The Guidance document7 also mentions the need Instead of clarifying that derogations should not be for applicants to provide: “a robust justification for asked for by the agrochemical industry because of the authorisation […], first by the applicant as part of the evident and unacceptable conflict of interest they the notification, and, subsequently, if an authorisation have, the European Commissi. [...] Indeed, the highly questionable and the lack of transparency on Guidance Document11 refers to the ‘Applicant’ as the who is behind the application did not allow PAN Europe entity behind the request, while the ‘Authorisation to establish the identity of the applicants in cases where holder’ is the name of the company allowed to sell its the authorisation holder is a pesticide company. [...] The extremely low quality of the derogation The European Commission database on notifications plays in favour of the interests of the emergency authorisation12 provides only the name pesticide industry. [...] submitted by the pesticide industry, Member States Nevertheless, in the vast majority of the cases, have no means to establish that they were truly Member States have disclosed the names of the submitted in the interest of farmers. [...] A lack of transparency on the role played by the pesticide industry in the process In some countries, the holder of the derogation there is a lack of transparency on who is behind the is the pesticide industry itself while in others, the application.
Authors
Related Organizations
- Pages
- 28
- Published in
- Belgium
Table of Contents
- Introduction .............................................................. 4 2
- Methodology .............................................................. 8 2
- Results ..................................................................... 9 2
- Conclusions ............................................................. 25 2
- Introduction 4
- Methodology 8
- 4.1. 10
- Derogations per country 10
- 4.2. 11
- Derogations per applicant 11
- 4.3. 13
- Derogations per substance 13
- Conclusions 25
- 5.1. of the derogations in the EU 25
- EU member states allow a permanent and illegal misuse 25
- 5.2. A lack of transparency on the role played by the pesticide industry in the process 26
- 5.3. 27
- EU Commission neglects its controlling role 27
- 5.4. Abuse of derogations leads to 27
- 5.5. 28
- Abuse of derogations must end 28
