Background to the complaint

1. In December 2023, the Commission co-organised[1] a workshop related to the authorisation of plant protection products (‘pesticides’). Concretely, the workshop was about Zonal Authorisation Procedure Improvements and Developments (ZAPID).[2] The workshop, which was hosted by the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, was a follow-up to a previous workshop on the topic that took place in Dublin, in 2015.[3] Representatives of Member States, the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Minor Uses Coordination Facility,[4] and three associations of companies submitting applications for authorisation of pesticides[5] took part in it. No other stakeholders were invited.

2. In December 2023, the complainant, Pesticides Action Network Europe, contacted the Commission raising concerns about the decision to invite industry-only stakeholders to the workshop. It was also concerned about the lack of transparency in the workshop’s organisation. It took the view that, by organising the workshop, the Commission gave industry the possibility of privileged access to decision makers during and on the margins of the workshop, in particular, during a planned visit to the local Christmas market.

3. In January 2024, the Commission replied that, given the procedural nature of the workshop, the organising committee had decided to invite only those stakeholders that are directly involved in the procedural aspects of compiling and submitting applications. It stated that information on the organisation of the workshop was publicly available in reports of meetings of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF).[6] It added that the workshop agenda[7] was publicly available and that the final report on the workshop[8] would be published shortly. It also stated that the visit to the local Christmas market had been organised on the initiative of the German authorities and it reassured the complainant that Commission staff did not take part in it.

4. In April 2024, dissatisfied with the Commission’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. 

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with representatives of the Commission. The Ombudsman also received the comments of the complainant on the report of the meeting.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant contended that the Commission organised the workshop upon request of the industry and that inviting industry only is a recurring practice of the Commission. In doing so, the Commission breaches its obligation to act independently[9] and favours industry over other stakeholders.

8. The complainant claimed that the purpose of the workshop was not only an exchange of views on procedures, but it concerned policy development too. In its view, given the sensitive nature of the issues discussed, the workshop should not have taken place behind closed doors and with only industry present.

9. The complainant also argued that the Commission gave industry privileged access to decision makers not only during the workshop but also on its margins, which allowed industry to lobby decision makers and establish personal links with them.

10. In addition, the complainant took the view that the Commission had not adequately publicised the workshop. It said that a reference to the workshop in reports on meetings of SCoPAFF, which are published months after the meetings take place, is not sufficient to inform stakeholders.

11. The Commission representatives noted that the workshop was organised at the request of Member States. Given the need for further coordination among Member States on mutual recognition for the authorisation of pesticides, as identified in the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) evaluation,[10] the Commission supported the organisation of the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to brainstorm among Member States on how to implement and harmonise the EU Pesticides Regulation.[11] They acknowledged that certain headings in the report could be misunderstood, but insisted that participants did not discuss policy choices during the workshop. 

12. They stated that there are no rules on stakeholder participation in such events. In practice, stakeholders are invited depending on the purpose of the event and to the extent to which they can contribute to the discussion. In this case, given the procedural nature of the workshop, it was reasonable to invite only associations representing industry, which, contrary to other stakeholders that are not involved in the submission of applications, are familiar with the issues discussed. In addition, the number of participants was restricted by budget and space constraints. Had the topics of the workshop been wider, other stakeholders would have been invited.

13. The Commission representatives said that, in any case, Commission staff is bound, in all its interactions with stakeholders, by the ethical rules in the EU Staff Regulations[12] and in the Commission Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[13]. They further noted that there are many occasions for stakeholders to approach decision-makers on the margins of events and bilaterally. The workshop did not represent any special opportunity in this regard.

14. As regards the transparency of the nature of the workshop and its attendees, the Commission representatives said that the workshop was mentioned in several reports on SCoPAFF meetings, the first of which was published in September 2022 already.[14] The reports mention that the workshop would be a follow-up to the 2015 workshop in Dublin, which implied that stakeholder participation would be limited to associations representing applicants. The organisation of the workshop was also mentioned in the minutes of two meetings of the working group on Post Approval Issues.[15] The Commission acknowledged that publication of SCoPAFF reports takes time, but noted that this time is needed to approve the reports.

15. In its comments on the meeting report, the complainant said that, even if some Member States were positive about organising the workshop, the initial request came from industry. The complainant considers that there is a pattern of favouring industry in the Commission’s actions over the past years in the field of pesticides.

