What changed

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

P10_TA(2025)0284

on ensuring theEnsuring faster registration and uptake of biological control agents

(2025/2086 (INI))

Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development

PE774.306

European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2025 on ensuring the faster registration and uptake of biological control agents (2025/2086(INI))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Articles 114 and 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (‘Regulation 1107/2009’),,

– having regard to the Commission proposal of 22 June 2022 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable use of plant protection products and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 (COM(2022)0305),

– having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A10-0234/2025)(A10-0234/2025),

A. whereas a plant protection product (PPP) is a product containing a substance that prevents, destroys or controls a harmful organism (‘pest’); whereas biological control, originating from nature or identical to nature if synthesised, is a method of controlling pests and diseases using other organisms or parts of them, often in combination with physical techniques, to disrupt pest reproductive cycles or limit crop susceptibility to pests;

F. whereas invertebrate biological control, such as beneficial insect predators, including parasitoids, mites and nematodes, already play an essential role in integrated pest management and organic farming systems; whereas, unlike substance-based biological control products, they are not covered by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and so remain subject to diverse and fragmented national rules; whereas faster authorisation processes for macro-organisms while maintaining high safety standards for health and the environment would increase their market accessibility and could help address plant health concerns;

FG.G. whereas biological control solutions are frequently combined to form blends of semiochemicals, plant extracts or microbial consortia which enhance effectiveness, target multiple pests or diseases and improve environmental adaptability, and are often incorporated into other pest control techniques, for example integrated pest management (IPM); whereas, for this reason, it is not always possible to substitute one conventional PPP by one single biocontrol product;

H. whereas biological control is often associated with lower levels of toxicity, persistence and environmental pollution, and with due attention can complement conventional plant protection products; whereas this can enable farmers, in some cases, to reduce their dependency on the use of conventional PPPs by providing safe and effective additions to the farmers’ toolbox, thereby contributing to healthier soils and reducing impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, water quality, food chains and public health;

II. whereas the fast-track processing and placing on the EU market of biological control would increase availability and provide an opportunity to combat the resistance of pests and diseases to current PPPs; whereas this would help to promote more sustainable agricultural practices and increase the resilience and competitiveness of the agricultural sector by keeping the farmers’ toolbox of pest control options as broad as possible;

J. whereas, in its 2025 Vision for Agriculture and Food, the Commission states that ‘farmers need a more advanced toolbox to be able to farm in a nature-friendly way and achieve the set objectives. This toolbox requires a well-calibrated mix of a better targeted public support from the future CAP, investments into nature-friendly solutions, more economic incentives, tailored advice drawing on advances in research and innovation, and a more agile regulatory environment. One such example is the EU ambition to reduce the use of harmful pesticides. This is important both for the long-term resilience of farming, nature and health protection. However, the introduction of alternatives in a form of biological or innovative low-risk plant protection products has not followed with the same pace as the withdrawal of active substances from the EU market. If this trend continues, it can affect the EU’s ability to ensure food production. The Commission will therefore carefully consider any further ban of pesticides if alternatives are not yet available, unless the pesticide in question represents a threat to human health or to the environment that agriculture relies upon for its viability’;

L. whereas the effective deployment of biocontrol products often depends on adapted practices, highlighting the need for continued investment in training, infrastructure, and advisory support to ensure their successful uptake;

M. whereas EU-based small and medium-sized biocontrol enterprises represent approximately 70 % of the EU biocontrol sector; whereas these companies are key drivers of sustainable innovation; whereas the approval of active substances for PPPs, including biological control agents in the EU, entails significant costs, with overall investment, including data generation, regulatory fees and national authorisations, estimated at between EUR 1.51,5 and EUR 4 million per substance;

Legal definitions, scope and principles

27. Notes that facilitating the authorisation and uptake of biological control should be coupled with scaling-up the uptake of IPM and reducing the risks associated with and the dependency on conventional PPPs;

29.28. Calls on the Commission to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the sustainable use of pesticides under Directive 2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, particularly in relation to the timely processing of authorisation requests and integrated pest management; notes that in an integrated IPM approach, using authorised conventional products for which all the safety requirements for health and the environment have been met, always remain an option for farmers;

