European Commission, MEMO, Brussels, 7 April 2014:
1. What has the European Commission done for better bee health?
The Commission contributes to bee health on many areas:
On the veterinary side,
the Commission: created an EU Reference Laboratory for bee health in
2011; co-financed voluntary surveillance studies to estimate the extent
of bee mortalities since 2012; trained hundreds of national veterinary
officials in bee health under the Better Training for Safer Food
initiative since 2010, and ran research
projects to deal with honeybee health.
In addition, the Commission takes
into account the limited availability of veterinary medicines for bees
during the review of the EU veterinary medicinal products legislation. A
Commission proposal is planned to be adopted in the second quarter of
2014.
On pesticides, the EU has one of the strictest regulatory systems in the world concerning the approval of pesticides. All
pesticides on the market have been subject to a thorough and in depth
assessment by Member States’ authorities and by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA). For the assessment the latest scientific knowledge is
taken into account, including independent studies. For pesticides the
Commission further strengthened the data requirements for the submission
of the dossiers, reviewed together with the EFSA the risk assessment scheme concerning the impact of pesticides on bees
and took actions on 4 specific insecticides where a risk concerning
bees was identified (additional details are reported in the questions
below).
On agriculture, the Commission has maintained
the level of EU funding to national apiculture programmes for the
period 2014-2016 (taking into account the accession of Croatia), which
amounts to € 33,100.000 per year.
On the
apiculture sector (beekeepers), the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of
the EU brings important benefits. We eat more honey than we produce and
honeybees take an active part in the pollination of crops. For several
years, the EU has been providing support to the beekeeping sector,
essentially through national apiculture programmes and rural development
programmes.
On the environment, the Commission ran the LIFE+ programme which can be used for the benefit of wild bees; initiated the preparation of a Red List of Threatened Pollinators, to be published by the end of the year; and ran a research project to deal with the decline of both wild and domesticated pollinators in Europe.
2. Why was an EU surveillance study into honeybee losses and their causes carried out?
From 2007
various European and global publications and fora warned about bees
disappearing (especially following news on “colony collapse disorder” in
the USA), and about alarmingly high mortalities, severe and rapid
decline in European honeybee colonies (winter mortalities around or in
excess of 30-40%).
An EFSA project in 2009
indicated that the honeybee surveillance systems in the EU Member States
were weak. There was a lack of representative official data at country
level and comparable data at EU level to estimate the extent of colony
mortalities.
The study (EPILOBEE, A pan-European epidemiological study on honeybee colony losses 2012-2013) addresses these weaknesses for the first time by harmonising the data collection methods.
It also assists the veterinary
services in improving their capacity to undertake such surveillance. The
methodology can be implemented and used as necessary, adapted to
specific needs as appropriate for further work such as applied research,
policy development, routine surveillance or to cross-check with data
from other sources (e.g. from national or regional monitoring, from
international standardised beekeeper surveys etc.).
Full report is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/live_animals/bees/index_en.htm
3. What are the key findings of the study?
The study, which covers almost
32.000 colonies across 17 Member States during the period from autumn
2012 until summer 2013, shows that colony mortalities exist in the EU with significant regional differences.
Winter colony mortality rates ranged among participating countries from 3.5% to 33.6% with a distinct North/South geographical pattern.
The countries where mortalities
on average were below 10% (Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia
and Spain) represent the majority (over 59%) of hives (6.485.000) of the
surveyed population and 47.3% of all EU honeybee population.
Countries with a mortality rate
between 10% and 15% (Germany, France, Latvia, Poland and Portugal)
represent 34.6% of the surveyed population or 27.7% of all EU honeybee
population (3.793.170 hives).
Members States with more than
20% mortality rate (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden and UK)
represent 6.24% of the surveyed population or ca. 5% of all EU
population (684 500 hives).
Overall rates of seasonal colony mortality (during beekeeping season) were lower than winter mortality and ranged from 0.3% to 13.6%.
4. How representative are the findings and how do they compare to previous data?
17 Member States participated on
a voluntary basis. They co-financed the study with the European
Commission, which contributed with €3.3 million (70% of eligible costs).
The surveillance was specifically designed to collect data on a representative sample of apiaries and colonies, also by way of on-site investigations.
A representative sample was reached through a random sampling of
apiaries of the entire Member State or of some regions of the Member
State considered as representative of the Member State’s situation.
Member States were recommended to randomly select beekeepers and
apiaries from a national list of beekeepers. Within each apiary, a
number of colonies were randomly selected in order to be representative
of the apiary. The sampling frame was the same for all the Member
States.
