sud implementation in the eu member states madrid, 2 nd july 2012 claudia michel director...
TRANSCRIPT
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