I agree that we may find, on further investigation, that the differences between professional structures, processes and products in different countries lead to the creation of variant “certification systems” (Article 5, point 2) where we cannot expect certification to carry seamlessly across between different countries of the EU.

IMHO this would be a pity, though perhaps not a disaster.

Accepting that, the effect of Directive 2009/128 would in practice be, not the full European mobility of workers in the pesticides area, but instead a national patchwork of regulations where there would be no more than the hope that some if not most of the competence would transfer — that workers in this area would have to be recertified in different countries, but that recertification would be not too onerous, because there would be some general understanding of a common core “curriculum” (defined by Annex 1.) I expect we can agree on this as an effect, even if we don’t agree on how inevitable or desirable this would be.

Probably it is no more than my personal opinion that I would expect a higher aspiration from those drafting the directives. If we are to have proper labour mobility, and a properly free labour market, it is necessary to have more harmonisation of regulations. But is Europe currently backing away from this kind of harmonisation?

I sense ambivalence in the wording of the Directive. The use of the words “appropriate” and “sufficient” in Article 5 point 1, unqualified, to me gives some impression that there is expected to be agreement on what is appropriate, and what is sufficient. On the other hand, point 2 of Article 5 uses the phrase “as a minimum”, suggesting that member states are free to impose extra conditions on certification, beyond the minimum “sufficient knowledge of the subjects listed in Annex I”. If that is correct inference, then those drafting the Directive must accept that some countries will have stricter standards of regulation than others.

Still, would it not surely be useful if at least the common core could be defined in a way that is understood commonly across Europe? Then it would be clear what is the core, and what is each members state’s additional requirements, and training providers could provide courses that explicitly did, or did not, include the extra requirements of given states.

One of the issues here is that, without even this assurance, effectively the training market will be fully segmented. A training course in one country cannot expect or pretend to being certified in another. Is that what we all really want? It would not satisfy me personally. If I were in a regulated occupation, I would want to be able to work across Europe with the minimal additional training, not to have to start from scratch in each country I worked in.

Where I start to shake my head is that, if the common minimum is not more clearly defined, why bother with a directive in this area at all? Why not simply let member states do whatever they want, to suit their own traditions and established practices? With this Directive, have we as European citizens actually gained anything of more value than the appearance of some commonality?

What I really object to is authorities doing things (like making laws) that result in substantial extra burdens on people, without proportionate common good resulting. Is that not just the kind of action that occasionally brings European bureaucracy into disrepute?

(I wonder if we would agree on that… )

So the burden of the original post is that in my opinion it is worth trying to define the common core in a way that is more universal and transferable across countries. If it really cannot be transferred, leave it out of the regulation! (a principle that applies well to interoperability standards…)

“But it would seem to me a good idea, when formulating this kind of regulation, at the same time to put together a well-structured framework of knowledge, skill and competence to define the required abilities of the people concerned.”

I suspect that this may be the nub of the problem. Bearing in mind that the regulations are at a higher level than individual competencies and are parameters for each EU member state’s systems for regulating sustainable use of pesticides (but not an individual’s competence in the sustainable use of pesticides), the formulation of a framework as you suggest depends on how these systems are designed in each member state. There may be very different professional structures, usage processes and definitely different products (in response to very different pests) across member states, such that defining the roles (and therefore the required competencies) of “the people concerned” across different member state systems may be problematic. There will also be cultural, scientific, organisational and societal differences that impact directly on the meaning of such words as “appropriate”, “sufficient” and “safe”.

I’m not an expert in the pesticides area, but I do have friends who work as professionals in the EU regulatory side of pesticides after several years similarly engaged in the UK. They experienced significant ‘culture shock’ moving from UK to EU level, particularly because of these very different perspectives on the similar problems, including very different regulatory and professional frameworks across Europe (for example the differing weighting between academic and commercial operations and perceptions in that area across member states, such that in one state a particular skill might be considered a professional competence, whereas in another it wouldn’t be).

Alan