Bijdrage milieucommissie tijdens een gedachtewisseling met de commissie en de Europese Autoriteit voor Voedselveiligheid (EFSA) over de inhoud van de bijenrichtlijn
Anja Hazekamp (PvdD): Thank you chair.
We all know bee populations are decreasing disturbingly fast and that EU legislation is insufficient to protect them, which was reaffirmed last July by the Court of Auditors. One would expect that the Commission and the Member States are now doing everything possible, to improve the protection of bees and other pollinators. But instead of expanding bee-protection, the Commission and the Council are about to adopt a bee guidance proposal called ‘BeeHave’, which is completely insufficient and drafted by Syngenta. Indeed: the chemical industry.
Exactly one year ago, on the first of October 2019, Commissioner Kyriakides promised this committee that there would be no lowering of the bar on the protection of bees and other pollinators. Does the Commission admit that it is failing to keep that promise if it allows the adoption of BeeHave?
And does the Commission realise that a broad majority of 500 MEPs has made very clear that it will not accept anything less, than the full protection of bees, bumblebees and other pollinators, against chemicals causing acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and larval toxicity?
The Syngenta-proposal on the table, is significantly weaker than the original bee guidance proposed by EFSA in 2013. According to the chemical industry’s proposal, 20% of colony loss is acceptable, as long as the industry can keep selling their toxic substances.
Therefore I would like to ask EFSA: is there scientific consensus that it is right to use the BeeHave proposal and model to determine “natural” colony losses? Because several scientists have warned us that the BeeHave model has not been validated. Can EFSA confirm this, or otherwise explain how and when the validations of the BeeHave model took place?
Word lidWord lid Doneer