Select committee inquiry
Defra's National Pollinator Strategy
Closed
What the inquiry looked at
“The Committee is examining Defra’s ‘National Pollinator Strategy’ in the light of the Committee’s April 2013 report on Pollinators and Pesticides (PDF 2.79 MB) The Committee looked at the proposed relative roles of particular actors (Government, gardeners, industry, farmers, etc); whether the anticipated research is in the right areas, timely and sufficiently independent; the adequacy of the ‘priority actions’ identified; and the effectiveness of the envisaged Integrated Pest Management model. Terms of reference: Defra's National Pollinator Strategy”
The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.
What the government said
The government responded on 15 October 2014.
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.
The government welcomes the Committee's report and agrees on the need for a pollinator monitoring baseline, while taking a different view on the precautionary principle and giving no commitments on neonicotinoid applications or the 2015 review beyond considering the evidence.
- On monitoring, it agrees that a clear baseline is "essential" for effective policy decisions and has commissioned a two-year research project. Early results will inform a planned review of the Strategy by 2019 "as far as possible", with a robust estimate of change "likely to be a decade or longer".
- On the precautionary principle, it takes the view that economic considerations are relevant to its application, citing Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration.
- On neonicotinoids, it states it has "implemented the 2013 EU restrictions in full" and, for the 2015 review, "will consider the available scientific evidence". It says it cannot comment on how it would have decided the withdrawn Syngenta application.
- On Integrated Pest Management, it agrees that it can help and "accepts the need for a clear definition", but says "across-the-board targets to reduce the use of pesticides are not helpful". On the new CAP environmental scheme it will announce details "in due course".
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 6 May 2014 to 19 November 2014.
- Oral evidence 18 Jun 2014
- Report 28 Jul 2014
- Government response 15 Oct 2014
- Correspondence 2 letters
What it recommended 3 recommendations · 10 conclusions
1The 2013 decision to ban three neonicotinoid pesticides, introduced in Europe against the wishes of...
Concluded (the committee's words)
The 2013 decision to ban three neonicotinoid pesticides, introduced in Europe against the wishes of the Government, was the right approach given the requirements of the precautionary principle. The Government continues to interpret that principle as encompassing economic as well as environmental considerations. We do not agree. However, if the Government insists on doing so, it should follow its own argument by being able to clearly demonstrate not just the impact of neonicotinoids on pollinators, but also the benefits or otherwise of using them on crop yields and the possible cost of reduced pollination services.
2We welcome Defra’s commitment to establish a national pollinator monitoring framework.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome Defra’s commitment to establish a national pollinator monitoring framework. This is an area where a lack of universally accepted research has allowed a degree of uninformed assertion to mix unhelpfully with robust science. A clear and less disputed ‘baseline’ understanding of the plight of pollinators, what is putting pressure on their numbers and what is not, is a necessary first step in identifying practical measures to support pollinators.
3Defra’s reliance on industry to fund critically important research exposes it to excessive reliance on...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra’s reliance on industry to fund critically important research exposes it to excessive reliance on the commercial (rather than scientific) research priorities of these bodies and is symptomatic of a loss of Defra’s capacity to deliver its environmental protection obligations. Defra’s role as a “referee”, as the Department put it, for evidence delivered from that research will not be of much use if the studies are designed according to priorities different than those the Department itself should be concerned with.
4Where the research is being funded by pesticide manufacturers, it is important that the design...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Where the research is being funded by pesticide manufacturers, it is important that the design of the studies and how they are undertaken and reported is independent of its paymasters, and is transparent. This is particularly important because Defra has already declared its antipathy to the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides. Its ability to act as a “referee” requires not only that it is unbiased, but also that it is seen as such by the public. We take some assurance from the fact that the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology will oversee the integrity of the work.
5The CAP reforms were an opportunity for farming to lead the way in supporting pollinators.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The CAP reforms were an opportunity for farming to lead the way in supporting pollinators. The way that Defra is structuring the environmental schemes within the CAP, however, risks that opportunity being lost.
6While Integrated Pest Management does not mean an end to the use of pesticides, it...
Concluded (the committee's words)
While Integrated Pest Management does not mean an end to the use of pesticides, it offers a way to reduce their application and the risks they present to pollinators.
7We welcome the Strategy’s emphasis on public engagement in protecting pollinators.
Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the Strategy’s emphasis on public engagement in protecting pollinators. It will tap an invaluable and committed resource, and help lock in continuing pressure on Government to maintain pro-pollinator initiatives. We welcome Defra’s declaration that the final National Pollinator Strategy will advise the public to consider alternative, non-pesticide, pest control methods.
8While we were seeking clarification on its application to use an EU-based neonicotinoid seed-treatment, Syngenta...
Recommended (the committee's words)
While we were seeking clarification on its application to use an EU-based neonicotinoid seed-treatment, Syngenta withdrew it. The Government should make clear, either in its response to this report or in the final National Pollinator Strategy, that had it been obliged to rule on the application it would not have allowed it, or indeed any other of a similar kind in future.
9Defra must ensure that independent controls remain in place throughout any commercially-funded research, and that...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra must ensure that independent controls remain in place throughout any commercially-funded research, and that when completed the results are peer- reviewed and published in full and without delay.
10The Government must review the aspects of CAP environmental schemes which are open to national...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must review the aspects of CAP environmental schemes which are open to national decision-making to ensure that pollinator protection is a priority driver rather than an optional rationale. It should also ensure that the European Commission’s review of the implementation and efficacy of Ecological Focus Areas after their first year of operation applies a similar test.
11Defra should present in the finalised Pollinator Strategy a clear view of what Integrated Pest...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra should present in the finalised Pollinator Strategy a clear view of what Integrated Pest Management includes and excludes, and ensure its interpretation of IPM reflects best practice elsewhere, including the UN guidance. The Strategy should also set out how potential targets for IPM, including for reduced pesticide use, could build on a research-led, evolving understanding of the factors affecting pollinators.
12The finalised Strategy and the ‘delivery package’ to take it forward should set out the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The finalised Strategy and the ‘delivery package’ to take it forward should set out the Government’s intended approach in the areas we have examined in this report: ensuring agriculture plays a full part in protecting pollinators; the role of Integrated Pest Management; and how public engagement will be sustained. It should explain and justify the logic of the predominantly voluntary approach of the measures in the draft Strategy and identify the tests for judging if a mandatory or incentivised approach would be required. The final Strategy should provide a coherent narrative of how all relevant Government policies will contribute to pollinator protection—not just other environmental policies within Defra’s remit but those of other departments such as the well-being agenda and development planning—and set out a process for the Strategy to be continually updated as further research is undertaken and policy developed.
13Defra should use the final Strategy to draw a line under the neonicotinoid ban by...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Defra should use the final Strategy to draw a line under the neonicotinoid ban by making it clear that the UK accepts the European risk assessments underpinning the ban, that it supports the ban and will not seek to end it when a European review is possible in 2015, or otherwise to circumvent it. Defra should make it clear that applications to continue using neonicotinoids, like Syngenta’s, would constitute an attempt to by-pass the precautionary principle rationale behind the ban and as such will not be contemplated.
Evidence
Oral evidence sessions 1
- 18 Jun 2014No witnesses recordedparliament.uk ↗