Examination of Witnesses (Questions 162-170)
4 MAY 2004
DR MARK
AVERY AND
MR DARREN
MOORCROFT
Q162 Chairman: Now we are joined by Dr
Mark Avery and Darren Moorcroft from RSPB. Thank you very much
for coming. We are going to discard with normal practice. Perhaps
you could just give us a snapshot of the positive and negative
environmental effects of both sugar cane and sugar beet. Would
you make an opening statement about what is good and bad about
the growth of both in terms of the environment?
Dr Avery: I shall kick off and
tell you from our position what the positive environmental benefits
of sugar beet production are. We have come to a position where
we recognise that sugar beet production in the UK has environmental
benefits. So we would support its continuing production in the
UK. I should like to say that right at the beginning. There is
clearly a benefit, in terms of reducing food miles, to producing
sugar within the UK. If I move on to the wildlife benefits, which
is where we feel most comfortable, the benefits to wildlife of
growing sugar beet in the UK come from two main features of sugar
beet production which is that it is a spring grown crop and that
it is a broad leaf crop, so it is different from cereals. There
are three groups of birds in particular which benefit from the
current ways that sugar beet is grown. The first is a group of
fairly widespread common but declining farmland birds, birds like
the skylark and corn bunting, tree sparrow, linnet, all of which
are subject in the UK to Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) which
were produced several years ago and they all form part of DEFRA's
PSA target to reverse the decline in farmland birds. These are
birds which benefit from sugar beet production because later in
the season sugar beet is quite a weedy crop; it has weeds which
are of value to farmland wildlife and it is that value to farmland
wildlife which means that the RSPB is very worried about the possibility
of GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet being grown in the UK, because
we felt that those values to wildlife would disappear. A range
of common farmland birds certainly benefit. The second group which
we would mention are birds called the stone curlew, which again
is a rare species. It is recognised by the UK Government, has
its own Biodiversity Action Plan and stone curlews like sugar
beet because stone curlews need open ground to nest on; because
it is a spring sown crop, sugar beet is often one of the few crops
in the landscape where stone curlews can find places to nest.
Quite a high proportion of the UK's stone curlews nests on the
sugar beet. That is our second worry. The third group of birds
which benefit within the UK are birds called the pink footed goose.
The pink footed goose visits the UK in the winter; practically
the whole world population of this goose visits the UK. They come
from Iceland, so we have the responsibility of looking after the
whole world population. Many of these birds feed on harvested
sugar beet tops, the remains of the crop after it is harvested
so no conflict at all with farmers in this, in the autumn from
October through to when the sugar beet is used up. Those would
be three benefits, we would say.
Q163 Chairman: What about the negatives?
Water extraction for example, irrigation?
Mr Moorcroft: Yes, probably the
negative aspects, starting with some of the species my colleague
has mentioned, particularly ground nesting birds, are that they
are often vulnerable to activities within the field when they
are nesting on the ground, so mechanical weeding, irrigation,
can all have a negative impact in terms of accidental destruction
of eggs. There are the intensive crop protection regimes which
occur with sugar beet in the UK. It is well known that the crop
does not compete well with non-crop plants and so would receive
typically four to five treatments of herbicide in order to get
the crop away. That obviously has a potentially negative effect
on the non-crop plants which both host invertebrates which birds
will feed their chicks on, but also those plants which may produce
seeds later on in the season. There is a requirement for irrigation
in some areas. We recognise that in the UK, that is perhaps less
than elsewhere in the EU and places like Spain and Italy in the
EU obviously grow sugar beet in arid areas where irrigation has
a much bigger effect on the growth of the crop and that we could
see as being a negative environmental impact of the regime. The
harvesting mechanisms of sugar beet can lead to soil erosion problems,
because of the processes and soil compaction because of winter
harvesting when the soil may not be ideal for having large machinery
on top of it. Perhaps the biggest issue in the past and which
is being addressed within the UK is the use of insecticides. From
a breeding farmland bird perspective spraying insecticide is probably
the most destructive activity within a particular crop because
it knocks out a significant portion of food which these birds
rely on. We are aware that seed treatments have allowed a diminishing
amount of these insecticides to be applied to the crop; we are
also aware that 30% of the crop which is grown in the UK is still
sprayed with those insecticides and that can have a major detrimental
effect on the farmland bird population.
