The agrochemical industry complains about the loss of active substances and long approval procedures in Europe. How do you assess the situation?

Christian Stockmar: At the beginning of the 2000s, we had 1,000 active substances. We are now at 300 – for arable farming, 150. The last new active substance was approved in the EU in 2019 – nothing since then. The pipeline of major companies is full. But nothing is moving at the authorities. Since 2015, we have submitted over a hundred applications. Only half have been processed.

How will things develop?

I want to put it positively: overregulation and excessive bureaucracy have been recognized by the new European Commission. This is a huge opportunity to ease things somewhat within the existing legal framework in order to bring innovation back to Europe.

The Green Deal seems to be dead. The EU is focusing more on production again. Do you already see any relief?

Not yet, but probably a shift in sentiment. The new Agriculture Commissioner Hansen has said that he will not ban active substances if there are no adequate alternatives. In Austria, too, there are signs of a willingness to speed things up and proceed more harmoniously across Europe.

In the EU, active substances are assessed based on potential hazards, in the US based on actual risk. Are we blocking ourselves?

Yes. In Europe, the intrinsic properties of a substance determine whether a product can be approved or not, regardless of dose, application, or risk mitigation measures. We should return to a risk-based approach using common sense. The approval procedure allows for this.

Donald Trump has classified glyphosate as security-relevant. Would you like to see something similar in Europe?

That is situational legislation which I will not comment on. What would benefit Europe would be a clear commitment to the production location in order to support agricultural structures and ensure food security from regional production. We could even imagine anchoring this in the constitution in Austria. We have seen with energy how quickly dependencies can arise. It is not wise to relocate production and rely on imports, especially when you do not know how things are produced there.

Agriculture often shifts the blame to Brussels. But how much responsibility lies in Vienna?

Within the Austrian authority, there are several opportunities to better make use of the laws, for example in mutual recognition and zonal procedures. If trust between countries existed, procedures could be approved more quickly and there would be more room for new authorizations. In this way, the authority is holding itself back.

What role do NGOs play in the debate around crop protection?

They have deliberately spread information aimed at creating fear. We know that a crop protection product is better studied than a pharmaceutical and that we have never had food of such high quality as today. It is not helpful to frighten consumers by suggesting that there is a risk to humans or the environment when used properly.

When it comes to crop protection, farmers are always portrayed as the bad guys. Shouldn’t the industry defend its products instead?

I agree with you, more could be done. That is why the IGP has stepped up its communication. We make great efforts to create transparency, but we are not a campaign office like an NGO.

Isn’t it paradoxical that multinational corporations cannot lobby more effectively?

We engage in discussions and are ready for dialogue at all levels. However, the political path of phasing down chemical-synthetic crop protection was set during the last term of the European Commission.

Most companies operate globally. Syngenta’s owner is in China. Is the continent becoming irrelevant?

Europe is strategically very relevant, also as a production location. Three major companies, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta, have their headquarters in Europe. But if the trend of making the location unattractive continues, this would be a major competitive disadvantage.

For some niche crops, companies no longer even apply for approvals. Will more crops follow?

Some will. There are many crops where there are gaps in pest control.

Is it not also the industry’s responsibility to provide solutions for niche production?

It is not due to unwillingness. There are simply no active substances available or approvable in Europe.

Do you feel the decline in intensive crops such as sugar beet or rapeseed in your figures?

Of course. But the issue is that we are losing crop diversity. Rapeseed is important in crop rotation. Even beekeepers are already complaining. For beet, it is similar: both are due to the loss of seed treatments. This technology would be the best way to apply crop protection products in minimal quantities.

“Forever chemicals” (PFAS) are a major issue. Could they be dispensed with?

The Netherlands has taken the lead. But we know there are many sources. In crop protection products, they undergo an approval process that does not exist for PFAS as general chemicals. Therefore, we do not need calls to ban these products.

Missing active substances lead to resistance. How much strategy is still possible?

Management is required by authorities as a condition of approval. Agricultural chambers strongly recommend rotating active substances. We support this, even across company boundaries.

Large players are increasingly focusing on biologicals. Is this greenwashing?

Looking at the level of research investment, this is not greenwashing but massive investment. Biostimulants and biological crop protection products are important as a complement, but not on their own.

The chemical industry has undergone a massive structural consolidation. Almost only global corporations remain. Doesn’t this create monopolies and deprive farmers of their freedom of choice?

Today, in Europe, it takes around €300 million and 12 years to bring a product to market. I wonder which smaller company can manage that, knowing that a guidance document might change one year before the end of the registration process and approval might not be granted. This is not something the large corporations have invented.

There are strict regulations here. How do you respond to the criticism that products are formulated and exported that could no longer be used in Europe due to their toxicity?

Europe would benefit from improving the competitiveness of its location across the entire value chain. If a large corporation produces an insecticide for cotton here, it does not even reach our market. If there were a production ban for products not approved in Europe, large companies would relocate their production facilities خارج the EU. I warn against this, because such facilities are not built overnight. Once they are established elsewhere, they are permanently gone. I recall the pandemic, when everyone asked why active substances were produced in China and not here. In addition, we would lose not only jobs but also innovative capacity in Europe. This is economically unreasonable. We should be glad that there are still large industries with economic strength in Europe.

France has banned the import of agricultural products treated with plant protection products that are prohibited in the EU. Is this a legitimate way to protect the market from unfair competition?

If you take that logic further, supermarket shelves would become quite empty. Analytical methods are now so advanced that, in principle, any substance can be detected. That is why there are relevant maximum residue levels. If these are not exceeded, the residue is legally considered non-existent. It should also be explained to the public that these limits have a very large safety margin compared to levels relevant to health.

In this case, it is not only about health, but also about making competition between different international systems fairer, isn’t it?

By putting innovations on an equal footing. We lack new products that are available in other countries. Europe would be well advised to make these available here as well. That would restore competitiveness.

The Green Deal set a reduction target of 50 percent. This is no longer really being discussed. But to what extent can the use of plant protection products realistically be reduced?

We strongly support this through the use of technology. In weed management, there are approaches that can reduce usage by up to 90 percent. Large companies want to look at systems as a whole, with a complete package including new agricultural machinery, digitalisation, and both chemical-synthetic and biological crop protection products. This allows for much more targeted use and reduced quantities.

How seriously is the industry pursuing such an approach if it effectively reduces what it earns money from?

The sale of one litre of product is evolving into a comprehensive offering within integrated pest management. And money can also be made from that.

At the moment, additional documentation requirements are causing concern. Is this artificial or a real burden for farmers?

As an industry, we offer solutions through farm management systems and digital labels. Farms are generally heavily burdened with documentation requirements. It would be time to think about how to make life easier for farmers. They should be able to focus on their production.