Page 1

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM): A PAN UK BRIEFING December 2018

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to managing pests, diseases or weeds under which chemical pesticides are used only as a last resort, if at all. It sits in direct contrast to the majority of conventional agriculture in which pesticides tend to be the first weapon of choice for dealing with unwanted organisms. One of the basic principles of IPM is that decisions on whether and when to apply pesticides should be based on direct observations of the health of the crop in each field. In contrast, farmers who prioritise chemical pest control often make scheduled or ‘insurance’ applications, without checking whether pest levels justify the application of pesticides. The adoption and implementation of successful IPM strategies is an effective way of reducing pesticide use. As an EU Member State, IPM has supposedly been at the heart of the UK’s approach to agriculture since the adoption of the EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides in 2009. However, possibly due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how IPM systems work, the UK has adopted a piecemeal approach that cherry picks individual IPM techniques rather than implementing the whole system approach. A whole system approach to IPM is essential if the full range of benefits for farmers and reductions in pesticide use are to be achieved. Since the 2016 Brexit referendum, the UK government has restated its commitment to making IPM central to the UK’s approach to crop protection.1 The current review of UK agricultural policy is an opportunity to develop and put in place incentives and mechanisms to promote the widespread uptake of genuine IPM by UK farmers. There is little disagreement that current levels of pesticide use are having a negative impact on the UK’s natural environment.

Consequently, delivering a ‘Green Brexit’ will require substantial reductions in pesticide use and support for farmers to switch to more sustainable forms of pest control such as IPM. This PAN UK briefing provides an overview of the key features which comprise an IPM system, explores how IPM is currently being implemented in the UK, and provides recommendations to the UK Government for increasing the uptake of IPM by farmers. Annex 1 describes how some key agroecological principles could be put into practice in the context of British arable farming. Annex 2 provides a brief case study describing the experience of French farmers using Integrated Production methods in wheat rotations in order to reduce pesticide use.

What is IPM? IPM tackles pests and diseases through the use of a combination of different control methods, based on good crop husbandry (cultural and agronomic practices), physical, plant breeding or biological control methods, underpinned by effective pest, weed and disease monitoring strategies. There is no doubt that, properly implemented, IPM systems can effectively deal with harmful pests and diseases whilst maintaining crop yields, farmer income and delivering a more environmentally-sustainable agricultural system.

1


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

IPM works, not only by adopting a range of nonchemical control measures – thereby keeping the use of pesticides to an absolute minimum - but also by contributing to robust natural control systems in the long-term that can better deal with pests, weeds and diseases without having to resort to chemical intervention. IPM strategies based on sound agroecological science, that use methods selected for the local context, can help prevent pest organisms from reaching problematic levels where they start to cause economic damage to the farmer. The most widely-accepted definition of IPM globally is contained within the International Code of Conduct of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and included in the EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Given that approaches for dealing with pests and diseases are as many and varied as the variety of crops being grown any definition of IPM has, by necessity, to be a general statement of principles. Once this has been clearly established, crop and sector specific IPM guidelines can then be developed. While detailed guidance is outside the scope of a briefing of this nature, some useful case studies of temperate crops can be found at https://www.low-impact-farming.info/ what-ipm IPM is currently defined by both the European Union and the FAO as; “Integrated pest management means careful consideration of all available plant protection methods and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and keep the use of plant protection products (pesticides) and other forms of intervention to levels that are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment. ‘Integrated pest management’ emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.” 2,3

What comprises an IPM system? IPM is not one technique but a whole suite of tactics that can be used in a holistic way before, during, and after the growing of a specific crop or crops. IPM

2

techniques range from low-tech methods, such as field walking (crop scouting or monitoring) to identify possible pest, weed and disease problems by sight, to high-tech approaches, such as sophisticated computer modelling designed to predict pest levels or disease risk in specific locations. The aim is to maintain pests, diseases and weeds below economically damaging levels by integrating a range of IPM tools. This does not mean eliminating every pest, insect or unwanted weed, plant or disease-causing organism. Key features:

66 IPM strategies should be underwritten by sound practice and ecological science from the very start. For example, choosing pest and disease resistant varieties suited to local conditions; using more diverse crop rotations that will help maintain soil fertility and keep down pest, weed and disease levels; managing field and border vegetation to provide habitats that will encourage predatory and other insects (‘natural enemies’) that feed on crop pests; and using mixed cropping patterns and companion crops (e.g. under sowing cereal crops with clover or other legumes) to help discourage weed, disease and pest incidence.

