EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2018) /01/2018 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Health and food audits and analysis DG(SANTE) FINAL REPORT OF A FACT-FINDING MISSION CARRIED OUT IN POLAND FROM 07 JUNE 2017 TO 14 JUNE 2017 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of a fact finding mission in Poland, carried out from 7 to 14 June 2017 as part of the published Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety programme for The objective of the mission was to investigate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, in particular the implementation of the requirements set out under Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, and to identify common obstacles/difficulties encountered in the implementation of this Directive, as well as good practices. Poland adopted its first National Action Plan to reduce risks and impacts associated with pesticide use in The main objectives of the plan are the implementation of the general principles of integrated pest management and the reduction of risks associated with the use of plant protection products. Actions have been taken to develop and promote the use of integrated pest management tools and to monitor the implementation of the principles of integrated pest management by professional users. However, many of the actions taken do not directly correlate with the targets of the National Action Plan, thus making it difficult to determine whether the objective of the plan to reduce the risks associated with pesticide use are being achieved. Poland had already established systems for training operators and inspecting spraying equipment prior to the Directive, and both systems have now been modified to align with the Directive. Aerial spraying has been banned, but derogations have been granted for pesticide use in forests. A review of the National Action Plan has recently been initiated, and it is planned that a new National Action Plan will be adopted by the end of The competent authorities have identified the low number of applications for authorisation of low-risk and non-chemical plant protection products as a difficulty in developing integrated pest management strategies. I

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BACKGROUND Legal Context Previous Audit Series Country Profile and Statistics FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Relevant National Legislation Competent Authorities National Action Plan Training and Certification of Operators Information and Awareness-Raising Pesticide Application Equipment Aerial Spraying Water Protection Pesticide Use in Specific Areas Handling and Storage of Pesticides Integrated Pest Management Background IPM tools in the current NAP Dissemination of IPM Tools Assessment of the implementation of IPM Associated actions relevant to IPM Barriers to implementation of IPM Risk Indicators MAIN OBSTACLES AND DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN SUD IMPLEMENTATION GOOD PRACTICES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OVERALL CONCLUSION CLOSING MEETING...21 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation ASIF CA(s) EU ha IPM MARD MS(s) NAP(s) NLI PAE PPP(s) SPHSIS SSI SUD UAA Explanation Agricultural Social Insurance Fund Competent authority(ies) European Union hectares Integrated pest management Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Member State(s) National Action Plan(s) National Labour Inspectorate Pesticide Application Equipment Plant protection product(s) State Plant Health and Seed Inspectorate Service State Sanitary Inspectorate Sustainable Use Directive Utilisable Agricultural Area III

5 1. INTRODUCTION The mission formed part of the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety planned programme for The mission took place from 7 to 14 June The mission team comprised two staff members from DG Health and Food Safety and one expert from a European Union (EU) Member State (MS). This fact-finding mission was carried out in agreement with the competent authority (CA). An opening meeting was held with Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), the State Sanitary Inspectorate (SSI), General Veterinary Inspectorate, the State Plant Health and Seed Inspectorate Service (SPHSIS) and the Central Statistical Office. At this meeting, the mission team confirmed the objectives of, and itinerary for, the mission and information required for the successful completion of the mission was requested. 2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE The objectives of the mission were to: 1. Investigate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, under Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, hereinafter referred to as the Sustainable Use Directive (SUD). 2. Identify obstacles/difficulties encountered in the SUD implementation, as well as good practices with regard to the implementation of the Directive. Article 2 of Directive 2009/128/EC states that the Directive shall apply to pesticides that are defined as plant protection product (PPPs) under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and in keeping with this approach, all references to pesticides in this report refer to PPPs. In pursuit of the mission's objectives, meetings were held with MARD, SSI, SPHSIS, the General Directorate for Environmental Protection and the State Forests. The mission team also met bodies involved in agricultural research and knowledge transfer, and with the Agricultural Social Insurance Fund (ASIF) and the National Labour Inspectorate (NLI) with regard to poisoning incidents. 3. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS This fact-finding mission was carried out in agreement with the CA. Relevant legislation and applicable standards are listed in Annex I. 4. BACKGROUND 4.1. LEGAL CONTEXT The SUD establishes a framework to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and promoting the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. 1

