Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme July 2019
Overview
Introduction
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is vital for the delivery of key Government strategies including the 25 Year Environment Plan, the National Pollinator Strategy and wider farm policy strategies.
As a result of leaving the European Union, the UK will be developing a new policy framework to replace the European Common Agriculture Policy. There will be a range of measures to support farmers and land managers, underpinned by fresh legislation in the form of the new Agriculture Bill which was still awaiting final amendments in Parliament at time of writing (July 2019).
Alongside other policy tools, there are a number of ways in which the Government’s stated objective to increase the uptake of IPM can be met through the new ELMs design and development process including: tests, trials and pilot schemes; outcomes and evidence assessments and guidance; advice and training for farmers and practitioners. This briefing explores these opportunities in detail and how IPM could be incorporated into these various stages. It also includes some specific examples of where IPM can deliver basic and higher level outcomes and provides case studies of where other countries have successfully integrated IPM into agri-environment support schemes. The briefing concludes with a set of overarching recommendations for DEFRA and makes the proposition that, if ELMS is designed in a way which fails to drive the uptake of genuine IPM approaches, then the scheme is unlikely to be able to deliver effectively on its overall objectives.
A core element of the new support system will be an Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) which will provide a basis for the government to pay farmers for providing environmental and other public goods. This is intended to help deliver the ambitious targets in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and on the outcomes of the new Environment Bill, and to ensure fair rewards for farmers and land managers in return for delivering public goods to complement market returns. The aim of ELMS is for “one, flexible contract, one set of guidance to include around 88,000 participants by 2028”.3 Other objectives could and should also be included in the ELMS, such as supporting the delivery of the National Pollinator Strategy and helping to maintain as much productivity as sustainably possible from the land in order to deliver on the Government’s commitments (such as under Sustainable Development Goals 2, 3, 6, 12 and 154). PAN UK would argue that public health goals (such as reduced exposure to chemicals, enhanced access to nature) should also be considered as outcomes of this new policy , although in the interest of brevity we have not included specific IPM related health outcomes in this document. Intercropping, Kent, 2018.
1
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
The ELMS was first announced in 2018. Since then there has been a period of stakeholder engagement, research and development of the scheme’s design, and a tests and trials phase which is underway. These tests and trials may continue for some years in order to refine the final scheme but will primarily feed into the design of the pilot scheme which is due to come into effect in 2021/22 with a larger number of farmers and land managers involved. The Government’s intention is for the ELMS (alongside other measures) to replace most current
forms of direct support from 2027 onwards. Alongside this, a broad regulatory framework which covers issues relating to both pesticide5 authorisations and use should continue to underpin all pesticide application on agricultural and non-agricultural land. So far, there has been little attention given to the role that IPM and pesticide reduction overall could play in both delivering the objectives of the ELMS and helping farmers and land managers to provide the public goods identified. Pesticide reduction targets and strategies have been proposed in additional
What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)? The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) define IPM as follows: “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 agroecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.”1 The overall principles of IPM can be described as follows:
66 Principle 1. Growing a healthy crop Healthy crop plants grown from good quality seed and well-cared-for through the season are better able to withstand pest attack and less prone to disease.
66 Principle 2. Preventing pest and weed build-up and disease spread Diverse cropping, careful field sanitation and suitable soil, nutrient and water management practices help prevent pests and weeds building to problematic levels and reduce infection and spread of diseases.
66 Principle 3. Preserving and enhancing beneficial organisms Natural enemies can make a hugely valuable contribution to keeping insects pests from reaching levels which cause economic losses and many beneficial microbes can reduce crop diseases. Farmers can boost beneficial organisms by providing habitat, shelter and food resources, minimising use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides and using biopesticides.
66 Principle 4. Observing fields regularly IPM farmers monitor their fields every few days to check the health of the plants. Data is assessed to make more informed decisions on whether pest, disease or weed control actions need to be taken in the next few days and if so, using which methods.