66 Monitoring, forecasting and early warning systems to accurately predict the level of pest, weed and disease pressures and target potential problems at the most effective time for control. Pheromone traps (which use insect mating communication chemicals) can be a simple addition to the IPM basket of options, but more complex computer modelling and forecasting systems are increasingly becoming available.

66 When an intervention is justified, sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods should be the first IPM tools to be deployed. Whilst a robust IPM system should already have enhanced levels of beneficial organisms providing a biological contribution towards effective control of pests, there may be a need to introduce additional predatory or parasitic biocontrol agents required. This approach is already widespread in greenhouse production.

66 If a more direct approach is required the use of bio-pesticides can be considered. These are based on naturally occurring microbial agents (selected


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

strains of fungi, bacteria or viruses) which infect and kill specific insect pests or the microbes which cause plant disease.

66 Under IPM, synthetic chemical pesticides represent the last choice to be used by farmers. Only if other IPM control measures have failed to protect a crop from damage that would cause economic loss should chemical intervention be considered. This is one of the key elements of IPM and why it has been promoted as one of the most effective ways of driving down pesticide use.

66 If all other control measures have failed, and synthetic pesticides are the only remaining option, then the choice of the best active ingredient or product to be used should be based on the principle of minimising the risks to pesticide handlers, consumers and the environment (especially beneficial organisms such as pollinators, earthworms and natural enemies).4

The current UK approach to IPM It is often claimed that the majority of farmers in the UK are already using IPM. However, this overstates the extent to which IPM systems are being implemented and hides the reality that most conventional farming in the UK continues to rely on pesticides as its first line of defence. As documented almost a decade ago, most British arable farmers employ only a limited number of IPM methods and are missing out on the benefits from adopting a fully integrated approach.5 The low levels of uptake of IPM in the UK (especially in comparison with some other European countries) is largely due to the lack of measures in place to encourage and support more farmers to adopt effective IPM techniques. To meet the requirements under the Sustainable Use Directive to show that UK growers are using Integrated Pest Management practices, in 2014, the UK adopted the Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP). The IPMP was developed by the National Farmers Union as a voluntary self-assessment tool for farmers and other professional users of pesticides and intended to help as a ‘decision support’ to farms by identifying opportunities for improvement. Under the IPMP, pesticide users are encouraged to complete

an annual plan in order to demonstrate the extent to which they’re using IPM techniques.6 However, while of some use, the IPMP is little more than a questionnaire and therefore falls far short of providing the research, training and advisory support, market incentives and regulatory deterrents required to drive a significant increase in uptake of IPM. Given that it is completed by individual farmers online, and there seems at present to be no method for checking the veracity of the information provided, the IPMP can been criticised as a box-ticking exercise which drives little change in farming practices but meanwhile overstates of the level of IPM uptake in the UK. Other than the IPMP, there is currently little in place to support farmers to adopt IPM practices. The UK lacks an effective advice and training scheme for farmers to learn about the wide range of IPM techniques available and has no mechanism through which to either reward farmers for taking up IPM or penalise them for high pesticide use. In effect, there is currently no system for developing IPM in the UK either by the carrot or the stick. This is in stark contrast to the type of effective advice and training schemes our European counterparts have developed to introduce their farmers to the wide range of IPM techniques available.7 Neither does the UK have a mechanism to either reward farmers for taking up IPM or penalise them for high pesticide use. In effect, there is currently no system for encouraging IPM in the UK either by the carrot or the stick.

What does the UK need to do? Brexit is a unique opportunity to put in place the kind of measures required to drive widespread adoption of IPM by British farmers, thereby making our agricultural system more sustainable for present and future generations. With strong leadership from Defra, and a realignment of agricultural subsidies and other government support for farmers, the UK has the opportunity to become a world leader in agroecological and non-chemical farming innovation.

