There was a time when sparrows, mainly House Sparrows were everywhere in their hundreds. I always remember seeing them as a kid the bird we saw most often in the garden I was reading that something happened during the 70s and early 80s and Sparrows almost disappeared. We heard a story once about a farm which had had a store of dressed wheat reading for sowing in a big shed and one day someone opened the doors and found the floor completely covered with dead sparrows. Something in the seed dressing (that's what seeds are coated in to protect them from pests) had killed them all. This might be a strange story with no truth in it - who knows?
I had a look in a book I have to see what the illustration was for Sparrows, and this is it. The book says: 'No bird divides the experience of old from young as dramatically as the House Sparrow. There was a bounty of halfpenny a bird in the Second Word War, so damaging to food supplies were it's numbers considered'. Now, especially in town, House Sparrow numbers have plummeted, but since around 2010 numbers have been slowly recovering and they were the bird most seen in RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Jemimapuddleduck Not just the UK I'm afraid. But the European Court of Justice has at last reined in EU countries. Unfortunately Brexit happened so there is nothing to hold back the UK: [quote] Emergency authorisations in the Member States
Following the restrictions on the three neonics in 2013, several Member States have repeatedly granted emergency authorisations for some of the restricted uses.
The Commission monitors closely this issue and had, in accordance with Article 53(2) of the legislation, mandated EFSA to examine the emergency authorisations granted in 2017 by those EU countries who repeatedly granted them before. EFSA assessed whether the repeated use of these emergency authorisations was indeed justified because of a danger which could not be contained by any other reasonable means.
EFSA found that for about one third of the products for which emergency authorisations were granted, alternatives would have been available. The Commission requested the Member States concerned to commit not to repeat the granting of the emergency authorisations in question.
In the light of the outcome of the assessment by EFSA and the reaction of the EU countries concerned, the Commission proposed decisions requiring Romania and Lithuania not to grant emergency authorisation in accordance with Article 53(3) for the uses of these neonicotinoids for future seasons to the Member States in the Regulatory Committee.
Following inconclusive votes (no qualified majority) in the Standing (October 2019) and Appeal (November 2019) Committees, the Commission adopted the measures on 3 February 2020.
Following the prohibition of all outdoor uses of the three neonicotinoids imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin in May 2018 and the non-renewal of approval of thiacloprid on 3 February 2020, 10 EU countries have repeatedly granted emergency authorisations for their use in sugar beets. Notifications from the Member States of these emergency authorisations are publicly available.
The Commission therefore sent on 26 October 2020 a second mandate to EFSA in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to assess whether the emergency authorisations granted for imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin and thiacloprid for the 2020 sugar beet growing season by these 10 Member States fulfil the conditions set out in Article 53(1) of the Regulation.
The Commission updated this mandate with a request to assess additionally the emergency authorisations granted by France and Germany for the use of these neonicotinoids for the 2021 sugar beet growing season.
In particular, EFSA was asked to assess the justifications provided by Member States that the authorisations are necessary due to a danger, which cannot be contained by any reasonable means and to verify if a research programme is in place to find alternative solutions.
Besides using the available information in the notifications provided by the Member States, EFSA was asked to also request access from the concerned Member States to the original applications for these emergency authorisations and the full evaluation conducted by the Member States of these application(s).
EFSA published its evaluations on 18 November 2021 and concluded that all emergency authorisations were justified. Ten Member States for which the emergency authorisations were assessed in 2021 meanwhile granted again one or more emergency authorisations for the use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin on sugar beet for the 2022 growing season and 3 additional Member States also granted such emergency authorisations.
The Commission therefore sent on 19 December 2022 a further mandate to EFSA to assess the justifications for emergency authorisations for the use of certain neonicotinoids in sugar beet during the 2022 growing season. This mandate includes as well a request to develop new fit-for-purpose protocols to assess such justifications.
Following the ruling by the European Court of Justice of 19 January 2023 in Case C-162/21, the Commission will withdraw its request to EFSA for the assessment of the justifications for emergency authorisations for the use of neonicotinoids in sugar beet during the 2022 growing season as Member States cannot grant these emergency authorisations anymore.[/quote] https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en
[quote]Analysis: “Environmental protection and protection of the health of humans and animals should be prioritised over increasing plant production (C-162/21, Pesticide Action Network Europe)" by Erriketi Tla da Silva - EU Law Live ~1 minute
On January 19, 2023 the Court of Justice delivered its ruling in Case C-162/21, Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others v État belge, holding that Article 53(1) of Regulation 1107/2009 (hereafter ‘the Regulation’) shall be interpreted as not allowing Member States to use the emergency derogation procedure to authorise the sale or use of plant protection products or seeds that have been treated with such products if their marketing has been explicitly prohibited by EU legislation.[/quote] https://eulawlive.com/analysis-environmental-protection-and-protection-of-the-health-of-humans-and-animals-should-be-prioritised-over-increasing-plant-production-c-162-21-pesticide-action-network-europe-by-err/#
