Memorandum submitted by Masstock Arable
(UK) Ltd (Z09)
1. ABOUT MASSTOCK
ARABLE
Masstock Arable is an agronomy advice company
that also supplies crop protection chemicals, seed and fertiliser
to the UK farming community. The services are delivered by a team
of around 150 professional agronomists, with nationwide coverage,
all of who are members of the BASIS Professional Register. Masstock
offers one of the most service orientated agronomy businesses
in the UK, with a broad range of expertise including farm business
advice, extensive research and development capabilities and environmental
advice. Masstock employees will advise over approaching two million
acres of UK farming during 2004-05.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Being members of the Crop Protection Association
(and latterly of the AIC), Masstock was involved and supportive
of the Voluntary Initiative from the start. Farming can be slow
to change, reluctant to adapt and an Initiative like the VI will
only work if influencers in the rural community give it support.
Masstock recognised its responsibilities in this regard and has
radically modified its business direction in order to deliver
positive results under the VI.
These changes included:
(i) The appointment of a biodiversity
officer to attend meetings and disseminate relevant information
to agronomists.
(ii) The appointment of an environmental
support officer who is active within the Group offering interactive
training sessions. This is an agronomist and is therefore able
to relate practically to the issues facing us, rather than a pure
"environmentalist". Thus communications are in the right
language, more effective and well received.
(iii) Issuing a biodiversity mission
statement. The Masstock Biodiversity Policy reads: "Awareness
of biodiversity issues with its agronomists and farmer customers
through its comprehensive training programmes and technical communications,
with the aim of minimising any negative effects Crop Protection
Products may have on the environment and helping to improve farmland
ecology."
(iv) A modified training programme to
properly equip agronomists.
For more detail see sections 4 and 5.
We believe thanks to the Voluntary Initiative
we have seen real change in farming's approach to its responsibilities
as custodians of the countryside. A pesticide tax would heap unnecessary
financial burdens on an already stretched industry, which is if
anything in a poorer financial state than it was when a tax on
pesticides was first mooted. There are no indications from any
other European countries where a tax has been introduced that
this has produce a direct positive benefit to the environment.
The net result of a less profitable supply industry would reduce
investment in R&D and restrict agronomist time available on
farms to help promote Best Practice and Defra initiatives such
as the Whole Farm Appraisal. Encouraging the farming community
to work together under the VI in a way that complements Cross
Compliance is in our opinion more likely to achieve the desired
end result.
3. FARMER RESPONSE
AND WORKING
PRACTICE CHANGE
From the detail below it is clear Masstock has
invested much time and effort into communication of both the principles
behind, and detail of, the Voluntary Initiative. However this
energy is wasted if farmer practice is not then modified. It is
very encouraging therefore that the response we have had from
the farming community, whilst slow at first, has gathered momentum
as the very real benefits to the farm business begin to show through.
Focusing on the benefits to the business, understandably, has
been key. We have tried whenever possible to quantify these and
translate them into either a financial or environmental benefit—in
some cases however simply knowing that a change of approach will
deliver improved job satisfaction has been enough. In our opinion,
farmers are engaging more fully in agronomy and the quality of
discussion around Crop Protection has changed gear. Inevitably
we have sceptical farmers too . . . but by ensuring agronomists
are versed with the facts means these have been largely overcome.
4. TRAINING/RESEARCH
(i) Masstock has developed broader agronomist
training programmes that cover key issues such as improving water
quality, and biodiversity awareness.
(ii) Masstock Farm Consultancy (MFC),
the farm business consultancy arm of Masstock has been training
agronomists on the MTR and Entry Level Schemes in small discussion
Groups.
(iii) MFC have also run an additional
25 farmer meetings (farmers numbers averaged 30/meeting) on the
importance of biodiversity and its relationship with MTR.
(iv) Masstock has demonstrated a strong
commitment to the BETA training programme—currently 27 have
the qualification, with a further tranche planned for winter 2004-05.
Training has been delivered by the well respected Allerton Trust,
in conjunction with the in-house Environmental Specialist.
