WHAT
IS PURE?
PURE stands for Pesticides Use Reduction
in Europe, and is the title of a campaign launched in May 2002 by
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe. Starting in 2000, several
public interest groups across Europe agreed to work together on
proposing measures to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health
and the environment. We believe that these measures need to be included
in a specific European Union (EU) directive which is legally-binding
on Member States. In early 2001, a PURE Working Group began to meet
and discuss the legal basis for a suggested PURE directive. As a
result, we published the text of our proposed directive in May 20021,
with a detailed Explanatory Memorandum which describes the factual
and scientific rationale for reducing pesticide use2. By June 2004,
91 organisations in 30 countries representing the environment, food,
public health, consumers, farming and trade unions, had signed up
to support our campaign for a PURE Directive (see below).
WHY DO WE NEED EU LEGISLATION TO REDUCE PESTICIDE USE?
Available evidence shows that the tonnage of active ingredients
of pesticides across the European Union is increasing3, causing
long term, low dose, combination harm to human health and biodiversity
and contamination of the environment. This is unsustainable. Water
companies have had to install expensive plant to remove pesticides
and it is now official policy in many EU member states to drive
down pesticide residues in food.
Between 1992 and 1999, annual pesticide sales in EU countries increased
from 295,289 tonnes of active ingredient to 326,870 tonnes. Within
this period, there was a slight decrease in sales between 1992 and
1995, but there has been a general increase since 1996. Of course,
pesticide sales do not accurately reflect the risks of using these
products: the type of product, its toxicity, how long it remains
in the environment, what happens to it in water and how it reacts
to different cultivation techniques are all relevant. But because
there is so much disagreement about how to measure these risks accurately,
the proposed PURE directive is a fresh initiative to leave the arguments
about risk indicators behind, to reduce exposure to all pesticides
and hence reduce direct harm to humans and organisms in the ecosystem
and protect biodiversity (indirect impacts).
A study released by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 1995
showed just how much pesticide damage there is4. Pesticide levels
in groundwater were found to be increasing and were estimated to
exceed the target on 75% of agricultural land in the EU and EFTA
(European Free Trade Area). Since 65% of European consumers rely
on groundwater for their drinking water supplies, PAN Europe is
determined to protect this natural resource. In the wider environment,
the impact of pesticides is just as serious. Pesticides are now
known to harm birds, fish, and beneficial insects5. In the UK, the
use of pesticides has reduced the insect food available to chicks
and led to declines in numbers of grey partridge and corn bunting,
for example. In 1997 a report said that pesticides were a factor
in the decline of UK farmland bird species over the previous 30
years.
In Germany, more than 130 plants found around farmland are endangered
or have disappeared. Another German study worked out how much using
pesticides cost the country’s biodiversity each year: the
figure was 10 million DM or five million Euros. In Denmark, a 2002
report found that using herbicides and insecticides at half or a
quarter their normal strength led to higher levels of farmland wildlife,
including more weed and wild flowers and insects. These impacts
are the result of intensive, conventional farming. But what about
organic farming, which the proposed PURE directive supports? Investigations
in Germany have found that areas close to organic farms have more
biodiversity than areas close to conventional farms. In a two year
study of Austrian soils, beetles were 94% more abundant in organic
fields than in conventional ones.
While there is not yet a large body of work to show organic farming
is better for human health, there are a number of studies which
implicate pesticides in poor health, for chronic, low-dose exposure
as well as acute toxicity. Children are particularly sensitive,
and this was recognised in the WHO/EEA 2002 report6 entitled “Children
Health and Environment: A review of evidence.” (see also PAN
Europe Briefing No. 2 Why current European pesticide legislation
fails to protect our health). In the late 1990s, the European Federation
of Agricultural Workers did a survey of pesticide poisoning among
its two million members7. A total of 1,230 questionnaires from individuals
and organisations were analysed, and the results showed that one
in five workers thought they had been made ill, poisoned or badly
affected by pesticides.
