The Minister responds

The Environment Minister Michael Meacher has indicated his wish to see green taxes adopted in order to reduce environmental pollution. In an interview with David Buffin he discussed some of the key aspects of one proposal that relates to pesticides.

The Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP - looking for ways to reduce pesticide use

What is the proposed time-table for the implementation of the pesticide tax?
We are waiting to see exactly what the ECOTEC consultants report proposes (see page 8). We have asked them to produce proposals to suggest if an economic instrument, or tax, is the most appropriate way of trying to discourage the use of pesticides where appropriate. There would be an opportunity in the November pre-budget report to set out the options for such a financial measure. And of course, we will be looking at the balance between the economic consequences, as well as the environmental objectives.

Are you considering a tax-band whereby products that have a greater potential to pollute the environmental will be taxed more?
This depends on whether we go ahead with the tax.  Let me make it clear-fertilisers and pesticides do have a role, I do not think anyone is going to deny that. The question is the degree of need, and whether there are alternatives-and of course the encouragement of organic farming. Now, if one did go down the tax route, there might be merit in terms of banding. The disadvantage is that it substantially increases the complication of the tax. But I take the point, that it is a way of calibrating a response in a way which might be seen to be fairer.

The proposed tax has had a robust response from the BAA and Farmers Weekly-how do you react to their 'Just Say No' campaign?
I might say the British Agrochemicals Association (BAA) would say that wouldn't they! I do think that it would be more helpful to look at the objectives that the government has, and to consider what is the best means of achieving them. If there are better alternatives, then let them come forward. But I think 'Just Say No' is a little crude, especially before we have actually had the proposals from the consultants.

How many letters have you received on this issue?
The figure I have been given is 1,639 up to the 20 August. But I repeat we are at a fairly premature stage and we do not have a definite view yet. But we are not ignoring the response and of course we are taking account of what people say, particularly if their comments are a little more sophisticated than 'Just Say No'.

How do you reconcile the differences between the savings the DETR says are possible from using less pesticides, compared with the BAA position?
The Risk Policy Analysis/Entec report suggests there might be £274 million saving through pesticides minimisation. But even the Morley report, commissioned by the BAA, suggests a saving of about £100 million (see p.8 col.2). So although, there still may be some differences between us, I think the differences are narrowing, and it does suggest that the real benefits could be somewhere between the two figures. So this is not an unbridgeable gap.

A tax of 125% has been suggested-is this realistic?
This figure comes from an earlier report. There is no foundation for suggesting that a duty of this kind is being contemplated, or is necessary with regards to a potential pesticides tax. I am not saying what the tax level will be, because we have not yet made a decision. But I think 125% is taking a figure out of context and using it for propaganda purposes which is really not appropriate.

Can you comment on the BAA view that environmental policies will be included in the Common Agricultural Policy, so a unilateral green tax for the UK makes little sense?
I do not think that CAP reform will be adequate. Other EU members states, such as Sweden, already do have a pesticides tax. If we adopt a similar measure, then of course there will be structuring to safe guard competitiveness. But we do think there is excessive use of pesticides and fertilisers and we are looking at various ways of reducing it. And I hope that the industry can constructively look at that as well.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 41, September 1998, page 9]