Oral evidence: National Pollinator Strategy, HC 213Wednesday 18 June 2014

Oral evidence, 18 June 2014.

Witnesses

Alick Simmons, Director & Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Liz McIntosh, Strategic Policy - Pollinators and Plant Health Team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Dr Chris Hartfield, National Farmers’ Union, Sandra Bell, Friends of the Earth, and Marilyn Haines Evans, Chair of Public Affairs, Women’s Institute, gave evidence.

Chair

I think everyone who has joined our second panel was in the committee room for the earlier session, so I will take that as read. I thank each of you for coming along. It is good to have such a wide cross-section of different stakeholders. Many of you will have been commenting in respect of the consultation, as we have already heard from the scientists from DEFRA. I thought it might be useful if I gave each of you a very quick sentence or two to comment and give pointers to our Committee on what you have just heard in the preceding evidence, starting with you, if I may, Dr Hartfield.

Dr Hartfield

The only thing that I would add to what we have heard in the first session is the NFU’s view on what the strength of the National Pollinator Strategy is. We see it as an evidence-based strategy. It is based on a very comprehensive status report, which is very detailed. That is one of the strengths of it. It goes through the research and our current understanding and it identifies what the gaps are and where there are uncertainties in that evidence base. To our mind, it does a good job of then balancing action to fill those gaps in terms of what research we need and then taking action where we have some good evidence to take action. Perhaps most importantly as well, it creates an opportunity and a framework to take more action as we learn more. Basically, as we find out more and we learn more, it provides opportunity to act on that.

Liz McIntosh

I would just like to comment a bit more about the responses to the consultation. We had over 300 responses and there were many offers of help to DEFRA in those responses in terms of people wanting to help us get out the call to action message and to engage local communities in doing things for pollinators. There were lots of concerns about habitat protection and connected habitats. Pesticides were one of the regular features in the comments and there were comments about CAP reform and incentives to farmers to do more things for pollinators. In addition, there were some comments about the research, which we have discussed in the previous section, and also about more on education and communications to make sure that we did get people doing things for pollinators because there is a great opportunity to do that out there. That is all I would like to say.

Alick Simmons

As you are probably aware, I am the director that is going to be responsible for getting this strategy out and implemented. I wanted to reinforce what Liz has said about how pleased we are about how much engagement has been going on right from the start but also through the consultation period. What I noticed from the discussion earlier on was very much an emphasis on pesticides, but we think a great deal of the emphasis, as well as reflecting people’s concerns about the use of pesticides, should also be on habitats and land use, which I think is reflected in the comments that Chris Hartfield made. We are keen to ensure that the strategy is properly balanced and reflects those points. There is one point that I would quite like to come back on from the previous session, which was about the EU bee surveillance question that was asked about why we withdrew from that. It is quite simple. We withdrew because the approach that was made to us to follow on from the first year engagement that we had came too late and we had redeployed the staff. Had we taken up that offer, not only had we redeployed the staff and we would have to reengage from doing other things, but we would also have done the work at a period when the bees were least active, in other words from the autumn onwards. We felt it was not going to be constructive to engage. We had already completed a two-year surveillance programme, a UK programme, before that; so we felt we had enough data. We would like to follow up with a more detailed note for you.

Chair

Right. Can I just check, is that the EPILOBEE programme?

Alick Simmons

That is correct.

Chair

Just before I move on, in respect of the consultation, is it intended that DEFRA will publish all the responses to the consultation?

Alick Simmons

Yes.

Chair

When can we expect those to be in the public domain and will it be—

Liz McIntosh

I will take that point. There will be a summary of responses that we will publish alongside the strategy when that is ready and people can have access to all the responses to the consultation should they wish to see those. When we issue consultation documents, we ask for people’s permission to let those responses be publicly available, so that is normal procedure. People can see those responses, but we will have summary responses that we will publish with the strategy.

Chair

But not in advance of the strategy?

Liz McIntosh

No. We may well do, but at the moment our current plans are to publish them alongside the strategy.

Chair

Okay, thank you. Sandra Bell, would you like to comment?

