Ref. Ares(2023)4550291 - 30/06/2023
Sticking to reduction targets despite new challenges will have a
profound impact on EU society
In the current politically precarious situation, the EU should focus more than ever on the goal of
ensuring food security. There are now enough studies showing that the Farm to Fork (F2F)
strategy will have a negative impact on EU production and - according to current forecasts - lead
to significant cuts in food production. In light of the current circumstances (war in Ukraine,
EU’s dependency on external agricultural inputs (i.e. energy and fertilisers) and soaring food
prices in many countries), it is crucial that agricultural yields remain stable in order to produce
sufficient quantities of high-quality and affordable products. This is the only way to ensure food
security for citizens both in the EU and globally. Stable production of agricultural products or
even an increase in production in the EU should, therefore, be recognised as key in ensuring
security of supply in the EU and internationally. Thus, the Commission has committed to
presenting global impact assessment studies, including elements linked to food security, in its
proposal.
We believe that it is important for the Commission to first recognise and measure properly what
has already been delivered by EU farmers in the past, in terms of the sustainable use of
pesticides. In Europe, pesticide use and risk has decreased sharply over the past five decades1.
We would encourage the Commission to develop a method to take into account what has been
already done in terms of on-farm innovation and application of IPM just as they have done for
measuring and establishing the targets.
The current proposal jeopardises Europe's security of supply
This objective may be massively jeopardised by the Commission's plans. Moreover, it is to be
expected that forced organic farming in large parts of Europe would cause existential hardship
for countless farms without any appreciable benefit for the environment. The biological and
mechanical methods of exterminating pests are not sufficient in certain regions and this
information was very clearly explained to the Commission by various states that face these
problems. The productivity in these regions would be compromised. The conversion to organic
farming is not an easy one. On top of new techniques and requirements, farmers also need
adequate training to properly respect criteria set out in Regulation 2018/848. Furthermore, the
fallout from the plans which would spill out beyond rural areas should also not be
underestimated as food prices would continue to rise due to the artificially induced shortage.
The reduction targets for the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030 are therefore clearly
overambitious and irresponsible considering the current socio-economic and political
challenges. The various studies published last year (JRC, Wageningen, USDA, COCERAL,
Euroseeds, University of Kiel, INRAE) all point in a worrying direction: agricultural production
in the EU will decline sharply, prices and farmers' incomes will be severely affected and
environmental benefits will be very limited in terms of food security and sustainability due to
offshoring effects to third countries. Furthermore, the EU's dependence on food imports will
increase dramatically and some studies even predict that the EU will become a net importer.
As Copa and Cogeca have been saying for years, and as the facts today clearly prove, food
security is highly strategic and still very relevant. The EU Green Deal cannot be implemented at
the cost of our production and, thus, the EU Institutions need to speed up all the work being
done to provide EU agriculture with the tools to achieve those objectives while not reducing our
production (e.g. NGTs, low risk substances, precision agriculture, digital tools, consistency with
trade policy…). Farmers should have an appropriate toolbox at hand, therefore no substance
shall be withdrawn from the market without having a safe, affordable and effective alternative
solution available. Research and innovation will be key for the future in this regard.
1 EEA (2018), Phillips McDougall (2018)
2 | 6
No scientific basis for the Commission's proposals
This is also particularly problematic because the Commission cannot demonstrate that there are
compelling reasons for such a forced action. The Impact Assessment Report accompanying the
SUR does not sufficiently explore the impacts of the Commission’s proposals on agricultural
production. These impacts should, of course, be taken seriously and verified by appropriate
research and field trials. It is irresponsible to compromise the sources of nutrition of more than
450 million people on the basis of an insufficient impact assessment. Similarly, it is
incomprehensible that the assessments of the technical authorities are hardly heard at both
European or national level. The review and setting of new future targets must, therefore, be
based exclusively on sound scientific knowledge. The Commission's proposal to compare the
reduction with the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 does not provide a sufficient basis
for setting a threshold in a Member State or achieving a 50% reduction in PPP use, let alone the
even higher reduction ambition set for certain Member States going above a 60% reduction
target. The data currently available on actual PPP use in the EU is simply insufficient for this.
