Biopesticides European MRKT

NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Knowledge to feed the world

Welcome Address
Prof. Andrew Westby
Director, Natural Resources Institute,
University of Greenwich

Biopesticide Market Opportunities:
Strategic brokerage and networking event

Welcome

NRI has a long history of research to develop IPM systems for developing country
agriculture and we still have active research groups developing IPM component
technologies such as pheromones, insect viruses and other biopesticides.

NRI undertakes research and consultancy
in all aspects of agriculture and natural
resource development.

We also run a number of postgraduate programmes and at any one time may have in
excess of 40 PhD programmes running based at the Universitys Chatham Maritime
Campus in Kent.

MSc Agriculture for Sustainable Development

MSc Sustainable Environmental Management

MSc Food Safety and Quality Management

MA Rural Development Dynamics

NRI postgraduate programmes

Pheromones in pest management
Plant extracts in pest management
Insect viruses in pest management
IPM of whitefly in cabbage
Biofumigation for management of soil-borne diseases
Rodent management agriculture

See

Examples of IPM-related research topics at NRI

The European Centre for IPM was set-up at NRI, as a platform to promote
IPM in European Farming and to offer the IPM know-how at NRI to the
agriculture and horticulture sectors in Europe.

At a time when pesticide use is being curtailed through EU legislation and
wider implementation of the principles of IPM is being advocated, our
capacity and expertise in IPM and IPM component technologies, can be
readily adapted to the needs of European agriculture.

See eucipm.org

The European Centre for IPM

The University of Greenwich is a key partner in the South East UK
consortia of the Enterprise Europe Network.

This workshop has been organised by
EEN South East UK, together with the
EUCIPM, NRI and the Society of Chemical
Industry Bio-Resources Group to further
the commercial opportunities for biopesticides
arising from the decreasing availability of
conventional pesticides for European agriculture.

Organisation of this meeting

Not all insects are our enemies!

Thanks for your attention

Natural Resources Institute
University of Greenwich
Medway campus
Central Avenue
Chatham Maritime
Kent ME4 4TB

Telephone: +44 (0) 1634 880088
Email: nri@gre.ac.uk

Website: www.nri.org

Twitter: @nrinstitute
Facebook: facebook.com/naturalresourcesinstitute

Bio-pesticide Market Opportunities 11 April 2013
Introduction to the
Enterprise Europe Network
Bio-Pesticides Market Opportunities 11 April 2013
What is the Enterprise Europe Network?
A Unique network of >3000 local experts in ~600 organisations in
>50 countries throughout the EU and beyond, dedicated to
helping SMEs make the most of business opportunities in the EU.
Mission
We are the worlds largest network connecting business to
Europe. We help companies improve and innovate through
partnership, information and expert advice.
An important part of the EUs
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP)
Budget 320 million (2008-2014)
~600 Partners
Universities
Local Actors
Large
Companies
SMEs
BSK
EISC
EEN SE Consortium
UoG
Receive local business support and information services
Find business and technology partners using the business
and technology cooperation databases
Develop research and innovation capacity through links with
Universities and research institutes
Cooperate with Universities in RTD programmes
and application for funding, in particular FP7
EEN helps companies and academics
What does Enterprise Europe Network do?
We facilitate the formation of technical/business partnerships
Bio-Pesticides?
Why is Enterprise Europe Network interested in Bio-Pesticides?
New EU legislation will mean a reduction in the use of chemical
pesticides and a rise in the application of new IPM technologies.
Impact there are 13.7 million farmers in the EU.
A huge number of SMEs involved with all aspects of plant
protection will be affected by the change.
Opportunity - new technologies/businesses, commercial and
R&D partnerships.
Use the EENetwork
Use it to let potential partners find YOU
Take advantage of free services to help
you communicate via the Network
Use it to find YOUR
business/technology partners
A profile is a succinct description of an offer or a
request
A Profile can be Technical or Commercial or both
Profiles
Profiles are published in the EEN database and can
be accessed by anyone
Responses to profiles lead to partnerships
Creating a Profile is an effective way to use the Network
The Networks database contains ~14000 profiles
What kind of opportunities can be posted and responded to?
- Entry into a new market or region (supplier/distributor)
- Co-development of novel technology
- Licensing agreement
- Manufacturing agreement
- Joint ventures
- Franchise
- Research funding / consortium partner search
Most types of agreement and sector covered
Profiles types of partnership
See profiles relating
to crop protection
on display in room
QA075
Profiles - the process
Publication of a profile
Database searches and alerts, Partner
Intranet communication
Partnership Agreements
Expressions of interest
exchanged
Business
Agreement
Technology Transfer
Agreement
R&D
Proposal
Or.search the
database to find
offers and requests
that might be of
interest
Keyword search
Profiles
Thank you for your attention

