In the fifth of our country profiles we focus on the United Kingdom, where the challenge of meeting the Sustainable Use Directive is being met with a plan that seeks to employ, where possible, non-regulatory approaches delivered by stakeholder partners. Nick Birch, of the James Hutton Institute, and Andrew Lewer, long-term ENDURE contributor, report.
The UK's National Action Plan (NAP) builds on the experience gained from two previous pesticide strategies to reduce risk and minimise use, but also reflects the priorities of the country's coalition Government. The NAP states: “The Government is keen to ensure that regulatory burdens on businesses are kept to a minimum and reduced/removed wherever possible. For pesticides, this means that the Plan aims for non-regulatory approaches to be adopted as much as possible, and looks to stakeholder partners to deliver these.”
The UK regulators believe a voluntary approach is appropriate for British farmers since they already use a wide range of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices, and the main focus of the NAP is the Voluntary Initiative (VI), which seeks to promote responsible pesticide use and encourage farmers and growers to adopt IPM tools over the longer term.
Progress in the UK is being monitored by the Pesticides Forum, a broad-ranging group including representatives from the agriculture and horticulture industry, organisations involved in the sale and distribution of foodstuffs, organisations interested in human health, and environmental and conservation groups. It uses more than 30 indicators to monitor progress, ranging from headline indicators (such as an estimated annual pesticide usage for all crops), core indicators (such as the cropped area in the UK) and specific indicators (such as the average pesticide input per crop). These indicators set no limits nor targets as such, but are being used to monitor three key activities identified by the Pesticide Forum as priorities under the NAP: protecting water (the UK has ongoing problems with pesticide residues in water), improving standards in non-agricultural sectors and promoting IPM.
The NAP notes: “The UK has a mature and sophisticated approach to using indicators to help assess the impact of pesticide use on human health and the environment. The Annual Indicators Report of the Pesticides Forum reviews patterns of pesticide usage; user practice; impacts on human health and the environment and the availability of methods of controlling pests, weeds and diseases. These indicators {...} are regularly reviewed and where appropriate new indicators are added where data are available for these.”
A key feature of the VI addresses the requirement for farmers and growers to demonstrate their use of IPM practices. This is being achieved through an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) developed and promoted by the National Farmers' Union (NFU). The IPMP is in the format of an online questionnaire with an e-pdf sent to the NFU. Another option is the audit provided by the Linking Environment And Farming (LEAF) organisation (you can read more about LEAF below).
The NFU says the IPMP is designed to:
Within the IPMP questionnaire, which covers the eight principles of IPM identified in the Sustainable Use Directive, an information button provides users with advice on how to complete each question and also helpful sources of advice and information on the subjects covered in them. It is recommended that the IPMP be updated and reviewed every one or two years.
Linking Environment And Farming
The LEAF website offers a good summary of IPM resources and practical information for UK growers. LEAF is an organisation which promotes sustainable food and farming and seeks to help farmers produce food to high environmental standards. These products are identified in-store by the LEAF logo.
The website defines IPM and outlines how the LEAF self-audit provides a decision-based framework to support farmers in adopting Integrated Farm Management (IFM) and IPM measures under ‘ Crop Health and Protection’, within a broader range of actions to promote sustainable farming. It also explains the eight main principles of IPM with links to the PURE European research project [link] for more specific examples of research being translated into practice
The LEAF IFM approach has been developed as a way of addressing economic, environmental, social and welfare issues, bringing together management practices and decisions across the whole farm in a balanced way, including items such as soil management and fertility, crop protection, and wildlife and landscape management (see diagram).
IPM research in the UK
As part of the C-IPM ERAnet work package on ‘Mapping and analysis of existing research based on future needs’, a survey of UK IPM advisers and researchers was organised by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). This included an update of SCAR CWG maps of national and international IPM research projects. The information will serve to identify research and development needed to support the implementation of IPM in general and as required under Directive 2009/128/EC, identify overlaps and gaps as well as to assess the added value and opportunities for better coordination and joint initiatives.
Within the C-IPM UK IPM survey various UK government initiatives in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland linked to IPM were highlighted, linking crop protection to biodiversity issues and ecosystem services including pollinator health. In a wider context, IPM also has a potential role in reducing non-indigenous pests and a plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain was published in April 2014 by the UK Government. IPM can also play a role in contributing to the health of pollinators and consultation is currently taking place for a National Strategy on Pollinators.
