Contents

  1. 1.

    Introduction ................................................................two

  2. 2.

    Ingather losses to pest ......................................................v

  3. 3.

    Estimates of pesticide-related productivity ...................ix

  4. 4.

    Costs and benefits of pesticide use ...........................15

  5. v.

    Biopesticides and integrated pest management ..........20

  6. vi.

    Challenges of the global pesticide market ..................25

  7. seven.

    Conclusions ..............................................................28

Introduction

The combined issue of the Greenish Revolution has allowed world food production to double in the past 50 years. From 1960 to present, the human population has more than than doubled to reach seven billion people. In 2050, the population is projected to increment by 30 % to nearly 9.2 billion (Fig. 1). Due to increasing global population and changing diets in developing countries towards meat and milk products, need for food product is projected to increase by 70 % (FAO 2009).

Fig. 1
figure 1

World population growth. From 1960 to nowadays, the human population has more than doubled to attain 7 billion people and in 2050, the population is projected to increase by xxx % to about 9.two billion. Source: FAO (2009)

Total size epitome

Fig. 2
figure 2

Food market in Udaipur, Rajasthan, Bharat. Copyright: Rémi LE Bounder—INRA, 2012

Total size paradigm

Globally, an average of 35 % of potential crop yield is lost to pre-harvest pests (Oerke 2005). In add-on to the pre-harvest losses, food concatenation losses are likewise relatively loftier (IWMI 2007). At the same time, agriculture has to meet at a global level a rising need for food, feed, fibre, biofuel and other bio-based commodities. The provision of boosted agronomical state is limited, as agronomical expansion would take to happen mostly at the expense of forests and the natural habitats of wildlife, wild relatives of crops and natural enemies of ingather pests. Given these limitations, sustainable production and increasing productivity on existing country is past far the better choice. Office of the key is also to avoid waste along the whole length of the food chain. The increment in production will occur at the same time as the climate is changing and becoming less predictable, equally greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture need to be cut, and as country and water resources are shrinking or deteriorating. Whilst technology will undoubtedly concord many of the keys to long-term global nutrient security, there is a lot we can practise today with existing knowledge (Fig. 2).

To make agriculture more productive and profitable in the face of ascent costs and ascent standards of homo and environmental health, the all-time combination of bachelor technologies has to exist used. Much of the increases in yield per unit of area can be attributed to more efficient command of (biotic) stress rather than an increase in yield potential. The reduction of current yield losses caused by pests, pathogens and weeds are major challenges to agricultural production (Oerke and Dehne 2004). The intensity of crop protection has increased considerably every bit exemplified past a 15–20-fold increment in the amount of pesticides used worldwide (Oerke 2005).

Diverse ecosystems have been replaced in many regions by simple agro-ecosystems which are more vulnerable to pest assail. In order to safeguard the loftier level of food and feed productivity necessary to meet the increasing homo need, these crops crave protection from pests (Popp 2011). Helping farmers lose less of their crops will be a cardinal cistron in promoting nutrient security but even in the poorest countries whose rural farmers aspire to more than self-sufficiency. Food security is only the offset step towards greater economical independence for farmers (FAO 2009).

The beneficial outcome from use of pesticides provides bear witness that pesticides will go on to be a vital tool in the diverse range of technologies that can maintain and improve living standards for the people of the world. Some alternative methods may be more plush than conventional chemic-intensive agricultural practices, but often these comparisons fail to account for the high environmental and social costs of pesticide use. The externality issues associated with the human being and environmental health effects of pesticides need to be addressed every bit well (National Research Council 2000).

Globally, agricultural producers apply effectually USD 40 billion worth of pesticides per annum. The market share of biopesticides is merely 2 % of the global crop-protection market (McDougall 2010). Farmers in highly developed, industrialised countries look a 4- or fivefold render on money spent on pesticides (Gianessi and Reigner 2005; Gianessi and Reigner 2006; Gianessi 2009). Can nosotros see globe food demands if producers continue, increment or discontinue pesticide utilize because of reduced economic benefits? Tin meliorate integrated pest management (IPM) preserve the economic benefits of pesticide use? These are just some of the questions facing scientists and pest management experts at a fourth dimension when agriculture faces some of its greatest challenge in history between now and the year 2050 (Popp 2011).

Crop losses to pests

Ingather productivity may be increased in many regions by high-yielding varieties, improved water and soil management, fertilisation and other cultivation techniques. An increased yield potential of crops, however, is oftentimes associated with college vulnerability to pest attack leading to increasing absolute losses and loss rates (Oerke et al. 1994). An boilerplate of 35 % of potential crop yield is lost to pre-harvest pests worldwide (Oerke 2005).

In addition to the pre-harvest losses ship, pre-processing, storage, processing, packaging, marketing and plate waste losses along the whole food chain account for some other 35 % (Fig. 3). In add-on to reduce crop losses due to pests, fugitive waste forth the whole length of the food chain is too a key (Popp 2011).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Losses forth the food chain. An average of 35 % of potential crop yield is lost to pre-harvest pests worldwide. In addition to the pre-harvest losses ship, pre-processing, storage, processing, packaging, marketing and plate waste product losses along the whole food concatenation business relationship for another 35 %. Source: IWMI (2007)

Full size image

Evolutionary interactions between pests and farmers predate conventional pesticides by thousands of years. Various loss levels may exist differentiated, due east.chiliad. straight and indirect losses or primary and secondary losses, indicating that pests non but endanger crop productivity and reduce the farmer'south cyberspace income but may besides bear upon the supply of nutrient and feed as well equally the economies of rural areas and even countries (Zadoks and Schein 1979). Weeds affect crop productivity especially due to the competition for inorganic nutrients (Boote et al. 1983). Crop protection has been developed for the prevention and command of crop losses due to pests in the field (pre-harvest losses) and during storage (post-harvest losses). This newspaper concentrates on pre-harvest losses, i.e. the outcome of pests on ingather product in the field and the consequence of control measures practical by farmers in order to minimise losses to an adequate level (Oerke 2005).

