Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
8 FEBRUARY 2005
MS EMILY
DIAMOND, MR
PETER RILEY
AND DR
CLARE BUTLER
ELLIS
Q120 Mr Wiggin: If you did that, as you
suggest, would you not find that the cost would be different—and
I say different rather than higher or lower—to what is being
imported? How much monitoring of that is going on? It is no good
bashing the UK toxicity levels if we simply buy from abroad and
replace it with cheaper food which potentially may be more dangerous.
How can you get that balance right?
Ms Diamond: Obviously monitoring
does cover imported produce as well. In some respects that is
a policy of the supermarkets, or whoever is buying the food, to
decide whether they buy their produce from the UK or abroad. That
is also something we have been doing a lot of work on and pointing
out that, for example, supermarkets are not buying more produce
during the UK season. That is a more difficult thing to say, that
you should be regulating for it in this case because this is about
pesticide use. I do not think we should be suggesting that we
do not do anything on UK problems because something might be happening
elsewhere in the world, we have to address the problems here.
Q121 Mr Wiggin: I think you are right
and I agree with what you are saying because I think what you
are trying to identify is that the supermarkets control what is
available for us to buy, and the danger is if we come down too
hard on our domestic production, they are simply substituted,
as you identified, by the supermarket with foreign imports which
may be more toxic.
Mr Riley: I think a lot of the
supermarkets are trying to apply the protocols to their overseas
producers as well as domestic work. In time we will see that the
pesticide protocols which apply in the UK, will apply to their
overseas producers from whom we import. That is going to take
some time to achieve. The people I have talked to in the supermarkets
are all saying that is their goal. We are nowhere near there yet,
but that is the ultimate goal.
Q122 Mr Wiggin: Essentially it is a balance
between the beautiful field fruit, which you were talking about
earlier, and the levels of toxicity. We have got to get that right
for all consumers irrespective of where they produce the food
from.
Ms Diamond: There might be an
assumption that, for example, more expensive pesticides are more
environmentally friendly or the more toxic ones, which we are
talking about, are cheaper. There is not that relationship—I
do not think that is proven—that just by eliminating the
more toxic pesticides we automatically make farmers' costs go
up. In addition, there should be a lot more emphasis on alternatives.
We know there are lots of non-chemical, biological methods which
can be used. In fact, in other countries in Europe they are far
more advanced in introducing those than we are in the UK because
of blocks in the regulatory system which we have here. It does
not automatically follow.
Q123 Mr Wiggin: Can you give us some
examples because that might be helpful?
Ms Diamond: The way the approvals
process looks at biological organisms. At the moment it examines
them as if they are chemicals and requires the same kind of information
and it is very difficult to provide that biological organism because
we operate in the same way. It has meant that producers have found
it extremely difficult to get approvals. That is not the case
in other countries, so we are disadvantaging our farmers. This
argument that by getting rid of more toxic pesticides or reducing
use is adding cost to farmers is only because we have got a system
which is not providing alternatives.
Chairman: We ought to move on to the
Voluntary Initiative and progress or not.
Q124 Mr Drew: Can I start by asking a
fairly basic question. All the way through your written evidence
you are pretty clear that the Voluntary Initiative has not worked.[1]
What independent work have you done yourself to try and make sense
of whether there is any benefit in the Voluntary Initiative at
all?
Mr Riley: It would be hard for
us to argue that the training of people to use sprayers properly
would not be beneficial in the long term. The question is whether
it should be a voluntary process or whether it should come under
a regulatory process. I think, logically, if people are using
toxic chemicals in the environment it should be under a regulation
rather than a voluntary process. We have looked quite closely
at the progress in the six catchment projects in terms of what
is being delivered and in terms of reduced levels of herbicides
in rivers which then have to be filtered out by water companies.
In fact, there is no evidence that the Voluntary Initiative catchment
projects have made any difference at all to date. The largest
amount of data relates to the herbicide IPU in the Cherwell catchment,
where there has been a historic problem with the levels of IPU
in the river exceeding the EC threshold for drinking water. If
you look at the historic data going back before the VI started,
you could find very low levels of IPU in the river in 1996-97
and higher levels in the last year for 2003-04. There is absolutely
no evidence that the VI has made an overall difference to the
concentrations of IPU in that river through the programme which
has been instigated. The reason for that is because IPU is incredibly
mobile in the soil and if it rains soon after it is applied, it
will wash into the river and you cannot stop it. If there is heavy
rain after application, no amount of Voluntary Initiative will
stop IPU getting into the river. You can do things to reduce the
amount of IPU that washes off as a result of filling and cleaning
operations in the farmyard, but the vast bulk of it comes as a
result of direct washing and leaching from the fields. Thames
Water are on record saying they believe 90% of IPU in the rivers,
which gives them the problems, comes from the field rather than
from any other source. There is no evidence to support the claims
that these catchment projects have made any difference at all
to date and they are very expensive.