The UK has a number of research programmes which support IPM principles, funded by both the Government and various other bodies, often collaboratively. The total funding is estimated to be worth around £9m per annum for around 120 individual projects, excluding funding from industry partners. The UK government is also providing substantial funding for applied collaborative work matched by industry investment as part of its UK strategy for Agricultural Technologies (AgriTech). This funding supports ‘proof of concept’ development of near-market agricultural innovations, supports the transfer of technology and new products to developing countries and includes investment in a small number of Centres for Agricultural Innovation to support advances in sustainable intensification. IPM is one of the areas that may benefit from this funding.
Most IPM research in the UK is long term (a minimum of three to four years) and often undertaken in collaboration with other research partners and stakeholders across Europe; for example, in projects and networks including ENDURE, PURE and AMIGA. The latter is comparing IPM systems based on both conventionally bred and genetically modified crops (potato, maize) with genetic resistance to pests as the foundation for building future IPM toolboxes.
A UK wide network of suction traps coordinated at ENDURE partner Rothamsted Research has been running for 50 years and provides a huge database of flying insects (aphids, for example) to study trends in pest population dynamics across multiple seasons, with insight into climate change, pesticide usage, crop management changes, multiple pesticide resistance problems in virus vector aphids, etc.
Practical implementation of IPM in the UK
Cereal production accounts for around half of all the croppable land in the UK and, according to Government figures, some £3 billion worth of cereals were produced over three million hectares in 2011. Wheat accounted for two-thirds of this total and pesticide use is higher than the European average in this crop, according to investigations conducted by a team of ENDURE wheat disease specialists. Writing in the Journal of Integrative Agriculture , they estimated a Treatment Frequency Index of 2.3 for fungicides in UK winter wheat (for France the TFI was estimated at 1.6 and for Denmark 0.6), identifying high disease pressure as a key factor, with farmers often applying fungicides three to four times per season as an insurance against yield loss. Researchers from ENDURE partner Rothamsted Research have analysed winter crops-based cropping systems and produced suggestions for improvements.
Table: Crop protection measures by crop type from most recent UK surveys
Arable crops 2012 | Outdoor vegetable crops 2011 | Soft fruit crops 2012 | ||||
Area treated (ha) | Weight applied (t) | Area treated (ha) | Weight applied (t) | Area treated (ha) | Weight applied (t) | |
All pesticides | 51,174,157 | 15,187 | 1,176,042 | 592.30 | 198,778 | 256,069 |
Registered biocontrol agents | - | - | 776 | 0.96 | 6,989 | 687 |
Physical control | - | - | 281 | 0.80 | - | - |
Note: More biocontrol agents may have been applied which appear under the heading 'Non-registered biocontrol agents and pollinators'
The most successful implementation of IPM in the UK has been focused on high value fruit and vegetable crops which are often eaten fresh and where Minimum Residue Level (MRL) issues are driving growers towards reduced use and alternatives to current pesticides ( click here for an example of the work by the James Hutton Institute on raspberries). These include the use of pest-resistant varieties of soft fruit, monitoring of key pests in fruit and vegetable crops using enhanced traps and lures to target ‘hot spots’ and use action thresholds to reduce pesticide inputs, the deployment of biopesticides on fruit and vegetable crops, the use of conservation and augmented biocontrol in protected crops (glasshouses and polytunnels) and diagnostic molecular tools linked to farm-landscape scale crop models to predict outbreaks of more virulent pest biotypes or attack by alien invasive species.
One leading UK IPM expert told us: “There is still a lot to do to get proper IPM toolboxes used regularly on most UK farms, especially in arable systems. However, we’re making some good progress in crops like fruit and vegetables. These are characterised by being higher value, having more pesticide MRL issues if eaten fresh, with more consumer awareness about health issues, are often easier to manage for IPM if grown protected/semi-protected, and less disturbed agro-ecosystems if not annually re-planted.”
Useful additional websites for information on UK IPM-related policy and practical implementation projects:
For more country profiles, click here.
Last update: 24/05/2023 - ENDURE © 2009 - Contact ENDURE - Disclaimer