All Approval Holders Letter 20/2003: Impact Assessment
21 July 2003
Return to All Approval Holders Letter 20/2003
Title of Proposal
Consultation on the introduction of no-spray buffer zones around residential properties.
Purpose and Intended Effect of Measure
The risk posed to bystanders from pesticide spray drift is assessed as an integral part of the pesticides approvals process with specific estimates of exposure being made and the risk assessed directly. The results of the assessments are then translated into specific conditions for use on individual pesticide products that are backed up with guidance on best practice contained in a statutory Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings (the "Green Code").
However recently there has been public and media criticism of these risk assessments. Although the scientific view is that they are robust and sufficient to protect nearby residents the question as to whether spraying immediately adjacent to residents’ boundaries might in any case be considered socially unacceptable has also been raised.
The Pesticides Action Network (PAN) UK estimate that there are over five million people living in rural areas and that approximately a quarter of a million of these are living in homes next to intensively sprayed fields. This proposal is for the imposition of mandatory no-spray buffer zones.
- Are the figures of 5 million and a quarter of a million above accurate?
- The above question in no way implies any criticism of the figures produced by PAN UK. Rather we are trying to establish if other estimates of those potentially affected by spray drift are available.
Options (and Risks)
Two options to address this issue are being explored. These are as follows:
This would maintain the status quo by continuing to rely on the existing statutory and non-statutory controls. Although scientific opinion is that the current risk assessment for bystanders is satisfactory, Ministers could be accused of ignoring the concerns of those who believe they may have been affected and those who consider spraying immediately adjacent to their properties to be socially unacceptable.
- Option 2: Farmers and growers to operate a no-spray buffer zone between the edge of spraying and surrounding houses.
The risk with imposing a no-spray buffer zone is that land will be ‘lost’ to cultivation with no scientific case to back this up. As a result although there could be social benefits it is unlikely that there would be any safety gains involved. Additionally if farmers were to withdraw areas from cropping there could be adverse, or at least unexpected effects on landscape as well as economic consequences. The impact of such zones on the economics of production will largely depend on the size of the no-spray area introduced and what, if any, alternative productive use could be made of the land. It is possible however that such a proposal could make some enterprises unsustainable although it may be possible to ‘dovetail’ such zones in with the recently revised set-aside scheme.
If no-spray buffer zones are to be introduced what sizes do you believe these should be? Should they all be of a single uniform size or would they need to be of varying size to take into account different application equipment and different crops?
Benefits
Maintaining the status quo would have the chief benefit of imposing no new regulatory burdens or costs on farmers and growers. Such a position could be justified on scientific grounds as the available evidence points to the current risk assessment as providing an acceptable level of exposure that is protective of repeated exposure over periods of months.
- Option 2: Farmers and growers to operate a no-spray buffer zone between the edge of spraying and surrounding houses.
Although the introduction of no-spray buffer zones are unlikely to involve any safety gains they may result in social benefits to farm neighbours and those using the countryside for recreation etc. As previously explained it is estimated in some quarters that a quarter of a million people live in homes next to intensively sprayed fields. It is also possible that such no-spray zones could aid biodiversity and thereby have the potential to benefit birds and other wildlife.
Are there any other direct or indirect benefits you think may accrue as a result of no-spray zones being introduced?
Business Sectors Affected
The business sectors most affected by this proposal are agriculture and forestry although there will also be a relatively insignificant knock-on effect to chemical/agrochemical manufacturing (less sales) and food manufacturing (less treated produce).
The proposals would bear on all sizes of growers, from small businesses to large co-operatives with the effect being directly related not so much to the size of the enterprise itself but to the area of residential land adjacent to the cultivated fields. However, irrespective of this it is still likely that these measures would impact disproportionately on small businesses. It is also possible that semi-rural areas, such as Kent, where horticultural enterprises are more prevalent are more likely to be affected than those areas where this is not the case.
Are you aware of any areas of the country that are likely to be disproportionately affected were no-spray buffer zones to be introduced?
Issues of Equity and Fairness
Although the proposals affect all companies in those sectors involved in the production of crops treated with pesticides issues of equity and fairness could arise depending on the type of crops grown. For example some horticultural crops, e.g. lettuce, are sown sequentially to meet market demand for continuity as a result of which they are more intensively sprayed than is the case for arable crops.
Costs
Compliance Costs
This would not entail any change in compliance costs from those that already apply under existing arrangements.
This proposal will involve significant costs. However these are difficult to estimate at present because of the number of variables and unknowns involved. Preliminary calculations seem to indicate that, depending on the size of buffer zone introduced, losses of cropping land in England could be anything between 28,500 Ha and 1,400,000 Ha for arable land and between 68,000 Ha and 1,966,000 Ha for improved grassland. Again, specific information on these costs will be sought during consultation.
Are you able to provide any cost estimates of the likely impact on growers of the introduction of no-spray zones? General or sector specific figures would both be helpful.
Other Costs
No other costs are anticipated.
Costs for a Typical Business
Any additional costs arising from this proposal will fall directly on growers principally with the economic costs of land lost to cultivation were no-spray buffer zones to be introduced. Because of the varying sizes of farming enterprises and the fact that urban/rural boundaries will vary significantly from business to business it is not possible to identify a ‘typical’ business profile that could be used for regulatory purposes.
Consultation with Small Business
As it has been identified above that there may be some disproportionate impact on small businesses this is being explored in this consultation exercise.
We would welcome any information from small businesses on how they would be affected were no-spray buffer zones to be introduced.
Competition Assessment
The question of the impact on United Kingdom (UK) growers vis-à-vis their European competitors will be explored further, like the issue of small businesses, in this consultation.
What do you believe the competitive effect on UK growers would be compared to their European Union (EU) counterparts were no-spray buffer zones to be introduced?
Enforcement and Sanctions
The proposals would be enforced alongside other on-farm pesticide enforcement matters under the existing enforcement arrangements operated by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and would be subject to existing sanctions.
Contact Information
Russell Wedgbury: Telephone 01904 455749, by fax on 01904 455733, by email russell.wedgbury@hse.gsi.gov.uk or in writing.
Caroline Kennedy: Telephone 01904 455706, by fax on 01904 455733, by email caroline.kennedy@hse.gsi.gov.uk or in writing.
