Benefits and costs of biopesticides in terms of their contribution to sustainability

The methodology used for this aspect of the research was to convene a workshop at

Warwick HRI drawing on natural and social scientists with a range of relevant

expertises including economics, sociology, political science and a range of sub-

disciplines within biological science. After brief introductions to the natural and

social science aspects of the project, a ‘brainstorming’ session produced a list of

perceived costs and benefits which form the basis of this paper.

In the analysis, benefits and costs differ according to the perspective of six

different stakeholders: developers; regulators; users/growers; retailers; consumers and

opinion formers. Eight distinct benefits were identified as relating to all six

groupings, twenty-five costs and eight items where there were a mixture of costs and

benefits between the different groupings. The latter are particularly challenging in

terms of policy recommendations as they represent areas where the perceptions and/or

weightings of stakeholders may conflict.

Although this is a relatively crude measure because there are no ordinal

weightings, it is interesting that the balance of identified costs and measures varies

substantially across the six groupings. The most negative balance is found for

developers (-14) and users/growers (-9). The balance for retailers is moderately

negative (-6), evenly balanced for regulators (-1), but positive for consumers (+2) and

opinion formers (+7). Thus, those who bear the private costs of development and

application seem to have the most unfavourable balance of costs and benefits, while

consumers of the final product and opinion formers have the most favourable balance.

This draws to our attention the importance of considering the balance of private and

public goods in any analysis.

 This paper considers the benefits, the costs and those items with a mixture of the

two. Too much weight should not be attached to the preponderance of costs as no

numerical weighting was assigned to the various costs and benefits (future work by an

ESRC funded PhD student, Giorgio Cali, will develop this aspect). A final section of

the paper considers recommendations for future action in the context of the key theme

of sustainability.

Benefits

One of the strongest benefits of biopesticides are that they offer a more sustainable

solution than synthetic alternatives, or more specifically that they allow chemical

pesticides to be deployed where and when they are most needed and most appropriate

so that a precious resource is not squandered. In this connection, it is important to

bear in mind the thinking of the Bruntland Commission that ‘Sustainable development

is conceived as a process, in which society is becoming less unsustainable, rather than

an end state which we could describe as a blueprint.’ (Achterberg, 1996: 158).

Hence as chemical pesticides are withdrawn because of resistance problems or

because they are no longer commercially viable, a space is created for biological

solutions to occupy. Indeed, it is often not commercially viable to develop chemicals

for niche markets, posing a challenge for minor crops which include the salad crops

and other vegetables that make a substantial contribution to health policy objectives.

One of the clear benefits of biopesticides is that they can be combined with other

solutions. They can complement other forms of biological control, e.g., conservation

measures such as beetle banks. They can allow the use of other forms of control with

low efficacy, e.g., where there is partial resistance to existing products. They are also

relatively cheap to develop and need to be redeveloped less frequently, saving

expenditure on research and development. Herbicides remove bird food but because
biopesticides are less efficacious, more bird food is available and bird populations (a

key indicator of environmental stress) should increase.

Biopesticides do not have residue problems which are a matter of significant

concern for consumers and may deter them from purchasing fresh fruit and

vegetables. For retailers’ biopesticides offer the possibility of brand security, e.g.,

they could be applied late on top fruit and would leave no residues.

Costs

Many of the issues relating to costs are grouped around the question of efficacy. In

general terms, biopesticides are not as effective as chemicals. With a chemical

product, provided one knows its composition it is easy to predict what it will do,

whereas with a biological product one has less confidence about how it fits into the

ecosystem. Biopesticides may not work immediately as the ecological background

must change. Compatibility with synthetic pesticides varies. Shelf life is often

shorter. Speed of kill may not be as fast, although in part this is a consequence of

thinking within a chemical paradigm and can be got round by appropriate labelling

(which is one of the functions of the regulatory system).

There are differences in efficacy between performance in protected and field crops,

although it should be remembered that biopesticides have been used successfully with

broad acre crops. However, it is easier to monitor a crop in a greenhouse and to

demonstrate to crop consultants that it works.

Farmers have to decide to take more risks with biopesticides, but the incentives

may be absent as most of the benefits are external to farmers. They have to be used

in relatively complex knowledge intensive management systems which act as a

disincentive. More knowledge is required for their use, but there is a shortage of

relevant technical skills in horticulture, reflecting low wages.

 Ownership structures do not help. A long term commitment may be needed, but

there may be less interest because of landlord/tenancy laws. Growers often use

rented land which provides no incentive for longer term investment. This means that

biopesticides often become a short term solution. As soon as no chemical control is

available, interest goes up, but then disappears when a chemical solution returns.

The regulatory system has tended to ask the wrong questions with those

appropriate for chemicals not relevant to biopesticides. Regulators tend to be risk

averse for understandable reasons. The regulator faces a complicated environment in

which the precautionary principle mitigates against reduction in regulatory oversight.

This is often interpreted in a way that is not consistent with its original definition in an

attempt to prohibit use of any substance that might speculatively be thought to be

potentially a problem, i.e., the demand is made to prove a negative. What the 1992

Rio Declaration required was that ‘Where there are threats of serious or irreversible

damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing

cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’ In its interpretation

of the precautionary principle, the EU emphasises, inter alia, that measures should be

proportional to the chosen level of protection and based on an examination of the

potential costs and benefits.

