amendment list, 20 July 2026
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 98/58/EC and Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the simplification and strengthening of food and feed safety requirements, and repealing Council Directives 82/711/EEC and 85/572/EEC
Document CJ14-AM-790943 · (COM(2025)1021 – C100361/2025 – 2025/0409(COD))
Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development
Full text
Jump to an amendment (155)
- Amendment 18
- Amendment 19
- Amendment 20
- Amendment 21
- Amendment 22
- Amendment 23
- Amendment 24
- Amendment 25
- Amendment 26
- Amendment 27
- Amendment 28
- Amendment 29
- Amendment 30
- Amendment 31
- Amendment 32
- Amendment 33
- Amendment 34
- Amendment 35
- Amendment 36
- Amendment 37
- Amendment 38
- Amendment 39
- Amendment 40
- Amendment 41
- Amendment 42
- Amendment 43
- Amendment 44
- Amendment 45
- Amendment 46
- Amendment 47
- Amendment 48
- Amendment 49
- Amendment 50
- Amendment 51
- Amendment 52
- Amendment 53
- Amendment 54
- Amendment 55
- Amendment 56
- Amendment 57
- Amendment 58
- Amendment 59
- Amendment 60
- Amendment 61
- Amendment 62
- Amendment 63
- Amendment 64
- Amendment 65
- Amendment 66
- Amendment 67
- Amendment 68
- Amendment 69
- Amendment 70
- Amendment 71
- Amendment 72
- Amendment 73
- Amendment 74
- Amendment 75
- Amendment 76
- Amendment 77
- Amendment 78
- Amendment 79
- Amendment 80
- Amendment 81
- Amendment 82
- Amendment 83
- Amendment 84
- Amendment 85
- Amendment 86
- Amendment 87
- Amendment 88
- Amendment 89
- Amendment 90
- Amendment 91
- Amendment 92
- Amendment 93
- Amendment 94
- Amendment 95
- Amendment 96
- Amendment 97
- Amendment 98
- Amendment 99
- Amendment 100
- Amendment 101
- Amendment 102
- Amendment 103
- Amendment 104
- Amendment 105
- Amendment 106
- Amendment 107
- Amendment 108
- Amendment 109
- Amendment 110
- Amendment 111
- Amendment 112
- Amendment 113
- Amendment 114
- Amendment 115
- Amendment 116
- Amendment 117
- Amendment 118
- Amendment 119
- Amendment 120
- Amendment 121
- Amendment 122
- Amendment 123
- Amendment 124
- Amendment 125
- Amendment 126
- Amendment 127
- Amendment 128
- Amendment 129
- Amendment 130
- Amendment 131
- Amendment 132
- Amendment 133
- Amendment 134
- Amendment 135
- Amendment 136
- Amendment 137
- Amendment 138
- Amendment 139
- Amendment 140
- Amendment 141
- Amendment 142
- Amendment 143
- Amendment 144
- Amendment 145
- Amendment 146
- Amendment 147
- Amendment 148
- Amendment 149
- Amendment 150
- Amendment 151
- Amendment 152
- Amendment 153
- Amendment 154
- Amendment 155
- Amendment 156
- Amendment 157
- Amendment 158
- Amendment 159
- Amendment 160
- Amendment 161
- Amendment 162
- Amendment 163
- Amendment 164
- Amendment 165
- Amendment 166
- Amendment 167
- Amendment 168
- Amendment 169
- Amendment 170
- Amendment 171
- Amendment 172
Text 1,222 paragraphs
Amendment 18
Tilly Metz, Anna Strolenberg
Proposal for a directive
–
| Proposal for a rejection | |
| – The European Parliament rejects the Commission proposal. |
Or. en
Justification
The proposal introduces substantial amendments to Union food and feed legislation without being accompanied by a comprehensive impact assessment, despite the far-reaching nature of the proposed changes. It was presented without meaningful public consultation and without sufficient evidence demonstrating that the proposed measures would achieve their stated objective of simplifying procedures or reducing administrative burdens. The Commission has also failed to adequately assess alternative measures that could address regulatory delays, including targeted improvements to existing procedures, additional resources for the European Food Safety Authority, and other administrative reforms that would preserve the current level of protection. The proposal has been subject to extensive criticism from the scientific community, with numerous scientific publications, open letters and expert analyses questioning both its evidence base and its likely effectiveness. In light of these significant procedural shortcomings, the colegislators are unable to properly assess the likely consequences of the proposal or whether it complies with the principles of better law-making and the precautionary principle.
Amendment 19
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
–
Read the rest (1,210 paragraphs)
| Amendment | |
| – The European Parliament rejects the Commission's proposal. |
Or. en
Amendment 20
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Proposal for a | Proposal for a |
| DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL | DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL |
| amending Council Directive 98/58/EC and Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the simplification and strengthening of food and feed safety requirements, and repealing Council Directives 82/711/EEC and 85/572/EEC | amending Council Directive 98/58/EC, Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the strengthening of food and feed safety requirements, and repealing Council Directives 82/711/EEC and 85/572/EEC |
Or. en
Amendment 21
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), Article 114 and Article 192(1) thereof, | Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2), Article 114, Article 191 and Article 192(1) thereof, |
Or. en
Amendment 22
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1) The Treaty requires a high level of protection of human health and of the environment to be ensured in the definition and the implementation of all Union policies and activities and provides that Union policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection. The Treaty stipulates that Union policy on the environment bebased on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. |
Or. en
Amendment 23
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1a) Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council established a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of the use of pesticides on human health and the environment. The evaluation of that Directive found that it has not achieved its overall objectives and that the Member States did not implement it in a satisfactory manner. |
Or. en
Amendment 24
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1b) The European Parliament resolution of 12 February 2019 on the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides1a noted that the Union must act without delay to transition to a more sustainable use of pesticides and called on the Commission to propose an ambitious Union-wide binding target for the reduction of pesticide use. The European Parliament re-affirmed its call for binding reduction targets in its resolution of 20 October 2021 on a Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system1b. The European Parliament emphasised the importance of pursuing these targets through holistic, preventive and circular approaches such as organic and agroecological practices, and stressed the key role of integrated pest management (IPM) in reducing pesticide dependency. | |
| 1a P8_TA(2019)0082, 12 February 2019 | |
| 1b P9_TA(2021)0425, 20 October 2021. |
Or. en
Amendment 25
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1c) The Commission Communication on ‘the European Green Deal’ set out a roadmap of key measures, including legislative, to significantly reduce the use and risk of chemical pesticides. In the Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Zero Pollution Action Plan, the Commission committed to take action to reduce by 50% the overall use and risk from chemical pesticides by 2030 and reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides. The sustainable use of plant protection products is also complementary to the promotion of organic farming and achieving the Farm to Fork Strategy target of at least 25% of the Union’s agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. It supports the objectives of the EU strategic framework on health and safety at work and thereby contributes to the implementation of principle 10 of the European Pillar of Social Rights on a healthy, safe and well-adapted work environment. The Commission Communication on the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability included the commitment to ensure that hazardous chemicals banned in the Union are not produced for export. |
Or. en
Amendment 26
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 d (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1d) In the long-term, there is consensus in the public domain and in academia to move away from pesticide-centric food systems, and that the availability of alternative solutions to widespread chemical plant protection products is expected to widen. A transition must build on the diversity of knowledge on complementary strategies for crop protection as in the integrated pest management principles1a. It is therefore appropriate to enshrine a long-term phase-out goal for the use of chemical pesticides in this Directive, and to provide for support for sustainable agro-ecological strategies and biocontrol methods to enable this transition. | |
| 1a Commission Staff Working Document, Drivers of food safety, SWD(2023)4 final |
Or. en
Amendment 27
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 e (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1e) The objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy is to make substantial progress in the reduction of the use of chemical pesticides in an economically viable way. In order to achieve that aim, it is necessary to set quantified targets at Union and Member State levels for the reduction in the use and risk of chemical pesticides and the use of more hazardous pesticides to monitor progress. National targets should be established by national law in order to ensure adequate progress and accountability in relation to them. These binding national targets should also be achieved by Member States by 2030. The reduction in the use of chemical pesticides is expected to significantly reduce occupational safety and health risks for professional users. |
Or. en
Amendment 28
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 f (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1f) Member States should draft and publish national action plans. In order for the Member State national action plans to be effective, they should contain quantitative objectives, references to binding national 2030 reduction targets and the binding national 2035 phase-out target as set out in national law, together with related targets set out in the national action plans, measures, timetables and indicators to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human and animal health and the environment. This will allow for a structured approach to the setting of quantitative objectives and targets, with a clear link to the national 2030 reduction targets and the 2035 phase-out target. In order to monitor compliance with the provisions of this Regulation, Member States should also be required to report annually on targets and precise quantitative data relating to compliance with provisions on use, training, application equipment and integrated pest management. |
Or. en
Amendment 29
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 g (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-1g) Use of pesticides may have particularly negative impacts in certain areas that are frequently used by the general public or by vulnerable groups, communities in which people live and work and ecologically sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites protected in accordance with Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 92/43/EEC. If pesticides are used in areas used by the general public, the possibility of exposure of humans and animals to such pesticides is high. In order to protect human and animal health and the environment, the use of pesticides in sensitive areas and within 100 metres of such areas, should therefore be prohibited. Derogations from the prohibition should only be allowed under certain conditions and on a case-by-case basis. |
Or. en
Amendment 30
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. Such systems should be regulated under a precision farming approach and not automatically absorbed into traditional aerial spraying, as long as the systems allow for localised, targeted and verifiable application and involve less drift, reduced exposure for operators and a lower impact on the environment compared to conventional equipment. |
Or. es
Amendment 31
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions may be capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems may offer certain operational advantages, but their impacts on human health, biodiversity and the environment, including long-term impacts, remain insufficiently understood and require further scientific assessment before any general exemption from the prohibition of aerial spraying can be justified. In accordance with the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191(2) TFEU, any exemption from the prohibition of aerial spraying should therefore be subject to prior scientific evidence demonstrating that the use of such unmanned aircraft systems ensures at least an equivalent level of protection of human health, biodiversity and the environment compared to land-based application equipment. |
Or. en
Amendment 32
Daniel Buda, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. In addition, such systems provide practical benefits, making pesticide application more efficient, reducing time spent in the field, as well as facilitating spraying in harder-to-reach areas such as mountainous ones. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. |
Or. ro
Amendment 33
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones), fulfilling certain technical criteria, including drift, rotators, application uses, under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions and for certain cultivation types or application, like steep-slope viticulture. |
Or. en
Amendment 34
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Andreas Glück, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems will support the development of precision farming and are expected to contribute to the reduction in the use of pesticides due to targeted application and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. |