An assessment of the full range of agricultural pests and of the composition and deployment of chemic pesticides to command pests in various environments would be an incommunicable task because of the large volume of data and the number of analyses required to generate a credible evaluation. The cess of crop losses is important for demonstrating where future activeness is needed and for decision making by farmers too equally at the governmental level. According to German authorities in 1929, animal pests and fungal pathogens each caused a ten % loss of cereal yield. In potato, pathogens and fauna pests reduced product past 25 % and 5 %, respectively; while in saccharide beet, product was reduced by 5 % and 10 % due to pathogens and animal pests, respectively (Morstatt 1929). In the USA, in the early 1900s, pre-harvest losses acquired by insect pests were estimated at seldom less than ten % (Marlatt 1904). Subsequently, the United States Department of Agronomics published data on pre-harvest losses in 1927, 1931, 1939, 1954 and 1965 (Cramer 1967). All the same, the loss data became outdated due to significant changes in expanse harvested, production systems and intensity, control options and product prices.

Estimates of actual losses in crop production worldwide were updated about 30 years later for the period 1988–90 on a regional basis for 17 regions past Oerke et al. (1994). Increased agricultural pesticide utilize most doubled food crop harvests from 42 % of the theoretical worldwide yield in 1965 to seventy % of the theoretical yield by 1990. Unfortunately, 30 % of the theoretical yield was still being lost because the utilise of constructive pest-management methods was non applied uniformly effectually the earth and it notwithstanding is not. Without pesticides, 70 % of ingather yields could have been lost to pests (Oerke 2005).

Since crop product technology and especially crop-protection methods are changing continuously, loss data for eight major food and greenbacks crops—wheat, rice, maize, barley, potatoes, soybeans, sugar beet and cotton—take been updated for the period 1996–98 on a regional basis for 17 regions (Oerke and Dehne 2004). Among crops, the loss potential of pests worldwide varied from less than fifty % (on barley) to more than eighty % (on sugar beet and cotton). Actual losses were estimated at 26–thirty % for sugar beet, barley, soybean, wheat and cotton wool, and 35 %, 39 % and 40 % for maize, potatoes and rice, respectively (Oerke and Dehne 2004).

Since the early on 1990s, production systems and specially crop-protection methods have changed significantly, especially in crops like maize, soybean and cotton, in which the appearance of transgenic varieties has modified the strategies for pest control in some major production regions. Loss data for major nutrient and cash crops take been updated most recently by Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International's Crop Protection Compendium for six food and cash crops—wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soybeans and cotton fiber—for the menses 2001–2003 on a regional basis (CABI'southward Crop Protection Compendium 2005; Oerke 2005). Nineteen regions were specified according to the intensity of crop production and the production conditions. Among crops, the full global potential loss due to pests varied from about l % in wheat to more than lxxx % in cotton wool production. The responses are estimated as losses of 26–29 % for soybean, wheat and cotton, and 31 %, 37 % and xl % for maize, rice and potatoes, respectively.

Worldwide estimates for losses to pests in 1996–98 and 2001–03 differ significantly from estimates published earlier (Cramer 1967; Oerke et al. 1994). Obsolete information from old reports has been replaced by new information. Alterations in the share of regions differing in loss rates in total production worldwide are also responsible for differences (Table 1). Moreover, the intensity and efficacy of ingather protection has increased since the late 1980s especially in Asia and Latin America where the employ of pesticides increased above the global average (Yudelman et al. 1998).

Table i Estimates of actual ingather losses due to pests in worldwide production of wheat, maize and cotton wool (worldwide estimates for losses to pests in 1996-98 and 2001-03 differ significantly from estimates published earlier)

Full size table

Estimates of pesticide-related productivity

The increased threat of college ingather losses to pests has to exist counteracted past improved crop protection whatever method it will be (biologically, mechanically, chemically, IPM and training of farmers). The use of pesticides has increased dramatically since the early 1960s; in the same period also, the yield boilerplate of wheat, rice and maize, the major sources for human nutrition, has more than than doubled. Without pesticides, food production would drop and food prices would soar. With lower production and college prices, farmers would be less competitive in global markets for major commodities.

Where overall crop productivity is low, ingather protection is largely limited to some weed control, and actual losses to pests may account for more than 50 % of the attainable production (Oerke 2005). In large parts of Asia and Latin America, dandy advances accept been fabricated in the pedagogy of farmers, whereas the state of affairs is still poor in Sub-Saharan Africa and has worsened in the countries of the onetime Soviet Union because of the lack of resources. (McDougall 2010).

