Defra

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

 

1. Title of proposal

Future policy on the Western corn rootworm (WCR), (Diabrotica virgifera)

 

2. Purpose and intended effect

Objectives

To determine the future policy against WCR, and in particular the degree of statutory involvement by summer 2007.

 

Background

WCR is an insect pest of maize originally from North America. WCR causes damage when large numbers of larvae feed on maize roots resulting in yield loss and lodging (or collapse). The pest was first found in Europe (Serbia) in 1992 and since then has been spreading both within Eastern Europe and the EU. In recent years there have been concerns about the establishment of WCR in the UK due to the increasing area of maize production and in the longer term, conditions becoming more favourable for the pest with climate change. In August 2003 WCR was found for the first time in South East England and statutory emergency EC measures were implemented.

 

There are two pieces of EC legislation covering WCR.

(i) Decision 2003/766/EC

Under this legislation Government must carry out surveys for WCR in areas where maize is grown.

Where WCR is captured the following measures must be implemented;

(1) A focus zone of at least 1 km must be established round the field where WCR was captured;

(2) A safety zone of at least 5 km radius must be established around the focus zone.

(3) Within these zones Government must carry out monitoring for the presence of WCR;

(4) There must be no movement of fresh maize plants out of these zones when there is a risk of spreading the organism;

(5) Maize plants must not be harvested when there is a risk of spreading the organism;

(6) Soil must not be moved from fields within the focus zone to fields outside the focus zone;

(7) Maize must not be cultivated in the focus zone for the 2 years following capture;

(8) An appropriate treatment against WCR must be used on maize fields within the focus zone during the egg laying period in the year of capture and in the following year;

(9) Agricultural machinery used in the focus zone must be cleaned of all soil and debris before leaving the zone;

(10) Volunteer maize plants must be removed from non-maize fields within the focus zone.

In addition within the 5 km safety zone, crop rotation must be carried out so that maize is only grown once in any 2 consecutive years and an appropriate treatment must be carried out on maize fields in the year of capture and the following year.

(ii) Decision 2006/564/EC

Although it has not been proven, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that WCR can be spread via aircraft. Therefore this amendment has been introduced with the requirement that within 2.5 km of an airport, either rotation must be carried out so that maize is not grown more than once in two years or there must be intensive monitoring for WCR. The amendment also allows Member States to define 'infested zones' where WCR has been found during two consecutive years.

 

Rationale for government intervention

WCR is listed as a quarantine pest in EU legislation (EC Directive 2000/29/EC) as a harmful organism whose introduction into, and spread within all Member States shall be banned. Therefore when this organism is found the Government is required by the legislation to take action to eradicate or contain the pest. Failure to do this may result in spread of the pest and infraction proceedings from the EC.

 

3. Consultation

(i) Within government

There has been consultation within Defra including Plant Health Division and the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate who carry out the practical implementation of the statutory measures and the surveys for WCR. The Defra Central Science Laboratory who provide scientific support such as WCR identification as well as production of pest risk assessments and cost benefit analyses have also been consulted. The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, the Welsh Assembly and the Department for Agriculture Northern Ireland have been informally consulted but will also receive the formal consultation documents when they are sent out to stakeholders. However, it should be noted that there are no WCR outbreaks in the areas covered by the devolved administrations.

 

(ii) Public consultation

All the affected growers and some of the business and trade organisations including the Maize Growers Association and the National Farmers Union have provided comments on the pre-consultation documents with a view to determining the future policy on WCR, and these have been taken into account. Consultation documents will be posted to all maize growers in England and sent by email to relevant trade organisations and others who may have an interest in the production of maize. In addition all the consultation documents will be publicly available on the Defra website.

 

4. Options

Three options have been identified at this stage.

 

Option 1 - Do nothing - Do not implement the measures in Decision 2003/766/EC and Decision 2006/564/EC

 

Option 2 - Fully implement Decision 2003/766/EC and Decision 2006/564/EC

 

Option 3 - Implement some of the statutory measures and develop a buffer zone between currently infested areas and areas where there is a high risk of establishment

 

5. Costs and benefits

 

Sectors and groups affected

Maize is grown for a variety of different purposes, primarily for the production of silage for cattle, but also as game cover and sweet corn. All maize growers could be affected. In particular, growers who face logistical difficulties with rotating their maize with other crops will be the most severely affected by the legislation and are most at risk of pest damage. There are currently approximately 7000 maize growers in England. A cost benefit analysis¹ has been carried out by the Central Science Laboratory which has provided some of the information used in this RIA.

 

Option 1 - Do nothing - Do not implement the measures in Decision 2003/766/EC and Decision 2006/564/EC

 

The current controls would be lifted and industry would have to deal with the pest without Government support.

Benefits

• Maize growers will not incur the costs from the enforced rotation which could range from £0.52 to £2.29 million over a 20 year period.
• Government will not have to bear the costs of monitoring, scientific support and oversight of measures at affected farms which is estimated as ranging from £2.5 to £4.8 million over a 20 year period.
• Maize fields will not be treated with insecticide and therefore there will not be an environmental impact.
• In the short term no maize growers would be put out of business due to enforced rotation.

