Memorandum submitted by the British Beet
Research Organisation (O25)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 The BBRO is a non-profit making company
set up jointly by British Sugar plc and the National Farmers'
Union (NFU). The objective of the BBRO is to commission and implement
research and technology transfer designed to increase the competitiveness
and profitability of the UK beet sugar industry in a sustainable
and environmentally beneficial manner. Funding for all activities
of the BBRO is provided jointly by UK beet growers and the processor,
British Sugar plc. Research projects are chosen to achieve a balanced
programme of strategic long-term and more immediately applicable
objectives to ensure profitable and environmentally beneficial
growing of the UK sugar beet crop. A significant technology transfer
programme communicates the results of research to growers, so
that scientific developments are effectively converted, via technical
advice, into best practice.
1.2 The BBRO believes that it is essential
for the UK sugar industry, as well as for the Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) developing
countries, that reform to the EU sugar regime is conducted in
a responsible way which allows sustainable industries (whether
in the UK or developing countries) to survive and invest in the
long term. The positive environmental credentials of the UK sugar
crop are well known in terms of the significant reductions in
chemical inputs to the crop, and the benefits for biodiversity
including bird life which it brings, and its value as one of the
best spring sown "break crops" in Britain. Enhancement
of these benefits is a serious objective of the UK beet sugar
industry and, consequently, is the focus of much of the BBRO's
programme. In pursuit of its programme, the BBRO places no restriction
on publication by its scientists of the output from their researches
in the learned journals. Results of the BBRO's research thus become
available to the entire sugar industry throughout the world; Least
Developed and Developed Nations alike.
1.3 The BBRO recommends that reform of the
EU sugar regime should lead to a stable (not volatile) market
that encourages sustainable production. We support simplification
of the overall system, but believe that supply controls (in the
form of quotas or other similar mechanisms) should remain for
European production and developing country imports. We also recognise
that prices are likely to fall, but would recommend that final
price levels should be adequate to allow efficient industries
to invest for the future in a way which promotes environmental
and economic sustainability not only in developing countries but
also in Europe. These views are founded on our belief that the
objectives of the beet sugar industry in the EU, particularly
the UK, are entirely congruent with the objectives, both economic
and environmental, of Governments in the developed and developing
world, as illustrated in the following paragraphs.
2. CHEMICAL INPUTS
2.1 Over the last two or three decades the
total amount of pesticides (insecticides, nematicides, molluscicides,
herbicides and fungicides) used on the sugar beet crop in the
UK has been reduced by 60% to an average of 5kg/ha representing
less than 1% by weight of all pesticides applied to crops.[3]
2.2 Due to the development of seed coating
technologies, which enable chemicals to be applied in small quantities
to each seed rather than as "blanket" sprays to entire
fields, 70% of the sugar beet crop now receives no sprayed insecticide
at all and the volume of insecticide applications have been reduced
by 95% since 1982.
2.3 Herbicides are essential in sugar beet
because the young seedlings are unable to compete with weeds without
assistance but, nevertheless, adoption of low-dose programmes
and more accurate targeting of sprays has reduced the overall
herbicide input by more than 60% since 1982.
2.4 Sugar beet has fewer foliar fungal disease
problems than other arable crops and therefore requires usually
no more than a single late-season spray of fungicide in contrast
to other arable crops which receive, typically, three to seven
sprays.
2.5 Since the 1970s there has been a 33%
reduction in nitrogen usage on the sugar beet crop bringing the
average use of nitrogen fertiliser down to 100-105kg/ha; the lowest
nitrogen usage of any major UK arable crop.[4]
It is an objective of the BBRO to reduce the use of nitrogen on
sugar beet even further.
2.6 Sugar beet does not receive much irrigation
because it is more tolerant of drought than other crops in arable
rotations. Only about 5% of the fields are irrigated, usually
closely-managed crops on lighter land in August.
3. BIODIVERSITY
3.1 As sugar beet is a spring sown crop
it is particularly beneficial because the preceding cereal stubbles
left over winter, prior to drilling the beet, provide a winter
habitat for seed-eating animals including bird species such as
finches and buntings.[5]
Sugar beet fields also provide winter cover and food after cereal
harvests. A recent Defra report[6]confirmed
the value of sugar beet as a break crop and highlighted the benefit
to biodiversity and bird life.