66 Principle 5. Farmers become experts in agroecological crop management Effective IPM training and advice helps farmers and their crop advisors to make better decisions, based on field analysis and an understanding of agroecological science. Field experiments and experience sharing builds locally relevant knowledge on the best IPM methods and strategies for different cropping systems.2
2
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
clauses for the Agriculture Bill. If these clauses are adopted, the UK Government would be obliged to put in place some of the measures needed to drive a reduction in pesticide use, including “…setting out proposals for encouraging the adoption of integrated pest management practice…”6. Much still needs to be done to drive uptake of IPM in the UK and ELMS has a unique role to play. UK arable farmers are using only a small portion of IPM methods potentially available7 and a recent comparative study of eight European countries on IPM implementation shows the UK lagging behind8. Claims that the majority of UK farmers are already practicing IPM, hide the reality that most conventional farming continues to rely on pesticides as its first line of defence. The uptake of genuine, holistic IPM has been held back by an approach which drives UK producers to cherry pick particular practices rather than adopt a whole IPM system. This has meant that, in reality, most UK farmers are not implementing IPM fully and are therefore only gaining some of its benefits. ELMS must be designed in a way which encourages a whole systems approach via a combination of incentives and compliance requirements. For more detail on the UK’s current approach to IPM and what needs to change, go to www.pan-uk.org/ipm-and-uk-agriculture/.
What can IPM do to help meet ELMS objectives? a) Achieving 25 Year Environment Plan outcomes via IPM In January 2018, the UK government launched ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’9. The Plan lays out a range of goals and policies which are designed to ‘help the natural world regain and retain health’ and restates the government’s commitment to deliver a Green Brexit. At the time of writing, publicly available information on ELMS is limited but it is proposed to deliver on six of the Plan’s listed aims: “Clean and plentiful water; Clean air; Thriving plants and wildlife; Reduction in and protection from environmental hazards; Adaptation to and mitigation of climate change; and Beauty, heritage and engagement with the environment.”10 PAN UK has produced a briefing11 identifying the key ways in which IPM can contribute to the achievement
of the Plan’s objectives. Ensuring that the UK adopts a strong pesticide regime post-Brexit is vital for reducing the environmental harms caused by agrochemicals. However, stringent pesticide regulations, and support for non-chemical alternatives can also help to achieve many of the other goals and policies contained in the Plan. In contrast, failing to regulate pesticides effectively will undermine the achievement of the aspirations set out in the Plan and hold back its ability to deliver on many of its stated goals. Key areas PAN UK identifies for IPM delivery include:
66 Using and managing land sustainably, introducing IPM into the design and delivery of a new environmental land management system, and in doing so delivering improved soil health, and benefits for bees and other pollinators.;
66 Recovering nature and enhancing the beauty of landscapes including tackling biodiversity loss from chemical use, enhancement of biological diversity for pest and weed management and supporting the reintroduction of native species;
66 Connecting people with the environment to improve health and well-being including supporting urban and peri-urban farming, making green spaces safe and attractive and encouraging children to be close to nature, in and out of school;
66 Increasing resource efficiency, and reducing pollution and waste through reducing water and soil pollution from agro-chemicals, thereby decreasing the exposure of wildlife and humans to chemicals.
b) Achieving the objectives of the National Pollinator Strategy The National Pollinator Strategy (NPS) is a 10 year plan published in November 2014, setting out how Government, beekeepers, conservation groups, farmers, researchers and industry can work together to improve the status of the 1,500 or so pollinating insect species in England. Insects pollinate many high value food crops and it would cost UK farmers at least £1.8 billion a year to replace pollination services provided by insects with hand pollination.12 Pesticides have a major lethal and sub-lethal impact on pollinator species with some impacts only just beginning to be fully understood. PAN UK is on the Pollinator Advisory Steering Group. The current National Pollinator strategy is five years old and there is now an opportunity to deliver a more effective approach which is better
3
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
integrated with farm and land use strategy, especially via the ELMS.13 Government needs to see IPM as a core tool for famers in reducing pesticides use to protect pollinators and so coherence with the objectives of the ELMS project is essential. The final scheme must enable farmers to be rewarded for delivering on NPS outcomes on their farm and make a significant investment in guidance, training and advice for farmers and land managers to adopt IPM practices. In many cases this will provide multiple benefits. For example, use of red clover is beneficial for long-tongued bees and is also great for weed control, as well as being a nitrogen fixing crop which can replace costly fertilizers. Adding floral resources and unsprayed vegetation and soil habitat for pollinator nesting is also extremely valuable for attracting more natural enemies of pests into and around the crop, helping to deliver more biocontrol services. An ELMS farm pollinator assessment would also be complemented by a focus on IPM techniques. Organic and conservation farming systems supported via agri-environment schemes have shown significant benefits for pollinators.14 Good examples exist elsewhere in supporting farmers for pollinator outcomes (see case studies on page X). Alongside well enforced regulation, IPM is a crucial tool which should be rewarded via the ELMS scheme and wider programme of support to help UK pollinators.