Setting the minimum reduction target proposed by the Commission without a sufficient
agronomic or scientific basis is particularly detrimental to countries that have already
significantly reduced the use of chemical and hazardous plant protection products. A further
reduction would mean even higher yield losses, lower competitiveness and a greater threat to the
security of food supply in the EU. The proposed path, therefore, does not lead to a level playing
field between Member States or in international trade scenarios. Finally, there would be
contradictions in the regulatory framework in all Member States such as in certain dangerous
situations whereby legislation would require the use of proper plant protection tools - including
conventional products - in epidemics created by alien and invasive species, for instance, to
efficiently eradicate those pathogens.
Same rules also needed for imported goods
EU farmers are already in direct competition with the rest of the world. It is, therefore, essential
to adopt coherent internal and external policies in order to tackle the issue of competitiveness
between the various farming sectors across the world.
EU policies will increasingly push up production costs. Furthermore, raising the standards for
producers in the EU while simultaneously increasing imports of products from third countries
due to decreasing yields is, in our opinion, the wrong approach. This is especially true if these
countries have lower requirements for the use of plant protection products than European
farmers as it promotes leakage. It does not only put European farmers at an enormous economic
disadvantage, but also causes more plant protection products to be used elsewhere on the
planet. Therefore, the limitations and obligations with which European producers have to
comply should, in principle, also apply to imports into the EU and these imports should be
monitored regularly. This should become a non-negotiable factor in free trade negotiations. If
EU farmers have to face tighter restrictions on cultivation and implement higher production
standards in line with the EU framework (e.g., SUR), we expect those high requirements to be
mirrored for imports entering the EU.
Without effective alternatives, a 50% reduction of use is irresponsible
In the draft SUR, the EU Commission gives the impression that there are already sufficient
alternatives on the market to substitute currently used chemical-synthetic plant protection
products. However, this is by no means the case. The few products already on the market are far
less efficient at achieving what conventional PPPs can and this is expected to remain the case
over the short and medium term. The lack of suitable alternatives to chemical plant protection
products is increasingly forcing farmers to rely on emergency authorisations provided for in EU
legislation for unforeseen circumstances and depending on plant protection needs. Only once
sufficient and effective alternatives, such as low-risk PPPs or biologically based PPPs, are
approved and available on the European internal market will a reduction in the use of
chemically-synthesised plant protection products in the order of magnitude envisaged by the
Commission be possible. Fewer and fewer active substances available will lead to higher pest
resistance and product application rates by farmers. Above all, extreme weather events are
already a constant and the reduction of the low amounts of pesticides currently used by certain
3 | 6
states in these extreme conditions will have negative consequences that the Commission has not
evaluated. Considering the different percentages outlined by the Commission for each Member
State, it is unbearable to see how EU countries are treated differently, particularly when the
justification given by the Commission is mainly based on PPP intensity usage level and volumes
chiefly based on sales data without factoring in the climate conditions of the country under
consideration, the various crop production methods used across different countries and regions
and annual outbreaks of new invasive alien species (dangerous for plants, animals and humans).
In this regard, we should also highlight the risk of yield and production losses that specialty crop
production will suffer across the three main regions of the EU -Northern, Central and Southern
Europe - with this Regulation, as there is still a huge lack of proper, targeted tools for this niche
market, making it even more difficult to maintain this high value production for the future.
Promoting innovation instead of imposing bans
From our perspective, no ban on active substances should come into effect without having
solutions at hand. PPPs will remain an essential element in IPM for the future even if their share
decreases. Nevertheless, we need to consider how it still takes a long time for low-risk
substances and biopesticides to become available on the market. At the same time,
authorisations for the renewal of conventional PPPs are increasingly refused in decisions at EU
level. As a result, this leaves the farmers’ toolbox unable to fight pests and diseases adequately
that affect their crops, leading to consequent compromises to food supply and security for
consumers.
