UK progress towards a pesticide reduction plan 

A new pesticide strategy to be formed by the UK government during 2003 endorses the European Union aim of reducing dependence on chemical control. The plan will be launched later in the year, and PAN is hopeful that the outcome will lead to a significant reduction in pesticide use. 

Europe continues to be a major source of pesticide production and use. Western Europe was the only region to show any growth in pesticides sales last year: up by 7.2% to $6,300 million(1). A recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that Britain uses 0.58 tonnes of pesticides for every square kilometre of arable land, more than twice the OECD average(2). 
    For a number of years, PAN UK has worked with colleagues in the PAN Europe network to lobby for the European Union (EU) countries to adopt national plans to reduce the use of pesticides. As a way of moving the debate forward PAN Europe produced its own version of a Directive on Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) in May 2002 (see PN 56, page 10).
    The EU’s Sixth Environmental Action Plan sets out environmental policy for 2001-2010. Specifically for pesticides the objectives are ‘Reducing the impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment and more generally to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides consistent with the necessary crop protection. Pesticides in use which are persistent or bio-accumulative or toxic or have other properties of concern should be substituted by less dangerous ones where possible.’
    The Plan comprises a number of Thematic Strategies – designed to deliver broad objectives. The European Commission’s initial communication on this issue proposes that a centrepiece of the strategy should be national plans to reduce hazards and risks from the use of pesticides; and dependence on chemical control. 

UK to act ahead of EU
The government does not intend to wait for the eventual adoption of the Thematic Strategy, in around 2006, before beginning work on a ‘national pesticides strategy’. It is now assessing those policies that contribute to better pesticide practice and identifying ways in which these can be joined up effectively and gaps filled. This will include supporting smarter on-farm regulation through the whole farm approach. A range of different policies, departments and stakeholders are involved and the development of the plan will be a complex undertaking. Nevertheless, it will be a priority for the Pesticide Safety Directorate in 2003. A recent House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee recommended that the government develops and publishes a pesticides strategy as a matter of urgency(3). 
    The government will publish a draft plan this year through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It will be guided by the strategy(4) which requires EU member states to:

• minimise the hazards and risks to health and environment from pesticides
• improve controls on their use and distribution
• reduce the levels of harmful pesticide active ingredients, in particular by replacing the most dangerous by safer alternatives (including non-chemical)
• encourage low-input or pesticide-free crop farming
• establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress including the development of appropriate indicators. 

PAN pesticide use reduction
PAN UK will publish its version of a national pesticides strategy this year. It will build on PAN Europe’s draft PURE Directive and call for Europe-wide legislation and binding national action plans for(5) a reduction of pesticide use by 25% within five years and 50% within 10 years of an agreed date.
    PAN Europe calls for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM) as minimum standards for all European farmers and other users of pesticides and as a condition for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidy payment. This will require detailed guidelines and crop-specific protocols on how to minimise the use of pesticides, taking account of regional differences. CAP should provide more support for agri-environmental measures, especially for organic farming. IPM and ICM may sometimes lead to reduced yields but the savings made on pesticides and fertiliser often result in higher profits overall. In the few cases where IPM is not currently economically advantageous, CAP should ensure that small and medium-scale farmers who reduce their pesticide use for the good of society do not then face a reduction in income.
    Other elements of the PURE strategy:

• mandatory training and certification of dealers and professional users of pesticides, including farmers
• coordinated data collection on production, sales and use, including mandatory record keeping
• coordinated data collection on the impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment
• access to information and public participation in regulatory decision making

Comment
PAN UK welcomes the move by DEFRA to develop a national pesticides strategy. Current government policy is to reduce the adverse impacts of pesticides use, rather than the overall level of use. In working up the strategy, the government will re-examine these arguments. This leaves the door open for public interest groups like PAN who believe that a strategy has to include a progressive reduction in use. We will be encouraging the plan to adopt use reduction along the models of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. (DB)

References
1. Agrow, No. 419, 28 February 2003.
2. Environmental Performance Reviews – UK, OECD, 2002. 
3. Pesticides: The Voluntary Initiative, Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2002-03, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, HC433, 24 February 2003.
4. Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 1.7.2002.
5. Over 70 organisations in 22 European countries have signed up to support our PURE campaign, including farmer, consumer, public health and environmental organisations. 

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 59, March 2003, page 3]