LEAK: Commission dismissive of food security fears in new pesticide study

The EU plan to cut pesticide use and risk in half by 2030 will have its largest impact on crops having ‘little or no impact on food security’, the European Commission predicted in its additional impact assessment requested by EU ministers.

In March, the Commission agreed to provide EU lawmakers with a study complementing the existing impact assessment on the contentious but ambitious proposal that aims to slash the use and risk of pesticides in half by 2030 after some EU lawmakers raised food security concerns.

In a 218-page draft of the impact assessment, obtained by EURACTIV, the EU executive addresses the economic impact of the EU pesticide plan on agriculture production and the consequences on the availability and price of feed and food.

According to the Commission, the potential impact on food and feed prices, as well as the reliance on imports and reduction of exports of agricultural commodities “are […] dependent on the impacts to crop yields”.

However, “the largest impacts [are] estimated to occur in crops that play a relatively minor role for food and feed security, such as grapes, hops and tomatoes,” the study says.

The document stresses that farmers and member states have been given the option to “prioritise pesticide reductions in crops that have little or no impact on food security […] thereby contributing to the reduction targets without any impact on food security, food production, availability or prices.”

Another aspect that could contribute to the pesticide cut targets set out in the EU’s flagship food policy, the Farm to Fork strategy, is the reduction of pesticide use in non-agricultural areas, such as urban areas, sport and leisure facilities, and private gardens, it adds.

Such “a reduction of pesticide use and risk in non-agricultural areas or non-food and non-feed crops would have no repercussions to food and feed security,” the Commission points out.

In particular, the current aggregate of pesticide footprint embedded in the EU consumption – which also includes imports from third countries – is linked to the production “of textiles, services, other, and ‘empty-calorie food’ (i.e., foods that have low nutritional value)”.

The literary review done by the Commission highlights that, on the other hand, pesticides themselves contribute “to environmental degradation and ecosystem service losses that may lead to repercussions for food and feed security”.

In particular, plant protection products affecting pollinators and soil organisms with critical functions ultimately cause “unintended negative effects” to food security.

LEAK: European Parliament to push for 80% pesticides reduction target

The Member of the European Parliament leading the revision of the EU’s pesticide framework is pushing for more ambition both in targets and timelines for EU-wide pesticide cuts, according to a draft report seen by EURACTIV.

Lack of qualitative data

When agreeing to the provision of additional input on pesticide cut plans, the Commission already warned that they did not have much more information compared to what was included in the original impact assessment that accompanied its proposal.

The newest impact assessment includes an “updated analysis of data and consideration of developments since the first impact assessment was carried out, such as the evolution of progress towards pesticide reduction targets and technological and policy developments.”

However, the Commission still insists on a lack of empirical data on pesticide use, criticising some previous modelling and impact studies for having assumed “an immediate flat rate 50% reduction across all crops and for all pesticides […] which led to worst-case estimates”.

All the studies reviewed by the EU executive “have employed broad assumptions of yield decline” but were mostly based on expert opinions rather than qualitative data.

“To the best of our knowledge, none of the existing studies modelling achievement of the targets has investigated how a strategic and crop-specific approach to the national 50% reduction target may affect production levels,” the study says.

Despite the lack of data, the Commission argues that real-world evidence of “the significant progress made in the reduction of pesticide use and risk monitored between 2011 and 2020 has not been attributed to any significant cost increase or yield effect for major crops, and thus has had no effect on food security”.

MEPs agree EU pesticide reduction plan votes, pushing final deal after 2023

European lawmakers finally agreed on a timeline to vote on their position on the EU’s plan to slash pesticides. But this leaves a final deal on the contentious file unlikely in 2023, as confirmed by a leaked draft of the Belgian presidency priorities. 

No significant impact from Ukraine war

The extra impact assessment was requested in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increased concerns for global food security, as well as droughts.

When it comes to the impact of the war in Ukraine, the Commission acknowledges that “high energy and fuel prices may result in mechanical weeding being a costly alternative compared to crop protection via chemicals (herbicide)”.

“However, in the medium-term energy markets are expected to ease and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not expected to have a significant impact on global food markets,” the report continued.

The draft document mentions that, in the current 2022/23 marketing season, EU agricultural markets have already partly absorbed the short-term impacts resulting from the war.

The impact assessment continues by saying that “there is no impact identified in increase prices of pesticides” since the main crops impacted have a relatively low yield impact from pesticide cuts.

Alternatives ready by 2030

In the study, the EU executive also gives a date for when a satisfactory number of alternatives to conventional pesticides will be available in Europe.

“[T]he current information indicates that sufficient tools will be available generally within the timeframe of the 2030 targets to provide the reduction in chemical pesticide use and risk required.”

At the same time, it is noted that “[a] key hurdle in the adoption of IPM [integrated pest management] and novel technologies is the uncertainty farmers face regarding their effectiveness and proper use,” suggesting the inclusion of farmers in supporting their confidence in the transition to more sustainable plant protection products.

Burden for farmers

Another request from ministers was to quantify the administrative burden on farmers coming from the introduction of the new pesticide rules.

However, “the Commission does not have precise data to assess the potential quantified impacts of such an increased administrative burden on competitiveness and profitability of small and medium-sized farms”, the report reads.

An additional possible cost of €180 for farms per year was estimated by the EU Executive in order to get the annual obligatory ‘strategic advice’ under the new rules.

According to the Commission, providing such advice via group or online/remote could have the potential to reduce this cost ‘very significantly’ while the rest could also be partially recouped by the reduced use and associated cost of pesticides for farmers.

Natasha Foote contributed to reporting.

Read more with Euractiv

Bovine tuberculosis heats up Spain's battle for farmers votes

The relaxation of EU bovine tuberculosis control rules, proposed by the far-right government of Spain's Castilla y León region to cater for the local livestock sector, has sparked discontent among the European Commission and lawmakers.