Sandra Bell

Thank you, and thanks for this opportunity to talk to you. We certainly welcome the fact that we have a draft NPS and welcome the opportunity to carry on working with DEFRA to improve it. We do see that there are some quite significant gaps in it and I hope we can discuss those further, particularly in the areas of the ambition for farming and for planning, the gaps in terms of land use planning policy. The point I wanted to come to in terms of the previous panel is that in all the talk about the research that is going on I think the one thing the NPS needs to prompt is much more proactive research into alternatives to insecticides, including the neonicotinoids. I agree with Matt Shardlow that we have good evidence on the problems with neonicotinoids and they are not the silver bullet for farmers that we keep being told. In fact, DEFRA told this Committee at its last inquiry about the existing problems with resistances developing to some of the neonics. In fact, four years ago, scientists at Rothamsted were doing research on oilseed rape and they were looking at what would be the best replacement for pyrethroid insecticides and they concluded that neonicotinoids were completely the wrong route to take. They said that insecticide resistance presents a significant threat to the sustainability of the oilseed rape crop and to farm incomes. Instead, they looked at three ecological approaches specifically for controlling pollen beetles. These included much better monitoring of the pest problem so you are targeting control. They looked at trap dropping and at biological controls and their conclusions were that these approaches offered a much better prospect of achieving long-term sustainability of oilseed rape production than insecticide application. This is where we should be putting public money into research, into developing real alternatives that are going to maintain yields for farmers and provide a safe environment for our pollinators.

Chair

Right, thank you. Last but not least, I know that the Public Affairs Committee of the Women’s Institute has a view on this, so we would welcome your comments on the evidence we have just heard.

Marylyn Haines Evans

Thank you. We welcome DEFRA’s work and leadership on developing the NPS. We are certainly starting to see evidence emerging from the Insect Pollinators Initiative, which the WI called for initially in 2009. We urge DEFRA to continue the collaborative approach that they have set out to ensure that this is complemented by funding and the independent reviewed research in the same vein. I would echo earlier comments about funding. It is not clear to me that it is addressed as well as it could be. Just to respond to Professor Boyd’s comments on baseline monitoring and research, I welcome the inclusion of citizen science. It is great for engaging the public, but I would also sound a note of caution. We need to ensure all research is sufficiently robust and gives meaningful data. This means we need scientifically led monitoring programmes and those should be a priority.

Mrs Spelman

I would like to come to the priority policy actions, which are contained within the National Pollinator Strategy. These are based primarily on voluntary actions co-ordinated with farmers and NGOs. I would like to hear from perhaps Dr Hartfield, Sandra Bell and Marylyn Haines Evans. Do you think voluntary actions are going to be sufficient to achieve the goals of the strategy? What happens if they are not?

Dr Hartfield

I think there is good evidence that voluntary measures can be successful. One of the campaigns that is mentioned in the strategy is the Campaign for the Farmed Environment and this is basically a voluntary initiative of the industry. It has been running for about five years and there are 677,000 hectares of unpaid environmental measures that have been put into place through that voluntary scheme. I think that is a good starting point that voluntary measures can be successful.

Mrs Spelman

Did that worry you, though? Could I just interrupt you and ask a key question? At the end of the last set of evidence, almost the last thing that was said, deeply worrying, that the evidence that Dr Goulson had was that the neonicotinoids through the groundwater system might be taken up in precisely the plants that might be planted to attract pollinators under the Campaign for the Farmed Environment scheme. Did that worry you?

Dr Hartfield

We are diverging slightly, but I think on neonicotinoids we still need to see the kind of evidence that Professor Boyd referred to, which is to see whether these harmful impacts that we observe in the studies that are based on artificial dosing occur in bees that are allowed to naturally forage within treated crops and also the adjacent habitats. The reality is we do not have that information. One thing, going back to the first session, that I was disappointed not to hear a mention of was the restatement of the evidence that has been produced by the Oxford Martin School. Throughout the previous inquiry of this Committee and a lot of the discussion and debate around neonicotinoids, one of the things that has been called for is an independent review of the evidence in this area. Here we have, that has been recently published, an independent review of the evidence in this area. If I remember correctly, it concluded in one of the last sentences that there is a limited evidence base for policymakers.

Mrs Spelman

Would either of you like to comment on whether you think the voluntary approach is going to be sufficient? What happens if it is not?

