Select committee inquiry
Insects and Insecticides
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“This inquiry examined the effect of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides on pollinators. In particular, the Committee considered Defra’s policy and regulations on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the light of the available evidence on the impact of such pesticides on pollinators. Pollinators and Pesticides - publication of Report Further information on inquiry including details of Report and evidence taken”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What it found
In the committee's words, from the summary of 7th Report - Pollinators and Pesticides - Volume I (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence) ↗
Insects are exposed to many environmental factors, but recent research suggests that one group of insecticides—neonicotinoids—is having an especially deleterious impact on insect pollinators. The body of peer-reviewed science on that point has developed appreciably in the course of our inquiry, but certainty is—as yet, if ever—unachievable. Our inquiry therefore focused on how Defra and the European Commission addressed monitoring, risk assessment, regulation, risk management, precaution and mitigation in response to the emerging science.
The system for approving pesticides is opaque. The Government should seek reforms whereby the European Food Safety Authority clearly identifies action points in its assessments that the European Commission must explicitly address before approving pesticides for use in the EU, and Member States should not undertake the initial assessment of products developed in their own countries in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
Defra should strategically support insect pollinators in the UK to preserve biodiversity, protect the environment and sustain a key ecosystem service. We were not encouraged by the Government’s UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, which was a missed opportunity. The plan should be revised to make integrated pest management its clear central principle, with targets to reduce reliance on pesticides as far as possible.
The promotion of integrated pest management is a key feature of the EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, and Member States are required to implement the provisions on integrated pest management by 1 January 2014.
Defra’s application of the precautionary principle involves economic factors becoming entangled with environmental decision making, which not only contradicts Defra’s stated commitment to the precautionary principle, but risks overlooking the significant economic value of insect pollinators to UK agriculture. Defra should prepare to introduce a moratorium in the UK on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam by 1 January 2014, and support such a proposal in the EU.
In the main body of this report, conclusions are printed in bold and recommendations are printed in bold italics.
What the government said
7th Report - Pollinators and Pesticides - Volume II - Additional Evidence (Volume II: Additional (unprinted) written evidence)
No government response is linked to this report.
7th Report - Pollinators and Pesticides - Volume I (Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence)
The government responded on 10 September 2013.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government welcomes the Committee's work and accepts some of its conclusions, but does not agree that the evidence supports a UK moratorium on three neonicotinoids, while saying it will implement the EU restrictions "in full".
- On a moratorium, the government does not consider that the evidence "points to unacceptable risks to bees" and so does not consider that it supports the Committee's proposal. It voted against the similar Commission proposal.
- On pollinator monitoring, the government agrees that monitoring is important. It says it is commissioning a review of evidence and holding expert workshops in autumn 2013 before "considering" a new national monitoring programme.
- On risk assessment, it agrees that honeybees are no longer sufficient as the proxy for all insect pollinators. It says it must work within the EU process, where the European Food Safety Authority is developing new guidance covering other bee species.
- On the precautionary principle, it agrees that pesticide policy must be evidence based but does "not, however, entirely agree" with the Committee's view of how the principle should operate, saying economic considerations form part of risk management.
Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error
How the inquiry ran
Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 25 September 2012 to 10 September 2013.
- Report 2 reports
- Government response 10 Sep 2013
What it recommended 3 recommendations · 20 conclusions
1The available evidence indicates that wild insect pollinators, such as hoverflies, moths, midges, butterflies and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The available evidence indicates that wild insect pollinators, such as hoverflies, moths, midges, butterflies and wild bees, are experiencing serious population declines, but there is insufficient data to be precise about the extent of such declines due to inadequate monitoring.
2We agree with Defra that it would be “a good idea” if pesticide manufacturers were...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We agree with Defra that it would be “a good idea” if pesticide manufacturers were to publish the studies underpinning applications for pesticide approvals. The agrochemical industry has produced many studies on the environmental effect of neonicotinoids and other pesticides, but the data are allegedly confidential for commercial reasons. The lack of transparency in relation to trials and studies conducted by pesticide manufacturers has resulted in inequality between the pesticide industry on one side and academics and the public on the other.
