Examination of Witness (Questions 260-279)
21 FEBRUARY 2004
PROFESSOR BARRY
DENT
Q260 Paddy Tipping: Are all the water
companies co-operative? Do they use the same data? Is it consistent
across the field?
Professor Dent: I am not able
to answer that directly because we have not worked with all the
water companies, but the water companies that we have worked with
we have had good co-operation with and I think there would be
opportunities for that kind of collaboration, but I have not explored
it at this point in time.
Q261 Paddy Tipping: Finally, Newcastle
University have been commissioned to do some work around environmental
indicators, what is the work that they have been commissioned
to do? What are you looking for from it?
Professor Dent: When it was commissioned
it seemed to be a project that was to assess the effectiveness
of the VI. You know the history behind all this, it was a project
that was set-up and I did not know anything about it and was not
brought into the debate. I found out from colleagues and obviously
I was a bit cross when it happened.
Q262 Paddy Tipping: Just expand this
a bit more. Defra have commissioned this research, have they,
without any consultation with you?
Professor Dent: Yes. It was an
unsatisfactory thing. I think it is well appreciated within Defra
now and certainly I found it difficult to manage at the time but,
however, we did bring the team into the steering group and asked
them to give us a pitch on what they were doing. To be honest,
I have not actually seen any of the results since that time, so
I do not know how well the project has gone. I think the steering
group felt at the time they reported that it was not going all
that well, the team was relatively inexperienced.
Q263 Paddy Tipping: Just help me a bit
more on this. This sounds incredibly naíve. Why would Defra
commission some research into a VI without talking to the people
involved in the VI?
Professor Dent: I think at that
time and before there was not very much co-ordination between
Defra and the VI and there were instances of the VI not being
mentioned in pesticide publications by Defra, for example, when
we were in full flight doing things. At that time the relationship
was not too good. I hasten to say it is very much better now.
Q264 Mr Wiggin: I am glad to hear the
relationship is a great deal better but I do not know why the
targets for the Voluntary Initiative were not ever agreed with
Defra. Why not?
Professor Dent: May I explain
the nature of the water quality targets which are slightly complicated.
They relate to the European Drinking Standard quality of one parts
per 10 billion. Every time there is an exceedence over this level
picked up in the Environment Agency data, that represents a bad
mark. The number of exceedences which were to take place was to
reduce by 30% by the end of the VI. That is the nature of the
thing. I do not know where this 30% came from, it is a figure
and it is a complete mystery how it applied. I think it came from
a study which was done for Defra by some consultants who were
looking at the possibility and the impact of a tax when they were
saying something like if a tax of about 40% was applied to all
pesticides then we might get a 30% reduction in exceedences of
the key chemicals I have spoken about. I have never been too happy
about taking that on. I really do not know whether 30% is an important,
significant reduction or not; it may be or it may not be. Clearly
successive ministers have felt that it was not challenging enough
but I have resisted changing it until recently. Since Christmas,
the Steering Group have sent a new set of data to the minister
in which we have accepted that a 30% reduction in exceedences
will be the minimum that we would hope to achieve and in a conditional
sense, if certain things are in place, we would hope to get nearer
to a 50% reduction. In a way, I feel that has been squeezed out
of the Steering Group and I have not been too keen to move in
that direction for the reason I have mentioned, that we have been
uncertain about how that figure was ever established.
Q265 Mr Wiggin: I am sorry, I am a little
perplexed by this. You have changed some of your targets, and
I am going to ask you how many in a moment, but I do not understand
why because you have not been supported by Defra, you have got
council amenities, which mean councils spraying outside the VI
of essentially one of the nine chemicals at least that you are
targeted to reduce. It looks like you are just being kicked around
a bit here. It does not sound like it is as serious as it should
be and I do not understand.
Professor Dent: Certainly I got
that feeling when we started. As I say, I felt very much a cold
shoulder at the beginning. The impression I got was that the Minister
at the time wanted to test whether the VI would function and was
less concerned about the overall impact on the environmental parameters.
Q266 Mr Wiggin: Do you think that is
just because they want to bring in a tax?
Professor Dent: At the time I
did, yes, but I think now the situation is different.
Q267 Mr Wiggin: So how many of your targets
have been revised?
Professor Dent: We have moved
a few. As I say, we have moved the water pollution target upwards,
which I think is a measure of the success of the VI.
Q268 Mr Wiggin: If you achieve it, I
would definitely agree. Do you think you will? I hope so.
Professor Dent: By March 2004,
which was our last accounting period, we had met every single
indicator target that we had set up and I felt really very confident
at that time. Equally that applies for water quality as it does
for some of what we call change of behaviour targets. I think
that is worth saying. At the last accounting point we had met
every target that we were required to. The targets were not agreed
in a formal sort of sense where we sat round a table and worked
out an agreed position. What we did say is "This is where
we are and we have modified some of the targets a little bit because
we have more information". For example, one of the things
that is now becoming important is that in this change in agriculture,
the number of farms have got smaller, the equipment has got bigger
and there is less equipment, so we set ourselves a target for
March 2005 of 10,000 tested spraying machines. We felt that because
of the information we had, and it looks as if there is about 20%
less in the way of total machines in the field, it was much better
to talk about the area covered by spraying machinery and we would
attempt to cover 50% of the area by this March.[1]
It was that sort of modification that we were concerned with rather
than trying to make the target softer. If anything, we are trying
to make the targets a little bit harder.
