Report from the Sub-committee on Agriculture

13. Perspectives and conclusions

13.1 Present level of knowledge
13.2 Research and development
13.3 Advice and training
13.4 The Sub-committee’s conclusions

Today, pesticides are of great importance for sustainable arable farming. At the same time, the use of pesticides is in the spotlight because of the risk of pesticides getting into the food chain and the environment, including groundwater. It is not possible to stop using pesticides from one day to the next, but action against pesticides can be intensified with a view to gradually reducing their use.

A reduction in pesticide consumption can be expected as a consequence of the falling product prices seen since 1998 and the increased pesticide tax introduced in November 1998. Economic analyses indicate that the optimum treatment frequency falls considerably when these two factors are incorporated in the scenarios (Ørum 1999).

13.1 Present level of knowledge

The ++scenario is possible

The sub-committee considers that, with our present level of knowledge, there is a good possibility of reducing the present consumption of pesticides without serious economic losses. The following means are already available for reducing consumption:

	Band-spraying in crops grown in rows, including beets; this would more than halve herbicide consumption in these crops.
	Use of mechanical weed control can be increased in some crops, including rape and potatoes, and is also a possibility in cereals and peas.
	Band-spraying of crops grown in rows with fungicides and insecticides.
	Introduction of need-based dressing of spring barley.
	More extensive cultivation of resistant varieties and variety mixtures could reduce the use of fungicides in spring barley for fodder and other crops.
	The use of insecticides for controlling aphids in cereals could be reduced simply by using existing damage thresholds and reducing dosages. The same applies to pests in winter rape.
	General use of decision-support systems could reduce the dosage in individual situations, depending on the development stage, pests and climate.

A further reduction could be achieved, especially in control of grass weed, by reducing the proportion of winter cereals in the crop rotation and postponing the sowing time, since this would reduce the population of annual species of grass weed and also allow more time for mechanical control of couch grass. However, postponing sowing would at the same time reduce the yield.

Decision-support systems have only been developed for the main crops. It is therefore considered vital to get the existing knowledge concerning special crops gathered together in decision-support systems to make it easier for farmers to adjust their spraying to the actual need.

With our present level of knowledge, the sub-committee considers it possible to reduce pesticide consumption to a level corresponding to the ++scenario in agriculture. Where production of special crops is maintained and the proportion of set-aside remains unchanged, that corresponds to a reduction of the treatment frequency index to 1.7. In the corresponding economically optimised crop rotation, an average treatment frequency index of 1.45 has been calculated. For these reductions to be achieved, all existing knowledge must be incorporated and systematised.

It is thus considered realistic to reduce consumption at pure arable farms and pig farms to a treatment frequency index of 1.2-1.7, as demonstrated in trials and farmers’ groups. At specialised arable farms with a substantial production of seed, sugar beet and potatoes, the treatment frequency index could be reduced to between 1.7 and 2.8, while at dairy farms it could be reduced to between 0.5 and 1.4.

Lack of knowledge about the 0- and + scenarios

There is no experience from trials or practice from which to determine the possibilities of farming without pesticides or with pesticide consumption at a level corresponding to the +scenario, with a treatment frequency index of around 0.5. In this area, we thus know too little at the present time.

Since 1987, work at organic all-year research farms has produced experience and production level measurements that give a picture of yield situation in organic farming. However, the situation with a total or partial phase-out of pesticides would be significantly different. The crop rotations would be different and the crops’ ability to compete with weeds could be improved through increased fertilisation. The results, which provide a basis for a realistic evaluation of the possibility of cultivation without pesticides, have in almost all cases been based on single-factor trials – normally with no attempt to describe the prehistory, the significance of which has therefore not been analysed in relation to the results achieved. It is a well-known fact that the prehistory can be of greater importance to the result than the individual levels of experimental treatments.

Before any total phase-out or limited use of pesticides is recommended, demonstration farms should be established to throw light on the consequences in their entirety under conditions that are comparable to practice.

The work of the sub-committee has revealed a serious lack of data on the development and potential of pests in different crop rotations. Particularly in the case of weeds, we have very little data at present describing the development of weeds in different crop rotations. The sub-committee has made some use of experience from organic farming in its work, but many projects are in their initial phase and cannot be used yet. This applies particularly to the more specific crop rotations used in arable farming. As a consequence of this lack of data, many of the evaluations have had to be based on estimates, particularly in the 0-pesticide scenario.

