Research Team University of Kent: Alastair Bailey, Iain Fraser, Abhijit Sharma, Marco Bertaglia & Elodie Douarin Imperial College, London: Charles Godfray & Georgianne Griffiths Penn State US: Matt Thomas Rothamstead Research: John Pickett, Wilf Powell, Lester Wadhams Sam Cook & Toby Bruce G&WCT: John Holland, Barbara Smith & Heather Oaten. RELU: Re-bugging the System - Promoting Adoption of Alternative Pest Management Strategies in Field Crop Systems

Overarching Research Objectives Understand why ‘biocontrol’ has not seen extensive commercial adoption in UK cereal farming –problem with the ‘science’ - scaling the science? or –problem with ‘economics’ - economic decision to adopt? Use “Conservation Bio-Control” & “Semiochemicals” as examples of IPM component technologies. Non-crop habitats provide resources for beneficial insect species Semiochemicals influence spatial distribution of pest & beneficial insects Both influence pest populations. - Difference species have differing efficacy, there is some complementarity - Semiochemicals help scale/distance effects – improve commercial viability

Rove beetles Spiders Ground beetles Manage the Abundance and Distribution of: Generalist predators Aphid specific predators Hoverflies Lacewings Ladybirds Parasitic wasps

Economics – a market failure? Adoption decision process dominated by private cost/benefit considerations. BUT social & network cost/benefits likely to be significant. –The problem is a technology replacement decision where the incumbent technology is effective, well understood and economic to the decision maker. –New technology has uncertain efficacy, is not well understood and may not be economic for the early adopter. –Chemical technology may be ‘locked-in’ on a ‘path dependent’ course. Agri-Environmental Policy (AEP) could break the path dependency

Current policy setting The Voluntary Initiative Agri-environmental policy – ELS –Points system to qualify – implicit pricing of environmental management options Policy is helping to promote IPM techniques Many valuable IPM options are less popular But: –Contracts awarded on simple points threshold –Applications considered farm-by-farm – no scale or network externalities are considered

IPM Adoption Current State Pest management practice survey of UK cereal farmers –Average number & types of practices used and under consideration were reported Principle Components used to discover which work, or are adopted, together A promising picture of IPM Portfolio adoption driven by: –AEP incentives –Farm specific plant protection problems –Background landscape and ecology –Organic/Conventional status –Source of insecticide use advice

Effect on Insecticidal Application Future Directions & Effort DEFRA: Potential need to revisit AEP incentive design & cooperative applications Farmers & Advisors: Demonstrate IPM success Scientists & Extension workers: Identify early & appropriate IPM adoptors Need to consider IPM in context of changing climate, invasive pests and inertia in chemical R&D & regulator fields - Need to find resilience and adaptation from Conservation Bio-control systems Some forms of IPM can reduce insecticide use/reliance ELS membership appears to increase insecticide use However: AES has helped to encourage IPM component adoption Farmers are open to consider alternative IPM technologies