Détails de la notification

Projet d’arrêté royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 28 février 1994 relatif à la conservation, à la mise sur le marché et à l’utilisation des pesticides à usage agricole visant l’interdiction de certains herbicides à usage non professionnel

Numéro de notification: 2017/403/B (Belgique)
Date de réception: 23/08/2017
Fin de la période de statu quo: 24/11/2017

bg cs da de el en es et fi fr hr hu it lt lv mt nl pl pt ro sk sl sv
de en fr
bg cs da de el en es et fi fr hr hu it lt lv mt nl pl pt ro sk sl sv


Message 001

Communication de la Commission - TRIS/(2017) 02268
Directive (UE) 2015/1535
Notificación - Oznámení - Notifikation - Notifizierung - Teavitamine - Γνωστοποίηση - Notification - Notification - Notifica - Pieteikums - Pranešimas - Bejelentés - Notifika - Kennisgeving - Zawiadomienie - Notificação - Hlásenie-Obvestilo - Ilmoitus - Anmälan - Нотификация : 2017/0403/B - Notificare.

No abre el plazo - Nezahajuje odklady - Fristerne indledes ikke - Kein Fristbeginn - Viivituste perioodi ei avata - Καμμία έναρξη προθεσμίας - Does not open the delays - N'ouvre pas de délais - Non fa decorrere la mora - Neietekmē atlikšanu - Atidėjimai nepradedami - Nem nyitja meg a késéseket - Ma’ jiftaħx il-perijodi ta’ dawmien - Geen termijnbegin - Nie otwiera opóźnień - Não inicia o prazo - Neotvorí oneskorenia - Ne uvaja zamud - Määräaika ei ala tästä - Inleder ingen frist - Не се предвижда период на прекъсване - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare - Nu deschide perioadele de stagnare.

(MSG: 201702268.FR)

1. Ligne d'information structurée
MSG 001 IND 2017 0403 B FR 23-08-2017 B NOTIF


2. état membre
B


3. Service responsable
SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie
Direction générale Qualité et Sécurité - Service Normalisation et Compétitivité - BELNotif
NG III – 2ème étage
Boulevard du Roi Albert II, 16
B - 1000 Bruxelles
Tel: 02/277.53.36


3. Département d'origine
SPF Santé publique, Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire et Environnement
DG Animaux, Végétaux et Alimentation
Service Produits phytopharmaceutiques et Engrais


4. Numéro de notification
2017/0403/B - C40A


5. Titre
Projet d’arrêté royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 28 février 1994 relatif à la conservation, à la mise sur le marché et à l’utilisation des pesticides à usage agricole visant l’interdiction de certains herbicides à usage non professionnel


6. Produits concernés
Les produits phytopharmaceutiques agissant comme herbicides et destinés à des utilisateurs non professionnels autres que les substances de base, les biopesticides et les substances à faible risque.


7. Notification en vertu d'une autre loi
-


8. Menu principal
Ce projet d’arrêté royal vise l’interdiction de mise sur le marché et d’utilisation des herbicides pour les utilisateurs amateurs qui présentent le plus de risques pour la santé humaine et pour l’environnement privilégiant de la sorte les produits contenant des substances de base, les biopesticides et les substances à faible risque.


9. Bref exposé des motifs
Considérant que les herbicides représentent la catégorie de produits de loin la plus utilisée par les amateurs et que des alternatives efficaces sont disponibles pour se substituer, seules ou en combinaison, à l’utilisation d’herbicides par les amateurs, il importe de mettre rapidement en place des dispositions visant à favoriser l’utilisation des produits les moins dangereux pour l’homme et l’environnement et des alternatives existantes.


