Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2023

Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products Regulation: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to bring it to the witnesses' attention that when giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses will have full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and I remind them of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I welcome Mr. Bill Callanan who will give the committee an update on the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and the amending regulation.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I am in front of the committee again as the environmental policy lead. I am joined today by Ms Anne-Marie Dillon, senior inspector in the pesticide area. I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for inviting us here today to discuss the committee’s contribution on the EU proposal for sustainable use of pesticide regulation to replace the existing sustainable use directive.

As the committee will be aware, the proposal was published by the EU Commission on the 22 June 2022 and forms one of the 27 actions outlined in the farm to fork strategy, namely, to revise the sustainable use directive. Since our last meeting with the committee on this topic in November 2022, the EU Council negotiations of this regulatory proposal have continued and there have been seven Council working group meetings during the Swedish Presidency. Parallel discussions are also ongoing in parliament with committee and plenary votes scheduled to take place later this year. Ireland supported the Council decision in December 2022, asking the Commission for additional information to complement their initial impact assessment on the proposal with a focus on food and feed security, administrative burden, availability of alternatives to chemical pesticides, and sensitive areas. The Commission has just published this additional information today. This report will now be considered in detail as part of the negotiations during the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council.

We recognise the importance of the issues highlighted in the committee’s contribution, namely the need for further information on the impact of aspects of the proposal, the need for viable alternatives, concerns about the proposal for sensitive areas, and implementation of integrated pest management. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine also held a public consultation in respect of the regulatory proposal. More than 300 submissions were received and some of the issues outlined in this committee's contribution have also been raised in the public consultation. The issues raised by the committee, coupled with the outcome of the public consultation, will continue to help inform our position as we engage in the ongoing EU Council negotiations. The Department has also commissioned research, which Teagasc has commenced, on the availability and feasibility of non-chemical alternative methods and on the implementation of the proposed integrated pest management requirements, including consideration of crop-specific rules for the main crops in Ireland.

While Ireland supports the overall objectives of the farm to fork strategy, the impact of any regulatory changes requires detailed consideration. Therefore, we will work constructively with the other member states and the Presidency in considering the Commission’s report and will actively engage in further discussions on all chapters of the regulatory proposal. The Department will continue its engagement with stakeholders and this committee as the file progresses. Ms Dillon and I are happy to take any further queries the committee may have.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Mr. Callanan. I have nothing further to say. We are running late. We have considered this in some detail and we did raise concerns about it. This is why it actually back to the Department. The Department has set out the key tools on viable alternatives. It is about viability and sustainability, which is very broad in all aspects of agriculture and food production. With regard to non-chemical alternatives, I believe we have a long way to go there in the context of mass scale. I thank Mr. Callanan for bringing that before the committee. The real issue is what are the viable alternatives in relation to it. I am not really asking questions. I just want to recognise this piece of work and thank the witnesses for coming here and for their time. It is a challenge for us all.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I recognise that the report from the Commission is being published today and will be available to the committee. We have only just received it have not yet had time to consider it.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is fair enough.

Senator Paul Daly

I have a brief related question and I do not know if Mr. Callanan can answer it. In any or all of the deliberations on this has the idea of genome editing or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, CRISPR, been included in the debate? I am not talking about genetic modification. CRISPR is where the genomes of similar plants are crossed to come up with a variety that could be resistant. I know it is a contradiction to say naturally resistant when we are talking about modifying it genetically but it is not as frowned on as all out genetic modification. Is it being considered in any area in any of the debates as an alternative? One would not need a pesticide if there is a plant that is naturally resistant, although I emphasise again that it is not natural if it is almost manufactured. Such a plant could be resistant to pesticide in its own right. It may well be a route of travel we will eventually have to take. I am specifically asking about it in regard to this debate. Has it been given any consideration?

Ms Anne Marie Dillon

I thank the Senator. In this particular debate on the sustainable use directive and the regulation, there has been no specific discussion on the actual alternatives. There is, however, definitely a recognition by all member states at Commission level that have to look at all viable options from an alternative point of view, particularly around the whole issue of integrated pest management and really putting that front and centre, which is looking at all possibilities and all availability before a chemical pesticide is used.

Mr. Bill Callanan

It is a very pertinent question in that the whole issue of gene editing is now being put on the agenda by the Commission. I cannot give the committee an affirmative as to what stage the proposals are at. It is only a personal opinion of mine that in terms of its societal acceptability, it will be influenced because of its use elsewhere. For example, in human medicine and so on there are opportunities around gene editing, which may create a more rounded debate on gene editing than heretofore on GMO.

Senator Paul Daly

There is, however, serious difference between editing and modification. A lot of people do not understand that. I would like to have seen it being brought in as a potential solution here or as an alternative.

Mr. Bill Callanan

It has a distance to go but those conversations have certainly started in the EU. I do not have a firm proposal. I have heard, in discussions with people over the past couple of days, overall what it is for discussion and we do have to take a position on that and consider it.

Senator Paul Daly

I thank Mr. Callanan.