SUD Implementation in the EU Member States Madrid, 2 nd July 2012

1. SUD Implementation in the EU Member StatesMadrid, 2nd July 2012 Claudia Michel Director Sustainability & Stakeholder Relations ECPA

2. Content • SUD Requirements and Timeline • SUD Implementation in the EU Member States • General Overview • Country Specific Outline - Examples

3. SUD requirements and challenges

4. SUD requirements and challenges

5. 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.

6. SUD implementation & NAPs – General Overview Main areas of actions • Training of farmers and advisors • IPM, • Advice, in particular on IPM • Inspection of sprayers

7. 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 exceedancesof MRLs, • Implementation and encouragement of IPM. • Targets are often classified as main- and sub-targets.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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,…

16. 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

17. Thank you for your attention