Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)

19 JANUARY 2005

DR JOACHIM SCHNEIDER, MR PETER SANGUINETTI AND MR PATRICK GOLDSWORTHY

  Q1 Chairman: I would like to welcome everybody to this sub-committee of the Efra Select Committee which is dealing with the question of progress on pesticides and to welcome our three witnesses this morning who all come from the Crop Protection Association: Dr Joachim Schneider who is the Chairman and from Bayer CropScience UK, Mr Peter Sanguinetti who is the Chief Executive and Mr Patrick Goldsworthy who is the Voluntary Initiative Manager. Welcome to all of you. I know that you would like to say something and introduce your team at the outset. I caution everybody that we are under huge pressure to get through this evidence session; we have three groups of witnesses to see. So, I ask all of us to try to be brief. I want to remind you before we begin our questioning about what the Environment Agency actually said on the issue of pesticides and their harm to the environment. They said that they contaminate rivers, reservoirs and ground water, that the cost of removing pesticides from drinking water is costing £100 million a year, that they have been a major factor in the decline in the number of bird species, that every year through accidents and negligence pesticides cause major pollution in rivers, that they have been used sometimes illegally to deliberately poison birds and that there is a problem with the disposal of pesticide packaging, of course in addition to potential possible effects on human health and we have added the point—we warned you that we wanted to address this issue this morning—that this is not an inquiry into the health effects of pesticides but it is clearly very topical in new evidence that has been adduced very recently and we felt we should not ignore that. Dr Schneider?

  Dr Schneider: You have certainly set the stage with some of your comments. We consider the Voluntary Initiative, which is this morning's topic, to be a partnership exercise between the Government, the industry and environmental stakeholders and the real success, as we consider it, of the VI so far is that it has joined up the industry in a very wide cross-industry effort resulting, as we consider it, in behaviour change on the farm which is something very difficult to achieve in a short timeframe and also producing tangible benefits for the environment. A number of the aspects that you mentioned need to be addressed. Our products are highly regulated, but we are fully supporting the mitigation of the environmental effects of our products and that is why we fully support the Voluntary Initiative as an industry.

  Q2 Chairman: In your evidence, you have said that you believe it is how farmers use pesticides not how much they use that is important. The Government of course and many, many others actually believe that there should be a reduction in the use of pesticides. I would like to begin by asking you, what do the Crop Protection Association hope to achieve from its proposal for a Voluntary Initiative apart perhaps from trying to head off a pesticides tax?

  Mr Sanguinetti: We fully accept that the stimulus to get going in the first place was the threat of a tax. A tax as worked out by the Government and the economist ECOTEC would have cost the industry at least £125 million and the agricultural industry, as you know, is not exactly booming at the moment. That was the stimulus. I think we have moved on enormously from that because the Voluntary Initiative is extraordinarily large and has been relatively new to the industry and involves an impressive cross section of people who are very enthusiastic, very familiar with working very hard and who have developed the programme and have it snowballing with huge support. All the major targets, for example, NRoSO, which is the advanced professional training including environmental factors for sprayers, is already ahead of target this year. Two other major targets, the sprayer testing, which is the MOT, is coming up fast because this is the time that they do that, in the winter they do it. Similarly for the crop protection management plans, they are busy on that. The road shows promoting this are already well ahead of the target. So, there is that support. What is being achieved is cultural and behavioural change and we want to—which we all do, we are committed to the environment and I think that is something we share—have a better environment. So, we are putting a great deal of resources and effort into these projects and we are already seeing the signs. I can tell you, if you want, about some of the results coming out but it is beginning to work and is working very, very effectively. In fact, it is so big and we will need to explain how we connect this with the common agriculture policy which has the same objective. So, there is a combination of minds coming forward to get this really going and, at the moment, that is where we are.

  Q3 Chairman: I hear what you say and it was very clear in the written evidence that there is an enthusiasm and there is participation and no doubt people are learning to do things better, but of course what we will want to focus on is what are the absolute effects of that in terms of reduced impacts on environment and why is it that you are not concerned about the absolute level of pesticide use, only how it is used?

  Mr Sanguinetti: May I just give you one other figure which might answer that question? The Environment Agency themselves have found out in their latest data—and we need to be careful about these figures because the weather is a very, very big factor—that, since the VI started, there has been a 23% reduction in residues in water. That is a very important achievement and we will take some of the credit.

  Dr Schneider: I think there are so many parameters when it comes to pesticide use and the absolute amount being applied is a very small parameter of the overall aspects that we have to consider when it comes to pesticide use. Usually, it is very small incidences that can lead to a pollution event. For example, the screw cap on the pesticide container is in contact with the highly concentrated contents and, if that is just thrown away, it will already be measurable. It is these tiny events that cause big effect. So, how you use pesticides is much more relevant than how much you use. If you reduce the rate per hectare from, let us say, 250 grams to 200 grams, 190 grams or whatever, the environmental benefits compared to educating the farmer, how he supports biodiversity and how he protects his hedgerows. The environmental awareness is so much more relevant plus the right usage of the product than the absolute amount of the material being used and that has been substantiated by many reports from many people who are actually experts in the field.