c) Additional benefits for productivity gains, plant and animal health The Agriculture Bill and policy statements by Defra for future farm support suggest a role for government in helping farmers boost farm productivity. PAN UK believes that any enhanced productivity should be based on principles of sustainability and, as such, helping farmers to use non-chemical methods of pest control to reduce input costs should be a priority. Publicly funded research and development should be integrated (promotion, training, advice and guidance, outcome payments) into the ELMS roll-out to maximise IPM uptake. Biological controls are a key IPM tool as an environmentally-friendly way of controlling pests and diseases on crops.15 A recent UN report states that it is possible to produce enough food to feed a world population of nine billion with substantially less chemical pesticides, or even without any pesticides if sufficient effort is made to develop ecologically-based
4
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods.16 The study suggests that policy measures can speed up the development and use of environmentally-friendly crop protection methods. Including IPM effectively in ELMS outcomes could ensure that the UK takes a global lead in this endeavour in addition to generating significant benefits for producers and the environment. For example, a recent study on the UK arable sector revealed both yield and income benefits resulting from dedicating 5% of farmed area to enhanced habitat for pollinators and natural enemies.17 Plant and animal health are also identified as key purposes of future policy. Again, IPM can be used to deliver more effective and less harmful ways to protect animal and plant health, reduce farm costs and enhance productivity. It can also be a key tool in preventing growing problems of resistance caused by overuse of pesticides, such as blackgrass resistance to the majority of registered herbicides (including early warning signs of evolving resistance to glyphosate18) and peachpotato aphid resistance to several insecticides in various UK field crops19.
Proposals for how IPM can be incorporated into ELMS development and final scheme To deliver on these goals we need to incorporate IPM into each level of the ELMS design, from the national overall framework to local and holding level action.
a) Delivery and governance levels and local prioritisation At national level, a pesticide reduction target will help to drive delivery of the goals alongside appropriate regulatory baselines on pesticide use for all farmers and land managers, regardless of whether they are part of the ELMS. Multi-annual budgets must be set so that there is sufficient funds to cover the payment rates needed to support all farmers and land managers in delivering the goods long-term and to ensure extensive national monitoring and enforcement. At local level, where spatial prioritisation is applied and wider catchment, landscape, or other
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
‘above holding’ level outcomes are identified, it would make sense to promote the use of IPM, or stronger approaches, across holdings (such as ‘clusters’) to protect specific sites such as groundwater catchments or sensitive habitats. There may be room here for private and alternative financing to complement delivery of public goods (for instance water companies paying groups of farmers to grow organically to protect water sources). Where Defra may be paying for facilitation and cluster work for additional benefits, we would propose providing independent, on-going training to facilitators in IPM techniques, outcomes, pesticide regulations and monitoring. At holding level, farmers will most likely be producing land management plans which we propose should all include a specific focus on IPM. To ensure this helps the farmer or land manager, rather than adding burden and costs, affordable or free advice and/or farmer mentoring services should be available along with detailed but accessible guidance, capital grants for purchase of equipment, expertise (such as pest forecasting) and advice, on-going support and regular monitoring of progress, including achieved reductions in pesticide use both in terms of area treated and toxicity. ELMS should also create structures to enable farmer-to-farmer learning on IPM, whether by specific crop or locality. Until the design blueprints are published it is unclear exactly how the process will work but our recommendation would be to ensure IPM is embedded at the heart of the scheme design to maximise outcomes.
b) Tests, trials and pilots - practical ideas for incorporating IPM We note that in the current state of play (at time of writing – July 2019), Phase 1 tests and trials are underway and Phase 2 initiatives are being sought. We have the following suggestions for input:
66 We would propose a specific guidance document on IPM systems and reducing pesticide use be provided to all those undertaking tests and trials projects. These can be fitted into an outcomes framework model as needed. The guidelines could set out templates for crop systems using fewer chemicals and include a list of alternative control methods, in particular integrated protection techniques and biological pest controls. Specialist web platforms and
materials should also be provided and be targeted at specific groups of crops, livestock, horticulture and other sectors to describe IPM approaches. All relevant guidance documents should be designed with a view to ensuring maximum opportunity to promote IPM in assisting farm operations whilst supporting specific outcomes (e.g. ensuring insects as feed for bespoke bird species), signpost to regulations, and to help ensure a whole systems approach.