3


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

PAN UK is calling for the following measures to be implemented:

66 Introduce incentives for farmers to adopt IPM practices Following our departure from the European Union and the ending of payments under the Common Agricultural Policy, Defra has committed to introducing a new ‘environmental land management system’ to incentivise and reward farmers for outcomes, such as creating new habitats for wildlife and increasing biodiversity. Adoption of crop-specific IPM techniques should be one of the key criteria for the allocation of subsidies to farmers. On the flipside, farmers using unnecessarily high levels of pesticides should not receive public money in the form of subsidies.

66 Create a new independent extension service for research, development and dissemination of IPM techniques In recent years, the UK has seen a dramatic decrease in state funding for agricultural research and extension services for farmers. As a result, the research agenda has been driven by the agrochemical industry and therefore focused on the development and promotion of new, synthetic pesticides. The UK also lacks an effective and appropriate training and advice scheme for farmers wishing to adopt IPM and start moving towards reducing, and ultimately eliminating, their use of pesticides. The creation of a government-run and funded body focussed on conducting research into new IPM techniques and providing advice and support to farmers on effective IPM strategies would be a valuable asset in the move towards a more sustainable UK agricultural system. Any advice, information and training given to farmers must be truly independent of pesticide industry influence and be driven by an IPM agenda that is working toward reducing pesticide use as its goal. One example of such a body can be found in Denmark which has led the way in developing a dedicated IPM and pesticide reduction advice service for farmers. Danish farmers can receive heavily subsidised advice on IPM focused on farmers’ specific crop protection challenges. Farmers sign a two-year agreement to receive a total of six to twelve hours of advice (six hours for farms less than 100 hectares, and

4

one hour per 50 hectares to a maximum of twelve hours). When special challenges arise on a particular farm, the agreement may be extended by one year. The project funded 1,400 ‘IPM advisory packages’ in 2010-2015. In total, advice was supplied to farmers cultivating approximately 15 per cent of Denmark’s arable land.8 Learning from these experiences, a UK IPM body should help facilitate the following:

®® Pest and disease warning services for farmers ®® Websites with IPM guidance for particular crops and pests

®® Networks of best practice and pilot farms ®® Applied research and support for farmer innovation

®® Public IPM guidance for farmers ®® Availability of pest and disease resistant varieties of crops

®® Linkage with best practices in IPM and pesticide reduction in private standards, e.g. organic, Conservation Grade, LEAF Marque

66 Facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning on IPM IPM techniques tend to be context-specific, so it is vital that farmers are able to access training and research that reflects their specific needs. In order to complement the work of a new IPM extension service – or alternatively as part of the remit of the body – the UK government should create a system through which farmers are encouraged to share knowledge and learnings from using IPM systems. This bottomup approach would ensure that the take -up of IPM is farmer-led and that the techniques developed meet the needs of those on the frontlines of dealing with pests, weeds and diseases. Organic agriculture can be viewed as the gold standard of IPM and, as such, there is much that can be learned from organic agricultural systems. Knowledge and information exchange between organic and nonorganic farmers should form a distinct element of any farmer-to-farmer learning.


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

France offers an excellent example of farmers working together to increase their knowledge, and ultimately uptake, of IPM techniques. As part of a pilot project, a group of arable farmers from across the country have joined together to work on reducing their use of pesticides. Members of the group farm a variety of different arable crops and operates in a range of geographical settings but, through collaboration and shared learning, have been able to overcome a diverse range of crops can, by working together, set and meet ambitious pesticide reduction goals.9 It provides a model that could potentially be scaled up to a regional, or even national, level in the UK to increase the uptake of IPM and reduce pesticide use.

