Download - 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?
![Page 1: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Dave Chandler
University of Warwick
Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?
![Page 2: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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
![Page 3: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Microbials: lack of products
USA 150 - 210
Europe 60
Germany 10
France 15
Netherlands 15
UK 5
(data: EPA 2006, Agri-Food Canada 2005; PSD 2006)
![Page 4: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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)
![Page 6: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Complex, highly regulated system for plant protection products in the EU
• National authorisations.
• EU wide arrangements.
• Mutual recognition between states.
• Doesn’t work.
![Page 8: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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.
![Page 9: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Fractured UK policy network
retailers growers
BiopesticideRegulator
BiopesticideIndustry (IBMA) Non government
organisationsResearchers
![Page 10: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Fractured UK policy network
retailers growers
UK biopesticideRegulator (PSD)
BiopesticideIndustry (IBMA) Non government
organisations
Researchers
![Page 11: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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.
![Page 13: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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).
![Page 14: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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?
![Page 15: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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).
![Page 16: 1 Dave Chandler University of Warwick Biopesticides in the UK: can we get regulatory innovation?](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051820/56649d3a5503460f94a156ba/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Visit our website
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/