  Q4 Chairman: I see some sense in what you are saying but do you not think that there is value in reducing overall the amount of pesticides used in this country?

  Dr Schneider: Let me just speak from my brief company perspective and then maybe Patrick can answer as well. We will also only support the right amount for the right use. We will never ask people to use more than absolutely necessary in order to achieve the effect of control of the insects and the pests. It is all about best practice and we are bundling the stewardship package around our products anyway as the producers and now this is actually being carried across the industry to the agronomists who are advising on our products, to the consultants who deal with them and to the farmers in order that they actually know what the impact of the use of our products potentially could be and how they mitigate that.

  Mr Sanguinetti: An inevitable consequence of spraying more efficiently and more carefully is less use.

  Q5 Chairman: It should be.

  Mr Sanguinetti: That is going to be an inevitable consequence of it. One interesting point is about the nozzles and that has come out in the AEA. They found that the tiny nozzles which are the sprayers actually wear out and should be renewed regularly. Many of you will be familiar with the geometry of it but you only need a very small increase in the diameter to double the amount. They should be changed regularly and are a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment. It is little things like that. Picking up on what Joachim said about the little foils which you take off the packet, we have a number of catchment areas which we are working on—and the people coming here later this morning are more involved in the detail but this is a project which we all support—and we have actually achieved 60% reduction in residues in water in those catchment areas. One of the things was the foil. It is so simple: if you take the foil off and drop it in the farmyard, within a few days because it is so highly concentrated, it can find its way into water. So, we have found actual practical ways and we want to roll this out obviously in order that it will have a much bigger impact. Little things like that can make a very big difference.

  Q6 Chairman: Let me press you on another point. Why is there nothing in the initiative which suggests that it is desirable to move from the most toxic pesticides to less toxic chemicals or even to non-chemical treatments?

  Dr Schneider: Because we consider that the regulatory system is extremely stringent already. When you get a registration, it takes into account the whole environmental chemical physical profile, the toxicological profile, of the material. You would not receive your registration if you do not pass all these tests. Basically, the regulator takes a very stringent view and I would like to add—and I think this is substantiated by what many people have to say—that pesticides are the most regulated and most tested chemicals that we have on this globe, if you look at all the different parameters. Once you receive a registration, it has already gone through a very, very stringent process. To add something on the top which is the tag-on would not necessarily be substantial to the profile of the material itself.

  Chairman: We are all aware that things that were approved now have ceased to be approved. Things change. Progress is made and toxicity is a major concern.

  Q7 Mr Drew: I would like to ask you some questions about the cost basis of the Voluntary Initiative and compare that to the assumed implementation costs of a pesticides tax. I am really querying these figures and asking if they come from yourselves. According to what I have been given, the CPA estimates that it would cost the crop protection industry a total of £11.9 million over five years for the VI to be introduced and yet it is assumed that the costs to the farming sector is £11 million per annum to establish and obviously work the VI. Do you recognise those figures? They are your figures.

  Mr Goldsworthy: They were estimates that we made when we put the original proposals forward in February 2001, so they were prepared before that time and I should stress in conjunction with the Farming Union(s).

  Q8 Mr Drew: I know that we like short, pithy submissions but you do not mention those cases bases in your submission and can I just clarify that the cost bases that were predicted are the ones that you are working to?

  Mr Goldsworthy: Yes. Some of the figures we repeat in the annual reports that are produced every year, those same assessments are made using the same comparative figures, so we are not changing the goalposts in that area.

  Mr Sanguinetti: We can tell you exactly what has happened which is probably more important. As of March this year, the total contribution from the agricultural industry has been £17 million of which £7.5 million was the crop protection sector. The most up-to-date estimate finishes in March—as you know, it is a March to March targeting. We estimate that it will be well over £26 million by March this year. So, it is a big contribution and that is well on target to what is predicted.

  Q9 Mr Drew: Do you recognise the figure put about by Friends of the Earth that if there were a pesticides tax, that could raise in the order of £130 million? Of course, it depends what level you set the tax at but do you see that as a realistic figure?

  Mr Sanguinetti: That is around about the same figure; we are slightly lower at £125 million, but it is a similar figure and that is based on the ECOTEC study. They estimated that there would be no behavioural change unless you push it up to over 30%. We have had feedback from Europe that, if you go over 30%, you start reducing the amount but then they start switching to less desirable products and imported products, so you actually distort the market. The most important person from whom we have had feedback—and it is indirect, so we need to check it—is from Dame Mariann Fischer Boel, the Commissioner who was the Minister in Denmark who introduced a tax, who said at the Smithfield Show in front of a number of my colleagues that she introduced the tax, that nothing happened until they reached 30% and then it had an adverse effect and they went for the wrong products. So, she has said that it does not work, which is interesting.

  Q10 Mr Wiggin: Can I just follow up on that. What you are saying is that the minute you put a 30% tax on it, you do get an effect but people simply buy the wrong product or cheaper products and they then probably spray more of it or even less, and one of the things I was very impressed about was the scientific application and the difference that makes. Is that what will happen?