Or. en
Amendment 35
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways. Such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment compared to the use of land-based application equipment. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. | (2) Since the entry into force of Directive 2009/128/EC, experience has shown that the procedure for individual derogations from the prohibition of aerial spraying of pesticides entails considerable administrative burden for professional users and it slows down and restricts the development of technologies that could allow for safer choices for human health and the environment. Certain types of unmanned aircraft systems (commonly referred to as drones) under particular conditions are capable of minimising the exposure of the operator to the use of pesticides in the field and could allow professional users to apply pesticides in more targeted ways and at more appropriate times. Given their precision and ease of deployment, such unmanned aircraft systems are likely to help reduce the use of pesticides and consequently help reduce the risks to human health and the environment, while providing a higher level of protection for crops. It is therefore appropriate to enable Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying provided for in Directive 2009/128/EC under certain conditions. |
Or. fr
Amendment 36
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. | (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. The Commission should also carry out a comprehensive impact assessment, based on robust scientific evidence, evaluating the short- and long-term impacts of pesticide application by unmanned aircraft systems on human health, biodiversity and the environment before considering the adoption of any delegated act allowing their use. |
| 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). | 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). |
Or. en
Justification
It is not acceptable that the Commission breaks its own "Better Regulation" rules by proposing sweeping deregulation without an impact assessment, and still claim to be doing evidence based policy making. It is doubly unacceptable that they put the cart before the horse and propose a legislative text when by their own admission the science is not yet ready on drones, and generally to provide answers to the doubts as regards maintaining a high level of protection for human health and the environment, a Treaty obligation.
Amendment 37
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. | (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for application by spraying. The technical capabilities and usage characteristics of unmanned aircraft systems now allow for application that is at least as precise as application by conventional means and do not warrant a specific authorisation in addition to those already granted. To that end, an assessment component for application using unmanned aircraft systems should be introduced from the stage of the authorisation process in order to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. |
| 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). | 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). |
Or. fr
Amendment 38
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. | (3) In order to ensure protection of health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are solely based on biocontrol active substances, explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. |
| 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). | 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 39
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. | (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework for innovation and precision farming is in place. |
| 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). | 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 40
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption can only apply if the pesticides are explicitly authorised for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. | (3) In order to ensure protection of human health and the environment, it is appropriate to require that such exemption should apply if the pesticides are authorised by the Member State for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems. Such explicit authorisation of pesticides for aerial use by unmanned aircraft systems would ensure that any potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to such pesticides are thoroughly assessed as part of the authorisation process. As the authorisations of pesticides are regulated under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 , the Commission should mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on risk assessment of pesticides for aerial application by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure that a robust framework of safeguards is in place. |
| 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). | 2 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 41
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3a) To promote the use of low-risk plant protection products and ease the administrative workload for both professional users and competent authorities, Member States should replace the requirement to approve aerial application plans with a prior notification system. |
Or. en
Amendment 42
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (4) The legislative framework governing the operation of unmanned aircraft systems includes such acts as Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council3 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/9474 . This legislative framework does not identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that could be appropriate for use for aerial application of pesticides by professional users. Therefore, complementary to the development of specific guidance on the risk assessment of pesticides that could be used for application by unmanned aircraft systems, it is necessary to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks as regards human health and the environment compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. | (4) The legislative framework governing the operation of unmanned aircraft systems includes such acts as Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council3 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/9474 . This legislative framework does not identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that could be appropriate for use for aerial application of pesticides by professional users. Therefore, complementary to the development of specific guidance on the risk assessment of pesticides that could be used for application by unmanned aircraft systems, it is necessary to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have demonstrated lower or, at minimum, equivalent risks as regards human health and the environment compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. |
| 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj). | 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj). |
| 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/947/oj). | 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/947/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 43
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (4) The legislative framework governing the operation of unmanned aircraft systems includes such acts as Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council3 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/9474 . This legislative framework does not identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that could be appropriate for use for aerial application of pesticides by professional users. Therefore, complementary to the development of specific guidance on the risk assessment of pesticides that could be used for application by unmanned aircraft systems, it is necessary to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks as regards human health and the environment compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. | (4) The legislative framework governing the operation of unmanned aircraft systems includes such acts as Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council3 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/9474 . This legislative framework does not identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that could be appropriate for use for aerial application of pesticides by professional users. Therefore, complementary to the development of specific guidance on the risk assessment of pesticides that could be used for application by unmanned aircraft systems, it is necessary to identify technical criteria for unmanned aircraft systems that allow for lower or equal risks as regards human health and the environment compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. |
| 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj). | 3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (OJ L 212, 22.8.2018, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1139/oj). |
| 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/947/oj). | 4 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft (OJ L 152, 11.6.2019, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/947/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 44
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5) In order to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. | (5) In order to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have demonstrated lower or, at a minimum, equivalent risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. The Commission should exercise that power only where the available scientific evidence demonstrates that the use of such unmanned aircraft systems ensures at least an equivalent level of protection of human health, biodiversity and the environment compared to land-based application equipment. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. |
Or. en
Amendment 45
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5) In order to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. | (5) In order to identify criteria for unmanned aircraft systems that need to be fulfilled by unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify technical criteria for unmanned aircraft systems that allow for lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. |
Or. en
Amendment 46
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (5) In order to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. | (5) In order to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be used for application of pesticides, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of supplementing Directive 2009/128/EC to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and in particular with experts from third countries where such application systems are already in use, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council should receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and those experts should systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of such delegated acts. |
Or. fr
Amendment 47
Céline Imart, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. Furthermore, given the time needed for the delegated act to be adopted, and in order to ease the administrative burden and facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending the adoption of the act, Member States should have the option of introducing horizontal exemptions from the prohibition on aerial spraying for professional users. Such exemptions should only be introduced under specific conditions and subject to a comprehensive risk assessment. The assessments on the basis of which such general exemptions are introduced should be communicated to the Commission and the Authority, in order to contribute to the work being done on the delegated act. Once the delegated act is adopted, Member States should ensure that horizontal exemptions that have previously been introduced are maintained after the transposition date only if they are compatible with the delegated act. |
Or. fr
Amendment 48
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Recent technological developments have fundamentally changed the characteristics of aerial application by unmanned aircraft systems compared to conventional aerial spraying by manned aircraft and helicopters. Modern unmanned aircraft systems enable highly precise application of plant protection products and may, under certain technical and operational conditions, present an equal or lower level of risk to human health and the environment than land-based application equipment. The regulatory framework should therefore move from a general prohibition with derogations towards a proportionate and technology-neutral approach based on objective technical and operational criteria. |
Or. en
Amendment 49
Cristina Maestre
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. In addition, given the time needed to adopt the delegated act and in order to reduce administrative burden and facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending its adoption, Member States should have the possibility to introduce horizontal exemptions from the prohibition of aerial spraying for professional users. Such exemptions should be introduced only in specific conditions and subject to a comprehensive assessment of the risks. The assessments based on which such general exemptions are introduced should be communicated to the Commission and the Authority, to support the ongoing work on the delegated act. Once the delegated act is adopted, Member States should ensure that the horizontal exemptions previously introduced are maintained after the transposition date only if compatible with the delegated act. |
Or. en
Amendment 50
