On 20 November, the Belgian Council of State ruled illegal three authorisations granted to abamectin-based pesticides, an insecticide highly toxic to the environment and suspected of being genotoxic to humans. PAN Europe and two of its Belgian members, Nature et Progrès Belgium and Bond Beter Leefmilieu, had brought the case before the Council of State in 2024, following a 15-year extension by Belgium of these authorisations for uses outdoors and in tunnels of Acaramik, Vargas, and Safran, despite the European Commission having restricted their use to closed greenhouses only.
In 2023, the European Commission restricted [1] the use of abamectin to closed systems such as greenhouses, in order to prevent any leakage of this pesticide, which is highly toxic to soil and aquatic life. Some scientific publications also highlight its genotoxic and reproductive toxicity in humans.
Martin Dermine, executive director at PAN Europe, says: "This case highlights the hypocrisy of the European Commission: abamectin is so toxic that it cannot be present in the environment. The European Commission still reapproves it for so-called 'closed systems' where no pesticides can leak into the environment. But such systems currently do not exist: there is in Europe no certified greenhouse that prevents any leakage of pesticide into the environment, through soils, ventilation systems or irrigation systems."
In the past, the European Commission used this technique to prolong the use of bee-killing neonicotinoids in greenhouses, pretending that a greenhouse is a hermetic system. In a report from 2023, PAN Europe showed that pesticides that are supposed to be restricted to greenhouses heavily contaminate neighbouring surface water. [2]
Manon Rouby, a policy officer at PAN Europe, said: "Recently, the European Commission even reapproved in closed systems quinoline-8-ol, a highly toxic fungicide that is classified as 'toxic to reproduction category 1B', which means that, by law, citizens and the environment should not be exposed to such pesticide at all. But such closed systems do not exist, and Belgium currently still authorises outdoor uses, meaning that Belgians, and in particular pregnant women, are regularly exposed to this reprotoxic substance. This situation is unacceptable."
Virginie Pissoort, a lawyer working at Nature et Progrès Belgique, adds: "In Belgium, the legal definition of a greenhouse is actually a tunnel, meaning that all these years where highly toxic substances have been restricted to supposedly closed systems, our administration allowed it in structures that do not prevent emission into the environment. It is already the second time in two years that our Council of State annuls our administrations' decisions: Belgium has a very pro-pesticide administration, and they often do not respect EU rules on pesticides, favouring toxic agriculture over people's health and environmental protection."
Heleen de Smet, campaigner at Bond Beter Leefmilieu, concluded: "In Flanders, we have areas that concentrate a lot of greenhouses, meaning that citizens and the environment are potentially highly exposed to substances they should not enter into contact with. Belgium is a densely populated country, where the population is clearly opposed to synthetic pesticides, it is unacceptable that our government keeps promoting toxic agriculture."
Background information on the case
The three Belgian authorisations were given in April 2024 by the Belgian pesticides administration as "Prolongations of approvals", supposedly to allow for the Belgian administration to finalise the re-evaluation of abamectin-based pesticides, following the re-approval of the substance by the EU in 2023. The prolongations were nevertheless running until 2039, i.e. precisely one year after the end of the EU approval. Under EU law, it is only for regular authorisations that an authorisation can be given up to one year after the end of the EU approval. Indeed, it is foreseen that Member States have only one year, after the reapproval of the substance, to conclude on a national reauthorisation.
Furthermore, the Belgian authorisations maintained outdoor uses, despite restrictions imposed by the EU, limiting the use of the substance to systems preventing any release of the pesticide into the environment.
Finally, Belgium also authorised the use "under protection". According to the Belgian guidance document defining what is a crop cultivated "under protection" [3], it corresponds to a tunnel, which is prohibited in the entire EU. Belgium does not have any certification system demonstrating that there is no leakage of pesticides into the environment, for instance, in greenhouses.
The Court ruled that these prolongations were illegal because prolonging for 15 years is not compatible with a simple prolongation needed for the time to finalise the evaluation of the national re-authorisation request.
The Court did not rule on the outdoor and 'fake greenhouses/tunnels' uses, as the prolongation legal argument was sufficient to cancel the prolongations.
Belgian Court confirms what the EU Court ruled one day before…
Indeed, on Wednesday, 19 November, in a case brought by PAN Europe [4], the EU Court had ruled that providing unlimited prolongations for the time of the reevaluation of the substance is illegal. Pesticide active substances must undergo a reassessment every 10 to 15 years to ensure a high level of protection of citizens' health and the environment. EU Court insisted on the fact that this 10-15 year period can be extended to a very short period of time, to allow to finalise a procedure that is, normally, limited to 3 years, and starts 3 years before the EU-approval expiry.
The same applies to national authorities: once the substance is re-approved at the EU-level, EU Member States have 12 months to provide a decision on the re-authorisation of products at the national level. Member States often do not respect the deadlines for a series of reasons, which leads to such prolongations. In the case of abamectin, Belgian authorities should have taken a decision on the renewal of authorisations in March 2024. Yet, 20 months later, no decision has been taken yet, and abamectin-based products are still authorised in leaky tunnels.
The ruling can be found HERE.
Contacts:
- Martin Dermine, Executive Director, martin [at] pan-europe.info, +32 486 32 99 92
- Manon Rouby, Policy Officer & Legal Adviser, manon [at] pan-europe.info, +33/643 24 33 79
Notes:
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R0515&q...