66 Organic tests and trials - the new approach needs to work for those growers using organic, permaculture and/or biodynamic systems. These farmers and land managers are already using IPM as part of a multifunctional system and so care must be taken to ensure that the ELMS design, and associated products and services, function effectively and provides the rewards they need to continue to deliver multiple outcomes. The final pilot should include an organic whole system option.
66 Co-design of scheme – many farmers (such as in organic schemes, conservation farmers, LEAF, Innovative Farmers, Nature Friendly Farming Network, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust) are already very experienced in delivering public goods alongside business outcomes through use of IPM. We would suggest trials in three cropping systems with groups of farmers to look at issues specific to pesticide reduction via incorporating an IPM approach. It may be that one of the Phase 1 or 2 proposals are suitable for this already. This should also be able to look at how the scheme will need to assess payment levels according to costs of production in relation to use of pest control techniques, labour and purchase of technology, and on-going advice. In addition, ELMS should aim to set up a national IPM benchmarking network to enable farmers to share best practice. This should be complemented by a public website to showcase results and case studies.
66 Payment rates - Moving from agronomist-led pesticide applications (or even more simple seed coating) to the more complex system of IPM can incur significant up-front investment and on-going costs which need to be factored in. These include new training costs for workers and managers, mechanical weeding, technology and equipment including biological control supplies,
5
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
monitoring equipment or precision spray systems, new plant varieties, and so on.
66 Testing the data and monitoring tools – PAN UK would recommend paying close attention to data collection and monitoring the impacts of ELMS in relation to pesticide use. Data collection to measure the public benefit and the socioeconomic impact of ELMS in relation to IPM uptake will be key. Monitoring and evaluation should also assess uptake of IPM methods and first steps towards redesigning agroecosystems. PAN UK’s ‘IPM Ladder’ (included as an annex to this briefing) could provide a valuable tool for planning and assessing progress.
c) Outcomes – what public goods can IPM deliver? The ELMS is understood to be focussed largely on a ‘payments by results’ (PBR) or outcomes-based approach, although it is clear that the multiple outcomes, complexity of farm systems and uncertainties involved (such as weather) mean that this will need to be flexible. Farmers also need certainty and are understandably concerned about being left out of pocket if external
factors affect the outcomes. A solution to this problem may be for actions with known outcomes (such as the planting of buffer strips) to be recognised and paid for rather than (for example) the resulting level of insect population or reduced pesticide application. The ‘outcomes framework’ seen by stakeholders examines the ‘assets’ and ‘asset functions’ of a farm and their ability to deliver outputs as well as actions which can, in turn, deliver single or multiple outcomes. IPM techniques fit well into this framework as the approach is to maximise the role of the assets i.e. all the relevant parts of the farm and their functions (for instance, hedgerow ‘asset’ providing a ‘function’ as habitat for biological controls) to deliver multiple results rather than one single input. PAN UK would like to see ELMS provide rewards for system-level action involving cutting pesticide use but also for innovation focussed on specific skills (such as pest forecasting and use of new IPM techniques). It should also provide payments for reducing environmental impact, as well as for increased biodiversity and other outcomes. The greater the extent to which farmers introduce IPM, reduce pesticide use, and so deliver agreed results, the greater rewards they should receive.
