Biopesticides: Environmental
and Regulatory Sustainability
David Chandler and Wyn Grant,
Warwick HRI and PAIS
Crop Production & Pest Management:
problems & opportunities
• 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.
• Genes (not EU).
• Plant incorporated products.
*Not regulated by Plant Protection Products (PPP) legislation.
Pests = arthropods, plant pathogens & weeds.
In the EU, microbes & biochemicals are
registered as plant protection products
• National authorisations (PSD).
– Biopesticides Scheme
• EU arrangements:
– Harmonisation.
– Mutual recognition.
– Tailored requirements for biopesticides.
Biopesticides & IPM
• Often v. 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.
Warwick research on biopesticides: insights
from natural & political science (1)
• Ecology of insect pathogenic fungi.
– Genetic structure of natural populations.
– Ecological factors determining the
occurrence of natural populations.
– Theoretical basis for understanding fate,
behaviour & environmental impact of
biopesticide strains.
Warwick research on biopesticides: insights
from natural & political science (2)
• Analysis of biopesticide regulation using
political science (multi level theories).
– Underlying principles for regulation.
– Interactions between stakeholders.
– Role of retailers.
– Cost benefit analysis.
• Inform data requirements & regulatory process.
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.
Improved knowledge base & 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.
Stakeholder involvement
• A weak policy network
• REBECA has helped, but how can it
be continued?
• Relative isolation of environmental
groups
• Further development of IBMA
• Where is constituency of support?
A quasi-governmental champion
• Provided in USA by Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division of EPA.
• PSD not really equipped for an advocacy
role.
• Possible role for Natural England?
• Risk of case being sidelined.
Organisation of PSD
• Future structure under review, presents
some challenges.
• Continue to develop work of Biopesticides
Champion and team.
• They have been trained, now they need
more customers.
Strengthening ACP
• Development of EU system will require
some changes.
• Needs an impartial expert on
biopesticides and access to external
advice.
Efficacy testing
• Submission of data not required in US.
• Needed for marketing purposes and to
protect product reputation.
• Work of Biopesticides Steering Group at
OECD.
• Support REBECA proposal to allow
applicants to defer efficacy testing.
Biopesticides Scheme
• A welcome development.
• Still outreach challenges.
• Importance of early pre-submission
meetings.
• Distinctive approval number for
Biopesticides?
Role of retailers
• Reflect consumer concerns.
• Ask for requirements that go
beyond approvals system.
• Legitimately commercially driven.
• Variations between retailers.
• 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?
Cost-benefit analysis workshop
• Natural and social science experts.
• Brainstorming produced list of perceived
costs and benefits.
• Sorted across six stakeholder groups.
CBA results
• Negative balance for developers (-14) and
growers (-9)
• Moderately negative for retailers (-6) and
evenly balanced for regulators (-1)
• Positive for consumers (+2) and opinion
formers (+7)
• Is there a balance between private costs
and public goods?
RELU project team at Warwick
• Dept of Politics &
International Studies.
Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves.
• Warwick HRI.
Dave Chandler, Gill Prince.
• Dept of Biological
Sciences.
Mark Tatchell.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/
Visit our website