Michele Picaro, Carlo Fidanza, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Sergio Berlato, Paolo Inselvini, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. In addition, given the time needed to adopt the delegated act and in order to reduce administrative burden and facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending its adoption, Member States should have the possibility to introduce horizontal exemptions from the prohibition of aerial spraying for professional users. Such exemptions should be introduced only in specific conditions and subject to a comprehensive assessment of the risks. The assessments based on which such general exemptions are introduced should be communicated to the Commission and the Authority, to support the ongoing work on the delegated act. Once the delegated act is adopted, Member States should ensure that the horizontal exemptions previously introduced are maintained after the transposition date only if compatible with the delegated act. |
Or. en
Amendment 51
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Viktória Ferenc, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. Pending the adoption of the delegated act, and in order to effectively authorise aerial spraying by unmanned aircraft systems, provided that they do not increase the quantities of plant protection products used, Member States should be able to provide for derogations from the prohibitions, allowing the use of unmanned aircraft systems by professional users, subject to a risk assessment. Such derogations and risk assessments should be communicated to the Authority and the Commission, because the practical experience gained by Member States will feed into the preparation of the delegated act and the future EU framework. Such derogations should be reviewed to make them compatible with the delegated act as of its entry into force. |
Or. fr
Amendment 52
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, given the expertise already available worldwide on this type of application, and given the urgent need to be able to protect crops using safe and innovative methods, it is appropriate to allow the Commission a reasonable and limited period of time to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems, while ensuring that the processing time for such requests is compatible with crop protection. |
Or. fr
Amendment 53
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems only where robust scientific evidence demonstrates that their use poses lower or, at a minimum, equivalent risks to human health, biodiversity and the environment compared to land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Any such exemption should remain exceptional and should be applied only where integrated pest management has been fully implemented, no effective non-chemical alternative exists, and no feasible ground-based application method can achieve the same objective. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. |
Or. en
Amendment 54
Esther Herranz García, Gabriel Mato, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat, Susana Solís Pérez
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. In addition, given the time needed to adopt the delegated act and in order to reduce administrative burden and facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending its adoption, Member States should have the possibility to introduce horizontal exemptions from the prohibition of aerial spraying for professional users. Such exemptions should be introduced only in specific conditions and subject to a comprehensive assessment of the risks. The assessments based on which such general exemptions are introduced should be communicated to the Commission and the Authority, to support the ongoing work on the delegated act. Once the delegated act is adopted, Member States should ensure that the horizontal exemptions previously introduced are maintained after the transposition date only if compatible with the delegated act. |
Or. en
Amendment 55
Raffaele Stancanelli, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Roman Haider, Viktória Ferenc
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Given the time required for the adoption of the delegated act, and in order to reduce administrative burden and facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending its adoption, Member States should be allowed to introduce horizontal exemptions from the prohibition on aerial spraying for professional users, limited to specific circumstances and based on a comprehensive risk assessment. The risk assessments underpinning those exemptions should be communicated to the Commission and the Authority in order to support the preparation of the delegated act. Following the adoption of that delegated act, Member States should ensure that any horizontal exemptions introduced prior to the date of transposition are maintained only if they are consistent with the delegated act. |
Or. en
Amendment 56
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. The Commission should adopt the delegated act within 18 months after the entry into force of the Directive. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. In order to reduce the administrative burden and to facilitate the use of unmanned aircraft systems pending the adoption of the delegated act, Member States should have the possibility to introduce horizontal exemptions from the prohibition of aerial spraying for professional users. |
Or. en
Amendment 57
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Gheorghe Cârciu, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. The delegated act should be adopted in a timely manner to support the uptake of drones for aerial spraying under specific conditions. |
Or. en
Amendment 58
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Adoption of this delegated act should be a precondition for the possibility for Member States to exempt such types of unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition of aerial spraying. Pending the identification of the types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted and the decision by a Member State to exempt those identified unmanned aircraft systems from the prohibition on aerial spraying, it is appropriate to continue to require a professional user to submit requests for approval of aerial spraying by all unmanned aircraft systems. | (6) Given the need to address perceived remaining knowledge and data gaps before the technical criteria for unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use can be identified, it is appropriate to allow time for the Commission to consult EFSA and the Member States in preparation of a delegated act identifying those types of unmanned aircraft systems that may be exempted from the prohibition of aerial spraying. The Commission should be empowered to adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 20a to identify types of unmanned aircraft systems for which it can be established that the risks from exposure to pesticides to human health and the environment is equal to or lower than from the use of land-based application equipment for the same use. Until the publication of the delegated act, Members States can already allow the use of identified unmanned aircraft systems. Approvals should be given for at least 3 years and the process to submit requests for approvals should be simple, quick, digital and easily accessible. |
Or. en
Amendment 59
Cristina Maestre
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6a) In recent years, numerous research projects, scientific studies and technical trials have been carried out concerning the application of plant protection products using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), generating a significant body of scientific and technical evidence on the conditions of use, efficacy and risks associated with this technology. This evidence already provides a basis for case-by-case assessments. In the absence of harmonised assessment guidelines at Union level, the competent authorities should be able to take account of the available scientific and technical information when assessing applications relating to the application of plant protection products using drones. |
Or. en
Amendment 60
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (6b) In order to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment while avoiding unnecessary administrative burden, plant protection products already authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 should, in principle, also be permitted for application by unmanned aircraft systems. An additional assessment should only be required where the use of unmanned aircraft systems significantly alters the exposure or risk profile of the authorised use. Such assessment should take account of the relevant technical and operational characteristics of the application and be adaptable to scientific and technological progress. |
Or. en
Amendment 61
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (7) Directive No 98/58/EC sets minimum requirements for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Owners or keepers of animals kept for farming purposes are currently required to keep records of medicinal treatments given to animals and of the number of mortalities in accordance with points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. Article 108 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 contains more detailed record keeping requirements on the use of medicinal products for owners or keepers of food producing animals. At the same time Article 102(1)(d) and Article 186(1)(d) of Regulation No 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 require operators to keep and maintain records containing information on the mortality of animals in their establishments. Thus, parallel reporting obligations exist for both points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. The obligations imposed should be simplified to avoid duplication of record keeping requirements for farmers. Therefore, points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC should be deleted. | deleted |
| 5 Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/6/oj). | |
| 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: : http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 62
Tilly Metz, Anna Strolenberg
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (7) Directive No 98/58/EC sets minimum requirements for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Owners or keepers of animals kept for farming purposes are currently required to keep records of medicinal treatments given to animals and of the number of mortalities in accordance with points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. Article 108 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 contains more detailed record keeping requirements on the use of medicinal products for owners or keepers of food producing animals. At the same time Article 102(1)(d) and Article 186(1)(d) of Regulation No 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 require operators to keep and maintain records containing information on the mortality of animals in their establishments. Thus, parallel reporting obligations exist for both points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. The obligations imposed should be simplified to avoid duplication of record keeping requirements for farmers. Therefore, points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC should be deleted. | (7) Directive No 98/58/EC sets minimum requirements for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Owners or keepers of animals kept for farming purposes are currently required to keep records of medicinal treatments given to animals and of the number of mortalities in accordance with points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. Article 108 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council5 contains more detailed record keeping requirements on the use of medicinal products for owners or keepers of food producing animals. At the same time Article 102(1)(d) and Article 186(1)(d) of Regulation No 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council6 require operators to keep and maintain records containing information on the mortality of animals in their establishments. Thus, parallel reporting obligations exist for both points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC. Therefore, points 5 and 6 of the Annex to Directive 98/58/EC should be deleted. While duplicate record-keeping obligations should be simplified in order to reduce unnecessary administrative burden, such simplification should not negatively affect the availability, accessibility or usability of information necessary for competent authorities to assess animal welfare conditions, identify welfare risks and ensure the effective enforcement of Union animal welfare legislation. |
| 5 Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/6/oj). | 5 Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/6/oj). |
| 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: : http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj). | 6 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: : http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj). |
Or. en
Amendment 63
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Valentina Palmisano, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (8a) Allowing for new genomic techniques and their results to be patented risks giving multinational seed companies even more power over farmers’ access to seeds. In a context where large companies already have a monopoly on seeds and increasingly control natural resources, this would deprive farmers of all freedom of action by making them dependent on private companies. For this reason, patents on these products should be banned. |
Or. en
Justification
Reinstates Amendment 167 of the position of the European Parliament on new genomic techniques at first reading, adopted on 5 May 2010 (OJ C 279 E, 30.7.2010). The European Parliament has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding patentability of plants and genetic traits. The patent framework does not provide sufficient clarity and safeguards on the patentability of genetic traits that may also occur naturally or be achieved through conventional breeding. Concerns relate in particular to access to genetic resources, freedom to operate and possible market concentration in the seed sector.
