Ralf-Udo Ehlerse-nema GmbH
INNOVATION – THE WAY FORWARD: BIOLOGICAL PLANT PROTECTION
Sealing the deal on a greener CAP?Croke Park Confernce Centre, Dublin, Ireland
April 10, 2013
Microbials
Viruses, Bacteria & Fungal Pathogens
Macrobials
Predatory mites & insects,
nematodes
Semiochemicals
Pheromones, Plant volatiles
Natural Products
Plant extracts, Seaweed products & Basic substances
Current tools available from the biocontrol industry
Tools have been available for many decades
e~nema SME, producing nematodes, fungi + bacteria for IPM
Pests developed resistance against synthetic pesticides Farmers used pesticides more frequencly and in higher dosisSerious problems with pesticide residues in food
Success Story: Biological Control in European Greenhouse Industry
Problems with residues
Accepted Residues (MRL)Supermarkets go beyond governmental levels
Source: (Waldner W. Frutta e Vite, 2009)
Maximal pesticide Residue Level requested by Supermarket chains in Italy
Maximal pesticide Residue Level requested by Supermarket chains in Germany
100% Legal MRL 100% Legal MRL
50%
40%
30% 33%
70%
80%
Fruitlogistica 2013
Governmental support of 1000 €/ha to pay for technical support
2004: 100 ha use of biocontrol2010: All 40.000 ha use BCAs
Concerted Action of government, farmer organisations and biocontrol industry in Spain
Today greenhouse vegetables are produced by IPM including biological control agents
In outdoor agriculture, however, biocontrol is not yet part of IPM
Exaggerating regulation of biological control agents (micro-organisms, pheromones, botanicals)
Why?
Risk Management + Registration
Biocontrol agents regulated according to EU Reg. 1107/2009, following rules developed for synthetic chemical compounds
EU Policy Support Action REBECA gave recommendations for improvement, but proposals have not been implemented
Accelerate registration process (9 years is too long)
Formation of expert teams to handle BCAs only
Priorities for BCAs
What is necessary (incomplete list)
Exaggerating regulation following rules developed for synthetic chemical compounds
Although EU pesticide legislation and political outreach is supporting non-chemical measures, the support for introduction of biocontrol in MS is half-hearted
Why?
Integrated Pest Management in European PP legislation
The Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market:
Point 35: To ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment, plant protection products should be used properly, in accordance with their authorisation, having regard to the principles of integrated pest management and giving priority to nonchemical and natural alternatives wherever possible.
MS give Art. 53 “emergency authorisations” although biocontrol agents are available.
Member States do NOT used PPP properly
MS give priority to chemical products
MS violate existing EU legislation
Exaggerating regulation following rules developed for synthetic chemical compounds
Although EU pesticide legislation and political outreach is supporting non-chemical measures, the support for introduction of biocontrol in MS is half-hearted
Implementation of pesticide reduction programmes exclude biological control
Why?
Sustainable Use Directive 2009/128 EC
Article 14: “the MS shall take all necessary measures to promote low pesticide-input pest management, giving wherever possible priority to non-chemical methods, so that professional users of pesticides switch to practices and products with the lowest risk to human health and the environment
As a consequence, MS must developed NAPs to reduce pesticide use in the EU
NAPs hardly consider biological control as a possible means to reduce pesticides
EU funded projects like ENDURE and PURE „re-invent“ IPM, but do little for implementation of biological control
Instead of promotion of biocontrol, MS seem to protect markets for chemical PPPs
Biological control is supporting greening of CAP
EU policy supports introduction of biocontrol
MS could do much more for implementation of biocontrol in the EU
Summary