Use patterns of pesticides vary with crop type, locality, climate and user needs. Establish affliction can exist devastating for crop production, as was tragically illustrated in the Irish potato dearth of 1845–1847. This disaster led to the development of the scientific discipline of plant pathology (Agrios 1988). From the time when synthetic pesticides were adult after Globe War Ii, at that place have been major increases in agronomical productivity accompanied by an increase in efficiency, with fewer farmers on fewer farms producing more than nutrient for more than people. A major cistron in the changing productivity patterns, either directly or indirectly, has been the employ of pesticides.

Ensuring the safety and quality of foods and the increment in ingather loss was accompanied by a growth in the rate of pesticides use. The annual global chemical-pesticide market is about three million tonnes associated with expenditures effectually USD 40 billion (Popp 2011). The growing dependence on chemical pesticides has been called the "pesticide treadmill" by entomologists (Bosch 1978). A major factor in the "pesticide treadmill" involves two responses to pesticide resistance. The first is to increase the dose and frequency of utilise of the less constructive pesticide; this typically results in higher levels of pest resistance and damage to natural enemies and the surround. The 2d response is to develop and commercialise a new pesticide. The treadmill concept assumes that this two-step process will continue until the pest meets a resistance-proof pesticide or until the supply of constructive new pesticides is exhausted. The greater the affect of control measures on pest populations, the more extreme are their evolutionary responses. However, the moderate rates in yield increase in the major world crops during 1965–2000 did not offering a strong example for a loftier increase in pesticide use even taking into account the fair amount of change in the cropping systems of developing countries with an expansion of the fruits and vegetable sector (FAO 2000).

Pesticide productivity has been estimated in 3 general means: with partial-budget models based on agronomic projections, with combinations of budget and market place models, and with econometric models. For a long time, do good analyses relied on partial budgeting. The nigh widely cited studies on pesticide productivity, those of Pimentel and various coauthors, apply this method (Pimentel et al. 1978, 1991, 1992). Cess of global ingather losses by Cramer (1967) also falls into this category, as does with Knutson et al. (1993). Those studies use data from field trials and expert opinion to estimate pest-induced losses on crop by crop basis with electric current pesticide utilise, without pesticides, and with a 50 % reduction in pesticide use. They construct alternative production scenarios for each crop to estimate changes in input utilise. Current prices are and then used to value changes in per-acre production costs and per-acre yield losses, which are added to obtain an guess of the costs of changes in pesticide apply. One of these studies (Pimentel et al. 1991) estimates that amass ingather losses amounted to 37 % of total output in 1986, up from 33 % in 1974. In comparison, Cramer (1967) estimated crop losses of effectually 28 % due to all pests in all of North and Central America. Estimates of ingather losses at 37 % are questionably high. The costs of pesticides are depression relative to ingather prices and full product costs. Crop losses of the magnitude estimated by Pimentel et al. (1991) should exist sufficient to brand it profitable to use chemical pest controls at much greater rates than observed today.

Partial-budget models of this kind more often than not overstate pesticide productivity and thus the economical furnishings of changes in pesticide utilize because they consider but a small subset of commutation possibilities (Lichtenberg et al. 1988). The models ignore even short-run, subcontract-level substitution possibilities caused by differences in state quality, human majuscule, and other characteristics of farm operations. Field trials tin can agree constant all product practices except pesticide use, deliberately ignoring substitution possibilities. Moreover, they are often conducted in areas with heavier than normal pest force per unit area, where pesticide productivity is probably higher (Pimentel et al. 1991). As a issue, studies on crop losses due to pests based on partial-upkeep models tend to overestimate ingather losses in agriculture.

Other studies have attempted to gauge pesticide-related effects of large reductions in pesticide use past combining partial-budget models with models of output markets (Zilberman et al. 1991; Ball et al. 1997). These studies use the same approach as partial-upkeep models in estimating yield and cost effects of changes in pesticide use. Projected changes in per-hectare expenses and yields are then incorporated into models of agricultural-commodity markets and used to projection changes in output prices and consumption in market equilibrium. Models of this type contain some, merely by no ways all, substitution possibilities. The productivity of pesticides—and thus the furnishings of reducing pesticide utilise—depends in large measure out on substitution possibilities within the agricultural economy (Zilberman et al. 1991). In general, pesticide productivity will tend to be low in situations where substitution possibilities are large. Real prices of energy and durable equipment have fallen relative to agricultural chemical prices (Ball et al. 1997). On the other hand, the prices of hired and cocky-employed labour have risen steadily, both in existent terms and relative to agricultural chemical prices, and this suggests that labour-intensive pest-control methods have get less attractive relative to pesticide use. Withal, those estimates failed to take into account the possibility that other pest-control strategies could be used or that new technologies could be developed in the absenteeism of chemical control. Moreover, pesticide use can meliorate food quality in storage and provides some benefits direct to consumers. Zilberman et al. (1991) estimated that every dollar increase in pesticide expenditure raises gross agricultural output by USD 3–six. Nigh of that do good is passed on to consumers in the course of lower prices for food.

It is possible to gauge pesticide productivity direct with econometric models. Statistical methods can be used to gauge parameters of models that link output with input use. Varied exchange possibilities are implicit in the parameters of these models. Specification of models that are nonlinear in input utilize allows rates of commutation between inputs to vary equally input usage changes. Econometric models are commonly used to approximate factor productivity and productivity growth in the agricultural economy (Griliches 1963; Ball 1985; Capalbo and Antle 1988; Chavas and Cox 1988; Fernandez-Cornejo et al. 1998; Chambers and Pope 1994). Econometric models capture all forms of substitution in product, including short-term and long-term substitutes for pesticides on individual farms and at the regional and national levels.