66 Fund the new IPM body through a pesticide tax It is crucial that a new IPM body is properly funded from the start in order to provide the greatest benefit to farmers and others seeking advice and support. This advice must be independent of organisations with a vested interest in maintaining the current reliance on pesticides. PAN UK is suggesting that funding could, at least in part, be provided through the introduction of a pesticide tax on the sale of pesticides. The tax should be based on the toxicity of pesticides with those identified as being most harmful to the environment or human health attracting a higher tax rate. This would have a dual effect of helping fund the new IPM body whilst also discouraging the use of the most toxic pesticides across the board. This is a system that has been adopted in Denmark, Norway and Sweden for a number of years. The innovative approach taken by France, since 2014, to promote agroecology and cropping systems redesign in public research, agricultural education, and extension and farmer support services is generating multiple lessons from which the UK can learn.10

pesticides as a last resort, if at all – the underpinning principle of IPM. With the required state support in place, properly adopted whole IPM systems can deliver wide-ranging benefits including;

66 Benefits for farmers – by reducing the cost of inputs and maintaining yields whilst managing pests, weeds and diseases effectively and ensuring that their land remains fertile.

66 Benefits to the environment – by reducing the amount of toxic pesticides released into the natural environment, therefore better protecting the health of soil, water and wildlife including bees and other pollinators.

66 Benefits to public health – by reducing the direct exposure of rural residents and agricultural workers to pesticides, and the long-term exposure of all UK citizens to pesticide residues in food. Brexit has provided a range of opportunities for the UK government to put in place the measures needed to help farmers adopt IPM systems. Now is the time to take advantage of the changing political landscape and adopt changes that will benefit the farmers, people and environment of the UK for generations to come.

Conclusion Introducing comprehensive state support to enable farmers to adopt IPM strategies is a fundamental step towards making the UK agricultural system more sustainable and delivering the ‘Green Brexit’ promised by government. In order to embed IPM into UK agriculture, it’s crucial to transition away from the current mind-set of pesticides first, and towards a new approach of

5


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

Annex 1: Putting agroecological principles into practice for IPM in arable crops This section describes how some key agroecological principles could be put into practice in the context of British arable farming, thereby helping to phase out harmful pesticides and phase in non-chemical alternatives. Implementing IPM effectively means taking a ‘bigger picture’ approach at farm level, beyond the immediate pest, disease or weed problem in a particular field. It is about moving from the ‘fire engine’ tactic of applying pesticides when a problem has become serious enough to need chemical control, to a ‘fire prevention’ strategy, implementing a range of agronomic and biological methods from before the crop is sown to after the crop is harvested. These methods aim to:

®® avoid and/or delay pests, diseases or weeds building up to damaging levels and surviving to carry over into the next season

®® encourage more beneficial organisms to contribute to controlling pests and diseases

®® improve timing and targeting of direct control methods (whether chemical or non-chemical), when these are needed Good IPM is based on agroecological science and a systems approach to managing pests, diseases and weeds. This approach considers how cultivation sequences, plant nutrition, soil health and water supply can influence pests, diseases or weed levels in individual fields. For example, crops fed with a lot of nitrogen fertiliser develop lush, sappy foliage, which is attractive to sucking pests, such as aphids, causing the farmer to spend more money and effort on aphid control insecticides. It also explores how to design whole farm cropping systems to provide less favourable conditions for pests, diseases and weeds to invade and spread. This broader, agroecological approach to pest management is the foundation of the concept of Integrated Production (IP). IP is a concept of sustainable agriculture based on agroecology and a system approach that aims at contributing to sustainable, resilient, profitable and robust farming systems. IPM is the part of IP focusing on pests, [disease] pathogens and weeds. This definition of IP11 comes from the European chapter of the International Organisation

6

for Biological Control (IOBC), which has developed IP guidelines for numerous crops. The table provides some key agroecological principles, using concrete examples from farmer practices that are required or promoted by organisations working towards more agroecological systems including:

®® IOBC’s Integrated Production (IP) guidelines ®® Harmony Charter for French wheat growers supplying LU company for their biscuit brands

®® Farmer support activities under the French national agroecology plan

®® Farmer-researcher experiences from the French Ecophyto programme, notably the ‘50% agrochemicals reduction club’ of pioneer farmers working with agronomist, Bertrand Omon in the Eure valley, northern France


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

Annex 1: Putting agroecological principles into practice for IPM in arable crops

Agroecological principle12

Examples from agroecologically-based practices in wheat rotations Practices: (a) Grow a wider range of crops in rotation sequence for annual crops; (b) Include nitrogen-fixing crops (e.g. beans, peas, lupins, alfalfa) to build up natural nutrient levels in the crop root zone; (c) Adopt soil management practices which reduce soil erosion and conserve earthworms and other soil organisms which help build soil fertility.