Sandra Bell

We certainly think there is a place for voluntary measures. There is a place for civil society taking action, absolutely. We hope the NPS will encourage more of that, but we are also very concerned by the very heavy reliance on voluntary action to take this NPS forward. We do not see that the Campaign for the Farmed Environment, for example, has made a huge difference so far to the resources around pollinators in the countryside. We are now faced with, unfortunately, a new common agricultural policy that is going to do probably less for our pollinators than the previous one, so we have less there for the CFE to promote anyway to farmers. We really need to look very seriously at how our pollinators can be helped in farming. A lot of the existing schemes, whether it is the CFE or the pesticides voluntary initiative, are not really interested in the real transformation that we need to see because that needs to happen across the whole farm, not just around the edges. We need to see better diversity in cropping, for example, to help our pollinators. We are concerned about that. I just want to also briefly touch on planning as well. We have heard a lot about the issues with farming, but we are still losing pollinator habitat, important wildlife sites, particularly the ones with lower designations. They are being lost to build developments and that does not necessarily have to happen. With the right steer from Government through planning policy and through planning guidance, we could have much more emphasis placed on biodiversity. At the point at which things like strategic housing assessments are taking place, we need much better guidance to developers on incorporating pollinator habitat and green infrastructure. We do welcome the fact that DEFRA has approached us and said, “We would like to hold some workshops with developers and local authorities to try to improve the way development happens and respects pollinators”. We do welcome that, but unless it is built into actual planning guidance, planning policy, with a strong steer through the channels that the developers and local authorities look to such as the planning practice guidance, it is not going to change the way developers behave. A few really forward-thinking developers will see that it is part of good quality development, but for it to have the widespread impact it needs it has to be built into that official guidance.

Mrs Spelman

Thank you very much. Would you like to comment on this?

Marylyn Haines Evans

Yes. I would just like to say from the NFWI’s experience that voluntary agreements have proved to be flimsy vessels for implementing policy as we have seen in recent years with plastic bags, the dairy market and the grocery market adjudicator. They set out with the best intentions but we do not always get to where they want it to be. Yes, I agree with Sandra that we all need to be singing from the same hymn sheet here. Especially with planning, somebody can go off on one tangent but if we are not all following in the same direction—certainly we need to look at planning because that is most definitely affecting the habitats.

Mrs Spelman

I do not want to preclude DEFRA from commenting on this question. You may well have a view, especially about the possibility or necessity for a plan B. I do not want to prevent you from—

Liz McIntosh

I could start here. It is worth pointing out, of course, that the pollinator strategy is not just starting with a blank sheet. We are building on a range of policies across biodiversity, across agro-environment schemes, honey bee health programmes. DEFRA spends a lot of money every year doing things that are good for the environment, so the pollinator strategy is not just starting from nothing. There are regulatory requirements under there, for instance, under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. There are biodiversity duties for public bodies. There are all sorts of things in there that are firmly a foundation for the strategy. What we are doing on top of all those things is trying to really drive home the message that habitat loss is a big driver of change for pollinators and we can do a hell of a lot through the priority actions. Something like 12 of the 18 priority actions are all about really trying to provide resources for pollinators. It is not just flowers, it is things like, “Have you thought about letting your nettles and dandelions grow freely in your gardens?” because that is great for pollinators. Untidy is good for pollinators. There are lots of messages that we can do and under a unified call to action that is what we are hoping to do. On the planning side, just to come back to that, again there are loads of things going on at the moment that are helping provide additional information on the planning side. The open mosaic habitat inventory, which DEFRA and others have put together, was launched recently and that is providing further information for planners on how they can protect some of those sites in brownfield sites. On a final point, in the strategy we are not just working at the local authority level. We are trying to work with all the networks that are out there already who are helping to get messages across. We have people like the Town and Country Planning Association signed up to getting the message out when we have this message and all this advice. We have CIRIA, the construction industry information service, which is helping provide advice and is really on side with the call to action and helping us with the strategy. We are talking to the sustainable building certification people at BREEAM who can really make changes. We do not need to have to go in at the top or the top level, DCLG or local authorities. We can creep out in many ways to get the message out and to make changes.

Mrs Spelman

Alick Simmons?.

Alick Simmons

Well, the plan B you mentioned, Mrs Spelman, the purpose of a lot of the strategy, particularly in the early time, is to get a better database about richness, abundance, distribution, which in many areas is deficient. There are some 1,500 species of pollinators and, quite frankly, we do not know how many there are, where they are and how rich they are. In order to be able to establish that, we have to do some work. In addition to that, it will be linked to land use so we have an idea about where relative abundances are under pressure and, on the strength of that, that will start to influence the way in which we develop policies for land use and other aspects of planning and so forth over time.