Headley (1968) estimated such a model by using state-level cross-sectional data in the U.s. for the year 1963. He used crop sales to measure output and expenditures on fertilisers, labour, land and buildings, machinery, pesticides and other inputs every bit measures of input use and found that an boosted dollar spent on pesticides increased the value of output by about USD 4 showing a loftier level of productivity for that menses. In that location are several reasons to believe that Headley'due south gauge of marginal pesticide productivity could exist as well high. Firstly, using sales as a measure of output tends to bias productivity estimates upward because output price tends to be positively correlated with input demand. Secondly, Headley's specification assumes that pesticides are an essential input, that is, that product is impossible without pesticides. Finally, the specification that Headley uses does not allow pesticide productivity to decline as fast every bit information technology should, again leading to upwards biased estimates of pesticide productivity (Lichtenberg and Zilberman 1986). The Headley model generates estimates of the marginal productivity associated with pesticides, that is, the additional amount (value) of output obtained by using an additional unit of pesticides. Multiplying the marginal productivity of pesticides by the quantity of pesticides used thus understates the total value added past pesticides (Pimentel et al. 1992).

Carrasco-Tauber and Moffitt (1992) applied this approach to state-level cross-sectional data on sales and input expenditures in the U.S. like those used by Headley (1968). Their use of sales every bit a dependent variable generated an implicit judge of aggregate U.s.a. crop losses in 1987 of 7.3 % at average pesticide utilize, far less than estimates of other studies (Pimentel et al. 1991; Oerke et al. 1994). That specification suggests that their approximate of pesticide productivity should exist biased upward. Chambers and Lichtenberg (1994) developed a dual course of this model based on the assumptions of turn a profit maximisation and separability between normal and damage-control inputs. They used this dual formulation to specify production relationships nether two specifications of damage abatement, neither of which imposed the assumption that pesticides are essential inputs. Implicit crop losses in 1987 estimated from those models ranged from nine % to xi %, simply about i quarter to ane third of the size estimated past others (Pimentel et al. 1991; Oerke et al. 1994). Assuming no change in ingather prices, farm income would decrease past 6 %, considerably more estimated by other studies (Pimentel et al. 1991; Oerke et al. 1994). Estimated crop losses with zero pesticide use ranged from 17 % to 20 %.

Costs and benefits of pesticide use

The economical analyses of pesticide benefits is hindered past the lack of pesticide use data and economic models for minor crops and non-agricultural pesticides. Cost–benefit assay is increasingly used to appraise resources management and ecology policies. This approach monetises all costs and benefits so that they are measured in currencies and its full implementation might be constrained by data limitations and difficulties in monetising human and environmental health risks. Economic impacts are further complicated by the diverse governmental programmes that subsidise pesticide users, such as cost supports and deficiency payments.

The most commonly recognised economic incentives are based on the "polluter pays" principle, including the use of licensing fees, user fees or taxes. The experience of those countries (Denmark, Sweden and Kingdom of norway) that have introduced these taxes is that they announced to have played some role in reducing pesticide use. However, their price elasticity estimates are depression and this suggests comparatively picayune upshot in terms of quantity reductions, unless they are set up at very loftier rates relative to cost. In that location is some suggestion that revenue recycling may have been more effective, with revenues redirected to research and information. Using revenues to further research or encourage changes in farming practise would appear to make more sense (Pearce and Koundouri 2003).

Pesticides vary in their toxicity past pattern and also co-ordinate to the weather condition in the receiving environment. The theoretical solution here is to express the taxation as an absolute sum per unit of toxicity-weighted ingredient. Unfortunately, there are few examples (the Norwegian reforms of 1999) of actual taxes being differentiated by toxicity. Even though the overall demand for pesticides is non reduced significantly past a tax, a toxicity-differentiated taxation may exist effective if substitution between pesticides will occur in such a way that the overall toxic bear on of pesticides will be reduced. It means that pesticide utilize and toxicity could be "decoupled" past a pesticide taxation. The trouble with pesticide tax studies is that few of them simulate the "cantankerous-price effects" of such a policy, i.e. they exercise not look closely at substitution between types of pesticides (or between pesticides and other inputs such as fertilisers and land). Simulations of such toxicity-weighted taxes for the Britain show that overall cost elasticity of demand for pesticides was consistently low and never greater than −0.39. However, cross-cost elasticities between the "banded" pesticides (banded according to toxicity) were greater than the "own" price elasticities, suggesting that farmers might switch between types of pesticide (Pearce and Koundouri 2003).

Withal, the "polluter pays" principle (i.e. adding the ecology and public health costs to the price paid by consumers) can exist an effective approach to internalise the social costs of pesticide use. The fees and taxes generated can be used to promote improved (sustainable) pest management. In guild to set the right level of levies and taxes, it may be necessary to calculate the negative impacts of pesticides. Various attempts accept been made to determine the costs that chronicle to public wellness (risks to subcontract workers and consumers and migrate risk) and damage to beneficial species, and to the environment (Pimentel et al. 1992; Pimentel and Greiner 1997; Pimentel 2005).

Yet, pesticides can result in a range of benefits including wider social outcomes with benefits existence manifested in increased income and reduced hazard, plus the ability to hire labour and provide employment opportunities. Other outcomes were the evolution of more complex community facilities, such as schools and shops and improved health (Bennett at al. 2010).