6 Article 4 of the SUD requires MSs to adopt National Action Plans (NAPs) to set up quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use and to encourage the development and introduction of IPM and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides. In addition, the NAPs shall also include indicators to monitor the use of plant protection products containing active substances of particular concern, especially if alternatives are available. In their NAPs, MSs shall describe how they will implement measures pursuant to Articles 5 to 15 of the SUD. NAPs shall be reviewed at least every five years and any substantial changes shall be reported to the Commission without undue delay PREVIOUS AUDIT SERIES This was the fifth of six fact-finding missions planned for 2017 in MS to investigate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides under the SUD. During and , two audit series covering official controls on the marketing and use of pesticides were undertaken, during which 19 and 11 MS were audited, respectively. In both series, some aspects of the SUD were examined. In relation to the SUD, the overview report of the series concluded that "Initial measures were adequately put into place for the implementation of Directive 2009/128/EC, in particular, training and certification of professional users, safe handling and storage of PPPs, their containers and remnants, IPM and application equipment. This is a step forward to ensure the sustainable use of pesticides." (See overview report DG(SANTE)/ ) The overview report of the series concluded that "All Member States visited had taken significant steps in the implementation of those aspects of Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides which were examined. These included the establishment of operator training programmes and sprayer testing systems. Areas treated with plant protection products by aerial spraying have declined significantly in recent years, and this practice is now confined to limited areas, under derogation." (See overview report DG(SANTE)/ ) COUNTRY PROFILE AND STATISTICS DG Health and Food Safety has published a country profile for Poland, which can be found on the web-site of DG Health and Food Safety ( It summarises the control systems for food and feed, animal health and welfare, and plant health, and gives an overview on the implementation of recommendations of audit reports. The total Utilisable Agricultural Area (UAA) in Poland is 14.4 million hectares (ha), of which over half a million ha is dedicated to organic production ( ha). The UAA comprises 76 % arable crops and 22 % permanent grassland. Cereals cover 52 %, industrial crops 7 %, potatoes 2 % and orchards 2 % of the UAA. According to Eurostat data in 2014 Poland was the EU s fifth largest user of PPPs, with tonnes of PPP active substances used, accounting for 6 % of the EU market. Herbicides comprise half of all PPPs used, fungicides one third, with other product types making up the balance. The number of active 2

7 substances in authorised PPPs has remained constant at between 260 and 270 over the last four years. Poland is among the MSs with the highest number of agricultural holdings with more than 1.4 million. Farms are small by EU standards with an average size of just 10 ha. There is a significant regional variation in terms of farm size and crops grown. In the southeast the average farm size is just 5 ha compared to 25 ha in the northwest. The major crops are winter wheat (2 million ha), winter triticale (1.3 million ha), maize (1.2 million ha), rapeseed ( ha), rye ( ha), potatoes ( has) and sugar beet ( ha). Apples are the most important fruit grown, accounting for 80 % of Polish fruit production. 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1. RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION Legal Requirements Article 23 of Directive 2009/128/EC on transposition Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU Findings 1. The CAs stated that requirements of the SUD are covered by the Act on Plant Protection of 18 December 2003 and the Act on Plant Protection Products of 8 March Implementing provisions for these acts are set out by several ministerial regulations. 2. The Act on Plant Protection of 18 December 2003 sets out the organisation of the State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service (including its structure, tasks, competences and powers, as well as the general rules of carrying out and documenting controls). The Act also clarifies the Services activities with regard to supervision of marketing and use of PPPs, and in particular the official activities in the area of: control of placing plant protection products on the market; control of the use of plant protection products; inspection of equipment for the application of PPPs, including supervision of other entities involved; duties regarding the certification scheme "Integrated Plant Production", including the control of other entities involved. duties in the area of training for traders and users of PPPs, including the supervision of other entities involved. 3. The Act on Plant Protection Products of 8 March 2013 covers: general rules on the use and sale of PPPs; obligatory training for PPP distributors, users and advisors; registration of PPP distributors and obligations to be met by such distributors (inter alia, concerning the provision of information about PPP to customers); restrictions concerning the sale of PPPs; the obligation to use PPPs in such a way so as to avoid risks for human health and the environment; the obligation to implement IPM; 3