Mark Lazarowicz

You mentioned the various networks you have been working with. This is obviously the national pollinator strategy for England, but there is also work going on in Scotland and in Wales. Can you tell us how you are linking the work being done in those Administrations?

Liz McIntosh

Well, we have already been working with the Scottish Government and with the Welsh Government on a number of initiatives like the healthy bees plan on honey bees. Since 2009 we have worked with the Welsh Government on that. We funded with the Scottish Government and the research councils the £10 million programme on the Insect Pollinator Initiative. We have worked closely with those organisations already, but we are going to have clear links with them as part of the governance arrangements for implementing the strategy. We are already talking to the Welsh Government about the lessons they have learned from putting together their strategy and starting to implement it, because they are a year ahead of us, so we hopefully will have lessons from them to help us as we get down to implementing the strategy. As part of our governance, we have a recognition that we will work with the devolved Administrations.

Dr Whitehead

I am not entirely clear, particularly from the draft programme, how it is intended that the wider public can assist with realising the aims of the strategy. Clearly, the call for action follows, but that is really a call for action for organisations, NGOs, interested bodies. How does the wider public get involved in this process?

Alick Simmons

I am going to ask Liz to give a bit more detail, but the call to action is potentially aimed at anybody that has access to land in which pollinators could thrive. As Liz has already mentioned, the more untidy our gardens are, the more likely we are to get pollinators in them. It is not just aimed at organisations; it is aimed at the general public as well. Of course, as we were already hearing, we expect to use citizen science in collecting some of the data as well.

Liz McIntosh

Just to add, yes, we are keen to engage the public on the call to action. We are developing an animation, a short five-minute animation, to start that engagement process. The call to action is a simple message but underneath it there are two tiers. The first tier is a set of five short, simple actions that everybody can take to help pollinators, whether you are a gardener, whether you are a local authority planner, whether you are on a building in a big construction site. That second tier then will be underpinned by further detailed guidance and advice that we are developing with Natural England and with Fera so that once we publish the call to action we will have this initial advice and that initial advice will grow over the next one to two years as we get further evidence about what different types of land managers can do to help pollinators. We are trying to produce tailored advice and that tailored advice will include advice to the public. We are very pleased about all the support we had in the response to the consultation that said people really want to help us to get the message out. We got that enthusiasm and we really want to build on that enthusiasm and buy-in already from the public to help us get the message out.

Dr Whitehead

In the draft strategy itself, in the period up to the call for action, the wider public actions are suggested as growing more flowers and spraying safely.

Liz McIntosh

That was a holding line, that is right. Forget about that one now because we are obviously revising and updating the strategy in the light of the consultation. The five actions, do you want to know what they are? Well, it is not surprising what the first one is. It is, “Grow more flowers, trees and shrubs” because one of the big messages we need to get out there is that pollinators need pollen and nectar. They need pollen as a protein so they can help produce the next generation, and they need nectar for sugar supplies to help them buzz around and do their thing. So, grow more flowers, trees and shrubs throughout the year but particularly from March to October when pollinators are active. There is no point really just having a load of wildflowers coming into life in June/July. That is not really enough. You need to do far more than that. The second action—this is all still emerging; it will be in the final version of the strategy, I should add—is, “Leave patches of land to grow wild”, picking up on my point earlier about nettles are good for caterpillars because it is not just pollen and nectar for adult pollinators, caterpillars at other life stages need resources as well. The third action is, “Cut grass less often so that plants can flower”, and that is again the idea that some species that are in grass mixes can flower and produce pollen, like dandelions, for pollinators. Then the fourth one is a bit more on the habitat side, “Do not disturb nests and hibernating insects” because pollinators live in all sorts of strange places and hide in bare bits of land in your garden. You have probably seen some at the bottom of a wall, flying out of some old mortar you have not put back. Leave opportunities for pollinators to nest. You can buy stuff, I think, at B&Q and other places, to help, bee hotels and things like that, but you do not need to that; you can do things in your own garden to help. The fifth message is very much a pesticide message. The Spray Safely one that we had in the draft strategy was very much a holding position. The message now on pesticides is to think very carefully before you consider using pesticides. It says to minimise the use of pesticides and to think about using alternative activities like barriers to prevent pests. It also advises that, if you do choose to use a pesticide, follow the label instructions. We have changed that message into it being a slightly firmer message about what to do about pesticides.