To tackle this, we insist that sustainable, scientifically sound, effective, safe and affordable plant
protection products of any nature will continue to be necessary in the future so that EU farmers
can remain competitive and produce sufficient quantities of high-quality, healthy food. To
achieve this goal, innovation must be encouraged and new products brought to market quickly.
Moreover, it is important to develop adapted genetic, robotic, digital and agronomic solutions to
reconcile agricultural production with environmental protection. Focusing on stricter rules for
farmers, however, will not solve the fundamental issue of setting up an adequate, safe and
effective plant protection scheme in the farms. Appropriate transitional periods and sufficient
time and money for basic research are needed to allow the supply sector to bring new alternative
products to the market. The fact that it takes on average ten years for the current low-risk
products to reach the market shows that the proposed timescale is not sufficient. It is therefore
of utmost importance to simplify, speed up and differentiate the procedures for registering low-
risk PPPs. This is by no means practicable by lowering technical testing standards. What is
required is a clear streamlining of the overflowing bureaucracy of registration procedures.
No further restrictions in protected areas
Copa and Cogeca are worried about the extent of the areas concerned and reject further blanket
management restrictions in protected areas. While we acknowledge the European Commission's
intention to introduce special protection for select, or so-called “sensitive”, areas in which the
use of certain pesticides will be limited, we are concerned that these rules diverge from a rational
approach and may be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways. The definition of ‘sensitive area’
is extremely broad and unclear at the moment. Having no precise information on which specific
areas are concerned or how these provisions are to be read may lead to overly ambitious
misinterpretations and potentially form a gateway to permanent bans being introduced on the
use of all pesticides on areas of land used for agricultural purposes. This would undoubtedly
have a significant, negative impact on agricultural production in some Member States.
Instead, a differentiated, site-specific cooperative approach is required, depending on the
respective conservation objective of the protected area. This applies not least to legislations that
are far removed from reality, such as a 14-day deadline for officially approving measures in
protected areas or the obligation to announce approved operations by means of signs at the
borders of the respective protected area. It would be contrary to good professional practice if
farmers were informed only several days in advance about the implementation of plant
protection measures which, depending on the weather and disease and pest infestation, are not
decided and implemented prophylactically but rather at very short notice. Further compounding
4 | 6
the fact that competent authorities lack the necessary staffing to issue such permissions is the
unacceptable proposed timeframe.
Last but not least, we feel that excluding the use of any plant protection product, especially if
that includes non-chemical measures (e.g. biocontrol measures), would be too extreme and very
detrimental for many regions that depend on agricultural production primarily dedicated to
high-value speciality crops that cannot be cultivated elsewhere.
No need to increase the bureaucratic burden on farmers and authorities
Documentation already takes up a considerable amount of time in farmers' daily work.
Therefore, if data collection pertaining to the application of plant protection methods is
demanded, any additional bureaucratic and administrative burden for farmers should be
avoided. Compulsory digital documentation of all measures represents a considerable additional
effort, especially for smaller farms, without any corresponding benefit being apparent. The
possibility provided for in the Regulation proposal to check whether certain measures are
necessary at farm level still needs more nuance as this would require a large number of
additional environmental parameters to be documented first and made available to producers in
a timely manner. It is, furthermore, not possible to make any scientific evaluations about the
effects on biodiversity on the basis of the documentation since the necessary additional
information is also lacking. It would therefore be much more effective to set up a representative
network of farms and thus collect qualified data for the evaluation of the measures. Copa and
Cogeca also categorically reject the demand for an electronic register for (almost) all equipment
for the application of plant protection products, as the possible expense far exceeds the expected
benefit of this measure and will only increase the workload and the economic and administrative
burden on farmers. Any further requirement regarding data should be coherent with other legal
instruments, mainly with the “Regulation on Statistics on agricultural input and output (SAIO)”.
