Targets
Paragraph 31: The original 28 targets set as part
of the Voluntary Initiative relate mainly to processes rather
than environmental outcomes, but are nevertheless important. They
are challenging and, as the example of the professional register
of spray operators shows, the signatories appear to have underestimated
the task of achieving them.
The Government agrees that these process targets
are important. They are a key part of the commitment made by the
Voluntary Initiative signatories and are far more straightforward
to measure than are environmental outcomes. They also measure
important aspects of the Initiative; in particular the extent
to which it has succeeded in getting large numbers of farmers
to embrace good practice.
It is worth clarifying that, contrary to the statement
in paragraph 33 of the Committee's report, the Government has
never agreed the targets in the original Voluntary Initiative
proposals. The Budget Report of 7 March 2001 said "The Government
welcomes the latest set of voluntary proposals for reducing the
environmental impact of pesticides use from the industry and the
commitments made by the various stakeholders. The Government would
like to see the voluntary package for pesticides implemented nationwide
as soon as possible, subject to its concerns over delivery and
monitoring being met." The issues of incentives, indicators
and targets which the Committee has highlighted were uppermost
in our thinking and were the reason why the caveat was included
in the Report.
Paragraph 35: We endorse the efforts of the Steering
Group, in response to pressure from the Minister, to develop a
more comprehensive set of indicators and targets. We are concerned,
however, that - more than 18 months into the initiative - these
have still not been finalised.
The Government recognises that indicators are of
critical importance. We share the Committee's concern that the
Voluntary Initiative has still to produce defined, clear and challenging
targets, although some progress has recently been made in developing
an approach that covers both the efforts made in delivering the
Initiative and the results of these efforts in the environment
at large.
Paragraph 36: We recommend that the Government
clarifies the criteria it intends to use to assess the effectiveness
of the Initiative immediately.
The Government has been anxious to let the Voluntary
Initiative signatories design indicators and targets for delivery
of the Initiative. But we are anxious to conclude this process
soon and will do what we can to ensure that agreed targets are
in place by the time of the Budget.
Monitoring and Resources
Paragraph 38: We consider it essential that the
Steering Group should monitor progress of the Initiative against
the approved targets, notwithstanding any other targets or indicators
it might set. The next annual report must set out clearly progress
in this respect. It should also contain analysis of progress against
any other targets which have subsequently been agreed with Ministers.
Paragraph 40: At present, little detailed information
is available about the costs which signatories claim to have incurred.
We recommend that there should be far greater transparency and
accountability with regard to such costs, and that this information
should be included in the annual report.
Paragraph 41: The extent to which claimed expenditure
by the signatories constitutes 'real' costs over and above any
costs which they would otherwise have incurred, even in the absence
of the Initiative, should be made clear.
Agreed.
The 'Partnership' Approach
Paragraph 43: We were alarmed to hear that Professor
Dent is only contracted to work for eight days a year as independent
Chairman of the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group.
Paragraph 43: The department must clearly put
its money where its mouth is, if its miserly approach is not to
be seen to reflect the extent of its commitment to the Initiative.
We agree that it would be inappropriate for Professor
Dent to accept financial support from the signatories. The eight
days figure was put to Professor Dent at the beginning of his
term as Chair and he has not approached the Government for further
paid time. We would be happy to review the situation with him
if he wishes. As Professor Dent states in his supplementary memorandum
to the Committee (page 35 of the report), he has requested additional
assistance with travel and subsistence costs and this has been
agreed.
Paragraph 44: We also find it bizarre and deplorable
that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had commissioned
a review of the success of the Voluntary Initiative without even
having the courtesy to inform Professor Dent.
Officials are in the process of commissioning work
to develop a framework to enable subsequent assessment of the
Voluntary Initiative. This will complement the indicators and
targets put together by the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group
and will enable a comparison of the environmental benefits of
the Voluntary Initiative and of a possible pesticides tax. The
study is intended to be completed by Summer 2003 and will subsequently
be published. The review has not yet been commissioned and is
not intended to examine the success of the Initiative, merely
to provide some tools to help this task be carried out. Professor
Dent has now been brought up to date with this work and it is
regretted that, due to an administrative oversight, this was not
done sooner.
Paragraph 46: The Government initially made much
of the "partnership" approach it was to pursue with
regard to the Voluntary Initiative. But any such claim now is
clearly untenable. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs has failed to engage in any serious dialogue with the
Steering Group on cross-cutting issues, and has even undermined
the role and authority of its Chairman. The evidence provided
to us showed that the Chairman and Steering Group are isolated
- and indeed alienated - from Government and the relevant department.
The Government regards the Voluntary Initiative as
an industry initiative and does not see itself as having an equal
role in its delivery. However, we do agree that the Voluntary
Initiative does not exist in isolation. There is a need for co-operation
on some specific projects; this is already established in some
areas and we have clearly signalled our willingness to consider
proposals for assistance with other issues. We are also willing
to enter into a dialogue on cross-cutting issues (see also answer
to recommendation 48(e) below.
The Government has no intention of undermining Professor
Dent's role or authority. He has an important job to do and we
have no interest in making this more difficult. He has, as he
told the Committee, direct access to Ministers and we hope that
he will continue to approach Ministers and officials for support
or advice.