Dr Whitehead

Bearing in mind what is happening on the wider basis, is there any case for the non-use of pesticides as opposed to a more careful use that might be promoted for private gardens and amenities?

Liz McIntosh

What: that we should go a step further and say, “Do not use”? I think that is a difficult thing for us as DEFRA, as the regulator, because we regulate pesticides and they are authorised following the regulatory procedures. I do not think we could say stop. We have tested that message about thinking carefully and thinking about alternatives on our core stakeholder group that we have been working with over the last few months to develop and finalise the strategy and they were quite happy with that line. I do not think we can go as far as saying, “No, stop using pesticides”, but there are other opportunities. There is some work on IPM, integrated pest management, for the amenity sector that DEFRA has been funding and the results of that research will be coming out shortly.

Dr Whitehead

Ms Evans, is it your view that the proposals set out there do represent the sort of public outreach that you might anticipate would be the case as part of that?

Marilyn Haines Evans

Yes. Indeed the NFWI is very positive about the initial proposals for the call to action. We must be take care that it has to be multi-channel communication and that those will need to be tailored to suit different groups. Social media channels like Facebook and Twitter are fine for reaching younger people, but more traditional methods will still have to be introduced so that we get the message out to the whole of civic society. In terms of insecticides, obviously I am not a scientist. I am a farmer. We do farm 300 acres, part of which is in an SSSI area, and I know, as a farmer, that we have to log everything that we use, be that drugs we give to the animals or anything that we use as sprays. They have to be logged in the logbook and somebody comes to check the logbook, but certainly, in terms of insecticides for gardens, I think perhaps it could be made more difficult when you go and purchase them. They are readily available; no questions asked, really. Perhaps that could be an area to be looked at. That is all I have to say on it.

Dr Whitehead

Ms Bell, did you want to come in?

Sandra Bell

Yes. It is good to see that message strengthened, although we think that it would be much better to go even stronger and say, “Avoid use in your garden”. I would suggest that that should be a stronger aim for local authority amenity use as well, in parks and gardens. The European Commission sustainable use directive on pesticides does require member states to minimise amenity use of pesticides and I would question whether at the moment the UK is following that properly. The wording is that member states should ensure that the use of pesticides is minimised or prohibited in certain specific areas and that includes things like public parks, school grounds, particularly wherever the public might be exposed to pesticides. There is a human-health element to that as well as the environmental protection element.

Dr Hartfield

Can I just make a quick point? I would draw the Committee back to the evidence. We have heard of some of the challenges around the evidence with respect to pesticide use on farmland. My understanding is that there would be even less evidence, if any evidence at all, of pesticide use causing particular problems for pollinators within gardens. The products that gardeners use are a much weaker formulation than professionals are allowed to use. I would also just draw your attention to the fact that, of the 160 products registered for use as garden pesticides, 75% are based on active ingredients that you are permitted to use in organic production. A lot of those bug sprays that you will find on retailers’ shelves are labelled as organic. If you were to tell or recommend to people, “Do not to use pesticides”, you would start getting into a very complex area. Do you say, “Do not use pesticides that are based on a synthetic chemicals, but it is all right to use the pesticides that are based on organic chemicals”? It is a much more complicated situation than you might think.

Mike Kane

I was just considering my own practice in my own back garden. It is not 300 acres, it is less than 30 square meters, but since I got my three Rhode Island Reds I now no longer use pesticides in the back garden, which is probably a very good thing. Anecdotally I seem to have a lot more wildlife inhabiting it. My question comes back to Europe. The common agricultural policy: does it help or does it hinder?

