Written evidence submitted by BASF Agricultural Solutions (INS0015)

Insect decline and UK food security

1. The current evidence base for insect abundance in the UK, and the gaps in scientific understanding that require further research; 

We believe that the science base in the UK remains strong and is in a better place to discuss this section. For example, the Rothamsted Research Insect Survey has been running for nearly 50 years and represents a unique national capacity in this area. We are, however, aware that whilst the numbers of bees and butterflies are carefully monitored, and have significant numbers of people “invested” in their well-being, the understanding of other insect numbers is much less well documented.

2.                The effects of pesticides, such as neonicotinoids or other agricultural control methods on insects including pollinators and their impact on UK food security

BASF does not produce neonicotinoid insecticides but would note that the sudden withdrawal (rather than a phase out) of what was a fully registered and regulated set of compounds resulted in catastrophic losses of oilseed rape due to surges in cabbage stem flea beetle, with no viable alternatives having been developed, farmers now exist in an era of increased risk and the stark reality of crop failure.  IPM can be employed but when the chemistry isn’t available as part of the holistic approach weaknesses are exposed. Farmers reverted to spraying older chemistry over the crops in attempt to stop crop failure, probably having a bigger impact on insect levels than the seed treatments that had been withdrawn. Likewise, yield drops of up to 30% in sugar beet owing to the spread of beet yellows virus is a result of a similar ban in this crop, and risks making the sugar beet industry in the UK unviable. Emergency derogation legislation has resulted in the partial reverse of the neonicotinoid ban.

Crop protection products are used for a reason; they allow a large amount of food to be produced in the smallest area possible, by reducing weeds that otherwise rob crop plants of water, nutrients and sunlight, by reducing fungal diseases that hinder a crop plant’s development, and pests that can hugely reduce crop yields and food quality. Without their use, a much larger area of land would have to be used for food production, reducing still further land that can be used for conservation and recreational purposes.

An example of this is the global production of cereals; in the last 60 years the amount of cereals produced has increased four-fold on a footprint that has essentially remained constant. To put that a different way, without innovation in agricultural yields, for which crop protection has played a big part, alongside seed breeding, another 2 billion hectares ((5 billion acres) of land would have had to been converted to cereal production!

It seems likely that we have fewer insect species in the UK compared to mainland Europe as a result of our island geography but interestingly, whilst some bumble bees are now endangered in the UK, others, such as the tree bee (bombus hypnorum) are recent additions to UK taxonomy having migrated from the mainland in the early 2000’s. Since they forage on essentially the same flora and are exposed to the same levels of pesticide as other bees, it seems likely that climate change is changing their optimum geography.

The most recent butterfly survey by Butterfly Conservation is also illuminating; habitat specialist species, “those restricted to particular habitats such as flower-rich grassland, heathland and woodland clearings” have been particularly affected. Those more generalists, that can “breed in the farmed countryside and in urban areas”, have fared much less badly. The provision of suitable habitats therefore seems to be critical to their future.

Understanding the impacts of climate change seem to be critical to this discussion. For example, trap monitoring data shows aphid species, which are particularly prolific in a farmed environment, and cause destruction of crops not just by their feeding but also because of viral diseases that they spread, are now emerging 20 days earlier than a generation ago. These pests affect cereals by for example spreading barley yellow dwarf virus, oilseed rape with turnip yellows virus, and sugar beet with beet yellows virus.

In the end there has to be a balance between biodiversity and food security. Clearly the UK could stop food production and convert the land back to native vegetation. This would have a huge positive impact on our insect populations, but at a cost. If we agree that food security is a critical issue then we need to protect the food that we are producing, while promoting farming practices which are supportive of farmland biodiversity. Seed breeding for insect resistance is rapidly developing, and the passing of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act this year will free up the opportunities to commercialise disease and pest resistant crops. However, there will remain a role for the judicious use of pesticides as part of an Integrated Pest Management approach to this problem for the foreseeable future.

3.                The extent that biodiversity initiatives, such as creating reservoir populations, are addressing insect decline and whether there is sufficient co-ordination with the UK food system; 

Environmental Land Management “schemes to pay farmers and land managers to provide environmental goods and services alongside food production” and “providing one-off grants to support farm productivity, innovation, research and development” all make sense but will need investment in innovative technologies and techniques if they are to succeed. 

However, one of the arable payments for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) includes the statement “no use of insecticide”. Given that we are aware that the incidence of invasive species, including pests and diseases, is increasing as a result of climate change, encouraging farmers to commit to three years of not spraying insecticides seems very short-sighted. In reality, it seems likely that farmers who are already are in the situation where insecticides are not required will claim the payment; since we are not aware of any farmer that recreationally sprays expensive chemicals on their fields, those who are currently using insecticides are likely to continue to do so. Such schemes are therefore great “soundbites” but are unlikely to result in any net gains when it comes to biodiversity.

4.                Whether the threat to UK food security from insect decline receives sufficient cross-government priority; and 

This is not an area that we feel competent to comment on.

5.                Additional policy initiatives and solutions needed in the UK and internationally to reduce and reverse the trends in insect decline. 

BASF continues to research and support biodiversity initiatives in the UK and around the world. We are committed to Integrated Pest Management and support the Voluntary Initiative to reduce the impact of crop protection and indeed crop production, on the environment, including use of digital and precision agriculture to achieve more efficient and targeted use of crop protection products.

28 April 2023