State Subsidy can help Biopesticides Developers' Work towards Ending Food Scarcity

Copyright (c) 2010 Alison Withers

The alarming issues of food scarcity and food security arising worldwide, it is increasingly believed, could be helped by biopesticides and yield-enhancing biofertilisers.

More and more evidence demonstrates that these new products deliver healthier and more natural food to consumers, with far less damage to the land and environment and without the damage to human health attributed to some of the previous generation of synthetic chemical products.

Food security and food scarcity are more than political issues. They have the ability to destabilise society and therefore government. Already in 2008 there have been food riots after speculation on the commodities markets cause massive increases in the costs of basic foods like grain.

However,the various issues facing biopesticides developers need Governments' support if they are to be resolved urgently.

Can Governments find the political will to prioritise spending on this even while they will undoubtedly be constrained because of the limited resources available to them in the continuing worldwide economic turbulence?

The most widely publicised issue is establishing an internationally- recognised worldwide and speedy system of regulation, which means at the moment that bio-pesticide availability is erratic, with far more available in the USA and Europe than in the UK, for example.

But a bigger issue is that, while there is evidence that low-chem agricultural products can increase yield, minimise crop loss from pests and diseases - and allow farmers to also sustainably preserve productivity of the land on which they depend for a living -the emerging solutions are often targeted and locality specific.

According to research in 2008 the total global market for synthetic pesticides, which was valued at $26.7 billion in 2005, will decline to $25.3 billion in 2010 and the global market for biopesticides was expected to increase from $672 million in 2005 to over $1 billion in 2010. Europe with an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 15 per cent was projected to lead the growth in biopesticide use, with Asi at an average AAGR of 12 per cent. Worldwide sales volume for the biofertilizer market is estimated at $3 billion.

But the cost of research, development and regulation to biopesticides developers increase the difficulty of achieving product profitability because the market for these agricultural solutions are limited and specific.

While some partnerships are emerging between R % D companies and big agrochemical producers Governments also need to speed things up by subsidising the early stages of R & D and there is evidence (from a variety of sources) that some are doing so:

The Indian government plays a major role in promoting biopesticides' funding and research, strongly supported by its Department of Biotechnology. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research has 31 production facilities and the Department of Biotechnology funds another 22. A major integrated pest management project run by the National Agricultural Technology Programme from 1998 to 2005 also boosted use of biopesticides.

State governments, such as Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, stoutly endorse integrated pest management and already have 200 laboratories producing biopesticides, allocating half of their state plant protection budgets to promoting and procuring ecofriendly biopesticides

India has its own centre of excellence in biopesticides, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. By piloting new products, the University's biopesticide unit stimulates uptake by the private sector.

In the Netherlands, a government-supported programme, GENOEG, was set up a few years ago to address the business issues and to increase growers' knowledge and effective use of "natural origin" pesticides. The aim was to identify effective products, assist registration (including costs of up to EUR100,000) and share knowledge. Consequently more products became available and growers learned more about how to use them.

There has been substantial technical progress in Africa both with biopesticides and rpeading pubic awareness of the need to reduce dependence on chemical pesticides, although the uptake has been limited. There have been many notable and pioneering studies on the use of viruses for control of insect pests but there are few, if any, sustainable examples of their long-term commercial use.

Reasons have often included a lack of expertise in the crucial later stages of development and/or pursuit of an inappropriate model of biopesticide development. Early stage biopesticide R&D often starts in the public sector using public finances, but many potential biopesticide products fail to go beyond the laboratory or field-trial stage.

In the UK, the 50 year-old, The International Pesticide Application Research Centre (IPARC) has focused on methods for smallholder farmers, emphasising practical and cost-effective techniques to manage pests, while reducing the use of chemical pesticides and promoting the efficacy of natural processes and alternative biological agents. IPARC,a WHO collaborating centre,has had its activities endorsed by its Pesticide Evaluation Scheme.

There should be no higher priority than tackling farmers' ability to increase yields sustainably to feed the growing global population as part of dealing with climate change and environmental damage.

About The Author Biopesticides and yield-enhancing biofertilisers are increasingly thought to be solutions to the issues of food scarcity and food security arising worldwide. Consumer journalist Ali Withers argues that Government subsidy to help biopesticides developers with costly R & D and regulation would help the environment too.