PR or pesticides? New advisory forum

The 1995 White Paper Rural England proposed an Action Plan to carry forward the policy of pesticide minimisation. As part of that process, a closed Conference was held in October 1995 and government announced as a result the setting up of a discussion Forum. The Forum is intended: "to bring together the views of those concerned with the use and effects of pesticides, to identify their common interests and to assist in the effective dissemination of best practice, advances in technology and R&D results and to advise government on the promotion and implementation of its policy relating to the responsible use of pesticides.”
    The nominated members of the Forum met on 23 May. At the start of the meeting, the Department of the Environment (DoE) issued a press release to welcome the Forum, and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) announced a booklet on the responsible use of pesticides. Members of the Forum wondered if 'public relations' (PR) rather than pesticide use was the order of the day.
    The membership of the Forum was selected from some 90 organisations that expressed interest. The main interest groups represented are larger farmers and the agrochemical industry. Some members felt that organic farmers and pesticide users should also have a place. MAFF and DoE, the sponsors of the Forum, took the view that a truly representative group will be unmanageably large, and a balance was struck by making the proceedings of the Forum open.
    Press releases covering the October conference and the Forum stressed the advantages of integrated crop management (ICM). Forum members were concerned that ICM—as popularised by Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) represented only one view of an important concept that had many different forms. Was it any different from current best practice? What place should be found for other systems ranging from low-input agriculture to organic? It is likely that a broad approach will be followed, not wedded to any one practice.
    The Forum will set its own agenda to fulfil its remit. Members called for a debate on genetic modification and herbicide resistance, pesticide labelling, transfer of technology and the availability of information. The Forum seemed to support the view that getting ideas onto farms and involving farmers should be a central perspective which is welcome.
    Maintaining support for the Forum will depend on how it can pick out priority issues and contribute clear advice. The MAFF/DoE secretariat will pass the Forum’s recommendations to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which advises ministers. Whether the ACP or ministers will respond will depend on the quality of the Forum’s work. (PB)

The Pesticides Forum has a joint secretariat:
MAFF, Matthew Wells,  PSD, Mallard House, 3 Peasholme Green, York, YO1 2PX, and
DoE, Dr Andy Croxford, Romney House, 43 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 32, June 1996, page 19]