Q125 Chairman: For the record, you are
talking about Isoproturon.
Mr Riley: Yes.
Q126 Chairman: Are you taking account
of the Environment Agency's announcements in terms of the reductions
in water courses?
Mr Riley: Yes. We have looked
at the data going back eight years. It is clear in one year, in
1996-97, there was very little IPU in the river before the VI
started. It is possible that is entirely due to the weather in
that particular year. As I say, if it rains you cannot stop it,
it is an inevitable consequence, and if you use IPU on cereals
it will get into rivers, you cannot stop it, it is a physical
characteristic of the product.
Q127 Mr Wiggin: I am sorry to be difficult
on this one. What you are saying is it is weather dependent, and
your initial premise was that something should be compulsory rather
than voluntary. If it is weather dependent it does not matter
whether it is voluntary or compulsory. Make your mind up.
Mr Riley: My premise before was
if you are going to train, it should not be voluntary but regulatory.
In the case of IPU, I think there is a very good case for saying
that the only way to deal with the problem is to selectively ban
it from sensitive catchments because you cannot stop it.
Q128 Mr Drew: Is an alternative to the
Voluntary Initiative the idea of a statutory code and that in
itself would remove the argument that a pesticide tax is the appropriate
way forward? Can I be clear what PAN's and FoE's position is on
these different positions given that you do not accept the Voluntary
Initiative is working?
Dr Butler Ellis: From PAN's point
of view, we would like some elements of the Voluntary Initiative
to become mandatory, such as the sprayer testing, sprayer operator
training and so on. That should be taken away from the Voluntary
Initiative. Because we feel very strongly that we need a pesticide
reduction strategy, to a certain extent that is going to have
to be by changing the behaviour of farmers, and some voluntary
programme to do that may still be appropriate. I believe the Voluntary
Initiative can be extended to cover just that. Evidence suggests
that the alternative of applying a pesticide tax, just to try
and change behaviour, would not do that very convincingly unless
you put on such high levels of tax that you risk damaging British
agriculture. As part of a complete package we would say a tax
has its place in order to raise money to fund the necessary changes
in behaviour, the advice which farmers need, the alternatives
that need developing, and so on. A lot of that might have to be
done through something equivalent to the Voluntary Initiative
or an extended Voluntary Initiative or whatever.
Q129 Mr Drew: What is FoE's point of
view?
Ms Diamond: What we would like
to see is a package of measures, as part of a Pesticide Reduction
Strategy, including a tax. I think simply replacing the VI with
some statutory measures, which are essentially the same, does
not go nearly far enough. That has been our concern with this,
that it addresses a very small aspect of the problem. You really
do need this much wider package, including a tax and an advisory
service, which gives farmers independent advice about how they
can reduce use. It needs to go beyond what the Voluntary Initiative
provides.
Q130 Mr Drew: Have you given up on the
Voluntary Initiative, because there has been some criticism that
you are not attending the Steering Group meetings? Is that a fair
criticism and really this is because you see it as a waste of
your time?
Ms Diamond: Part of the reason
why we have not attended some of the meetings simply has been
capacity, but I do not think that we feel any more that it is
doing the job which it ostensibly sets out to do at all. In that
sense we do not see it as something which can be used in the future.
This is why we want to see this wider package including monetary
measures and fiscal measures in order to address the problem of
pesticide use.
Q131 Mr Drew: To be absolutely clear,
you do not see any opportunity to renegotiate the Voluntary Initiative
even though there are some apparent benefits in terms of farmer
co-operation and certainly better sprayer techniques?
Dr Butler Ellis: I think there
is scope for renegotiating the VI and taking it beyond 2006, but
it has to think much wider and much bigger and not focus solely
on arable farming, there are a lot of other pesticide users out
there who are not being targeted.
Q132 Mr Drew: Is that a problem? Here
we are talking about farmers as though they are the only ones
who use pesticides, gardeners use pesticides, why are they not
subject to the same?
Dr Butler Ellis: Exactly. Things
like spray operator training and sprayer testing should be mandatory
for all pesticide users, not just farmers. That is one way of
getting to the difficult people. Yes, I think the VI has to be
broadened more than just farming and much broader than just tackling
the way pesticides are used rather than how much is used and which
pesticides are used.
Ms Diamond: I think Friends of
the Earth's position is we do not see that there has been any
real historical benefit from voluntary approaches to environmental
issues. There are many cases, including pesticides previously,
before they were regulated, where voluntary approaches have not
worked efficiently and that is why we want to see regulation and
fiscal measures as well.
Q133 Mr Wiggin: My understanding is 75%
of all arable land comes under the Voluntary Initiative, is that
your understanding?
Mr Riley: No, not yet. I do not
think 75% is right.
Q134 Mr Wiggin: You do not think it is
as high as that?
Mr Riley: No, I do not think so,
I think it is well short of that.
