Biopesticides in the UK: can
we get regulatory innovation?
Dave Chandler
University of Warwick
1
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.
2
Microbials: lack of products
USA
150 - 210
Europe
60
Germany
10
France
15
Netherlands
15
UK
5
(data: EPA 2006, Agri-Food Canada 2005; PSD 2006)
3
Biopesticides: why regulation is needed
• Contribute to IPM, but natural doesn’t =
safe.
• Costs of regulatory failure are high.
– UK BSE episode stifled regulatory innovation.
• Public money invested in discoveries that
never reach the market.
• Need a system of regulation that will
– lead to more products on market
– & not sacrifice safety.
4
New understanding of UK biopesticide
regulation
• Limitations of biopesticide regulatory system.
• Cost / benefits of biopesticides
– How is uptake constrained by social factors?
– Policy network theory, workshops, interviews.
– Identify processes that sustain regulatory innovation.
• Compare regulatory models for pesticide use reduction:
– UK (private governance)
– Denmark, USA (legislative)
5
Some problems:
• Regulatory system in UK & EU is based on chemical
model.
– Acts as a barrier to commercialisation (ACP, 2003).
– Emphasizes costs rather than benefits.
– sustainability goals get forgotten in favour of short term objectives.
• Need a tailored system for biopesticides (now happening).
– But the regulator has a difficult job: resolve conflicts of interest.
– Bureaucracy is shaped by what’s happened in the past. This
affects what can be done in the future.
6
Complex, highly regulated system for
plant protection products in the EU
• National authorisations.
• EU wide arrangements.
• Mutual recognition between states.
• Doesn’t work.
7
Biopesticides industry: a political
maturity problem
• ‘Biological control industry has the weakest
policy network I have encountered’ (Grant).
• Small industry largely made up of SMEs.
• IBMA does not have resources of agrochemical industry, still undergoing
organisational development.
• Little coalition building with environmental
groups.
8
Fractured UK policy network
retailers
growers
Biopesticide
Regulator
Biopesticide
Industry (IBMA)
Non government
organisations
Researchers
9
Fractured UK policy network
retailers
growers
UK biopesticide
Regulator (PSD)
Biopesticide
Industry (IBMA)
Non government
organisations
Researchers
10
Problems of external costs
• Financial costs of biopesticides are borne by
producers.
• But benefits are accrued down the food chain.
• Need to pass benefits back to producers.
11
Lack of knowledge
• UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides
– Group of experts, responsible for pesticide
approvals including biopesticides.
– Work with the regulator (Pesticides Safety
Directorate) but have final say.
– No expertise in biocontrol.
12
Developments in UK
• PSD – pilot project leads to Biopesticides
Scheme.
• Reduced fees, pre submission meetings.
• Industry not taking full advantage.
• Regulator = scientific public servants: keen
to improve knowledge, want sustainable
IPM.
– Project team giving lectures, workshops.
– Observe ‘closed’ meetings (PSD, ACP).
13
For debate - subsidies
• US IR-4 programme; safe & effective pest
management solutions for growers of speciality
crops.
• Funded 43 projects since 1994 = $2.85M.
• Works closely as a partner with EPA.
• Supported growth of trade association.
• Is there a market failure that can be remedied
by government intervention in UK / EU?
14
Some design principles for better
regulatory system (UK, EU)
• System must support sustainability objectives
(economic, social, environmental).
• An improved knowledge base & chain.
• Stakeholders fully involved in debate about
regulation, good communication links.
• Biopesticides ‘champion’ (quasi-governmental),
acting as advocate for biopesticides.
• Address challenges posed by role of retailers, &
complexities of regulatory state (EU).
15
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/
Visit our website
16