Marco Barzman

Eight principles of integrated pest management

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

Comparative analysis of pesticide action plans in five European countries.

BACKGROUND Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom have launched national initiatives to reduce pesticide use or risk. Faced with multiple environmental, social and economic constraints such as ensuring the competiveness of European agriculture, the various programmes address goal setting, stakeholder involvement and the role of research and extension in different ways. These diverse experiences offer valuable insights for the development of national action plans required by new European legislation on pesticides. RESULTS The general trend is to move away from volume or use reduction targets towards reductions in risks and impact. All programmes studied pay attention to involving a wide range of stakeholders in the policy-making process to ensure buy-in. Research and extension services are important players that help to define appropriate goals and improve implementation. Collective approaches to implementation appear to be more effective than the classical linear research-extension-farmer model. CONCLUSION No matter the approach adopted in fine, member states can gain much from sharing their diverse experience through comparisons such as this study and via international policy seminars which serve as valuable forums for exchange.

Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review

Agriculture in the twenty-first century faces the challenge of meeting food demands while satisfying sustainability goals. The challenge is further complicated by climate change which affects the distribution of crop pests (intended as insects, plants, and pathogenic agents injurious to crops) and the severity of their outbreaks. Increasing concerns over health and the environment as well as new legislation on pesticide use, particularly in the European Union, urge us to find sustainable alternatives to pesticide-based pest management. Here, we review the effect of climate change on crop protection and propose strategies to reduce the impact of future invasive as well as rapidly evolving resident populations. The major points are the following: (1) the main consequence of climate change and globalization is a heightened level of unpredictability of spatial and temporal interactions between weather, cropping systems, and pests; (2) the unpredictable adaptation of pests to a changing environment primarily creates uncertainty and projected changes do not automatically translate into doom and gloom scenarios; (3) faced with uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should prepare for worst-case scenarios following a “no regrets” approach that promotes resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened; (4) more collective approaches involving extension and other stakeholders will help meet the challenge of developing more robust cropping systems; (5) farmers can take advantage of Web 2.0 and other new technologies to make the exchange of updated information quicker and easier; (6) cooperation between historically compartmentalized experts in plant health and crop protection could help develop anticipation strategies; and (7) the current decline in skilled crop protection specialists in Europe should be reversed, and shortcomings in local human and financial resources can be overcome by pooling resources across borders.

Integrated Pest Management policy, research and implementation: European initiatives

Times are changing for pest management in Europe. Stronger societal demands and pesticide resistance pressure farmers to reduce their reliance on pesticides more than ever before. Reconciling human health and environmental goals with production is a challenge for farmers as well as for all crop-protection stakeholders. Expectations that research and extension will quickly provide solutions are high everywhere. Although a few European countries have acquired experience with pesticide action plans or implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) guidelines on a national scale, many others are starting from a more modest base. Stakeholders in Europe are looking beyond their national borders to create synergies and share experiences and know-how. Representatives of the European Commission and Parliament, governments, research, extension, farmers, industry, and civil society are engaged in dynamic interactions. A Europe-wide structure (an ERA-Net) able to coordinate national calls for research and extension proposals on IPM is planned for 2014. Since 2007, the 10-country network ENDURE has pooled expertise among its 15 research, education, and extension member institutions. It has conducted joint reviews and original studies on IPM, organized summer schools, set up an internet-based platform on wheat cultivars and pathogens, and continues to support workshops, newsletters, and an information center with 1,600 entries for advisers. After earlier successes on insect pest management in North America or with resource-poor farmers in developing countries, Europe is set to become a source of renewed inspiration for IPM applied to conventional agriculture in industrialized countries and broadened to encompass all pest categories.

Research and Development Priorities in the Face of Climate Change and Rapidly Evolving Pests

Agriculture faces the challenge of meeting increasing food demands whilst simultaneously satisfying ever stringent sustainability goals. Taken together with the ever increasing rate of integrated globalisation and other anthropogenic impacts, this challenge is further complicated by climate change. Climate change is indeed increasingly recognised as a considerable risk to agriculture in the European Union, particularly with respect to direct impacts on crop production and yield stability. A major impact threat is the further risk from new and emerging invasive alien species, and potential novel pathogenically aggressive adaptations in existing indigenous pests and pathogens, which, hitherto, have been managed with conventional practices and approaches.

Ecological Intensification for Crop Protection

We need to break away from intensive agriculture based on non-renewable and toxic inputs. Safer practices are indeed emerging. Sustainable agriculture started about 50 years ago with the design of integrated pest management (IPM) to counteract pesticide misuse and abuse. Ecological intensification emerged only a few years ago. Here we review the literature to compare ecological intensification and IPM, from the point of view of crop protection. We present also agroecology and organic farming. Neither ecological intensification nor IPM have philosophical bases such as agroecology, or to an even larger extent, biodynamic agriculture. Ecological intensification, IPM and agroecology are polysemous, flexible and pragmatic approaches, whereas organic farming is well-defined by its scope and standards. Ecological intensification, in explicitly pursuing the goal of increasing food production to feed the planet, differs from agroecology, whose proponents think that the view that world hunger will be solved by merely increasing yield is an oversimplification. In terms of cropping system design, in its actual practice, IPM often remains based on methods that increase the efficiency of chemical pesticide use. Or, along with organic agriculture, it may remain based on substitution of pesticides by less harmful alternatives. In contrast, ecologically intensive crop protection usually requires cropping system redesign.