Concerns about health were behind the EU’s decision in 1980
to set the limit for a single pesticide in drinking water at 0.1
micrograms per litre, or one part in ten billion. The scientists
who recommended this figure were acting on the precautionary principle
because they did not know about the long term effects of pesticide
mixes on human health or the environment. This is still the position
today. The precautionary principle was used again to keep maximum
residue levels (MRLs) in baby food at the detection limit (see Explanatory
Memorandum p7).
WHAT ARE WE DEMANDING IN THE PURE CAMPAIGN?
To change EU law and ensure that every member state adopts measures
which would lead to dramatic reductions in pesticide use, exposure
and risks as well as outright bans over a short period. Reduction
of dependency and exposure would be done through a new PURE directive.
An accompanying directive would introduce a levy on pesticide sales
to pay for other ways of controlling pests. Looking at the proposed
directive in more detail, it would:
(1) Begin with national studies evaluating consequences, costs
and benefits of various scenarios for reducing the use of pesticides
to meet the directive’s targets;
(2) Mandatory national action plans with targets and timetable
for reducing the use of pesticides (targets to cut pesticide use
by 25% within five years of the directive’s start date and
by 50% within ten years of the same date);
(3) Allow full access to information held on pesticides by authorities,
including information supporting specific regulatory decisions and
coordinated monitoring, data collection of the impacts of pesticides
use on human health and the environment and long-term research programmes;
(4) Stakeholders participation in drawing up national pesticides
reduction plans;
(5) Make integrated crop management (ICM) and integrated pest management
(IPM) the minimum standards for all EU farmers and other pesticide
users. Farmers would have to use these methods if they wanted common
agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies;
(6) Pay more CAP subsidies to farmers for agri-environment schemes,
particularly organic farming. Within ten years of the directive’s
start date, 30% of all a member state’s cultivated land should
be organic;
(7) Train and certify all dealers in and professional users of
pesticides, including farmers;
(8) Stop unsafe practice by inspecting pesticide application equipment
and storage facilities;
(9) Collect data on the production, sales and use of pesticides
and enforce record keeping and the reporting of pesticide applications
and the amount used on each crop;
(10) Ban pesticide applications from the air and on vulnerable
land such as conservation areas and water catchments.
WHAT HAS THE PURE CAMPAIGN ACHIEVED SO FAR?
In the past, the 5th Environmental Action Plans (EAP) covering the
period 1993 to 2000 has promised much but delivered very little.
Since then, other than implementing Directive 91/414/EEC on pesticide
registration scheme and the Biocides Directive (98/8/EC), the EU
has taken no further legislative action. The 5th EAP called for
the EU to achieve a significant reduction in pesticide use before
the year 2000. This hasn’t happened. The fifth EAP also called
for farmers to convert to integrated pest management (IPM), especially
in important nature conservation areas. The programme listed three
requirements for meeting its targets: registration of the sale and
use of plant protection products (PPPs); control of the sale and
use of PPPs; and promotion of IPM. In practice, the review of active
ingredients of plant protection product being carried out under
Directive 91/414/EEC is badly delayed.
According to the Commission’s statement on the sixth EAP,
there is now enough evidence to show that the damage caused by pesticides
is serious and growing. Contaminated groundwater and food and the
accumulation of certain pesticides in plants and animals are acknowledged
in the statement. The Commission recognises that what happens when
small amounts of pollutants collect in human bodies is poorly understood.
Consequently, the sixth EAP recognised the need to protect vulnerable
groups such as children and the elderly. The European Parliament
gave an opinion on the Commission’s Communication on the sustainable
use of pesticides, which is the first step of the Thematic strategy
on the sustainable use of pesticides announced in the 6th EAP. The
6th EAP aimed for a more sustainable use of pesticides and a “significant
overall reduction in risks and of the use of pesticides consistent
with the necessary crop protection”.
The PURE campaign has reached agreement in a very short time on
a proposed directive which is supported by many civil society organisations.