3.2 The response of the RSPB to the Defra
consultation on proposals for reform of the sugar regime[7]highlights
the importance of sugar beet for a number of wild bird species,
some of which are on the Red List as endangered species, are included
in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive, and are subjects of the
Biodiversity Action Plan. The open structure of sugar beet crops
make them attractive to ground-nesting species such as stone-curlew,
lapwing and skylark; suitable habitats for these species are rare
in the modern rural landscape and, therefore, the Brecklands which
are particularly attractive to the stone curlew are a designated
SSSI.[8]
3.3 The RSPB[9]believes
that the stone-curlew population is "susceptible to changes
in the extent of sugar beet cropping in Breckland areas".
After sugar beet has been harvested, the fragmented tops and crowns
provide food for pink-footed geese; 25% of the world population
of this species spends the winter on the beet stubbles of northwest
Norfolk together with other species such as internationally important
populations of Bewicks and hooper swans, skylarks, golden plover,
lapwing, pied wagtail and meadow pipit.
3.4 Not only the harvest residues of the
crop itself are important to birds, but also the weeds that the
crop harbours support the food web upon which birds depend: weeds
in sugar beet are the habitats of insects and other invertebrates
which are preyed upon by insectivorous birds, and the weed seeds
provide food for seed-eating species.
3.5 English Nature has stated that the cultivation
of sugar beet has significant positive environmental impacts and
benefits over a considerable area of farmland in England.[10]
It also believes that pursuit of a liberalised sugar regime could
reduce or eliminate cultivation of the crop for sugar in England
and could cause "a massive shift to unfavourable condition
of the Breckland SSSI and potentially SPAs (Special Protection
Areas under Directive 79/409/EEC) in East Anglia". Therefore,
English Nature has urged HMG to ensure that plans for liberalisation
should seek to preserve the environmental advantages of sugar
beet.[11]
4. ROTATIONAL
ADVANTAGES
4.1 As a break crop in arable rotations,
sugar beet contributes to reduced pesticide requirements because
its pests and diseases are different from those of combinable
crops and therefore the general levels of field infestations affecting
entire crop rotations are reduced. The sugar beet tops are also
fed to livestock during the winter and are ploughed back into
the land to provide valuable organic matter and increase soil
biodiversity.
4.2 Sugar beet provides an opportunity for
the application of lime when appropriate and also reduces fertiliser
requirements for following cereal crops because beet residues
left in the field after the beet has been lifted break down slowly
in the soil and release nutrients, thus enabling proportionate
reduction in the levels of inorganic fertiliser bought in to supply
the cereal crops. The disappearance of sugar beet from rotations
will increase the area sown to winter wheat and this wheat probably
will not be a first wheat and therefore will not have the advantages
of being so: first wheats require fewer inputs than second or
third wheats. It has been estimated that, because of such considerations,
sugar beet as a break crop is worth approximately one extra tonne
of wheat per hectare and a reduction of £55/ha in variable
costs.
4.3 In a recent BBRO-funded study of 13
production scenarios[12]it
was concluded that sugar beet compared favourably with other crops
on important environmentally desirable criteria:
— denitrification no worse than other
crops;
— energy consumption and global warming
impact similar to winter wheat and lower than potatoes; and
— good pesticide ecotoxicity scores,
likely to improve slightly following the banning of aldicarb.
5. SUGAR BEET
RESEARCH
5.1 As an organisation owned and sponsored
by the producers and the processor of sugar beet in the UK, the
BBRO's objectives necessarily must be directed towards the interests
of the beet sugar industry. It is significant therefore, within
the context of this consultation, that its guidance to research
intstitutes and its strategy since its inception have recognised
the need for the sugar beet crop to be environmentally beneficial.
5.2 The objectives of the BBRO, to enable
producers to reduce costs are, inevitably, coincident with the
objectives of the EU and its member states ie to reduce inputs
of pesticides and fertilisers by ensuring that they are used only
when and where required, and are delivered exactly to their targets
thus avoiding undesirable off-target effects including residues
in food and drink. It is noteworthy that, in some cane-sugar producing
states, the pesticides used are more toxic, persistent and used
at higher rates than in the UK;[13]
competitor research organisations therefore would seem to be less
environmentally focussed than the BBRO.
5.3 As well as projects to reduce chemical
useage, the BBRO must also be protective of the soils upon which
the crop depends and must seek to minimise erosion and the energy
(and therefore the greenhouse emissions) used in tillage and in
other aspects of cultivating, handling and transporting the crop.