 

Costs

• There would be infraction proceedings from the EC with associated costs of fines and administration of the proceedings themselves which would have to be borne by Government.
• Not implementing the measures may result in spread of the pest from infested regions to non-infested regions resulting in a cost to growers from a total of £0.6 to £5.6 million over 20 years depending on the area of maize affected, the yield loss that the WCR causes and the value of the maize.
• In addition to allowing the pest to spread, non-implementation of the statutory measures around airports could allow further introductions of the pest as well as spread to other EC countries.
• In the long term some maize growers could be put out of business due to major levels of damage being caused by WCR. However, as most of these businesses do not produce maize alone this seems unlikely.
• There would be no additional administrative burden for maize growers from non-implementation of the statutory measures.

 

Some measures could still be introduced in the event of non implementation of the current statutory measures. One option would be the development of a voluntary code of practice to be drawn up by Government and industry on measures to prevent or slow the spread of WCR from infested regions to areas which are currently clear of the pest. Another alternative is for industry to collect funds in a risk sharing scheme so that maize growers in continuous production who carry out rotation and thus incur costs can be compensated. In addition these funds could also be used for surveying and monitoring the spread of WCR.

 

Option 2 - Fully implement Decision 2003/766/EC and Decision 2006/564/EC

 

The current controls would remain in place and additional measures implemented including the requirement to carry out rotation in the areas close to airports. To date the majority of these measures have been implemented in the UK. However, for practical reasons particularly with respect to the treatment of maize fields, it has not been possible to implement all the measures. Treatment of fields has to be carried out at the point at which adult beetles emerge to lay eggs which will lead to infestation of the crop in the following year. Due to the climate in the UK, the adults emerge in late July or early August when the maize plants are over 2m tall, treatment of the crop is no longer being carried out and specialist equipment would be needed to carry out treatment.

 

Benefits

• There will be parity with other EC member states.
• The spread of WCR will be reduced and the pest could be eradicated leading to savings for the maize growers because there will be no crop loss. This could range from £0.6 to £5.6 million over a 20 year period depending on the area of maize affected, the yield loss that the WCR causes and the value of maize.
• The risk of further introductions and infestations will be reduced by implementing the statutory measures specific to regions around airports. Efforts to eradicate WCR or reduce the spread of the pest would be worthless if there is still the risk of further infestations from new introductions.

Costs

• A financial burden will be placed on industry by enforcing maize growers in continuous maize production to carry out rotation and where there are no suitable alternative crops that can be grown. This could result in costs from £0.52 to £2.29 million over a 20 year period.
• There will be a cost of at least £2.5 million over a 20 year period (costs only calculated for implementation of 2003/766/EC) to Government for carrying out the surveys, providing scientific support and enforcing the statutory measures.
• The statutory measures require treatment of maize fields and so there will be an environmental impact from the use of insecticides.
• If all of the statutory measures were to be implemented it is possible that a few of the maize growers particularly in the focus zone would be forced out of business. However, the majority of these businesses do not produce solely maize and this is therefore unlikely.
• There would be a minor administrative burden placed on stakeholders (telephone contact from Inspectors monitoring pheromone traps on their land).

 

Option 3 - Implement some of the statutory measures and develop a buffer zone between currently infested areas and other areas with a high risk of establishment

In addition to including the measures to be adopted around airports, Decision 2006/564/EC also allows member states to define infested zones. Within this zone a yearly programme to limit the spread of the pest must be established. Member states can also follow Commission Recommendation 2006/565 which allows a containment zone to be defined which should extend for at least 10 km into the pest infested zone and for at least 30 km into the non-infested zone. Therefore a part of South East England could be declared infested with a 40 kilometre wide buffer zone between the infested and clear areas. In this buffer zone rotation will be required but the impact could be minimised by selecting the region for the buffer zone avoiding the main areas of continuous maize production. This effectively means that crop rotation (so that maize can only be grown once in every two year period) would have to be carried out in (i) areas 2.5 km from an airport runway and in (ii) the buffer zone around the infested zone. The Recommendation includes other measures such as insecticide treatment which could be used to limit the spread of WCR but as discussed above this is not practical within the UK and the preferred measure for reducing the spread of WCR is crop rotation.

 

Benefits

• This will demonstrate to other EC member states that the risk from WCR is being addressed and suitable measures are being implemented.
• The risk of further introductions of WCR to the UK and spread of WCR to other member states will be reduced by implementing the statutory measures specific to the areas around airports.
• Within the UK the risk of WCR spread from infested areas to non-infested areas will be reduced by establishment of the buffer zone.
• There will be reduced costs to industry as the principal costs result from enforcing maize growers in continuous production to rotate.
• Government will benefit from reduced levels of surveys, scientific support and enforcement of statutory measures resulting in lower costs.
• Within the containment zone, treatment of maize fields can be combined with crop rotation to limit spread of WCR. However as described above this is not practical within the UK and therefore insecticide is unlikely to be used so there will not be an environmental impact.