8 restrictions on use of PPPs in sensitive areas (playgrounds, nurseries, kindergartens, primary schools, hospitals and spas); restrictions concerning the use of certain PPPs by non-professional users. ban of aerial spraying and system for granting derogations; obligatory inspections of PPP application equipment; the legal base for adoption of the NAP. 4. The CAs stated that there are other pieces of legislation linked to the SUD, such as the Act on Water of 18 July 2001, which sets out protection rules for water intake and prohibits the filling of sprayers directly from water courses. 5. The Act on Nature Protection of 16 April 2004 bans the use of PPPs in national parks and nature reserves and sets out provisions for derogations COMPETENT AUTHORITIES Legal Requirements Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2009/128/EC Findings 6. The MARD is the CA responsible for legislation and policy relating to PPPs and their use in agriculture. With regard to SUD, the MARD is responsible for drafting and monitoring the implementation of the NAP. 7. According to the NAP, MARD, governmental control authorities, and institutes are responsible for its implementation. MARD is responsible for the overall co-ordination and development of the multi-annual programmes. While there is no regular forum or committee involving other Ministries and bodies performing tasks related to the SUD and NAP, MARD stated that ad-hoc bilateral meetings take place as required. 8. Under the aegis of MARD, the following departments have responsibilities related to the implementation of the NAP and the SUD: The SPHSIS is the control authority for: i. planning and conducting official controls on the marketing and use of PPPs including the implementation of IPM and for developing IPM guidelines; ii. registration, supervision and control of operators providing training and certification for the use and sale of PPPs; iii. registration, supervision and control of operators conducting inspection of PAE; iv. implementing pesticides residue testing for products of plant origin prior to placing on market (before harvest); v. granting derogations for aerial spraying. The Veterinary Inspection is responsible for the control of animal feed and food of animal origin. 9. The SSI is a control authority under the aegis of the Ministry of Health, responsible for the control of pesticide residues in food of plant origin (both during food production stages and for food placed on the market), food of animal origin placed on the market and in drinking water. 4

9 10. Under the Ministry of Environment, there are several departments with responsibilities in the implementation of the NAP and the SUD. The Inspectorate of Environmental Protection is a control body responsible for the monitoring of pesticides presence in surface water, sediments and ground water. The General Director for Environmental Protection is responsible for national parks and national reserves, under the supervision of the Minister of Environment who has ultimate responsibility for granting derogations for the use of PPPs in these areas. The Department of National Forest is the responsible body for the surveillance and monitoring of harmful organisms in forests and for assessing the need to seek derogations for the aerial application of PPPs. The Ministry of Environment (ME) is responsible for organising the system of disposal for packages of PPPs and obsolete PPPs. The system is operated via municipality collection points and licensed hazardous waste operators NATIONAL ACTION PLAN Legal Requirements Article 4 of Directive 2009/128/EC on National Action Plans Findings 11. Poland adopted its first, and current, five-year NAP in May It was drawn up by MARD, with the participation of relevant interested parties, and approved after consultation with the Ministries of Environment and Health. The NAP encompasses PPP use in both agricultural and non-agricultural areas e.g. railways, parks, and playgrounds. The NAP specified that the key objective for Poland was to promote the general principles of IPM, and by the implementation of these practices, reduce the risks associated with pesticide use. 12. The high level targets of the NAP are: Dissemination of the general principles of IPM and the implementation of these principles by 90 % of professional users by 2017, according to the SPHSIS data. Prevention of risks associated with the use of PPPs. The achievement of this target is measured by maximum residue level (MRL) exceedances. A target of 99 % compliance is set for food of plant origin and 99.9 % for food of animal origin. However, this indicator can be seen as more directly linked to compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1, i.e. the extent to which PPPs are used in line with their conditions of authorisation, rather than compliance with the SUD, although some aspects of the Directive may have an indirect effect on residue levels. 13. In their report on implementation of the NAP covering the period, the Polish CAs indicated that: 1 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that the lack of exceedances of the maximum residue levels of PPPs also indicates that these products were used properly, and thus it indirectly allows for conclusions to be drawn on compliance with other requirements of the SUD, inter alia, the technical condition of equipment for the application of PPPs, as well as the knowledge obtained by the farmer during training. 5

