This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Correspondence and exchanges on pesticide reduction law (SUR)'.




Ref. Ares(2023)4550291 - 30/06/2023

full impact assessment with a view to securing nutrient supply and avoidance of 
leakage effects.  
3.  Adequate and well-founded definition of sensitive areas 
For sensitive areas, we feel that excluding the use of any PPP, especially if that includes non-
chemical measures (e.g. biocontrol) is too extreme and will be very detrimental for 
many regions that depend on agricultural production. Besides, without a precise 
indication of which areas specifically are concerned and how these provisions should be 
interpreted, this may lead to over interpretation and banning of all uses of plant protection 
products on areas of land used for agricultural purposes. This will have a huge negative 
impact on agricultural production across the EU. 

4. Unrealistic reduction targets in the current socio-economic circumstances 
The reduction targets for the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030 are clearly 
overambitious considering the current socio-economic and political challenges. We call for a 
fundamental readjustment of the EU Commission's proposals in this regard. The reviewing and 
setting of new future targets must be based exclusively on sound scientific knowledge. Setting a 
minimum reduction target as 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. 
5.  A mandatory electronic register is unfeasible and may compromise 
confidentiality of data 
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.
 If data collection 
pertaining to the application of plant protection methods is required, any additional 
bureaucratic and administrative burden for farmers should be avoided.
 
Furthermore, should we be required to share all data, we would also require clarification on 
the further use of the required data to avoid compromising the safety of farmers’ 
private and confidential information. 

6. Making CAP voluntary funds mandatory for the transition is not the way 
forward 
We welcome the inclusion of support measures for farmers during the first five years after entry 
into force of the Regulation to facilitate the application and implementation of certain provisions 
at farm level, however we cannot welcome the option for support through the CAP
We would once again be using CAP funds to support actions/measures that go beyond legislative 
requirements and which are not part of existing EU legislation. Going beyond legislative 
requirements means going beyond enhanced conditionality and this would mean that 
we would be looking at these measures becoming de facto
 mandatory for farmers. 
This is unacceptable for us. 
Following these arguments, you may find our detailed position paper in all Copa and Cogeca 
languages in the annex of this letter. Finally, we hope you are able to take our concerns into 
consideration and should you have any further questions or remarks, please do not hesitate to 
contact us. 
Yours sincerely, 
Pekka Pesonen 
Secretary General 
2 | 2