Q269 Mr Wiggin: Perhaps some written
evidence might be helpful on which ones you have moved. Certainly
the critics will pick on that and it sounds to me as though you
have given ground but you are actually trying to deliver a more
effective reduction in the nine target chemicals.
Professor Dent: Exactly.
Q270 Mr Wiggin: What worries me is that
if you are not successful then a number of farmers could be affected
by the actions of the county councils.
Professor Dent: I take that point
entirely.
Q271 Mr Wiggin: What proportion of farmers
are involved in the Voluntary Initiative and how do you bring
in the ones that are not?
Professor Dent: Farmers are involved
in different ways. One of the things I want to leave with you
is how successful the VI has been in meeting the targets which
relate to the way in which farmers change what they do. I think
that we have now got the broadest based change for the better
in the environment ever within the UK. It has been a big change
with thousands of farmers involved and they are involved in various
ways. They are involved in terms of the professional register
for sprayer operators and that is locked into the framework, the
infrastructure of agriculture, now because it is part of the food
assurance operation. Now we have in principle exactly the same
agreement with assurance companies for the sprayer testing scheme.
So we have two major planks of behavioural change firmly locked
into the farming environment, the infrastructure. Then we have
Crop Protection Management Plans as part of the entry level scheme.
We have major improvements in the training programmes for agronomists.
Professional agronomists need to be on the professional register
too and to do that they need to go through a programme which has
now been revamped to be very strongly environmental and there
is a new programme called the Beta Programme which is optional
but a lot of agronomists are on it. What I really want to say
is that with those schemes that I have mentioned, and others,
we have created a new infrastructure around crop production and
horticulture within the UK and that is there, it is firm, it is
locked in, it cannot be changed in the foreseeable future. We
have got a cultural change completely locked in and in that sort
of situation I cannot see why anybody would still worry about
a tax. A tax cannot achieve any more than that and, in fact, it
could do more damage than good in that sort of situation.
Chairman: We are going to come to the
question of a tax in a moment.
Q272 Mr Wiggin: Can I just finish on
this because the final part of my question is how much advantage
would be gained from underpinning the measures contained in the
Voluntary Initiative with, on the one hand, legislation or, on
the other, a stricter code of practice? How do you draw in the
non-farming sectors who are not particularly tax sensitive anyway?
Professor Dent: In relation to
the non-farming sectors, I think that has got to have ministerial
input.
Q273 Mr Wiggin: Legislation?
Professor Dent: One way or another
I think it has to have; I do not think we can deal with it in
any other way. It is important. Sorry, I missed the first part.
Q274 Mr Wiggin: The other thing is if
you are going to have ministerial intervention to get the amenity
sector in, what are you going to do about the farming sector when
the Voluntary Initiative finishes? Should it be legislative or
should it be a stricter code of practice? It sounds as if you
are going to legislate for amenities, you might as well legislate
for the whole thing.
Professor Dent: I do not think
that is desirable. As I have said, we have changed the infrastructure
in which farming operates now for the better from an environmental
perspective. I do not think we need to think further about that.
Again I hope we do not need to think about a finish of the VI
absolutely in March 2006. I would like to see a strong future
role for something like the VI with a different remit, which would
be to monitor existing projects and to bring on new projects and
so on. I think parts of the amenity sector are really different
but there are strong reasons to believe that what we have achieved
within VI will stick.
Q275 Chairman: I just want to tackle
that issue of what you have achieved in the VI because I think
you have given us a very clear view of how processes have been
changed, how the sprayer operators have the machinery, farm management
plans, all of those things, and you say they are embedded and
all the rest of it, all of which is highly commendable, but I
think we, as a Committee, are really concerned to know whether,
as you have suggested, it was better for the environment because
I do not think we have found the evidence at all convincing that
the environment has shown significant change that can be attributed
to the VI.
Professor Dent: Chairman, I do
not think that it will either. It is not something that is as
black and white as that. I could say to you that the most sensitive
parameter we have got as far as the environmental improvement
is concerned is improvement in water quality and I could say to
you that we have achieved a 23% improvement in reduction in exceedences
at the last recording stage which sets us in very good stead for
meeting the final target. I do not want you to think that is a
solid achievement because, as you well know, other factors have
been involved. How much they have been involved, I cannot really
respond to that because I do know. What I do know is that within
the catchment projects, which also have had difficulties since
we last recorded things, we have also shown a very major reduction
in exceedences measured in a very thorough way by water quality
data. There are still problems popping up there but we think we
have got a very much better chance now looking at the catchments
in a way that is very focused to try to get a better input/output
relationship, a cause/effect relationship. I could point to an
overall England and Wales situation where we have had a 23% reduction
in exceedences, where we have had a 50% reduction in exceedences
in catchments, but I feel if I did that I would not be giving
you a straight answer and I cannot in all conscience do that.
