Defra silent on impact of EU reset on farmers

Defra has refused to say whether it has assessed the impact on British farmers of losing key plant protection products as part of its post-Brexit reset negotiations with the EU.

In response to a parliamentary question on the potential loss of certain active substances, minister Emma Hardy said the government was aware of concerns around bixlozone, cinmethylin, isoflucypram and pydiflumetofen – all currently approved in Great Britain but not in the EU.

See also: EU alignment risks £810m hit to farm incomes

She said evidence from industry, alongside expertise from the Health and Safety Executive and Defra, is feeding into government analysis as talks continue on a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement that could see Great Britain align more closely with EU rules in this area.

When asked by Farmers Weekly whether a formal impact assessment of the effect on farmers had been carried out, Defra declined to answer, referring back to its parliamentary response and saying it had “nothing further to share”.

The refusal to clarify whether such analysis exists raises questions about the evidence base underpinning a key element of the government’s post-Brexit strategy.

Industry groups said they are unaware of any government assessment and warn the consequences for growers could be significant.

Josh Woolliscroft, head of policy at CropLife UK, said it had carried out its own analysis alongside the Fresh Produce Consortium, which found a cliff edge SPS deal would slash farming profit by up to £810m and trigger steep falls in UK crop production. 

“We are not aware of any published impact assessment on these active substances or on the wider impact of the emerging SPS deal,” he said.

“CropLife UK and the Fresh Produce Consortium have prepared their own impact assessments, which demonstrate significant risk to growers in the event of a cliff edge regulatory alignment.

“We recognise that this deal is a major priority for the government. However, cutting corners to achieve a speedy negotiation could harm growers and ultimately consumers in years to come.”