13.2 Research and development

Technological development

Within the next 10 years, continued technological development can be expected to help towards further reduction of pesticide consumption. Several current development areas have, where possible, been discussed in this report, partly on the basis of consultants’ reports. Many initiatives have been launched. The sub-committee finds that the following have particular potential and should be supported:

Preventive and non-chemical control methods:

	Research in the population dynamics of pests in different cultivation systems/farms
	Research in preventive strategies via choice of crop and cultural practices, including the effect of the level of fertilisation on pests
	Development of new technologies for mechanical weed control could improve control. For example, there is a good possibility of weed-control robots being developed as a replacement for manual weeding
	Development of more resistant varieties and research in the mechanism behind resistance
	Research and development of alternative methods of controlling seed-borne diseases.

	Intensified development of warning and decision-support systems that can predict situations in which serious attacks will develop, and in which action should be taken in the form of spraying
	Development of decision-support systems for special crops, incorporating both prevention and chemical control
	Development of improved chemical control methods for use together with mechanical control in row-sown crops
	Development and use of information technology for passing on knowledge and advice on plant protection
	Development of site-specific cultivation and plant protection, where control measures are limited to those parts of the field in which there is a need for control or regulation of pests
	Greater focus on the handling of pesticides in connection with the filling and cleaning of spraying equipment; here, there are deemed to be good possibilities of reducing the risk of point-source contamination around farms.
	Intensified focus on spraying techniques that reduce the risk of drift
	Evaluation of the relationship between yield loss, time of spraying and residual concentrations in food products with a view to minimising ingestion of pesticides.

Breeding potential

The sub-committee considers that, within a 10-year horizon, there are only limited possibilities of reducing pesticide consumption through the use of new, genetically modified plants. In the longer term, however, there could be a big possibility of varieties with better resistance to disease.

The sub-committee does not think it possible at present for breeders to meet all the demands concerning varieties at one and the same time. It is therefore unlikely that the next 10 years will bring varieties that combine resistance to all serious diseases with good winter hardiness, good competitiveness, good stem stiffness, high yields and good quality characteristics.

More basic knowledge on the biology and development of pests is needed as a basis for guidelines on prevention and control.

Research within market gardening

Many of the above-mentioned research and development measures apply to both farming and market gardening. In view of the relatively high spraying intensity in market gardening, there is a particularly great need in that sector to find alternatives to the chemical methods. However, even with our present level of knowledge, some reduction in the present use of pesticides in this area can already be achieved. Weeds can be controlled without herbicides in fruit and berry cultures, but the solutions are considerably more costly. In some cultures, more resistant varieties can be grown, but in the case of apples, for example, it would take 10-15 years to change the assortment. There are various cultural practices that can reduce, although not eliminate, pest attacks. However, many of them are rather time-consuming (removal of old foliage, cutting out of infected shoots, etc.) and would make production considerably more costly.

Within greenhouse production, biological and microbiological control is possible and should be developed still further. Similarly, work on alternative methods of regulating growth should be supported.

Both on the home market and the export markets, increasing demand can be expected for products with certified production methods. Such certification depends on the development of the necessary tools, procedure and rules, including IPM rules.

13.3 Advice and training

Advice

In order to get research results passed on to farmers, coordinated action is needed to ensure that all available information goes out. The following elements are important:

	advice on strategic planning in connection with the choice of varieties and crop rotation
	Establishment of local and national warning systems
	Communication of warnings of diseases and pests
	Demonstration farms illustrating problems relating to different levels of protection and crop rotations
	Establishment of farmers’ groups focused on low pesticide consumption. Both farmers and agricultural advisers will benefit from this.
	Training must be provided in the use of decision-support systems, and the systems should, for example, be available on the Internet.

Training

In line with the supplementary training required for a spraying certificate, follow-up courses must be organised on ways of minimising the use of pesticides. This is essential to reach the level of optimised use described as the ++scenario.

Considerable training will be needed for a change from the present form of cultivation to cultivation without pesticides or with only limited use of them. Since a major restructuring of production will be necessary, the production management effect is deemed to be very important. Success will depend to a large extent on farmers learning how to handle mechanical weed control in practice and about the interaction between production management decisions and consequences for weeds and diseases.

For farmers to be receptive to such advice, they must be able to transfer the results to their own farms and practice.