The costs of pesticides and non-chemical pest-control methods alike are low relative to crop prices and total production costs. Pesticides account for about seven–8 % of full agricultural production costs in the EU. Nonetheless, there is wide variation amid Member States fluctuating between eleven % in French republic and Ireland and 4 % in Slovenia (Popp 2011). Pesticides account for five–6 % of total farm input in budgetary terms in the USA (USDA 2010).

Overall, farmers have sound economic reasons for using pesticides on crop land. The global chemic-pesticide marketplace is virtually three million tonnes associated with expenditures around USD 40 billion in a year. As a outcome of the increasing utilize of GM herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant ingather seed and sales of agrochemicals used in non-crop situations (gardening, household use, golf game courses, etc), the value of the overall crop-protection sector is estimated to accomplish almost USD 55 billion. The increasing sale of GM seeds has had a straight impact on the market place for conventional agrochemical products (McDougall 2010). In spite of the yearly investments of well-nigh USD 40 billion worldwide, pests cause an estimated 35 % actual loss (Oerke 2005). The value of this crop loss is estimated to exist USD 2000 billion per year, yet there is still near USD 5 return per dollar invested in pesticide command (Pimentel 2009).

Co-ordinate to the national pesticide do good studies in the The states, USD 9.ii billion are spent on pesticides and their application for crop use every year (Gianessi and Reigner 2005; Gianessi and Reigner 2006; Gianessi 2009). This pesticide utilize saves effectually USD threescore billion on crops that otherwise would be lost to pest destruction. It indicates a net return of USD half dozen.5 for every dollar that growers spent on pesticides and their application. However, the USD 60 billion saved does non take into business relationship the external costs associated with the awarding of pesticides in crops (Table 2).

Table 2 Value of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides in U.S. crop production. In the US. pesticide employ saves around USD 60 billion on crops that otherwise would exist lost to pest destruction indicating a net render of USD 6.5 for every dollar that growers spent on pesticides and their application

Full size table

The correct use of pesticides can deliver meaning socio-economic and environmental benefits in the form of safe, healthy, affordable food; contribute to secure farm incomes and enable sustainable subcontract management by improving the efficiency with which we use natural resources such as soil, h2o and overall land employ. Obviously, when pesticides are not used correctly, then the socio-economic and ecology benefits may not be realised and the economic damage resulting from widespread pesticide utilize should too exist highlighted. The environmental and public health costs of pesticides necessitate the consideration of other merchandise-offs involving ecology quality and public health when assessing the net returns of pesticide usage. Pimentel et al. (1992) found that pesticides indirectly cost the U.S. USD 8.1 billion a yr including losses from increased pest resistance; loss of natural pollinators (including bees and butterflies) and pest predators; ingather, fish and bird losses; groundwater contamination; and impairment to pets, livestock and public health. In a supplementary study, Pimentel (2005) estimates that the total indirect costs of pesticide utilise was around USD 9.6 billion in 2005. Had the full ecology, public health and social costs been included the total cost could have risen to USD nine.half dozen billion effigy (Pimentel 2005). It means that past assessments of ecology and social impact take been narrow and should they exist broadened to USD xx billion per twelvemonth the previous estimate of USD lx billion worth of production benefits to the U.S. from pesticide employ would be dramatically lower (USD 40 billion) if net furnishings are considered. Nonetheless, the net do good even so shows a high profitability of pesticides indicating a cyberspace render of USD iii for every dollar spent on pesticides (Popp 2011).

Genetically engineered organisms that reduce pest force per unit area found a "new generation" of pest-management tools. Biotechnology has delivered economic and environmental gains through a combination of their inherent technical advances and the function of the technology in the facilitation and development of more cost-constructive and environmentally friendly farming practices. This change in product system has fabricated boosted positive economical contributions to farmers and delivered of import environmental benefits, notably reduced levels of GHG emissions. The Ecology Affect Caliber (EIQ) distils the diverse environmental and wellness impacts of private pesticides in different GM and conventional product systems into a single "field value per hectare" and draws on central toxicity and environmental exposure data related to individual products. The environmental touch on associated with herbicide and insecticide utilise on GM crops, as measured past the EIQ indicator savage by xvi.three %. During the menstruation 1996 to 2008, pesticide reduction was estimated at 356 meg kilogram of active ingredient, a saving of 8.4 % in pesticides (Brookes and Barfoot 2010).

Pesticides finer command many insects, diseases and weeds. However, to be effective, pesticides have to target the crop or animal of interest. Spray drift is ane of the biggest concerns regarding the movement of pesticides to non-target organisms. Astray losses tin range from fifty % to seventy % of the practical pesticide because of evaporation and drift (Pimentel 2005). Drift from aerial applications is greatest and that from ground applications is least. There are several means to reduce migrate. I mode is to use spray additives that touch on the drop size of sprays by increasing the number of big aerosol and decreasing the number of small aerosol (Hall and Fox 1997). Another method to subtract the number of fine droplets during spraying is to use new nozzles that are designed to decrease the number of fine droplets. The nozzles work past increasing droplet size through a reduction in the velocity of the liquid but before it is discharged (Ozkan 1997).