  Mr Sanguinetti: That is exactly the danger, yes, and, in this country, you can open it up to all sorts of imports. One of the things we are very, very keen and you help on is the enforcement. So often, it is a small number of people not doing things in the way they should that causes all the problems and any help you can give to stop people behaving in the wrong way would be very helpful.

  Q11 Mr Wiggin: So, things like what you do with the peel-off lid is more critical . . .

  Mr Sanguinetti: It is huge.

  Q12 Mr Wiggin: . . . than it is to get people to buy less pesticides.

  Mr Sanguinetti: Where we are at the moment is that we have built up a really significant number of people who are trying very hard. We are likely with the sprayer operator training to reach 75% of the total acreage of the arable area and a big percentage with all the other ones as well. However, the important thing is that those who are doing it should be encouraged and the CAP can bring this in because CAP is going to allocate money, as you know, to environmental projects. I know of two environmental projects of which we are very proud: one is called SAFFIE, which is the skylark patches where we have 49% increase in skylark fledglings through that project into which we have put a lot of investment and that is down for entry level scheme and that should get money from entry level from CAP. Equally, the crop protection management. The real secret is to get encouragement behind it.

  Q13 Mr Drew: This is the last figure I will throw at you and then you can relax with regard to numerical questioning. The figure of the Environment Agency of the cost of pesticide run-off has been of the order of £100 million plus a year; do you recognise that figure?

  Mr Goldsworthy: I think that may originate from Water UK which is the figure they actually generate for the cost of water treatment. They may have provided you with evidence separately.

  Q14 Mr Drew: I can tell you that it was funding from the Environment Agency. Just on the back of that, from the research you have already carried out, have you seen a reduction or have you talked to Water UK/Environment Agency about a reduction in what their expenditure is and how to remove run-off?

  Mr Goldsworthy: I think it is very difficult for them. We have talked to them and I am conscious that some companies are in a position to maybe give you some indication that treatment times or the length of life of some of their treatments has extended, but it is a very imprecise science for them at this stage and, as I say, some of the changes that we are achieving are fairly new. Certainly their expectation is in the longer term. They are replacing the carbon which is one of the principal measures they use to treat and that will mean that the carbon will last longer, so they will not have to replace that as often, but they do have to treat chemicals other than pesticides, so that is a good point to bear in mind as well.

  Q15 Mr Wiggin: What I am concerned about is that I think we are selling off wheat at £52 a tonne this year. If they are going to take £125 million in tax out, what will happen to our farmers? Have you looked at that? It really concerns me. Are there any other arguments against the introduction of a pesticides tax?

  Dr Schneider: First of all, what will happen to the farmers is that the £120 million is basically 30% of the £400 million market. This is how you derive the figure. Whether we would maintain a £400 million which we actually do not have today is a big question because the competitiveness of the UK farmer would suffer severely because he would not be able to only go to cheaper products or to have parallel imports from other countries that would not have the tax. The arguments against the tax are that basically, when you look at the six European countries where the tax has been implemented, most people would agree with the statement that it was only when other environmental measures in training and education were implemented that a real benefit was seen in the environmental outcome and the environmental profile and mitigation of pesticides. The tax as such is a very blunt instrument and this is where we come back to that behaviour change which is so much more important. I recently talked to a farmer who is growing 27,000 tonnes of potatoes in East Anglia, so a huge operation. He is sending all his operators and all his sprayers to the training sessions. He was getting stewardship training from our company by the end of January and he wants to go for the entry level scheme and he wants to go for the next level. I talked to him and 20% of my discussion with him was about environmental stewardship and how much time he was spending in assurance schemes and CPMPs behind the desk and how much they were trying to accommodate this. This is really why there is a strong argument against the tax because that farmer would not think twice the next time whether he does something right or not for the environment because he thinks, I have paid once already, why should I pay twice? This is why it would be such a disaster if we could now go back with all this positive movement behind the VI with the tax.

  Q16 Chairman: Except perhaps if it were a hypothecated tax and, as in Sweden, the money all went back to farmers. What is the problem there?

  Dr Schneider: The money going back to farmers?

  Q17 Chairman: Exactly. The tax is returned in the support for the scheme such as you have been pioneering.

  Dr Schneider: First of all, still if you implement the tax now it would be a major disappointment and there is new money coming in to incentivise further environmental stewardship and that is via the CAP reform and that is a much better means to incentivise what the farmers should be doing to . . .

  Q18 Mr Wiggin: Will farmers not buy cheaper untested products to qualify for that hypothecated return without actually contributing?

  Dr Schneider: Yes. There is a real danger which we have seen in other markets.

  Mr Sanguinetti: We are trying to fix it ourselves and the farmers are really trying and they are the ones at the front line who are working with nature day by day.

  Chairman: Sure and we will hear from them later.

  Q19 Paddy Tipping: You said that farmers are changing their attitudes.

  Mr Sanguinetti: Absolutely phenomenal, yes.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 5 April 2005