Farmers need biopesticides

In a recent article in Farmers Weekly Sean Smith the CEO of biopesticide developer and supplier Eden Research states: 'The British farming community has expressed serious concerns about the clampdown on conventional pesticides, viewing the bans as a threat to productivity. Pesticides are often a critical input and without them, commercial yields can be significantly affected.'

'This is why alternatives to conventional chemistry are essential, along with more integrated approaches to pest and disease control. As things stand, however, the banning or restricting of existing, traditional pesticides is happening at a much swifter rate than the approval of alternative chemicals and new biopesticides, which are pest control formulations derived from natural materials, such as minerals, bacteria, plants, or animals.'

'Farmers are therefore facing a declining choice of crop protection products, with few alternatives approved and ready. This imbalance is making growing conditions more challenging. To counter this, there is a need for regulators, such as the UK’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate, to facilitate quicker approvals for new alternatives.'

'Despite the regulatory lag, sustainable alternatives are becoming available and being applied to all facets of farming. Allowing new sustainable biopesticides to enter the market will help make headway towards greener farming practices, meeting the ethical expectations of UK consumers.'

This is a topic I have worked on with plant scientists for over a decade and I have recently completed a book chapter with Roma Gwyn of Biorationale looking at global developments and in particular the regulatory framework within the EU and whether it inhibits or facilitates adoption of biological alternatives.

Our conclusion is that the agenda for more effective forms of regulation will only be fulfilled with sufficient political support. There is greater interest in biological technologies than in the past and an increased recognition of the contribution they can make to environmentally sustainable solutions to plant protection. This reflects a number of factors, including greater effectiveness on the part of the industry representative body, the IBMA, including a willingness to build coalitions with environmental groups.

It also reflects the greater involvement of major agrochemical companies in the sector as market opportunities improve. However, public knowledge and understanding of biological technologies remains limited and this means that there is no substantial constituency of public support for their greater use. This in turn influences the priority that political decision-makers give towards improving the responsiveness and speed of regulation that allows new products to enter the market.

Chancellor targets farmers' fuel tax break

Hints are increasingly being dropped that the Chancellor might target the 'red diesel' tax break available to farmers. Ending the overall freeze on fuel duty could be politically difficult, but the £2.4bn revenue foregone on construction and farming vehicles could be an attractive target.

Red diesel (so called because it is coloured red in an effort to avoid fraudulent use) has a duty of 11.1p a litre against 57.7p for standard diesel used by motorists. It is only supposed to be used on the farm itself for machinery such as tractors and combine harvesters. It is not supposed to be used on the highway. It is used by airport vehicles and most freight trains run on it.

It was originally thought that just the construction industry and perhaps airports would take a hit, but that might be difficult to enforce in practice. I would have thought it more likely that the reduced duty will be phased out rather than eliminated overnight. However, it will be another blow to farmers reeling from the phasing out of direct payment subsidies.

The Government launched a consultation on the subject last year which details its long history and the issues that have arisen: Red diesel

Farming not important says Treasury adviser

Treasury adviser Tim Leunig has said that Britain could do without its fishermen and farmers: Farming and fisheries are not important

Whilst he was expressing a personal view, this will reinforce a fear already held by farmers that the Government will give a low priority to their welfare in trade talks.

The NFU does tend to overplay food security arguments, given that there is a variety of suppliers, but a country with plenty of agricultural land would look odd if it did not grow some of its own food.

Is it useless Eustice?

Despite his farming background new Defra secretary George Eustice got a rough ride at the NFU conference last week when he was booed by angry farmers. Farmers Weekly commented that 'Reassuringly, Mr Eustice already owns a pair of wellies, and knows his way around a farm.' In fact his practical farming involvement was some time ago and I own some wellies and make farm visits quite often, but that doesn't qualify me to be a Defra minister.

As Farmers Weekly admitted, the Defra secretary has tasks other than being a MAFF style spokesperson for farming. (Anyone interested in the history of MAFF and Defra's relations with farmers can have a copy of an unpublished paper I wrote on the topic). FW noted, 'Questions have also been raised over whether he is the big hitter farming needs … Whether Mr Eustice can hold his own against Cabinet heavyweights remains to be seen.' More generally they said, 'Too often in the past the Department has been a dumping ground for ministers of mediocre ability.'

Farmers were particularly annoyed that Mr Eustice was not prepared to relax the notorious 'three crop rule' other than through individual applications claiming force majeure.NFU president Minette Batters said farmers were hugely frustrated. 'We have left the EU, half the country is under water and [yet] we are still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousands of force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.'

However, we are still in the transition period and Mr Eustice has no powers to set aside what he rightly described as a 'barking' rule despite shouts of 'rubbish' at the conference. To me it is a classic example of the CAP's ability to come up with poorly designed policy instruments: the relationship with the intended outcome (improving biodiversity) was poor and the transaction costs high. The rule requires farmers with more than 30 hectares of arable land to grow at least three different crops.

Perhaps more importantly, he declined to commit the Government to upholding existing UK food standards in future trade deals with countries, such as the US, that have weaker regulations. 'I can't provide any such assurances,' he said.

A House of Lords amendment to the agriculture bill would bar the Government from signing trade deals that do not require imported foods to meet UK standards on food safety, animal welfare and the environment.