Summary of study on the economic impact of the implementation of the proposed revision of directive 91/414 on thirteen major Dutch crops
Posted by Marten Snell on December 22, 2008 in European Regulation, Farming, Food & health
A team of researchers of the Wageningen University and Research Centre (Agricultural University of the Netherlands) published on 28 October a 150 page report on the economic impact of the proposed revision of the directive 91/414 on thirteen of the most important crops grown in the Netherlands. Below is a summary of the report.
The field crops include seed- and ware potatoes, direct seeded onions, sugar beet, winter wheat, Brussels sprouts and apples, but also two very traditional and high-value Dutch crops, tulip bulbs and ornamental shrubs. The economic impact was also assessed in the following vegetable and floricultural crops grown under glass: cucumber, tomatoes, roses and Chrysanthemum.
Two scenarios were studied:
- Impact of “Cut-off” criteria based on the position of the European Parliament after a plenary vote, which would result in a ban of 85 % of the active substances. In this summary, this scenario will be referred to as EPP cut-off scenario. Please see Table 1.
- Impact of “Cut-off” criteria based on the proposal of the European Commission, in which pesticides would be banned if they are endocrine disruptors, carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances as well as Persistent Organic Pollutants. This scenario will be referred to as EC/CMR/POP scenario. Please see Table 2.
RSS
Comments(0)Pressure mounts for EU-wide impact assessment
Posted by Wyn Grant on December 11, 2008 in Environment, European Regulation, Farming, Food & health
When I attended the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the European Parliament with colleagues on Monday to give evidence the question of an EU-wide impact assessment of the 91/414 revisions was again raised. The Commission response was that they had undertaken an impact assessment in 2006. However, this impact assessment is widely considered to have been insufficient.
As decision-making reaches a crucial stage in Brussels, pressure for an impact assessment is mounting from the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has urged EU policymakers to investigate how their proposals could damage European food production before negotitaions are concluded. He said in a parliamentary letter, ‘We remain concerned that the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee is continuing to press for changes which could damage agriculture and food production without meaningful benefits for health and the environment.’
Earlier this week a petition signed by 72 scientists and agronomists was presented to the European Parliament by Professor John Lucas from Rothamsted Research. It voiced concern over the rate at which crop protection products are being removed from the market. They say the resulting dependence on fewer, less effective alternative products will lead to pest resistance and accelerate damage to crops.
The decisions being discussed in the trialogue will have far reaching impacts on farmers, consumers and food security. Too often assessments only consider costs and not benefits. Of course, any full impact assessment must take account of the whole range of costs and benefits in terms of economic, social and environmental sustainability including human health. As I urged the Parliament on Monday, a credible EU institution that could undertake such an assessment exists in the form of EFSA.
PSD issues new impact assessment
Posted by Wyn Grant on December 02, 2008 in Environment, European Regulation, Farming
It will be recalled that the impact assessment issued by the UK’s Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) earlier this year made a significant contribution to the ongoing debate on the legislation currently being considered within the co-decision process. The assessment attracted some critical comments both from the Commission and the European Parliament, but it also heightened awareness of the possible impacts of some aspects of the proposals on European farming. The PSD has now issued a revised impact assessment which is available on their website. Click here to view.
Pesticides in sustainable agriculture event: a journalist’s take
Posted by Helen Dunnett on October 22, 2008 in Environment, European Regulation
We recently attended the European Voice debate on the role for pesticides in sustainable agriculture (disclaimer: the event was sponsored by ECPA, as is Pesticide Information). We were not permitted to film the debate itself, which is a shame, seeing as the event aimed to give a voice to all sides of the debate - much like Pesticide Information. Luckily, we were able to conduct some short interviews with attendees just after the event, the first of which was with Roger Waite, who is the editor of AGRA FACTS, a Brussels-based newsletter that closely monitors EU agriculture policy.
You can view some of the highlights in the video below, where Roger gives his take on the event, the gulf in differences of opinions and the difficulties this causes him as a journalist, the logic behind conducting a full impact assessment on the revision of Directive 91/414 governing pesticides, and calls for the European Commission’s agriculture and rural affairs directorate, DG Agri, to be more involved in the current regulatory process.
An interview with Allan Buckwell of the Country Land and Business Association
Posted by Helen Dunnett on September 25, 2008 in European Regulation
At last week’s British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium event (see entries below) we had a chat with Professor Alan Buckwell, Policy Director at the Country Land and Business Association in the UK, who chaired the event. We asked him how he thought the event had gone and whether industry’s demand for a full impact assessment, in his view as an independent moderator, was reasonable. Hear what he had to say in the video below.