Despite policies to control the adverse
environmental and human health effects of pesticides, over the past few years
additional threats to the environment and human health have continued. A growing
body of evidence points to the indirect impacts of pesticides on wildlife.
Pesticides have been shown as the major cause of the decline of the grey
partridge(2) and the corn bunting(3) by removing plants and invertebrates that these
birds feed on from farmed habitats. There is strong circumstantial evidence that
pesticides are a major cause of the decline of 19 other bird species(4). Alongside
the direct acute impacts on human health of pesticide residues on food there is
increasing evidence that quite low doses of some pesticides can disrupt the
human endocrine system(5).
Existing
policies attempt to control pesticide damage by encouraging the use of
relatively less risky pesticides and the improving and controlling their
application. But tackling pesticide pollution requires a dual approach of less
risky pesticides and application techniques alongside less pesticide use.
A tax on
pesticides would, for the first time in the UK, create a powerful incentive to
reduce unnecessary pesticide use. Friends of the Earth has advocated such a
measure for several years and welcomes the comprehensive ECOTEC report (see box)
and the consultation release by the Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions (DETR) as significant steps forward to achieving this goal.
A pesticide
tax would send a clear signal discouraging environmental pollution and would
encourage growth where environmental and social objectives, such as human
health, were more fully accounted for in line with the government's commitment
to sustainable development and environmental taxation.
The rationale
for introducing a tax is to complement the pesticides approvals and regulatory
systems. It adds a dynamic incentive for pesticide minimisation which delivers
environmental benefits to society at least cost to pesticide users. No other
measures are as effective for achieving this.
The main
design issues of the tax are coverage, its base and the options for banding. The
ECOTEC report suggests that non-agricultural uses of pesticides and
imports should be included. The report chooses the weight of active ingredient
as the base of the tax assuming the adoption of a banding system. A flat rate
weight-based tax would encourage the use of more concentrated products which may
in some instances increase risk but as the trend is toward more concentrated
products anyway it would also fail to provide a strong incentive to reduce
pesticide use.
Friends of the
Earth is concerned that efforts to reflect the impacts of individual pesticides
in the tax design could lead to unnecessary delay in implementing this important
measure and potentially conflict with the role of the approval system and
regulations. The banding system suggested by ECOTEC appears to address these
concerns and we believe it offers a good basis for a banding system. However,
the indirect impacts of pesticides upon wildlife are not reflected properly in
the methodology. One option is to add an indicator of selectivity, as it is
broad spectrum chemicals that are more likely to have significant indirect
effects. Further consideration should be given to indicators that reflect
impacts upon key species.
The final two
issues for consultation are the economic impacts of the tax and complementary
measures are best considered together. The impact of the tax upon farming and
rural economies is a vital consideration in designing the tax and the deciding
how to use the revenues. Trends in agricultural policy in Europe are to cut the
subsidies that have kept commodity prices high, and supported chemically
intensive farming. Agricultural reform will make cutting pesticide use become
both easier and more attractive for farmers; and as a consequence will increase
the strength of the incentives introduced by a pesticide tax. The rapidly
expanding market for organic produce, for example, offers farmers the
opportunity to meet consumers' preferences without paying such a tax. A
proportion of the revenues from a pesticide tax should be used to directly
support existing organic operations, and the conversion from chemical intensive
systems to organic and other sustainable farming systems. The tax revenues can
also be used to finance education and stewardship programmes and targeted
research. Experience from countries such as Sweden, Austria and Denmark can
inform the details of the package.
The vast
majority of the revenues from the tax should be recycled back to farming which
has long suffered from policies that have distorted the market and encouraged
the development and uptake of risky technologies leading to avoidable problems,
such as agrochemical pollution, the BSE crisis, and genetically modified crops.
The incentive of a pesticide tax and the targeted use of the revenues have a
vital role in developing sustainable agriculture.
|
The main findings of the ECOTEC pesticides
tax report
The report
clearly recognises the current dangers to the environment, noting: The approvals
process does not take into account the full environmental effects of pesticides. A precautionary
approach is needed because of the detection of increasing levels of pesticides
in groundwater; the lack of practical analytical methods for half the pesticides
in use; bioaccumulation and effects resulting from long term low level pesticide
exposure; impacts on non-target organisms, and the recognition of potential
endocrine disruption.
The impact of a tax of 30% on product price,
which is on average an extra £6 per kg, has been modelled. Between 8% and 20%
reduction of use might be achieved, although there would be larger reductions
for more hazardous pesticides. |