We have also gained support for many elements of the suggested Directive
from a variety of stakeholders, including the EP. As ever, the power
to propose such a Directive lies with the European Commission. But
the European Parliament can propose amendments as well as Member
States at the Council of Ministers. In May 2002, the Parliament
asked the Commission to propose a pesticide use reduction directive
before July 2003, but this did not happen. There has been some dialogue:
PAN Europe has commented on the Commission’s statement looking
forward to a “thematic strategy” on the sustainable
use of pesticides8. The strategy was promised as part of the sixth
environmental action programme (EAP) and our PURE directive should
be an important part of the strategy. Now it looks as though the
strategy could be published as late as Nov. 2004.
IS THERE EXPERIENCE OF REDUCING PESTICIDE USE IN EUROPE?
Yes, a number of EU member states have had pesticide use reduction
programmes for more than a decade. Sweden has run one since 1986,
and Denmark since 1987. Several other European countries have followed
suit, with Norway and Holland starting in 1991 and Finland’s
voluntary programme beginning in 19939.All these have achieved big
reductions in pesticide use. In Sweden the sale of active ingredient
dropped by 60% between 1981 – 1985 (the “reference period”)
and 2000; Denmark had a 59% reduction over the same time; and the
Netherlands saw a 50% cut between 1984 – 1988 and 2000.
Part of this reduction in gross usage volume is due to the adoption
of newer pesticides which need only be applied at very low doses.
Nevertheless, the success of these government programmes do make
a convincing argument for a PURE directive and setting targets and
timetables. Rather than waste even more years to agree on standard
risk indicators, these governments ran programmes which removed
much of the exposure in the first place and hence direct as well
as indirect impacts on health, environment and biodiversity. Sweden
decreased pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables and reduced
environmental risk by 63% and risks to human health by 77%. Denmark
reduced the number of times pesticides were used by 25%, a measurable
way of improving the farmland environment. These programmes have
helped farmers to reduce their production costs, by cutting back
on unnecessary pesticide application, while maintaining crop. yield
and quality. Several of these countries are now planning further
programmes for reducing pesticide use and the damage it causes over
the next five to ten years. What we need now is for EU-wide support
for PURE, tailored to meet the various needs of the wide range of
cropping systems across the EU, including the ten Accession countries
joining in 2004. This will be an important decision year for the
Commission’s strategy on a sustainable use of pesticides and
we need as many voices as possible pushing for PURE.
PAN Europe welcomes any feedback on our PURE proposals and invites
civil society organisations to join our list of signatories (for
details see our website www.pan-europe.info).
REFERENCES
1. Suggested text for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures for reduction
of use and of impacts to health and environment from pesticides.
PAN Europe, November 2003, third edition. Available on line at www.pan-europe.net
2. Explanatory Memorandum to the Suggested text for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures for reduction
of use and of impacts to health and environment from pesticides.
PAN Europe, November 2002. Available on line at www.pan-europe.net
3. Eurostat/NewCronos, October 2002.
4. Environment in the EU: Environmental trends, EEA, http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/3-yearly/env95/en/env954en.htm
5. Ibid. 2.
6. Children Health and Environment: A Review of Evidence, Environmental
Issue report no.29, WHO Regional Office for Europe and European
Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2002.
7. Health and safety concerns from European survey of operators,
Pesticides News, No. 36, June 1997.
8. Comments on the European Commission’s Communication ‘Towards
a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’.
PAN Europe/European Environmental Bureau, September 2002.
9. Ibid. 2.
SIGNATORY ORGANISATIONS TO THE PURE CAMPAIGN
European organisations: Coordination Paysanne Européenne
(CPE); European Community of Consumer Co-operatives, (Euro-Coop);
European Environmental Bureau (EEB); European Public Health Alliance
- Health and Environment working group (EPHA) ; Friends of the Earth
Europe (FoEE); Greenpeace European Office; International Friends
of Nature (FNI); Pesticides Action Network Europe (PAN); Women in
Europe for a Common Future (WECF); World Wide Fund - European Policy
Office (WWF EPO).
