EU states' environment ministers will vote today on a European Commission proposal to suspend use of neonicotinoid pesticides on crops attractive to bees. The proposal was made after a review published by the Commission's scientific advisors in the European Food Safety Authority showed that three types of neonicotinoid pose a "high acute risk" to bee populations, and potentially other insect pollinators.

image expired

The measure has received widespread popular support; the governments of France, Italy and Germany have already made moves to restrict certain uses of the chemicals, though Germany stood in the way of the Commission's proposed ban in voting in March, and campaign group Avaaz estimates that upwards of 70 percent of the British public supports a ban.

However, though its own trials have been subject to harsh criticism, Defra maintains that there is not enough data available to justify introducing a moratorium, even a partial, temporary one as suggested by the Commission. Environmental campaigners, on the other hand, contend that over 200 peer-reviewed studies, pointing to health impacts in bees and other insect pollinators from exposure to neonicotinoids, constitute a body of evidence which warrants abiding by the precautionary principle.

Chemical companies responsible for manufacturing the pesticides have been lobbying hard since mid-2012, when the EFSA review was commissioned and the French government introduced restrictions in response to the findings of a study by state agricultural science institute INRA (published in the journal Science). Corporate Europe Observatory recently published evidence of a "furious lobbying campaign" by EU pesticide manufacturers Bayer and Syngenta.

The companies maintain that, when used correctly, their products do not harm pollinators, and point out that bee populations are also under threat from a combination of disease, climate change and loss of habitat. They claim that banning their products will result in lower yields of crops typically treated with neononicotinoids, lead to the reintroduction of older, more harmful chemicals and precipitate a relocation of maize production.

An industry-funded study published the day before EFSA's recommendations were made estimated that the pesticides are worth 17 billion Euros to European agriculture over five years.

Responding to claims made in the industry report, Pesticide Action Network said that, even when taken at face value, the evidence presented in the report still supports a ban; PAN said evidence suggests that 'ecosystem services' provided by insect pollinators are worth 75 billion Euros over the same period.

Peter Melchett, Policy Director of Organic organisation the Soil Association added that none of the negative effects predicted in the report have so far befallen any of the four EU states that have introduced restrictions. He said, "A three year ban in Italy on neonicotinoid use on maize found that following the ban from the 2009 season, the yields in 2011 were the same as in 2008."

Members of the environmentalist camp have organised numerous protests in Europe's member states over the past few weeks. These include a 'March of the Beekeepers' orchestrated by a coalition of green groups in Parliament Square, London on Friday and a beekeepers' protest in the Bulgarian capital Sofia last week, which successfully swayed government ministers, who pledged to back a ban shortly afterwards. Protesters will also gather in Brussels on Monday ahead of the crunch EU vote.   

Rural Affairs secretary writes to Defra over proposed ban

Scottish Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead waded into the debate on Sunday; Mr Lochhead urged Environment Secretary Owen Paterson to acquiesce to a ban, but said the time-frame should be extended, with restrictions set for introduction in 2015, instead of July this year, to allow time for further evidence gathering.

Mr Lochhead stated "The Scottish Government takes the health of bees and other insect pollinators very seriously [and] when it comes to protecting our biodiversity and wildlife, there are times when taking a precautionary approach is perfectly justifiable," but went on to say that, "Given the lack of conclusive evidence I think it would be sensible to carry out a further programme of research over the next two years. If the results prove conclusively the pesticide does not harm bees, the proposals would be withdrawn. If not, the proposals would be implemented."

He added, "A breathing space would allow any existing stocks to be used and also time to ensure that any alternatives on the market do not make matters worse."  

Green MSP Alison Johnstone slammed Lochhead for putting the interests of "big business" before environmental health. She responded to his calls by saying, "The cabinet secretary doesn't understand what the precautionary principle is or he wouldn't suggest two years of inaction. He should be demanding convincing scientific evidence that pollinator populations aren't negatively impacted by the use of neonicotinoids, and meantime he should support the call from the Environmental Audit Committee and the European Commission… [but] instead of genuine precaution he's asking for a further delay."

Although voting in Europe has been divided so far, the Commission has expressed a desire to secure a partial ban, and may overrule the Council if a decision cannot be reached today, after several rounds of talks on neonicotinoids held since January have ended in deadlock.