Institute of Biology Bucharest, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania.
National University for Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania.
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 16;16(9):e0256719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256719. eCollection 2021.
By adopting the 2009 "pesticide package," the EU proposed a common approach to limiting the harmful effects of pesticides, promoting Integrated Pest Management, and the progressive replacement of the most dangerous pesticides with low-risk alternatives through a comprehensive but flexible framework for all EU Member States. Each EU Member State had to develop a National Action Plan that would propose measures to achieve the package's goals. Nevertheless, the choice of actions and indicators remained to be established at the national level. A series of recent evaluations of how Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD), a central piece of the "pesticide package," was implemented showed limited success in achieving its goals. Aiming to explain these failures, we compare the National Action Plans eight EU Member States adopted after the SUD. We assess the degree to which the countries' proposed measures and indicators would achieve the Directive's three overarching objectives (reduce risks and impact; promote Integrated Pest Management; promote approaches and techniques to reduce reliance on pesticides). We develop the comparative analysis along three dimensions: the promotion of measures to achieve SUD's three goals; the evolution of the pre-and post-Directive action plans of some of the old EU Member States; and the differences between old and the new EU Member States. The comparison along ten variables shows that the SUD had a minimal effect in homogenizing different states' approaches to develop their National Action Plans to systematically treat problems, propose measures, and timetables for implementation and indicators. Given that the overall effect in generating a common EU approach to raise the sustainability of pesticide use and agriculture, in general, was still limited, as no common measures, indicators, or process to planning were identified, we discuss some suggestions to improve the situation.
通过采用 2009 年“农药一揽子计划”,欧盟提出了一种共同方法,以限制农药的有害影响,促进有害生物综合治理,并通过一个全面而灵活的框架,逐步用低风险替代品取代最危险的农药,以实现所有欧盟成员国的目标。每个欧盟成员国都必须制定国家行动计划,提出实现该计划目标的措施。然而,行动和指标的选择仍然需要在国家一级确定。最近对欧洲议会和理事会关于可持续使用农药指令(SUD)的 2009/128/EC 指令(“农药一揽子计划”的核心部分)的实施情况进行了一系列评估,结果表明,该指令在实现其目标方面取得的成功有限。为了解释这些失败,我们比较了 SUD 之后八个欧盟成员国通过的国家行动计划。我们评估各国提出的措施和指标在多大程度上实现了指令的三个总体目标(降低风险和影响;促进有害生物综合治理;促进减少对农药依赖的方法和技术)。我们沿着三个维度开展比较分析:促进实现 SUD 的三个目标的措施;一些旧欧盟成员国的指令前后行动计划的演变;以及新旧欧盟成员国之间的差异。沿着十个变量进行比较表明,SUD 对同质化不同国家制定国家行动计划的方法以系统地处理问题、提出措施和实施时间表以及指标的影响微乎其微。鉴于在制定提高农药使用和农业可持续性的共同欧盟方法方面产生的总体效果仍然有限,因为没有确定共同的措施、指标或规划过程,我们讨论了一些改进情况的建议。