Speak to me or one of my
colleagues today if youd like
to know more about
Contact
Dr Jeff Pedley
Tel: 01634 883751
j.b.pedley@gre.ac.uk
Pesticide Reduction in Europe and
the role of IPM
Rory Hillocks

European Centre for IPM, Natural
Resources Institute, University of
Greenwich [r.j.hillocks@gre.ac.uk]
New Opportunities
If the EUCIPM sees EU pesticide legislation as an
opportunity for more IPM research and development,
then, for similar reasons, it is also a commercial
opportunity for companies manufacturing and selling
biopesticides and other IPM-compatible technologies.
The EUCIPM is particularly keen to promote and
participate in adaptive research in partnership with
biopesticide companies and farmers.
We see the need for a more participatory and
commercial approach to bring IPM theory into practice.
IPM in EU Policy
The EUs Sustainable Use Directive [SUD]
requires Member States to develop National
Action Plans showing their strategy for
pesticide reduction and IPM implementation
EU sees wider adoption of IPM as the main
pillar of their strategy to mitigate the negative
effects of pesticide withdrawals on food
production
What does the EC ask us to do?
Sustainable Use Directive: On the basis of Regulation (EC)
No 1107/2009 and of this Directive, implementation of the
principles* of integrated pest management is obligatory

Member States should describe in their National Action
Plan how they ensure the implementation of the principles
of IPM, with priority given wherever possible to non-
chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop
management.

[*8 principles of IPM are outlined in Annex III of the SUD
Directive 2009/128/EC]

What are the main challenges?
Sustainable Intensification

Can economic, environmental and social sustainability all
de delivered at the same time and place.

How to produce more food in Europe with less pesticide?

How to produce more food, without major increase in
food prices while at the same time enhancing food and
environmental safety and biodiversity?
Need for IPM systems
While IPM is long accepted and widely practiced in
covered crops, this is much less so in outdoor crops,
particularly broad-acre crops.
If the European Parliament is to realise its wish for a
substantial reduction in total pesticide use in farming,
then IPM systems incorporating biological alternatives
to conventional pesticides, must be widely available for
all farming systems
IPM technologies and systems will need to be
attractive to the arable sector, particularly cereal
growers and for cereal/OSR rotations, where most of
the pesticide is used.

UK Wheat - disease a major problem in
2012
Fusarium diseases and Septoria were particularly
severe in the UK wheat crops in 2012 and the major
weed problem in cereal x OSR systems, blackgrass,
is becoming increasingly difficult to control as
herbicide options disappear under EU legislation
As a consequence, UK may be a net importer of
wheat for first time in 10 years
[Toby Bruce and Peter Kendall open letter to
Minister of state for Agriculture, Dec 2012, asking
for more support for IPM R & D]
R&D investment as percent of sales by sector

Source: Financial times, Phillips MacDougal
Crop Protection/Biotechnology business is innovation-driven
Biopesticide market [2010]
The European market for microbial- and nematode-based
pesticides is estimated to be approximately $54,485,000.
The largest increases since 2005 were seen in non-Bt bacteria,
notably Bacillus subtilis, and in fungal-based products,
including Coniothyrium minitans and Trichoderma-based
products.
There were also significant increases in viral sales and a
steady rise in the nematode market.
The largest individual European biopesticide market is Spain,
followed by Italy and France.
The potential remains high and opportunities exist which
could raise the total market to $200 million by 2020.
[CPL Business Consultants (2010) Europe: Biopesticides Market. CAB
International]

Biopesticide Market cont..
69% of new pesticide registrations in USA are
biopesticides
Less in Europe due to registration hurdles
Registration is 61% of development cost
But ratio of development cost to sales still
favours conventional pesticides
Solution lies in expanded markets and a more
facilitated registration process
CROP Cultivated area
[1000 ha]
% of crop protection
market

