MEPs voted yesterday to ban aerial spraying with pesticides and the use of pesticides in buffer zones around water courses. They also approved plans to ban or at least restrict the use of pesticides in parks and sports grounds.
But the European Parliament rejected a European Commission proposal to divide the EU into three zones for the purposes of approving new pesticide products. In a series of votes to approve a package that would modernise EU laws on pesticides, parliament backed the ban on aerial spraying, under which national derogations would be allowed, but rejected an amendment calling for farmers to be required to inform neighbours in advance if they plan to spray with pesticides.
They also agreed there should be buffer zones around water courses such as rivers and lakes, but rejected the idea that such zones should be 10 metres wide or indeed any specific width, preferring to leave this decision to member states.
The MEPs agreed pesticide use should be banned or restricted to a minimum in public areas such as parks and public gardens, and added further areas such as public healthcare facilities and substantial no-spray zones around these.
Under the new legislation, which will have to have a second reading in the parliament and go to the Council of Ministers, member states will be required to set up national action plans for reducing pesticide use. These plans will be drawn up by national governments.
The MEPs refused to back an environment committee proposal that would have seen a reduction of pesticide use by up to half within 10 years, opting instead for reduction targets in some cases only, where there were substances of "very high concern". The debate, which has seen the parliament pitted against the commission and at times its own environment committee, new regulations will see national governments draw up a list of key ingredients in pesticides which will be authorised at national level.
The MEPs demanded that new substances going on the market be approved every five years, in the hope that fewer toxic substances would replace them.
The parliament backed the commission's proposed ban on substances that were genotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic or endocrine-disrupting, and it added substances with neurotoxic or immunotoxic effects to the banned category.
The proposed rules state that substances must not have harmful effects on human health. Parliament added "residents, bystanders" to these categories.
The parliament decided to accept the commission's proposal that authorisations of products may include, in the conditions of use, an obligation to warn any neighbours who could be exposed to spray drift but rejected a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher requirements, such as an obligation to warn residents at least 48 hours in advance of the use of pesticides.
Marion Harkin MEP (Independent) argued there needed to be a balanced package that did not restrict food production but yet ensured the safety of people and farm products.
She rejected the idea of a 10m buffer zone as a "one-size-fits-all solution" and said such decisions should be left to national governments.
Liam Aylward MEP (Fianna Fáil) said the original proposal that was sent by the European Commission was ambitious, progressive and practical and he supported the need to update these laws.
"But we cannot legislate in the abstract and extreme amendments which would have over-burdened farmers with impractical and excessive regulation were defeated," he said.