16. It reiterated its view that the issues discussed during the workshop were not of a purely procedural nature. The report on the workshop shows that it covered policy and legal matters, as it had been the case for the 2015 workshop in Dublin. These matters are of great interest to other stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations. In addition, even if the nature of the workshop were procedural only, other stakeholders might also be interested in such procedural issues. For instance, delays in approvals and authorisations are of great interest to non-governmental organisations, as they lead to several derogations that are detrimental to the protection of health and the environment.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. The Commission’s work in the area of pesticides has a direct impact on health and the environment. In view of this, the public reasonably expects the Commission’s work in this area to be as inclusive and transparent as possible.

18. While the Ombudsman understands that the Commission needs at times industry’s input to conduct its work, the organisation of industry-only workshops may raise legitimate public concerns. The public might indeed perceive such workshops as an occasion for industry unduly to influence the work of the Commission. The complainant had this perception in this case.

19. The Commission and the complainant disagreed, in the first place, on whether the workshop was organised following a request from industry or from Member States. While the Ombudsman is not in a position to resolve this question, it does not seem decisive to the case. It is not unusual for stakeholders to request occasions to discuss certain issues with the Commission.

20. However, in order to reassure the public about the nature of such meetings - independent of whether they are organised upon the request of Member States, stakeholders or on the Commission’s own initiative - the Commission should ensure that they are subject to the highest level of transparency. At the same time, the Commission should ensure that all relevant stakeholders are invited.

Inclusiveness

21. The Commission argued that it was reasonable to invite representatives from three associations representing companies only, given the procedural nature of the workshop. As other stakeholders are not involved in the procedural aspects of compiling and submitting applications, they would not be familiar with the issues discussed and could not have provided any meaningful input.

22. The Ombudsman understands the complainant’s concerns that, based on the information available in the final report published on the workshop, it looks like the discussions may have at least touched on issues going beyond mere technicalities of compiling and submitting applications. For instance, the report mentions discussions on the possibility to grant an unlimited approval period for low-risk substances or the policy on implementing the assessment of co-formulants and identifying unacceptable co-formulants. However, it is not possible to determine the nature of the discussions based on the published report.

23. In any case, the Ombudsman considers that certain ‘procedural issues’ may have important consequences when it comes to how pesticides are regulated in the EU. While it is certainly understandable to seek industry’s point of view and input on such questions, it is questionable whether the procedural nature of an event is sufficient to conclude that no other stakeholders are in a position to provide useful information or views. While the Ombudsman appreciates the challenges of allowing observers to these meetings (in person or virtually), she considers that, given the public interest in this area, the Commission should explore all possibilities to ensure that other stakeholders have opportunities to provide their views on the topics that have been discussed with industry. The Ombudsman will make a corresponding suggestion for improvement below.

24. The complainant was also concerned about industry’s possibility to lobby Member States and the Commission on the margins of the workshop, for example during a planned visit to the local Christmas market (mentioned on the agenda). As the Commission noted, its staff is bound by the rules set out in the EU Staff Regulation,^[which mitigate the risks mentioned by the complainant. However, in her practical recommendations on interactions with interest representatives, the ‘Dos and Don’ts’,[16] the Ombudsman explicitly considered that public officials should not “accept or arrange meetings outside office hours and official premises”. In this case, the Commission said that its staff did not to take part in the visit to the Christmas market with which the complainant takes issue. The complainant did not provide any concrete elements that would indicate the contrary.

Transparency

25. The Ombudsman considers that the Commission should be particularly attentive to ensure the widest possible transparency of any discussions it has with industry.

26. In this case, the only publicly available account of the workshop is the final report, which was published several months after the workshop took place. As the report can be interpreted in different ways, such a document is arguably insufficient to reassure the public about the nature of the discussions during the workshop.

27. The Ombudsman also shares the complainant’s concerns about the transparency around the organisation of the workshop, in particular what information was published at which moment in time.

28. She understands that the organisation of the workshop was mentioned in several summary reports of SCoPAFF, as well as in the minutes of two PAI Working Group meetings. The workshop’s agenda was published on DG SANTE’s website on 28 November 2023, shortly before the workshop took place in December 2023.

29. The Ombudsman notes that the main purpose of SCoPAFF summary reports and minutes of the PAI Working Group is to provide a record of the discussions during these meetings. They are not necessarily drafted with a view to providing general information to the public. As a consequence, information might be spread across several different reports and not be exhaustive. In this case, for example, none of the summary records or minutes mentioned the exact format of the workshop and which stakeholders would be invited. In light of this and in view of the delay in their publication, the Ombudsman doubts that such documents are the most appropriate means to inform the public about events in that area.

