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.
| 