10 There is significant variation in terms of compliance with specific requirements of IPM, ranging from 70 % compliance to over 95 %. In 2013 and 2014, 99.3 % and 99.1 % of samples of Polish food of non-animal origin were MRL compliant, but in 2015, compliance dropped to 98.5 %, compared to the NAP target of 99 % compliance. In 2013 and 2014, 100 % of samples of Polish food of animal origin and feedstuff were MRL compliant, whereas in 2015, 6 non-compliant samples were found. 14. While the NAP does not establish high level targets related to the reduction in environmental risk associated with pesticides, it does outline a number of measures to reduce these risks. 15. In addition, there are a range of sector and topic specific targets, each of which will be dealt with under the relevant chapter of this report. In several cases, the sub-targets are not clearly connected with the main high-level objectives. On the other hand, in the case of some specific targets, they were already achieved at the very early phases of the NAP, e.g. the target of 80 % of PAE being tested compared to actual compliance rates of over 98 %. The Polish CA stated that this first NAP is being used as an information gathering exercise that will provide data to establish more appropriate targets for the next NAP. 16. The NAP is structured with the following main areas of action: Dissemination of the general principles of IPM (chapter 5.11). Modifying the training system for professional users of PPPs, dealers and advisors (chapter 5.4). Increasing awareness of the public regarding PPPs (chapter 5.5). Modifying the system of technical inspection testing PAE (chapter 0). Providing plant protection tools for minor uses (paragraph 17). Providing effective supervision of marketing and use of PPPs. For this action no measurable targets have been set. The action aims to improve the risk analysis process to better target controls to areas with higher probability of irregularities. Analysis of risk related to the use of PPPs. For this action, no specific measurable targets have been set. The NAP defines several tasks such as the collection of data from inspections and surveys on the marketing and use of PPPs (chapter 5.8), the development of indicators for monitoring the risks of pesticide use (chapter 5.12), to establish a system to collect information about human poisoning (paragraph 31) and poisoning of bees (paragraph 36) and supervision of PPPs containing active substances of concern (paragraph 60). Promoting good practices for the safe use of PPPs. This action focused on the development of guides covering issues such as occupational health and safety and protection of pollinators when applying PPPs, rules for mixing and combined application of PPPs, and on the calibration of agricultural and horticultural sprayers (paragraphs 64 and 67). Application of scientific research for integrated plant protection and limiting risks related to the use of PPPs. The tasks in this area have been included in several multi-annual programmes implemented by research institutions, which aim to: i. provide the basis for developing and updating methodologies of IPM, ii. establish plant protection programmes, iii. develop and disseminate decision support systems in pest management, 6

11 iv. develop rules for the safe application of PPPs. 17. The action to ensure protection for minor crops aims to prevent the misuse of PPPs in these crops. The CA stated that the lack of authorised PPPs increases the risk to human health, animals and the environment by the possible inappropriate use of PPPs not authorised for a particular crop. To reduce the risks, the NAP sets out the target of granting at least fifteen extensions of authorisations for minor uses per year, and decreasing by 20% compared to 2013, the number of irregularities found during official controls as regards the use of unauthorised PPPs. Regarding the target for the number of extensions of authorisations for minor uses, this has been achieved with more than 34 authorisations granted per year. With regard to the second target on the misuse of PPPs, related non-compliances in 2013, 2014 and 2015 were 2.4, 1.9 and 2.5 % respectively, therefore, in 2014 the 20 % reduction compared to 2013 was achieved, but not in 2015 where non-compliances increased by 4 % related to the base year of MARD has initiated the revision of the NAP for the period , and the annual reports for the period will feed into this review, and any subsequent amendment, as required by Article 4 of the SUD. The NAP, and associated information, including the annual reports are available at Conclusions 19. In many cases, neither the targets established, nor their monitoring results, provide a basis for concluding if risks are being reduced under the current NAP TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION OF OPERATORS Legal Requirements Article 5 of Directive 2009/128/EC on training and certification Article 6 of Directive 2009/128/EC on pesticide sales Findings 20. Poland first established a training system for professional users and distributors of PPPs in The entry into force of the SUD required changes in the system to align it with the new requirements. The Act on Plant Protection Product of 8 March 2013 lays down the current training requirements. The main changes were to extend the training requirements to professional users of PPPs to areas other than in agriculture and forestry (for example railways, urban parks and gardens), and to include advisors within the training scheme. The modification of the training system was included as one of the main actions of the NAP. 21. The Regulation of MARD of 8 May 2013 complements the Act on Plant Protection Products and establishes a basic training programme with a certain number of hours ranging from 14 to 24 for different categories of trainees including advisors, distributors and different types of users, such as those using tractor mounted sprayers, fumigation equipment, aircraft and spray trains. Trainees must pass a written examination to receive their certificate, which is valid for five years. Follow-up training is required to re-new 7