In addition, we recognise the value of independent advisory services for farmers to further
implement sustainable field practices as long as this does not impose further burdens. The
impartiality of an advisory service for farmers will always ensure that farmers obtain the greatest
benefit, as much at production level as with a potential collective commercialisation (e.g. farms
in cooperatives). However, we would also highlight that cooperatives’ own advisory services
should be considered as impartial and independent. Without opposing the principles of training
and controls as such, we stress the fact that these agri-cooperatives’ advisory services do not
only work for their members, but also for other farmers even in distant rural areas, and these
services are key and affordable for them to go further on making agriculture sustainable. Finding
enough independent advisory offices for all farmers will not be feasible at national level in every
Member State. Training should keep pace so as to be proportionate with and guarantee
availability.
Furthermore, as soon as we are bound to share all data, farmers will lose ownership to a great
extent as third parties will be able to demand access to it for no reason other than governments
needing to be transparent. We would also require clarification on how the data required will be
further used so as not to compromise farmers’ private and confidential information. The
proposal that
“Each professional user shall retain the services of an independent advisor” may,
moreover, be unrealistic depending on the costs of this advisory service, particularly as some
rural areas in the EU have no or very low profitability and may not be able to afford this kind of
service themselves while remaining productive and competitive.
Amending the Regulation on the National Strategic Plans is not the
solution to ensure the transition
We may welcome the inclusion of support measures for farmers during the first five years after
the entry into force of the Regulation to facilitate the application and implementation of certain
provisions at farm level, however we cannot welcome this option for support through the CAP.
First of all, the support measures included in the current CAP have already been cut down and,
furthermore, the development of the National Strategic Plans (NSP) is currently in its final stage
in all Member States, with the budget set and allocated to the different pillars, measures and
interventions.
5 | 6
Secondly, we understand from the Commission that these funds, even being voluntary by
definition, would be used exceptionally to help farms comply with
mandatory rules set in the
Regulation before becoming voluntary again after 5 years. Even in that case, we would once
again be using CAP funds to support actions/measures that go beyond legislative requirements
that are not part of existing EU legislation. Going beyond legislative requirements means going
beyond enhanced conditionality and, as such, any such support would fall into the category of
eco-schemes (in pillar 1) or agro-environmental-climate and welfare commitments. Both are
mandatory for Member States but voluntary for farmers. If applied, this would mean that we
would be looking at these two measures becoming
de facto mandatory for farmers (with or
without CAP support).
Thirdly, the period covered by the future CAP is 2023-2027. However, the 5-year transitional
period mentioned may go beyond that depending on the entry into force of the Regulation. This
is not likely to happen before 2024, so this means that the measures would not fit into the
timeline of the next CAP period, but the one after 2027. In any case, we do not yet have any
comprehensive impact assessment available that may allow us to understand the measures
required to be implemented or achieve the targets with the help of these proposed funds. This
does not provide any future certainty for farmers in any case.
Finally, it is of the utmost importance that the calculation and process of setting up national
targets for the Member States shall be transparent. In addition, the indicators intended to
monitor the implementation of this Regulation shall be uniform and very well-defined at EU
level.
Copa and Cogeca’s demands
We would ask for a fundamental readjustment of the EU Commission's proposals. Moreover,
accelerating the approval processes for new active substances is crucial, whether chemical-
synthetic or from biological origin. Thirdly, we insist on the need for a full impact assessment
with a view to security of supply with nutrients and leakage effects. Last but not least, from our
perspective, the key focus for the future of sustainable plant protection should be adaptation to
farms’ realities, targeted research and a request to accelerate biocontrol and the development of
New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), proper training and advice for farmers and precision
farming.
Supporting documents:
x Copa and Cogeca’s position on the sustainable use of crop protection
x Copa and Cogeca’s position on the Farm to Fork Strategy
x Copa and Cogeca’s feedback to the Commission’s consultation: Proposal for a Regulation
on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (19 September 2022)
-----------
6 | 6