Assessment of performance capacities and resources

30.29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess their administrative performance and institutional capacities and appropriateness of the resources allocated to, respectively, EFSA and the relevant national competent authorities to enable them to fulfil their tasks; emphasises that investment is needed in (re)assessment capacity in the Member States and EFSA;

31.30. Calls on the Commission to allocate the necessary additional funding for training and employing additional staff, including with appropriate and specialised expertise, within EFSA, and to establish dedicated and sufficient resources within EFSA’s organisational structure for biological control, in order to prevent undue delays in the approval process of active substances exerting biological control and to ensure tailored assessments and reduce bottlenecks; calls on the Commission to take appropriate follow-up actions to enable the acceleration of the approval procedure and increased uptake of biocontrol;

Strong Member State funding

32.31. Calls on the Member States to ensure sufficient budget is ring-fenced for the relevant national competent authorities, which is essential to prevent undue delays in biological control authorisation procedures and to accelerate the uptake of biocontrol; insists that the Member States should guarantee that the relevant national competent authorities have the sufficient budget, staff and expertise to carry out (re-) assessments in a timely and effective manner; highlights the benefits of Member States exchanging best practice;

33.32. Calls, likewise, on the Commission to propose measures and identify mechanisms and resources to support Member States in accelerating their authorisation procedures; proposes, in this regard, that the Commission develop guidance on necessary and minimum resources and capacity, applicable across the EU Member States, necessary to assess biological control products;

Research and investment

34.33. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to foster investment in public and private research and partnerships for the development of biological control and IPM strategies, including through research centres, universities and regional innovation hubs, EU innovation partnerships and lighthouse projects, with a special focus on SMEs through targeted programmes, as well as for fostering a competitive environment that enables and nurtures EU innovation and reduces the dependencies of EU agriculture;

35.34. Underlines the importance of research and development in biocontrol technologies over the coming decades, particularly research into addressing the protection gaps in specific crop-pest/disease combinations, for which few or no alternative pest control solutions exist, in order to direct innovation and regulatory efforts towards where they are most urgently needed;

Farmers’ access to knowledge

36.35. Notes that the use of biological control requires different approaches, knowledge bases and skill sets, particularly regarding the care of beneficial species that act to protect crops; notes that this is already partially incorporated into IPM and other production systems; underlines, however, that further knowledge, training, information and practical guidance on the effective use of biocontrol products is necessary in cooperation with farmers;

37.36. Notes that wide disparities remain between Member States’ access to knowledge and advisory services; calls for advice on the use and application of biological control options to be offered as part of suitably resourced, continued, independent advisory systems, that should be accessible to all farmers;

38.37. Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in collaboration with end users, to provide a digital EU platform, building on the ‘INSIGNIA’ pilot project, including long-term monitoring for pollinators, and the successful Parliament-initiated ‘IPM toolbox for farmers’ pilot project, for the dissemination of good practices and proven biological control solutions aiming to help farmers make informed decisions on the most effective type of biological control for the pest population structure and pedo-climatic conditions of the farm concerned, calls, furthermore, on the Commission to promote a wider toolbox including by making this digital platform a continued, more accessible and permanent initiative available in all EU languages, and to secure the involvement of all relevant stakeholders;

39.38. Stresses the need to increase access to knowledge through farmer training to build technical capacity using demonstration networks, peer-to-peer exchange and local technical support and incentives, including financial, with a view to promoting the safe, effective and widespread use of biological control; recognises the usefulness of monitoring access to knowledge and the dissemination of best practices regarding the uptake of biological control; notes the Member States’ and the EU’s current possibilities to co-fund and encourage farmer training through investments or extension services under farm advisory systems in the common agricultural policy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide appropriate support for biological control training, technical support and practical guidance and to consider how to best facilitate such voluntary training to incentivise more farmers to adopt biological control and IPM;

Cooperation between all actors

40.39. Calls for more scientific research, knowledge exchange, cooperation and capacity-building between all relevant actors involved in the process of the development, approval, authorisation, uptake and dissemination of biological control and best practices in implementing IPM across the EU, as well as in the process of exchanging knowledge and best practice with partners in non-EU countries;

