Pesticide code bill could be £11.5m for growers

3 November 2000




Pesticide code bill could be £11.5m for growers

By Andrew Swallow

GROWERS could face costs of up to £11.5m/year if the government adopts new proposals to minimise the potential environmental impact of pesticides.

But that is far less than the £125m potential cost of a pesticide tax, which could still be announced in the Chancellors pre-budget statement next week, says the NFU.

Four new proposals have been added to the original 20 submitted to the DETR last spring (Arable May 19) by the Crop Protection Association, formerly the British Agrochemicals Association. They have the backing of the NFU, CLA and a range of other trade bodies.

In addition, five indicators to establish just how environmentally friendly the industry is have been suggested, and some of the original proposals reinforced.

How much each grower would need to spend to meet the guidelines would depend on what they are doing now, says NFU crop science adviser Chris Wise.

But uptake of the proposals by growers is essential to show progress in managing pesticide use, he believes. "Implementing these measures will incur a cost, but at least it is not taking money out of the business," says Mr Wise.

The proposals have met a mixed response on farm. "I am against any extra paperwork for farmers and costs. But whatever we have to do to stave off a pesticide tax has to be done," says Northants grower and agronomist Justin Blackwood.

He is also concerned that implementing the measures would be another burden on UK growers compared to our international competitors. "We have got to have a level playing field."

AICC chairman Peter Taylor believes most advisers already inform growers of the environmental impact of their operations, but stresses it is not the advisers job to enforce that on farm. "I am not there to do the governments job for it."

However, the NFU is seeking to move sprayer operator training under the National Vocational Qualification umbrella so non-agricultural support from sources such as the Regional Development initiative could be used.

It will also seek tax breaks to ease the cost of adopting new technologies such as closed transfer systems or low-drift nozzles, he adds.

Government feedback on the original proposals prompted the new measures, says CPA government relations manager Martin Savage.

"If the government agrees to our proposals we want to start implementing them straight away," he says. The cost to CPA member companies will be £10m across the five-year programme.

PESTICIDE TAX AVOIDANCE

&#8226 Four new proposals added the the 20 original ones.

&#8226 £11.5m/yr grower cost.

&#8226 Funding to be sought.

&#8226 Voluntary at present.

&#8226 CPA, NFU, NFUS, NAAC, UKASTA, CLA & AEA initiative.

NEW PROPOSALS

&#8226 Annual crop protection management plan to be drawn up for each farm.

&#8226 BASIS requirement for all who advise on agchems.

&#8226 More information supplied on how to increase arable biodiversity.

&#8226 Specific code of practice for insecticide use.

INDICATORS SUGGESTED

The government has called for national indicators of the impact of the use of pesticides on the environment to be agreed. Five criteria have been suggested: Water quality; Area of cereal field margin under environmental management; Measurement of operator training levels on farm; Investigation of proportion of active agronomists who are on the BASIS professional register; Uptake of new technologies. Establishing benchmark levels of these indicators would allow improvement to be monitored, it reasons.

PESTICIDE TAX AVOIDANCE

&#8226 Four new proposals added to the 20 original ones.

&#8226 £11.5m/yr grower cost.

&#8226 Funding to be sought.

&#8226 Voluntary at present.

&#8226 CPA, NFU, NFUS, NAAC, UKASTA, CLA and AEA all support initiative.

Government suggests indicators

The government has called for national indicators of the impact of the use of pesticides on the environment to be agreed. Five criteria have been suggested: Water quality; Area of cereal field margin under environmental management; Measurement of operator training levels on farm; Investigation of proportion of active agronomists who are on the BASIS professional register; Uptake of new technologies. Establishing benchmark levels of these indicators would allow improvement to be monitored, it reasons.

NEWPROPOSALS

&#8226 Annual crop protection management plan to be drawn up for each farm.

&#8226 BASIS requirement for all who advise on agchems.

&#8226 More information supplied on how to increase arable biodiversity.

&#8226 Specific code of practice for insecticide use.


See more