| 1. | The objectives of the Voluntary Initiative lack clarity in the extent to which they include a reduction in pesticide use as an explicit aim (para 10).
|
| | |
| 2. | Progress on the development of Crop Protection Management Plans is almost a year behind schedule. This is disappointing. The 2006 target-a 30 per cent uptake-is also insufficiently challenging as evidence suggests that very high levels of take-up are required for the Initiative to be successful (para 17).
|
| | |
| 3. | We fear that Crop Protection Management Plans may become little more than a paper exercise, and add nothing to requirements already contained in other assurance and subsidy schemes (para 19).
|
| | |
| 4. | The Initiative lacks a clear implementation strategy to provide incentives for farmers to alter their behaviour and takeup best practice (para 25).
|
| | |
| 5. | We are forced to conclude that the Voluntary Initiative does not appear to have, within itself, sufficient 'carrots' to offer to farmers. Nor can it enforce its recommendations with 'sticks' while remaining on a voluntary basis (para 26).
|
| | |
| 6. | We doubt whether the Voluntary Initiative can deliver the very high levels of takeup which will be needed for success. We believe that incentives will have to come from outside the Initiative. Cross-compliance with Common Agricultural Policy subsidy schemes, with their audit arrangements to ensure compliance, could provide one of the mechanisms for encouraging widespread adoption which the Voluntary Initiative itself lacks (para 27).
|
| | |
| 7. | We recommend that the Government develops an environmental management strategy for agriculture which sets out the relative contributions and interrelationships between the Initiative, assurance schemes, and both existing and proposed agrienvironmental schemes. Farming desperately needs a simpler approach (para 28).
|
| | |
| 8. | The original 28 targets set as part of the Voluntary Initiative relate mainly to processes rather than environmental outcomes, but are nevertheless important. They are challenging and, as the example of the professional register of spray operators shows, the signatories appear to have underestimated the task of achieving them (para 31).
|
| | |
| 9. | We endorse the efforts of the Steering Group, in response to pressure from the Minister, to develop a more comprehensive set of indicators and targets. We are concerned, however, that-more than 18 months into the initiative-these have still not been finalised (para 35).
|
| | |
| 10. | We recommend that the Government clarifies the criteria it intends to use to assess the effectiveness of the Initiative immediately (para 36).
|
| | |
| 11. | We consider it essential that the Steering Group should monitor progress of the Initiative against the approved targets, notwithstanding any other targets or indicators it might set. The next annual report must set out clearly progress in this respect. It should also contain analysis of progress against any other targets which have subsequently been agreed with Ministers (para 40).
|
| | |
| 12. | At present, little detailed information is available about the costs which signatories claim to have incurred. We recommend that there should be far greater transparency and accountability with regard to such costs, and that this information should be included in the annual report (para 39).
|
| | |
| 13. | The extent to which claimed expenditure by the signatories constitutes 'real' costs over and above any costs which they would otherwise have incurred, even in the absence of the Initiative, should be made clear (para 41).
|
| | |
| 14. | We were alarmed to hear that Professor Dent is only contracted to work for eight days a year as independent Chairman of the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group (para 43).
|
| | |
| 15. | The department must clearly put its money where its mouth is, if its miserly approach is not to be seen to reflect the extent of its commitment to the Initiative (para 43).
|
| | |
| 16. | We also find it bizarre and deplorable that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had commissioned a review of the success of the Voluntary Initiative without even having the courtesy to inform Professor Dent (para 44).
|
| | |
| 17. | The Government initially made much of the "partnership" approach it was to pursue with regard to the Voluntary Initiative. But any such claim now is clearly untenable. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to engage in any serious dialogue with the Steering Group on cross-cutting issues, and has even undermined the role and authority of its Chairman. The evidence provided to us showed that the Chairman and Steering Group are isolated-and indeed alienated -from Government and the relevant department (para 46).
|
| | |
| 18. | We came to the following overall conclusions:
|
| | |
| (a) | The Voluntary Initiative has got off to a rather slow start. It has so far had little impact on farmers as much of the work done to date has involved preparation and groundwork. The Initiative is now beginning to be rolled out to farmers and the next year will be critical.
|
| | |
| (b) | We are, however, very concerned that the Voluntary Initiative does not have within itself sufficient incentives to ensure the high level of take-up required. Nor, being voluntary, can it require farmers to change their behaviour. In addition, there is little emphasis within the Initiative on reductions in the use of pesticides and on encouraging alternative approaches.
|
| | |
| (c) | On the other hand, it is perhaps too early to judge whether the Voluntary Initiative has been a success. We therefore consider that it needs to be given further time, and that at the end of 2003 a thorough and realistic appraisal of its success should be carried out.
|
| | |
| (d) | But it is already clear that the Voluntary Initiative should represent only one aspect of a more comprehensive strategy towards reducing the environmental impacts of pesticides. Moreover, many of the activities within the Initiative would need to be carried out in any event as part of an overall strategy, and will depend for their effectiveness on the adoption of a joined-up approach.
|
| | |
| (e) | The Government must therefore, as a matter of urgency, develop and publish a pesticides strategy. Such a strategy should show how different policy instruments-including the use of fiscal instruments, a strong regulatory framework, the Voluntary Initiative itself, and cross-compliance with subsidy and assurance schemes-are to be used to complement each other and achieve a reduction in the environmental impacts of pesticides. Indeed, there is a widespread consensus, reflected in research studies and the evidence presented to us, that reliance on a single policy measure to achieve any environmental objective is unlikely to be successful, and that a combination of policies are generally required.
|
| | |
| (f) | We believe that fiscal instruments have an important part to play in such a strategy. They could provide, through hypothecation, far more resources than are currently available within the Voluntary Initiative. They could be designed to provide rebates to farmers who adhered to more stringent environmental guidance; and to discriminate much more heavily on products in relation to the extent of environmental damage they cause. However, as we highlighted nearly three years ago, the Treasury and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs need to undertake more research in this area to prepare for the introduction of practical proposals. They must do so now.
|
| | |
| (g) | The Government is currently considering major issues relating to agricultural policy both in its response to the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food and in relation to the EU midterm review of the Common Agricultural Policy. It will be releasing a sustainable agriculture strategy very shortly. This would provide a context within which our recommendations in this report can be taken forward (para 48).
|