Funding of advisory systems

41.40. Calls for details on advisory system funding, as well as training and capacities in biological control and IPM, to be included in the Member States’ NAPs; stresses that the development and availability of IPM crop- and pest-specific guidance remains inconsistent between Member States; encourages Member States to revise their NAPs to strengthen farmers’ access to crop- and pest-specific guidance that reflects regional realities and includes biological control options, their possible integration into IPM programmes and compatibility with other PPPs, where available and appropriate;

Monitoring progress

42.41. Calls for the Commission to regularly monitor the market uptake, availability and affordability of biological control solutions;

43.42. Calls on the Commission to monitor the EU’s and the Member States’ progress on the approval and authorisation of biological control solutions, looking at the number of applications, the associated administrative capacities, staffing levels and dedicated budgets, and especially the implementation of a priority lane with dedicated additional resources for biological control product authorisation, once it has been established; calls on the Commission to publish a report of the findings and submit it to Parliament and the Council;

Outermost regions

44.43. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the EU’s outermost regions can benefit from the uptake of biological control by ensuring that authorisation processes account for their unique agro-ecological conditions and pest profiles, and by providing targeted training, advisory services, and funding support to farmers and SMEs in these regions; calls strongly for the development of crop- and pest-specific guidance and knowledge platforms that reflect the realities of outermost regions in order to enhance their access to safe, effective and sustainable biological control solutions;

°

° °

45.44. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This report addresses the need to accelerate the authorisation process for biological plant protection products (‘biocontrols’) in the European Union. Biocontrols include natural substances and organisms that can provide effective plant protection with lower associated risks than conventional chemical plant protection products and are a cornerstone of integrated pest management (IPM) and thus align with overarching EU strategies on biodiversity, food security and sustainable, competitive and resilient agricultural systems. To this day, it takes a very long time for biocontrol solutions to enter the market, since the current legal framework is not adapted to their nature, specificities and mode of action. Many farmers face increasing regulatory pressure to reduce the use of chemical plant protection products, while simultaneously needing to maintain crop yields and plant health. Applicants, who are often small and medium-sized enterprises, face high costs, legal uncertainty and fragmented national procedures. This discourages innovation and delays the availability of sustainable and affordable plant protection products for farmers.

The co-rapporteurs call for a harmonised and innovation-friendly framework with a clear EU-wide definition of biological control, robust risk-assessment methods tailored to the specific nature of these products, and better use of mutual recognition between Member States to reduce duplication and speed up market access.

Other short-term measures aim to establish a clearer regulatory pathway for biocontrol solutions within the current framework for plant protection products. Approval processes could be accelerated through dedicated review mechanisms, increased resources, extended approval periods for low-risk biocontrol products, and the possibility of provisional authorisations under defined conditions. In the long term, the report suggests exploring the creation of a dedicated regulatory framework for biocontrol, supported by a thorough impact assessment, to promote greater coherence, predictability, and efficiency in their approval and authorisation.

It is also stressed that faster approval must never come at the expense of safety. All authorisations should remain science-based, ensuring a high level of protection for health, non-target organisms, biodiversity and the environment. The aim of this report is not to eliminate conventional plant protection products but to establish a balanced, integrated plant protection system where safe and sustainable options are readily accessible and building on a broader toolbox for farmers, with the aim of building an efficient, predictable and science-based regulatory framework that improves fairness and planning certainty for farmers and the environment.

Beyond the necessary regulatory framework, uptake depends on knowledge, capacity, and investment. The report therefore calls for adequate resources for EFSA and national competent authorities, stronger training and advisory systems for farmers, the inclusion of biocontrol measures in Member States’ national action plans under Directive 2009/128/EC, enhanced cooperation between researchers, authorities and the private sector, and public and private investment in research and innovation to fill remaining pest-control gaps.

The report reflects a broad consensus that current regulatory pathways need to be improved to ensure the availability of sustainable crop protection alternatives for farmers.

ANNEX: DECLARATIONS OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteurs declare that they included in their report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that they received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register, or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteurs.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteurs declare that they have submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

NFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE