Evaluation of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive
B) Improving the availability of new technologies and alternative solutions to the use of PPPs
Download 0.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 63% of questionnaire respondents consider that research should play a role in promoting certain innovations in pesticides among those working in agriculture
| B) Improving the availability of new technologies and alternative solutions to the use of PPPs
By reducing PPPs, farmers have fewer and fewer solutions to protect their crops and maintain their viability. Alternatives to PPPs exist, particularly when considering proper applications of IPM, and stakeholders indicate being in favour of the use of gene modifications and biopesticides. However, the use of alternative solutions remains low, mainly because they have not proven to be effective as PPPs for maintaining crops. 62% of questionnaire respondents indicated that the primary reason for using pesticides is that they are more effective (better and more reliable) than other control techniques (Question 2). In some cases, PPPs are not only necessary; they constitute the only option to safeguard yields against diseases linked to specific weather or soil conditions: neonicotinoids (Bulgaria, Ireland), glyphosate (Ireland, Bulgaria), fungicides (Ireland), or soil disinfectants (Spain). Another factor is that alternative solutions to PPPs are expensive. Indeed, the difference in prices between pesticides and other available alternatives is so considerable that many farmers cannot afford to use alternatives. In this regard, consulted stakeholders highlighted the need to address the problem of the lack of alternatives from an economic point of view. Furthermore, the removal of active substances from the market takes place faster than the development of alternative solutions, thus slowing down farmers' effectiveness in growing produce. Stakeholders are all strongly in favour of increased financial compensation for farmers in order to gradually integrate alternative solutions into farming practices and to keep prices down. Finally, there is consensus among stakeholders that technology is not yet ready to provide the necessary alternatives (Bulgaria – public authorities). Scientists estimate that there is a time-lag of four or five years between the removal of active substances and the marketing of alternative products, since these are not as well researched as existing production methods, which may involve PPPs (Ireland – public authorities, Sweden – employers). In addition, stakeholders consider that current regulation is not favourable to innovation (Croatia - employers). For instance, it is very difficult to introduce a new molecule into the European market. Increasing funds for research and development, possibly via Horizon 2020, should thus be a key element of future EU legislation. Universities tend to be well placed to carry out such research (Sweden). In conclusion, alternative solutions to manage pests need to be efficient and affordable in order for farmers to remain competitive and regulate prices. In addition, stakeholders strongly recommend including new technologies and innovation in the scope of the SUD, in particular the use of drones (Spain – employers, Bulgaria – various activities), in which there is considerable interest but which are not yet regulated at EU level. In this regard, 63% of questionnaire respondents consider that research should play a role in promoting certain innovations in pesticides among those working in agriculture (Question 9). Download 0.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|