1 / 22

Biopesticides and sustainability

Biopesticides and sustainability. Wyn Grant. Practical research. The challenge. Synthetic plant protection products becoming less available at a time of concern about food security Carrot fly example Biocontrol products offer a sustainable alternative

nerina
Download Presentation

Biopesticides and sustainability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biopesticides and sustainability Wyn Grant

  2. Practical research

  3. The challenge • Synthetic plant protection products becoming less available at a time of concern about food security • Carrot fly example • Biocontrol products offer a sustainable alternative • But have faced regulatory and market challenges

  4. Biocontrol products • There are some problems of definition • Generally talking about naturally occurring entities that have little or no toxicity, invisible to naked eye, can be applied with existing equipment • Entomopathogenic fungi – example of beauveria fungus worked on in RELU project

  5. Downsides • Less efficacious – slower kill rate, highly selective niche products mostly, short persistence, susceptible to unfavourable environmental conditions • Need more technical knowledge from farmer • Most headway in greenhouses where synthetics often could not be used and more tech know how, but note Serenade

  6. Regulatory environment • Regulators used to dealing with chemicals • Often suspicious of biocontrol (even now) • Two tier system at EU level, substances and products • Variable standards of member state agencies

  7. New legislation • Still being brought into force and implemented • Three eco zones plus one for greenhouses • Commitment in EU to IPM • EFSA involved in peer review of active substances

  8. Lack of political support • Not used by that many farmers (NL different) • Organic sector suspicious • Big agrochemical companies see them as threat (but now buying in) • Companies are very small, often science park start ups • Retailers ambivalent – a few in favour

  9. How has progress been made? • Policy network weakly developed ad immature • Interventions by government and response by regulatory agencies • Role of consultants • Improvements in capacities and sophistication of IBMA

  10. Member state governments • Cabinet Office intervened in UK, Defra relatively inactive, brought in change agent from Unilever • Response from Approvals Director at what was then PSD, Biopesticides Scheme • Genoeg Scheme in NL • UK response very dependent on agency of individuals, hence fragile

  11. Current situation • PSD becomes CRD or Bootle East • Fiscal consolidation leaves to departure of key staff, possible morale effects • Role of Availability and Alternatives stakeholder group • Concern about Biopesticides Scheme being hollowed out

  12. Consultants • Intermediaries between firms and regulators, but viewed with some ambivalence by regulators • Prominent in IBMA • Generally one person businesses unlike agronomists who deal with synthetics

  13. Industry representation • US has given more backing to biopesticides through dedicated division in EPA • IR-4 program helped to form trade association • UK constrained by ‘green book’ rules

  14. High tech associations • Uncertainty reduction model suggests early emphasis on service provision • A little more complex • Concerns about political displacement of agrochemical companies who are worried by political rather than commercial threat of biocontrol

  15. IBMA • Formed 1995 • Europe wide organisation with national branches and working groups, some American and Australian members • Originally France-centric • 3 working groups (key) chaired from CH • Bayer and BASF members, moving in to sector

  16. IBMA • Annual conference/exhibition in Lucerne, now 3 days • Income around €220-240,000 • Originally relied on contract work in Brussels • Now has full-time CEO from industry background

  17. Grey market issue • Unfair competition, do not have to go through registration system as do not make direct pest control claim, damage reputation • Grey market claim innovation • Variability in application of legislation by member state, registered as pesticides in A but not in B (Serenade)

  18. New EU legislation • Replaces directive by regulation, hopefully less scope for variability • Devil is in detail • Legislation does give specific status to non-chemical and natural alternatives, but will require a guidance document • DG Sanco broadly sympathetic, but concerned may be too many low risk substances • Role of private standards organisations

  19. Conclusions • Low political profile, political displacement fragile • Relationship with regulators not structurally embedded • Halfway house between conventional and organics • Growing fast, but still very small compared to agrochemicals

  20. Conclusions (2) • Absence of strong consumptionist dimension in era of consumer-citizen • Retailers prohibit certain pesticides but do not promote biocontrol • Productionist discourse weakened by limited economic impact of industry • Key test for IBMA is influencing implementation of new EU regime

  21. Read our book

  22. Visit our website • http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/ • Thanks to the RELU programme

More Related