12 certificates, which are valid for another five years. The CA stated that initial training covers all aspects under Annex I of the SUD, whereas additional training covers only some aspects, but IPM is always included. 22. Exemptions from basic training are granted for professional users with a formal education in agriculture through agricultural technical schools or Universities which include in their curricula all the items covered by the basic training. Follow-up training is required after five years in all cases. There is also an exemption from training for users conducting research activities when the scope of their duties includes teaching, conducting research or development work in agriculture, horticulture or forestry. 23. The SPHSIS is the CA responsible for approving and supervising training service providers and for appointing the examination boards of the training providers. Training service providers must comply with requirements as to the competency and qualification of trainers, as well as technical capabilities, and duly report to the regional SPHSIS of each training event The CAs stated that trained staff must be physically available at the time of sale. Microdistributors of non-professional PPPs are not required to be trained, but they are required to provide information regarding the risks associated with PPPs to buyers. Professional users of PPPs must prove that they are trained at the time of purchase, however distributors are not required to keep records of the purchaser s training certificates which makes it more difficult to verify compliance with this requirement during official controls. The sale of PPPs through automatic vending machines or via self-service is prohibited. 25. Changes in the curriculum in vocational education were introduced by a Regulation of Minister of National Education on 7 Feb These changes concerned non-university degrees, such as farmer, farm technician agribusiness or beekeeper technician and beekeeper. This Regulation requires decision makers to acquire the necessary knowledge to choose control methods and PPPs in accordance with IPM. MARD also informed Universities of the new training requirements to allow them to adapt their curricula, so that graduates would qualify for the exemption from official training as professional PPP users. 26. The target for the NAP action on training was to cover at least 90 % of professional users in There are more than 1.4 million farms in Poland. However, MARD estimates that farms only produce for domestic consumption, and therefore MARD do not consider these operators to be professional users. In addition, surveys conducted by MARD shows that around 20 % of farmers engage third parties to apply PPPs. In summary, this means that there is an estimated users of professional PPPs. The total number of trained users in the period 2012 to 2016 was The NAP set a target for 2017 of 90 % of professional users fulfilling the training requirements Registration of PPP points of sale is mandatory in Poland. The CA's data for 2016 indicate that there were points of sale, of which 324 are wholesalers. Each year, about points of sale, and professional users are controlled during routine 2 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that training service providers are required to inform SPHSIS, twice a year, regarding the trainees who passed the exam and received a certificate. This guarantees that the SPHSIS receives up-to-date information about users with a valid certificate. 3 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that the compliance with the target is monitored through the results of the official controls conducted in this regard by SPHSIS. In 2016, the compliance level reached 98.4 % in regular controls, and 90.1 % in the case of targeted controls. 8

13 inspections to verify that they are trained and possess a relevant certificate, with compliance levels of 98-99% consistently found in the last four years INFORMATION AND AWARENESS-RAISING Legal Requirements Article 7 of Directive 2009/128/EC on information and awareness-raising Article 10 of Directive 2009/128/EC on information to the public Findings 28. The NAP includes a specific action for increasing awareness of the public regarding PPPs. This action foresees the organisation of information campaigns including conferences and the distribution of pamphlets. No specific target has been set and no indicator established to measure the effectiveness of these actions. 29. As part of this action, the general principles of IPM were included in the curricula of agricultural schools. The Regulation of the Minister of National Education of 7 February 2012 on the core curriculum in vocational education specifies that the principles of IPM must be part of the education of farmers and farm technicians, agribusiness technicians, beekeepers and beekeeper technicians. 30. Labels of all approved PPPs must state that all interested parties who request to be informed shall be notified before pesticide applications. 31. MARD is responsible for gathering information on poisoning incidents with PPPs. The 2016 Polish annual report on implementation of the NAP, covering the period , stated that data in this respect were obtained from the ASIF and the NLI 4. ASIF is an official insurance body in the agriculture sector, responsible for the prevention of accidents at work and occupational diseases of insured persons. It is obliged to report to MARD cases of chronic poisoning due to the use of PPPs. From 2013 to the time of the audit, no such cases had been reported. They organise awareness programmes regarding safety for farmers and agricultural workers including vulnerable groups, such as children living in farms or rural areas. One such initiative was an arts competition for children highlighting the risks from pesticides, which involved over children from rural areas in The NLI is a control body reporting directly to the Polish Parliament. It is responsible for monitoring inter alia the health and safety of workers and investigating accidents at workplaces, which include poisoning with PPPs. In the period 2013 to 2016, no cases of PPP poisoning were notified. 32. MARD stated that in the period of , there were no notifications of poisoning with pesticides. The mission team met ASIF and they clarified that the scope of their activities is limited to insured farmers, and only regarding long-term health effects resulting from accidents in the course of work at farms, including accidents with 4 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that the data collection in the area of poisoning incidents has been extended to include also the information from the National Health Fund, as regards the data from healthcare entities. 9