1. Make ecological interactions work for you

Scientific rationale: (a) More diverse crop rotation interacts positively with other ecosystem components to: improve soil, water and nutrient management; provide a wider range of habitats for beneficial organisms and other wildlife; and plays an invaluable role in helping prevent insect pests, weeds and crop diseases from getting out of control. Expanded crop rotations help control weeds by discouraging problem weed species from becoming dominant in a given field and giving farmers more control options across the different crop practices. (b) Root nodules on beans and other legumes contain beneficial bacteria, which convert nitrogen in the air into ammonia, needed for plant growth. Growing a healthy crop is one of the fundamental principles of good IPM because well-nourished plants are better able to resist pest or disease attacks. (c) Earthworms and other beneficial soil creatures and microbes are easily harmed by excessive ploughing, heavy machinery or by working the soil during unfavourable weather conditions. Modifying cultivation practices helps to preserve a healthy, living soil. Example from IOBC’s Integrated Production guidelines: (a) IP farmers rotate annual crops on their whole cultivated farm area, with at least 2 crops. Each individual crop within the rotation covers at least 10%, and any single crop covers a maximum 50%, of the cultivated area.13 Example from the French farmers’ 50% agrochemical reduction club (b) See YouTube interview with farmer Emmanuel Dique on how he has expanded his farm rotations, including more legume crops.14 Example from Harmony Charter: (c) Farmers sow temporary cover crops to protect the soil during autumn and aim for direct sowing into these or mulch to conserve soil biodiversity.15

Practices: Sow field borders and headlands with flowering crops attractive to bees and other beneficial insects.

2. Boost biodiversity and ecosystem service providers

Scientific rationale: Bees, other pollinators and adult stages of some natural enemies of insect pests require nectar and pollen to reproduce and perform effective and free ecosystem services of crop pollination and natural pest control. Reliance on regular herbicide spraying for weed control has impoverished the field-side flowering plants important for many beneficial insects. Examples of techniques that are being employed: Farmers preserve local biodiversity and allocate 3% of their wheat acreage to ‘bee pastures’ , i.e. flowering strips sown for pollinators, either along field borders or on non-cultivated patches. Flower strips contain at least 5 native species from at least 3 families, including at least one species which attracts natural enemies for biological control of pests, as well as pollinators.15

7


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

Annex 1: Putting agroecological principles into practice for IPM in arable crops Agroecological principleb

Examples from agroecologically-based practices in wheat rotations Practices: (a) Move from a narrow financial focus only on yield, production costs and income per crop per season to a broader view, considering the productivity of the whole farm over several seasons and ways to improve ecological efficiency; (b) Join forces with like-minded neighbouring farmers to share equipment, resources and marketing.

3. Strengthen your whole farm’s economic performance

Scientific rationale: Economic studies show that more diverse farms growing a range of crops under agroecological practices and making cost savings from reducing external inputs can maintain or increase yields and net income, while improving environmental sustainability.16 Example from French national agroecology plan: (b) Over 300 Economic & Environmental Interest Groups were trialling agroecological methods by 2017. Farmers work with technical experts to explore how they can put into practice one or more methods, assess their effectiveness and gain economic benefits from collaboration, e.g. joint marketing of produce grown with reduced agrochemical inputs.17 Practices: (a) Recycle crop waste as raw material for composting, mulching bare soil, livestock feed or local bioenergy generation; (b) Adjust fertiliser inputs (synthetic and/or organic) to apply no more than evidence-based crop needs per season, based on regular soil analysis and decision support tools.

