use of PPP’s,

Reduction of exceedances of MRLs,

Implementation and encouragement of IPM.

Targets are often classified as main- and sub-targets.

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Indicators, including risk indicators

•MS distinguish between environmental, economic and social indicators to address the three pillars of sustainability

•Socio-economic research is needed.

•In almost all Member States indicators are in discussion.

•Trend indicators or other kinds of indicators are available or planned while Member State await a proposal for harmonised risk indicators at EU level (Annex IV of the SUD)

•Many indicators allowing to indicate actions which can contribute to risk reduction (indirect indicator)

•Many MS will use the NAP to develop and test useful indicators.

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Public communication& stakeholder involvement

In almost all Member States, a key issue is to provide balanced information about plant protection products. 

Almost all Member States involve relevant stakeholders in the development of their NAP’s.

Establishment of theme-specific working groups (e.g. on water or amenity uses) is considered an effective tool (exists in BE, CZ, DE, FR, UK)

Internet is considered to be a main tool for communication.

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Challenges in the Member States

Indicators

Lack of resources for research or data gathering.

Other Governmental Policies to reduce burdens on businesses (simplification, less bureaucracy).

Governments may limit the development of new indicators (new data requirements, expensive)

Implementation of IPM

Resources: for efficient advisory services in the field

IPM Requirement for all professional users

Demonstration farms important, but costly

Coherence with other rules and policies

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview

Austria

Legal acts for transposition exist

NAP: each of the 9 Federal States (Länder) will submit to the Agricultural Ministry an “action plan” (LAP)

LAP Plans are in preparation

Stakeholder consultation took place on the drafts

Focus will be on risk reduction.

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

Latvia

Plant Protection Law amended in October 2011

Draft NAP, June 2012

Collaboration with farmers, CP industry Advisory Service on NAP

Target NAP 2013/2018: Risk Reduction associated with use

Quantitative Targets for individual actions e.g.: trained users, increase samples for residue testing

Main areas of actions (examples): revision of training systems, establishment of sprayer inspection system, promotion of IPM, actions against illegal and fake products

Some national indicators, but not with direct link to PPP use (e.g. water quality) exist. More specific ones on PPP: related to existing standards (EQs, MRLs) - water monitoring and MRL compliance

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

Lithuania

First stakeholder conference in 2009

New Plant Protection Act for transposition signed May 2012

NAP: Memorandum of Cooperation between Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Farmers Union, Advisory Services, CP association and association of Agricultural Communities to work towards NAP. WGs created

NAP in project stage at Ministry of Agriculture

NAP goal: reducing risks

Indicators: eg increase number of certified sprayer, famers implementing IPM, sprayers with drift reduction nozzles, increase PPP for minor uses, increase number of operators using PPE

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

Poland

Draft Law on Plant Protection Products, to be adopted 3Q 2012

NAP will be established by Ministry of Agriculture (lead) in cooperation with Ministry of Health and Environment

NAP draft available on website. Consultation with stakeholders undertaken

Main areas of action: IPM, training, sprayer inspection, improve efficiency of control on sales and uses

Indicators for NAP (examples): % of food samples exceeding MRLs, knowledge on IPM principles by farmers

Plus indicators for specific NAP actions: Residues in drinking water, number of law infringement incidences, trained users, advisors and distributors, % of PP application equipment inspected (examples)

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

France

NAP has been adopted in the context of “Grenelle de l’environnement”

Draft law on Plant Protection Products, will be adopted 3Q 2012.

The plan ECOPHYTO 2018 has 2 main political objectives:

Ban from market of 53 substances

Reduction of use by 50% if possible within 10 years

Measures comprise e.g.:– Training scheme, Certiphyto

– Restrictions of sprays around specific areas like schools, healthcare facilities,…

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

United Kingdom

Existing plan in the UK; Started in 2006, revised in 2008 and under revision to comply with the SUD

Current NAP

Subdivided in 6 Action Plan (Human Health, Water, Biodiversity, Amateur, Amenity, Availability)

Public consultation on new NAP launched in 2010

New NAP

Adaptation or slight reinforcement of what already exists in the UK system.

Legislation may be kept to a minimum with the preference given to voluntary approaches where possible

SUD implementation & NAPs – Country specific examples

Thank you for your attention