Wheat [+ other cereals] 126,000 32.6
Vines 173,000 9.8
Maize 55,000 8.6
OSR 16,000 7.9
Potato 57,000 5.1
Apples [+ other fruit] 4.6
Tomato [+ other vegetables] 12.9
Crop areas and pesticide use in main European crop groups
Fungicide use in Wheat in UK
Fungicide Total kg x 1000
Chlorothalonil 689
Boscalid/epoxiconazole 134
Prothioconazole/tebuconazole 114
Epoxiconazole 64
Pyraclostrobin 51
Garthwaite DG (2011) Pesticide Usage Survey
Report 235 Arable Crops 2010
Reasons for fungicide application
Reason for use in winter wheat % applications
General disease control 76
Septoria 8
Rusts 6
Ear diseases 3
Rusts + septoria 3
Mildew 2
Fusarium 1
Section 16: Integrated Pest Management
Sub-Section 16.4 Biopesticides have a number of benefits over
conventional chemicals including IPM compatibility and generally reduced
risk to non-target organisms including people.
However, they are often more expensive and may have reduced efficacy.
Since they tend to be specific in their action development is also limited by
the small scale of the potential market.
Given their wider benefits the UK Government has taken an active role in
encouraging the development of biopesticides through research and
development and a special Biopesticides Scheme.
Since 2006 approximately 2.1 million has been spent on research
(excluding R&D on semiochemicals) and 150,000/year spent on the
Biopesticides Scheme and related regulatory activities.
Ten biopesticide active substances have been approved since the Scheme
started in 2006.
The Scheme is currently being reviewed and part of the review will
consider the scope for reducing the obstacles to biopesticide
development. The review is due to conclude in early 2013 with a view to
any changes to the scheme being introduced later in the year.
The UK National Action Plan Published February 2013
THANKS FOR LISTENING
April 2013
Industry trade association
Established in 1995/96
Over 200 members
Global European based association
Strong growth from 6 original founding
members
Diverse membership
SMEs to multinationals
Organic & biocontrol only to traditional
international chemical companies
Principally involved in agriculture & horticulture
April 2013
April 2013
Microbials
Viruses, Bacteria &
Fungal Pathogens
Macrobials
Predatory mites &
insects,
nematodes
Semiochemicals
Pheromones, Plant
volatiles
Natural
Products
Plant extracts,
Seaweed products
& Basic substances
April 2013
Ensuring proportionate regulation of
members products
Promoting the interests and activities of the
sector and its members
Most activity of members is in crop protection
Strong growth in the use of biocontrol
products
Strong European focus
Establishing a global network
Diversification into other areas

April 2013
Size relative
to pesticide
market?
Growth of
the market?
Future
potential
market size?
Formation
of the
market and
companies?
Available
information?
April 2013
Conventional agriculture
Is core to widespread adoption across
food value chain
Is predominately where biocontrol
industry will grow
Is where the greatest demand is for help
& support
Is where most IPM tools exist
Is where IPM tools are most needed
Organic agriculture
Can and are important allies
Represents some of the best farmers

April 2013
Physical Control
Monitoring
Biocontrol
Bio stimulants
Bio fertiliser
Biotech
Interactive modelling
Application techniques
Mechanisation
Cultivation
Irrigation
Fertiliser
Ag-chemicals
Environmental
Index
Productivity Index
Where will
we see true
innovation?
April 2013
High Growth industry >10% pa
High number SMEs >95%
Broad interests, attitudes & origins
High % level of investment in RD&R
Rapidly expanding list of ais
Multiple market access with limited infrastructure
Innovative novel MOAs
April 2013
OECD Activities
FAO Activities
Minor Uses Summits / Forums
EU Parliament
EU Commission
EFSA
NGOs
Industry Bodies
Whole Food Value Chain

April 2013
Move the industry from fresh produce to major agricultural
commodities
Ensure global availability and adoption
Global federation of regional biocontrol associations
Access to new solutions from all regions
Market access and use in all markets
Produce usable tools for farmers and advisors
Communication of needs, solutions and knowledge with
farmers and advisors
Formulation, Shelf-life & application technology
Simplify the decision making process
Basic systems based programmes
With tailoring for regional and local situations
Work effectively with all partners from farmers to consumers
ensuring tools and research are fit for purpose

April 2013
The future
is green
The future
is
productive
The future
balances
responsibiliti
es and
opportunities
The future
is true
innovation
Biocontrol
aims to be a
part of this
future
April 2013
Roma L Gwynn
Aspects of biopesticide regulation:
EU plant protection product regulatory situation
Source: UN World Food Programme and the FAO
"The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2006" report.
Biological Control Agents - role in food security
In last 40 years farmable land per person has halved
30 - 40% of crops are lost before harvest and > 10% after harvest
DIRECTIVE 2009/128/EC

Chapter 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, Article 1

This Directive establishes a framework to achieve a
sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks
and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the
environment and promoting the use of integrated pest
management and of alternative approaches or
techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to
pesticides.

Sustainable Use Directive
Crop protection products derived from the flora and fauna

No fixed global or EU definition
IBMA definition

Macroorganisms natural enemies, nematodes

Semio-chemicals - pheromones

Botanicals - plant derived compounds such as plant extracts,

Microbials - micro-organism based products
What are biopesticides ?

