Date post: | 15-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Wyn Grant with Justin Greaves
Biopesticides: Environmental and Regulatory Sustainability
Crop production and pest management: the challenges• Pesticide product withdrawals
• Pesticide resistance
• Zero detectable residues
• Sustainable food chain: economic, environmental, social
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Biopesticides: mass produced biologically based agents used for the control of plant pests
• Living organisms (natural enemies)• Micro-organisms
• (Arthropods & nematodes)*
• Naturally occurring substances (‘biochemicals’)• Plant extracts.
• Semiochemicals (pheromones & allelochemicals).
• Commodity substances.
*Not regulated by Plant Protection Products (PPP) legislation. Pests = arthropods, plant pathogens & weeds.
Plant protection product registration system• Two-tier system of registration
(legislation under revision in co-decision process)
• Active ingredients at EU level, products at member state level
• National authorisations PSD
• Mutual recognition not working
Biopesticide products registered in UK (5 in pipeline)
Insecticide Fungicide
Microorganism Bt
1
Microorganism non-BT
1 4
Baculovirus 1
Total 3 4
Biopesticide PPP active substances listed on Annex 1• 40 insecticides (27 pheromones, 8
microorganisms, 5 baculovirus)• 20 fungicides (all microorganism non-
Bt)• 1 Nematicide, 6 Repellants (all
botanical), 2 others (both botanical)• Includes substances voted with entry
into force date of 1 May 2009
Biopesticides and IPM
• Often very specific
• Compatible with other control agents
• Little or no residue
• Inexpensive to develop
• Natural enemies used in ecologically-based IPM
• Lower potency than synthetic pesticides
But uptake has been low & potential benefits are not yet being realised
• Economics (market size, external costs).
• Efficacy (potency, application, formulation).
• IPM (integration, best use of biological characteristics).
• Regulation (system principles, design & operation).
• How can research help? Theory & application.
Work of natural scientists
• Ecology of insect pathogenic fungi
• Genetic structure of natural populations
• Ecological factors determining the occurrence of natural populations
• Theoretical basis for understanding fate, behaviour and environmental impact of biopesticides strains
Focus of political scientists
• Regulatory state perspective (Moran)
• Underlying design principles
• Stakeholder relationships (policy networks)
• Role of retailers
• Inform regulatory process, including training of regulators
Regulatory innovation
• Forthcoming paper by Justin Greaves in Public Policy and Administration
• Regulatory innovation a contradiction in terms as regulators are cautious and risk averse
• Combination of exogenous and endogenous pressures induces change
Improved knowledge base and chain• Better understanding of ecology of
microbial control agents
• Availability of expertise for PSD and ACP
• A more effective knowledge chain linking, e.g., growers and researchers
Underlying principles (1)
• Biopesticides have a key and specific role to play in crop protection as part of IPM – problems of resistance and reduced availability
• Biopesticides should be regulated – because something is ‘natural’ does not mean that it is safe
Underlying principles (2)
• The regulatory system must support sustainability objectives
• This includes economic sustainability
• The ability of SMEs to succeed and growers to have the right plant protection tools
Underlying principles (3)
• Pest management should be ecologically based
• Biopesticides offer benefits to conventional and organic farmers
• Credibility with all stakeholder groups and especially consumers is key – problem of name
Stakeholder involvement
• Weak, immature and poorly integrated policy network
• REBECA (EC policy action) helped, but follow on?
• Further organisational development of IBMA
• Where is constituency of support?
A quasi-governmental champion• Provided in USA by Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division of EPA
• PSD as regulatory agency not really equipped for an advocacy role
• Possible role for Natural England?
• Risk of case being sidelined
Organisation of PSD
• Now part of HSE, a work in progress
• Continue to develop work of Biopesticides Champion and team
• Still uncertainties about organisational culture
• They have been trained, now they need more customers
Efficacy testing
• Submission of data not required in US
• Needed for marketing purposes and to protect product reputation
• Work of Biopesticides Steering Group of OECD
• Support REBECA proposal to allow applicants to defer efficacy testing
Biopesticides scheme• A welcome development, but still
outreach challenges• Importance of early pre-submission
meetings• Distinctive approval number for
Biopesticides?• ‘Grey market’ of leaf enhancers, plant
strengtheners etc.
Role of retailers
• Reflect consumer concerns
• Ask for requirements that go beyond approvals system
• Variations between retailers increase complexity for growers
• Prohibit rather than promote specific products – which is difficult for them
European dimension
• Revision of 91/414 not complete
• Concerns about way in which EFSA operates
• Development of informal networks between regulators
• Eco zone proposal has attracted some criticism
Assistance with costs
• Still a gap between product ideas and an approved product on the market
• Some products may not be viable
• Market failure in terms of positive externalities not being realised
• Constraints of EU state aid rules
Visit our web site
• http://http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/
• Thanks to project team – Dave Chandler, Justin Greaves, Gillian Prince, Mark Tatchell