Skip to main content

Evaluation of the emergency authorisations granted by Member State Spain for plant protection products containing clothianidin

EFSA Journal logo
Wiley Online Library

Meta data

Abstract

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested by the European Commission to provide technical assistance in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to examine the emergency authorisations granted in 2020 by the competent national authority in Spain for plant protection products containing the neonicotinoid active substances (a.s.) clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam for uses on sugar beet which were restricted when all outdoor uses were prohibited in May 2018. EFSA was asked to assess whether the granting of this emergency authorisation and its wide scope was necessary because of danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. In this context, EFSA collected and evaluated the information in relation to the emergency authorisation for clothianidin in Spain in line with the EFSA insecticide protocol developed in the framework of a mandate concerning the application of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The current Technical Report summarises the outcome of the evaluation of four crop/pest combinations considered in Spain in 2020. The evaluation demonstrated that for every crop/pest combination no sufficient alternative active substance to clothianidin is currently authorised in Spain, in order to provide an alternative mode of action (MoA). The evaluation included an assessment of non‐insecticide alternatives for the presented uses. Early planting is a common measure for all pests. Other available measures include frequent soil tillage and conservation biocontrol of soil predators (for wireworms and Onychiurus armatus), rotation and avoidance of soil tillage (for Chaetocnema tibialis), control of host weeds (for Chaetocnema tibialis and aphids), and conservation and inoculative biocontrol (for aphids). However, all these measures are considered as moderately effective, they are feasible with restrictions and they are used in a small scale (i.e. applied on up to 10% of the acreage of the crop).

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6958/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6959/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6961/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6962/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6963/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6964/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6965/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6966/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6967/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6968/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6969/full