Biopecticides and integrated pest direction

Biological control is urgently needed, opening increasing possibilities for biopesticides. Biopesticides offer important social benefits, as compared with conventional pesticides. Nevertheless in an agricultural industry that is withal dominated past pesticides, biological control has establish its place in the class of augmentative releases, particularly for the management of pests that are difficult to control with insecticides. Since pest problems in agriculture involve plants, establish-feeding organisms and their natural enemies, the regulation of biological control agents has usually been the responsibility of national plant quarantine services. For this reason, regulation over several decades focused on the need to ensure that introduced natural enemies would not get agricultural pests (Waage 1997).

There has been a strong tendency to consider biopesticides as "chemical clones" rather than as biological command agents, and therefore the chemical pesticide model has been followed. On the other hand, regulation of biopesticides is needed because existence "natural" does not mean information technology is safe. Yet, the claiming of new and more stringent chemical pesticide regulations, combined with increasing demand for agriculture products with positive environmental and condom profiles, is boosting interest in biopesticides. Information technology takes an average of three to 6 years and USD 15–20 1000000 to develop and register a biopesticide compared with 10 years and USD 200 million for synthetic pesticides (REBECA 2007). Many of the major pesticide manufacturers are jumping into the biopesticide industry. This wider recognition of biopesticides is partly in response to major nutrient buyers similar Sysco, Wal-Mart and McDonald's requesting suppliers utilise "sustainable" agricultural practices.

Global sales of biopesticides are estimated to full effectually USD 1 billion, nonetheless pocket-sized compared to the USD xl billion in the worldwide pesticide market. It is pegged at around two % of the global ingather-protection market (Popp 2011). While biopesticides may be safer than conventional pesticides, the industry is composed generally of pocket-size- to medium-sized enterprises, and it is difficult for one visitor to fully and comprehensively fund research and evolution, field development and provide the marketing services required to make a successful biopesticide visitor. Another claiming is the lack of innovative biopesticide products coming to the marketplace and their registration (Subcontract Chemic Internationals 2010).

Large agrochemical companies are getting more and more than involved in ecologically based IPM. For example, the stewardship team of Syngenta turned a thought leadership idea into a project: MARGINS—Managing Agronomical Runoff into Surface Water. Field margins are not only essential to help reducing some of the risks associated with the use of pesticides but tin can play several of import roles. They can be windbreaks to protect crops and soil; can influence the flow of nutrients and water within the mural; provide controlled admission in the countryside whilst leaving the cultivated area undisturbed; or can raise the visual appearance of the countryside with flower strips feeding of pollen and nectar the pollinating insects. Furthermore, field margins tin as well be specifically managed to enhance game bird populations, by providing nesting cover and nutrient resources, and provide over-wintering habitat, or refuges, for many insects—in some instances benign predators. The main aim of the MARGINS project is to demonstrate the integration of crop productivity needs with the demands for protecting h2o, biodiversity and soil since crop product depends on finite soil resources being kept in good status. Every bit a showtime-up pilot, the project was initiated in 2009 about Lake Balaton in Hungary (Szentgyörgyvár)—the largest lake in Central Europe—which is renowned for its beauty and wild fauna, but which is surrounded by steep rolling hills of very productive loam soils that are prone to accelerated runoff. Conservation tillage resulted in the lowest pesticide levels in runoff; information technology doubled when at that place was a blank buffer strip at the bottom of the plot (Fig. 4). The buffer strips are well established with a thick sward of clover and other flowering plants (Syngenta 2010).

Fig. 4
figure 4

MARGINS—Managing Agricultural Runoff into Surface Water. Margins is in-field and edge-of-field management with four combinations (conservation till vs conventional till plus vegetative buffers) to enable ranking of relative effectiveness. Source: Syngenta (2010)

Total size image

These results are also consistent with the previous project, SOWAP (Soil and H2o Protection), conducted on these field plots. This project (supported by EU Life+) demonstrated that conservation tillage consistently reduced runoff, soil erosion and soil nutrient losses. In addition, numbers of earthworms, beetles and other soil fauna increased, as did microbial biomass activeness. But there were too benefits for farmers because profitability was maintained. Crop establishment costs were reduced past 15–xx % in conservation tillage. Nevertheless, ingather yields were slightly lower, equally commonly found during the conversion to conservation tillage. Even so, they were higher in dry years, since water availability increased due to reduced runoff from conservation tillage (Syngenta 2010).

This start-up pilot is encouraging. Syngenta's hope is to extend this project beyond Europe to other landscapes and land use patterns, particularly where information technology shows how to implement CAP reform via agri-surround incentives. The next paradigm shift in agronomics needs to be driven by continually looking for ways to work more than productively with nature. MARGINS is an example of how to see the demands of sustainable agriculture—a practiced blend of modern technology with respect for nature. Farther research and development, along with investment in new technologies, is vital to maintain a sustainable, competitive agricultural industry which tin can nevertheless deliver the required economic, social and environmental benefits. Supporting technological progress and enhancing investments in enquiry through the agricultural policy, along with the education to put developments into exercise, volition assistance a sustainable, competitive farming sector to balance productivity with the efficient use of natural resources and evangelize economic and environmental public goods (Syngenta 2010).

During the past two decades, IPM programmes have reduced pest command costs and pesticide applications in fruit, vegetable and field crops. Reductions in pest command costs and pesticide use in IPM programmes tin can be achieved by introducing or increasing populations of natural enemies, variety selection, cultural controls, applying alternative pesticides and improving timing of pest suppression treatments. For farmers, very ofttimes the main benefit of IPM is the avoidance of uneconomical pesticide use. However, a large part of the benefits are reduction of externalities and therefore occur to other groups. This poses considerable measurement and valuation problems. Although the IPM programmes did reduce pesticide employ, near of the programmes however relied heavily on pesticides.