Pheromones are semiochemicals that modify the behaviour of other
individuals of the same species

Semiochemicals chemicals emitted by plants, animals, and other
organisms - and synthetic analogues of such substances - that evoke a
behavioural or physiological response in individuals of the same or other
species

Straight-chained lepidopteran pheromones (SCLPs) unbranched
aliphatics having a chain of 9-18 carbons, containing < 3 double bonds,
ending in an alcohol, acetate or aldehyde functional group.
Semio-chemicals
Includes compounds - physical mode of action
- essential oils
- derived from plant material
Botanicals
Thyme sp.
Tagetes sp.
CymbopogunSp.
Citrus.
The active substance should be a viable micro-organism,
e.g. live cells, spores etc.
Micro-organisms
Metarhizium anisopliae
Beauveria bassiana
Bacillus thuringiensis
Bacillus subtilis
Microbial production
Biopesticides efficacy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
C
o
n
t
a
n
s

W
G
C
y
D
-
X
D
i
P
e
l

D
F
E
x
o
s
e
x

C
M
M
a
j
e
s
t
i
k
M
y
c
o
t
a
l
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
i
s
-
L
S
e
r
e
n
a
d
e

A
S
O
%

e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
Figures in bracket = pending
(Updated Jan 2013)
Biopesticides EU active substances
Insecticide Fungicide Herbicide Nematicide Other
Microorganism Bt 4 - - - 0
Microorganism non-
Bt
12 (2) 15 (10) 0 1 (2) 0
Botanical 5 (4) 0 (4) 1 0 6 (1)
Semio-chemical +
pheromones
29 - - - 2 (2)
Other 0 1 1 0
Total 52 (6) 16 (14) 2 1 (2) 8 (3)
Biopesticides in crop protection
Amenable to use in IPM programmes

Work best in population management

New & multi modes of action:
useful for resistance management

Potentially extend life of some actives

Many products with no MRL

Often no harvest intervals

Useful for residue management

Why do we need regulation?

Plant Protection Product Registration
Why do we need regulation?

Protection of the natural environment

Protection of human safety

Maintain consumer standards

Protect farmers and growers by having quality standards

Protection of technological invention

Protection of rights

Maintain product standards

Why Regulate?
Plant protection products containing chemical active substances
(Insecticides, nematicides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, plant
growth regulators, etc.)

High levels of efficacy are obtained and expected by farmers >80%

Usually have a toxic mode of action

Usually patented synthetic substances with a mode of action that is well
understood

Mature regulatory procedures

Rigorous criteria for risk assessment and risk management must be met
to ensure safety

Conventional Chemical Pesticides
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

Protection of Biodiversity rights (www.cpd.in)

Import/Export Restrictions (FAO guidelines)

Plant Protection Product registrations

What is the Biopesticide Regulatory Framework?
Under Regulation 1107/2009 (replaces 91/414)

Tier 1 registration of active substance at EU level
One member state evaluates application then 26 others discuss
and reach agreement for approval/non-approval.

Tier 2 - national registration of product
For each country where product to be sold, need to register
so need efficacy data for each country/crop/pest

Harmonise pesticide regulation across Member States Mutual
Recognition

Zonal product registration

No biopesticide specific system but guidance notes provided by
DG SANCO or by OECD biopesticide harmonisation

http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/index_en.htm
Data requirements for the active substance

Identity and purity

Physical and chemical properties (biological properties)

Analytical methods

Toxicology (infectivity and pathogenicity)

Residues in the plant

Ecotoxicology

Behaviour in environment

Data requirements for the formulated product

Identity and composition of the formulation

Physical and chemical properties

Labelling and packaging

Analytical methods

Efficacy data

Toxicology

Effects on non-target organisms

Effect of operators and consumers

Low-risk active substances

1. An active substance complying with the criteria provided for in
Article 4 shall be approved for a period not exceeding 15 years by
way of derogation from Article 5, where it is considered a low-risk
active substance and where it may be expected that plant protection
products containing that substance will pose only a low risk to human
and animal health and the environment as provided for in Article
47(1).
EU Registration Low Risk
EU 1107/2009 Low Risk Criteria

Approved for 15 years (c.f. 7-15 years) but NOT if:

Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, toxic to Reproduction, sensitising
chemicals, very toxic or toxic, explosive, corrosive

Persistent (life in soil >60days)

Bioconcentration factor >100

Deemed an Endocrine disrupter

Has neurotoxic or immunotoxic effect

In EU - Low risk PPPs are when:

All the actives are low risk substances

There are no specific risk mitigation measures

Meet Article 47 (1) requirements (e.g. approved under
Chapter II, no substances of concern, effective, etc)

Authorisations decided in 120 days (c.f.12 months)

13 years data protection (c.f.10 years)
How to address data requirements ?

