Perspective: regulation of pest and disease control strategies and why (many) economists are concerned

Institutional and policy bottlenecks to IPM

This paper summarises institutional and policy bottlenecks to IPM in Africa. Agricultural policy in Africa generally prioritises production and productivity above environmental sustainability, so the use of synthetic pesticides for controlling pests is encouraged. Funding for research in IPM is limited, and extension systems struggle to provide the level of farmer support that adoption of IPM often needs. Improved research and extension policies could facilitate uptake of IPM. Public and private food-safety standards can incentivise adoption, but currently this is mainly in production for export. Pesticide and other input regulatory systems unintentionally constrain adoption of IPM, through expensive registration procedures, weak compliance monitoring and limited regional harmonisation. IPM must be seen as a key element of food-system transformation.

Problems of implementing compulsory integrated pest management

Compulsory integrated pest management poses a number of challenges and issues for debate. Some of are discussed with reference to European Union requirements set out in Annex III of Directive 128/2009. Requirements on the use of plant protection products bring with them problems with dose reduction in the light of a resistance prevention strategy, the lack of threshold levels, the necessity of chemical treatments and the limited availability of effective products of biological origin. Use of preventive measures of pest control faces barriers related to profitability and a lack of knowledge on the part of farmers. Challenges to control the system, as well as the fact that some legally enforced rules are not suitable for all crops, seem also to be an issue. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry.

A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union

Between 2012 and 2017, the European Commission struggled to achieve the renewal of glyphosate, an active ingredient of some broad-spectrum herbicides. As indicated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the chemical kills or suppresses all plant types; when applied at lower rates, it is a plant-growth regulator and desiccant. Glyphosate is used worldwide for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. Once uncontroversial, new scientific evidence concerning the potential hazards of the substance has sparked a considerable debate in public and political spheres. In light of this sustained controversy, it came as a surprise when a qualified majority of European Union member states voted in favor of the Commission’s proposal to renew the approval of glyphosate for another five years. How was this outcome reached after many ‘no opinion’ votes? How are the member states dealing with the authorization’s renewal? Relying on document analyses and process tracing, we show in this study that the aforementioned renewal was attained due to a change in position on the part of German delegates, who voted in favor of the proposal instead of abstaining. By examining how the member states are addressing the renewal of the authorization, we found that both the countries that opposed renewal and those that supported it are now taking steps to reduce the use—or preparing the phaseout—of glyphosate. Due to domestic political considerations, however, the realization of these steps has so far proven to be difficult.