The Environmental Audit Committee, a panel of MPs that assesses the government's environmental policies, held its first public evidence hearing on the UK government's controversial pollinator strategy on Wednesday.

image expired

Defra is developing a policy framework to deal with insect pollinator decline, a problem that is affecting the entire Western Hemisphere. The government consulted on the issue between March and April this year.

The Strategy, due for publication in the autumn, is intended to safeguard bees and other insect pollinators, and includes new research. The draft policy was criticised by green groups when it was unveiled in March; environmentalists expressed concern at the government's plans to rely on pesticide manufacturers to lead research, and warned that not enough attention has been paid to farming methods in the draft.    

The Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into Defra's strategy follows on from a report released last year into the government's response to evidence that certain agricultural chemicals may be harming the health of insect pollinators. EAC concluded in its report that Defra had missed opportunities and failed to act appropriately on the threat pollinators in the UK face. The report warned that "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."

On Wednesday, the EAC took evidence from Professor Ian Boyd, Chief Scientist at Defra, who called for support for more research into pollinator decline, pointing out that research has so far focused on honey bees, which are commercially kept and comparatively easy to monitor, though tentatively collected evidence suggests numbers of other wild insect pollinators are also in freefall.  

Boyd repeated warnings made ahead of EU Commission restrictions on neonicotinoids that bans on these newer products could lead to use of older chemicals, which are known to be damaging. He recommended instead that efforts focus on improving knowledge about the pesticides and their effects.

Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex challenged the notion he said had been levelled at his colleagues by government scientists that laboratory studies (studies that have shown a link between neonicotinoids and bee health have predominantly been lab-based) are of less worth than those conducted in fields. Professor Goulson said "I actually think there’s a better distinction between industry-funded studies and independent studies."

Defra used a lack of evidence from field-based studies as one of its reasons for dismissing th European position on neonicotinoid science in September 2013, before the EU Commission's partial ban on three neonicotinoids was introduced. In response to the earlier report by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), the government said that, while it is obliged to abide by an EU moratorium on certain agricultural uses of the pesticides, it would not be pushing for a ban on neonicotinoid ingredients in gardening products or introduce a scheme to monitor pollinator health, as recommended by Commission science advisors.

Defra commissioned its own agency FERA to conduct field research into bee health and neonicotinoid use ahead of member state voting on the neonicotinoid ban, though this was never submitted for peer review. The FERA study was instead released onto the internet and was panned by EU science watchdog EFSA, which declared that it was unfit to contribute to the neonicotinoid debate.

MPs question industry funding for pollinator research

Much of the questioning in the EAC's first session revolved around pesticide industry funding for the UK-based research into pollinator health.

Mark Lazarowicz, questioning Professor Boyd, asked why the government had turned down European funding to investigate bee health, which almost every other member state had taken up. He also questioned Professor Boyd and Julian Little – who was representing neonicotinoid manufacturer Bayer – on Bayer CropScience's funding of pollinator research conducted in the UK.  

Defra chief scientist Boyd said he did not feel Defra should take part in commissioning or conducting research, but should instead act as an impartial referee. He did, however, say that the industry that benefits from pesticide sales should pay for investigations. Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith agreed with this point, but added, "I understand why people could see this funding as cynical. Why not provide the money to Defra and let Defra set the terms of reference? If that were done then researchers would be answerable to you [Boyd]."

Julian Little assured that the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology had been commissioned to design and conduct the pollinator studies, and that Bayer has merely funded the research, which it has "every intention of publishing."

Matt Shardlow, Chief Executive of insect charity Buglife, and Green MP Caroline Lucas questioned the narrow focus of research into chemicals such as neonicotinoids. They said a focus on chemicals' environmental impacts should also look at their efficacy. When pressed, Bayer's Dr Little said he wasn't aware of a sinlge peer-reviewed paper that suggested neonicotinoids have a yield benefit.

He did, however, state that "Farmers who don't use neonicotinoids will be able to attest to their importance," and promised that there will be a visible difference in performance this autumn – the first season in which use of three neonictoinoids has been restricted. Days before the EU Commission announced its restrictions, an industry-funded study was published which claimed neonicotinoids are worth £630,000 to UK agriculture each year.     

Lucas also asked whether there has been any research into the potential costs farmers stand to face, as well as the potential benefits associated with measures to help pollinators. Defra chief Scientist Boyd said research in this area is being undertaken, but added that results will not be available for a number of years.

Nevertheless, the NFU expressed its support for the government strategy on Wednesday.

Actions proposed by Defra, for which the union gave its backing, include promotion of environmental land management measures through the Campaign for the Farmed Environment (CFE) and the uptake of integrated pest management, though IPM still has to be defined, as critics have warned that this has been applied too loosely in the strategy to date.

Dr Chris Hartfield, who contributed to the EAC's second session on Wednesday, said "We are supportive of the proposals in this strategy – they are very important steps to take and the evidence-based approach to these is something we commend. Farmers across the country are already supporting CFE which includes voluntary efforts to encourage and safeguard pollinators amongst other measures to increase biodiversity."