Europe throws a lifeline to our bees

In the end, the European Commission won the day and new restrictions will soon be placed on the use of the class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.   

Much of the comment in our press has focused on the fact that the UK, with seven other Member States, voted against a ban.  In fact, despite the recent campaigning effort from a number of NGOs, the UK hardened its position as in March they had abstained. 

Here are the details of yesterday's agreement:

• Three chemicals (clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid) will now be banned on all crops attractive to pollinators, including both seed treatment and foliar sprays.
• Treated seeds cannot be used or put on the market from 1 December.   Member States must amend or withdraw existing product authorisations by September 30th.  Any period of grace granted by Member States must end by 30 November.
• The ban will lasts for two years then the European Commission will review the situation.
• Member State governments are still free to impose additional/more rigorous restrictions than these in their own countries. 

Behind the headlines, two interesting debates that have at times been colliding.  One has been on the strength of the evidential link between neonics and bee declines.  Avid followers of this blog will note that we took our time to support calls for a ban on flowering crops - we had been worried about the environmental consequences of farmers switching to more harmful chemicals.  In the end though, the conclusion we reached, having weighed up all the evidence available to us, was that the risk from neonics to pollinators probably outweighs the risks from the alternatives. 

The second debate focused on how much environmental harm we are prepared to inflict if we are to grow enough food to feed the world.  Some highlighted the potential loss in yield if neonic use was banned.  Putting aside the spurious debates about the the UK's capability to feed the world (for a reminder of our views on the subject see here), I think that concern has been growing amongst the farming community that neonicotinoids were really bad news.  The last thing that farmers want is for their own pesticide regime to lead to a loss of pollinators.  The value of bees to the economy is estimated at about £500m yet replacing those free services would cost nearly four times that amount - £1.8bn - but that assumes that this level of pollination by hand is feasible.  To be honest, like many debates about the utilitarian value of wildlife, priceless might be a better description (as captured by the banner at last Friday's march of the beekeepers).  

So what should happen next?

First, we need the ban to be in place as quickly as possible.

Second, we should use the two year period to improve our understanding of neonicotinoid use so that the 2015 review is informed by the best science.  Equally, we also need to monitor the impacts of the ban - including the use of alternative pesticides - on populations of pollinating insects. 

Third, we need to use this opportunity to develop and promote safer alternatives to neonicotinoids – including non-chemical techniques.  We've long argued that pest control in the EU should follow the principles of integrated pest management.

Finally, we hope that our government will now strive to get the best result for UK farmers: helping them manage pests successfully and safely as part of wildlife-friendly systems of farming, without the need for neonics.

So a good day for wildlife and a good day for anyone who wants the value of nature to be recognised in decision-making.