Amendment 64
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Valentina Palmisano, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (8b) The European Parliament has called for the Union and its Member States not to grant patents on biological material and to safeguard the freedom to operate and the breeders’ exemption for varieties. It should be ensured that breeders have full access to the genetic material of NGT plants, which by definition are not transgenic plants. Access to genetic materials can best be secured when the right of patent holders is exhausted in the hand of the breeder (breeder’s exemption). As current provisions in patent law do not provide for a full breeder’s exemption, it should be ensured that patents should not restrict the use of NGT plants by breeders and farmers. Hence, NGT plants should not be subject to patent legislation, but should for the protection of intellectual property solely be subject to the Community Plant Variety Rights (CPVR) system, as laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, which allows the use of the breeder’s exemption. NGT plants, their derived seeds, their plant material, associated genetic material such as genes and gene sequences, and plant traits should therefore be excluded from patentability. The exclusion from patentability should be applied in a consistent manner across legislation. In addition, the Commission should assess and address, in the forthcoming study, how the broader problem of patents being granted, directly or indirectly, on plant material despite previous efforts to close loopholes, should be further addressed. The assessment should address in particular the role and impact of patents on breeders' and farmers' access to plant reproductive material, seed diversity and affordable prices, as well as on innovation and in particular on opportunities for SMEs. The report of the Commission should be accompanied by the appropriate legislative proposals in order to ensure further necessary adjustments are made to the intellectual property rights framework. |
Or. en
Justification
Reinstates Amendment 23 of the position at first reading, adopted on 5 May 2010 (OJ C 279 E, 30.7.2010). The European Parliament has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding patentability of plants and genetic traits. The patent framework does not provide sufficient clarity and safeguards on the patentability of genetic traits that may also occur naturally or be achieved through conventional breeding. Concerns relate in particular to access to genetic resources, freedom to operate and possible market concentration in the seed sector.
Amendment 65
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (8c) Genetic information contained in humans and all other living organisms is a public good and should not be patented. |
Or. en
Amendment 66
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Valentina Palmisano, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; | 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides containing solely biocontrol substances, from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; |
Or. en
Amendment 67
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; | 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft (not including an application with an unmanned aircraft system;; |
Or. en
Justification
A specific authorisation system should be established for drones, which is flexible, provide guarantees and is not included in current aerial spraying but is closer to “land-based” applications. Move to a system that does not involve individual approval of each drone application.
Amendment 68
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; | 5. ‘aerial application’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; |
Or. en
Amendment 69
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a
Directive 128/2009
Article 3 – point 5
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system;; | 5. Aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from a manned aircraft;; |
Or. en
Amendment 70
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. ‘unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for aerial application of pesticides, operating autonomously or piloted remotely without a pilot on board;; | 5a. ‘unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for aerial application of pesticides, operating or designated to operate autonomously or piloted remotely by a professional user without a pilot on board;; |
Or. en
Amendment 71
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. ‘unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for aerial application of pesticides, operating autonomously or piloted remotely without a pilot on board;; | 5a. ‘unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for application of pesticides, operating autonomously or piloted remotely without a pilot on board;; |
Or. en
Justification
A specific authorisation system should be established for drones, which is flexible, provide guarantees and is not included in current aerial spraying but is closer to “land-based” applications. Move to a system that does not involve individual approval of each drone application. To grant a “balanced information”, as stated in the art. 7.1, it necessary to make systematically available the trends and to highlight even the positive effects of the reasoned and controlled use of PPPs.
Amendment 72
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Directive 128/2009/EC
Article 3– point 5a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 5a. ‘unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for aerial application of pesticides, operating autonomously or piloted remotely without a pilot on board;; | 5a. Unmanned aircraft system’ means any aircraft with equipment for application of pesticides, operating autonomously or piloted remotely without a pilot on board;; |
Or. en
Amendment 73
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point ba (new)
Directive 128/2009/EC
Article 3 – point 5aa (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) The following point 5aa is inserted: | |
| '5aa. Precision application technologies - application methods, including drones and precision-equipped agricultural machinery enabling site-specific and targeted application, that significantly reduce exposure of humans and the environment compared to conventional techniques.' |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 74
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3 – point 5aa (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) The following point 5aa is inserted: | |
| ‘5aa. ‘precision farming methods’ means techniques, equipment, systems or materials used in farming activity that make it possible to apply, direct, incorporate or release plant protection products in a way that is localised, controlled or adjusted to the real needs of the crop, thus reducing drift, exposure for operators, workers or bystanders and the use of inputs compared to conventional methods. Such methods may include, but are not limited to, unmanned aircraft systems, plant endotherapy, localised application and treated seeds or plant propagating material, provided that they are used in accordance with Union law.’ |
Or. es
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 75
Stefan Köhler, Jessica Polfjärd, Jens Gieseke, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b a (new)
Directive 128/2009/EC
Article 3 – point 5aa (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) the following point 5aa is inserted: | |
| '5aa. 'precision application technologies' means application methods, including drones and precision-equipped agricultural machinery enabling site-specific, targeted, AI-driven application systems and geospatial technologies, that reduce exposure of humans and the environment compared to conventional techniques;' |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 76
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3a (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1a) The following new Article 3a is inserted: | |
| “Article 3a: Union 2030 reduction targets and 2035 phase-out target for chemical pesticides | |
| 1. Each Member State shall contribute, through the adoption and achievement of national targets in accordance with Article 3b to achieving by 2030 a 80 % Union-wide reduction of both the use and risk of chemical pesticides (‘Union 2030 reduction target 1’), compared to the average of the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, and a 100% reduction of the use of the most hazardous pesticides (‘Union 2030 reduction target 2’) (collectively referred to as ‘the Union 2030 reduction targets’). | |
| 2. Each Member State shall contribute, through the adoption and achievement of national targets in accordance with Article 3b to achieving by 2035 a full Union-wide phase-out of the use risk of all chemical pesticides (‘Union 2035 phase-out target’).” |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 77
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 b (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 3b (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1b) The following new Article 3b is inserted: | |
| “Article 3b: Member States 2030 reduction targets and 2035 phase-out target for chemical plant protection products. | |
| 1. By … [OP: please insert the date – 6 months after the date of application of this amended Directive] each Member State shall adopt national targets in its national legislation to achieve by 2030 a reduction and by 2035 a phase-out set in accordance with this Article, from the average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, of the following: | |
| (a) the use and risk of chemical pesticides (‘national 2030 reduction target 1’); | |
| (b) the use of more hazardous pesticides (‘national 2030 reduction target 2’); | |
| (c) the phase-out of all chemical pesticides by 2035 | |
| For the purposes of this Directive, the two national reduction targets listed in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph, are collectively referred to as the ‘national 2030 reduction targets’. | |
| 2. The progress of each Member State towards achieving the national 2030 reduction and the 2035 a phase-out targets shall be calculated annually by the Commission. | |
| 3. Each Member State shall reach the targets referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) by 2030 and the target referred to in paragraph 1c in 2035. | |
| 4. Subject to paragraphs 5 to 8, the national 2030 reduction targets shall be set at such level so as to achieve a reduction between the average of the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and the year 2030 in the relevant Member State that at least equals 80% and 100% for the most hazardous pesticides.” |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 78
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Barbara Bonte, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 7 – paragraph 1
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall take measures to inform the general public and to promote and facilitate information and awareness raising programmes and the availability of accurate and balanced information relating to pesticides for the general public, in particular regarding the risks and the potential acute and chronic effects for human health, non-target organisms and the environment arising from their use, and the use of non-chemical alternatives. | 1. Member States shall take measures to inform the general public and to promote and facilitate information and awareness raising programmes and the availability of accurate and balanced information relating to pesticides for the general public, in particular regarding the risks and the potential acute and chronic effects for human health, non-target organisms and the environment arising from their use, the trends, and the evolution of the indicators, the accuracy of the legislation and the authorisation process, the positive implication deriving from the controlled use of phytosanitary mean sand the use of non-chemical alternatives. |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 79
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 c (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 7a (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1c) The following new Article 7a is inserted | |
| Article 7a: Obligations of the major retailers and wholesalers related to integrated pest management | |
| 1. Undertakings which are part of ten largest retail groups and undertakings which are part of the ten largest wholesalers in a Member State involved in the selling of fresh produce, grains and cereals, shall ensure that all the products they sell are free from measurable of chemical pesticides by 2030. | |
| 2. Without prejudice to the labelling and food information requirement established in Regulation (EU) 1169/2011, all fresh produce as well as the grains and cereals sold by the undertakings referred to in paragraph 1 shall be accompanied by information on the level and risk profile of the residues of all of the pesticides that are present on it. | |
| 3. The undertakings referred to in paragraph 1 shall by 2025 draw up action plans to ensure that the reduction target referred to in the first paragraph is met. | |
| 4. These undertakings shall engage with their suppliers in a meaningful way to ensure the transition to pesticide-free production is feasible. This shall at the minimum include long-term purchasing contracts with the relevant suppliers, and the commitment to increase the amount of locally produced produce sold. | |
| 5. The selling of produce for a price lower than the production price is prohibited. | |
| 6. Reports on the progress of the action plans referred to in paragraph 3 shall be published on a website by March 31 of each year from 2026 onwards. The progress reports shall include the number of residue tests that have been conducted, the names and amounts of the active substances that have been found and the trend in achieving a reduction thereof. The report shall also include the content and progress of the meaningful engagement referred to in paragraph 4. |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 80
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: | |
| 1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is prohibited. | "1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to the application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems." |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Justification
The current prohibition was designed primarily for aerial spraying by manned aircraft and helicopters. This differs fundamentally from the highly precise application enabled by unmanned drones. The decisive factor in the regulation should therefore not be the drone itself, but the actual level of risk associated with its use. The approach based on a ban and exemptions should not apply to drones. Instead, drones should be permitted where they meet objective technical and operational criteria which demonstrate that they pose the same or a lower risk than existing methods of operation.