5.4 The BBRO programme includes projects
addressing all these issues. Additionally, a number of projects
are intended specially to enable growers to enhance the environmental
benefits of the sugar beet crop:
— Options for management of headlands
by sowing desirable wild-seed mixtures, and to provide harbourage
for in-crop wildlife, are explored in collaboration with the RSPB,
BTO and other environmental experts.
— Techniques are explored to manage
weeds so that they persist in the crop as long as possible to
support populations of desirable insects and birds.
— Repeat low-dose (FAR) herbicide programmes,
as well as mechanical systems, are developed to provide growers
with affordable and effective weed management options that result
in overall reductions in the amount of active ingredients applied
to sugar beet crops.
— Non-plough minimal-tillage systems
are being developed to allow the establishment of crops with minimal
damage to soil structure, thus reducing risks of soil erosion
and avoiding damage to soil fauna and flora.
— Biological methods for pest and disease
control which avoid the use of synthetic insecticides and fungicides
are explored.
5.5 Such objectives illustrate the advantages
that the growing of sugar beet confers on the environment, demonstrate
the potential for further enhancement of these advantages and
show that, on environmental grounds alone, it is essential that
reform of the sugar regime ensures a viable UK sugar beet industry
in the long term.
6. ECONOMIC FACTORS
6.1 The BBRO anticipates changes but believes
that any reduction in prices or quotas must be modest and managed
in a gradual manner so that the UK industry has adequate time
to adapt.
6.2 Managed reform resulting in the maintenance
of remunerative pricing and quotas is a major requirement for
LDC and ACP industries as detailed in their submission to the
DEFRA consultation. It is noteworthy that a recent BBRO-funded
review of progress in cane sugar production[14]concluded
that any opportunities for exports into the EU under a more "open"
sugar regime would be taken, not by the LDCs but by Brazil who
dominates cane production and is able to switch between sugar
and ethanol to meet market demands. Uncontrolled opening of the
EU market to sugar from the LDCs and ACP countries probably will
not result in the desired effect.
6.3 Reform should also recognise that the
UK is in balance between supply and demand and does not contribute
to European quota export surpluses requiring subsidies. In fact
the UK is the only EU member state that shares it's sugar market,
in roughly equal amounts, between home-grown beet sugar and imported
cane sugar from both the ACP countries and the LDCs.
7. CONCLUSION
After considering all of the points raised in
this response we believe the only credible stance that the UK
government should take is that reform of the EU sugar regime must
be managed in a gradual and responsible manner. Any reduction
in quotas and/or prices must be modest and maintained at an adequate
level so that the UK, LDC and ACP industries can co-exist and
thrive, resulting in both environmental and social benefits to
all concerned.
Prof John MacLeod
25 March 2004
3 Sugar Beet and the Environment in the UK. Report
by the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 47(3) of Council
Regulation 1260/2001 on the environmental situation of agricultural
production in the sugar sector. Back
4
Sugar Beet and the Environment in the UK. Report by the United
Kingdom in accordance with Article 47(3) of Council Regulation
1260/2001 on the environmental situation of agricultural production
in the sugar sector. Back
5
Response of English Nature to the Defra consultation on reform
of the CAP sugar beet regime. January 2004. Back
6
Sugar Beet and the Environment in the UK. Report by the United
Kingdom in accordance with Article 47(3) of Council Regulation
1260/2001 on the environmental situation of agricultural production
in the sugar sector. Back
7
Consultation on proposals for reform of the sugar regime. Response
by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. January 2004. Back
8
Response of English Nature to the Defra consultation on reform
of the CAP sugar beet regime. January 2004. Back
9
Consultation on proposals for reform of the sugar regime. Response
by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. January 2004. Back
10
Response of English Nature to the Defra consultation on reform
of the CAP sugar beet regime. January 2004. Back
11
Response of English Nature to the Defra consultation on reform
of the CAP sugar beet regime. January 2004. Back
12
Environmental and Energy Impact Assessment for Sugar Beet Production
Systems. BBRO Project 01/19. Broom's Barn Research Station. Back
13
Recent progress in sugar cane research, breeding and production
practice by major sugar exporters. BBRO project 02/25. Broom's
Barn Research Station. Back
14
Recent progress in sugar cane research, breeding and production
practice by major sugar exporters. BBRO project 02/2. Broom's
Barn Research Station. Back
| 