Scientific investigations by the applicant or contract laboratories,
generally to GLP standard

Field trials to measure the
o persistence
o residue behaviour
o efficacy

Published papers which contain findings relevant to answering the
regulatory question either single papers or the weight of evidence

Specific pieces of information e.g. The product will be applied to cereals

Waivers, also known as scientific justifications, where it is explained
that the question is not relevant to this particular question because of
a specific reason essential for biopesticides
Biopesticides EU zones
EU - Active substance (Annex II and III)
Each country Product (Annex III + BAD)
From John Dale, CRD
Regulatory pathway
developed for over 50 years
for chemical pesticides,
biopesticides relatively new
Do we need a biopesticide specific registration ?
In EU no biopesticide specific system but guidance notes provided
by DG SANCO or by OECD biopesticide harmonisation
Rhizobium
spp.
Coniothyrum sp.
Trichoderma spp.
New isolate
Beauveria bassiana
B.subtilis
New spp.
Bt. Spinosad
New spp.
Microbials - types
Registered

Biopesticides
(microorganism,
semiochemicals, botanicals)

Biorational substances
(acetic acid, gibberelins,
ferrous sulphate, fatty acids)

Out of scope for
registration

Plant strengtheners/growth
promoters/stimulants

Root symbionts

Registration Exempt

Entomopathogenic nematodes

Physically acting agents

Grey Products

Passing-off of similar
microbial agents

Claiming plant strengthener
but for crop protection use

Biopesticides -biorationals grey products
Why are these groups considered to pose a lower risk?

Generally speaking this is the case (always exceptions)

Some general characteristics of biopesticides make them suitable for
streamlined regulatory assessment

This may be due to their high specificity, existing natural emissions and
presence in the environment

There may be existing and acceptable exposure to them through other
routes e.g. in food or in cosmetics

Regulatory authorities require special systems to allow more effective
registration of these products
Biopesticide Registration
OECD Biopesticide Steering Group (BPSG)

Programme of work to develop harmonised approach to regulations
of biopesticides

Development of guidance documents e.g.

OECD SERIES ON PESTICIDES
Number 18: Guidance for Registration Requirements for Microbial
Pesticides
Number 12: Guidance for Registration Requirements for
Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals Used for Arthropod Pest
Control

EPPO: Principles of efficacy evaluation for microbial plant protection
products

EPPO zonal guidance for 1107/2009

SANCO: developing Botanical Guidance Document
Biopesticide Guidance Documents
Microbial Guidance for the EU
OECD Series on Pesticides
No. 43: Working document on the evaluation of microbials for pest
control

Efficacy: only the minimum necessary dose is applied.

Alternative control methods: performance is often low compared with
conventional control methods e.g. synthetic chemicals = 95% control,
alternative can be less than 40%, and of shorter duration.

Biopesticides may reduce pest pressure, but not remove the pest.

Many countries accept reduced use claims: a lower level of efficacy can
be acceptable.

Key issue is that the level of pest control/reduction = measurable
benefit = a range of performance levels may be acceptable.

Label claim: control, moderate control or suppression, reduction, other
Dossier development

Dossier development time e.g. in Europe:

Active substance 2.5 years (now)
Product 18 months

For Annex I (active) = 500,000 - 1,000,000 approximately

For Annex III (product) - 1 zone/crop/pest situation = 1-200,000

Plus country fees

chemical biological
No. potential actives
tested
>3.5 million 3000
Success ratio 1: 200,000 1:20
Development time 10 years 10 years
Development costs US$180 million US$ 2 million
Benefit per unit
money invested
2.5 - 5 30
Risk of resistance large Small - nil
specificity low high
Harmful side effects many Nil / few
Comparison of chemical and biocontrol according to Bale et al., 2008
Bale et al. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B (2008), 363, 761 - 776
Costs of registration
Specialist knowledge for each technology - especially Micro-organisms

Expertise to have high-level discussions on all the technology, for
all dossier specialist areas

Familiarity with all available guidance documents

Availability for clarification of minor points

Dedicated biopesticide evaluators

Free pre-submission meetings

Openness to discuss non-typical features during dossier development

Facilitating approach

1 day completeness check

Aspects of Regulatory Good Practice - biopesticides
Biopesticide registration in EU
1107/2009 Year 1 Year 2 Year3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
2
0
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
5
2
6
2
7
2
8
2
9
3
0
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
5
3
6
A.S. Dossier
Submission

Completeness
check

Rapporteur
evaluation

DAR completed
EFSA comment
on DAR

EFSA peer
review

Standing
committee vote

Positive List
(Annex I)

Application -
zonal product

Zonal evaluation
Country
evaluation

Product approval
Summary of biopesticides registration

Biopesticides require registration as plant protection products

Mainly regulated using same system as for chemical pesticides

In EU two stage process active substance and product

Registration takes ~ 4 years and costs from 0.5 million up

Some development of biopesticide specific guidelines

OECD harmonisation for biopesticides

Number of products increasing because of demand for them by
growers and farmers

rgwynn@biorationale.co.uk
Thank you for your attention

Farming with fewer pesticides
EU IPM Centre workshop on Biopesticide Market Opportunities
11th April, 2013