However, new scientific knowledge and modern technologies provide considerable opportunities, even for developing countries, to further reduce current yield losses and minimise the futurity effects of climate change on institute health. Finding continuously new toll-effective and environmentally sound solutions to ameliorate command of pest and disease problems is critical to improving the wellness and livelihoods of the poor. The need for a more than holistic and modernised IPM approach in low-income countries is now more important than e'er before. The institutional environment for IPM at the global level has go more circuitous. The tendency towards market place liberalisation in the absence of specific policy frameworks has not e'er been supportive to IPM. For the pesticide market, liberalisation without effective regulations and adequate market-based incentives may lower the costs of supplying pesticides, but at the aforementioned time can increase the tendency for ineffective, inefficient, and non-sustainable crop protection. For a system-wide program on IPM to make a significant contribution, the policy and institutional surround of global crop protection cannot be ignored (Settle and Garba 2011). There is a danger that in the example of IPM the state of affairs tin be exploited by pesticide companies that use IPM as a marketing musical instrument to maximise sales of their chemic pesticides and biotechnology products.

All the same, the European Commission Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides establishes a framework to accomplish a sustainable use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide utilize on human wellness and the environment and promoting the employ of IPM and culling approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. Ane of the primal features of the Directive is that each Fellow member State should develop and adopt its National Activeness Programme and set upwards quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide utilise on human being health and the environment and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest direction and of alternative approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides. Other provisions include compulsory testing of application equipment, grooming and certification of all professional users, distributors and advisors; a ban (subject area to derogations) on aerial spraying; special measures to protect the aquatic environment, public spaces and conservation areas; minimising the risks to man health and the environs through handling, storage and disposal (Official Journal of the Eu 2009).

Challenges of the global pesticide market place

Globalisation is affecting pest management on and off the farm. Reduction in trade barriers increases competitive pressures and provides actress incentives for farmers to reduce costs and increment crop yields. Liberalisation of input markets, often labelled as successful market reform, can atomic number 82 to inefficient pesticide use and high external costs (FAO 2009). Other forms of trade barriers create disincentives for adopting new technologies such as the reluctance of the EU to have genetically modified organisms.

It is important to point out that it is non only the big multinationals that are important players in pesticide policy but also the many new companies in developing countries who produce generics. A trend in agrichemical industry is the motion of many chemical pesticides off patent. Every bit these chemicals go generic pesticides, manufacturers lose their monopolies on them. Overall, generic companies make up nearly thirty % of total sales (McDougall 2010). Ascension sales of generic pesticides, peculiarly in countries in Africa and Latin America simply also in some Asian countries, is often facilitated past weak regulatory control and the lack of an IPM oriented national policy framework countries (FAO 2009).

Around xxx % of pesticides marketed in developing countries with an estimated market value of USD 900 million annually do not meet internationally accepted quality standards. They are posing a serious threat to human health and the environment. Such pesticides often contribute to the accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks in developing countries (FAO 2009). Possible causes of low quality of pesticides can include both poor production and formulation and the inadequate selection of chemicals. When the quality of labelling and packaging is likewise taken into account, the proportion of poor-quality pesticide products in developing countries is even college. Falsely declared products keep to find their way to markets for years without quality control (FAO 2002).

The problem of poor-quality pesticides is particularly widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, where quality command is generally weak. The United nations agencies urged governments and international and regional organisations to adopt the worldwide accepted FAO/WHO pesticide specifications to ensure the product and trade of good quality products. Countries should brand these voluntary standards legally binding. The FAO/WHO standards are especially of import for developing countries that lack the infrastructure for proper evaluation of pesticide products. Pesticide industries, including producers of generic pesticides, should submit their products for quality cess to FAO/WHO (FAO/WHO 2010). Some other negative economic consequence of a higher apply of pesticides in developing countries is the loss of export opportunities for developing countries especially with horticultural crops as the developed countries are tightening maximum residual levels. In plow, agricultural lobbyists in industrialised nations may exploit this state of affairs and utilize environmental standards equally non-tariff trade barriers.

Sustainable, IPM based on biological control is urgently needed, opening increasing possibilities for biopesticides. Their benign features include that they are often very specific, they are "inherently less toxic than conventional pesticides" uniform with other control agents, leave little or no balance, are relatively cheap to develop and support the action of natural enemies in ecologically based IPM. The market share of biopesticides is growing faster than that of conventional chemicals. In contempo times, large agricultural chemic companies have become very dynamic and are constantly on the lookout for engineering that complements what they already have or that complements a segment of the market that they are focused on. While biopesticides are typically seen as an culling to constructed chemicals, some experts see biopesticides as complementary to conventional pesticides already on the market place. Increasing demand for chemical-free crops and more organic farming has led to augmented usage of biopesticides in North America and Western Europe (ICIS 2009). Key factors in this growth include a larger overall investment in biopesticide enquiry and development, a more established application of IPM concept and an increased expanse under organic production. Products not requiring registration and products which already have been registered have priority in the research and development of these companies.

As a result of the diverse merger and acquisition that take taken place, the agrochemical sector is relatively highly consolidated. An increasing number of merger and conquering transactions accept been targeted at strengthening the respective product portfolios of the purchasing visitor through the acquisition of a detail agrochemical product or product range. While product acquisitions have always been a feature of the agrochemical industry, the overall level of this type of merger and acquisition activity has increased significantly in the concluding 10 years (McDougall 2010).