14 pesticides. The mission team also met NLI which investigates any work accidents being reported to them. 33. MARD stated that they have no access to information on acute or chronic pesticide poisoning other than long-term effects from farm accidents and work accidents provided by ASIF and NLI. No information was available on suicide attempts with pesticides. The MARD acknowledged that their information on pesticide poisoning was incomplete The NAP includes actions aimed at reducing the risks and the potential effects on nontarget organisms. Before the implementation of the NAP, there was no system in place for collecting data on bee poisoning with pesticides. Such a system was introduced by the Act on PPPs of 8 March 2013 in order to assess the risk to bees from PPPs. A procedure was launched to investigate cases of bee poisoning, under which ad-hoc commissions including representatives of the SPHSIS, Veterinary Inspection and representatives of beekeepers' organizations are established. The requirement for a buffer zone of 20 metres from hives was also introduced when applying PPPs. In addition, the mandatory training for PPP users also includes a module dedicated to beneficial organisms, including honey bees. All PPP labels include instructions requiring users to notify other parties that may be affected (for example beekeepers) and to take measures to mitigate the risks. 35. The National Veterinary Research Institute is responsible for monitoring the health of apiaries and examining poisoned bees. Any case of poisoning is reported to them or to the SPHSIS. Since 2014, notifications of suspected poisoning of bees trigger an investigation process led by a commission including representatives of SPHSIS and the National Veterinary Services, and the beekeeper association. 36. The report on the implementation of the NAP for the period 2013 to 2015 provided information on the notifications of suspected poisoning of bees for 2014 and 2015, which numbered 89 and 47 respectively. In 2016, a total of 73 cases of suspicion of bee poisoning were reported. However, SPHSIS stated that a causal link between the death of bees and PPP was proved in just 23 cases over the 3 year period. Conclusions 37. The system for gathering information on pesticide acute poisoning incidents, as well as chronic poisoning developments do not cover all range of incidents that may occur linked with pesticide poisoning. 5 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that in addition to the information provided during the mission, in the second half of 2017 the MARD received from the National Health Fund the information on the number of patients treated in connection with poisoning with PPPs. In the years , the figures were, respectively, 616, 593, 512 and 450. Of the above-mentioned persons, respectively 383, 370, 323 and 295 required hospital treatment. 10

15 5.6. PESTICIDE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT Legal Requirements Article 8 of Directive 2009/128/EC on inspection of equipment in use Findings 38. Testing and certification of orchard sprayers has been obligatory in Poland since 1999, and this requirement was subsequently extended to other types of PAE. The NAP addressed the need for changes to the system after the entry into force of the SUD. The Act on PPPs of 8 March 2013 requires that all field sprayers and orchard sprayers be tested every three years. Spray trains are currently to be tested every five years but from January 2020, the frequency will be reduced to every three years. A five year frequency has been established for testing seed treatment equipment, fogging or spraying equipment within greenhouses or plastic tunnels, pellet applicators, aircraft and all other equipment with tank capacity over 30 litres. Knapsack sprayers are not subject to testing. New equipment is required to be inspected at least once within five years of purchase. 39. The Regional SPHSIS is responsible for approving and supervising PAE testing service providers. As of December 2016, there were 388 approved PAE testing service providers in Poland. The CAs stated that all tests conducted are in line with the requirements of Annex II of the SUD and the relevant European standard, where relevant. SPHSIS' supervision activities involves verification of compliance with the requirements for persons conducting testing, technology used for tests, and record keeping. Testing operations are not witnessed as part of the supervision controls on a regular basis. 40. The CA stated that as at December 2016, there were PAE units with valid certificates. In 2015 and 2016, more than and PAE units were tested respectively and according to the data provided by the CA, only three and five units failed to pass the test. MARD explained this low rate of failure is due to the fact that inspection service providers are allowed to carry out works to correct deficiencies identified during the tests, and only the final outcome is recorded. The CA stated that the current system favours competition and it is perceived by users as adding value. While these practices could impact on the independence and impartiality of the inspection, the CA stated that supervision activities have not detected any problems in this regard. 41. The latest annual report on the NAP from December 2015 highlighted that 36 % of the estimated number of PAE had been tested. On the other hand, SPHSIS conducts routine inspections on users of PPPs and in 2016, they conducted over inspections. Over 99 % of PAE were tested as required. Based on this figure, the NAP target of 80 % has been comfortably achieved. 11