3We recognise that it is impractical to conduct individual risk assessments for the thousands of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We recognise that it is impractical to conduct individual risk assessments for the thousands of species of bees, hoverflies, butterflies, carrion flies, beetles, midges, moths and other invertebrates that contribute to insect pollination, but we are not convinced that honeybees are an appropriate proxy for all such species.
4For Governments, scientists and the public to have confidence in the EU-wide pesticide approvals regime,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
For Governments, scientists and the public to have confidence in the EU-wide pesticide approvals regime, data and analysis should be rigorously scrutinised and quality checked to form a credible evidence base. The 2006 re-approval of imidacloprid for use in the EU shows two flaws in the system. First, EFSA identified the issue of soil accumulation in its peer review, but the European Commission proceeded to sign off imidacloprid as an approved active substance for use in Member States without explicitly addressing that risk. There seems little point in EFSA’s assessing risk if the Commission ignores environmental threats identified in that process. Secondly, the choice of Germany as the Rapporteur Member State in the case of a substance developed and manufactured in Germany raised a potential conflict of interest.
5The Henry, Whitehorn and Gill laboratory studies raised serious concerns about the potential effect of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The Henry, Whitehorn and Gill laboratory studies raised serious concerns about the potential effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees. While laboratory studies should as far as possible replicate field conditions, they cannot by their nature do so precisely. One of their virtues, however, is that they take place in controlled conditions. The FERA bumblebee study, which Defra commissioned to test the conclusions of the laboratory studies in the field, was, we conclude, fundamentally flawed because the bees were placed outside on different dates, some colonies had a lower starting mass than others and a different neonicotinoid from the one used in the study was present in the ‘unexposed’ hives. The FERA bumblebee study is not therefore a compelling basis for inaction.
6Neonicotinoid pesticides are not fundamental to the general economic or agricultural viability of UK farming,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Neonicotinoid pesticides are not fundamental to the general economic or agricultural viability of UK farming, although there may be specific issues in relation 40 Pollinators and Pesticides to oilseed rape that might require careful management if neonicotinoids were not available to growers.
7Defra policy on pesticides must be evidence-based.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra policy on pesticides must be evidence-based. Where the available scientific evidence is either incomplete or contradictory, Defra must apply the precautionary principle rather than maintaining the status quo while waiting for further evidence. Defra policy in relation to neonicotinoids is not currently founded on the precautionary principle as set out in the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration and the Lisbon Treaty, in that Defra will not countenance imposing a moratorium if it would not be “proportionate”. Ministers currently consider that a decision on a moratorium should be informed by potential economic impacts as well as by clearer proof about harm to bees than is currently available or is likely to be produced in the near future. We recognise the agricultural value of neonicotinoid insecticides, but economic factors should not blur environmental risk assessment and risk management, where the protection of people and the environment must be paramount.
8That it was necessary to take legal advice whether the UK National Action Plan for...
Concluded (the committee's words)
That it was necessary to take legal advice whether the UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides complied with the minimum requirements of the EU directive suggests that the UK failed to take this opportunity to address pesticide use to benefit human health and the environment. It is difficult to see how pesticide use will change without the implementation of the objectives, timetables, measures and targets that officials dismissed as “meaningless”.
9In the interests of the environment, food security, minimising resistance among pests and maximising agricultural...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In the interests of the environment, food security, minimising resistance among pests and maximising agricultural incomes, it is desirable that the minimal possible amount of chemical pesticides is used in agricultural production. This means moving away from any excessive use of chemical pesticides and utilising integrated pest management. Such an approach would prevent any ban on neonicotinoids necessarily causing the increased use of potentially more harmful substances.
10There is no compelling economic or agricultural case for neonicotinoid use in private gardens and...
