UK agriculture could lose £905m under new pesticide laws

The loss of agrochemical actives as a result of recent EU criteria has the potential to cost UK agriculture over £905 million, according to a new AHDB report.

Compiled by ADAS on behalf of AHDB, BBRO and PGRO, the report assessed three scenarios across 51 horticultural, arable and forestry sectors.

The estimated losses in the subsequent production year under these scenarios ranged from £905 million to over £3 billion, and assumed that all active substances in a scenario were lost at the same time. They also assume that mitigating actions such as alternative chemistry, would be used where available.

Scenario One looks at the loss of 10 fungicides, 3 herbicides and 4 insecticides, with the largest impact on the horticulture sector. Total food production losses are estimated at 2.4 million tonnes.

Scenario Two includes an additional 11 fungicides, 7 herbicides and 2 insecticides, with edible horticulture accounting for the largest proportion of losses, followed by other edible crops such as cereals, oilseeds, potatoes, pulses and sugar beet. Total food production losses are estimated at 5.7 million tonnes.

Scenario Three includes an additional 29 active substances in addition to both scenarios above with significant impact across all sectors, with food production losses estimated at 14.2 million tonnes.

Under the revision of the pesticide approvals legislation and the implementation of European Union Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation (1107/2009) there has been a move from a risk to hazard based assessment criteria for the approvals of pesticide active substances.

This report illustrates the potentially calamitous impact of one of the most significant EU regulatory decisions, which threatens the accessibility of UK and EU farmers to PPPs.

Additionally, it substantiates the need for farmers to respond to the consultation on the review of the ED definitions before January 16 2015.

The farmgate value of lost production calculated in the report highlights the potential economic impact on farmers, and demonstrate the likely change in production levels.

The yield losses across the edible crops are equivalent to a 2.4M tonne reduction in food production.

This compares to an estimated total UK production from these crops of 46.3M tonnes so represents a significant change in productive capacity.

AHDB Chairman Peter Kendall said: “The ability of UK farmers and growers to seize their share of growing market opportunities depends on having the right tools to become the most efficient and sustainable food producers they can.

“Central to that ambition is retaining access to effective crop protection products. This AHDB report comes at a critical time to provide independent information to inform the wider debate.”

NFU vice president Guy Smith said: “We welcome the most recent AHDB report investigating the review of the endocrine disruptor (ED) definitions and its impact on the availability of plant protection products (PPPs) on food and plant production in the UK.

“The ED definition is the reason two thirds of the active ingredients have been assessed as being at risk by the Andersons’ report, commissioned by the NFU, CPA and AIC.

“It is critical that the review of the endocrine disruptor definition is based on the best scientific understanding of the risk. Currently, an active ingredient cannot be used in a PPP if it classed as an ED regardless of potency of effect, and evidence of harm.

“This report builds upon the economic findings of the Andersons’ report on loss of PPPs and adds specific detail and emphasis to this crucial part of regulation. It will strengthen the evidence base for our lobbying, as part of our Healthy Harvest campaign, at an EU level to change the way these vital PPPs are regulated to a risk based process, to ensure our farmers can keep producing food and plants for the public.”

Although the number of potential actives under threat is less for cereals and oilseeds, the impact is scaled up over a greater land base. The potential impact for winter wheat in scenario one is estimated at £12 million, and oilseed rape losses are estimated at £4 million.

Harley Stoddart, HGCA’s Policy & Research Manager said: “The loss of fungicides to manage rust, especially epoxiconazole, would cause the greatest yield impact to winter wheat.

“For oilseed rape the loss of metconazole and tebuconazole used for disease are the main challenges. In Scenario Two the loss of propyzamide and carbetamide would also severely limit the ability to manage black-grass which affects 40-50% of arable fields.”

Land use change

Some crops, particularly horticulture crops, will become unviable under current production systems and market prices. This could lead to change in land use, which may have economic and environmental impacts which could be positive or negative.

Food, feed and fuel supply chains

Changes in UK production could affect a wide range of supply chains including the limitations on quantity and quality of horticulture produce, supply of wheat for milling, storage of potatoes for processing, and timing of supply, which may affect food prices and imports, investment and jobs.

Consumer behaviour

The assumptions in this report, particularly for horticulture, are based on the assumption that consumer behaviour will continue to demand, perfect blemish free products. If these perfect blemish free products are not available, as a result of reduced pest or disease control, at an acceptable price will consumers change purchasing behaviour?

Waste

The yield implications of reduced pesticide availability mean that there is the potential for a large increase in waste food and crop materials at the farm level. Some of the ‘waste’ will never be produced as crops with the potential for excessive yield lost just will not be grown. However, especially in fresh produce there is the potential that there will be an increase in the proportion of fruit and vegetable crops that are rejected due to failure to achieve quality specifications. Will there also be impacts on shelf life, especially where disease control has been impacted?

Jobs

Reduced viability of certain crops and the subsequent business restructuring are likely to result in impacts on employment, especially if alternative crops are less labour intensive.