I am not sure what approach the Chairman would prefer but I will try to give holistic replies, for example, with regard to the definition of a professional user. The definition of a professional user includes farmers. A professional user means any person who uses pesticides in the course of his or her professional activities, including operators, technicians, employers and self-employed people, both in farming and in other sectors. That is the definition in the directive on sustainable use. It means farmers must show a level of competence in the use of pesticides.
Before discussing what exactly that will be, I should mention that there is a directive on sustainable use and there are also regulations. This might deal with the query raised by Deputy Mansergh. Directives are less binding in their entirety on member states. It is up to the member states to introduce them and in Ireland that is done through statutory instruments. The directive on sustainable use, if and when it is finally agreed, will be introduced by way of a statutory instrument. With a European Union regulation, on the other hand, there is no room for manoeuvre. It is binding in its entirety and does not have to be transposed into national law. The only items that might have to be transposed into national law are implementing instruments. These deal with, for example, questions such as the level of certification, testing and so forth. The directive sets out fairly clearly how frequently such testing should be undertaken in terms of application equipment. We certainly do not envisage that inspectors will be landing in a farmer's yard when he is just about to spray his potatoes. That is not envisaged. I would envisage something more akin to the NCT where one shows that one's application equipment meets a certain standard and one would need to have it tested at a frequency which has not yet been decided. There is still debate as to whether it should be tested every two years or every five years. As members of the committee familiar with agricultural equipment will be aware, testing every five years leaves much room for disimprovement in the equipment. That would clarify some of the queries.
On the question of whether the use of pesticides is unsustainable at present, the clue is in where the entire strategy came from in the first place, namely, an environmental action programme. Within Europe, the environmental directorate is responsible for the regulation of chemicals, and pesticides in particular, and it has a particular interest in pesticides. There is a great deal of information about pesticides, much more than there is about many of the industrial chemicals. As pesticides are used in the environment generally, for example, any farmer can spray them, as distinct from chemicals which may be used in the household and could have a far more direct effect on human health, there is this idea that pesticides are out there and, potentially, can pollute the soil, air and water. As the committee will be aware, the water industry is extremely active in Europe with the Water Framework Directive and such like.
A direct answer to the question of whether the current use is unsustainable is "No". Current use is sustainable. One must bear in mind that this is a European provision. We can look at ourselves and state that we are role models. While I am not so sure that we are, nonetheless the provision is intended to create regulation for the whole of Europe.
I do not foresee that the directive will have a serious impact on Ireland due to the fact that the directive can be transposed to take into account local conditions and that is the important point about it. It allows that amount of flexibility. The text allows certain derogations, such as where it refers to "prohibition of aerial spraying". In Ireland, aerial spraying is not a major issue and it could be ten or 15 years since there was a request for aerial spraying. If weather conditions demand it, at least the directive provides that aerial spraying would be possible in the future. From that point of view, the directive has sufficient flexibility for us to have a degree of comfort.
Training is also an aspect that already exists in a number of member states. There is a feeling within Europe that it is difficult to argue for a lowering of standards in some countries. It is not acceptable, in the countries where they do have training, for a new regulation being introduced to state that there is no need for training. It is difficult for anybody to defend such a view. Therefore, whenever there is a harmonisation of rules, they always harmonise to the higher level. That is the reality within Europe. It happens in respect of all areas and not just that relating to pesticides.
On the issue of training, members should recall the original tenet of the strategy, namely, risk reduction. It is extremely important to remember that we are trying to reduce the risk that arises from the use of pesticides. We are not trying to ban pesticides, we are merely seeking to ensure that if they are used, they will be used correctly, safely and with a minimum of harmful effects. Our aim is to reduce risk.
For the information of members, and in the context of the second item of legislation relating to the placing of products on the market, there is a proposal that, in the context of decisions being made, hazard-based cut-off criteria be introduced. At present, if a substance is found to be highly toxic, it is stipulated that it should not be included in any pesticide. If a risk-based approach were applied, it would be stated that the substance may be used provided it is used in such a way that there is no risk to the user, the consumer or the environment. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches. This is one of the areas in respect of which we will face something of a fight during the next 12 months.
We do not foresee implementation of the proposed directive giving rise to unnecessary or major costs. However, I am not sure how it will be done. We must await the final text. As Deputy Sherlock stated, the directive is only being given its Second Reading and we will not know the position until the final text emerges. The latter is a matter for negotiation between the Parliament and the Council, with the assistance of the Commission. Members are probably aware that if the Commission is of the view that the way matters are proceeding in respect of the proposal are not acceptable, it can withdraw the proposal. That possibility exists but I do not foresee it arising in this case.
It is difficult to indicate when everything relating to the proposed directive will finally come into operation. Reference was made to a national action plan, which must be developed three years after adoption. The proposed directive will not be adopted this year because it should go forward as an entire package. Final adoption could be as far away as 2014. Nonetheless, we must continue to monitor progress.
The timeframe for the training of users, etc., is two years after adoption. Deputy Sheehan referred to agricultural colleges and, as part of their courses, students learn how to use pesticides. The latter would be taken into account as part of the training.
Members involved in farming will be aware of the use of preventive or prophylactic spraying regimes. Under such regimes, farmers growing potatoes, for example, may decide to spray their crops every ten days in order to control blight. Such spraying is carried out every ten days, almost regardless of the weather. It will become more difficult for people to operate such regimes and they will be obliged to pursue a "wait and see" approach. Integrated pest management involves waiting, monitoring the problem and then solving it rather than anticipating difficulties that might arise.