Amendment 81
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point -a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1
| Present text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
| (-a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: | |
| 1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is prohibited. | 1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is prohibited but will not include pesticides application by unmanned aircraft systems as set out in Article. 9a. |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 82
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may be derogated from: |
| (a) in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article; or | |
| (b) in accordance with Article 9a, when it comes to unmanned aircraft systems. |
Or. es
Amendment 83
Céline Imart, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from: |
| (a) in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article; or | |
| (b) in accordance with Article 9a. |
Or. fr
Amendment 84
Michele Picaro, Carlo Fidanza, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Sergio Berlato, Paolo Inselvini, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from: |
| (a) in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article; or | |
| (b) in accordance with Article 9a. |
Or. en
Amendment 85
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with either paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. |
Or. fr
Amendment 86
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| ‘The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a.’ | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article. |
Or. en
Amendment 87
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point a
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may only be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. | The prohibition provided for in the first subparagraph may be derogated from in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 6 of this Article or with Article 9a. |
Or. en
Amendment 88
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, aerial spraying may be allowed in special cases provided the following conditions are met:; | 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, aerial application should be allowed in special cases provided the following conditions are met:; |
Or. en
Amendment 89
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Viktória Ferenc, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point ba (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 2 – point a
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (ba) in paragraph 2, point (a) is replaced by the following: | |
| ‘(a) there must be no viable alternatives, or there must be clear advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health and the environment as compared with land-based application of pesticides;’ | ‘(a) there must be clear advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health and the environment as compared with land-based application of pesticides;’ |
Or. fr
(http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/128/oj)
Amendment 90
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems | Application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems |
Or. en
Justification
A specific authorisation system should be established for drones, which is flexible, provide guarantees and is not included in current aerial spraying but is closer to “land-based” applications. Move to a system that does not involve individual approval of each drone application.PPP to be used for unmanned aircraft systems should be authorized the same at EU level or at less, at “zone” level, preventing an excessive fragmentation of the EU market. It is necessary to enable this type of application/treatment as soon as possible.
Amendment 91
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – title
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems | Aerial application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems |
Or. en
Amendment 92
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | 1. Shall, in the case of professional users, authorise the application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. |
Or. en
Justification
A specific authorisation system should be established for drones, which is flexible, provide guarantees and is not included in current aerial spraying but is closer to “land-based” applications. Move to a system that does not involve individual approval of each drone application.PPP to be used for unmanned aircraft systems should be authorized the same at EU level or at less, at “zone” level, preventing an excessive fragmentation of the EU market. It is necessary to enable this type of application/treatment as soon as possible.
Amendment 93
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 94
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | An aerial application by an unmanned aircraft shall be authorised by the Member States where factors related to the use of the unmanned aircraft demonstrate that the risks from its use are lower than the risks arising from other aerial equipment and land-based application equipment. These factors shall include criteria relating to: |
| (a) the technical specifications of the unmanned aircraft, including in relation to spray drift, number and size of rotors, payload, boom width and overall weight, operating height and speed; | |
| (b) the weather conditions, including wind speed; | |
| (c) the area to be sprayed, including its topography; | |
| (d) the availability of plant protection products authorised for use as ultra-low volume formulations in the relevant Member State; | |
| (e) potential use of unmanned aircraft in conjunction with real time kinematic precision farming in certain cases; | |
| (f) the level of training required for pilots operating an unmanned aircraft; | |
| (g) potential concurrent use of multiple unmanned aircraft in the same area. |
Or. en
Justification
Reintroduction of the objective technical and operational criteria proposed in Article 21 of SUR 2022/0196 (COD).
Amendment 95
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States shall allow, for professional users, the use of unmanned aircraft systems where those systems have been identified pursuant to paragraph 2 and pose lower or equal risks compared to those arising from land-based equipment for the same use. |
| In those cases, application by such systems shall be considered, for the purposes of product authorisation, as equivalent to land-based application, unless a specific assessment demonstrates a distinct additional risk to human health, animal health or the environment. No additional studies, usage records or procedures may be required unless necessary, proportionate and justified by risk. Nonetheless, Member States shall make existing regulations on airspace and air traffic regulation more flexible to allow unmanned aircraft systems to be used. |
Or. es
Amendment 96
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Gheorghe Cârciu, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | Pursuant to paragraph 1 and 2, by way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2, when fully aligning with integrated pest management according to Article 14 and Annex III of this Directive. |
Or. en
Justification
The use of unmanned aircraft systems should support, and not undermine, the objectives of sustainable pesticide use. Any general derogation from the prohibition on aerial spraying should therefore remain fully consistent with the principles of Integrated Pest Management laid down in Article 14 and Annex III of Directive 2009/128/EC, ensuring that pesticides continue to be used only where necessary and as part of an integrated approach to pest control.
Amendment 97
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | Member States shall, in the case of professional users, authorise the application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2, where a risk assessment demonstrates equal or lower risk compared to ground-based application. |
Or. en
Amendment 98
Stefan Köhler, Jens Gieseke, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | The aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2 is permitted where a risk assessment demonstrates equal or lower risk compared to ground-based application. |
Or. en
Amendment 99
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. | By way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2. |
Or. en
Amendment 100
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 101
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used by such systems shall be authorised for that use under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 or be covered by a permit for tests, experiments or trials granted pursuant to Article 54 of that Regulation, provided that the safety conditions established by the competent authority are applied. |
Or. es
Amendment 102
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Gheorghe Cârciu, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. |
| The professional users shall, in addition to the records which have to be digitally registered in line with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 article 68 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564, also indicate in those records when unmanned aircraft systems are used, including the date, time, location, size of the area sprayed, names of the active substance and pesticide product and their concentration, type of the unmanned aircraft, wind speed, temperature). This data shall be readily and continuously publicly accessible. |
Or. en
Justification
The introduction of a general derogation for aerial spraying by unmanned aircraft systems should be accompanied by enhanced transparency and monitoring. Recording key operational parameters, including the location, timing, meteorological conditions and products applied, will facilitate enforcement, support environmental monitoring and allow the practical impacts of drone spraying to be evaluated, while improving public confidence in the use of this technology.
Amendment 103
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Plant protection products authorised for land-based application under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 shall also be used for application by unmanned aircraft systems, unless the use of such systems results in a significant change to the risk assessment. In such cases, an additional assessment shall be conducted, including but not limited to: droplet size, spray pressure, operating height and operating spray speed. |
Or. en
Justification
The current proposal creates unnecessary strict double authorisation by requiring a separate product authorisation for all drone applications, regardless of whether the risk profile changes. Existing authorisations should remain valid unless the drone application significantly alters the risk profile. This provides a more proportionate and innovation-friendly framework while ensuring that EFSA can assess any other relevant technical or operational factors.
Amendment 104
Céline Imart, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying, or be covered by an authorisation for experiments or tests granted under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for aerial spraying. |
Or. fr
Amendment 105
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying, or under Article 54 of that Regulation for special authorisations granted for tests and experiments. |
Or. fr
Amendment 106
Stefan Köhler, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems are those authorised for terrestrial use by the Authority or zone under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, or those certified or approved for aerial use with unmanned aircraft systems, or those covered by a permit for experiments or tests under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 107
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for application by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Authority or zone under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Justification
A specific authorisation system should be established for drones, which is flexible, provide guarantees and is not included in current aerial spraying but is closer to “land-based” applications. Move to a system that does not involve individual approval of each drone application.PPP to be used for unmanned aircraft systems should be authorized the same at EU level or at less, at “zone” level, preventing an excessive fragmentation of the EU market. It is necessary to enable this type of application/treatment as soon as possible.
Amendment 108
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Regulation 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying or be covered by a permit for a single experiment or test under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for aerial spraying |
Or. en
Amendment 109
Cristina Maestre
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying or be covered by a permit for experiments or tests under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 110
Esther Herranz García, Gabriel Mato, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat, Susana Solís Pérez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying or be covered by a permit for experiments or tests under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Justification
This would enable experiments or tests of new plant protection products and application techniques using unmanned aircraft systems before their commercial authorisation.Facilitating experimental uses should support innovation, generate the scientific data needed for future authorisations and accelerate the development of safer and more effective solutions for aerial application by drones, while maintaining the safeguards provided under the existing EU regulatory framework.
