20 Amendments of Hilde VAUTMANS related to 2017/2128(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the fact that an implementation report for Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is being undertaken with the aim of scrutinising the Regulation's performance in ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health as well as the environment, while safeguarding the competitiveness of the EU’s agriculture sector by providing access to a broad range of active substances and Plant Protection Products (PPP) for all farmers and producers, irrespective of the Members States they are operating in;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Takes note of the European Commission's ongoing REFIT Evaluation of Regulation 1107/2009 and of its planned completion by November 2018; trusts that these findings will be an adequate basis for the co-legislators to discuss the future development of Regulation 1107/2009;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Recognises that plant protection products have played a significant role in improving the agricultural sector's capability to satisfy global nutritional needs, which has contributed to reducing the global share of undernourished people in the population from 18.6% in 1990- 1992 to around 10.9% in 2014-2016 according to the FAO1a, thus takes the view that the current system should be improved by intensifying efforts to eliminate adverse effects rather than by dismissing it without having alternatives at hand that are equally capable of maintaining and further increasing the supply of food; _________________ 1aSee FAO (2015): The State of Food Security in the World, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf.
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. underlines its belief that the Regulation's set of targets can be achieved most effectively if (complementary to further conditions set in the MRL Regulation and Sustainable Use Directive, in particular the principles of Integrated Pest Management and Good Agricultural Practices) farmers and producers, irrespective of the Member States they are operating in, have access to a broad range of active substances and Plant Protection Products (PPP) that allows them to efficiently tackle pests; stresses that the availability of a broad range of PPPs is the basis for any meaningful reduction strategy, because otherwise farmers would be dependent on less targeted and hence less efficient PPPs, which leads to higher consumption;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Considers that the Sustainable Use Directive has not been sufficiently implemented by EU Member States; highlights the importance of continuous training and education of farmers in the proper use of plant protection products; urges Member States and competent authorities to make better use of all available measures to increase the safe use of plant protection products and reduce adverse environmental effects;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Highlights the importance of a holistic approach that includes integrated pest management (IPM);
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Highlights the potential efficiency gains in plant protection that could be realised through the use of precision farming technologies, which will allow farmers to apply plant protection products more targeted in regard to where and in what quantity exactly they are needed instead of a general application on the entire field, which would lead to a significant reduction of consumption quantity;
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. StExpresses the importance of a science-based approachits concern that in recent debates the European Union's current science-based evaluation system for PPPs has been more and more called into question; therefore stresses the importance of maintaining and further strengthening a scientifically robust decision making in authorising any active substance, in line with the EU’s risk analysis principles and the precautionary principle as established in the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002);
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Welcomes the Commission's interpretation of the precautionary principle, as expressed in the REFIT evaluation of the general food law1a, that it is not an alternative to a risk management approach but rather a particular form of risk management, recalls that this view is also supported by EU court rulings1b; calls on the Commission to assess whether the cut-off criteria as laid down in 1107/2009 are fit for purpose in this regard; _________________ 1a SWD(2018) 38 final. 1be.g. Judgement of the General Court of 9 September 2011 in France vs. Commission, T-257/07, EU:T:2011:444.
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3 c. Expresses its concern that Regulation 834/2007 provides no equal scientifically robust and thorough regime for the assessment of effects on human health, animal health and the environment for the authorisation of substances for plant protection in organic production; notes that the principle of separating risk assessment and risk management is not applied in that regulation;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Expresses its concern about systematic delays in the authorisation processes and the increasing use of derogations as laid down in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, while underlining the necessity for Member States to comply with the legal deadlines to ensure predictability for applicants and facilitate the market introduction of innovative PPPs that are in line with more stringent requirements;; stresses that these delays seriously hinder the market introduction of efficient and safer innovative products and that they also lead to an increasing use of emergency authorisations, which come with a higher environmental burden; underlines the necessity for Member States to comply with the legal deadlines to ensure predictability for applicants and facilitate the market introduction of innovative PPPs that are in line with more stringent requirements; highlights that a Commission audit carried out in 2016 and 2017 in 7 Member States1a showed that the majority of the audited Member States had no sufficient systems in place to ensure the processing of applications within legal deadlines; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=108
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Recalls that the zonal evaluation system should in principle lead to an authorisation of plant protection products that is more time- and cost-efficient for all parties concerned; expresses its concern that in practice those benefits could barely or not be realised due to a lack of cooperation, harmonised methodology and models as well as application conditions (such as quantity per surface area, distance requirements, re-entry safety intervals, periods of application etc.) between Member States, leading to systematic delays in the authorisation process and an increased use of emergency authorisations;
Amendment 102 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. StresUrges Member States to fully uses the need to encourage work sharing between Member States by fosteropportunity of work sharing provided by the zonal authorisation system by further developing the availability and use of harmonised methodology and models to conduct evaluations, while reducing the existence of additional national requirements; encourages the Commission and competent authorities to support the Member States in that project;
Amendment 109 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Welcomes the idea and targets of the zonal authorisation system, but recognises that those targets potentially could be achieved more efficiently by a single authorisation system on Union level; asks the Commission to evaluate whether the authorisation process could be achieved more time- and cost- efficiently by either improving the current system (e.g. by strengthening the harmonisation of methodology, models and application requirements and/or by introducing a mandatory authorisation for the entire zone following a positive evaluation by the zRMS), or by setting up a single Union approval system;
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Regards the application of the mutual recognition procedure as an important tool to increase work sharing and ensure compliance with deadlines, as it allows applicants to apply for authorisation in another Member State which makes the same use of the product in question for the same agricultural practices, based on the assessment carried out for the authorisation in the original Member State; expresses its concern that a recent Commission audit1a concludes that some Member States fully or partially re-evaluate applications for mutually recognition, which results in exceeding legal deadlines, although the majority of these evaluations have the same or a very similar outcome; _________________ 1ahttp://ec.europa.eu/food/audits- analysis/overview_reports/details.cfm?rep _id=108
Amendment 139 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Expresses concerns about the small amount of new substances that have been approved, while at the same time other substances have been taken of the market; stresses the importance of a suitable tool box of plant protection products for farmers to secure the EU's food supply;
Amendment 150 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8 a. Stresses the importance of a regulatory framework that stimulates and facilitates research and innovation in order to develop better and safer plant protection products, while at the same time securing the availability of a broad range of plant protection products.
Amendment 157 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8 b. Highlights that special attention should be given to the role of small and medium entreprises (SMEs) in the development of new products, as SMEs often lack the extraordinary resources that are nessesary in the process of development and approval of new substances.
Amendment 166 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)
Paragraph 8 c (new)
8 c. Stresses that more priority should be given to the authorisation process of low-risk substances