• EN - English
  • NL - Nederlands
Parliamentary question - E-008953/2013Parliamentary question
E-008953/2013

Ban on neonicotinoids

Question for written answer E-008953-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
Judith A. Merkies (S&D)

For some years, bees have been dying at an abnormal rate, inter alia in Europe and the USA. A number of recent studies have shown that one of the causes is the widespread use of a number of pesticides. On the basis of a reassessment by the EFSA of the risks presented to bees by five neonicotinoids and the substance fipronil, the Commission decided in April 2013 to impose a temporary ban on certain uses of three neonicotinoids: clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. This week, a similar measure was introduced for fipronil.

However, according to research by the Centrum voor Landbouw en Milieu (CLM) published last month, which was commissioned by Greenpeace, 85% of the use of the three ‘banned’ neonicotinoids remains unaffected in the Netherlands. Many applications, such as soil treatment for seed potatoes, seed treatment for sugar beet and all applications for use in greenhouses, are not covered. According to a recent study by the University of Sussex, it often takes several years — and sometimes as long as 17 years — for these substances to vanish from the soil. Consequently, these highly persistent substances can continue to accumulate in the soil and surface waters.

1. Can the Commission provide an overview of the quantities of the three neonicotinoids and fipronil which are being used, and indicate what percentage of them does or does not fall under the moratorium (for the EU as a whole and per Member State)?

2. Why is use in greenhouses exempt from the ban despite the fact that it has been known for years that discharges from greenhouses are a leading cause of the widespread breaches of limits on neonicotinoids and other substances in surface waters?

3. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that other problematic applications of neonicotinoids and fipronil are halted? Is a total ban among the options? Why/why not?

4. How will the Commission ensure that the damage which has been caused in the past by the use of neonicotinoids is limited or remedied?

OJ C 87 E, 26/03/2014