Amendment 111
Raffaele Stancanelli, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Roman Haider, Viktória Ferenc
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying or be covered by a permit for experiments or tests under Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, for aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 112
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. Only pesticides based solely on biocontrol active substances shall be authorised for aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 113
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for application spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Authority or zone under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 114
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial application by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial application. |
Or. en
Amendment 115
Stefan Köhler, Jens Gieseke, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. |
Or. en
Amendment 116
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. Taking into account the impact assessment, follow-up, and development of the guidance document indicated in paragraph 1, the Commission may adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have clear lower risks and advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health the environment and biodiversity compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. The delegated act shall include clear conditions to ensure the for the environment and human health the safe use of unmanned aircraft types, such as the wind speed under which their use may be allowed. |
Or. en
Justification
The identification of drone types eligible for a general derogation should be based on a robust impact assessment and the scientific guidance developed by EFSA. General derogations should only apply where unmanned aircraft systems demonstrate clear advantages for the protection of human health, the environment and biodiversity compared with conventional application methods. The delegated act should also establish minimum operational conditions to ensure their safe and effective use.
Amendment 117
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall by [OP: please insert the date = 2 years after the entry into force of this Directive]: |
| (a) carry out a thorough impact assessment of the use of unmanned aircraft systems, based on robust data, evaluating the risks and potential, also long-term, impacts of application of pesticides through unmanned aircraft systems for the environment, biodiversity and human health. | |
| (b) mandate the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to develop a guidance document on the risk assessment of pesticides applied by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure effective protection of the environment, biodiversity and human health. |
Or. en
Amendment 118
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act at the latest 18 months after the entry into force of this Directive in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. |
| The Commission shall give priority to types of unmanned aircraft systems intended for crops facing plant health emergencies, or for use in tackling such emergencies, and in respect of which no reasonable, technically efficient and economically viable land-based solution is available. |
Or. fr
Amendment 119
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act no later than eighteen months after the entry into force of this Directive pursuant to Article 20b in order to supplement this Directive by identifying the types of unmanned aircraft systems presenting risks lower than or equivalent to those resulting from comparable ground application equipment intended for the same use. The Commission shall give priority to unmanned aircraft systems intended for crops or uses facing phytosanitary emergencies and for which no reasonable, technically effective and economically viable ground alternative is available.; |
Or. en
Amendment 120
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify technical criteria that unmanned aircraft systems that have to fulfill to have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use, taking into account different application uses and regional and socioeconomic conditions.’; |
Or. en
Amendment 121
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 year after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to specify the requirements set out in paragraph 1, where necessary. |
Or. en
Justification
Given the rapid pace of technological developments in unmanned aircraft systems, the Commission should adopt the delegated act without undue delay in order to provide legal certainty and enable timely deployment of innovative technologies.
Amendment 122
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 18 months after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to establish categories of unmanned aircraft systems that are based on technical criteria, intended use and that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. en
Amendment 123
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 12 months after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. es
Amendment 124
Cristina Maestre
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. en
Amendment 125
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 2 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. en
Amendment 126
Esther Herranz García, Gabriel Mato, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat, Susana Solís Pérez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. en
Amendment 127
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Viktória Ferenc, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 year after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. |
Or. fr
Amendment 128
Raffaele Stancanelli, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Tomáš Kubín, Viktória Ferenc
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 year after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. en
Amendment 129
Céline Imart, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 1 year after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use. |
Or. fr
Amendment 130
Daniel Buda, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; | 2. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 2 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems that have lower or equal risks compared to the risks arising from land-based application equipment for the same use.; |
Or. ro
Justification
A shorter deadline reduces uncertainty for farmers and industry and allows for the swift development of an applicable technical framework.
Amendment 131
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| However, Member States may authorise aerial spraying by unmanned aircraft systems for pesticides already authorised for land-based spraying by air-assisted spray guns or sprayers, provided that: | |
| (a) an aerial conformity assessment is carried out within 90 days of the submission of an authorisation request; | |
| (b) the aerial conformity assessment finds that the conditions of use for aerial spraying do not create risks that are substantially different from those that are accepted for land-based spraying; | |
| (c) the appropriate conditions of use (distances, altitude, weather conditions) are specified in the authorisation. |
Or. fr
Amendment 132
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| However, Member States may authorise the aerial application of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems already authorised for ground application by boom sprayers or air-assisted sprayers, provided that: | |
| (a) an aerial equivalence assessment is carried out within ninety days; | |
| (b) that assessment concludes that the conditions of aerial use do not create risks substantially different from those accepted for ground application; | |
| (c) the appropriate conditions of use (distances, altitude, climatic conditions) are specified in the authorisation. |
Or. en
Amendment 133
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| By way of derogation from paragraph 1, subparagraph 2, biocontrol and low-risk pesticides shall be deemed authorised for the used of aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems. |
Or. en
Amendment 134
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Until the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may establish a transitional authorisation or exemption regime for professional users for the use of unmanned aircraft systems. The regime shall be based on a prior risk assessment, clearly defined usage conditions and, where appropriate, prior notification of the competent authority. Member States shall inform the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority of the conditions applied and the evaluation thereof no later than 30 days after adoption of the transitional regime. |
Or. es
Amendment 135
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. The Commission shall ask the European Food Safety Authority to draw up harmonised guidelines for the evaluation of plant protection products for application by unmanned aircraft systems. Those guidelines shall be adopted by the Member States no later than two years after the entry into force of this Directive and shall take into account the specific features of localised application, drift reduction, exposure of operators, workers and bystanders, and the relevant best agricultural practices. |
Or. es
Amendment 136
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Gheorghe Cârciu, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The Commission shall by [OP: please insert the date = 2 years after the entry into force of this Directive]: | |
| a) carry a thorough impact assessment of the use of unmanned aircraft systems, based on robust data, evaluating the risks and potential, also long-term, impacts of application of pesticides through unmanned aircraft systems for the environment, biodiversity and human health; | |
| b) mandate the Authority to develop a guidance document on the risk assessment of pesticides applied by unmanned aircraft systems under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in order to ensure effective protection of the environment, biodiversity and human health. |
Or. en
Justification
The wider use of unmanned aircraft systems for pesticide application represents a significant change to the current regulatory framework. Before general derogations are implemented, they should be supported by a comprehensive impact assessment and harmonised scientific guidance developed by EFSA to ensure that decisions are based on robust scientific evidence and provide a high level of protection for human health, biodiversity and the environment.
Amendment 137
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Following the completion of the impact assessment and the development of the guidance document referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 4 years after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to identify the types of unmanned aircraft systems only where the impact assessment demonstrates, on the basis of robust scientific evidence, that their use poses lower or equivalent risks to human health, biodiversity and the environment compared to land-based application equipment for the same use. The delegated act shall include clear conditions to ensure the safe use for human health, biodiversity and the environment of unmanned aircraft systems, such as the wind speed under which their use may be allowed. | |
| The delegated act referred to in this paragraph shall, taking into account the Authority’s guidance document, establish minimum operational requirements, including mandatory buffer zones to protect residential areas, schools, healthcare facilities, water bodies, water abstraction areas and drinking water supplies, Natura 2000 sites and other environmentally sensitive areas, as well as meteorological conditions designed to minimise spray drift and exposure of bystanders, residents and non-target organisms. |
Or. en
Amendment 138
Céline Imart, Emmanouil Kefalogiannis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1) the aerial spraying of plant protection products carried out using unmanned aircraft systems. | |
| Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft system is intended for specific spraying uses, provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established and that the spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. The Member States shall ensure that the conditions laid down in Article 9(2), points (b) to (f) are met. No later than 30 days after granting such an exemption, the Member State shall notify the Commission and the Authority of the assessment on the basis of which the exemption was granted. |
Or. fr
Amendment 139
Raffaele Stancanelli, Silvia Sardone, Isabella Tovaglieri, Tomáš Kubín, Antonín Staněk, Viktória Ferenc
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9 paragraph 1, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems. Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft system is intended for specific spraying purposes provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established, and spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to in Article 9 paragraph 2 point (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) are met. Where a Member State provides for an exemption pursuant to this paragraph, it shall notify the Commission and the Authority thereof no later than 30 days after the exemption is granted and shall make available the assessment on which the exemption is based. |
Or. en
Amendment 140
Michele Picaro, Carlo Fidanza, Nicola Procaccini, Antonella Sberna, Sergio Berlato, Paolo Inselvini, Pietro Fiocchi, Stefano Cavedagna
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1), the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems. | |
| Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft system is intended for specific spraying purposes provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established, and spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. | |
| Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to in Article 9 paragraph 2 point (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) are met. | |
| The Member State shall notify the Commission and the Authority no later than 30 days after granting such an exemption, making available also the assessment. |
Or. en
Amendment 141
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the Authority’s guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products applied by unmanned aircraft systems, Member States shall grant the express authorisations referred to in paragraph 1 on the basis of existing risk assessment methodologies for plant protection products, including methodologies for comparable land-based application equipment, supplemented, where appropriate, by data on drift, deposition, operator exposure, bystander exposure and environmental exposure, within 90 days of the submission of a request for authorisation. |
Or. fr
Amendment 142
Esther Herranz García, Gabriel Mato, Raúl de la Hoz Quintano, Carmen Crespo Díaz, Dolors Montserrat, Susana Solís Pérez
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1), the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems. | |
| Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft system is intended for specific spraying purposes provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established, and spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. | |
| Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to in Article 9 paragraph 2 point (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) are met. | |
| The Member State shall notify the Commission and the Authority no later than 30 days after granting such an exemption, making available also the assessment. |
Or. en
Justification
Introduction of a transitional regime pending the adoption of the delegated act identifying the types of unmanned aircraft systems eligible for the exemption. It enables Member States to grant horizontal exemptions for professional users under harmonised conditions, while maintaining the key safeguards relating to pesticide authorisation, operator qualifications, equipment and risk management.
