Memorandum from Professor J B Dent, Chairman
of the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group
"Minimising the Environmental Impacts
of Crop Protection Chemicals"
1. OVERVIEW
In August 2001 the Minister for the Environment,
Michael Meacher MP, asked me to be the independent chairman on
the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group. My role was to ensure
that the Initiative delivered the agreed programme of projects
to bring about a reduction of environmental impacts associated
with pesticides. Further, I am charged with ensuring appropriate
audit: technical, financial and environmental.
The Minister expects me to submit a report in
advance of the pre-budget statement (September) and in advance
of the budget itself (January). This year I have also met with
the Minister on two occasions. Additionally, I have been asked
to ensure that the overall process is transparent by asking the
signatories to create a web-site (ww.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk)
and by producing a publicly available annual report from the Steering
Group (completed in July 2002).
Progress during the first year of the Voluntary
Initiative was adequate although some of the delays that were
encountered resulted from the need to create infrastructure for
the work. This has now been established and progress is beginning
to accelerate.
The Steering Group has met four times in the
first year and so far has met on three occasions in the second.
The strategy of the Steering Group is to ensure that the technical
programme of research, training and information transfer takes
place effectively and according to the milestones agreed with
the Minister. There continues to be good support, enthusiasm and
active participation from all stakeholders, the environmental
organisations and the official observers represented on the Group.
Substantial progress has been made on two of
the three pillars on which the 27 projects have been built.
(i) The key survey of current application
practice was published in March and the results have been used
to develop further at least two of the individual projects.
(ii) The Biodiversity network promised by
the Crop Protection Association has been established and although
the appointment of the biodiversity officer was delayed, this
element is making up for lost time.
However, I continue to have concerns over the
third pillar; development of the Crop Protection Management Plans
(CPMPs). Although a plan was given to the Steering Group on 4
September, the work remains behind schedule. All but seven of
the individual projects are now on schedule. For these seven,
I have asked the signatory organisations to take action on any
problems as they have arisen and I am certain that the present
situation will be corrected in the next few months.
2. INDICATORS
AND TARGETS
In the letter confirming my appointment of 8
August 2001, I was given responsibility, amongst other things:
— To ensure that the "package"
(measures agreed between the signatories and Mr Meacher) was implemented
in a sensible, timely and proper manner.
— To monitor the progress of the implementation
against milestones and overall financial commitment, as set out
in the package.
During the year or so of my involvement, I have
felt more emphasis from the Minister on the wider issues of finding
ways to monitor the impact of the VI on the environment which
was not specifically part of my brief.
Clearly, the national impacts of the VI must
be monitored, but requesting the Steering Group to propose indicators
and targets and to monitor these extends the range of activities
from those agreed. This we can probably manage. There remains
the philosophical point about the VI being asked to audit its
own activities.
I have proposed that the VI be guided by the
Pesticide Forum Outcomes and Indicators sub-committee on the detail
concerning the appropriate indicators and targets and to assist
with interpretation. This suggestion was welcomed by the Pesticide
Forum but there now appears to be some worrying concerns because
of the work loads of the PSD Secretariat as well as key individuals.
I know the Minister is somewhat disappointed
about the slowness of the Steering Group in reaching conclusions
on indicators and targets and wishes (as do we all) to see measurable
reductions in those indicators selected. He has stressed to me
his wish to see such reductions "in the short term".
I have, in our meetings, said in response:
— That the VI agreement is for five
years and that some indicators will not change quickly no matter
what action is taken because they are part of an ecological chain.
— That many other factors influence
indicators (such as the weather sequence and changes in general
farming practice) as well as VI activity. Nevertheless we hope
to see some early, positive impact of VI pesticide stewardship
activities on water quality within several test catchments in
which we are working.
3. THE VI IN
ISOLATION
In correspondence, the Minister has stressed
to me that he wants the VI to provide reduction in pesticide impacts
"in its own right". There are two issues I wish to highlight:
— disentangling the effects of VI activity
from other influences is not easy; and
— would prefer the VI not to be isolated
in this way. I can see the wish to test the VI for efficacy. But
simply testing the VI is not really the issue. The Steering Group
wishes to achieve environmental gain as soon as possible. The
VI does not have a mandate beyond the agreement and there are
many complementary activities that would assist in reaching this
goal.
One such example which would have a great and
speedy beneficial effect on water quality and biodiversity would
be a decision to implement 6 metre conservation headlands within
set-aside. If this was approved by Government, the VI could then
promulgate the advantages within its training, CPMP and information
programming—a win, win situation for all.
4. MINISTERIAL
SUPPORT
The attitude of Ministers to the VI is extremely
important in relation to farmers embracing the programme. In the
Steering Group paper on "incentivisation" sent to the
Minister in mid-September, a plea was made for Government to take
a positive attitude to the VI on a number of accounts. Two are
worth highlighting here:
— The Steering Group and most farmers
are aware of the potential application of a pesticide tax if the
VI is not effective. Some farmers hear this message too often
and feel that a tax will happen whatever they do and therefore
will not feel it is worth their while to become involved in VI
activities. Ministerial "talking-up" of the VI would
itself provide farmers with powerful encouragement.
— The Steering Group is convinced that
Assurance Schemes can play a key role in encouraging farmers to
be involved in VI activities—particularly in training programmes,
in equipment testing and in adopting best practice. It would be
valuable to have detailed debate with Ministers (we have touched
on the topic at previous meetings) to explore the prospect of
encouraging the incorporation of VI activities within the existing
responsibilities of Scheme membership.
5. RESOURCES
I believe that the VI activities have so far
not been restricted by resource provision. The first year spend
was less than the anticipated average over the five year period—but
this was anticipated as the programme framework was built-up.
The substantial financial support for the VI will come from farmers
and growers as they are drawn into the work. This is why positive
encouragement towards farmers is so important.
All the Farmers Unions are strongly supportive
and the fact that in Scotland and N Ireland (and probably soon
in Wales) separate VI implementation groups have been established
is extremely encouraging.
October 2002
| 