The total toll of agrochemical research and evolution expenditure in 2007 for xiv leading companies was 6.7 % of their agrochemical sales. Over the side by side v years, it is expected that herbicides will lead market growth while the insecticides sector is likely to suffer further generic force per unit area and the fungicide sector is expected to grow relatively modestly with increases generated from a further expansion of the seed treatment sector. The GM ingather sector is also expected to continue to move increasingly toward multiple trait stacked gene varieties, in both established and developing markets (McDougall 2010).

Industrial leaders expect that advances in genomics will lead researchers to the precise location and sequence of genes that incorporate valuable input and output traits. A shift in inquiry and evolution resource from input to output traits probably would have a large impact on the future of plant protection. Will the bike of innovation on the input side go on? Because of the high investment required for development of chemical pesticides and transgenic crops, volition large agrichemical and life-science firms focus primarily on crops with large markets? Whether companies will develop pesticides and input traits for minor use crops remains an open question. These are the main questions research and development of found protection is facing at present.

Conclusions

The main reasons why world food supply is tightening are population growth, accelerated urbanisation and motorisation, changes in diets and climate change. Furthermore, agronomical land is used to produce more than bioenergy and other bio-based commodities. To come across the increasing world food need, the necessary production growth volition to a large extent have to be met by a rise in the productivity of the state already being farmed today. However, this volition exist difficult to reach as global agronomical productivity growth has been in turn down since the Green Revolution. In addition to the reduction of waste along the whole nutrient chain priority has to be given to effective ingather-protection measures to cutting farther crop losses to pests.

Cost–benefit analyses are of import tools for informing policy decisions regarding use of chemical pesticides. The impacts of pesticides on the economy, environment, and public health are measured in budgetary terms. Nonetheless, in that location are many uncertainties in measuring the full assortment of benefits and costs of pesticide use. Making wise tradeoffs to accomplish a off-white residual between the risks that a community bears and the benefits that it receives is one of the most difficult challenges for policy makers.

Chemical pesticides will continue to play a office in pest management because environmental compatibility of products is increasing and competitive alternatives are not universally bachelor. Pesticides provide economical benefits to producers and by extension to consumers. One of the major benefits of pesticides is protection of ingather quality and yield. Pesticides tin prevent big crop losses, thus raising agricultural output and farm income. The benefits of pesticide use are high-relative to risks. Not-target furnishings of exposure of humans and the surroundings to pesticide residues are a continuing concern. Side furnishings of pesticides can be reduced by improving application technologies. Innovations in pesticide-delivery systems in plants promise to reduce adverse environmental impacts even further just are non expected to eliminate them. The right employ of pesticides can evangelize meaning socio-economic and environmental benefits.

The justifications of government intervention in the management of pest control include the need to address the externality issues associated with the human and environmental health effects of pesticides. However, few incentives be for efficient and environmentally audio pest control direction strategies. Such incentives as taxes and fees for the use of diverse categories of chemicals take been recommended in some countries but the overall demand for pesticides is not reduced significantly. Even so, in the expanse of plant protection products, further measures regarding information on and safe handling of pesticides accept been laid down recently in a framework for Customs action to achieve the sustainable utilize of pesticides was established by the Directive 2009/128/EC.

Genetically engineered organisms that reduce pest pressure constitute a "new generation" of pest-management tools. This change in production organization has made boosted positive economical contributions to farmers and delivered important environmental benefits. But genetically engineered crops that express a command chemical can exert stiff pick for resistance in pests. Thus, the employ of transgenic crops will even increment the need for constructive resistance-management programmes.

Many biocontrol agents are not considered adequate by farmers because they are evaluated for their immediate impact on pests. Evaluation of the effectiveness of biocontrol agents should involve consideration of long-term impacts rather than only short-term yield, equally is typically done for conventional practices. The global sale of biopesticides is very small compared to the pesticide market. However, the market share of biopesticides is growing faster than that of conventional chemicals. A concerted effort in enquiry and policy should be made to increase the competitiveness of alternatives to chemical pesticides for diversifying the pest-management "toolbox". Just availability of culling pest-management tools will exist disquisitional to meet the product standards and stiff contest is expected in these niche markets.

New scientific knowledge and modern technologies provide considerable opportunities, even for developing countries, to further reduce electric current yield losses and minimise the future furnishings of climate modify on found health. Finding continuously new cost-constructive and environmentally sound solutions to improve command of pest and disease issues is critical to improving the health and livelihoods of the poor. The demand for a more holistic and modernised IPM approach in low-income countries is now more important than ever before.

Full investment in pest management and the rate of new discoveries should be increased to address biological, biochemical and chemic research that can exist applied to ecologically based pest direction. There is underinvestment from a social perspective in private-sector research because companies will aim to maximise just what is called suppliers' surplus. Companies will compare their expected profits from their patented products resulting from research and will non consider the benefits to consumers and users. Investments in research by the public sector should emphasise those areas of pest management that are not being undertaken past individual industry. Transmission of cognition in the past was the responsibility mostly of the public sector, only information technology has become more privatised. The public sector must human activity on its responsibility to provide quality education to ensure well-informed decision making in both the individual and public sectors by emphasising systems-based interdisciplinary research.