Concluded (the committee's words)
There is no compelling economic or agricultural case for neonicotinoid use in private gardens and on amenities such as golf courses, which provides Defra with an opportunity to exercise its stated commitment to the precautionary principle.
11While much detail remains to be negotiated in the European Commission and between Member States,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
While much detail remains to be negotiated in the European Commission and between Member States, the prospective CAP package for the next seven years offers opportunities for significant additional ‘greening’ measures, including programmes which could support greater use of ‘buffer strips’ and other pollinator habitats.
12The conservation of pollinators is crucial to maintaining biodiversity in the UK.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The conservation of pollinators is crucial to maintaining biodiversity in the UK. In addition, pollinators have a significant economic value as an ecosystem service to UK agriculture. Farmers and environmentalists therefore have a shared interest in conserving pollinators. The data on the value and health of pollinator populations is currently insufficiently precise to inform a marketised approach that could capture the benefits and costs of pesticide use.
13Defra must introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra must introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species to inform policy making.
14The agrochemical industry should place the results of its risk assessment trials in the public...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The agrochemical industry should place the results of its risk assessment trials in the public domain to inform academic research and increase transparency for the public. Defra should work with industry and academics to establish which, if any, genuinely commercially sensitive details should be redacted to make that possible.
15We urge Defra to introduce a representative range of sentinel pollinator species in UK pesticides...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We urge Defra to introduce a representative range of sentinel pollinator species in UK pesticides risk assessments and work to agree a similar arrangement across the EU.
16We recommend that the Government exercises its influence in Europe to empower EFSA to include...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Government exercises its influence in Europe to empower EFSA to include action points in future [pesticides approval] peer reviews which the European Commission must explicitly address before approving active substances. The Government should seek a common understanding in Europe that active substances should be assessed by the regulatory authority of a Member State other than the one in which the applicant company is based.
17Defra must review how it exercises the precautionary principle.
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra must review how it exercises the precautionary principle. Economic considerations should not form part of environmental risk management decision making, but rather should be a function of a distinct and transparent subsequent political process.
18Defra must develop the UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides in...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra must develop the UK National Action Plan for the Sustainable Use of Pesticides in line with both the spirit and the requirements of the European Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. To that end, Defra should prioritise the development of the action plan in its business plan and accordingly provide an appropriate level of resource. The UK plan should include quantitative objectives, targets, measures, timetables and indicators, as stipulated by the directive. The promotion of integrated pest management principles is a key feature of the EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, and Member States are required to implement the provisions on IPM by 1 January 2014. Defra should introduce clear incentives for farmers to drive take up of IPM.
19Defra should prepare to introduce a moratorium in the UK on the use of imidacloprid,...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra should prepare to introduce a moratorium in the UK on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam on crops that are attractive to bees by 1 January 2014, and support such a proposal in the EU.
20Defra must immediately withdraw the approvals for use in the UK of neonicotinoid pesticides marketed...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra must immediately withdraw the approvals for use in the UK of neonicotinoid pesticides marketed for amateur application in private gardens and on amenities in order to create neonicotinoid-free zones for pollinators in non-agricultural areas.
21In its forthcoming review of advice, incentives and voluntary initiatives for farmers, Defra should give...
Concluded (the committee's words)
In its forthcoming review of advice, incentives and voluntary initiatives for farmers, Defra should give prominence to measures which would support bees and other pollinators, including leaving land un-cropped.
22The Government’s stance in negotiations in Europe on the new CAP package should be to...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government’s stance in negotiations in Europe on the new CAP package should be to push measures which offer meaningful pollinator support within the environmental schemes qualifying for payment. And from that baseline, the Government should then follow a similar outlook in designing qualifying initiatives in England (the devolved Administrations would manage their own schemes).
23Defra should prioritise its work on valuing ecosystem services and at an early stage in...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra should prioritise its work on valuing ecosystem services and at an early stage in that work address the particular case study of pollinators to ensure that policy making on insecticides fully reflects not only direct financial costs but wider environmental costs.