Q164 Chairman: You told us earlier on
that there were three bird species which benefited. Surely the
RSPB is not arguing for the maintenance of the sugar regime just
for their benefit. Surely those benefits could be brought about
by other environmental means, by different agri-environment schemes
for example.
Dr Avery: That would be exactly
our position. It is quite interesting how many farmers have contacted
us over the last few months to encourage us to make sure that
everybody knows about the environmental benefits of growing sugar
beet and we do recognise those. Our preferred option for dealing
with this would be generally in line with the UK Government's
position. We would favour decoupled payments for all agricultural
crops. We would move towards a free market, but where a crop has
a definite environmental benefit, we would like to see Pillar
II payments provided to support farmers growing that crop in order
to maintain those environmental benefits and we think that is
a safer way of ensuring that the environmental benefits, which
at the moment are accidental side effects of growing sugar beet,
are maintained in the system. We would wish to see payments being
made which are conditional and are carefully designed to maintain
those benefits. When it comes to liberalisation of trade as a
whole, our position could be criticised as being slightly naíve,
but we are an NGO, so we are here to say what ought to happen
in time rather than what is just around the corner. In line with
what we have argued for in the UK and the EU, we should like to
see liberalisation of trade and we are all for level playing fields,
but we should like that playing field to be highly influenced
by the effects on the environment. We would see the WTO as having
really the same big problems that the CAP has had within Europe
for many years, that it is focusing on one aspect of production
of food and therefore as a result, almost inevitably, it has harmful
consequences elsewhere. We would say that the current way the
WTO was framed and implemented has harmful impacts on societies
across the world and harmful impacts on the environment. In our
perhaps na-ve but jolly sensible view of how trade liberalisation
should go, we should like to see fair trade, which is not the
same as free trade and we should like to see the ability to have
import tariffs on food brought in, if that food is produced in
ways which are harmful to societies or to the environment. That
is a million miles away from where we are or are likely to be,
but that strikes us as being a sensible way, which is the way
we have tried to influence UK and EU policy.
Chairman: Now you have given us that
international idealistic perspective, it is the point at which
to bring in Mr Simpson.
Q165 Alan Simpson: I was just about to
say that I may not share the enthusiasm for trade liberalisation,
but at least the RSPB are consistent in believing in the free
movement of labour and their support for migrant birds is much
stronger than ours for migrant people. You do not take the same
view about sugar cane production, do you?
Mr Moorcroft: In terms of sugar
cane production and its sustainability, we think that sustainability
should be the issue on which imports come into the EU and within
world trade. To our mind, we are not experts on the environmental
impact of sugar cane; I should say that from the outset. What
I would say is that having looked at the relatively limited research
which is being carried out in terms of the conservation value
of sugar cane in comparison with other crops which are grown in
the areas which have been looked at, sugar cane is not given a
very good bill of health. It is not seen to be a very good biodiversity
crop in itself and the question earlier talked about irrigation
and the use of water resources. That is obviously an issue with
sugar cane where almost exclusively, as far as I am aware, irrigation
is required in the tropics to grow it and water resources are
a very significant factor in looking at the environmental impact
of anything and that level of irrigation requirement would lead
us to believe it would be a negative effect on sugar cane production.
Dr Avery: It might be worth adding
that both with sugar cane and with sugar beet changes to the regime
could lead to loss of pristine habitat internationally. If under
complete liberalisation it seemed that Brazil could become the
place where sugar beet was produced most economically, if that
led to further reduction in rain forest in Brazil, then that strikes
us as being a disaster environmentally. It rather depends what
either more sugar cane or more sugar beet replaces. If it replaces
some other form of agriculture which has its own positives and
negatives in terms of the environment, it is quite a difficult
equation, particularly for us to judge. If new sugar cane or new
sugar beet is produced by reducing rain forest area or even further,
that strikes us as a pretty simple equation to work out.
