Since the crop protection markets appear to be ‘weighted’ in favour of chemical products, “IPM is a preventive strategy of crop protection that uses biocontrol as a main pillar and integrates various other methods. Specifically, acting synthetic pesticides can be used as a last option. IPM is cost effective and prioritises human and environmental safety. IPM also considers farmers’ local knowledge and practices, and the need for an appropriate level of education.” Commercial microbials have been around since 1948, when the first microbial product for control of the Japanese beetle based on the bacterium Paenibacillus popilliae was registered in the US (62). Since that time various microbials have been identified and developed, and for a couple of products, new companies were formed that later disappeared again. A lot of the original research was carried out in the public domain: that is universities, governmental research institutes and alike. Only in few cases, among them Bacillus thuringiensis, research, production, and commercialisation reached the industrial level. Although the interest of multinational industry is now again focusing on certain BCA, there was a long period, in which the BCA market was mainly supplied with products from small and medium-sized companies with a strong research base in biocontrol. This meant that a relatively small group of BCA suppliers had to compete with a much larger chemical plant protection market, which resulted in a very small percentage of market share for BCA in the plant protection sector. Currently, however, this share is rising. Besides commercial products, there is also a history of BCA that are directly produced by growers or farmers themselves. This concept has been promoted on a larger scale: for instance, within the farmer-field-school (FFS) programmes of FAO and other development institutions (65). Cuba is a country that has diverted its national plant protection system entirely to the mass production of BCA at the governmental and at the farmers’ level: a strategy which has proven successful in meeting the food security demands of this nation (63). Among ASEAN Member States, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines for instance have developed BCA production systems under government control that are disseminated to farmers and where farmers are part of the production process themselves. So, who should develop and mass-produce BCA: farmers or commercial enterprises? The answer is both, but it depends on the products in question and whether high quality mass production is required. Discussions among experts from AMS showed that there is broad agreement that the quality of BCA needs to be substantially improved to be competitive in the plant protection market. It was also agreed that only a proper commercial approach through the private sector could guarantee the quality and quantities required in the agricultural market. This is especially true for various microbials, botanicals, and semiochemicals. On the other hand, it is also regarded a useful approach for reducing their dependency on synthetic pesticides, if farmers directly produce certain BCA for their own use and benefit. Furthermore, ‘classical’ biological control strategies involving the import 16 members from ABC participating states proposed the following working definition: 1.3 Sustainability: who will develop BCA products?
Implementing Biological Control Agents in the ASEAN Region
To see the actual publication please follow the link above