Sandra Bell

As we have seen the details emerge of the CAP scheme and the current CAP agreement I think it is uncertain that it is going to deliver anything much for pollinators. The new agri-environment schemes—called NELMS I think—are only going to cover something like 30% to 40% of farmland. At the moment agri-environment covers 70% and because of cuts in funding that is going down to 30% to 40%, which leaves a lot of farmland not even covered by agri-environment schemes. Even within that 30% to 40%, clearly they are not all going to be schemes focused on pollinators. Greening, then, which is the scheme that will cover a lot more farmers, has been watered down so much that it is probably more green-wash than greening, to be honest, and, again, there are not that many specific measures in there that will benefit pollinators. It will only apply to 5% of farmland. Again, we are seeing a lot of farmland that is not covered by CAP measures. The role of the NPS versus existing policy I suppose is always going to be a tricky one but, in terms of what the NPS could do to try to influence the remaining decisions on CAP, a lot of decisions have been made but there could be more specific inclusion; for example, in the greening schemes you could include specific ecological focus areas that are meant to cover 5% of the farm. All the details on those have not been released on those yet, so there still might be some potential to try to at least ensure that there are some specific requirements in there, some specific options for pollinators. That would need to go alongside management though. This is one of the problems. If you just say, “We need a wildflower strip or a buffer strip”, how is that going to benefit pollinators unless there is good guidance and advice on how that strip is managed? That is what the scientists tell us, that you need good management of those schemes when they are introduced. We have the problem of not much in the way of agri-environment or greening and also of how you get good practical advice out to farmers on getting the most out of those for pollinators. One of the things that we are suggesting is that we do need some Government funding to go into improving the advice that is given to farmers on boosting pollinators and biodiversity more widely. We used to have a pretty good farming and wildlife advisory scheme, which was cut. Some areas of the country have it and some do not, so it is pretty random as to whether as a farmer you can access that wildlife advice. Farmers have said to us that they are frustrated. They see some good research and science going into how to help pollinators and the benefits of pollinators to their crops and they see there is a disconnect between that and what they are getting in terms of information and practical advice. We think there is a need for improving the advisory services on biodiversity that go to farmers. At the moment, unfortunately, a lot of the advice that farmers get is not really independent because a lot of agronomists are linked to pesticide companies. That is a problem. What they need is good independent science-based advice.

Mike Kane

Sandra, are you saying it is a hindrance?

Sandra Bell

Sorry?

Mike Kane

The question was, is it a help or a hindrance?

Sandra Bell

I think it is a missed opportunity to do a lot more for our pollinators.

Mike Kane

My next question was about focus areas but I think you have dealt with that. Forgive me, colleagues, can I just go back to something? Did we bottom-out about how the strategy is funded earlier? I did not get that we did.

Alick Simmons

There is a modest amount of money directly attached to strategy, mainly for publicity and collecting evidence of the type I mentioned a few minutes ago, but, as the strategy sets out, there are a number of areas, for example, while I note the comments about CAP, nature improvement areas and other things, which are all part of the drive towards improving the position of pollinators. There is an entire list of them here.

Mike Kane

In my mind I have a pie chart. Just tell me the cake proportions.

Alick Simmons

If you want it in that sort of details we would have to provide it.

Chair

We would be happy with a formal written note

Alick Simmons

Yes, I think we can do that for you. That might be the best thing.

Caroline Lucas

I want to turn to integrated pest management because the strategy considers that greater uptake of IPM should be a priority. Do you think there is a common shared understanding of what IMP means? It seems that it means lots of different things to different people. Certainly the EU definition appears to encompass organic farming, for example, and yet, as far as I can see at least, the strategy here does not. What are your thoughts about common definitions and how it is framed in the strategy?

Liz McIntosh

This is an issue and you are right; it means different things to different people. We are rather stuck with the sustainable use directive definition because there are requirements we have to meet under that directive.

Caroline Lucas

Is that the one that does talk about organic farming?

Liz McIntosh

I have the definition in front of me and it does not talk about it. It does not mention it specifically, I don’t think. It does later, I think.

Dr Hartfield

It does say, “Sustainable, biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical methods if they provide satisfactory pest control.”

Liz McIntosh

I think that is something we can address in the final version of the strategy. We can get further definitions. One of the actions in the strategy is to promote IPM, particularly for crops that are good for pollinators. We are talking to our pollinator evidence advisory group about whether or not we need to do some work; go away and pull out the simple actions that farmers can take that are relevant for pollinators from that big, wide toolkit of what IPM is, because it is a massive toolkit.

Caroline Lucas

When Dr Hartfield clarified the quote, it does not seem to take us much further, does it? Presumably there will be lots of debate about whether or not non-chemical measures are providing whatever the wording was that you have just said.

Dr Hartfield

Effective control.

Sandra Bell

Are you changing the definition, because in the NPS the definition is not the definition for the Sustainable Use Directive.

Liz McIntosh

Isn’t it? I thought it was. I thought I had used that. I will look at it.

Sandra Bell

The Sustainable Use Directive very—

Chair

One at a time, please.