10. Documents de Référence - Textes de base
Références aux textes de référence: Règlement (CE) n° 1107/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 21 octobre 2009 concernant la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques et abrogeant les directives 79/117/CEE et 91/414/CEE du Conseil;
Loi du 21 décembre 1998 relative aux normes de produits ayant pour but la promotion de modes de production et de consommation durables et la protection de l’environnement, de la santé et des travailleurs, l’article 5, § 1er, 12°, modifié par la loi du 27 juillet 2011;
Arrêté royal du 28 février 1994 relatif à la conservation, à la mise sur le marché et à l'utilisation des pesticides à usage agricole


11. Invocation de la procédure d'urgence
Oui


12. Motifs justifiant le recours à  la procédure d'urgence
Cette disposition constitue une mesure prioritaire du programme 18-22 du Plan fédéral de réduction des pesticides en cours d'adoption en Belgique. L'adoption rapide de cette mesure permettra d'empêcher les achats illégaux en Belgique par des utilisateurs français soumis à l'interdiction de vente de ces mêmes produits en France à partir de 2019.


13. Confidentialité
Non


14. Mesures fiscales
Non


15. évaluation d'impact
Oui


16. Aspects OTC et SPS
Aspect OTC

NON - Le projet n’a pas un effet notable sur le commerce international.

Aspect SPS

NON - Le projet n’a pas un effet notable sur le commerce international.

Non - Le projet n’est pas une mesure sanitaire ou phytosanitaire.



**********
Commission européenne

Point de contact Directive (UE) 2015/1535
Fax: +32 229 98043
email: grow-dir2015-1535-central@ec.europa.eu

Contributions des parties concernées

Le site Web TRIS vous permet, à vous et à votre organisation, de partager facilement vos points de vue sur une notification donnée.


En raison de la fin de la période de statu quo, nous n’acceptons plus de contribution supplémentaire pour cette notification via le site Web.


en
  Tanaco A/S on 23-11-2017
Cliquer pour afficher
  1. As I understand it the aim of the proposed ban is to protect the environment, the health of non-professional users and to promote sustainable production and consumption practices.  Whether a product is “natural” or “synthetic”, does not influence the final hazard statement. A “natural” product can be as hazardous or more so than a “synthetic” product therefor this criterion will not ensure that the product has a low toxic profile. It would also be a misleading message/information to send to consumers who do not have a background in chemistry.
    According to EU Regulation (CE) No. 1107/2009 non-professional use products must already comply with several specific requirements such as ready to use formulations, low toxicity and limited sizes of containers and packaging.

 

  1. It takes over10 years to develop and get approval for new active substances and products, meanwhile the existing authorised herbicides within the scope of the Belgium EPA’s “natural” definition (the mentioned 1% of the total sales of non-professional herbicides) will secure a monopoly on the market.

 

 

  1. According to the Belgium EPA, the aim of the Federal Pesticide Reduction Plan 2018-2022 is to encourage individuals to use herbicides that are safe for their health and the environment. In this case, the ban will lead consumers to believe that the natural origin of an active substance in a herbicide, indicates a low toxic product, even though both products (“natural” and “synthetic”) comply to the same EU Plant Protection Regulations on the EU market.  

en
  Pelsis on 22-11-2017
Cliquer pour afficher

 A ban of dully authorised synthetic herbicides for non-professional users would create restrictions to the free movement of goods in the EU and go against the core objectives of the pesticide legislation developed by the European Union.

 


en
  Pelsis on 21-11-2017
Cliquer pour afficher

 It has no sense to forbid the use of chemical herbicides. Tests in the past by different organisations have given the proof that there is no human risk by the use of chemical herbicides...

And what will be the result if chemical herbicides will be banned in Belgium ? People will buy these products in the other European countries (by webshop) or will manipulate professional people to sell them products. These products will be sold on the black market.

Other people will experiment with other stuff which will be much more dangerous for the environment.

And what is the risk for the environment if everyone would start using organical acids as herbicide?


en
  Nick Fournier on 21-11-2017
Cliquer pour afficher

 The proposed Belgium ban of synthetic herbicides is not driven by scientific evaluation. It is also in breach of the free movement of goods through Europe and the European plant protection regulation. It is extremelly hard for companies dealing in this field to operate when the European regulatory framework is not being respected. The ban will negatively impact investment and ultimately jobs in Belgium and the rest of Europe.  

