here - United Kingdom Parliament

1749 Pollinators and Pesticides
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1750
[Joan Walley]
Our view on the study, which was that we should not
accept it, was confirmed by the European Food Safety
Authority on Tuesday, when it identified the same
weaknesses as we did.
Mr Heath indicated assent.
Joan Walley: I am glad to see the Minister nodding
his head. The conclusion was that there was no reason
for EFSA to change its view.
DEFRA told us that its pesticides policy was
underpinned by the precautionary principle. I fear that
in this case, that statement of intent has not been
matched by DEFRA’s actions. Interestingly, the private
sector appears to be more willing than DEFRA to
implement precautions. In the course of our inquiry, we
heard that major do-it-yourself chains such as B&Q,
Wickes and Homebase were withdrawing neonicotinoids
from sale for domestic use, and supermarket chains
such as the Co-operative have prohibited their suppliers
from using neonicotinoids in anything other than
exceptional circumstances. I also welcome the press
release from Waitrose, which states that it is looking to
do the same in respect of flowering crops.
As our report was taking shape and we were having
involved discussions among ourselves, we had to extend
the length of our inquiry to take account of developments
elsewhere, because it was clear that we were being
overtaken by events such as the European Commission’s
regulatory action. Although the growing weight of
published scientific research did not impress DEFRA,
it led the EC to take action. The EC is responsible for
licensing chemicals for use in European agriculture. It
instructed EFSA to draw up new risk assessments for
neonicotinoids in relation to bees. The revised risk
assessments led the EC to propose measured regulatory
action, with a two-year EU-wide moratorium on the
use of three of the five neonicotinoids on crops that are
attractive to bees.
The EC proposal was put to a qualified majority vote
on 15 March. As we all know, the vote was inconclusive
and the UK abstained. The hung outcome of the vote
allowed the EC to implement the appeal procedure,
which led to a second vote on 29 April. I understand
that between 15 March and 29 April, there was intensive
lobbying and negotiation in Europe. Indeed, I went out
personally to present our report to the European
Commissioner. Finally, the EC amended its initial proposal.
It recognised the need to delay the introduction of a
moratorium to allow the seed supply chain time to
adjust, which was a recommendation of our report.
That is an example of how my Committee focused on
the practical outcomes for the agricultural sector. We
did not want to make any knee-jerk recommendations
and we wanted there to be time for the matter to be
properly understood and acted on.
In the second vote, on 29 April, the UK shifted from
abstention to active resistance by voting against the
proposed moratorium, despite the concessions made by
the European Commission. However, countries such as
Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands all voted
for the moratorium, which will consequently be introduced
across the EU on 1 December 2013.
What effects will the two-year moratorium have on
UK agriculture? First, I want to highlight that when
neonicotinoids were banned for use on maize in Italy, there
was no negative effect on yield. Secondly, the moratorium
will prevent farmers from using neonicotinoids on
“crops that are attractive to bees”,
which of course excludes sugar beet, crops grown in
glass houses and winter wheat; it is quite a proportionate
measure. Thirdly, neonicotinoids are a relatively recent
innovation. Oilseed rape, for example, was a viable UK
crop before the introduction of neonicotinoids in the
mid-‘90s.
Some have argued that a moratorium on neonicotinoids
will lead farmers to spray greater quantities of other
more environmentally harmful pesticides, such as
organophosphates and pyrethroids. However, it is open
to DEFRA to ensure that that is not the case. It is
clearly in the interests of the environment, food security,
minimising resistance among pests and maximising
agricultural incomes that the least possible amount of
pesticides is used in agricultural production. Indeed, in
talks I have had with different bodies they have said that
such a moratorium will mean that there must be a focus
on what to do and what alternative proposals to come
up with, so that we incentivise a more healthy approach
to crops.
To that end, integrated pest management is a broad
approach to plant protection that minimises pesticide
use and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.
By 1 January 2014, all pesticide users will be required to
adopt IPM under the European directive on the sustainable
use of pesticides. If UK farmers practise IPM, the
argument that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will
lead to unfavourable environmental outcomes does not
hold. I believe that was very much a deciding factor in
the Committee’s reaching its unanimous decision.
DEFRA does not appear to have prioritised compliance
with the directive on the sustainable use of pesticides.
The directive states:
“Member states should adopt…quantitative objectives, targets,
measures and timetables to reduce…the impact of pesticide use
on the environment.”
However, a DEFRA official dismissed such targets as
“meaningless”, which sits uneasily with the Department’s
stated commitments to integrated pest management.
Indeed, our report was halted or delayed because the
Government were slow to make a full response to that
European directive.
Other than the recommendations on the moratorium
of certain neonicotinoids, the importance of monitoring
the health of pollinators and the introduction of integrated
pest management, many other detailed issues arise from
the Committee’s report that relate to risk assessment
and risk management. Those include reforms involving
the European food safety authority, where our Government,
should they wish to, could take the lead, CAP reform
and recognising the importance of less secrecy and
greater transparency in the risk assessment trials undertaken
by the agrochemical industry—the point raised by the
hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I am disappointed
that the Government have chosen to delay their response
to our report, which was due this week, but I look
forward to their detailed response on the work we have
carried out. For now, however, events have moved quickly
and DEFRA did not take our advice when the issue was
raised by the European Commission.