OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming

Belplant

Belplant ijvert voor een duurzame landbouw en een duurzaam gebruik van gewasbeschermingsoplossingen en promoot daartoe de goede praktijken.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Agriculture - List of products and substances authorised in organic production

22 Apr 2021

Biologische landbouwers hebben, net als hun conventionele collega's, behoefte aan doeltreffende oplossingen om hun gewassen te beschermen. Wij zijn voorstander van een meer open en transparante aanpak bij de herziening van de lijst van toegelaten gewasbeschermingsmiddelen voor gebruik in de biologische landbouw: gewasbeschermingsmiddelen in Europa zijn onderworpen aan een van de strengste beoordelingen ter wereld en het blijft onduidelijk hoe zo weinig oplossingen op deze lijst terechtkomen. Er is behoefte aan een transparanter proces en duidelijkheid over de gehanteerde wetenschappelijke criteria. Een duidelijk mechanisme dat een voortdurende evaluatie en bijwerking van deze positieve lijst met het oog op de opneming van nieuwe middelen mogelijk maakt, zou bijdragen tot de verwezenlijking van de EU-doelstellingen inzake de ontwikkeling van gebieden met biologische landbouw.
Read full response

Response to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules

5 Aug 2020

Phytofar, the Belgian association for the crop protection industry, stands for innovative crop protection solutions that underpin a global sustainability perspective for people, the planet and prosperity adapted to local needs in diverse farming systems and on farms of varying sizes. Phytofar supports the improved implementation of the SUD, with a focus on Integrated pest Management. The impact assessment should be science and evidence based. Some remarks and questions from our side: A. Context, Evaluation, problem Definition and Subsidiarity Check - Targets proposed by the F2F Strategy were not impact assessed and do not seem to be based on clear evidence of cause and effect. The baseline for these specific targets will be different in each Member State, introducing unfair implementation from the start. -The Roadmap concludes the SUD should be strengthened, yet the EC (20/05/2020) shows that the application, implementation and enforcement of current rules is variable (compliance monitoring index across Member States). Phytofar supports a system with better implementation of the existing current rules, instead of new legislation. The existing regulation provides a coherent package of measures which requires that all pesticides have safe uses, authorised uses of pesticides have no unacceptable impacts on health or the environment, any trace residues in food and feed are within MRLs set with high safety margins, and pesticides are only used as a last resort (IPM). The Commission REFIT report of the PPP & MRL Regulations found the level of protection was already high, has increased and will improve by 2025; the share of active substances with high hazard is just 2%, and decreasing due to existing measures. B. Objectives and Policy Options - “promote the use of new technologies …..to address possible current barriers to the use of new technologies such as drones”: it is important these barriers are taken away. New technologies and innovation are the key to an even more sustainable use of crop protection products. - SUD states to promote alternative methods and the EC report indicates a lack of progress in this regard. This may be due to the fact these alternative methods are kept out of scope in the impact assessment, including on their long term consequences (crop failure risk/low yield impact -> pressure on areas, reserved for nature, with further consequences for biodiversity) - What are the objectives based on? What will the pesticide targets achieve (+ and -consequences)? Will it be possible to have a resilient food production system for Europe with a reduction in pesticides and use? What is the impact in the rest of the world e.g. on attainment of the SDGs if EU policies prevent market access for smallholders in high pest and disease pressure areas? - What will be the definition of a chemical pesticide? Will specific reduction targets for this category alone not steer away from the current scientific non-discrimination of substances and products, based on their origin (Reg. 1107/2009). Using natural products does not necessarily mean introducing less risk for health/environment. C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts - It is unclear what evidence justifies the reduction of the use and risk of pesticides containing active substances that already have been approved as safe for use. What is the evidence for an unacceptable risk to human health from pesticides or that pesticides are a significant problem for biodiversity? Pesticides with unacceptable health/environmental effects are already not allowed. What is the impact compared to other major problems to biodiversity: hedgerow removal, urbanisation, portioning of ecosystems, spatial planning policies, road development, aircraft noise etc.? - What additional risks will arise? Will safety be compromised if the EU is unable to control mycotoxins or invasive alien species and plants that are significant health threats?
Read full response

Response to Establishment of Harmonised Risk Indicators to measure the reduction in risks and adverse impacts from pesticide use

20 Dec 2018

For Phytofar, the Belgian crop protection industry association, it is not clear whether and when this first phase of implementing HRI's will be followed by a second phase - there isn't a clear deadline for this second phase as there was for the first phase. This is important because only focusing on the sales of active ingredients as well as the chemical hazard of individual active substances and number of products is not appropriate since it does not really reflect a risk measurement. It should therefore be stressed that a) this is only the first phase of HRI's and that currently they are incomplete, and b) these HRI's should be looked at, together with specific national indicators for risk reduction or exposure-based indicators (like risk mitigation measures applied; collection rate of empty packages; number of operators that went through licensed trainings on handling crop protection products; residu compliance; controls of spraying equipment, ...) In Belgium an example of such an integrated indicator is the PRIBEL indicator. Secondly, the weighting factors outlined in the current Commission proposal seem very arbitrary. The assumption that each article 53 authorisation carries a higher risk is unjustified and they seem to be weighed higher just to discourage members states granting article 53 authorisations. Please try to understand the main reasons for the high number of emergency authorisations in several countries can be linked with the zonal process itself; the timelines for new product authorisation are generally not well respected. Moreover, these authorisations, just like normal authorisations, take into consideration the human and environmental exposure and risks, which must be considered acceptable. Member states therefore only approve an emergency authorisation if there is a real need for the product, and each time an application occurs, all alternatives are checked. However, since it concerns an “emergency” application (mostly applied for by third parties, although industry applications also occur), there often isn’t a suitable alternative.
Read full response