Stephanie Williamson, PhD
PAN UK and PAN Europe

PAN Europe: who are we?
One of 5 regional centres of the PAN International
network, established 1982
31 not-for-profit members in 19 European countries,
from public health, environmental, trade union, farming
& womens organisations
Working to replace use of hazardous pesticides with
ecologically sound alternatives
Recognised stakeholder in EU pesticide policy arena
Brussels-based with 4 part time staff

www.pan-europe.info

Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)
HHP approach launched 2007 by FAO + WHO to tackle
continuing 21
st
century pesticide problems - despite
decades of legislation & safe use training

Aims to reduce risks and phase out use of HHPs, while
phasing in safer and more sustainable alternatives

HHPs not just acute poisonings - also chronic health
effects and environmental hazard

PAN International List of HHPs (2009, via www.pan-
germany.org and click on HHPs)
J ustifying the HHP approach-
the economic costs of inaction
Global Chemical Outlook: Towards Sound Management of
Chemicals. UNEP, 2012.

State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. UNEP &
WHO, 2013.

A Generation in Jeopardy: How pesticides are undermining our
childrens health & intelligence. PAN North America, 2012.

Disrupting Food. Endocrine disrupting chemicals in European Union
food. PAN Europe, 2012. Via: www.disruptingfood.info

urgent prioritisation of IPM strategies
Policy drivers for IPM in Europe
Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive:
Maximising natural control processes + Minimising
dependence on unsustainable external inputs
Pest/weed/disease-suppressive crop husbandry and agro-
ecosystem design more diverse crop rotations!
Biological control (conserving & encouraging natural
enemies; using biopesticides & invertebrate biocontrol
agents)

Other policies:
CAP reform; green growth; resource efficiency; innovation;
climate-friendly farming; public health

Priority to non-chemical methods?
Weak SUD
implementation & poor
National Action Plans
(esp. UK)

Trend towards insurance
pest control, e.g. neonics

Strong lobby to save our
pesticides

UK Pesticide Forum has
no indicators for IPM
uptake

Disjointed & piecemeal
actions in research, policy
& practice on IPM in UK

Little recognition of
external costs of harm
Drivers in commercial supply chains
Greenpeace Germany campaign on illegal residues in
Spanish peppers- led to biocontrol revolution in
Andalucian protected horticulture

PAN UK is promoting HHP approach to UK
supermarkets powerful route for promotion of
alternatives, incl. biopesticides

Neonics & bees debate triggering product withdrawals in
garden & ornamentals sectors & enthusiasm for
alternatives- + latest bird effects report (American Bird
Conservancy, 2013)
Opportunities in HHP targets in UK
Opportunities in alternatives for pests targeted with neonics:
- Seed treatments, in OSR, maize, other cereals, beet, ornamentals
- Foliar applications in arables, orchards, vegetables
- Home & garden pests

Alternatives for chlorpyrifos- an insecticide on its way out

Alternatives for pesticides frequently contaminating water sources (e.g.
several herbicides)

Alternatives for pesticides most frequently found in food (e.g. post-
harvest fungicides)

HHP approach needed in EU
pesticide authorisation
Regulation cut-off criteria- endocrine-disrupting pesticide
definitions and debate in 2013
50+ failed actives still available under DG Sancos Re-
submission loophole (e.g. bromuconazole, methomyl,
trifluralin)
Essential use derogations, e.g. metam sodium for soil
fumigation (see PAN Europe reports Meet Chemical
Agriculture)

Taking a more precautionary approach will open doors
for safer alternatives.

PAN UK promotion of IPM
Organic cotton in West Africa- adaptive research on
using food spray to attract beneficials

Collecting farmer experiences in managing coffee berry
borer without endosulfan (incl. pros and cons of
Beauveria bassiana)

Advice to Better Cotton Initiative; 4C Coffee; Unilever;
Marks & Spencer; Co-op

Telling good IPM stories in our Pesticides News
international journal
Boosting IPM uptake
To what extent are biopesticides being taken up by users
in UK?
Do we know what the main obstacles are?
Any research or market feedback on how and why
farmers/growers start to use biopesticides and other
biorationals?
Lessons for sharing success?
Action planning for wider uptake of biopesticides and
IPM strategies?

