1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?

2 Dept of Politics & International Studies. Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves. Warwick HRI. Dave Chandler, Gill Prince. Dept of Biological Sciences. Mark Tatchell. RELU project team at Warwick

3 Microbials: lack of products USA Europe60 Germany10 France15 Netherlands15 UK5 (data: EPA 2006, Agri-Food Canada 2005; PSD 2006)

4 Biopesticides: why regulation is needed Contribute to IPM, but natural doesn’t = safe. Costs of regulatory failure are high. –UK BSE episode stifled regulatory innovation. Public money invested in discoveries that never reach the market. Need a system of regulation that will –lead to more products on market –& not sacrifice safety.

5 New understanding of UK biopesticide regulation Limitations of biopesticide regulatory system. Cost / benefits of biopesticides –How is uptake constrained by social factors? –Policy network theory, workshops, interviews. –Identify processes that sustain regulatory innovation. Compare regulatory models for pesticide use reduction: –UK (private governance) –Denmark, USA (legislative)

6 Some problems: Regulatory system in UK & EU is based on chemical model. –Acts as a barrier to commercialisation (ACP, 2003). –Emphasizes costs rather than benefits. –sustainability goals get forgotten in favour of short term objectives. Need a tailored system for biopesticides (now happening). –But the regulator has a difficult job: resolve conflicts of interest. –Bureaucracy is shaped by what’s happened in the past. This affects what can be done in the future.

7 Complex, highly regulated system for plant protection products in the EU National authorisations. EU wide arrangements. Mutual recognition between states. Doesn’t work.

8 Biopesticides industry: a political maturity problem ‘Biological control industry has the weakest policy network I have encountered’ (Grant). Small industry largely made up of SMEs. IBMA does not have resources of agro- chemical industry, still undergoing organisational development. Little coalition building with environmental groups.

9 Fractured UK policy network retailersgrowers Biopesticide Regulator Biopesticide Industry (IBMA) Non government organisations Researchers

10 Fractured UK policy network retailersgrowers UK biopesticide Regulator (PSD) Biopesticide Industry (IBMA) Non government organisations Researchers

11 Problems of external costs Financial costs of biopesticides are borne by producers. But benefits are accrued down the food chain. Need to pass benefits back to producers.

12 Lack of knowledge UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides –Group of experts, responsible for pesticide approvals including biopesticides. –Work with the regulator (Pesticides Safety Directorate) but have final say. –No expertise in biocontrol.

13 Developments in UK PSD – pilot project leads to Biopesticides Scheme. Reduced fees, pre submission meetings. Industry not taking full advantage. Regulator = scientific public servants: keen to improve knowledge, want sustainable IPM. –Project team giving lectures, workshops. –Observe ‘closed’ meetings (PSD, ACP).

14 For debate - subsidies US IR-4 programme; safe & effective pest management solutions for growers of speciality crops. Funded 43 projects since 1994 = $2.85M. Works closely as a partner with EPA. Supported growth of trade association. Is there a market failure that can be remedied by government intervention in UK / EU?

15 Some design principles for better regulatory system (UK, EU) System must support sustainability objectives (economic, social, environmental). An improved knowledge base & chain. Stakeholders fully involved in debate about regulation, good communication links. Biopesticides ‘champion’ (quasi-governmental), acting as advocate for biopesticides. Address challenges posed by role of retailers, & complexities of regulatory state (EU).

16 Visit our website