There are some improvements that have taken place which have been
recorded and I think are illustrative of the difficulties. With
other environmental parameters we have talked about biodiversity.
On the whole, biodiversity is measured by population changes.
Q276 Chairman: I think we will accept
that is something else and we have not taken a great deal of evidence
on that. Just on the water issue, when we were questioning the
NFU in one of the catchments, I think it might have been the Leam
catchment, there were around 600 farmers participating in that
programme but you would have to roll it out to about 60,000 farmers,
I understand, if you were to get that intensity of working that
is surrounding the projects which might conceivably be ones where
one could relate the practice that is being undertaken by the
VI and the results that are being given in terms of improvement
in water quality.
Professor Dent: There are many
catchments in the country for which there are no problems at all,
the problems do not exist, but there are catchments where there
are severe or average problems. Our learning in each catchment
is different, the problems and issues in each catchment are different:
soil type, type of farming and all those kinds of things. We need
to learn general principles. We are very much aware of Defra's
responsibility in the Water Framework Directive to look at catchment
sensitive farming. We think that we are learning lessons here.
We have certainly set up some tools in this catchment programme
and we have done some research in this programme which we believe
will be of generic value to catchment sensitive management for
the future. I think that is where we are at this point in time.
We do know that we can make a difference but we have not had a
big sample of input on that. It is costly research and it is costly
effort because you are working really quite closely with quite
a number of farmers.
Q277 Paddy Tipping: You mentioned taxation
earlier on and I think you were advocating the threat of the tax
being taken away now. Initially it was a driver that brought the
VI in and now you think it is counterproductive.
Professor Dent: I was really very
disappointed by the way in which the draft National Pesticide
Strategy while being inclusive of the VI, and I was very pleased
to read that, at the same time maintained the words that the threat
of a pesticide tax should apply. I feel that there is now no need
for that. As I have said to you, we have got embedded in the infrastructure
of farming a set of procedures which are locked in by the assurance
companies and locked in by policy through the entry level scheme,
and locked in by the professional background of agronomists and
farmers themselves, and it is better than anything that we could
achieve with a tax. I know that countries within Europe have experimented
or have already got a tax and we do not know what the overall
impact of that tax has been, I know it has not been all that terrific.
In France, of course, it has been nothing because they have set
the pesticide tax at a zero rate, which is very French I guess.[2]
We have a situation where a tax is a totally unknown quantity
for us at this point in time. I have read that hypothecated tax
would provide for training and would provide for advice. That
may or may not be the case, hypothecated taxes are difficult things
to manage in government, I imagine.
Q278 Paddy Tipping: How is the threat
of a tax affecting farmers' behaviour?
Professor Dent: If you are with
me on that, I am a total believer and it is part of my philosophy
that the polluter pays. I very strongly adhere to that principle.
The flipside of that is that the non-polluter does not pay. When
you are dealing with a diffuse pollution like pesticides and nutrients,
as you will be doing in the future, it seems to me to be highly
inequitable, unfair, that everybody should pay for the errors
or the lack of ability of the few. I am very much against tax
on this inequitable nature and its untried functioning. What we
have done is to replace anything that a tax would do in, I guess,
a British kind of way which says let us do it our way, let the
industry make the pace, let them fit a voluntary framework into
place which is embedded, as I say, which will control the way
farmers function in the future and anyone who needs to sell through
an assurance scheme will need to adhere to the protocols of the
assurance companies and that will be for professional register
membership and proper testing of machines, an MOT, if you like,
for machines.
Q279 Chairman: I wonder how it is possible
to produce enough money to work, as I said earlier, as intensively
as the VI has worked with the small numbers of farmers in the
catchment areas, if it is necessary to do some of that work to
really drive down pesticide pollution. Where will the money come
from to do the work that is required and to take in the other
sectors which you have acknowledged yourself are not even involved
at the moment?
Professor Dent: As you know, the
catchment work is going to be expanded. We are going to double
the number of catchments that we are going to be working in and
we will be looking at better tools to get better information to
farmers. I would like to see the future VI in one of its roles
acting as a kind of information centre whereby those who are dealing
with catchments, other than the ones that have been part of our
study, will look for information, will go for guidance about how
they might advise farmers in those areas. I do not think that
we can be all things to all farmers. What we have to do with this
kind of study is be generic in nature and use that generic information
because we have been carefully selecting catchments to conform
to one characteristic or another and we will have built up a lot
of information by the time we get to the end of the VI about catchments
and we will be able to use that and extend this information through
the professional agronomists who are advising farmers so that
they will understand some of the issues and be able to apply both
the information and the tools to make it happen on a wider scale.
1 Note by Witness: It is the intention to leave
the target of having 10,000 machines tested by March 2005 for
the moment, but clearly if the number of sprayers in the country
has fallen by 20% since the VI was started, we can not expect
this target to be met. Nor, of course, is it so relevant now. Back
2
Correction by Witness: France have set a banded pesticide
tax with an average tax of 1.2%. Back
| 
