Sustainability will always mean different things to different people, even in agriculture. Economic, environmental and social are regarded as the major pillars of sustainability, but different interests align to just one element.

While the environmental and social pillars also matter to farmers, economics are their major concern. When this pillar works, it is much easier for those who are the main custodians of our countryside to act in favour of environmental and social considerations.

Increasing pressures

Almost every week, we hear of new legislative requirements forcing farmers to take actions that are now seen as different to conventional farming. Examples include nitrogen constraints, closed seasons for specific activities, actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and nitrogen emissions, water quality, enhanced biodiversity, obligatory stubble cultivation, pesticide reductions etc.

This article looks specifically at developments relating to pesticides and the new regulations that are in incubation. The headline topic from the Green Deal calls for a 50% reduction in the overall use of all pesticides across the EU and the proposals for the review of the sustainable use directive were recently out for public consultation.

Ireland offers fantastic growth potential for most crops, but achieving this is dependent on us being able to control a range of pests, weeds and diseases that also thrive in our climate. For the past half a century, we have come to depend more and more on the use of pesticides to help achieve these objectives.

The problem now is that pesticides are being viewed as undesirable and even unnecessary by parts of society and by some political persuasions. The EU has long been increasing the severity of its control regulations and this has resulted in the loss of many actives that were important for crop producers in particular.

A major change occurred over a decade ago, when the evaluation system moved from assessment based on risk to one which evaluated on the basis of potential hazard. In most other aspects of society, safety is provided for by managing the risk – something like petrol being an everyday example.

Loss of actives reduces pesticide loading

EU growers have already seen many actives discontinued, either because of compliance inability, an imbalance between registration compliance costs and likely market returns, the loss of actives due to resistance or products that had become inferior to their replacements. Whatever the reason, the development pipeline has now slowed considerably.

The long-term plan for EU society – the Green Deal – is calling for a 50% reduction in the calculated chemical loading. In European terms, Ireland is a relatively low user of pesticides – a generic term that includes sprays used to control diseases, pests or weeds, as well as other aspects of crop husbandry – because so much of our land is not sprayed on an annual basis.

Why 50%

It seems that no one is willing or able to answer the 50% question. It seems to have been an arbitrary figure that was plucked from the sky. Indeed, why is it necessary given the scrutiny that products must go through to be registered?

It is important to say that growers want to reduce chemical use, because these inputs cost a lot of money. But the expense is profitable. Not being able to use them to an optimum level means decreased yield and/or quality, income loss and possibly an unsalable crop.

It is worth noting that Ireland has already achieved much of the 50% reduction, partly because of our area reduction, partly because of the loss of specific actives and partly because actives that were questionable were replaced by safer ones.

Further reduction is possible in time, but this would be a much safer journey if EU farmers had access to proven alternative technologies.

Targeted genetic solutions using tools like CRISPR-Cas could help greatly. However, genetic solutions must also be protected as nature will also act to overcome these sources of resistance. We are also likely to see some bio-based or biological tools but, as of yet, there are very few real alternatives to synthetic chemistry.

Sustainable policy requires that a satisfactory alternative become available before a forced reduction is put in place. This is not evident in any aspect of the new sustainable use of pesticides (SUD) proposals.

Other proposals

Reduced pesticide use is only one element in the new proposals. There is also a proposal that suggests all pesticide users be advised by independent advisers – the meaning of which lacks clarity. However, this flies in the face of our current commercial model where company advisers give most of the field advice.

There is also, not surprisingly, an intention to prohibit all pesticides on areas used for amenity use. This would mean that we will have to be content with weed seeds blowing onto every acre and garden or pay more labour. This would pose serious problems for businesses like golf courses.

It is also proposed that ecologically sensitive areas cannot be sprayed with pesticides.

However, some of these are now mapped onto parts of fields where crops have been grown for decades. This would drive even more land out of tillage.

In summary

There are elements of this proposed legislation which threaten current land use and commercial practices.

Together, they would seriously threaten many farm and commercial businesses and they hardly represent the end product of a well thought out and sustainable policy change. As stated before, sustainability means different things to different people and our bureaucrats and farmers differ considerably on this one for the moment.