Thanks for listening
And maybe we can collaborate.

stephaniewilliamson@pan-uk.org
IPM in orchards
- current perspectives and future needs

Jerry Cross
Angela Berrie
A definition
2

IPM is a decision-based process involving coordinated
use of multiple tactics (natural, genetic, cultural,
biological, biotechnological methods etc) for
optimising control of all classes of pests (insects,
diseases, weeds etc) in an ecologically and
economically sound manner

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
1
IPM is a vital cornerstone of
sustainable food production

1
Michelbacher & Bacon. 1952;
2
Compendium of IPM Definitions www.ipmnet.org/ipmdefinitions
Decision-based process
Monitoring of pest and antagonist populations
and/or risks
Economic, treatment or risk thresholds

Multiple, compatible suppressive tactics
Priority given to natural, genetic, cultural, biological,
biotechnological control methods
Integrated, minimum use of safest selective
pesticides
Broad-spectrum, toxic/harmful, persistent pesticides
avoided

Ecologically and economically sound
Key aspects of IPM
Modern apple production
Reliance on pesticide sprays
~18 spray rounds
Frequent tank mixing
>20 fungicides/annum
3 - 4 insecticides/annum
Plant Growth Regulators
Pre-harvest spraying for rots
Broadcast air assisted
sprayers
UK government surveillance apple 2003

301 samples analysed for 109 residues
82 UK produced - 219 imported

71% had pesticide residues > reporting limits

1% had 5 residues
3% had 4 residues
5% had 3 residues
5.3% had 2 residues

3 MRL exceedances (all on imported fruit)
Pesticide residues
UK industry made big effort to reduce but were demotivated
when goal posts moved by reduction in reporting limits!
How does apple IPM stack up?

is it

Integrated Pest Management?

or

Integrated Pesticide Management?

Semi-permanent
canopy
Mown ground
herbage
Undisturbed bare
soil area
Perennial fruit crops provide
stable ecological habitats
Beehive for
pollination
Arthropod fauna apple
Pests
Natural enemies
Benign
2000 sp
Wild rosaceae
Apple
Codling moth
Mussel scale
Apple rust mite
Spider mites
Tortrix moths Rosy apple sphid
Green apple aphid Winter moth
Common green capsid
Woolly aphid Blastobasis
Sawfly
Rhynchites
About 20 common arthropod pests
UK alien invasive orchard pests
Woolly aphid 1787
Light brown apple moth 1936 (2000s)
Blastobasis 1946 (1980s)
Summer fruit tortrix moth 1950
Harlequin ladybird 2004
Spotted wing Drosophila 2012
Brown marmorated stink bug ?
Key pests
Frequently cause damage at low densities
Damage fruit directly
Recur after control with insecticides
Not effectively regulated by natural
enemies

Secondary pests
Natural enemy-regulated in unsprayed
situation
Outbreaks caused by natural enemy
disturbance
Difficult to control/develop resistance

Minor pests
Local or sporadic or attack foliage only
Apple pests
Forficula auricularia
Communities of natural enemies
Episyrphus balteatus
Resident generalist predators
Highly mobile specialist predators
Species specific parasitoids
Aphelinus mali
Powdery mildew
Scab
Brown rot
Several important apple diseases
Orchard diseases
Storage rots
Nectria rot
Almost all commonly grown apple varieties are highly
susceptible to scab
Many are susceptible to mildew
Apples are stored long term to regulate supply of fruit
onto market
Losses in store due to rots that invade fruit in the
orchard can be high
As a result, apple orchards are routinely and
intensively treated with fungicides
throughout the season
Control of apple diseases
Major failure in IPM implementation
Monitoring pest and antagonist populations and/or risks
Sampling methods
Sampling unit Pest Threshold Action
(/tree for 25)

Dormant period

2 veg buds on Rust mite 10/bud Acaricide
1 yr shoots at mouse ear
Beat 2 branches Bloss weevil 5 adults/50 beats Chlorpyrifos

Green cluster

Whole tree Scab % trees infected Intensify prog
< 5% = low
5-20 = mod
> 20 = high
4 blossom truss RAA 1% infested Aphicide
In HDC Best Practice Guides
Economic thresholds and actions

0 = not detected
1 = trace
2 = low level below threshold
3 = at or approaching threshold
4 = damaging level above threshold
5 = severe infestation

Orchards inspected fortnightly through
growing season by agronomist

Agronomists score system
Short of the ideal!
Sex pheromone traps
for codling and tortrix
moths
Pest specific monitoring traps
Non-UV reflective white
visual traps for adult apple
sawfly
Phenological forecasting models
Web accessible networks of met stations
Temperature sum phenological model predicts emergence and flight
Dusk temps >15 C used to determine periods of egg laying risk
Disease risk forecasting models
Widely used for adjusting spray timing but substantive
reductions in fungicide use are weather dependant and
seldom realised in wet climates
Resistant varieties
Scab
Mildew
Rosy leaf curling aphid
Woolly aphid resistant MM rootstocks
Natural, genetic, cultural, biological, biotechnological controls
Resistant varieties
Serious failure greatest need and challenge
Bramley Gala Braeburn
Removal of sources of infestation/inoculum
Fruitlet thinning (natural/manual)
Pruning and training
- cutting out cankers
- open canopies
- removing rootstock sucker growths