4. Improve your on-farm selfsufficiency

Scientific rationale: (a) Organic matter in crop waste provides valuable nutrients or energy, which can help reduce the farm’s costs on fertiliser, feed, etc. Removing raw crop waste from the field surface is an important method of field sanitation, reducing breeding and spread of pests and diseases. (b) Closer attention to the right fertiliser amounts and nutrients to apply is linked to good and disease pest management. Excess supply of nutrients, especially nitrogen, contaminates water courses and can make plants too sappy and green, which attracts sucking insect pests and increases risk of certain crop diseases. Example from Harmony Charter: (b) Farmers analyse their soil in each field every 6 years, to match nutrient levels with crop needs. They use decision support tools to optimise their wheat fertilisation annual plans, aiming to conserve soil fertility and quality long-term.15 Practices: Select crop varieties, rotations and husbandry practices which are less susceptible to pests, weeds or diseases and do not need to rely on Highly Hazardous Pesticides.

5. Think like a systems engineer

Scientific rationale: Agroecosystems thinking looks beyond the near and the immediate to consider how longer-term and more distant factors affect the individual farm. Agroecology expands from field-level, annual production planning to take advantage of positive interactions (and reduce negative ones) across the whole farm and with the surrounding ecosystem at landscape and water catchment levels over time. It considers the entire food supply chain too (input providers, grain mills, food manufacturers, retailers, consumers) and how together they can redesign conventional farming and food chain practices to become more sustainable. Examples from Harmony Charter: (a) Farmers choose which of their fields to grow wheat each season, according to: the previous season’s crop per field; their soil cultivation practices; the wheat variety and its susceptibility or resistance to major diseases, especially Fusarium ear blight. Careful field selection helps to reduce the number of fungicide applications needed. (b) Farmers rotate at least 3 different crops over 4 seasons at field level. Grain mills limit wheat-after-wheat cultivation to 10% or less of their supplier area. More diverse crop rotations make a considerable difference in reducing the risk of serious pest and disease attack in wheat and help farmers reduce insecticide and fungicide use.15

8


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

Annex 2: Case study on French farmers’ experience in reducing pesticide use via Integrated Production methods in wheat rotations This case study gives a concrete example of how farmers can start reducing pesticide inputs, by introducing different IP methods into their crop management and taking steps towards redesigning their cropping systems. Innovative French farmers have collaborated with researchers to explore how they could reduce pesticide and fertiliser inputs in arable rotations, whilst maintaining profitable farming.18 On-farm experiments introduced several, small adaptations to practices over a few seasons, combining elements from organic and Integrated Production approaches with more diverse rotations. The key practices developed and implemented are shown below, in relation to relevant agroecological principles: Agroecological principle

Cropping practice introduced or modified

66 Reducing sowing density by 30% avoids excessive vegetative growth of the wheat 1. Make ecological interactions work for you

plants when planted closely. The less dense foliage allows more air to circulate between plants, reduces humidity in the crop canopy and the risk of disease spread, enabling farmers to reduce fungicide use.

66 Creating a ‘stale’ seed bed, by harrowing the field lightly before sowing wheat, encourages weed seeds to germinate, which can then be removed by a further harrow pass, rather than using a pre-emergent herbicide.

66 Avoiding pre-emergent herbicide use (applied before the crop has germinated), as 2. Boost biodiversity and ecosystem service providers

these are harmful to the beneficial soil microorganisms which help maintain soil fertility.

66 Sowing an earlier strip of wheat as a ‘trap belt’ attracts aphids and forms a reservoir of their natural enemies, which can then move into the main crop to search for prey

3. Strengthen your whole farm’s economic performance

66 Diversifying crop rotations, moving from usual three crop rotation to six crops, with

4. Improve your on-farm self-sufficiency

66 Careful timing and dosing of fertiliser, reducing nitrogen inputs.

30% under spring sown crops. Spring sown crops generally suffer less pest and disease problems than autumn sown crops.

66 Choosing more appropriate wheat varieties (less susceptible to key diseases) helps to reduce fungicide use.

66 Adapting sowing date, sowing winter wheat 10-14 days later than conventional 5. Think like a systems engineer

practice reduces risk of aphid attack and can eliminate need for foliar insecticide application in autumn.