Chairman: That is what we have been told.
Q135 Mr Wiggin: You have been able to
answer the question but let us assume that is the case, the Government—I
am not in any way a fan or supporter—has plenty of pieces
of legislation it would like to put through. If that is where
we have got to already with the Voluntary Initiative, do you not
think you are being incredibly negative by knocking it? Surely
you should be pushing for the other 25% that is missing? Dr Ellis,
I think you were making that point and I think you are right.
Dr Butler Ellis: They have tackled
the easiest bit of the problem. I do not know exactly what the
numbers are but they do say it is the 80/20 rule, is it not, 20%
of farmers probably farm 80% of the land and 80% of the farmers
probably are responsible for the other 20%. How are you going
to get that other bunch of people? As far as I am aware the Voluntary
Initiative currently has no strategy for doing that, therefore
making it mandatory would take the responsibility away from them.
I think it is a difficult job, I am not knocking or getting at
them.
Q136 Mr Wiggin: The 80/20 rule is the
same as speeding. That is pretty compulsory, there are cameras
and all the rest of it, and that does not work either. If it did,
that would be super, but it does not. Unfortunately legislation
does not necessarily deliver the results you want.
Mr Riley: There is a difference
between putting forward a crop management plan and seeing tangible
benefits in the environment. What I am saying is if you look at
the catchment projects, where they put an awful lot of effort
in and potentially a high expenditure per farmer, they are not
delivering anything in terms of reduction in the amount of herbicide
getting into the watercourses. As I said, that is because of the
nature of the products they are dealing with. You have to deal
with that in a different way completely which is to legislate
against the use of that product in a sensitive catchment where
public water supply is being abstracted.
Chairman: Clearly there is a dispute
here, we are being told there are reductions. We will be seeing
the Environment Agency later today and we can question them, but
clearly there is a complete divergence of view as to how successful
this Voluntary Initiative has been in terms of reducing the amounts
of pesticides in the catchments which have been tested. There
has been a clear acknowledgement that they have been working with
the biggest farmers, with the greatest acreage, therefore we can
all agree the easiest ones are the ones which are being tackled.
Q137 Paddy Tipping: I just want to talk
about water pollution, Mr Riley, since you have already talked
to us about this, in that the whole exercise is dependent very
much on weather conditions.
Mr Riley: Yes. I have done an
analysis of four of the catchments in terms of winter rainfall
of the two years prior to the VI starting and two years during
the VI. Actually finding dry periods during the winter where you
could actually say that that is safe to spray is very, very difficult.
Most dry periods are less than three days in duration and that
will be the bare minimum to try to prevent certain herbicides
washing into rivers. So it does require a very good weather forecasting
service, but also for farmers to be mindful of that because if
you have a field of winter cereals which has weeds in it and the
ground suddenly becomes dry enough to go and spray herbicides
on it, you will take the opportunity to get on that ground because
it might be the only opportunity you get that winter. The consequence
of that is that you have sprayed and you do not know if it is
going to be absolutely bucketing down with rain in two days, and
if it is bucketing down the evidence we have from the Cherwell
catchment is that IPU will find its way into the river very, very
rapidly indeed.
Paddy Tipping: This is all about good
management practice, is it not?
Mr Wiggin: And weather forecasts.
Q138 Paddy Tipping: Absolutely. I think
that is part of it.
Mr Riley: What I am saying is
that it is extremely difficult. The weather forecasters in the
Met Office will not predict the weather five days ahead, and for
good reason because the weather is extremely unpredictable. The
weather patterns in two of the catchments I looked at, they had
almost the same rainfall but the average length of dry spell during
the winter period is quite different. So it is down to each catchment,
almost, what the weather is going to be doing in that catchment
if you are going to give farmers the sort of advice they need
on when then can spray safely, and it will depend on the soil
as well because some soils will be able to absorb rainfall much
more and therefore the drains will not start running quite so
quickly. Therefore, the advice will have to be tailored very much
to the farm level if you are going to prevent these very soluble
herbicides finding their way into rivers, and the evidence we
have before us from the catchments at the moment is that that
has not worked. I think in the Leam catchment there was a claim
that there were reductions in one year, and the reason there was
a reduction in that year was that the ground was simply too wet
for any farmer to get on the ground and spray, so no products
were actually sprayed.
Q139 Paddy Tipping: Given the vagaries
of the weather, it does not matter if it is a voluntary or mandatory
system then?
Mr Riley: That is what I am saying.
If you are going to deal with this particular problem of water
pollution by herbicides you have to tackle it and say, is this
product going to be a running sore for the water companies forever
because of its physical properties, ie solubility? And for a whole
group of herbicides, if it rains soon after it has been applied
they will wash out and leach and end up in rivers. It is a consequence
of their properties and you cannot avoid that. So you have to
deal with that either by banning them selectively or banning them
altogether.
1 Ev 45 Back
| 
