comprehensive, monetised initiatives and cannot be solved just by the transfer of improved technology. The farmer is naturally the major stakeholder, but there are other players. To adapt an observation by Hamilton & Crossly (15), summarising the situation at the international level, other stakeholders include: • The Major Agrochemical (now often called Life Sciences) industry: principally the half dozen multinational research-based companies which have invested hugely in new technologies (and wish to protect their investments with patents and confidentiality). They provide governments with regulatory data to show that their products are safe and effective. It may be significant that in the past decade, most of these companies have bought up a number of … • Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME): dedicated to the production of biological pesticides. • Companies producing “generic” pesticide products are seen by many to benefit farmers by pushing down the prices of agrochemical products when patents expire (‘off-patent’ compounds). In some countries, they are owned or supported by governments. It is not always appreciated by the general public that their interests (and those of their respective sales people) may be different to those of research-based companies. • The media are interested in selling newspapers or television time, with priority given to colourful • National Governments (and increasingly, international bodies such as the European Union): have to balance the various interests and provide an appropriate legislative framework for the various players involved. They emphasise that this decision making must be ‘evidence-based’ and are also a major source of support to ... bodies by carefully-timed and purpose-designed press releases or may overemphasise a safety concern in order to secure funding”. In Asia, a number of research institutes have had a history of setting up production facilities to encourage the use of BCA. This stakeholder profile certainly also applies to Southeast Asia, although the roles and importance of the different actors may vary. National governments have been the driving force in the advancement of research and use of BCA in agriculture in ASEAN: notably Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia, with Vietnamese research institutes also active in BCA development. The spectrum of pest management options available to farmers is changing, yet too few truly implement IPM: which is generally agreed to be an essential factor in sustainable crop production. The EU only recently proposed that IPM become mandatory in all Member States in 2014, even though its principles had long been declared as a mainstay of modern agriculture. Unfortunately, as in economics, IPM is subject to a variety of interpretations with differences in emphasis from the various interest groups. Originally, the IPM concept was a reaction to the early overuse of synthetic 14 • Consumer groups and activists who voice concerns, which are often shared by the general public, but which may be taken out of context. It has been argued that they need “regular exposés of unsafe residues in food to maintain their profiles.” and sensational stories. It is debatable whether it is in their interests to provide a completely objective balance to such stories, but presenters often guide the debate. • Research Scientists: who “seek research grants and may try to influence research funding 1.2 Role of BCA in IPM
Implementing Biological Control Agents in the ASEAN Region
To see the actual publication please follow the link above