What the Neonicotinoid ban means for farmers

After the vote last week in Brussels to ban the use of neonicotinoids in outdoor crops, Farmers Journal Scotland caught up with Jon Knight, head of crop health and protection at AHDB, to find out what this means for farmers.

Why are neonicotinoids important to farmers?

They are one of the most widely used groups of pesticides over a wide range of crops. Used on cereals, oil seeds, sugar beet, potatoes, pretty much all ornamentals horticulture and 30-odd fresh produce crops. If you put this into monetary terms it is potentially huge. The lessons from the ban of these three neonicotinoids in 2013 on oilseeds was that farmers do respond to the changes. Initially, the response in the UK for growing oilseed rape (OSR) was to apply pyrethroid pesticides against cabbage stem flea beetle (CSFB), the primary target of the neonicotinoid seed treatments, this led to an increase in pesticide resistance and poor levels of control.

Many growers used repeated sprays against the CSFB which would have had a significant impact on non-target species, as a pyrethroid spray will have a broad spectrum affect. In subsequent years growers in those areas where the CSFB pressure was greatest have switched away from OSR to other crops, which generally have smaller profit margins. Several studies have investigated changes in oilseed rape production since 2013 and these found significant losses to the industry as a consequence of the decision. One study, by ADAS, examined the impact of the withdrawal in seven European countries – Austria, Germany, Finland, France, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the UK – and found oilseed rape crop areas declined by approximately 4% in 2016.

The combined economic impact across all the countries was also estimated for the loss of production (€96m) and the increased cost of production (€86m) – equivalent to a €182m loss in farmgate gross margin. It was also estimated that the use of pyrethroid insecticides increased five-fold, putting additional pressure on this vulnerable chemistry.

This ban is much wider, covering all outdoor crops, so the impact could be substantial.

Approximately 40% of UK winter wheat crops are treated with neonicotinoids to protect the crop against barley yellow dwarf virus, which is transmitted by cereal aphids and can cause losses of up to 70% and did so before the introduction of neonicotinoids.

Assuming average (2013-2016) prices, yields and areas grown, and a 2% loss of yield over the BYDV affected area, this would equate to a monetary loss of £34m. Sugar beet is extremely vulnerable to the loss of these products (you could contact BBRO to get figures for likely impacts). About 30 different horticultural crops use these three neonicotinoids to manage pests and this would result in significant losses in many cases.

Why the vote went the way it did last week?

The decision is interesting and reflects the precautionary principle as applied by the EU around hazard-based criteria. Inevitably, such an approach, applied in a highly conservative manner, will lead to more active ingredients either being banned or not being renewed. This will cause problems for farmers and growers in that the change they face will be rapid and there is little time to adapt, or find alternatives for successful pest management. The approach used by the EU also does not weigh the costs of pesticide use against the benefits it delivers.

The ban itself was almost inevitable, as the earlier renewal of glyphosate for a period of seven years rather than the normal 15 years showed a degree of politicisation of the process which will probably continue.

A large amount of evidence has now been collected about the impact of these products on bees and it is far from clear what role the neonicotinoids play in the decline of bee populations. Many laboratory trials show a negative impact of the insecticides as do some field trials, other field trials show a mixed outcome, with some trials showing negative impacts, some positive and many no impact at all.

There are also differences between the three insecticides and the whole issue of bee population dynamics, which appears to be influenced by a range of factors including weather, disease, parasites and access to suitable feeding sites. What is required is an objective examination of all of the literature alongside the benefits of using the products and a rational decision about their use made. If the government or public wish to move away from pesticides then that is perfectly legitimate, but this should be transparent and not conflated with scientific analysis.

What will farmers need to do replace the sprays?

There are products that can fulfil a similar role, but we have to assume that they are judged inferior to neonics in some way (cost, efficacy, ease of use, etc) or growers would be using the alternatives. One issue will be a significantly reduced ability to control aphids and the introduction of viruses into crops. The seed dressings ensure adequate control over a significant time period, replacement sprays will only provide cover for a couple of weeks before repeat sprays will be required. If the neonics are unavailable then the use of alternatives will be increased and the risk of resistance occurring heightened. There are few, if any, direct replacements at the current time, but there are some new products coming through from manufacturers. Some are new modes of action, although closely related to neonicotinoids, and others are new classes which is significant for managing insecticide resistance in future. There is a product, Lumiposa (cyantraniliprole), being used as a seed treatment in Poland for OSR which should become available elsewhere in the EU in due course.

Pesticides under threat?

I think the environmental NGOs see this as the start of the process and that the remaining neonics (Thiocloprid, acetamaprid, firponil and sulfloxaflor) are in their sights. The French government is pushing hard in this area. Interestingly, Thiocloprid is on the list of possible endocrine disruptors so may not be available in the longer term once the process of reviewing those products starts.