13.4 The Sub-committee’s conclusions

Present body of knowledge

The Sub-committee on Agriculture has come to the conclusion that it is within farm crops that most is known about the useful effect and consumption of pesticides, whereas knowledge is limited in the case of forestry and market gardening. For this reason, the sub-committee has not carried out a detailed evaluation of scenarios for a partial phase-out in these sectors.

The estimation of average crop losses and the variation in these if pesticides are phased out is encumbered with considerable uncertainty because there is only limited documentation from trials.

In several areas, too little is known to be able to indicate the treatments that would be needed to avoid serious yield losses, as assumed in one of the intermediate scenarios (the +scenario).

Knowledge must be built up as a basis for increased application of the principles for integrated control, including better warning systems, decision-support systems, together with knowledge concerning methods of prevention and mechanical weed control.

Consequences of a total-phase out of pesticides

To minimise losses resulting from pest attacks, a total phase-out of pesticides would require significant restructuring of present crop rotations, including a reduction of the acreage used for winter cereals from 60% to 40%.

Large parts of the present production of special crops, including potatoes, seed grass and sugar beet, would disappear or become unprofitable.

With a total phase-out of pesticides, agricultural production would fall by 10-25%, despite the use of alternative methods of pest control. Livestock production could be maintained because grain would be imported.

This fall in production would affect earnings at the different types of farm. Without crop adjustments, it has been estimated that contribution margin II would be reduced by 4 to 93 %. The average reduction would be 31-48% for arable farms, 4-25% for dairy farms and 50-93% for arable farms with a large proportion of special crops.

If  farmers carried out an economic optimisation of their production, earnings would be reduced by 21-51%.

For several types of farm, the contribution margin would fall below the EU’s hectare payment, which would lead to increased interest in set-aside.

With the present prices for market-garden products, a total phase-out of pesticides in this sector would have major production consequences because large parts of the production of vegetables, pot plants, fruit and berries, and nursery cultures, would become unprofitable because of low yields. There would also be serious problems with meeting the present quality requirements.

A total phase-out of pesticides can also be expected to have serious consequences for forestry production of ornamental greenery and for the establishment of forests. A large proportion of Christmas tree production would probably be discontinued.

Consequences of partial phase-out of pesticides

The sub-committee concludes that the present pesticide consumption in agriculture could be reduced by about 30% to a treatment frequency index of 1.7, corresponding to the ++scenario, without any significant change in the existing crop composition. In the economically optimised crop rotations, where the choice of crops is adjusted, pesticide consumption could be reduced to a treatment frequency index of 1.45 without serious consequences for agriculture and society. This corresponds to a reduction of 43% in the present treatment frequency index. The reduction potential is highest for dairy farms and lowest for specialised arable farms.

At pure arable farms and pig farms, a reduction of pesticide consumption to a treatment frequency index of 1.2-1.7 is deemed realistic. This has also been demonstrated in trials and farmers’ groups. At specialised arable farms, the treatment frequency index could be reduced to 1.7-2.8, while at dairy farms, it could be reduced to 0.5-1.4.

Use of all available damage thresholds and mechanical control methods is assumed where these methods can compete with chemical methods.

In the evaluations, account has not been taken of the fact that it may be difficult to meet the stated treatment frequency indices on certain soils (including organic soil and land with large weed populations) or of the fact that in some years with severe pest attacks it would be difficult to avoid economic losses in a ++scenario.

Given the present level of knowledge, a reduction of pesticide consumption to a treatment frequency index of around 0.5 (the +scenario) in agriculture is not deemed to be a realistic scenario. It would imply considerable yield losses, in part because there are no adequate tools at present for determining treatments that would keep yield losses below 15%.

The sub-committee has not carried out specific evaluations of how the intermediate scenarios would affect production in market gardening and forestry. However, there are deemed to be several alternative methods that could be used to reduce the consumption of pesticides and that would be a natural extension of the IPM production already widely practised today in market gardening.

Instruments

The sub-committee has not decided which instruments can or should be recommended in connection with a total or partial phase-out of pesticides.

Reduction of pesticide consumption to a level corresponding to the ++scenario would require the implementation of known methods of prevention and control and further development of these methods. There are several ways in which integrated prevention and control in the agricultural sector can be promoted, including incorporating information and guidelines in decision-support systems.

Advisory and training activities would have to be increased considerably to achieve the reduction.

To be receptive to this advice, farmers would have to be able to transfer the results to their own farms and practice.