16 5.7. AERIAL SPRAYING Legal Requirements Article 9 of Directive 2009/128/EC on aerial spraying Findings 42. The NAP does not describe how Poland will implement measures pursuant to Article 9 of the SUD 6. Article 38 of the Polish Act on PPPs specifies that PPPs can be used with aerial equipment, when the control of harmful organisms is not possible using ground application equipment or where aerial spraying poses lower risk than treatment via ground application. This mirrors Article 9(2)(a) of the SUD on aerial spraying. Derogations for aerial applications require the approval of the treatment plan by the regional inspectorate of SPHSIS. The Inspectorate provides information about the planned aerial pesticide treatment application on the website of the regional SPHSIS, including the location and total area covered by the plan, the name of PPP to be used during the planned treatment, the date of the planned treatment, and the period with restricted access to people and livestock after the aerial application. 43. Three insecticides are authorised for aerial applications, while Polish legislation excludes herbicides and desiccants from aerial application. 44. The MARD Regulation of 18 April 2013 requires the use of GPS based systems to control aerial spraying. MARD Regulation of 22 May 2013 requires that the operator using aerial application is obliged to give notice of the treatment, in written or electronic form, at least seven days before application to local authority units, beekeeper organisations and other persons who could be affected by the application. Clear signposting must be located at the entrance of the areas to be treated. 45. MARD stated that no derogations were granted since the entry into force of the SUD for aerial application in agriculture, as the CAs believe that there are viable alternatives in this case. In the case of forestry, MARD stated that aerial applications are required in order to reach to the tree crowns. While the area covered by aerial spraying in the 80's and 90's was much larger, up to 2 million ha in some years, aerial spraying has declined significantly in recent years, with only ha treated in The State Forest Agency is responsible for assessing the need for aerial spraying by conducting systematic monitoring of insects and other surveillance activities in both public and private forestry. Based on these monitoring activities, the Agency prepares and submits all the aerial spraying plan applications to SPHSIS, who is responsible for final decisions on derogations. Once the plan is approved, the Agency carries on further monitoring activities at the areas included in the plans, and takes the final decision on whether the actual application is needed. The Agency stated that while approved plans for aerial applications in forestry covered ha in 2014 and ha in 2015, the 6 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that the necessary legal and organisational solutions have been adopted to ensure that the risk associated with the aerial application of PPPs is kept to a minimum. All the requirements and obligations associated with carrying out aerial applications of PPPs, both for those who use these products and for control services, are laid down in the provisions of the Act of 8 March 2013 on plant protection products. For this reason, this measure has not been transferred and included in the NAP. 12

17 actual areas treated were and ha respectively, which equates to less than 0.5 % of the total forest area in Poland. 47. The Agency informed the mission team that climatic conditions and poor habitats favour the insect populations. The Agency stated that insects are also favoured by production methods in forests, such as monocultures, equal age classes of trees, artificial provenance of trees and the absence of shrub layers in forests. These poor habitats enhance the growth of pests which are not naturally controlled, requiring pest management interventions. Conclusions 48. No derogations for aerial spraying have been granted in agriculture since the entry into force of the SUD. 49. The involvement of official bodies in the monitoring and assessment of the need for aerial spraying in forestry, provide assurances that aerial spraying is only applied when there are no other viable alternatives, and there has been a steady decline in the area treated in recent years WATER PROTECTION Legal Requirements Article 11 of Directive 2009/128/EC on specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water, and relevant provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC Findings 50. The NAP firstly describes the measures to protect the aquatic environment and drinking water which were already in place before the NAP was adopted. The Water Act of 18 July 2001 prohibits the filling of sprayers directly from water courses and the washing of equipment used for spraying in these waters. It also provides for the possibility of restricting the use of fertilisers and PPPs in the vicinity of water supplies. 51. The MARD Regulation of 31 March 2014 sets out a series of conditions aimed at protecting the environment, such as the maximum wind speed during spraying in order to reduce drift, establishing buffer zones in cases where the product label does not define a buffer zone, conditions for storage of PPPs, filling of sprayers and cleaning PAE. The NAP also contains measures for monitoring drinking, surface and groundwater and waterbed sediments. 52. Monitoring of water intended for human consumption is carried out by the SSI, in addition to the monitoring obligations of the water companies and entities providing water from individual take-off points, as part of their commercial activities, or activities carried out in public buildings. Rules for conducting this monitoring are set out in the Act of 7 June 2001 on the collective water supply and sewage water collecting system and the Regulation of the Minister of Health of 13 November 2015 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. 53. The SSI units and other responsible entities test for pesticide residues in drinking water in areas where their presence is considered highly probable. While the Central Sanitary Inspection provided guidance on which pesticides should be included in the analyses, the actual scope is determined by the local inspector taking into account local conditions. 13

