Working Hard to Get EU Competitiveness Back on Track

By Jackie Pucci|28 January 2015

Some less desirable aspects of the EU regulatory situation aren’t changing anytime soon – including its hazard-based cut-off criteria. But here is what has changed. In June 2014, a new EU Parliament was voted in and in November, a new European Commission. The latter, says Jean-Charles Bocquet, director general of the European Crop Protection Association, is “looking for innovation and competitiveness, which gives us some hope.” It is still too soon to clock real progress, but the new Commission is ready to consider some changes, and not add new regulations, Bocquet told FCI in an interview on Jan. 26.

After long delays, there is headway on defining criteria for endocrine disruptors. The Commission closed a public consultation to help define the criteria in mid-January. After the Commission gives its proposal to Parliament and EU member states, criteria for endocrine disruptors should come into force in early 2017. The worst case scenario, says Bocquet, is that 50 to 60 substances are banned, including entire compound classes, such as triazoles. A negative impact will be felt as European farmers will struggle to control septoria in wheat, a devastating fungal infection that is projected to reduce yields by 20% to 25%, with the additional increased risk to health – as the chemical “tools” to manage the presence of micotoxins would be greatly reduced. The best case scenario is that 20 to 30 substances will be taken off the market, Bocquet says. Either way, Europe will see the loss of an important means for the control of diseases in wheat.

Another hot issue: The EU’s two-year neonicotinoid ban is up for review. Beginning May 15, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Commission will evaluate results of research carried out to answer EFSA questions regarding bee behavior since the ban was enacted in 2013, but Bocquet doesn’t expect to get more information until the fall. “We are hopeful that products will be back on the market by the first quarter next year.” However, he is not sure how likely this will be, despite the estimated $5.1 billion the process has already cost the economy. “We have the scientific results from the companies, but on the other side you have political pressure from some beekeepers, policymakers and NGOs, which make the process more political than scientific. This is one of our main issues in Europe,” Bocquet says. “The rejection of science in favor of a precautionary approach is stifling Europe – where once Europe was a center of excellence and example for the rest of the world, the EU is reversing this trend with policies that appear to regard innovation as something to fear, rather than a solution to the many problems that challenge today’s society.”

In the meantime, growers have had to turn to more less user-friendly, time-consuming foliar applications. On top of that, the winter rape crop in the United Kingdom suffered a serious outbreak of flea beetle, and farmers are now calculating their losses in yield and revenue.

There is still good news. “We are working hard to share our commitment to research and development with the new Parliament and Commission. Our (ECPA) members are investing a 10% average of turnover in R&D, and are strongly committed to food quality, and best management practices on key themes including water and biodiversity protection,” Bocquet says. Since it takes an average of 10 years to bring a product to market, science-based regulation is critical to foster the economic and social climate needed to support innovation. ECPA is a member of an agri-food chain coalition comprising 11 sectors from farm to fork including fertilizer, crop protection, machinery, seed, animal feed, farmers and food processors calling for better regulations and job creation. “We hope that the new Commission and new Parliament will listen to us, and get the competitiveness of Europe back on track,” he says.