IBMA’s director wants to bring agriculture under biocontrol. Is that possible?

In an exclusive interview, FCI spoke to Jennifer Lewis, the director of the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association – IBMA about her ambitious sustainability goals, including making biocontrol manufacturers the partners of choice in the farmer’s crop protection strategy and speeding up biocontrol authorisation processes.

Being the son of a commercial rose grower, the author of this article can vividly remember the smell of the sulfur burner – a biocontrol method avant la lettre – used in his father’s greenhouse (and, even worse, the awful damage it sometimes caused because the burner could catch fire overnight).

Today, the executive director of IBMA urges us to look forward, not back. Biocontrol has made significant strides since the days of the first sulphur burner in commercial greenhouse horticulture.

For the record, today’s biocontrol, or bioprotection as IBMA terms it, encompasses four technologies: invertebrates, semiochemicals, microbials, and natural substances.

Jennifer Lewis speaking at the inception meeting of the FARM project which is led by UNEP and implemented by the Asian Development Bank, UNDP, and UNIDO with execution carried out in country by FAO and relevant country institutions in Ecuador, India, Kenya, Laos, Philippines, Uruguay and VietNam.

FCI Magazine: Biocontrol in agriculture is a broad concept. What differences do you see in the many branches of agriculture?

Jennifer Lewis: “The vast majority of commercial greenhouses use biocontrol as part of their pest and disease programme. In protected fruit and vegetables, over 90 per cent of the pest and disease control is biological, with a similar trend for ornamentals in the consumer market.

The speed of transition is driven by the market requirements, particularly for lower pesticide residues. In speciality field crops such as vines and orchards, there are many good examples of biocontrol-based IPM programmes.

In arable, there are many examples in Brazil, with over 44M ha (60 per cent of the Brazilian agricultural area) receiving some form of biocontrol in their pest and disease control programmes. In Europe, arable is lagging behind. Awareness is, however, now raised, and European farmers are asking for biocontrol solutions.”

Speaking of Brazil, the country is often touted as a biocontrol powerhouse with new products being approved within approximately two years compared to the near to decade waiting time in Europe. This year, IBMA met Carlos Goulart, Secretary of Animal and Plant Health of Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, who highlighted the need for farmers and growers to be trained to evaluate biocontrol. What role can IBMA fulfil regarding training?

“Now that awareness is raised, farmer demonstration and education on bioconrol is key. IBMA is involved in international programmes such as the FARM project, which demonstrates the use of alternatives such as biocontrol to farmers. It is noteworthy that in Brazil, farmers are asking for biocontrol. In a survey of Brazilian farmers who have used biocontrol, 98 per cent said they would use biocontrol again. Sharing knowledge on how biocontrol works and examples of it at work are key for farmers’ understanding of biocontrol. The overriding challenge in Europe is to ensure biocontrol products are available to farmers by speeding up the authorisation process for biocontrol in Europe, which takes up to ten years compared to 1-3 years in the rest of the world.”

Following weeks of farmers’ protests across Europe, the European Commission withdrew its Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR) proposal in February 2024, which included legally binding targets for pesticide reduction. IBMA touts it as ‘a shock withdrawal’. Why is that?

“The decision to withdraw the SUR was a political decision taken at the EU President’s office and, in this sense, was not known throughout the EU Commission. In terms of the availability of pesticides for farmers, the reduction in pesticides is driven by the 1107/2009 authorisation process, not by the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUD) or SUR. In an effort to move forward the positive aspects of the SUR, the EU Council of Ministers continued to work on the SUR well into the Belgium Presidency and after the Parliamentary rejection.

These positive aspects of the SUR included a definition of biocontrol, a fast-track authorisation for biocontrol, farmer and adviser training, and the use of drones, all of which had wide political support.”

Nine months later, where are we now?

“IBMA is confident the new Parliament programme will include biocontrol.”

A shock comes unexpectedly. Do you feel IBMA takes well enough into account the reality on the ground with farmers and horticulturists who find the switch to alternative crop protection methods complex and complain that there are not enough incentives to support biological crop control?

“There are many examples of biocontrol in action. The government of Spain’s autonomous community Valencia worked on an example in the Albufera National Park. It included the utilisation of pheromones for the control of the striped rice stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) in a nature reserve in greater Valencia, Spain. Since 2006, the pest is fully controlled by mating disruption (over 16.000 ha), avoiding the use of 58.000 L of synthetic insecticides each year used previously. The use of pheromones has also allowed for the continuation of critical economic activities such as the rice cultivation in an area which has been declared a natural reserve. The sustainability gains are impressive as the technique elliminates pollution and reliance on chemical pesticides, leads to increased biodiversity, and enables resilient rice cropping systems and regenerative land use practices, combining agricultural production and nature reserves.”

Sticky cards. (Photo credit: Koppert).

Biocontrol’s top of mind is, just like Rome, not built in one day—am I right?

“On farms, the switch to biocontrol is a gradual process. Farmers and horticulturists build programmes that place biocontrol within their existing programmes and test how best it can fit into their operation. This often requires advice from a consultant who understands the products, their mode of action, and how best to use them.

The new Parliament will deliver a vision for agriculture and food in the first 100 days, and this aims to ensure any funding finds the right balance between incentives, investments and regulation.”

Farmers and horticulturists feel that climate policies and environmental rules leave agricultural and horticultural livelihoods at risk. What is IBMA’s answer to them?

“Farmers need pest and disease control in their crops, and biocontrol provides this within IPM programmes in conventional and organic farming systems. IBMA has joint roadmaps with farmer groups such as COPA COGECA and IFOAM, and we work together to speed up access to biocontrol products for farmers.”

Speaking of risks, imagine your are a young farmer and you have just started your large-scale business for which you are in a lot of debt. Every misstep in crop management can have enormous consequences. What can IBMA do to reduce the economic risk of using biocontrol?

“The biocontrol industry works with all stakeholders including distributors. Manufacturers work with their distributor advisers to explain modes of action and optimal conditions for their products and advice where and how to best place any biocontrol product in a pest or disease control programme. IPM is a programme approach, but access to products needs to be provided in the programme in a complimentary manner. The end goal of any pest and disease programme is to provide the desired yield and quality at the required profitability for the farmer. Biocontrol advice and use is about a whole programme approach. Ensuring distributor advisers have the most up-to-date information on biocontrol products and programmes is key.”

What’s next? Does the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of Agriculture and what the President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen said about agriculture in her political guidelines bode well for the biocontrol manufacturers?

“Von der Leyen’s new Political Guidelines are favourable for biocontrol, and the future for biocontrol is bright. The new Vision for Agriculture and Food to be issued in the first 100 days will see a balance between incentives, investments and regulations and harnessing the political wish to speed up biological control authorisation will become an important element of the implementation. The competitiveness fund and the EU-wide legal status to help innovative biocontrol companies grow will also be key to keeping biocontrol SMEs developing in Europe and giving European farmers access to more biocontrol to ensure their competitiveness on a global stage, where other large agricultural-producing nations and regions have faster access to biocontrol.

On a practical note, the biocontrol industry has solutions available, and with a favourable political climate in the Parliament and the Council, we expect to see significant progress in providing many more of these solutions to farmers within this Parliamentary term.”

This article was first published in the September 2024 issue of FloraCulture International.