European Parliament kills off mangled EU pesticide reduction plan

The European Parliament has outright rejected a proposal on the EU’s pesticide reduction plan, effectively killing off the regulation in a move lamented by green groups but celebrated by EU farmer associations.  

The contentious sustainable use of pesticides regulation (SUR) proposal aimed to slash the use and risk of pesticides in half by 2030, as set out in the EU’s flagship food policy, the Farm to Fork strategy.

After months of back and forth, the European Parliament attempted to hammer out its final position on the file but came up empty-handed after lawmakers ultimately voted to reject the text entirely thanks to a series of amendments – many of which were put forward by the conservative right wing of the Parliament –  which scrapped the core elements of the SUR.

This included, for example, the procedure for setting national reduction targets and monitoring their implementation, as well as a weakening of restrictions on the use of pesticides in sensitive areas. 

For Green MEP Sarah Wiener, who led the work on the file, the rejection was a “bitter blow” for the protection of the environment and public health, calling out an “unholy alliance of the far-right, conservatives and liberals” which managed to “kill the entire position of the Parliament”. 

However, she defended the decision to vote down the “amputated” final text, saying that the resulting text was “not one we could in good conscience vote for”. 

Likewise, liberal MEP Pascal Canfin, chair of the Parliament’s environmental committee (ENVI), said the bar was “so low” on the end compromise that it would have “backtracked the [2009] sustainable use directive”.

‘Back to square one’

For Clara Bourgin, a Friends of the Earth Europe campaigner, the failure to reach a compromise takes the EU “back to square one with no proposal to tackle the biodiversity crisis, secure long-term food security and protect people’s health”. 

Meanwhile, Marilda Dhaskali, EU agriculture policy officer for BirdLife Europe, criticised the EU politicians that have “chosen a path that promises a grim and challenging future for both us and our children”. 

However, the EU farmers’ association COPA-COGECA welcomed the vote result.

“With [this rejection], MEPs sent a decisive message: the lack of dialogue, the imposition of objectives from above, the refusal to assess the impact and the lack of funding for agricultural proposals must end now,” the association said in a statement, denouncing the “gap between political rhetoric and the lack of concrete solutions” of the file.

Likewise, centre-right MEP Peter Liese, spokesperson for the conservatives in the environmental committee, celebrated this as “a good day for farmers and all those who believe that the EU must hold back on new burdens in the current difficult global situation”. 

“The reduction and careful use of plant protection products are important to me, but this proposal was absolutely useless,” he said, adding that there is now an “opportunity for the Commission and Parliament to develop a sensible concept in cooperation with the agricultural sector during the next legislative period.”

Next steps uncertain

In the aftermath of the vote, there was uncertainty about the next steps since a Parliament rejection of a Commission’s proposal at first reading without a referral back to the leading committee is very rare.

The two likely options are either an intervention of the EU executive in withdrawing its own proposal or a decision by the EU ministers to continue working on the file regardless of the outcome of the European Parliament’s vote.

Asked by Euractiv, a Commission spokesperson said that the EU executive “takes note” of the vote but declined to say whether it will now withdraw the proposal entirely. 

Meanwhile, a representative for the EU Council said that the EU ministers intend to “continue work” on the file. The Spanish presidency was previously hoping for an agreement on their position in December, but the path has been rocky, with member states split on several issues

If the Spanish manage to hash out an agreement on the file, its position will form the basis of another vote in the Parliament following the infrequent ‘early second reading’ procedure, which requires the approval, rejection or amendment of the Council text to be approved by an absolute majority of the MEPs.

[Edited by Gerardo Fortuna/Alice Taylor]

Read more with EURACTIV