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.