here - United Kingdom Parliament

1765 Pollinators and Pesticides
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1766
[Mr Tom Harris]
Two months ago, in April, I convened what I ambitiously
entitled a bee health summit, which was attended by
leading academics, environmental groups, biotechnology
companies, farming unions and representatives from
leading apiary organisations. I apologise to the Minister
for forgetting to invite him. I am sure his contributions
would have been worth while. Predictably, there was a
lack of agreement on the topical issue of a ban or
moratorium on neonicotinoids, and the evidential base
was hotly contested. It is clear that pesticides currently
play an essential part in achieving high levels of crop
production in the UK and elsewhere, providing affordable
food for consumers and contributing to our food security.
Getting the right balance between the benefits of natural
pollination services and the benefits of pesticides to
crop production is crucial.
At the summit, there were passionate calls to support
the use of the precautionary principle, which have
been echoed in the debate today, to protect against
further decline while additional evidence is gathered
and analysed. These calls were countered by some bee
health experts, bee organisations and, yes, the companies
that produce neonicotinoids, which took a more cautious
line based on the lack of any assessment of the impact
of a ban on farmers’ use of alternative pesticide products
and the impact on UK food production and food
security.
Such divides are not reserved to the UK, and a split
in opinion was also observed at an EU level. However,
now that the Commission has approved an EU-wide
moratorium on the three types of neonicotinoids beginning
in December 2013, it is vital that the Government work
with all parties concerned to ensure that any negative,
unintended consequences on bee health—for example,
the hon. Member for Stroud referred to the wider use of
spray insecticides—do not materialise.
What plans do the Government have in place to
support farmers in the build-up to and during the
moratorium? Does the Minister agree that the moratorium
provides an excellent opportunity to help farmers and
growers to adopt integrated pest management and reduce
the use of pesticides in line with the Government’s own
pesticides action plan? Does the Minister agree with the
Society of Biology, which has pushed for adequate and
stable investment in agricultural research and environmental
monitoring, in order to avoid periodic crises where
sufficient evidence has not been available for necessary
policy decisions? Will he outline how the Government
will take advantage of the breathing space afforded by
the moratorium to bridge the current gaps in scientific
knowledge on the effects that neonicotinoids have on
bees and other pollinators?
It is crucial that a monitoring programme is put in
place to assess the full impact of a moratorium and the
effect that it will have on wild and managed bees and on
farmers and their crops. Will the Minister assure the
House that an effective monitoring programme will be
put in place? I am sure that he, like me, is aware of
significant concerns raised in the scientific community
that two years will not be sufficient to monitor the effect
on bee health of a moratorium on neonicotinoids, not
least because of the multiple variables in the natural
and farmed environments.
Mr Heath indicated assent.
Mr Harris: I see the Minister nodding. Does he agree
that those concerns should not deter the Government
from co-ordinating the most effective scientific monitoring
programme possible so that we can learn from the
moratorium period?
Although divides will undoubtedly pertain over a
ban on neonicotinoids, during my bee health summit
there was unanimous demand for a coherent strategy to
reverse the decline in bee numbers and a recognition of
the complex factors that need to be addressed, which go
well beyond pesticides. Indeed, many warned that a ban
on neonicotinoids could be seen as a panacea for the
wider range of measures necessary to tackle bee decline.
A moratorium does not represent a silver bullet.
The first event that I attended after being appointed
to the Front Bench just over a year ago was the Friends
of the Earth bee breakfast. I soon got over my initial
shock and disappointment—nay, anger—at the lack of
breakfast actually being served, because the point was
to show what would be available to eat in the event of a
world that no longer had bees. That was a very clever,
though frightening, way of getting the point across. I
can assure Members that people did finally come forward
with the toast, butter, honey and jam. They made the
crucial point that neonicotinoids and pesticides were
important, but only as part of the wider environmental
impact that is resulting in bee decline and hive collapse.
There are many causes behind pollinator decline,
including changes in agricultural practice in the UK
and across Europe; the growth in monocultural crops;
the removal of hedges and other wildlife corridors; the
increased use of fertilisers, pesticides, insecticides and
herbicides; bee pests, including the Varroa mite and
deadly pathogens such as Nosema; and the effect of
climate change on patterns of flowering, hibernation
and food availability. Those are all contributing to
falling populations of bees and other pollinator insects.
I have frequently voiced the opinion that if we allow
ourselves to see the moratorium on neonicotinoids as a
silver bullet for bee decline, we become complacent,
think “Job done,” and fail to address the many other
important issues that we face. It is clear that there is no
single solution to the multiple threats that pollinators
face, and that is why it is vital that we do not see the
moratorium as a panacea.
Labour believes that the Government have a crucial
part to play in reversing falling populations. We commend
Friends of the Earth for their work in promoting their
national bee action plan, which would put a comprehensive
set of UK-wide measures in place to tackle the many
drivers of pollinator decline. Though Ministers have
cited a number of Government-led initiatives to improve
bee health, these ultimately fail to meet the scale and
urgency of the task in hand. Current failure to tackle
habitat loss, which needs to be approached from both a
conservation and a planning perspective, is a prime
example of where the Government are failing to make
headway. On the conservation side, in their biodiversity
strategy for England, “Biodiversity 2020”, they have
not set out specific measures to help threatened bee
species or to protect or restore habitats most important
to bees, such as lowland meadows and upland hay
meadows. Worryingly, DEFRA’s latest habitat trend
data show that those habitats are in decline. Will the
Minister ensure that they are urgently restored and that
specific measures are put in place to help threatened bee
species?