30. It would appear preferable for the Commission to have a dedicated section on its website where it publishes information about events that it organises as soon as such information becomes available. This section could include updates on the organisation of all events in the area of pesticides and all related documents, such as agendas and final reports. This would make information more visible and accessible for the public, avoiding the need to monitor reports on meetings of the different bodies in which the Commission participates. The Ombudsman will make a corresponding suggestion for improvement below.

31. The Ombudsman also notes that the agenda of the workshop, which was published shortly before the workshop, mentioned the participation of industry in relation to one part of the workshop only. It also did not include any indication on what specific associations were (or would be) invited. The Commission could envisage including a list of invited organisations in future agendas.

32. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission could have ensured greater transparency around the workshop. Given that the workshop at stake has already taken place, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries into the case are justified. However, she will make two suggestions to the Commission on how to improve the transparency of similar events in the future.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

No further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

The Commission should ensure that all relevant stakeholders in the area of pesticides have the opportunity to provide their views on the topics that are discussed with industry.

The Commission should develop a dedicated webpage on which it publishes information and documents about all upcoming events it organises in the area of pesticides as soon as they become available.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 12/12/2024

[1] The organising committee of the workshop was composed of representatives of four Member States, the European Commission and the chair of the Post Approval Issues working group.

[2] Workshop on Zonal Authorisations Procedure - Improvements and Developments, 5-7 December 2023, Braunschweig, Germany. Under the zonal system of authorisation for pesticides, the EU is divided in 3 zones. Member States assess applications on behalf of other countries in their zones and, in certain cases, on behalf of all zones. More information on the procedure to apply for authorisation of pesticides, including on the functioning of the zonal system, is available at https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/authorisation-plant-protection-products/ppp-auth_en.

[3] EU Workshop on Zonal Evaluation, Mutual Recognition and Re-authorisation, 2-4 June 2015, Dublin, Ireland: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8b787fa5-11b2-4511-826f-dee7d6327945_en?filename=pesticides_auth-ppp_workshop_20150602_report.pdf&prefLang=fr.

[4] The European Minor Uses Coordination Facility (MUCF) has been established by the European Commission to address the issue of lack of authorised pesticides on the market for niche crops. More information on the MUCF is available at https://minoruses.eu/.

[5] The three applicant associations were the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, CropLife Europe, and the European Crop Care Association.

[6] This committee is composed of representatives of the Member States. It reviews proposed measures on food and feed safety, animal health and welfare as well as plant health to assess whether they are practical and effective. It delivers opinions on draft measures that the Commission intends to adopt. More information on the SCoPAFF can be found at https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/committees/paff-committees_en.

[7] Workshop on Zonal Authorisations Procedure - Improvements and Developments, 5-7 December 2023, Agenda, https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/426a463a-69ab-4090-bf80-81e722924d45_en?filename=pesticides_auth-ppp_workshop_20231205_agenda.pdf.

[8] Workshop on Zonal Authorisations Procedure - Improvements and Developments, 5-7 December 2023, Final Workshop Report, https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/21e6b162-ac20-4d3c-aefb-a9084888f515_en?filename=pesticides_auth-ppp_workshop_20231205_sum.pdf.

[9] As set out in the Treaty on the European Union, article 17(3), and in the Commission Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

[10] REFIT evaluation of the EU legislation on plant protection products and pesticides residues, https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/refit_en.

[11] Regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107.

[12] Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501.

[13] Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A02000Q3614-20111116&from=EN#page=13.

[14] Summary reports and agendas of SCoPAFF meetings can be found at https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/committees/paff-committees/phytopharmaceuticals_en.

[15] Draft minutes of the Working Group Post Approval Issues (PAI) for the implementation of Regulation 1107/2009 of November 2022 (published in April 2023), https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/0b40948d-7247-4819-bbf9-ecca3250d893/library/cb36606e-306a-458f-b443-38d46fc9f029/details, and final minutes of the Working Group Post Approval Issues (PAI) for the implementation of Regulation 1107/2009 29 November 2022, published in September 2023, https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/0b40948d-7247-4819-bbf9-ecca3250d893/library/5e61375f-ec7b-4a85-a7a6-9f9b6fd235cc/details.

[16] Practical recommendations for public officials’ interaction with interest representatives, 24 May 2017, Case SI/7/2016/KR, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/79435