Q166 Alan Simpson: Let me come back to
the rain forest. In a sense that is my one area of unease about
your evidence. In principal terms though, I am taking from what
you say that you would agree with the submissions made to us by
the Broom's Barn Research Station that in many regions the water
consumption necessary for sugar cane production is unsustainable.
Dr Avery: We are not experts on
that. That might well be true, but I would not wish to comment.
Q167 Alan Simpson: Let me then just take
issue with the point you make about Brazilian sugar cane production.
The issue about the rain forest is of enormous concern to everyone
on the Committee and large numbers of people in Parliament. When
we went to Brazil, however, the picture we were given was quite
different from the one you have just described. They were saying
to us that there are issues around the destruction of the rain
forest but they are not remotely connected to large-scale sugar
production, that their area of land under cultivation is about
one third of the available fertile land in the country already
and sugar cane production is not related to the destruction of
the rain forest. There are other legitimate issues related to
the logging and what the land is then used for, but there was
a distinct disconnection between the issue to do with sugar cane
production and the threat to the rain forest. Are you saying to
us that you are now putting these together and that is what the
displacement of the rain forest is for?
Dr Avery: We would say that we
are not experts on this, but that would be something we would
be worried about. If Brazil were in the position to be the main
sugar producer for the world, then I do not know whether that
would lead to a displacement of existing agriculture to sugar
production or an increased loss of pristine habitat. Before I
would be happy that Brazil leading the world in sugar production
would be a good idea, I should want to be convinced that the latter
would not happen.
Q168 Alan Simpson: You make a very hard
point in your submission where you say ". . . 70% of deforested
areas being converted to agricultural land predominantly under
permanent systems". I can understand that, but in a sense
I just need to separate it. If those permanent systems of agricultural
production are not sugar beet, then that point you are making
has a validity, but presumably not in relation to the pros and
cons of sugar cane or sugar beet.
Dr Avery: Although in a more liberalised
system in the future, who knows what would happen. So there would
be an incentive to grow much larger areas of sugar beet in countries
like Brazil under a more liberalised system and that must stand
a chance of leading to more habitat destruction. Even if it is
not growing sugar beet, it may be growing crops which are displaced
from elsewhere in Brazil.
Q169 Alan Simpson: I understand that.
It is just that what I do not want us to be confused over is that
there are quite proper concerns about the destruction of the rain
forest. I am just worried that we would end up making a case for
the non-destruction of the rain forest on a spurious argument
which said that land was, or was likely to be used for intensive
sugar cane production. If those two do not connect, then presumably
you would not be flagging that up against the sugar cane.
Dr Avery: That is a worry which
we were right to flag up, but you would probably need to ask other
people how close that is to being reality.
Q170 Mr Drew: May I just ask you a fairly
broad question? In an area like this, where other people may see
you as rather marginal players, how much do you see yourself being
listened to? We only have to mention the word sugar and there
are various lobbyists who would be ringing us as MPs morning noon
and night trying to get an interview. Do you feel that you have
any sway with the industry at all, or even with government? Do
you think this is something which is a good example of how you
could be far more influential?
Dr Avery: The RSPB has 1,050,000
members, as you probably know, so we have about 2% of the population
consuming sugar products in the UK and we can act through them.
I would hope that our track record on understanding agricultural
policy within the UK and the EU and because we are a wildlife
organisation with some good credentials would mean that we are
listened to as having an objective way of trying to balance some
of these issues to do with agricultural policy and wildlife.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We should have liked a bit more on the Brazilian rain forest.
If you want to add anything else, perhaps you would drop us a
note. As I understood your position, yes, there is a potential
threat here without making any charges, but it needs careful scrutiny.
Thank you very much.
| 