Amendment 143
Cristina Maestre
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1), the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems. Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft system is intended for specific spraying purposes provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established, and spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to in Article 9 paragraph 2 point (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) are met. The Member State shall notify the Commission and the Authority no later than 30 days after granting such an exemption, making available also the assessment. |
Or. en
Amendment 144
Daniel Buda, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The Commission shall adopt a delegated act by [OP: please insert the date = 6 months after the entry into force of this Directive] in accordance with Article 20a supplementing this Directive to establish harmonised rules ensuring Union-wide automatic mutual recognition of authorisations and extensions to authorisations granted by a Member State for the application of plant protection products using unmanned aircraft systems, without imposing additional national authorisation or recognition procedures. |
Or. ro
Amendment 145
Stefan Köhler, Jens Gieseke, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1), the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems, provided that the technical criteria of the unmanned aircraft systems show lower or equal risks to human health and the environment from exposure to pesticides in comparison to ground-based equipment used for the same purpose. |
Or. en
Amendment 146
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Pending the adoption of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in Article 9(1), the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems. | |
| Such an exemption shall only be granted where the unmanned aircraft systems is intended for specific spraying purposes provided that the safety conditions for such spraying have been established, and spraying is notified in advance to the competent authority. |
Or. en
Amendment 147
Anne-Sophie Frigout, Mathilde Androuët, Gilles Pennelle, Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain, Antonín Staněk, Barbara Bonte
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Before the entry into force of the delegated act referred to in paragraph 2, the Member States may authorise, by way of a derogation, the aerial application of plant protection products by professional users using unmanned aircraft systems, subject to a prior risk assessment, and provided that the conditions laid down in Article 9(2), points (b) to (f) are met and that the Commission and the Authority are notified within 30 days of granting the derogation. |
Or. fr
Amendment 148
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. Member States may allow low-risk plant protection products within the meaning of Article 47 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to be used without prior approval of an application plan, subject to the submission of a prior notification to the competent authorities. The notification shall include information on the type of pesticides concerned. |
Or. en
Amendment 149
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2a. The technical criteria shall be regularly updated to follow most recent technical updates. |
Or. en
Amendment 150
Tilly Metz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC Directive
Article 9a – paragraph 2b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. Following the completion of the steps referred to in paragraph 1 and 2, by way of further derogation from Article 9(1), Member States may, in the case of professional users, exempt from the prohibition laid down in that Article, the aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems identified pursuant to paragraph 2, only where integrated pest management in accordance with Article 14 and Annex III has been fully implemented, no effective non-chemical alternative is available, and no feasible ground-based application method can achieve the same level of plant protection. | |
| The use of unmanned aircraft systems shall not result in an increase in the quantity, frequency or geographical extent of pesticide applications compared to land-based application methods and shall contribute to the objectives of reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment. | |
| Pesticides to be used for aerial spraying by such unmanned aircraft systems shall be explicitly authorised for that use by the Member State under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 following a specific assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying. | |
| The professional users shall, in addition to the records which have to be digitally registered in line with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 article 68 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564, also indicate in those records when unmanned aircraft systems are used, including the date, time, location, size of the area sprayed, names of the active substance and pesticide product and their concentration, type of the unmanned aircraft, wind speed, temperature). Member States shall make those data publicly accessible in accordance with Union law on access to environmental information and the protection of personal data. |
Or. en
Amendment 151
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. Member States shall establish crop- and use-specific application scenarios for the use of unmanned aircraft systems. Those scenarios shall state the target crop, pest or disease, the type of unmanned aircraft system, the application parameters, the drift reduction technologies and the risk reduction measures. Where those scenarios demonstrate that the risks are equivalent to or lower than those associated with comparable land-based application equipment, plant protection products that are part of the scenario may be assessed via a pooled or coordinated procedure. |
Or. fr
Amendment 152
Stefan Köhler, Jens Gieseke, Norbert Lins, Andrea Wechsler, Lena Düpont
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. In steep slope vineyards and orchards, the use of pesticides authorised or approved for aerial spraying using unmanned aircraft systems to control harmful organisms is permitted, provided that such unmanned aircraft systems are already approved for this application and thus meet the requirements set out in paragraph 2a. |
Or. en
Amendment 153
Jessica Polfjärd, Herbert Dorfmann
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 9a – paragraph 2b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2b. Member States may derogate from the technical criteria if they can prove that for their regional conditions or application uses different technical criteria are relevant. |
Or. en
Amendment 154
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) – point a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point –a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3a) In Article 11 is amended as follows: | |
| (a) in paragraph 2, the following point -a is inserted: | |
| (-a) Prohibiting the use of pesticides in all sensitive areas and within 100 metres of such areas. This 100 metre buffer zone shall not be reduced by using alternative risk-mitigation techniques. |
Or. en
Amendment 155
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) – point b (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point –aa (new)
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (b) In paragraph 2, the following point -aa is inserted: | |
| (-aa) Prohibiting the use of pesticides on all surface waters and within 25 metres of such waters. This 25 metre buffer zone shall not be reduced by using alternative risk-mitigation techniques. |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 156
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) – point c (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 11 – paragraph 2 – point a
| Present text | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (c) in paragraph 2, point a is replaced by the following: | |
| (a) giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment pursuant to Directive 1999/45/EC nor containing priority hazardous substances as set out in Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC; | “(a) giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as dangerous for the aquatic environment pursuant to Directive 1999/45/EC nor containing priority hazardous substances as set out in Article 16(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC or containing PFAS;” |
Or. en
(02009L0128-20190726)
Amendment 157
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 b (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 11b (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3b) The following new Article 11b is inserted: | |
| “Article 11b: Measures to protect rural residents and bystanders | |
| 1. The use of chemical pesticides is prohibited within 50 metres, and use of the most hazardous pesticides is prohibited within 100 meters, of all publicly accessible roads, bicycle path and foot paths. This 50 or 100 metre buffer zone shall not be reduced by using alternative risk-mitigation techniques. | |
| 2. The use of chemical pesticides is prohibited within 50 metres, and use of the most hazardous pesticides is prohibited within 100 meters, of all privately owned or publicly accessible plots of land, including gardens. This 50 or 100 metre buffer zone shall not be reduced by using alternative risk-mitigation techniques. | |
| 3. prior to the use of chemical pesticides on an field or orchard which is adjacent to one or more privately owned plots of land, the professional user shall inform the neighbouring residents of their intention to use chemical pesticides. this prior notification shall be done in a mutually agreed manner, which may consist of e-mail, text message or telephone call or any other suitable way. the prior notification shall include the timeslot in the pesticide will most likely be applied, the amount and name of the pesticide which will be used, as well as its associated risks for human and animal health, and any recommendations for the neighbours to limit their exposure.” |
Or. en
Amendment 158
Tilly Metz, Anna Strolenberg
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 14 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 3 (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3a) In Article 14, paragraph 4, the following new subparagraph is added: | |
| Member States shall incorporate and integrate their national action plans under this directive into their NRP plans, paying particular attention to the agricultural chapter. | |
| Member states shall support users of PPPs including biocontrol and IPM to keep digital records of use in line with article 67 of R.1107/2009 and the SAIO regulation 2022/2379, integrating them into management platforms. In designing their NRP plans and the agricultural chapters thereof, Member States may access community budget lines for digitisation and if appropriate precision application for this purpose, in addition to Union funds awarded for innovation, advisory services, investments, and support for disadvantages resulting from certain mandatory requirements, which shall all be considered as compatible with the obligation in this article. Member states may also access additional funds from the EIB to implement digital record keeping into farm management applications, and to integrate and make interoperable such platforms with existing structures, including IACS and existing food retailer platforms. |
Or. en
Amendment 159
Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Andreas Glück, Christine Singer
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [OP: please insert the date = five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. | 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [OP: please insert the date = one year after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. |
Or. en
Justification
Given the rapid pace of technological developments in unmanned aircraft systems, the Commission should adopt the delegated act without undue delay in order to provide legal certainty and enable timely deployment of innovative technologies.
