SUD Implementation in the EU Member States Madrid

SUD Implementation in the EU Member States Madrid, 2 nd July 2012 Claudia Michel Director Sustainability & Stakeholder Relations ECPA

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 Timeline By 26 November 2011 Issues 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 Communication of NAPs by MS to the Commission By 26 November 2012 As from 2013 By 30 June 2013 MS to determine penalties applicable to infringement of national provisions adopted Commission and MS to develop strategic guidance document on surveying impacts of pesticides MS to ensure that aircraft are equipped with best available technology 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

SUD requirements and challenges Directive 128/2009 Implementation Timeline By 26 November 2013 By 1 st January 2014 Issues Establishment of training certificate systems for prof. users, distributors & advisors 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 By 26 November 2018 (first) Review of NAP by MS Report by the Commission to EP and Council on the national experience with national targets. Accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals

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, DK, FR, SE, UK. Several will nevertheless revise it (BE, 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.

SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview 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 – Country specific examples 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 3 Q 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 3 Q 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

Thank you for your attention