Integrated pest management uptake in UK fresh produce: Barriers and opportunities

Abstract

Growers of fruits and vegetables have a reducing toolbox of synthetic pesticide options available to them, driven directly by pesticide resistance issues and indirectly by environmental and health concerns which prompt the withdrawal of pesticide authorisation approvals. Integrated pest management (IPM) is promoted as a means to reduce use of, and reliance on, synthetic pesticides. This article explores the barriers to IPM uptake in the UK fresh produce industry. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 24 key stakeholders including producers, crop protection product manufacturers/ associations, retailers, policy makers, researchers and NGOs. Opportunities to address these barriers are explored subsequently in the discussion. Key barriers identified reveal that the great diversity of crops and cropping systems means that the definition, practical application and adoption of IPM are highly variable and therefore difficult to legislate. Politically, uptake of IPM has been undermined by a lack of top‐down strategy, which has resulted in uncertainties surrounding future pesticide targets, future trade deals, insufficient subsidies and no system to effectively measure and monitor any changes in uptake. The strict quality requirements for fresh produce foster a uniquely high perception of risk amongst growers and agronomists in implementing IPM practices. Added to this, there are large gaps in knowledge about IPM across the range of crops, as well as an insufficiently funded research base to address them. The industry's capacity for knowledge exchange is inadequate as crop protection becomes more complex, compounded by the dissolution of Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Horticulture (a levy board funded by farmers and growers), an insufficient supply of advisors and courses, and weak product stewardship for biological alternatives. Opportunities to address these barriers are discussed such as the creation of an expert steering group to help guide IPM strategy and policy, focusing on industry and crop specific targets, policies, and implementation of a measuring and monitoring system for IPM uptake. Independent events, online platforms and stronger researcher–agronomist ties are needed in place of AHDB Horticulture, as well as an expansion of training and new entrants. Biopesticide regulatory reform, a research gap analysis and a review of the future funding landscape are necessary steps for increasing the availability of IPM tools for growers.