Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)?
Integrated pest management at the crossroads: Science, politics, or business (as usual)?
Heikki M. T. Hokkanen 0
Springer Science 0
Business Media Dordrecht 0
0 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki , Box 27, 00014 Helsinki , Finland
Integrated pest management (IPM) arose as a solution to problems associated with the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides to control pests, diseases and weeds, more than 50 years ago. Elegant solutions have been found to the majority of problems, based on meticulous scientific work and discoveries related to pest (sensu lato) biological properties, ecology, ecosystem function, and technological innovations. Uptake of these methods and application by growers has lagged far behind, despite ambitious government programmes to reduce pesticide use, and political support to IPM. The European Union has taken this support to a new level by passing a directive (2009/128/EC), which effectively requires Member States to ensure that all professional growers follow the principles of IPM, as of 1 January 2014. Are we finally adopting the principles of IPM in plant protection?
-
Reality gap in IPM
The current reality does not generate confidence, if we
consider the gap between the traditional IPM principles, as
expressed in the ‘‘IPM pyramid’’, and the actual situation in
mainstream pest management (Fig. 1). Ideally, pest
management is based to a large extent on avoidance, and the
use of chemical pesticides is just a small tip of the pyramid.
In current reality the pyramid is upside down, where most
of the actual pest management is conducted through the use
of chemical pesticides. It becomes obvious that this method
of pest management will neither be stable nor sustainable.
Will science help to close the reality gap, and facilitate
adoption of effective IPM throughout all crops, concerning
their major pests, diseases and weeds? It is clear that only
science can provide the information needed to close the
gap, but the real question is whether there are the resources
available to conduct all the research needed to support the
transition to IPM. An example of research needs is the
requirement for scientifically sound economic thresholds
for pests; this is critical to both implementing IPM and for
use by any decision support system to help growers assess
whether control measures are needed. Practically all
existing thresholds have been established decades ago—
most in the 1970s—while currently, we have completely
different crop varieties, cropping systems and technology,
and commodity prices.
In today’s competitive funding situation for a vast
majority of researchers, it is difficult to believe that grant
applications addressing establishment of economic
thresholds would be successful at any funding agency. Scientists
wishing to pursue an academic career will not be easily
promoted if their major publications focus on establishing
valid economic thresholds for IPM. Academic excellence
requires innovations and advances in theories and
understanding of fundamental biological and ecological
mechanisms. Scientific discoveries are needed for advancing
IPM, but clearly are not sufficient for establishing IPM in
the field.
Fig. 1 The ‘‘reality gap’’ in pest management: ideal IPM as promoted for [50 years (left), and current reality in mainstream pest management
(right)
Although the political ‘macro’-climate has become
favourable to IPM at least in some parts of the world, other
political interests may swamp the efforts to make IPM
work, or even prevent the first steps towards IPM. A case in
point might be the temporary ban on some neonicotinoids
in the EU. While the ban was established for the growing
seasons of 2014 and 2015, in several countries (e.g.,
Finland) in both years growers were allowed to use
neonicotinoid seed dressing in rapeseed growing via emergency
exemption (McGrath 2014). Another example: politics
restrict the choices of potential IPM tools, such as growing
genetically modified (GM) crops in most European
countries.
Business (as usual)
As a rule, growers are hard pressed by economic and
business realities, and seldom have a real choice in
selecting the pest management options. That IPM is not
taken up by growers to a larger extent is usually not their
own choice, but a decision dictated by the markets within
the existing legal frame—imposed by politics and in the
end, the society at large. A clear example of ‘business as
usual’ are the GM crops, and the way they have been
handled. GM crops have been taken up by growers at a
phenomenal rate, with about 70–80 % of global plantings
of some main crops (soya, cotton) being GM (James 2014).
The promise of the first generation GM crops has been to
provide (1) more efficient pest, disease and weed control,
(2) lower use of pesticides, (3) improved biological control,
and (4) improved possibility for IPM. Theoretically, most
GM crops and their new traits have the potential to
significantly improve crop produ (...truncated)