4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/44

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery for pesticide application, amending Directive 2006/42/EC of 17 May 2006 on machinery’

COM(2008) 535 final — 2008/0172 (COD)

(2009/C 182/09)

Rapporteur working alone: Mr JÍROVEC

On 24 September 2008, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery for pesticide application, amending Directive 2006/42/EC of 17 May 2006 on machinery

COM(2008) 535 final — 2008/0172 (COD).

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 January 2009. The rapporteur was Mr JÍROVEC.

At its 450th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 January 2009 (meeting of 14 January), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 192 votes, with 3 abstentions.

1.   Summary and recommendations

1.1   The EESC fully endorses the document presented by the Commission.

1.2   It welcomes the changes, which constitute increased health, safety and environmental protection in the use of pesticide application equipment throughout the Community and the whole EEA.

1.3   It harbours some reservations as a result of a lack of clarity regarding the impact on jobs in countries that have not yet incorporated the directive into domestic law.

2.   Introduction

2.1   The European Parliament and the Council have recognised, in the Decision adopting the 6th Community Environment Action Programme, that the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment must be further reduced.

2.2   The European Commission has adopted the Thematic Strategy and proposed a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to deal with the main legislative aspects of its implementation (hereafter, the Framework Directive). The Thematic Strategy sets out five main objectives:

—	to minimise risks to health and the environment from the use of pesticides;

—	to improve controls on the use and distribution of pesticides;

—	to substitute the most dangerous pesticides with safer alternatives;

—	to encourage low-input or pesticide-free cultivation;

—	to establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress.

2.3   The proposed Framework Directive introduces requirements for Member States to set up a system for the regular maintenance and inspection of equipment in use as set out in the thematic strategy's first aim.

3.   Background

3.1   The objective of the proposal is to ensure that new machinery for pesticide application does not endanger the environment unnecessarily. This proposal introduces supplementary essential environmental protection requirements that must be fulfilled by new machinery for pesticide application before it is placed on the market and/or put into service in the Community.

3.2   Harmonisation of requirements is a prerequisite for ensuring a high standard of protection while ensuring the free movement of such products in the Community.

3.3   This directive repeals Directive 98/37/EC and will be applicable from 29 December 2009.

3.4   The proposal is fully consistent with the objectives and aims of the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, the European Union Sustainable Development Strategy, the Lisbon Strategy, and the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.

3.5   The proposal is in line with the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

3.6   The proposal builds on the Commission's July 2002 communication ‘Towards a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides’, which the European Economic and Social Committee welcomed.

3.7   The proposal comes in response to the impact assessment carried out in the final consultation, which confirmed the need to establish environmental protection requirements that new pesticide application machinery must comply with before being placed on the market and/or put into service.

3.8   The directive's impact assessment addresses monitoring and certification in detail and suggests that the way to achieve the desired objective is to introduce a mandatory certification system for new pesticide application equipment at Community level.

3.9   The external consultant (BiPro) examined the possible impacts and expects harmonisation to raise environmental protection standards for new machinery. The cost increase will be unevenly distributed, since some manufacturers already comply with regulations or certification schemes. However, harmonisation will have the advantage of ensuring fair competition in the internal market.

4.   Legal aspects

4.1   This proposal introduces new environmental protection requirements. These supplementary essential requirements are mandatory provisions intended to ensure that the products do not endanger the environment unnecessarily.

4.2   The legal basis is provided by Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which sets out the principles for the establishment of the internal market. This directive ensures the free movement of machinery falling within its scope.

4.3   The subsidiarity principle applies insofar as the proposal does not fall under the exclusive competence of the Community.

4.4   Certain Member States have already introduced mandatory environmental protection requirements and conformity assessment procedures for pesticide application equipment. Other Member States have announced draft regulations. To leave the setting of requirements to a voluntary certification scheme would have the effect of multiplying divergent national provisions and procedures. This generates undue costs for industry and constitutes obstacles to the free movement of goods within the Community.

4.5   Harmonisation of the requirements is the only way to achieve the desired objective while ensuring an equivalent level of protection throughout the Community, fair competition between manufacturers and the free movement of goods in the internal market.

4.6   The proposal complies with the subsidiarity principle.

4.7   This proposal does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve its objective and is therefore in accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty.

4.8   The directive also means minimising the administrative burden for manufacturers of machinery for pesticide application.

4.9   The proposal is in line with the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making.

4.10   The proposal will not affect the Community budget.

4.11   The Member States are required to communicate to the Commission the text of national provisions transposing the directive as well as a correlation table between those provisions and this directive.

4.12   The proposed act concerns an EEA matter and should therefore extend to the European Economic Area.

5.   Explanatory remarks

5.1   The environmental protection requirements only apply to pesticide application equipment and to risks for the environment covered by the proposed new essential requirements in Annex 1 of the directive.

5.2   The proposal adds to the new definition of ‘essential safety and health requirements’, thus avoiding the need to change references to essential safety and health requirements in the directive.

5.3   Amendments to Articles 4 (1), 9 (3) and 11 (1) enshrine the environmental protection goal.

5.4   This includes the requirement of manufacturers of pesticide application equipment to estimate risks of damage to the environment.

5.5   The directive defines the pesticide application equipment covered.

5.6   The directive establishes the essential requirements to ensure minimum harm to the environment.

5.7   The proposed new essential requirements are intended to be supported by technical specifications of harmonised standards for the various categories of machinery for pesticide application. To this end, the Commission will give a mandate to the appropriate European standards authorities.

---