Sandra Bell

Sorry. The Sustainable Use Directive very clearly sets out that member states should take all necessary measures to promote low pesticide input pest management giving, wherever possible, priority to non-chemical methods. That is there in the definition and the NPS definition does not talk about minimising use of chemical pesticides. It talks about levels that are economically and ecologically justified.

Caroline Lucas

That is a very different thing, so if we could have it based on the EU that would be marvellous.

Liz McIntosh

We will do that. I will take that away.

Caroline Lucas

Excellent. Linked to that I wanted to ask you if you think there should be targets for reducing pesticide use and just to reflect on the fact that it is quite an ambitious goal, given that, as I understand it, in some fields at the moment we are getting 20 different pesticides per field per year being used. If there should be targets, how would you also promote greater progress towards meeting them?

Liz McIntosh

If I remember rightly this is something that came up in a great deal of detail in your report last year and I think our view remains the same. Use reduction targets are not effective in reducing risk.

Caroline Lucas

Can I see what the others say about that? Is there any difference of view along the table?

Dr Hartfield

Basically, my understanding is that the National Pollinator Strategy with respect to IPM, it uses the definition that is embodied within the Sustainable Use Directive. To be quite clear, our understanding of that is, with respect to pesticide use, it talks about minimising the risks associated with pesticide use rather than minimising use of pesticides per se. That is the definition. You are right; there is no universal agreement on what IPM should mean. I think that is where some organisations disagree with that Sustainable Use Directive definition of IPM because they consider it should retain reduction targets and it should be about reducing pesticide use, but it not a watered-down definition. We have already mentioned that it talks about using alternative techniques if they can be shown to be as effective as what we are using currently. It talks about crop rotation. It talks about monitoring crops. It talks about only using pesticides in response to pest thresholds. It talks about balancing your input in order to minimising pest and disease risks. It talks about biosecurity. It talks about a whole suite of measures, so it is by no means a watered-down definition of IPM.

Alick Simmons

As some of you might have noticed, I am a veterinarian by trade and this notion of integrated pest management sits well with the approach we are taking in respect of disease control in livestock where you will use the right medicines at the right time, using the right dose, and you monitor its use carefully, but you also make sure that the systems in which you grow the animals are appropriate for the environment and appropriate for the business in hand. The thing about it is if you start to prescribe in such a way how you would approach this, then you will almost certainly fail. It needs to be done bespoke on the basis of the circumstances on that farm, whether it happens to be plans or animals. An integrated approach is important, but I think if you define it rigidly in advance then the flexible approach that you need to have in order to make sure the approach is appropriate for the circumstances that you are dealing with—it does need to be done that way.

Chair

Ms Bell, you wanted to come in.

Sandra Bell

Yes, just to answer the question about targets. Friends of the Earth would support the use of pesticide reduction targets as a further incentive for reducing pesticide use, but of course that would absolutely have to go hand in hand with the kind of research and development I was talking about earlier, into alternatives so that the farmers are given alternatives to those products. There seems to be a lot of fear around the idea of reducing pesticide use and maybe that does partly go back to the fact that agronomists are perhaps too linked to pesticide companies and, therefore, that is the advice they are giving farmers all the time. It is just interesting when you look at the research that has been done in France and in the UK as well, there is an Endure project that scientists and farmers both were involved and they found that a 50% reduction in pesticide use is possible in a wheat/oilseed rape rotation and that was using a combination of different farming methods, things like more diverse crop rotations, but also new technologies, things like much more accurate pest monitoring. I think that is the other thing we would say about it. A pesticide reduction target could be a catalyst for more innovation in how we control pests and diseases and looking for new solutions for the future, not just relying on the same regime we are using chemical pesticides.

Marilyn Haines Evans

Yes, I would like to echo what Sandra has said. The pesticide industry, as we have heard several times already today, said that farmers will be hit by the moratorium on neonicotinoids. However, it also presents, and I agree, an opportunity for science and government, alongside farmers to innovate and seek new positive solutions to crop protection.

Caroline Lucas

Would you have them to be mandatory or voluntary, those targets?

Sandra Bell

The targets, we would say, mandatory but obviously with that support backing it up to help farmers to adjust to it.

Chair

I am very conscious that we are about to move to a vote down in the House of Commons, so I do think at that stage I do need to bring the proceedings to a close. If you have any further comments that have been raised during the course of our session this afternoon please feel free to write formally, but can I thank each of you for coming along and giving evidence this afternoon. Thank you. Oral evidence: National Pollinator Strategy, HC 213 16