Biopesticides: scientific challenges & regulatory strategies · Microbial biopesticides : chemical clones or biological control agents? • Development follows a chemical model. •

Wyn Grant & David ChandlerUniversity of Warwick, UK

Biopesticides: scientific challenges & regulatory strategies

Microbial agents: poor uptake in EU

• Efficacy (better strains, formulation, application).• Economics (market failure).• Regulatory framework.• Lack of underpinning knowledge (risk assessment,

efficacy, sustainable exploitation).

Strong connections between these points

RELU research at Warwick: environmental & regulatory sustainability of microbial biopesticides

• Ecology of microbial agents (entomopathogenic fungi).– Chandler (Warwick HRI)– Natural occurrence in relation to habitat type.– Evidence for local adaptation, survival & growth in soils.– (fate of impact of inundative biopesticides).

• Improve understanding of biopesticide regulation– Grant (Politics & International Studies)– Limitations of the current chemical pesticide driven regulatory model.– Identifying the processes that may sustain regulatory innovation.– Comparing public policies (UK, US, Denmark, the Netherlands).

Regulatory innovation

Strengths & weaknesses of regulation

Improved knowledge of ecology

Biopesticides: regulatory innovation using political & natural science?

Entomopathogenic fungi: knowledge gaps in ecology

• Bioactive metabolites• Population biology

– Lack meaningful species definitions.– Occurrence & function in nature.– Theoretical framework for predicting non target

impacts of biocontrol releases.

All impact on risk assessment, but also biocontrol strategy

Soil-borne entomopathogenic fungi: distribution & population biology.

latitude50.0 50.5 51.0 51.5 52.0 52.5 53.0

Freq

uenc

y of

occ

urre

nce

(%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Beauveria : natural occurrence in UK woodlands.

Nucleotide Substitutions (x100)0

7.2

246

Wood HerefordshirePasture ShropshireWood WarwickshireWood DevonWood LeicestershirePasture ShropshireWood BerkshireWood BerkshirePasture WarwickshirePasture BerkshirePasture ShropshireWood GloucestershirePasture GloucestershireWood LeicestershirePasture WarwickshireWood GloucestershireWood ShropshireWood ShropshirePasture GloucestershireWood ShropshireWood GloucestershireWood GloucestershireWood ShropshireWood ShropshireWood GloucestershireWood SomersetWood Herefordshire

Beauveria: occurrence of genetic groups in different habitat types(EF1a sequence data)

Deep slade

Long close

Water meadows

Fungi from different habitats in close proximity

% occurrence of fungi in a habitat network

115035hedgerow

12155pasture

00128set aside

01116arable

P. fumosoroseusP. farinosusMetarhiziumBeauveriaSite

Microbial biopesticides : chemical clones or biological control agents?

• Development follows a chemical model.• Focuses attention on costs (Waage).• Danger of ignoring beneficial ecological attributes.• Can’t evaluate contribution to sustainability (costs &

benefits) in a holistic way. • Regulatory innovation.

Political strategies for Rebeca

• There is no one political route map that can be provided.

• Some policy theory emphasises ‘windows of opportunity’ i.e. the random and opportunistic nature of the process.

• Nevertheless, policy community/network theory can be helpful.

Policy communities/networks

• Provides a toolkit that can be applied to, potentially, any policy problem, e.g., provision of fire services, football.

• Policy communities are exclusive, have clear shared values, high political entry price, e.g., agriculture.

• Policy networks are looser, less value cohesion, more open.

The biopesticides policy network

• Smaller than almost all policy networks I have dealt with.

• Relatively low level of specialised institutional development (at least in EU).

• Political displacement relatively low.

• Key question from a political science perspective: where is the constituency of support?

Who are the key players?

• Regulatory agencies, but their main task is chemical pesticides: contrast with EPA.

• Manufacturers. Largely SMEs. Organisational development progressing, but still limited, especially at EU level.

• Growers, sufficient opportunities to articulate their needs?.

Who are the key players? (2)

• Core executives (governments): sporadic interventions, variable between member states.

• Retailers – but more interested in prohibiting than promoting?

• Consumers/voters – largely uninformed about biopesticides.

Who are the key players? (3)

• Consultants – potentially a key group as intermediaries and in information exchange.

• Environmental groups – the dog that didn’t bark in the night. Need to be brought into debate.

• Commission: key target for influence.

Recommendations (1)

• Need to engage in coalition building whilst being aware of different perspectives, particularly important to raise profile.

• Use European Voice, national broadsheets.

• Key role of REBECA in building networks, information exchange, constructive policy suggestions.

Recommendations (2)

• Importance of credible advocacy.

• Need to link particular arguments to broader discourses.

• Integrated Pest Management

• Sustainability.

Visit our website

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/