Interpellations

Our NGOs refuse to waste any more time on this major issue! They have decided to mobilize and write to the governments of the Member States and to the members of the European Parliament to inform them of their concerns and expectations.

In a letter sent at the beginning of December, they recall that the Commission’s proposal is part of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, as well as the Nature Restoration Act and that it is about an essential first step in the urgent reduction of the use of pesticides which have a strong impact on our health, water quality and biodiversity.

They also point out that the continued attacks on this important piece of legislation threaten to undo the work that the Commission, the Council and many organizations have been doing for a long time on this regulation. Some special interests in the food industry are trying to water down the SUR regulation and delay its passage.

Following the request for the withdrawal of this regulation and the announcement by some Member States planning to ask the Commission for an additional impact study, they express their concerns about the consequences of such a delay in the adoption of the regulation, as it is likely that the adoption process would then not be finalized by the end of this Commission’s mandate in 2024.

They call on Member States to reaffirm the need for rapid adoption of the SUR. This piece of legislation is crucial to implementing the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies, as well as the Zero Pollution Action Plan, and is key to achieving the goals of the Green Deal – a plan that France has explicitly welcomed.

For our NGOs, there is no need for further impact analysis, as the impact statement has already been approved by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The fact that this was done prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has no bearing on the validity of this analysis. Moreover, SUR’s passage through the legislature and subsequent entry into force would likely take until late 2023 and 2024 respectively, even if negotiations begin immediately. Therefore, the effects of this legislation would have no bearing on the current crisis due to the war in Ukraine.

They emphasize that food security in the European Union is not threatened by the war in Ukraine. What really threatens global food security is the current model of intensive agricultural production that destroys the basic natural resources for food production – soils and biodiversity. As civil society organizations and more than 660 scientists and other food systems experts have pointed out, postponing and diluting environmental actions, such as the pesticide reduction targets proposed under the SUR, would only moving us further away from securing long-term food production and resilience to threats like climate change and the biodiversity crisis. The massive use of synthetic pesticides is already having a very negative impact on human health as well as on biodiversity including pollinators, water and soil quality – in other words: on the basis of our food production .

The growing number of farmers switching to agroecology confirms the scientific evidence – producing food without synthetic pesticides results in improved health, increased soil fertility and restoration of biodiversity. By moving away from the dominant model whose negative externalities are proven, the economic resilience of farmers is increased, thanks to the acquisition of independence from agribusiness.

A delay or even non-adoption of SUR would ignore not only the scientific recommendations, but also the demands of the more than one million EU citizens who participated in the European citizens’ initiative “Save Bees & Farmers” for whom the topic of pesticides is clearly a big concern. Beyond the dossier, the absence of effective action would also undermine their confidence in European and national institutions.

Instead of fundamentally opposing the proposal, discuss its content. In particular, we stress the importance of implementing genuine Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – based on preventive measures, longer crop rotations, crop diversification, use of resistant cultivars, monitoring and biological controls. SUR must ensure that IPM is implemented on a large scale, as it has been mandatory since 2014, but correct application in European farms is still not the norm. Proper implementation of the IPM leads to a significant reduction in the use of pesticides, thereby fulfilling many of the Member State’s obligations under the SUR, while preserving and enhancing biodiversity and the best in the world. scope of operation.

It therefore urges Member States to oppose an additional impact study which would lead to a delay in the implementation of the SUR Regulation at EU level. EU decision makers need to live up to their responsibilities and listen to independent science and EU citizens who express concern about pesticide use in the EU Barometer (especially in France on the subject of the presence of pesticide residues in food) and the European citizens’ initiative Save Bees and Farmers.