18 The analyses for pesticide residues are performed by 72 laboratories of the SSI and 162 additional laboratories approved by SSI. 54. Water companies and other entities that provide drinking water have to determine the schedule for water sampling, with a frequency determined in the Ordinance of the Minister of Health of 13 November 2015, and in agreement with the SSI. In 2015, over ten thousand samples were analysed for pesticide residues, none of which exceeded the legal limits set out in Directive 98/83/EC. 55. The State Environmental Monitoring system is set up under the Environmental Protection Law of 27 April 2001, and is carried out by the Inspectorate for Environmental Protection. This system provides for the monitoring of surface water, groundwater and sediment matrix. The detailed rules for the assessment of the status of groundwater are contained in the Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of 21 July 2016 and, for surface water bodies, rules are laid down in Regulation of the same Minister on 21 December The CA stated that these monitoring programmes are in line with the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). 56. The monitoring of surface water and groundwater is implemented within the framework of surveillance, operational and research monitoring. There were over 200 surface water, and 150 groundwater, monitoring stations throughout the country where pesticides were monitored in The monitoring included more than 30 active substances relevant to pesticides, of which six are currently approved in the EU for use in PPPs, although in some cases there are no PPPs authorised in Poland containing these substances, such as for example diuron. Surface water monitoring studies are included in a six-year cycle of water management. Studies of sediments of rivers and lakes are performed by contractors hired after a public tender procedure, at more than 400 monitoring stations, under supervision of the Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection. 57. The CA stated that, when found, residues were within a range of permissible concentrations, in most of the cases below the limit of quantification. The most frequently found substances above the limit of quantification were very persistent substances which were used in the past and which had accumulated over time such as DDT. 58. Another monitoring programme related to pesticides was carried out in 2016 in line with the requirements of the Commission Implementing Decision 2015/495 involving, neonicotinoids, other insecticides, and one herbicide. More than 130 samples were taken from 15 monitoring stations located on rivers over a nine month period, resulting in just 29 samples with findings above the limit of quantification. 59. In addition to the State Environment Monitoring, two research programmes for pesticide residues in surface water were commissioned by MARD. These programmes have a wider analytical scope for pesticides. For surface water, there are no agreed thresholds for all analysed pesticides, and drinking water thresholds have been used instead. In 2016, the Institute for Horticulture, in cooperation with the Mazovian Inspection for Environmental Protection, analysed 86 samples for 95 different pesticides and the Institute of Plant Protection - National Research Institute in co-operation with the Wielkopolskie Inspection for Environmental Protection, analysed 84 samples for 139 compounds. The initial results showed that the sum of pesticide residue concentrations did not exceed drinking water thresholds in all the cases (0.5 micrograms), with only two exceptions where analysis detected several pesticides summing in total more than three times the limit for drinking water. For 41 of the detected active substances in the 14

19 analyses of both programmes, there are PPPs authorised in Poland containing these substances. However, there are no authorised PPPs containing atrazine, diuron and diethyltoluamide which were found in the monitoring schemes. MARD stated that more data is needed before conclusions can be drawn in this area. 60. The NAP also requires the implementation of a specific monitoring programme for substances of particular concern. The CAs identified five substances, bifenox, quinoxyfen, cyperpethrin, chlorpyrifos and isoproturon, based on sales data and aquatic risk. The CAs stated that the results of monitoring from 2010 to 2014 showed no findings of concern PESTICIDE USE IN SPECIFIC AREAS Legal Requirements Article 12 of Directive 2009/128/EC on the reduction of pesticide use or risks in specific areas Findings 61. There is an overall prohibition on the use of PPPs classified as harmful in areas such as playgrounds, nurseries, kindergartens, primary schools, hospitals and spas. Derogations may be granted by the Regional Offices of SPHSIS in the following cases: eradication of quarantine pests, to protect plants of high importance in terms of nature or landscape, in order to eradicate plants harmful for humans and when there is no other non-chemical method technically and economically feasible to eradicate harmful organisms. The CA stated that no derogations had been granted since the entry into force of the Act. 62. With regard to conservation of protected areas, the Act on Nature protection bans the use of PPPs in national parks, national reserves, conservation sites and special areas of conservation. Derogations may be granted by the General Directorate for Environmental Protection, Nature Management Department of Ministry of Environment in cases where there is clear benefit for the area to be treated or when the use of PPPs is included within the management plan of the protected area HANDLING AND STORAGE OF PESTICIDES Legal Requirements Article 13 of Directive 2009/128/EC on handling and storage of pesticides and treatment of their packaging and remnants Findings 63. The Polish Act on Packaging and Packaging Waste Management 13 June 2013 lays down rules regarding the obligation to collect and recycle empty packages. The label of PPPs must include a statement related to the management of waste in line with the Polish legal framework. Empty PPP containers are considered as hazardous waste and users are required to deliver the empty containers to the PPP sales point. There are some 7 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that in the period only six derogations were granted. 15