The regulatory system is changing, but work still often has to be undertaken on a

case by case basis, making it hard to generalise. Problems of consistency of effect

make them harder to regulate. Obtaining efficacy data to meet the needs of the

regulatory system can be expensive. SMEs may avoid the regulatory system because

they see it as too daunting. Products may appear as plant strengtheners or growth

promoters which in a sense means that the market making the choice.
 Market failures are a serious challenge, particularly in terms of the fragmentation

of the market. In particular it is hard to launch on the European market, although

regulatory agencies are increasingly talking to each other and improving the

information flow. As a consequence of market and regulatory factors, there are no

biopesticides available to solve at least 50 per cent of pest problems. The availability

problems with chemicals are still ones of relative availability, there are still a lot more

available than biologicals. Good chemical pesticides are available with good

characteristics to provide solutions. Some chemicals are very cheap as they are out

of patent and biopesticides have to compete on cost.

The available products do not always meet the specification of retailers. There

is a ‘yuk’ failure in terms of dead organisms in the product for which there is zero

tolerance. The name ‘biopesticides’ is not helpful as it has negative connotations.

Areas of potential conflict

Although not numerous, these areas of potential conflict are significant in terms of the

acceptability of biopesticides in relation to a number of audiences. Biopesticides

have long-term effects, particularly as ecology adjusts to them, but there may not be

an immediate pay off. This is a cost within the food chain itself for users, retailers

and consumers, but may be perceived as a benefit by developers, regulators and

opinion formers. The level of knowledge in primary production about how best to

use biopesticides is likely to increase over time, but this is of little immediate benefit

to the grower and retailer. Their persistence is good for pest control, but raises

questions about environmental risk. Products are unlikely to reduce the natural

carrying capacity of the ecosystem, but risk assessment is important. If the product is

too persistent, the company producing it will not achieve repeat sales and will go out

of business.
 As biopesticides are regulated by the same regulator as for synthetics, the public

may put them in the same group as chemicals. This reflects the general ambiguity of

the product, not organic, but not chemical, somewhere in the middle. This may be in

part a marketing issue, but there is a disincentive for the retailer to label

environmentally positive goods as it detracts from the rest.

From the developer’s perspective, biopesticides need an artificially created level

playing field for the first few years in terms of tax subsidies and reduced fees.

However, the regulator has to think about balancing the books given the requirement

for cost recovery and the issue of cross-subsidisation. Agro-chemical companies

may be concerned about anything that is seen from their perspective as giving an

unfair advantage to biological control agents. Any assistance provided is to the fixed

cost of getting the product to market, not the marginal cost of producing it and using

it. Hence, such measures will ensure that the product gets to market but not that it is

used.

Possible solutions in the context of sustainability

As this paper has shown, perceived costs and challenges of biopesticides outweigh

identified benefits. Are biopesticides a policy cul-de-sac and might the way forward

lie with new synthetics that are more environmentally friendly? It is suggested here

that there are some ways forward which may increase use of biopesticides and their

contribution to sustainability. One challenge made in the discussion is that the

aspiration that biopesticides are durable and sustainable is an assumption which needs

justification. Are biopesticides a second best solution?

As noted, the name itself is unfortunate. One alternative, biological control

agents, lacks simplicity and consumer appeal. ‘Natural Enemies’ could be better,

although the word ‘enemy’ is negative in tone. What is clear is that the products need
a generic marketing ploy which overcomes the perception that they are neither

organic nor chemical but somewhere in the middle. This reflects a more general

problem in terms of a polarisation between organic and conventional products in the

framing of the debate and insufficient public attention to Integrated Crop and Pest

Management.

It might be possible to provide an ethical marque for products on the lines of

‘Freedom Foods’. Feel good brands can be differentiated, although in part public

attitudes, and the willingness of the consumer to pay a premium depends on the

commodity, e.g., food for small children and baby food. To achieve this, NGO

involvement would be necessary and better links between different parts of a

fragmented policy network. Public procurement could be used for demonstration

purposes.

New chemical formulations could be used to solve biopesticide storage and

efficacy issues and might lead to greater interest from large companies.

Biopesticides need to be fitted into current stewardship schemes to provide incentives

for their use. This would also integrate crop and environmental management in a

way that promoted sustainability. It was suggested in the discussion that a pesticide

tax would make chemical products as special as they claim they are, although this is a

controversial policy instrument.

Of fundamental importance is the distinction between private and public benefits

and costs and how these are shared out among the various actors in the production and

food chain. In terms of liability the regulatory process is about sharing that out

between the manufacturer, regulator, government and society. The externality

impacts confirm that regulation is important. Food is not just a private individual

good, although it may be perceived as such and does not have all the characteristics of
a public good. It is, however, easier in principle to charge the consumer for food

safety as part of a ‘bundled’ good, but a free rider problem arises in charging for the

collective good of environmental protection.

One then encounters problems of the structure of power in the food chain with

value concentrated at the retail end and the question of how much money goes back to

the farmer. In retailing one has a private system of governance not determined by

public goods, but could private and public benefits go hand in hand? A useful

concept is that introduced by the UK government’s Roundtable on Sustainable

Consumption which ‘introduced the concept of “choice editing” where retailers use

sustainability as a criterion for deciding which products to make available to

consumers.’ (Knight, 2007: 12).

References

Achterberg, W. (1996) ‘Sustainability and associative democracy’ in W.M.Lafferty

and J.Meadowcroft (eds.) Democracy and the Environment (Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar), 157-74.

Knight, A. (2007) ‘Food that talks?’, Food Ethics, 2(2): 13-14.