These are
the first results of its kind, i.e. collected and verified by the
national competent authorities under the supervision of, and training
by, the veterinary services, using EU harmonised methodology. This makes
it difficult to compare them to previous data which may be missing
incomplete or collected otherwise. Mortality rates less than 10% for
large populations are encouraging.
5. Since the findings show that
honeybee decline is less dramatic than first thought, will the
Commission maintain its ban on neonicotinoids?
The Commission based its
decision on new scientific information which became available in 2012
and on which EFSA was asked for an assessment. EFSA identified high
risks for bees for some uses of three neonicotinoids (Imidacloprid,
Clothianidin and Thiametoxam) and Fipronil. This assessment confirmed
that the approval criteria of these pesticides were no longer satisfied.
Furthermore, EPILOBEE did not take into account bumble bees and solitary bees,
which are also affected by the pesticides and covered by the EFSA
assessment. At the time the measures were taken, the results of the
EPILOBEE programme were not yet available.
6. Why does the EU surveillance not include pesticide monitoring?
The Commission did request the
EU Reference Laboratory to include pesticides in the study. However a
draft project was discussed with Member States experts and at that stage
it was not considered feasible to carry out such a surveillance
programme on pesticides together with the one carried out.
The EPILOBEE study which is
still ongoing was not designed to assess the effect of the use of the
banned pesticides on bee health. It would be unacceptable from a
scientific view point to draw any conclusion from the results of this
study on the use of the pesticides in question or to infer that the
measures taken by the Commission were not appropriate.
7. What is the status of the EU surveillance study?
These are the results of the
first year of the surveillance studies, running from autumn 2012 to
summer 2013. The studies are being repeated with the participation of 16
out of the 17 Member States for another year, between autumn 2013 and
summer 2014, to see whether any trends can be established.
8. What is the situation with wild bees and are they important?
The surveillance study only
looked into honeybees. Scientific data on wild pollinators, including
wild bees is scarce, but current indicators show a worrying decline. We
should have a better understanding at the end of this year when, thanks
to joint work between IUCN and STEP in a Commission funded research
project, will provide the first results on status and trends of European
wild pollinators. However, preliminary results already suggest that
wild bees face a serious threat. The recent assessment of bumblebees
indicates that 24% percent of the 68 species of bumblebees that occur in
Europe are threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species.
Domestic and wild bees are
closely related, face the same threats and are both necessary to ensure
crop pollination and maintain biodiversity. Therefore, the status of
wild bees can give us insights into local changes and warn beekeepers
about potential threats. Wild bees can jump in and provide pollination
service when honeybees face decline or help increase the pollination
efficiency of the latter. They are crucial for the survival of wild
plants that honeybees cannot pollinate.
9. How does the recent CAP reform help to support the sector?
Member States can submit
tri-annual national apiculture programmes for EU co-financing. Thanks to
the reform the measures which can be funded have been updated and
completed. In particular, EU funding will be available for actions aimed
at combatting beehive invaders and diseases, particularly varroasis.
All Member States have national apiculture programmes in place for
2014-2016.
With the new Rural Development
Programmes, Member States have at their disposal a series of measures
and eligibilities such as training, advisory services, participation in
quality schemes and promotion, investments, cooperation projects and
risk management which can be co-financed by the EU.
Agri-environment-climate measures in these programmes can also make a
positive contribution to creating a better environment for bees. Other
measures in the reformed CAP may be indirectly beneficial for of bees.
The compulsory greening measures of the new Direct Payment Regulation,
in particular crop diversification and ecological focus areas, could
contribute to a better environment for bees.
10. Does our countryside have an impact?
Agricultural practices that
result in changes in land-use and habitat loss also represent a serious
threat to many bees in Europe. Therefore, biodiversity-friendly measures
in agriculture will be essential to reverse negative trends and are
crucial for our food supply security. Among these are the provision of
good forage through flower-rich field margins or buffer strips along
agricultural fields and the preservation of species-rich grasslands or
meadows that underpin stable populations of pollinators. The restoration
of degraded ecosystems would also be an important support of
pollinators.
For more information:
Honey production in the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/honey/index_en.htm
National apiculture programmes: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/honey/programmes/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/apiculture-2013_en.htm
http://europa.eu
7/4/14
--
-
Bruxelles veut sauvegarder les abeilles sans proscrire les pesticides
Abeilles : trois pesticides interdits dans l'Union européenne...
- Abeilles : confirmation de l'interdiction des pesticides par l'UE ....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Only News