Overall Strategy and Conclusions
Paragraph 48(a): The Voluntary Initiative has
got off to a rather slow start. It has so far had little impact
on farmers as much of the work done to date has involved preparation
and groundwork. The Initiative is now beginning to be rolled out
to farmers and the next year will be critical.
The Government agrees that progress has been slow
in respect of several critical aspects of the Voluntary Initiative
- including the issues of targets, incentives and Crop Protection
Management Plans which the Committee has highlighted. It will
be important for the Initiative to demonstrate growing farmer
uptake during 2003 and also the first progress on outcomes, particularly
in respect of the water catchment projects.
Paragraph 48 (b): We are, however, very concerned
that the Voluntary Initiative does not have within itself sufficient
incentives to ensure the high level of take-up required. Nor,
being voluntary, can it require farmers to change their behaviour.
In addition, there is little emphasis within the Initiative on
reductions in the use of pesticides and on encouraging alternative
approaches.
These points are covered in the replies to recommendations
10 and 25 to 28 above.
Paragraph 48 (c): On the other hand, it is perhaps
too early to judge whether the Voluntary Initiative has been a
success. We therefore consider that it needs to be given further
time, and that at the end of 2003 a thorough and realistic appraisal
of its success should be carried out.
It is too early to make a firm judgement of the success
of the Voluntary Initiative. The Government will continue to make
regular assessments of progress and (as described at 48(a) above)
will be looking for real steps forward during 2003.
Paragraph 48 (d): But it is already clear that
the Voluntary Initiative should represent only one aspect of a
more comprehensive strategy towards reducing the environmental
impacts of pesticides. Moreover, many of the activities within
the Initiative would need to be carried out in any event as part
of an overall strategy, and will depend for their effectiveness
on the adoption of a joined-up approach.
Paragraph 48 (e): The Government must therefore,
as a matter of urgency, develop and publish a pesticides strategy.
Such a strategy should show how different policy instruments-including
the use of fiscal instruments, a strong regulatory framework,
the Voluntary Initiative itself, and cross-compliance with subsidy
and assurance schemes-are to be used to complement each other
and achieve a reduction in the environmental impacts of pesticides.
Indeed, there is a widespread consensus, reflected in research
studies and the evidence presented to us, that reliance on a single
policy measure to achieve any environmental objective is unlikely
to be successful, and that a combination of policies are generally
required.
The Government has never seen the Voluntary Initiative
as the sole means of tackling the environmental impact of pesticides.
The regulatory system, statutory Codes of Practice, agri-environment
schemes, best practice advice, research and development into alternatives
to chemical control and into the safe use of pesticides all contribute
to this aim.
The EU is developing a "Thematic Strategy"
on the sustainable use of pesticides under the Sixth Environment
Action Programme. The Commission's initial Communication on this
issue proposes that a centrepiece of the strategy should be national
plans to reduce hazards, risks from the use of pesticides and
to reduce dependence on chemical control. In December, the UK
supported Council Conclusions endorsing this approach.
The Government does not intend to wait for the eventual
adoption of the Thematic Strategy before beginning work on a national
plan. It is beginning work on assessing those policies that contribute
to the sustainable use of pesticides and identifying ways in which
these can be joined up effectively and gaps filled. This will
include joining up with work to develop smarter on-farm regulation
through the whole farm approach. A range of different policies,
Departments and stakeholders are involved and the development
of the plan will be a complex undertaking. Nevertheless, the development
of the plan will be a priority for the Pesticides Safety Directorate
in 2003.
Policy on pesticides and in a number of related areas
is a devolved matter and further thought will therefore need to
be given as to the best way to join up policies effectively.
Paragraph 48 (f): We believe that fiscal instruments
have an important part to play in such a strategy. They could
provide, through hypothecation, far more resources than are currently
available within the Voluntary Initiative. They could be designed
to provide rebates to farmers who adhered to more stringent environmental
guidance; and to discriminate much more heavily on products in
relation to the extent of environmental damage they cause. However,
as we highlighted nearly three years ago, the Treasury and Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs need to undertake more
research in this area to prepare for the introduction of practical
proposals. They must do so now.
The Government has put on record that it believes
that a tax on pesticides, in conjunction with other measures,
could be a useful tool for minimising the adverse environmental
impact of pesticide use, consistent with adequate crop protection.
However, the Government stated in the Pre-Budget Report of 27
November 2002 that, providing it is fully implemented, we believe
that the Voluntary Initiative should be the most effective way
of reducing the environmental impacts of pesticides
It remains possible, however, that the Voluntary
Initiative will not deliver its objectives within a reasonable
timescale. The Pre-Budget Report therefore also confirmed that
the Government is carrying out further work and analysis on a
possible tax or other economic instrument. Issues of the design
of the tax and the use of the revenue raised will be included
in this work, informed by the principles set out in the recent
Treasury paper "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments".
Paragraph 48 (g): The Government is currently
considering major issues relating to agricultural policy both
in its response to the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming
and Food and in relation to the EU midterm review of the Common
Agricultural Policy. It will be releasing a sustainable agriculture
strategy very shortly. This would provide a context within which
our recommendations in this report can be taken forward.
As set out in earlier responses, the Government agrees
that there are linkages between policy to ensure the sustainable
use of pesticides and these other broader policy areas. The proposed
national plan will create effective linkages.
| 
