OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Slovak Crop Protection Association

SCPA

Poriadanie národných a medzinárodných konferencií, seminárov, prednášok, exkurzií a školení Podpora študujúcej mládeže v odboroch poľnohospodárstvo a lesníctvo Organizácia a vykonávanie odborného vzdelávania pre predaj a používanie prípravkov na ochranu rastlín. Propagačná, výstavnícka, vydavateľská, edičná činnosť Komunikácia s orgánmi štátnej správy, masmédiami, ostatnými združeniami, stavovskými organizáciami. Šírenie vedecko-technických poznatkov a skúseností ako aj odborných vedomostí pre podnikateľskú, výrobnú a obchodnú sféru v oblasti ochrany rastlín a rastlinnej produkcie pred škodlivými organizmami a činiteľmi Monitorovanie morálneho a etického rozmeru slovenského trhu s prípravkami na ochranu rastlín. Upozorňovanie kompetentných orgánov na nedostatky. Zvyšovanie odbornej úrovne členov spoločnosti.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Update of labelling obligations for plant protection products

3 Feb 2025

CLE - Key General Comment 1 Whereas (18), Article 8 (2) Article 9 Article 10 (new article specifically on digital label) However the type of machine-readable digital coding has to specified, which exact type of specified digital code has to be used in uniform way across EU members states to provide uniformity, harmonization, transparence, traceability, synchronization and similar EU wide effects. Note: We suggest to use 2D matrix code technology which is already used in some member states for track and trace purposes with evolving directing towards statistical purposes. Legal environment is specified in many details within actual valid version of Czech Phyto sanitarian law and related Degree as one of existing examples. 2 Article 2 (2) Labeling of plant protection products to be used for experiments should be unified across EU. National requirements (based on permit for experimental use) have no justification as these samples are not intended to be placed on the market Note: It would be appropriate to clarify what information from this appendix needs to be included on the label of the experimental preparation for practical reasons...
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

23 May 2023 · Meeting with the farmers from 5 frontline Member States (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia) about the impact of imports of Ukrainian agricultural products

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

25 Jul 2020

SCPA supports the improved implementation of the SUD, with a focus on IPM. The impact assessment should be evidence based. Any of the options must consider the trade-offs between policy goals to determine the most appropriate course of action for the EU. It will be essential to conduct the study in a manner that does not pre-judge the outcome to support unsubstantiated targets. There are a number of questions that we ask to be addressed. A. Context, Evaluation, Problem Definition and Subsidiarity Check a. Targets proposed by the F2F Strategy were not impact assessed and do not seem to be based on clear evidence of cause and effect. Any revision of the SUD should be fully impact assessed, with a clear understanding of trade-offs. All parties want to see more sustainable agriculture, biodiversity enhancement, food security and economic wellbeing for farmers, whilst the CAP budget is reduced. Proposals must be fully costed in environmental and economic terms to properly inform co-legislators. b. The Roadmap concludes the SUD should be strengthened, yet the EC shows that the application, implementation and enforcement of current rules is variable. It would seem prudent to consider better implementation of current rules, not just options for new legislation. The framework across the SUD, PPP Regulation, Official Controls Regulation and the MRL Regulation provides a coherent package of measures which requires that: • all pesticides have safe uses • authorised uses of pesticides have no unacceptable impacts on human health or the environment • any trace residues in food and feed (imported and EU) are within MRLs set with very high safety margins. EFSA routinely finds excellent compliance with MRLs • pesticides are only used as a last resort, when necessary 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%, which will decrease due to existing measures. B. Objectives and Policy Options a. It is unclear what evidence justifies the reduction of the use and risk of pesticides containing active substances that are 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? What is the impact compared to hedgerow removal, urbanisation, portioning of ecosystems, spatial planning policies, road development, aircraft noise etc. b. Why keep occupational health and environmental risks from alternative methods out of scope? How will ‘less hazardous and non-chemical alternatives’ for pest control be defined? Why is this limited to pest control, what about disease or weed control? c. What are the objectives based on? What will the pesticide targets achieve, both positive and negative 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? C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts a. What is the basis for “A reduction in the use and risk of chemical pesticides could translate into some benefits for public health and associated benefits for worker productivity and reduced sick leave and healthcare costs”? Pesticides with unacceptable health effects are not allowed. b. What additional risks will arise? E.g. will safety be compromised if the EU is unable to control mycotoxins or invasive alien species and plants that are significant health threats e.g. giant hogweed or ambrosia? Also, crop failure risk and low yield impact due to reductions. c. What is the evidence for the “expected positive environmental impacts on biodiversity, the quality of water and soil”? PPPs are not allowed if there is unacceptable environmental risk.
Read full response