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.

Recent evaluations of the microbial biological control sector indicate that implementing microbial control of pests is still slow in the EU. The top causal factors are the lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome two‐stage procedure for approval of biological agents as active substances at the EU level and authorization of formulated products at the national level, limited funding, lack of EU level integrated approaches, and slow implementation of integrated pest management. This article contributes to a better understanding of the factors that limit microbial control of pests in EU agriculture by providing the first evaluation of the evolution of microbial biological control agent (MBCA) EU‐level approval combined with that of microbial biological control product (MBCP) national‐level authorization, discusses recent trends in research and offers some policy recommendations. By 2020, the EU had caught up with the USA regarding research output, approved MBCAs, and MBCA approval procedures (first stage). Despite improvements from 2014 to 2019, the number of authorized MBCPs (second stage) has progressed slowly and unevenly across the EU. Significant progress is concentrated in countries with more extensive agricultural land and higher research intensity. The EUʼs focus on promoting more sustainable agriculture by increasing the availability of low‐risk pesticides of biological origin as alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides has gained traction in recent years. Nevertheless, more efforts to improve the capacity and expertise of laggard EU Member States to contribute to the approval of MBCA, authorization of MBCP, and stimulating market availability are needed. Furthermore, we recommend introducing more concrete measures to promote the adoption of the microbial control of pests in the National Action Plans for the sustainable use of pesticides. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

No abstract

Developing sustainable agriculture by identifying non-chemical alternative Plant Protection Products (PPP) is a cornerstone in achieving long-sought environmental friendliness. Despite significant legislative and political efforts to promote biocontrol solutions and Integrated Pest Management (IPM), the literature points out the disadvantages posed by European Union’s (EU) two-tier system for Microbial Biological Control Agents (MBCA) approval and subsequent Microbial Biological Control Products (MBCP) authorization by each EU Member State (MS). Despite the disadvantages, in a recent article, we showed that the EU had outcompeted the US and other countries in approved MBCA in the last decades; however, MBCP approval at the national level lags. Achieving the EU Green Deal’s aim set out in the ‘Farm to Fork Strategy’ to reduce the use and risk of pesticides by 50% by 2030 is difficult without developing viable alternatives. Why do we not have higher MBCP availability and usage in the EU? Is it the current legislation, its poor application, or some other factors? The current legislative framework stimulated MBCA approval. Thus, we compare MBCA approval and MBCP authorization procedure to evaluate if MBCP authorization is more difficult and thus causes a bottleneck. We find that requirements for MBCP authorization are unnecessarily more complex. We recommend simplifying the MBCP dossier requirements and making them as similar to MBCA as possible to accelerate the MBCP authorization in more EU MS to increase their availability and integration in agronomic crops’ pest management plans.

The field survey made in the last 20 years revealed that large areas of Romania’s territory are still unexplored concerning moss distribution. The long-term research in natural and mature spruce forest habitats of this country shows that many sites are well protected, a status that is also confirmed by reports of Buxbaumia viridis. However, many other sites where this species was identified still lack legal protection. We also generated a potential distribution of the species based on an ensemble model, useful in guiding extensive field surveys and also management and conservation measures. In a country where the volume of wood cut by illegal logging is larger than the legal one, according to official data, it is very important that all habitats for B. viridis be included in protected areas. Our paper brings important data to aid in this goal.

No abstract

While using microbial biological control products (MBCPs) to limit pathogens is one of the alternatives to the ecologically unsustainable use of synthetic pesticides that received attention, the last 2 decades have not brought the foreseen leap in developing systematic alternatives based on low-risk plant protection products (PPPs) across the globe. To explain this limited progress, we map the evolution of research on the most successful microbial biological control agents (MBCAs) worldwide. We also map the financing structure in the top funding countries and the European Union (EU) to discern the relevant trends. Available data for the European Union Member States allowed us to discover a country-level and EU-level correlation between strain-level research and biocontrol products’ approval based on those strains.

The 2009 “pesticide package” changed the European Union’s approach to increasing its resilience to synthetic pesticides’ detrimental effects and health risks. It promoted the common goals of reducing volumes, reducing treatment frequency, improving efficacy, reducing risks of pesticide usage, reducing impact, reducing pesticide use in specific areas, and increasing public knowledge and awareness of plant protection products (PPP) usage and effects. Part of the “pesticide package,” Directive 2009/128/EC demanded that each EU MS crystalize by 2012 their approach to these goals in National Action Plans (NAPs) designed to systematically assess the situation and propose objectives and measures to achieve the Directive’s aims. This article presents a dynamic analysis of the changes that took place between the first (by 2012) and second (by 2019) generation of NAPs and evaluates in measures and a timetable the observed progress in achieving the first goal of Directive 2009/128/EC We assess how the EU MS approach to minimizing risks to public health has changed in this intrinsically environmental policy. We show that improvements-proposing measures designed to achieve the Directive’s first goal in all EU MS can be observed, but increasing coherence in measures, timetables, and indicators is needed to accomplish the SUD and EU Green Deal goals.