Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-45)
19 JANUARY 2005
DR JOACHIM
SCHNEIDER, MR
PETER SANGUINETTI
AND MR
PATRICK GOLDSWORTHY
Q40 Chairman: Can I just challenge you
on that in the words of Friends of the Earth who, when they looked
at the claims that were made for the lean catchment for example,
they said that in the year in question when measurements have
been taken, that is 2002-03, very little isoproturon had actually
been used that year because of very bad weather. Do you concur
with that or do you think that is spurious?
Mr Goldsworthy: As far as I am
aware, industry sales of isoproturon has actually been at a similar
level for the last three or four years; I do not think there has
been any change in use of products.
Q41 Chairman: It might have been sold
and put on the shelf.
Mr Goldsworthy: No, I think you
will find that this is usage data. I thought the point they were
making was that the weather had a big impact and I do not think
we are disputing that. Not the use of the product itself, the
product that they used, but because it was a drier season it was
performing in a particular way and I think that is an important
part of our understanding of how we do the job better. I think
we have had some lessons and we are learning some lessons now
because we have a very difficult winter and autumn with basically
unhelpful weather for spraying, and some of the solutions we have
put forward are not as good as we would like and we need to work
on that and that is part of the learning process of the Voluntary
Initiative.
Q42 Alan Simpson: I want to know to what
extent the incorporation of aspects of the Voluntary Initiative
into the entry level scheme would undermine the Voluntary Initiative.
Do you feel there is a tension there or a contradiction or would
it be a strengthening process?
Dr Schneider: The question is
whether the entry level scheme would support or undermine?
Q43 Alan Simpson: It is regarding the
incorporation of aspects of the Voluntary Initiative in the new
scheme.
Dr Schneider: I think it would
greatly help the cause that we would all want to achieve. We just
need to put this together. It has been created as something like
a grass root activity and effort which now needs to be embedded
into wider schemes and it is sort of like an ideal curtain raiser
for something like the CAP and the entry level scheme. It will
not fall on deaf ears because people are getting used to discussing
these issues to become more environmentally conscious and actually
think twice and think, not only how much will it increase my production
but also what will it do to the environment if I do that and that?
The entry level scheme is the perfect continuation of that thought
process. So, it makes a lot of sense.
Q44 Alan Simpson: Do you have a gut feeling
at this stage about not the question of, will this increase my
profitability but what questions the public would ask such as,
would this make sense for incorporation in the Government's national
pesticides strategy? In what way do you currently feel we need
to strengthen the targets that you are working to for that to
be publicly acceptable in the Government's national pesticides
strategy?
Mr Sanguinetti: If you come back
to the crop protection management plans, I believe that you will
be hearing that they have been submitted for support from entry
level scheme and we all believe that the financial support behind
that scheme will give it huge momentum and the key thing about
the crop protection management plan is that the strategy and planning
behind it embeds the environmental issues and they are quite comprehensive.
Q45 Mr Drew: Just one final question
and I am sorry that I have to leave you earlier. This is a rhetorical
question in a sense but if whatever government were to announce
that a pesticides tax is off the agenda indefinitely, would that
help in terms of the Voluntary Initiative or is there a part of
you that says that it is the pressure and threat of a tax that
makes the VI work and increasingly work well?
Dr Schneider: If you had asked
that question to us a while ago, maybe we could have said "yes"
and we have to admit that the threat of the tax is certainly an
incentivising issue to get the VI off the ground. By now, with
the cross industry working together and the Steering Group, it
has gained sufficient momentum and enough momentum that the reason
behind it is self-feeding for the future and I do not necessarily
think that we need the threat of the tax for industry to proceed
with something which is considered to be very beneficial. We consider
that it is increasing and helping our image in the public eye,
it is a very good story, so why would we go away from that?
Mr Sanguinetti: May I just add
that, if you replace the threat of a tax with the promise of fiscal
incentives, you will get a real result.
Chairman: If you wish to in any sense
add to what you have said in your oral evidence today on that
point or any others, please do write to us. Otherwise, Dr Schneider,
Mr Sanguinetti and Mr Goldsworthy, thank you very much indeed
for coming today.
| 