Reducing soil splash
Mulching
Can be labour intensive, but often vital
Cultural and physical controls
Orchard predatory mite
Typhlodromus pyri
Exploiting and enhancing existing natural enemies
Phytophagous mites
Great success story
Common European earwig
Omnivorous

Once considered important pest
eat anthers and leaves
enlarge holes in ripening fruits

Voracious nocturnal predator of
many important orchard pests
pear psylla, aphids, codling moth

Pear psylla and woolly aphid not pests
where earwigs abundant

Large orchard to orchard variation in
earwig populations

Bottle refuges
Effects of pesticides on earwigs
a.i. EMR work Other researchers
abamectin Safe Harmful
acetamiprid Safe -
Bt - Safe
bifenthrin - Harmful
chlorantraniliprole Safe -
chlorpyrifos Harmful Harmful
cypermethrin - Harmful (nymphs, knockdown)
DDT - Harmful
deltamethrin - Harmful (knockdown)
dimethoate - Harmful
fenitrothion - Harmful
flonicamid Safe Safe or harmful
indoxacarb Harmful (adult males, knockdown) Harmful (knockdown)
methoxyfenozide Harmful (nymphs) Harmful
permethrin - Harmful
pirimicarb - Safe
spinosad Harmful (nymphs, adults, knockdown) Harmful (nymphs, adults)
spirodiclofen Harmful (nymphs) -
thiacloprid Harmful (nymphs, adults) Harmful
Conserving/enhancing earwigs is
important challenge for the future
Conservation biocontrol
Italian alder windbreaks
and grass alleys
are poor for
conservation biocontrol!
Many better functional choices
(but beware rosaceae)
Considerable scope for improvement!
Mutualism between ants and aphids
Ants defend aphids from
natural enemies
If ant protection of aphids is
removed, then aphids are
rapidly attacked and
consumed by generalist
insect predators
Key to aphid control in
future?
One-off introductions for alien invasives
Woolly aphid parasitoid Aphelinus mali

Moving predators between orchards
Transfer predatory mites on summer prunings

Regular introductions of BCAs
Several developed in research but none in
common practice
Unreliable in outdoor environment
Introduced predators and parasites
Disappointingly little application to date
Microbial agents
(registration required)
Bacillus thuringiensis
Bacillus subtilis
Candida oleophila
Codling moth granulovirus

Nematodes
(registration not required)
Heterorhabditis, Steinernema sp
Biopesticides
Advantages

Specific, fully
selective
Safe
Low chance
resistance
Carry over
No residues
Cost competitive

Codling moth granulovirus
Disadvantages

Slow kill, superficial stings
UV degradation, shorter
persistence
Slightly lower efficacy
Tortrix not controlled
Resistance develops where
used intensively
Extensively applied where codling
multigenerational & insecticide resistant
But not in the UK yet!
Area wide application
Numerous formulations
Twist ties
Laminate dispensers
Puffers
Sprayables
Dose >50 g codlemone/ha/season
Effective for low-moderate populations
In conjunction with other methods
Semiochemical based control methods
Codling moth sex pheromone mating disruption
Exosex autoconfusion

Insect growth regulators
Chitin synthesis inhibitors
Juvenile hormone analogues
Moulting accelerating compounds

Novel materials (new modes of action)
Chlorantraniliprole
Flonicamid
Spirodiclofen

Selective insecticides
Great progress in last 30 years
Still far too dependent on pesticides in apple growing
With some notable exceptions (codling MD, mite
management), apple IPM is largely Integrated Pesticide
Management currently, mainly due to routine heavy use of
fungicides
Disease susceptible apple varieties is a major failing
Pesticides are relatively inexpensive in high value crops,
easy to use and mainly quite effective
Great scope and need for innovation to improve apple IPM
Management more complex and challenging and costs of
materials and labour likely to increase, possibly
substantially
How do we incentivise growers?
Conclusions
Disease resistant apple varieties that meet
market requirements
Sensitive, pest specific monitoring traps
for more species
Better understanding of effects of
pesticides on key natural enemies
Conservation biocontrol
Methods of disrupting ant-aphid mutualism
(without killing ants)
New innovative cost-effective biological
and biotechnological control methods
Future needs
Thanks
Colleagues and collaborators

UK fruit growers

Industry

Funders

Biopesticides European MRKT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biopesticides European MRKT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE

Knowledge to feed the world

You might also like