Arguments for reducing pesticide dependency 

In November 2003, PAN Europe organised a conference in Copenhagen called Reducing Pesticide Dependency to Protect Health, Environment and Biodiversity. John Harvey introduces the main themes.

Over 60 people from 18 European countries attended PAN Europe’s policy conference, including government officials, researchers, the private sector and NGOs. As put by one participant, scientists’ speeches ‘… opened doors in our minds and reminded us why we are doing what we are doing.’
    Participants heard startling new data about pesticide effects on health from two laboratories, in France and England, which had separately demonstrated how glyphosate could harm human health at quite low doses (see pp 4-5).
    The Danish Environmental Research Institute talked about the direct and indirect effects of pesticide use on biodiversity, giving an example of the impact of pesticide application on skylark populations. Often the indirect effects may have the greatest impact on population size, via reduction in food availability, yet these indirect effects are not a part of the legislative basis for approval and registration of pesticides, and there are no good tools available for estimating and predicting them. The European Environment Agency helped to clarify misunderstanding about the precautionary principle, including the difference between good science and sound policymaking; distinctions between ‘risk’, ‘uncertainty’ and ‘ignorance’; and differential ‘levels of proof’ for different purposes.
    The Danish Environmental Protection Agency described its use of the Treatment Frequency Index [see PN 57 p. 10 and this issue p.10] as an indicator for pesticide dependency and overall load on the environment, followed by presentations from Eurostat on the availability and usefulness of different sales and usage data at EU level and from PAN Germany on improved options for use reporting.
    Besides the science, though, links with farmers are essential if the aims of the Pesticide Use Reduction Europe (PURE) campaign are to be realised.
    Denmark’s Environment Minister, Hans Christian Schmidt, outlined their third pesticide action plan, which for the first time includes market gardens, fruit growers and public and private users of pesticides as well as arable farmers. Payments for organic farming have been made more flexible to encourage more farmers into pesticide-free cultivation and spray-free buffer zones will be expanded threefold so the aquatic environment is protected. (see p. 10 on challenges for the new plan).
    Case studies were presented on environmental benefits from pesticide use reduction via integrated crop management (ICM) and integrated farming. For example, experience with pilot Dutch farms shows that reduction in emissions to air, surface and groundwater can amount to 90% and economically, the experimental and pilot farms showed comparable or better results than the conventional reference farms. A careful look at ICM definitions and protocols is needed, as certain organisations use concepts which do not have clear use reduction objectives. Steps towards use reduction were outlined by the European Commission in its proposed pesticide policy framework, with contributions from the perspectives of farmers’ associations, the pesticide industry and the Co-operative Group retailer in the UK (see p. 7).

Left: Hans Christian Schmidt, Danish Minister of Environment; Middle left: Catherine Wattiez, PURE Coordinator, PAN Europe; Middle right: Jan Eksvärd, Federation of Swedish Farmers; Right: Gretta Goldenman, environmental lawyer and Chair of the PURE Conference

Proceedings of the PURE conference will be available soon at www.pan-europe.net

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 63, March 2004, page 3]