There have been some threads on here previously about the impending EU pesticides legislation, and for any of you who do read FW, you cannot have failed to see our articles highlighting what this legislation could do.

The Commission's proposal on how pesticides should be approved in the future has been agreed by the EU agricultural ministers and is unlikely to be changed radically now it seems.

The only wriggle room that I see is just how some of the cut-off criteria are actually finally defined. Under the Commission's proposals some key products will be lost according to a PSD evaluation. They include pendimethalin, linuron, and most worrying, triazole fungicides. The exact future of triazoles in however quite uncertain, as the the cut-off criteria they trigger, endocrine disruption, hasn't been defined, so it really depends on how it is defined.

Even if triazoles survive, the loss of some of these and other actives, are going to have a big impact. Cathy Knott said yesterday at an NFU conference conventional horticulture might not be possible without some of the weed killers, for example. Losing pendimethalin and linuron will hurt cereals and potato growers too. Mancozeb is another possible casualty.

Earlier this week, a Green MEP from Germany, Hiltrud Breyer, who is the lead rapporteur on this legislation in the Parliament's ENVI commmittee, presented her amendments to the Commission's proposal.

She wants to impose more cut-off criteria and other tighter restrictions on top of the Commission proposals. This will obviously only exacerbate the situation. To see more detail of what she is proposing, read Phil Clarke's excellent summary here: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/10/08/112560/meps-seek-draconian-changes-to-new-pesticide-rules.html

If you want to still be using at least some of these pesticides in the future, you need to step up your lobbying efforts.

The time to ACT is NOW. If you haven't signed up to FW's Save our Sprays campaign, you can do so at http://www.fwi.co.uk/sos

Our petition will be handed into the ENVI committee in the very near future.

But more than that, you need to write a letter to the UK's MEPs on the ENVI committee. Phil has also written a great advice piece on how to go about writing an effective letter: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/09/25/112356/nows-the-time-to-write-to-meps.html

In addition the NFU also has done something similar here: http://www.nfuonline.com/x31251.xml

One other thing to consider when writing a letter:

The NFU said at its Horticulture meeting yesterday that it was worth writing to all the UK MEPs on the ENVI committee now, certainly before the end of October, but suggested two different letters were needed: 1) To MEPs who voted against key amendments that will tighten the legislation you should write a thank you letter, but asking for their continued support, and that they raise their concerns with fellow party MEPs from other member states where possible.

MEPs in this camp are: John Bowis, Caroline Jackson, Martin Callanan, Philip Bushil-Mathews, and Robert Sturdy

To those MEPs who voted for, or partly for, extension of cut-off criteria at the first reading, point out the implications of what they voted for and urge them to support the Council common position.

MEPs on this side are: Glenis Wilmott, Linda Macavan, Chris Davies, Caroline Lucas, Jill Evans and Eluned Morgan.

After the ENVI committee has voted on Breyer's amendments in early November, it moves onto the plenary session of all MEPs. So that is when you will need to write letters to your local MEPs.

To finish let me say one more time: The time to ACT is NOW. If you don't make your voice heard, many of these key products will not be available, according to a PSD impact study.

Regards
Mike Abram
Deputy FW Arable editor

If Frau Breyer gets her way then the price of basic agricultural commodities could potentially spiral out of control. The EU as a trading bloc grow significantly more wheat than any other major producer with roughly 147 million tonnes this year, with China producing 114 mt then the USA with 67 mt. Last year the price of wheat went over £180/t because of a shortage. This year a good world harvest and fallow land put back into production (set-aside and similar schemes elsewhere in the world ended or suspended) has seen increase of 65.6 million tonnes of wheat over last year and the price has halved. There will obviously be a reduction in the tonnages of all commodities grown in the EU but wheat is such an easy example to talk about!

 

There is a fear that wheat yields here (UK) will be cut by 30% because of the withdrawal of triazoles. The same can be said for some of our EU partners who have a similar crop production system. I thought it would be helpful to do some very simple maths here. The average between last year's poor wheat harvest throughout the EU and this year's very good harvest is roughly 133 million tonnes (hey, I did say it was simple). 30% of this is almost 40 million tonnes. However, some EU States have different systems and climate so a reduction of 30% is unlikely across the whole EU. After taking this into account, lets suggest that the average EU wheat production were to be reduced by a very conservative 20 million tonnes annually (though 25-35 mt may be nearer).

 

World wheat stocks are predicted to be 144.4 mt at the end of this year, an increase of 24.6 mt over last year.World production this year has increased 65.6 tonnes over last year but worl consumption is also predicted to be nearly 37 mt higher because of the bumper harvest and lower prices. Note also that regardless of last year's aweful UK harvest and the idea that it might have been a good idea to try and invent some sort of combine harvester/hovercraft hybrid the World harvest was actually nearly 14.6 mt lower the year before. It seems that an admitedly very rough world average wheat production would be around 630 mt but if this is to be reduced after next harvest every year by 20 (possibly 30) million tonnes, what is this going to do to stocks and to prices? 20 mt as a percentage of 630 mt may seem a relatively modest reduction but year on year it can only reduce stocks and force prices ever higher, but far more seriously, there are nations that have no choice but to import these commodities. The EU is one of the principal exporters, but this will see it become an importer. It doesn't make sense to see the EU Parliament wishing to put us in a situation that harms its balance of trade and wishing also to have to buy imported commodities produced with chemicals that it won't allow its own farmers to use! It will be very interesting to see a bidding war between EU states, Pakistan, Egypt and others for a crop the the EU currently exports by the million tonne! Food riots in Cairo again anyone?

 

I have just been doing some very simple sums here while perusing the United States Department of Agriculture commodity forecasts and historic data on its World Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) web page. Serious statisticians who are far more intelligent than me may be able to forecast where prices will go. The prices of many staple foods will rise significantly and this will have an effect on inflation, just as it has been doing this year even without this new potential legislation. Very obviously wheat is not the only commodity to increase in price because of this. While staples such as bread and potatoes will go ever up, more seriously (or perhaps not) the price of barley will also rise increasing the cost of beer!

 

Frau Breyer explains that new chemicals will be produced to do the job of those we stand to lose while not falling foul of her proposed rules. It is certainly not cynical to think that if such new chemicals were to miraculously appear in two years (yeah, right) she would try and invent a new Directive to ban those as well! Or would she try to engineer/bend/manipulate this strange and nebulous "endocrine disrupting" thingumajig to catch everything that might come along in future?

 

The main crop on my farm happens to be wheat (no surprise there then). If this goes Directive throughin the manner suggested then my wheat will be so valuable that I will become very rich undeed without bothering about the reduction in yield and without even needing any Common Agricultural Policy money at all! That is not the point. To paraphrase a comment in a recent NFU journal, just how many people is Frau Breyer and her friends prepared allow to starve to death for each millilitre of triazole that they won't allow us to use?