(v) However not all agronomists are
comfortable sitting exams. For those less keen on examinations,
a parallel training programme was initiated, covering similar
issues but without a daunting written exam. At least then everyone
has been able to build on their already extensive knowledge of
Integrated Crop Management to develop a wider awareness of Biodiversity
matters, Crop Protection Management Plans (CPMPs) and Environmental
Information Sheets (EISs).
(vi) The above has led to glowing reports
regarding Masstock's training programme in the regular training
audits run by the CPA.
(vii) Extensive R&D into maximising
rapid uptake of crop protection chemicals with an improved environmental
profile (eg Atlantis for blackgrass control, rather than IPU).
(viii) Demonstration of SAFFIE plots
at 13 demonstration sites in spring/summer 2004, prompting discussions
around the R&D findings that emerged in 2003.
5. COMMUNICATION
AND STEWARDSHIP
(i) We can show active involvement in
sensitive water catchment areas covered by Masstock agronomists
with regular attendance at meetings. In fact Masstock presented
an agronomists viewpoint of the catchment activities at the recent
Train the Trainers day held at the CPA offices regarding the H2OK
Think Water campaign.
(ii) Huge efforts have been made in
completing Crop Protection management plans, exceeding our year
1 targets by several thousand hectares.
(iii) Active participation in the Sprayer
Operator Roadshows. In all Masstock Arable ran 40 of these in
2003-04, representing a huge time and cost commitment for the
company. All were well attended and in fact oversubscribed.
(iv) This gave us the platform from
which to discuss the benefits of the National Sprayer Testing
Scheme and to promote the National Register of Sprayer Operators.
(v) Involvement of The Training Company
(Mike Huntingdon) at Masstock's Open Days to discuss application
procedures and stewardship issues.
(vi) Masstock has held regular farmer
meetings on the aims of the Voluntary Initiative and why they
matter, in order to uplift its profile and ensure maximum understanding
of the issues involved. This has often led to healthy debate and
invariably the presence of positive leaders within the farming
community at these meetings has served to expand acceptance and
support for the VI. Masstock has also been invited to speak on
the VI at meetings organised by other organisations, such as the
NFU.
(vii) We have been involved with the
recently launched H2OK Think Water campaign, with the summary
agronomist training presentation having been pulled together by
Masstock.
(viii) The VI logo is used on most if
not all farmer communications.
(ix) Introduction of an environmental
newsletter as a communication vehicle to agronomists. Branded
as SMARTecology, some 30 editions of these have now been issued
and are being used to convey key biodiversity/environment messages
covering subjects such as SAFFIE, NVZs, Manure management plans,
Nitrates Directive, Crop Protection Management Plans, Guidelines
for environmentally responsible farming, Genetically modified
crops, IFM/ICM, Pesticide residues in Food, H2OK Think Water etc.
6. COMMENTS ON
THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS OF
A PESTICIDE
TAX
We have long been concerned at the potential
impacts a tax on pesticides may have. Aside from the obvious financial
challenges facing the industry, a tax would not only be perceived
as antagonistic by an already pressurised rural community, but
would in our belief not benefit the environment.
Firstly there would be a loss of goodwill and
support. Paying a tax could in effect encourage poor practice
since farmers may believe it has earned them the right to pollute.
A further squeeze on farm profits could discourage training in
those areas we have worked so hard to support—a lot of good
work could well be undone. Indeed we can see real threats of increased
uptake of cheaper older chemistry should a tax be introduced,
with the newer more environmentally benign chemistry being shunned
as the increased costs begin to bite.
Reduced profits in the supply industry such
as our own and the manufacturers of Crop Protection chemicals
would restrict monies available for investment in R&D, with
a subsequent loss of, for example, important trials work on appropriate
dosing. In addition, illegal imports may be encouraged as industry
searched for a way to plug the profit gap.
Agronomists, in an effort again to remain a
cost-effective input to a farm business, would have to spend less
time with each farm. This would mean time advising on Best Practice
may be trimmed, and availability to help with Defra initiatives
such as the Whole Farm Appraisal could be impacted.
5 October 2004
|