National organisations :
ARMENIA Armenian Women for Health and Healthy Environment
(AWHHE); AUSTRIA Ärztinnen und Ärzte
für eine gesunde Umwelt (ISDE); GLOBAL 2000 (FoE) BELARUS
Ecosphere; Foundation for Realization of Ideas BELGIUM
Bond Beter Leefmilieu (BBL); Brusselse Raad voor het Leefmilieu
(BRAL); Groupement d’Arboriculteurs pratiqant en Wallonie
les techniques Intégrées (ASBL-GAWI); Inter-Environnement
Bruxelles (IEB); Inter-Environnement Wallonie (IEW); Réseau
des Consommateurs Responsables (RCR); Velt; For Mother Earth BULGARIA
Friends of the Earth; Black Sea Centre for Environmental Information
& Education (BSCEIE); Agro-Link; Foundation for Agriculture
& Environment (FAE) CYPRUS BirdLife-Cyprus
CZECH REPUBLIC Society for Sustainable Living DENMARK
Danish Association for the Conservation of Nature; Forbrugerrådet
(The Danish Consumer Council); Ecological Council; General Workers
Union (SID); Green Families in Denmark ESTONIA
Estonian Organic Farming Foundation FRANCE Alliance
Isère; ARBOS BIO INFOS; Association Bretonne de Défense
de l’Eau du Blavet (Blavet S.EAU.S); Association de la Côte
d’émeraude pour l’Environnement et la Qualité
de la Vie (ACEQV); Association Intercantonale pour une Participation
Active de Tous les Citoyens à la Démocratie Locale
(DIRE); Cohérence pour un Développement Durable; Comité
de Liaison des Associations Pour l’Environnement du Languedoc
Rousillon (CLAPE LR); Culture Bio; Fédération Rhône-Alpes
de Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA-Ardeche); France Nature Environnement;
Ligue pour la Préservation de la Faune Sauvage (ROC); Mouvement
pour les Droits et le Respect des Generations Futures (MDRGF); Protection
des Animaux de Ferme (PMAF); Protection Défense de l’Environnement
de Bourg Fidèle; Réseau Association Rurale Bayonne
por le Respect de l’Environnement (ARBRE);Société
pour l'Etude, la Protection et l'Aménagement de la Nature
dans le Sud-Ouest (SEPANSO); SOS Estuaire GERMANY
Coalition against BAYER-Dangers (CBG); Friends of the Earth Germany
(BUND); International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE);
PAN Germany GREECE Ecotopia HUNGARY
Centre for Environmental Studies IRELAND Voice of Irish Concern
for the Environment (VOICE) ITALY Legambiente LITHUANIA
Lithuanian National Consumer Federation LUXEMBOURG
Natura MACEDONIA Association of Doctors for the
Environment (MADE) NETHERLANDS Leefmilieu; Stichting
Natuur en Milieu (SNM) NORWAY The Bellona Foundation
POLAND Social Ecological Institute ROMANIA
Mama Terra (For Mother Earth) SERBIA & MONTENEGRO
Green Network of Vojvodina SLOVAKIA Centre for
Environmental Public Advocacy (CEPA) SLOVENIA Institute
for Sustainable Development; Slovenian Organic Farmers Association
-Central Slovenia; Union of Slovenian Organic Farmers Associations
(USOFA) SPAIN Amigos de la Tierra (FoE); Ecologistas
en Acción; Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud
(ISTAS) ; Asociacion Vida Sana ; Centre for Analysis & Health
Programmes (CAPS) SWEDEN Swedish Consumer Coalition;
Swedish Society for Nature Conservation SWITZERLAND
0 Zero Discharge UNITED KINGDOM Compassion in World
Farming (CIWF); The Food Commission; Friends of the Earth (England,
Wales & Northern Ireland); PAN UK; Rural, Agricultural and Allied
Workers (TGWU); Soil Association; Welsh Food Alliance; Women’s
Environmental Network (WEN) UKRAINE Green Doctors
Ukraine (ISDE); Centre of Sustainable Development & Ecological
Research
|