66 Avoiding wheat or maize in the preceding crop reduces risk of major diseases affecting cereals.

66 Using weed density thresholds for herbicide decision making helps to reduce volumes and frequency of application.

Ten years of farmer-led research on these first steps towards more agroecological systems showed significant reductions in pesticides were achievable, with only a very minor reduction in yield BUT increased gross margins for farmers, due to savings on inputs. A key lesson was that agronomists and farmers need to start thinking differently, changing from ‘treating the symptoms’ to ‘delaying and weakening pest/disease/weed reproduction cycles’. This change in mind-set includes reconsidering the benefits of some older practices, such as stale seedbeds, and moving away from long-held perceptions that fields need to be completely weed-free to be profitable. 9


Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing

References 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684003/future-farmingenvironment-consult-document.pdf 2. SUD 3. FAO, 2017 via http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematicsitemap/theme/pests/code/en/ 4. ‘Replacing Chemicals with Biology: Phasing out highly hazardous pesticides with agroecology .(PAN International, 2015) 5. Overcoming market and technical obstacles to alternative pest management in arable systems. Via: http://www.relu.ac.uk/ research/projects/Bailey.htm 6. https://voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/schemes/integrated-pestmanagement/ 7. Effective policy options for reducing environmental risks from pesticides in the UK, IEEP / PAN UK 8. Effective policy options for reducing environmental risks from pesticides in the UK, Institute for European Environmental Policy, p75, 12/05/2016 9. Arable IPM Systems France, PAN Europe, https://www.low-impactfarming.info/arable-ipm-systems-france 10. https://agroecology-appg.org/ourwork/presentation-on-thefrench-agroecology-action-plan/

13. General Technical Guidelines for Integrated Production of Annual and Perennial Crops. Wijnands, F. et al (eds.) 4th edition, International Organisation for Biological Control (2018). http:// www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IOBC_IP_principles.html 14. Experiences in expanding arable rotations and reducing reliance on pesticides. Interview with farmer Emmanuel Drique, Bezu- St.Eloi, France. YouTube video (3 mins English subtitles), Agriculture & Regions series, Eure Chamber of Commerce. Via: https://www.lowimpact-farming.info/local-ipm-systems 15. Harmony Charter for wheat production: 2016 harvest. Synthesis of 51 practices (in French). LU, France. https://www.lu.fr/Engagement/ La-Charte-LU-HARMONY 16. Agroecology makes sense: economically, socially and environmentally. In: Replacing Chemicals with Biology: Phasing out Highly Hazardous Pesticides with agroecology, Chapter 3. Watts, M, with Williamson, S. PAN International (2015). Via: http://www.panuk.org/agroecology/ 17. Agroecology Update: French farmer groups exploring agroecological methods. PAN UK, December 2016. Via: http://www. pan-uk.org/agroecology-resources/ 18. French farmers and Integrated Production of wheat. Williamson, S. Pesticides News 90 16-17 (2010)

11. https://www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IOBC_IP_principles.html. IP Guidelines for specific crops can be downloaded via: https://www. iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/IP_guidelines_crop_sprecific.html 12. Agroecological principles adapted from presentation on the ‘French Agroecology Plan’ to the UK All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Agroecology, by Eric GIRY, Agricultural Counsellor at the French Embassy –London, May 2016. Via: http://agroecology-appg.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-French-Agroecology-Plan_EricGiry_10-05-2016.pdf

Pesticide Action Network UK PAN UK is based in Brighton. We are the only UK charity focused solely on addressing the harm caused by chemical pesticides. We work tirelessly to apply pressure to governments, regulators, policy makers, industry and retailers to reduce the impact of harmful pesticides. Find out more about our work at: www.pan-uk.org

The Green Hub The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD Telephone: 01273 964230 Email: admin@pan-uk.org

Profile for PAN UK

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing  

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to managing pests, diseases or weeds under which chemical pesticides are used only as a last...

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A PAN UK briefing  

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to managing pests, diseases or weeds under which chemical pesticides are used only as a last...

Profile for pan-uk