Implementing Regulations on pesticide statistics

Implementing Regulations on pesticide statistics Johan Selenius

History of the regulation • Proposal drafted by Eurostat Pesticide expert group 2004-2006 • Adopted by Commission in December 2006 • Part of the package for the Community Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides: • Framework Directive on sustainable use of pesticides • New Regulation for the placing of PPP on the market • Machinery Directive • 1st Reading: 2006-2008 • 2nd Reading: 2009 • Adoption: 25 November 2009 • Publication: 10 December 2009 • Entry into force: 30 December 2009

Timetable for data collection-delivery 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Main Deliverables 2017- Adoption of the Regulation  PPP sales statistics • Sales data: • 1st reference year = Y2 (2011) • 1st delivery: Y3 (before the end of 2012) • Use data: • 1st reference period = Y1-Y5 (2010-2014) • 1st complete delivery = Y6 (before the end of 2015) RP1 RP2 RP3 RP4 RP5 RP6 Reference periods Data from MS     Data publication     PPP use statistics RP1 RP2 Reference periods Data from MS  Data publication  Report and publications Report to EP 

Implementing regulations • The appropriate technical format for the transmission of data shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure; • Modifications to the quality reports, the adoption of the definition of the "area treated and the adaptation of the list of substances to be covered and their classification in categories of products and chemical classes shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny • Two different procedures and implementing regulations! • European Statistical System Committee (ESSC), not the CPSA, gives its opinion

Commission Regulation on Transmission format • Two sets of data with delivery dates years apart • Data on placing on the market annually, starting from 2012 • Use data every 5 years, with first compulsory transmission 2015 • Eurostat considers it premature to define the transmission format for both sets at this stage. • In the draft regulation, only the transmission formats for the data on placing on the market have therefore been included • Too much technical details in a regulation gives too much rigidity to a topic where it can be expected that the technical developments might be rapid

Transmission format • The statistical data on the placing on the market of pesticides should be transmitted using the Statistical Data and Metadata eXchange (SDMX) format. • The data shall be transmitted or uploaded by electronic means to the single entry point for data at Eurostat (e-Damis). The data flow has not yet been defined. • Member States shall transmit the required data conforming to the technical specifications provided by the Commission (Eurostat). • FAO data requirements can be also covered with the statistics collected

Task force discussion 6 May 2010 • Some TF members questioned the use of the SDMX format, but according to Eurostat services, the format should not cause problems in data transmission. • The issue of confidentiality was discussed at length, with the conclusion that not only the substances, but also the aggregated data per chemical classes and categories should be flagged for confidentiality. • This issue has now been incorporated in the draft

To be discussed • Can the draft legislation on the transmission format be accepted?

Commission Regulation on definitions and list of active substances Definition of area treated • Eurostat considers that the definition should be straightforward and not difficult to implement • A first proposal was discussed in the Task Force, but was considered too long. The TF agreed on a new suggestion as follows: "the basic area treated defined as "the physical area of the crop treated at least once with a given active substance, independently of the number of applications“ • The draft regulation has been adapted accordingly

List of active substances • The list of active substances on the website of DG SANCO (http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm) is constantly updated • The updated annex III is based on the situation in August this year • The supporting information (CAS-numbers, CIPAC numbers) on new substances is not always available • It is not always fully clear to which product categories or chemical class an active substance should be allocated

Classification • Several different sources have been used for the classification: • the information in SANCO database (http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm) • EFSA fact sheets (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/praper/praperscdocs.htm) • CIPAC website (http://www.cipac.org/) • Compendium of Pesticide Common Names (http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/index.html) • The PPDB Pesticide Properties Database (http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/index.htm)

Situation in May (not updated) • 64 of the substances in Annex III had been deleted from the SANCO list of active substances but had been resubmitted for inclusion. If they would be excluded from the statistics, there is a risk that information on important pesticides will be lost • 80 of the substances had been deleted but had not been resubmitted for inclusion, and should pose no problems • 58 new applications were pending, many of them potentially important new substances that could have a great impact on sales and use data. • 93 substances ADI*, ARfD* andAOEL* were all “non applicable”, meaning no risk? *(For pesticide laymen: Acceptable Daily Intake, Acute Reference Dose, Acceptable Operator Exposure Level)

Task Force discussion • Even though substances are not authorised on EU level, they might still be used, due to certain rules • CIPAC and CAS-numbers should be kept, as they are important for identifying the substances • “Non-risk” substances received both support and criticism. It was considered that extended use of these products would show a “greener” agriculture • Annual updates of the list was suggested, as new substances are introduced and the statistics would not be useful without also these new, emerging trends visible. This is even more importing considering the 5-year period for collecting sales data • Substances only sold nationally could be collected under the class “others” • Deleted substances might be resubmitted, so they should not be removed too quickly

Task Force conclusions • Annex III will be revised this year based on the situation end October so that the new list that should be used when starting data collection in 2011 will be as complete as possible • Substances removed from the SANCO list and not resubmitted for authorisation will be deleted • There will be an annual update for adding new (authorised) substances • The substances which are presently not authorised, but that are resubmitted for authorisation will not be deleted from the list; • During the 5-year period for use of pesticides, no further deletions will be made

Task Force conclusions (cont.) • The pending substances which are authorised at the time of the revision will be included • There will be no changes to the major groups and categories of products • Eurostat creates a new code for every substance but will also keep the CIPAC code • Countries were asked to validate the active substance list • Stakeholders would be asked for their opinion on updates

Stakeholder suggestions • Substances that have been resubmitted for inclusion should be kept, as many of them are likely to be reintroduced, and some of them have large markets • All pending substances where the dossier is complete should be kept • Eurostat’s new, unique code to be used for transmitting and processing the data was accepted

Suggestions and comments from Member States • NL, DE, BE sent comments after the TF meeting on the outcome and Eurostat’s proposals • Most of the suggestions have been taken into account in the new legislation • DE made some additional comments on Annex III that have not yet been introduced: • The CIPAC codes for copper compounds should be corrected to take into account the ions and ester radicals • Suggests changed classification of laminarin to F06_01, sodium hypochlorite and disodium phosphonate to F01_99 • To perhaps add a new chemical class “Botanical insecticides” and move pyrethrins and azadirachtin there

Harmonised classification

Coding: a suggestion To be changed to letter only?

To be discussed • Can the draft implementing regulation be accepted?

Gentlemen’s Agreement • Eurostat’s legal unit considers that annual updates of Annex III to Regulation 1185/2009 is not possible, as the legal procedures are too demanding • Regulation 1185/2209 neither gives the possibility of allowing the Commission the right to update the Annex with an article in the implementing regulation • Instead it is considered that a Gentlemen’s Agreement would be the best tool as it is more flexible • In this case the text of the Agreement is very short, as it only says that the Commission will update Annex III annually in autumn and send the list to the Member States for updating the substances collected

To be discussed • Can the draft Gentlemen’s agreement be accepted?

Implementing Regulations on pesticide statistics