Recent issues relating to proposed withdrawals of key pesticides for farmers in the European Union, including neonicotinoids (pollinator loss concerns) and glyphosate (for example, weed resistance, health and biodiversity loss concerns) have raised the profile of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) amongst stakeholders as a potential way forward for more sustainable crop protection, write Nick Birch, Graham Begg, Cathy Hawes and Geoff Squire from Scotland’s James Hutton Institute.
One such debate took place at the Scottish Parliament this February, involving a panel of experts covering Scottish IPM and pollinator research, the National Farmers’ Union Scotland, pollinator-focused NGOs and stakeholders including consumers, environmentalists, farmers, governmental agencies and politicians.
After short presentations (five minutes per presenter!) a wide-ranging and stimulating discussion took place, raising some key issues concerning the translation of IPM concepts and research findings into practical and economic farming solutions. On the one hand, farmers are concerned that sudden withdrawal of pesticides they currently use extensively will threaten their operations and ability to farm economically. On the other hand, NGOs, environmentalists and consumers raise serious concerns about loss of pollinator species, biodiversity and habitats needed to support ecosystem services that farmers, market gardeners and amateur gardeners depend on, including pollination of crops and biocontrol of pests.
Nick Birch presented a brief overview of IPM research at the James Hutton Institute, which has been funded by the Scottish Government (Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Sciences, RESAS), the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the European Union.
Most of JHI's research is focused on developing ‘IPM toolboxes’ of compatible tools for cropping systems including soft fruit, potato, vegetables and cereals. This research is closely tied to the work of JHI’s Agroecology Group, which has a strong background in weed management and geospatial approaches to IPM, and is using an ecological ‘systems’ approach to design, develop and test farming systems which reduce over-reliance on pesticides and other inputs by promoting an ‘ecosystem services’ approach.
Because IPM is an ecologically based approach it is inevitably long term in nature. JHI’s Centre for Sustainable Cropping (pictured right, click to enlarge) provides a vital long term research platform that enables scientists to work with farmers, Linking Environment And Farming (LEAF) and other stakeholders to look at effects of long-term changes in cropping systems, including IPM. Other JHI research groups are also closely integrated, including plant genetics and breeding for durable pest and disease resistance, epidemiological modelling and molecular pathology.
However, despite years of IPM-related research in the UK and around Europe, farmers are still reluctant to adopt IPM measures. Some reasons emerged from the debate: farmers perceive IPM as too complex, too costly and too long term. They are used to routine pesticide applications which are fast-acting, relatively inexpensive and don’t rely on a deeper knowledge of ecology, particularly food webs on their farms. Farmers often rely on crop advisers who also have financial incentives to sell pesticides, so may not have personal incentives to promote other options to farmers. Generally in the EU there is a lack of trained, independent crop advisers who could help farmers adopt IPM more effectively. This shortage has been identified and some countries (for example, Denmark) are now actively training new independent advisers.
Farmers at the debate also mentioned regulatory barriers to using alternatives such as biopesticides. For companies developing alternative IPM tools, markets are still viewed as ‘too niche’ or ‘too small’ to warrant investment.
The European Commission has stated that we are sitting on research-based knowledge that isn’t put to practical use. For researchers in the middle of this debate, it is often frustrating too. Our ideas are developed in the lab or on station but often don’t receive further testing and development on real farms because applied (on-farm) research is unfashionable and not rewarding in terms of career progression; the research is long term and can often only be published in lower impact journals because it is ‘applied’ and not seen as cutting edge science. As a result many good ideas sit on academics’ shelves, never to see the light of day on the farm.
The problems are clearly complex and long term, spanning many interacting topics including ecology, agriculture, sociology, politics, economics, consumer demand, food retail systems and communication with often confused consumers. How can IPM researchers help to resolves these issues? Perhaps through closer engagement with key stakeholders before expensive research programmes are launched? Perhaps by boldly taking their research ideas from the lab and testing them with farmer participation on working farms, expecting mixed feedback and even slower publication rates and sub-optimal career progression?
There are no easy answers, but the possible withdrawal of some widely used pesticides will certainly sharpen the debate and hopefully speed up the translation from lab to farm. Long-term funding of applied research will definitely help, together with policy-led incentives which encourage farmers to look beyond their comfort zone into a less certain future.
Last update: 24/05/2023 - ENDURE © 2009 - Contact ENDURE - Disclaimer