Commission backs down on greening agriculture

The European Commission has thrown in the towel on plans to cut climate change emissions in agriculture: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-commission-backtracks-on-agricultural-emissions-cuts/

The recent farmer protests across Europe have undoubtedly been a factor, but there has also been concern about far right gains in the upcoming European Parliament elections which could undermine the European project as a whole.  The desire of Urusla von Ley en to secure a second term as Commission president is also part of the context: https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/speech-president-von-der-leyen-european-parliament-plenary-conclusions-european-council-meetings-2024-02-06_en.

Reducing climate change emissions in agriculture are not an optional extra.   In France, for example, they account for 12 per cent of emissions, far exceeding the contribution of agriculture to GDP or employment. Unfortunately, governments in general have a tendency to back away from effective measures of climate change once they threaten current lifestyles or working patterns.   This is in spite of increasing evidence of  a climate emergency.

Apparently the intention is to have a policy that covers the food sector as a whole which is not without merit but undermined if other measures are dropped.   The Greens are calling for a windfall tax on the profits of agri-food companies.

The plan to halve pesticide use by 2030 is to be dropped.   This is, of course, not directly related to climate change.  It would have an impact on production.   Biological alternatives to synthetics are being developed and are increasing market share, but there are not enough of them and they are not suitable for all crops. This policy might also have been onerous for farmers in terms of form filling.'  According to von Leyen, the pesticides measure has become a symbol of polarization.   Shares in Bayer, the EU's biggest pesticides producer, rose by 2 per cent.

Animal welfare rules are set to be watered down and unpopular (and largely ineffective) set aside requirements abandoned.

Pessimism about pesticides regulation not justified

With the European Parliament scheduled to vote on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation in November, this open access article by JRC scientists sets out why fears of negative impacts on production are overblown: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00834-6

Recent studies have estimated the potential yield impacts of pesticide reductions in the European Union. While these estimates guide policy design, they are often based on worst-case assumptions and rarely account for positive ecological feedbacks that would contribute to sustainable crop yields in the long term.

'Protecting crop yields is critical to safeguarding food and feed security. Studies on the potential yield impacts of a reduction in pesticide use and risk in the EU estimated adverse effects. As shown here, the literature suggests that these estimates are upper bounds for several reasons that must be acknowledged in research on the impacts of a pesticide reduction: the full 50% reduction does not fall onto feed and food crops; the heterogeneity in pesticide use across farms, areas and crops can be exploited in reduction plans; risk-based indices allow for progress by substituting active substances; the expansion of the area under organic farming may deliver progress; the SUR facilitates agronomic and technological alternatives to pesticides; and ecosystem services supporting sustainable crop yields will benefit from lower pesticide use. Finally, the SUR improves the availability of data on pesticide use and, in doing so, addresses a bottleneck in research and policy-making concerning more sustainable food systems.'

Pesticide pause?

The EU is considering delaying plans to halve the use of pesticides over fears that the move could cut production and raise food prices at a time when they are under pressure from the conflict in Ukraine.

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides regulation intends to halve chemicals use by 2030.  This was always an ambitious project, given the lack of progress in getting biological alternatives developed, registered and on the market - and training farmers in their use.

EU farm lobby Copa-Cogeca is pushing for a range of green initiatives to be delayed or abandoned.

The current Czech presidency does not expect to find a compromise by the end of the year and there is some unease in the European Parliament about the proposal. 

Pesticide rules could be weakened after Brexit

Concern has been expressed about the way in which EU pesticide rules are being translated into UK law by the University of Sussex Trade Policy Observatory: Not just a technical exercise

The commentary notes, "These changes to pesticide regulation in the UK can hardly be characterised as ‘technical’; they will weaken the rigour of the process by which pesticides are approved and monitored in the UK."

The EU could, of course, prohibit the import of crops from the UK produced with pesticides of which it did not approve.

Pesticides policy after Brexit

The Food Research Collaboration has produced a briefing paper on pesticides policy after Brexit: Pesticides at a crossroads

It is noted, 'With Brexit looming, there is an opportunity for the UK to reshape its relationship with pesticides. It could choose to mirror or even surpass the standards of EU pesticide rules. On the other hand, it could bow to the pro-pesticide lobby and use Brexit as an opportunity to deregulate. This would allow a greater variety and larger quantity of harmful pesticides to be used, thereby putting the environment and the public’s health at risk.'

Among the recommendations are that the UK should maintain the EU’s hazard-based approach (rather than revert to a risk-based approach) to pesticide regulation and introduce a clear, quantitative target for reducing the overall use of pesticides in agriculture. A new government body should be created to support Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. A pesticide tax should be introduced to drive reductions in pesticide use and fund research, development and innovation.

Farmers are, of course, concerned about the removal of active substances they see as essential to plant protection.

NGOs seek full ban on neonics

Please note that the following is a press release from Pesticides Action Network Europe:

'The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published today [28 February] 3 reports on the new scientific findings on the toxicity of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin (neonicotinoids) to bees. The Authority highlights that most studies show that neonicotinoids have a negative impact on bees’ health, from damaging their orientation capacity to impairing their reproductive ability. On 24 March, the European Member States will have the possibility to vote for a ban on neonicotinoids; hopefully these reports will contribute to a total ban.

In the frame of the restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids in 2013, the European Commission committed to initiate a review of the ban within 2 years. The EFSA was given a mandate to collect all available scientific evidence on the toxicity of neonicotinoids on bees. The data were then analyzed by the Authority and today, it has published an opinion on imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin.

The Authority concludes that the majority of the studies show a negative impact to honey bees, bumble bees or wild bees. Furthermore, the Authority points at the high level of contamination of the environment as the majority of the studies could not be included in the opinions as their controls were contaminated with neonics.

Based on a November 2016 report from the EFSA, the European Commission has made a proposal to Member States to ban neonicotinoids except for glasshouses. The report at the time indicated that, based on new industry data, there was no safe use of the 3 substances. The proposal was nevertheless not put to a vote in the Standing Committee on phytopharmaceuticals as several Member States asked to wait for the publication of today’s report.

Martin Dermine, PAN Europe’s pollinators expert said: "In 2013, there was enough evidence to totally ban neonicotinoids. In the meantime, an impressive amount of additional evidence has been piling up over the last years and the EFSA reports are a small glimpse of such evidence as the EFSA limited its study to bees and to the evidence available until June 2016. EU pollinators are facing a dramatic decline and neonics have now clearly been shown to be one of the major causes. Member States have no choice but to ban neonicotinoids".

As a member of the Save The Bees Coalition, PAN Europe will be advocating, together with nearly 100 NGOs across Europe, to finally obtain a full ban on neonicotinoids.'

I do not have any reaction from farm organisations at present.

Glyphosate gets a reprieve

The controversial herbicide glyphosate which is used by Monsanto in its Roundup products has been given a reprieve. It has been the subject of a battle between agrochemical and farming interests and environmentalists. However, the EU has given it a five year licence after Germany changed its position.

German environment minister the SDP's Barbara Hendricks has been against renewal of the licence while Christian Schmidt, the conservative agriculture minister has been in favour. Schmidt decided to change the vote from abstain to in favour, Hendricks accusing him of acting behind her back.

Up to now the Christian Democrats have been constrained by their 'Jamaica' coalition negotiations with the Greens, who are against the herbicide, but these have now broken down.

After Germany changed its vote, and following some tweaking to the wording of the licence, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland followed suit and switched their vote from abstain, allowing the EU committee for plants, animals, feed and food to give its approval for another five years by qualified majority vote.

Despite their apparent victory, farming organisations are concerned that renewal was only for five years rather than the 15 years they think was justified.

Future of key pesticide in doubt

The future of glyphosate, a key ingredient in pesticides, is in doubt in the EU. Arable farmers say they cannot do without it if they are to farm successfully, but environmental lobbies such as Pestcides Action Network Europe (PAN) have been working hard on the issue: Weedkiller decision

A standard ten year renewal no longer seems achievable, but it may be possible to get agreement on a three year phasing out period. However, Angela Merkel's need to involve the Greens in a German coalition government is a complicating factor. In any event, its future seems in doubt and the search for alternatives will need to begin. The scientific evidence is contested, but the politics are leading the way with President Macron favouring its withdrawal.

PAN's statement can be found here: Policy recommendations

The perspective of the National Farmers Union can be found here: Questions and answers

What form of pesticide regulation after Brexit?

This is one of the many complexities to be faced after Brexit and fortunately the ADHB has produced an excellent guide to the subject authored by Sarah Barker and John Knight: Horizon study

After the referendum, I heard that some arable farmers had voted for Brexít because of restrictive pesticide regulations. However, this study concludes: 'The regulatory burden might not be reduced as much as farmers hope and in any event would probably take a number of years to achieve. It is also likely that environmental, consumer and public health lobbies will continue to be influential and to exert pressure for more stringent regulation'.

The report sets out four options. Aligning with the EU would be relatively straightforward, provided it was accepted by the EU. The precautionary principle would continue, but the UK would have no influence over the approval process which might become more restrictive with the remaining EU members.

Aligning with the US has found favour in some quarters because of the use of a risk-based approach there. More actives and products would become available to the UK industry and more biologicals would be available [the US has been particularly innovative in this area]. However, there might be a pressure group reaction to a more permissive regime and climatic differences may mean that US actives are less suitable for use in the UK, particularly for niche crops.

Adopting OECD standards, which use a risk-based approach, might work in the future but there are major challenges in obtaining efficient collaboration between multiple governments.

The UK could have its own policy which would give it full control of the approvals process. It could adopt a low-risk approach and it might be possible to speed up the approval of biopesticides. However, the registration and use of pesticides would have to be acceptable to trading partners. The UK may be seen as too small a market for companies to go to the expense of registering products for approval, leading to fewer actives being available.

In other words, there is no ideal solution, although a UK policy might be seen as politically compatible with hard Brexit.

What I told farmers at the GYS

With Meurig Raymond at the Great Yorkshire Show

Here is the text of my address at the NFU breakfast meeting.

Harold Wilson used to say a week in politics was a long time. We have recently learnt than an hour in politics is a long time. Fortunately, we are now entering a period of greater stability as far as the Government is concerned. We have to wait to see who will be Defra secretary. I would expect Theresa May to approach the start of the Article 50 negotiations with some caution. Little preparatory work was undertaken by government, or at least little that was committed to paper. I think that our YAS report is actually quite helpful in terms of highlighting the issues that need to be considered.

Brussels is on holiday in August. Of course, too long a delay could lead to Article 7 being triggered. This invokes sanctions against an EU member for ‘failing to uphold the values on which the Union is based.’ However, I do not think that would be a very likely scenario.

How long the negotiations will take is a matter for speculation. They have to be completed in two years, but could be completed in less. France has a presidential election in April and May 2017, where the outcome is uncertain, and Germany has a federal election in September 2017. France is trying to carve out a leading role for itself in the negotiations and has set up its own task force led by their secretary-general for European affairs.

A few words about the negotiation process. The role of the European Council in the negotiations is to set the guidelines and key conditions while Commission staff will make concrete recommendations. The Council task force on the UK is headed by Belgian diplomat Didier Seeuws. There was some feeling in the Commission that he had been appointed too early. President Juncker’s chief of staff Martin Selymar is expected to be the Commission’s lead, at least unofficially.

The European Parliament won’t be directly involved in the negotiations, but will try to make itself felt before it carries out its official role, ratifying the final agreement. The Commission is likely to issue progress reports on the talks and the Parliament will vote on non-binding resolutions on them. One of our objectives with our report was to try and get greater attention given to agriculture and the food chain in the referendum debate. We were not very successful and I am concerned that this will happen again in the Article 50 negotiations.

The work of the YAS working party will continue and will have two main tasks:

• 1. Monitoring the negotiations in terms of their impact on agriculture
• 2. Contributing to the debate on a new domestic agricultural policy. That will be a policy for England as agriculture is a devolved matter. Up to now the constraints of the CAP have limited the scope for policy divergence. In future I would expect Scotland and Northern Ireland to spend more on agriculture and the rural economy, although budget constraints limit the scope of such divergence. I am less certain about Wales.

I have been asked to be positive today and I will try to be so, but it has to be recognised that farmers face political challenges and no longer have the support of farmers elsewhere in Europe. ‘Time to cut our greedy farmers down to size’ says this article in last Saturday’s Times. It is a very ill informed article and I have criticised it in my blog. The only good point in it is when it says that the NFU is a well organised lobby. But we can expect more of this sort of thing.

Before looking at various areas of policy, I want to say something about sterling. A falling rate against the dollar and the euro brings many advantages to farmers, but also some downsides. Exports become more competitive and the value of EU subsidies rises, but the cost of inputs such as fertilisers and soya increases. Fuel prices also increase, which is why the future of red diesel is something that needs to be watched.

The future of subsidies is clearly a matter for concern as for many enterprises they make the difference between running at a profit and a loss. Pillar 2 subsidies are in many cases protected by contracts that run beyond 2020, but we were also confident in our report that there was a strong domestic coalition of support for the continuation of agri-environmental subsidies, but hopefully putting right some of the failings in the existing scheme. There needs to be some discussion about whether subsidies should move up the hill to livestock farms.

We were much less confident about Pillar 1 or basic payment subsidies. We didn’t think they would be abolished, but we did think they would be a target for the Treasury. It has to be recognised that falls in tax revenue, some of which may be longer term, will put public expenditure under greater pressure, even though the budget surplus target has been rightly abandoned.

Inertia would suggest that a modified form of the basic payment would be used, hopefully with fewer form filling complexities and payments being made to farmers on time. I am clear that there will be no return to the deficiency payments that were used in the past because it is difficult to forecast how much they will cost in any one year.

The justification for general subsidies (or support payements) needs to be articulated. In my view the strongest argument is the need to maintain a level playing field with farmers elsewhere in Europe that will continue to receive CAP subsidies. There are also food security arguments given that our ability to grow temperate foodstuffs has declined over time. One also needs to consider environmental protection and the maintenance of the appearance of the countryside.

As far as regulation is concerned, hopefully we will see the back of the monoculture regulations that interfered in farm decision-making without making any contribution to environmental objectives. I think that it should be possible to eventually get rid of the Nitrates Directive in its present form and some aspects of the Water Framework Directive.

It does need to be recognised, however, that there is a strong coalition of domestic lobbies - environmental, conservation, animal welfare, consumer, public health – that often do not have a good understanding of the challenges that face farmers.

Take the case of badgers and bovine TB which I have written about a lot, indeed I am giving a presentation at the vet school at Surrey University next week. In forty years of working on agricultural policy, I have never encountered such an intractable policy problem in which emotion often trumps the evidence.

Plant protection legislation has not worked well in the EU. The internal market is not complete. Many of the national agencies suffer from very serious problems. There is too great a willingness to accept hypotheses about risk which are not evidence based. However, the UK Government is not necessarily sympathetic, as has been shown by the recent decision to reject a revised application to use neonics this autumn. It won’t be too easy to operate a pesticides regime in the UK that is at odds with that in the EU.

Trade agreements between the EU third countries or groups of countries, of which there are over fifty, provide one of the greatest challenges, although my guess would be that probably only fifteen of these are really important for agriculture. Trade negotiations are very complex and we lack enough experienced trade diplomats, although I believe that the Government is thinking of hiring them in from private firms, which will not be cheap.

There is a major issue about migrant labour which is particularly important in terms of planting and harvesting field vegetables and fruit. I don’t have time to go into this in detail, but in my view the way forward is through a revised version of the SAWS scheme that extends to specific countries beyond the EU. As far as the border with Ireland is concerned, I think that the most likely solution is to move it back to England.

The NFU is undertaking a major consultation with its members, probably one of the biggest it has ever undertaken. I await the results of that with interest, but in the meantime the work of our working party will continue.

Sources close to the NFU suggested to me later in the day that the biggest challenge would be managing the expectations of farmers.

'We are not sleeping on the job!'

That was the assertion of Ladislav Miko, Deputy Director General for the Food Chain in DG Sanco, at a symposium at the European Parliament yesterday on feeding Europe with less pesticides. The event was organised by Greenpeace, the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, Pesticides Action Network Europe and other organisations.

He insisted that progress in the approval of low risk substances was dependent on progress in the member states. It was also constrained by the legislation and the capacity available to DG Sanco. This capacity was not increasing.

Miko was optimistic in the sense that he felt some difference in practices was observable in the field. However, a report on the implementation of the Sustainable Use Directive that was due in November 2014 will be submitted to the institutions in the first half of 2016. National Action Plans had been delayed.

I am afraid that this reflects the typical glacial pace in the European institutions, the inadequacy of implementation and enforcement and the usual resort to wheeling out shortcomings by the member states, or more specifically the subsidiarity principle, as an excuse.

One might hope for more progress under the Dutch presidency from January. They intend to propose a 'road map' to the Council which would include the acceleration of approval and authorisation procedures and the finalising of low risk substances criteria.

The Netherlands has been operating its own Green Deal since 2014. However, when I heard the lessons learned listed, they were mostly identical with those that we derived from our RELU biopesticides project which was completed seven years ago. So much for impact. If the Dutch weren't interested in a British project, they could have learnt lessons from their own Genoeg project.

Other dispiriting news was that the 'grey area' of plant strengtheners is to be dealt with in a review of fertilisers, which is inappropriate as these products are often marketed on the basis that they enhance plant protection. Their effect on human health is unknown.

It also became apparent that the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Agency are treading on each other's toes despite pious expressions about better coordination. Sometimes I think that the EU has too many agencies with too many overlapping jurisdictions, but I don't think this is on David Cameron's reform agenda.

Czech MEP Pavel Poc said that member states needed to respect the commitments made. More needed to be done to tackle the illegal trade in pesticides. As far as low risk substances were concerned, every data gap should not be used as an excuse for non-approval.

IBMA executive director David Cary said that we had not yet built the toolbox we needed. There were far too many approvals for emergency use of synthetics under Article 53. Five low risk substances had now been approved, two of which would be available from January.

Summing up, chair Michael Hamell, a former DG Environment official, said 'A new direction for plant protection is here and it's better to step on the train now. We know where we want to go. Are we sure that everything in our regulatory system is in place?'

My answer is a resounding 'No'. The directives and regulations do the job, the problem is the lack of implementation.

My own presentation on 'The Benefits of Sustainable Agriculture' can be found here: Benefits

Organics: it all kicks off

We haven't yet looked at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) report earlier this month that stated that 50 years of evidence on nutrition and health effects found that there was little difference in the nutritional value of orgainic produce. The small nutritional differences which did occur were not large enough to be of any public health relevance.

This is not a message organic farmers and growers wanted to hear at a time when sales have been slumping in the recession. According to research by the Institute of Grocery Distribution earlier this year, the number of people buying organic produce dropped from almost a quarter to 19 per cent. Prince Charles' organic food range, Duchy Originals, has seen a dramatic slump in sales. Profits fell from £1.53m in 2007 to £57,400 last year.

Organic goods were coming to be seen as a luxury in the recession as consumers search for value. Admittedly, there have been some signs of a recent recovery. Last month Tesco said that the sector was seeing 'green shoots of recovery'. Organic milk buyer OMSCo reported earlier this month that sales of organic milk had increased by 10.5 per cent in four weeks.

In any case the FSA report misses the point about why consumers buy organic. It was evident from vox pops after the report came out that the main concern for many of them was pesticide residues rather than nutrition. There is little point in telling them that pesticide residues are minimal or that they are strictly monitored both by the regulator and by supermarkets who don't want any damage to their brands.

Unfortunately the debate has become pivoted around an artificial divide between organic and conventional methods of farming when more attention should be paid to how conventional farming can be made less intensive and environmentally damaging through integrated crop and pest management. It is evident, however, that the position of many organic proponents is deeply ideological in the sense that they hold entrenched positions that dismiss any contrary arguments or evidence.

There is a sense in which 'organic' has become a diluted brand that is confusing to customers. In many ways it is 'local' that is the acclerating brand, particularly through the farmers' market movement. In supermarkets 'local' is sometimes really 'regional'. The big boom in the last year, as many garden centres could attest, has been in the 'grow your own' movement in allotments and gardens.

As was pointed out at the ESRS conference in Vaasa last week the notion of locality is linked to a narrative of producers' pride but also links into the willingness of consumers to pay more as part of a search for excellence. Wealthy and concerned consumers provide a basis for the protection of European agriculture not through traditional market barriers but by reinventing old forms of quality and developing new ones.

For retailers there is an imperative to strengthen consumer loyalty through an appeal to ethical and moral values as well as competition on price. This, of course, brings us into the debate about 'choice editing' as a means of dealing with problems such as obesity. But that is another story.