Amendment 160
Daniel Buda, Dan-Ştefan Motreanu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [OP: please insert the date = five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. | 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2) and (2a), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [OP: please insert the date = five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. |
Or. ro
Amendment 161
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Barbara Bonte, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 2
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [OP: please insert the date = five years after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. | 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 5(3), Article 8(7), Article 9a(2), Article 14(4) and Article 15(1) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of [1 year after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than six months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. |
Or. en
Justification
It is necessary to enable this type of application/treatment as soon as possible.
Amendment 162
Laurence Trochu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (6). | 4. Before adopting a delegated act, the Commission shall consult experts designated by each Member State, as well as experts from third countries, in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (6). |
Or. fr
Amendment 163
Gheorghe Cârciu
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 4a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 4a. Before adopting implementing or delegated acts under this Directive that significantly restrict production inputs, the Commission shall assess the economic impact on agricultural producers, with particular attention to small and peripheral markets. |
Or. en
Amendment 164
Biljana Borzan, Christophe Clergeau, Maria Noichl, Romana Jerković, Tiemo Wölken, Annalisa Corrado, Delara Burkhardt, Kristian Vigenin, Sakis Arnaoutoglou, Thomas Bajada, Mohammed Chahim, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 20a – paragraph 6 a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 6a. By 31 December 2029 [date dependent on changes to DA timeline], the Commission shall carry out a review of the implementation of this Directive and assess its effectiveness, in particular regarding the protection of the environment. If it is found that a general derogation has failed to protect the environment sufficiently, the Commission shall consider the need for adjusting existing regulations for a harmonised Union level approach. |
Or. en
Justification
The introduction of general derogations for the aerial application of pesticides by drones represents a significant change to the current regulatory framework. It is therefore appropriate to require the Commission to evaluate their practical implementation and their impact on environmental protection. Where experience shows that the general derogation does not ensure a sufficiently high level of protection, the Commission should consider proposing a harmonised Union approach.
Amendment 165
Benoit Cassart, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Christine Singer, Olivier Chastel, Andreas Glück, Charles Goerens, Billy Kelleher, Barry Cowen, Jérémy Decerle, Elsi Katainen, Asger Christensen, Katri Kulmuni
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new)
Directive 2009/128/EC
Article 21a
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (4a) the following new Article 21a is inserted: | |
| “Article 21a: Review clause | |
| By 3 years after the adoption of the delegated act, the Commission shall conduct an evaluation of the Directive to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the derogation given for the use of aerial spraying of pesticides by unmanned aircraft systems, its impact on farmers, food security and environment. The Commission shall submit a report on its findings to the European Parliament and to the Council and if appropriate, present a legislative proposal establishing a dedicated framework for the use of unmanned aircraft systems in agriculture.” |
Or. en
Amendment 166
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Directive No 98/58/EC
Annex – points 5 and 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Points 5 and 6 of Annex I to Directive 98/58/EC are deleted. | deleted |
Or. en
Amendment 167
Carmen Crespo Díaz, Esther Herranz García, Susana Solís Pérez, Dolors Montserrat, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1
Directive No 98/58/EC
Annex – points 5 and 6
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| Points 5 and 6 of Annex I to Directive 98/58/EC are deleted. | Points 5 and 6 of Annex I to Directive 98/58/EC are deleted. The European Commission shall ensure that the removal of these points is not replaced by equivalent or duplicative national obligations where the information required is already available in registers established under Union law. |
Or. es
Amendment 168
Anja Hazekamp
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Directive No 98/58/EC
Annex – point 20a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (1a) in the Annex to Directive 98/54/EC, a new point 20a is inserted: | |
| “20a. The structural extraction of blood from pregnant mares to produce pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG) and the use of PMSG in farmed animals shall be prohibited.” |
Or. en
Justification
In its Resolution 1b P9_TA(2021)0425 of 20 October 2021 the European Parliament called on the Commission and Member States to stop the import and domestic production of Pregnant Mare Serum Gonadotropin (PMSG), which is extracted from the blood of pregnant horses that are systematically impregnated and exposed to blood collections, involving health and welfare issues. The blood mares are subjected to massive stress and pain during the blood collection process, forcefully restrained and tethered in unnatural positions. High volumes of blood upto five litres are drawn from the pregnant mares on a weekly base - a volume that far exceeds international standards. A prohibition on production and use of PMSG should be included in Directive 98/58/EC to stop this abuse of horses.
Amendment 169
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new) – paragraph 1 – point 1 (new)
Directive 98/44/EC
Article 4
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| (3a) the following new Article 3a is inserted: | |
| “Article 3a | |
| Amendments to Directive 98/44/EC | |
| Directive 98/44 is amended as follows: | |
| (1) Article 4 is amended as follows: | |
| (a) In paragraph 1, the following points c and d are added: | |
| ‘(c) NGT plants, plant material, parts thereof, genetic information and process features they contain, as defined in Regulation (EU) .../... [O.J. please insert the number of the Regulation on new genomic techniques]; | |
| (d) plants, plant material, parts thereof, genetic information and process features they contain that can be yielded by techniques excluded from the scope of Directive 2001/18/EC as listed in Annex I B to that directive.’ | |
| (b) the following paragraph 4 is added: | |
| ‘4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to the exclusions from patentability covered in paragraph 1.” |
Or. en
Justification
Reinstates adopted amendments of the position of Parliament on New genomic techniques, adopted on 7 February 2024 (OJ C, C/2025/3751, 17.9.2025. The Parliament has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding patentability of plants and genetic traits. The patent framework does not provide sufficient clarity and safeguards on the patentability of genetic traits that may also occur naturally or be achieved through conventional breeding. Concerns relate in particular to access to genetic resources, freedom to operate and possible market concentration in the seed sector.
Amendment 170
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new) – paragraph 1 – point 2
Directive 98/44/EC
Article 8 – paragraph 2a (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 2. In Article 8, the following new paragraph 2a is inserted: | |
| ‘2a. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2, the protection conferred by a patent on a biological material possessing specific characteristics as a result of the invention shall not extend to biological material possessing the same characteristics that is obtained independently of the patented biological material and from essentially biological processes, or to biological material obtained from such material through propagation or multiplication.’ | |
| 3. In Article 9, the following paragraphs are added: | |
| ‘2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a plant product containing or consisting of genetic information obtained by a patentable technical process shall not be patentable if it is not distinguishable from plant products containing or consisting of the same genetic information obtained by an essentially biological process. | |
| 3. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the protection conferred by a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall not extend to plant material in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function but which is not distinguishable from plant material obtained or which can be obtained by an essentially biological process. | |
| 4. The protection conferred by a patent on a technical process that enables the production of a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall not extend to plant material in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function but which is not distinguishable from plant material obtained or which can be obtained by an essentially biological process.’ |
Or. en
Justification
Reinstates adopted amendments of the position of Parliament on New genomic techniques, adopted on 7 February 2024 (OJ C, C/2025/3751, 17.9.2025. The Parliament has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding patentability of plants and genetic traits. The patent framework does not provide sufficient clarity and safeguards on the patentability of genetic traits that may also occur naturally or be achieved through conventional breeding. Concerns relate in particular to access to genetic resources, freedom to operate and possible market concentration in the seed sector.
Amendment 171
Anja Hazekamp, Per Clausen, Sebastian Everding, Catarina Martins, Arash Saeidi, Emma Fourreau
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 a (new) – paragraph 1 – point 3 (new)
Directive 98/44/EC
Article 9 – paragraph 1a – 1c (new)
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 3. In Article 9, the following new paragraphs 1a are inserted: | |
| ‘1a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, a plant product containing or consisting of genetic information obtained by a patentable technical process shall not be patentable if it is not distinguishable from plant products containing or consisting of the same genetic information obtained by an essentially biological process. | |
| 1b. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the protection conferred by a patent on a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall not extend to plant material in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function but which is not distinguishable from plant material obtained or which can be obtained by an essentially biological process. | |
| 1c. The protection conferred by a patent on a technical process that enables the production of a product containing or consisting of genetic information shall not extend to plant material in which the product is incorporated and in which the genetic information is contained and performs its function but which is not distinguishable from plant material obtained or which can be obtained by an essentially biological process.’ |
Or. en
Justification
Reinstates adopted amendments of the position of Parliament on New genomic techniques, adopted on 7 February 2024 (OJ C, C/2025/3751, 17.9.2025. The Parliament has repeatedly voiced its concerns regarding patentability of plants and genetic traits. The patent framework does not provide sufficient clarity and safeguards on the patentability of genetic traits that may also occur naturally or be achieved through conventional breeding. Concerns relate in particular to access to genetic resources, freedom to operate and possible market concentration in the seed sector.
Amendment 172
Mireia Borrás Pabón, Barbara Bonte, Jorge Buxadé Villalba
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
| Text proposed by the Commission | Amendment |
|---|---|
| 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1 of this Directive by [OP: please insert the date = 5 years after the entry into force of this Directive.] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. | 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1 of this Directive by [1 year after the entry into force of this Directive.] at the latest. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. |
Or. en
Justification
Justification: It is necessary to enable this type of application/treatment as soon as possible.