 


en
  Croatian Crop Protection Association on 17-11-2017
Cliquer pour afficher

All plant protection products undergo a strict evaluation procedure and a thorough risk assessment process before being placed on the market.

This ban on a full category of products rely only on its chemical synthetic origin and is not based on any new risk being identified for human health and the environment.

A ban of dully authorised synthetic herbicides for non-professional users would create restrictions to the free movement of goods in the EU and go against the core objectives of the pesticide legislation developed by the European Union.

The proposal targets a whole category of products without the needed case-by-case risk assessment. It would prevent a producer to place its products on the Belgian market, even if other Member States have concluded to their safety. The regulation has a clear set of rules to allow the mutual reconnaissance of products between Member States and facilitate the movement of such products.

 

Plant protection products are assessed and strictly regulated at EU and national level. The regulation provides for a case by case risk analysis of active substances and final products before they are placed on the market. It does not differentiate substances based on their origin (e.g. synthetic, natural). The proposal targets a whole category of products and would not look at individual substances individual potential hazard or risks.

 

In addition, non-professional users of plant protection products are particularly protected: Indeed, there are specific parameters being considered by regulatory authorities when the end user is a non-professional. Much stricter requirements than those destined for professionals are put in place, such as restricted classifications (e.g. not allowing products classified as explosive, extremely inflammable, very toxic or toxic, corrosive or carcinogenic) or use of adapted assessment tools (e.g. exposure models considering use patterns on a small-scale garden compared to a hectare application for professional products).

 

Risk assessment also considers the extent of the user’s knowledge and equipment generally available (e.g. no products requiring a mask for the non-professional market). It is also regular practice in assessment authorities to impose extra risk mitigation measures on a product before it is placed on the market: for instance, adapted labels, suitable packaging (e.g. child proof caps) or availability of technical advices on sales sites. All to ensure there are no unacceptable risk to humans and to the environment.

 

According to the regulation, it is up to the European Commission to undertake emergency measures when it becomes apparent that an approved active substance or a plant protection product is likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or the environment. It is then also up to the Commission to decide on permanent measures to restrict or withdraw the substance or product. Only in cases of new scientific or technical knowledge showing a new risk can a Member State take actions. Therefore, the proposal from Belgian authority appears to us completely unfounded and disproportionate.

 

Plant protection products manufacturers rely on a clear regulatory framework to research and develop new solutions for end users. Only a robust and predictable regulatory environment can allow proper development of innovation. Such proposal does not explain why this whole category of product do not fulfil anymore the authorisation requirements. In the absence of proof that one or more of these requirements are not met anymore we fail to understand the justification for such ban. Consequences can also be negative in terms of public perception on the regulatory authorities work in Belgium but also in other Member States. By banning a whole category, it will also undermine the trust companies, end users and the general public have in the evaluation procedures.

 

While not respecting the EU regulation on plant protection products, we also believe it creates a technical barrier within the EU market. This should not be allowed under directive 2015/1535 due to the lack of proper risk assessment and measurement of the potential impact of the proposal.

Availability of low risk alternatives is pushed by Belgian authorities to justify the short phase out period for the synthetic total herbicides. We would like to emphasize that alternative to synthetic herbicides should not automatically be assumed safer: it all depends on the full risk assessment and they need to be considered individually.

 

 

It would be misleading to consumers to promote alternative products as being more favourable without properly assessing the risk associated to their individual uses. For instance, mechanical and thermal solutions to “burn” invasive weeds do exist but they might not be always the most suitable solution (e.g. due to time or physical constraints). Users in search of efficient solutions, in the absence of known working solution on their local market, could then turn to illegally acquired products: it can be the case of professional products transferred into inadequate packaging for individual use or illegal products containing non-authorised substances imported from third countries (e.g. online sales). This in turn could lead to much higher risk for human health and the environment.

Despite what is claimed by Belgian authorities the envisaged measure will have an impact on global trade in two specific areas of the WTO remit: Technical barriers to trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures.