No bonfire of controls

Here are some extracts from a presentation I made at a conference at the British Academy on 'The EU and the UK: the Wrong Kind of Regulation?

Farmers find the most negative aspect of the European Union to be what they perceive as the excessive burden of regulation. There is particular complaint about the ‘gold plating’ of EU regulations in the UK, adding to what is required by the EU, although when farmers and their representatives are asked to come up with examples they can usually produce very few and some of those are trivial.

There is no doubt that regulations impose transaction costs on farmers, taking them away from the activity of farming. My brother-in-law is a sheep farmer and I have seen the paperwork associated with the movement of his animals. However, regulations are there for a reason and those farmers who anticipate a bonfire of controls if there was a Brexit would probably be disappointed. There are four main drivers of the regulation of agriculture and food:

• The protection of human health
• The protection of animal health and welfare
• The protection of the environment
• The protection of the consumer

It is worth noting that the UK has been in the forefront of pushing the EU’s smart regulation agenda which emphasises:

The need to take impact assessments for significant proposals

The desirability of seeking alternatives to legislation

The need to evaluate current legislation, so-called fitness checks

The importance of consulting on proposed regulations

Another defining characteristic of UK policy has been that risk management should be based on robust science and evidence. This has led it at times to question risk management decision as being unduly risk averse leading to disproportionate legislation, for example in relation to plant protection about which I will say more later.

Farmers receive substantial subsidies from the EU. The payment of these subsidies by the Rural Payments Agency is often badly delayed with consequences for farmers’ cash flow. This is partly the responsibility of the agency, but it also reflects the complexity of the regulations and the difficulty of applying them. Simplification of CAP rules has been objective of the EU for some time, but progress has been slow. In part, this reflects the fact that the regulations are the result of an often messy compromise between different interests.

The EU has effectively prevented the commercial use of genetically modified crops. However, whether this represents the right or wrong kind of regulation depends on where you stand on this controversial issue. Regulatory issues are not just questions of burden reduction but also of political judgment.

As far as food regulation is concerned, the emphasis has been on free movement and food safety. It has been argued that the regulations are safe and comfortable and not that useful. In particular, there has been a relative neglect of nutritional issues which are important in relation to obesity. However, that in turn reflects defects in the scope of the Common Agricultural Policy. Good policy instruments in the form of regulations rely on well thought out and comprehensive policy objectives.

David Baldock of the IEEP, also on the panel, and I agreed that the main areas in which regulations might be relaxed after Brexit were GM crops, the Nitrates Directive and some aspects of the Water Framework Directive.

Biopesticides on the march

I have just returned from an Informa conference on biopesticides (or biocontrol) in Amsterdam where I talked about the implications of the new EU legislation on plant protection products which is now starting to be implemented.

What was striking about the conference was not only the relatively large attendance (100), but also the number of large chemical companies present, particularly from the United States. Monsanto, Bayer and BASF were out in force while the largest specialist biocontrol company, AgraQuest, was also strongly represented.

The market for biocontrol products is now growing much faster than that for synthetic chemical products, the availability of which is diminishing. Of 400 or so active ingredients now authorised in the EU, getting on for a quarter are biocontrol products.

The biggest market for biocontrol products up to now has been in protected crops (greenhouses and polytunnels). There is certainly scope in field vegetables where residue issues are important for the final consumer, but we are some way off broad spectrum products which can be used extensively on arable crops.

Historically there were some poor products on the market which did not help the reputation of the industry. The so-called 'grey market' products or bio stimulants, which are generally outside the scope of regulation, are also a challenge in marketing terms.

For growers biocontrol products offer a lower kill rate and often lower stability because of their very character. They also require more technical expertise in their use. They can, however, be used in combinaton with chemical products in many cases which is consistent with the EU policy of integrated pest management.

There is no doubt that the US has done a better job than the EU in promotning and regulating these products (this is also true of the life sciences industry more generally). The new EU regulatory framework, including zonal mutual recognition, should make life easier but the devil is in the detail.