 

Costs

• The EC may still bring infraction proceedings for not implementing the full set of statutory measures.
• There will not be parity with other member states where more stringent action is taken.
• Costs will still be incurred by maize growers in continuous production whose farms lie within the infested zone and who will have to carry out rotation.
• As with the option considering implementation of all the statutory measures, it is possible that a few of the maize growers particularly in the focus zone would be forced out of business. However, the majority of these businesses do not produce solely maize and this is therefore unlikely.
• There may be a minor additional administrative burden to maize growers (telephone contact from Inspectors monitoring pheromone traps on their land).

 

6. Small Firms Impact Test

The majority of businesses affected by the statutory measures are likely to be categorised as small. Initial comments on this consultation have been provided by all the growers in the current safety zone affected by WCR and some of the business organisations including the Maize Growers Association and the National Farmers Union which will represent small businesses. However, the views from all the maize growers in England will be sought as part of this consultation.

7. Competition assessment

The Competition Filter has been applied and it has been concluded that this proposal is likely to have little or no effect on competition. This proposal will affect the production of maize which is grown for a variety of different markets including dairy farmers who grow maize to produce silage, growers of maize for grain, landowners growing maize as game cover and farmers producing sweet corn for the food industry. Of these, the dairy farmers are most likely to be affected but the results from the Competition Filter will be applicable to all the markets. With respect to maize production, no businesses are known to have more than 10% of the market share and therefore the costs should be evenly spread for all the markets. This proposal may have a greater impact on some of the dairy farmers producing maize for silage but this will be as a result of geographical location resulting in less options for rotation in areas of continuous maize production. The proposals are not likely to have an impact on the existing market structure and will not disadvantage new firms in comparison to existing ones. The maize growing sector is not characterised by rapid technological change. It is very unlikely that this regulation will restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products.

 

8. Enforcement, sanctions and monitoring

Any of the statutory measures adopted would have to be enforced by the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate under the general powers of the Plant Health (England) Order 2005. However, if following the consultation process Option 3 was selected, a specific Statutory Instrument would have to be introduced to ensure that the measures in the designated infested zone and corresponding buffer zone were enforced.

 

9. Implementation and delivery plan

The timescale for implementing these various options will very much depend on which option is favoured following the consultation. For instance Option 1 could be put into practice immediately. However, if a statutory option is chosen the intention would be to implement arrangements for the maize growing season in 2008.

 

10. Post-implementation review

Plant health developments are continuously monitored at both UK and EU level. Therefore it will be possible to review the effects of the option which is implemented and consider changes as necessary taking into account additional information gathered about WCR, where WCR is present in the UK and further developments in other member states. Additionally there may be audits by the EC's Food and Veterinary Office.

 

Reference:

1. CSL Document , Cost: Benefit analysis of action against Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) in England and Wales. Alan MacLeod (2007). http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/diab.htm

Summary table of options with costs and benefits

Option	Total benefit - economic - environmental - social	Total cost - economic - environmental - social - policy/admin
1 Do nothing - do not enforce statutory measures	- savings to maize growers as rotation   not enforced (£0.52 to £2.29 million   over 20 years) - savings to Government as no   statutory measures enforcement   (£2.5 to £4.8 million over 20 years) - no environmental impact as   insecticide not used - in short term no maize growers put   out of business due to enforced   rotation	- cost to Government from EC   infraction proceedings - in long term cost to maize growers   with increased pest damage (£0.6 to   £5.6 million over 20 years) - further introductions of WCR from   other EC countries - potential of maize growers going out   of business due to major WCR   damage in long term - no additional administrative burden   for stakeholders
2 Enforce all statutory measures	- parity with other EC member states - spread of WCR is reduced or   eradicated leading to benefits for   maize growers as crops are   undamaged - risks of further introductions reduced	- cost to maize growers from carrying   out crop rotation (£0.52 to £2.29   million over 20 years) - cost to Government from enforcing   statutory measures (at least £2.5   million over 20 years) - potential environmental impact   from use of insecticides - potential for maize growers to be put   out of business due to enforced   rotation - minor additional administrative   burden for stakeholders
3 Enforce some statutory measures; define an infested zone and a buffer region	- demonstrate to EC that risk is   being addressed - risks of further introductions and   spread to other EC member states   reduced - risks of spread from infested zones to   clear regions reduced - reduced costs to stakeholders as less   maize growers forced to rotate - reduced costs to Government from   enforcing statutory measures - no environmental impact as   insecticide not used	- cost to Government from EC   infraction proceedings - there will not be parity with other   member states - costs incurred by maize growers in   buffer zone who are forced to rotate - potential for maize growers to be put   out of business due to enforced   rotation - minor additional administrative   burden for stakeholders