The kind of outcomes delivered by certain IPM activities and approaches could include: Possible activity
Results and wider outcomes
Establishment of buffer strips along water courses with no Protection of river courses and aquatic species/ pesticide or fertiliser use ecosystems against pollution, toxicity and run-off Provision of extra habitat for natural enemies
6
Use of Farm Sustainability Tool for input management
Allowing the farmer to conduct long-term planning and measure changes to the system and inputs required over time
At least four years’ crop rotation on all arable land, including at least one legume crop and one insecticidefree flowering crop.20
Boost biodiversity Improve soil health Increase biological control species Break pest reproductive cycles Decrease susceptibility to pest and disease attack Increase nitrogen fixing Provide animal fodder Provide pollinator habitats Replace fertilisers
Minimum 5% share of agricultural area devoted to nonproductive features or areas where agrochemicals are not to be used Retention or addition of landscape features e.g. hedges, ponds, shelter belts with trees
Maintenance of non-productive features and area to improve on-farm biodiversity, especially boosting functional biodiversity and beneficial species
Specific action to protect or increase pollinator species e.g. making some provision of food resources and habitat for pollinators
Meet National Pollinator Strategy targets Benefits for nectar/pollen feeding Natural Enemies (such as hoverflies, lacewings, parasitic wasps etc.)
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
Managing field and border vegetation to provide habitats that will encourage predatory, parasitic and other beneficial insects. Implementing SAFE practices for enhancing natural enemies (Shelter: Alternative Prey; Flower-rich Habitat; Environment)21.
Increase in ‘natural enemies’ that feed on crop pests.
Use of biorational methods (pheromones, biopesticides) with a short term subsidy (e.g. for 3 seasons) supporting either for product purchase or for tailored advice on how to use it as part of an improved IPM plan
Farmers gain experience in using these methods and tools May enable reductions in frequency of insecticide application or phase out (in combination with other IPM methods) of specific problem Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)
Use of intercropping of crop varieties or species within the Can help reduce incidence levels of specific diseases or same field22 weeds, as well as making optimum use of soil nutrient resources Integration of trees with arable or other field crops to enhance biodiversity23
Can help reduce levels of key pests and diseases of field crops
More thorough and timely field sanitation of infested/ infected crop foliage, unmarketable produce and postharvest crop waste
Reduces spread and off-season survival of pests and diseases, reducing incidence in subsequent seasons Recycling of crop wastes and sanitary prunings via composting or other means can improve soil fertility or generate energy
Good agroecosystem design with careful and timely cultural practices for soil health and water management
Can make seasonal growing conditions and longer term cropping systems less conducive to major pests, diseases or weeds and enable reductions in pesticide use
IPM tools attracting greater rewards could include: Possible activity
Results and wider outcomes
Conversion to organic - payment for conversion and ongoing maintenance payment
Include significant reduction of water and soil contamination via agrochemicals and use of IPM, and increase in biodiversity in and off field
Introduction of higher share of agricultural areas devoted to landscape and habitat features
Boosting functional biodiversity and beneficial species
Introduction of pesticide-free buffer strips
Protect bystanders against spraying - current voluntary measures and best practice guidance are not delivering adequate protection
Introduction of mixed farming and cropping, cover crops, choice of varieties
Enhance biodiversity, pollinator habitats and soil protection
Payment for pesticide-free high nature value, protected, (SSSI, SAC, AONB, Natura 2000) agricultural and forest areas, Nature Recovery Networks
Protected areas
Conversion of arable land to pesticide free permanent pastures
Permanent pasture
Introduction of longer crop rotations, mixed cropping, cover crops all of which may complement IPM strategies
Enhanced biodiversity
Investment schemes which help deliver IPM: purchase of All of the above are possible machinery to undertake mechanical weeding, precision farming equipment to identify and remove or spray selected individual weeds, farmer uptake and market acceptance of disease or pest-resistant crop varieties, purchase of pheromones or biological agents, monitoring and decision support equipment Farmer collaboration activities at neighbour/landscape level to address key pests, diseases or weeds via IPM methods e.g. rotation planning beyond the farm fence, actions to encourage mixed farming and recycling of farm resources.
Landscape or catchment scale reduction in pesticide pollution and resulting biodiversity and resource benefits
7
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
d) Innovative financing Defra also notes the potential for developing links with funding from private sources in delivery of goods e.g. blended finance and net gain. An obvious benefit here would be the use of IPM and organic approaches to deliver outcomes for those using fresh water sources or in areas close to high levels of human habitation. Where Defra is developing innovative mechanisms for funding natural capital assets, we would recommend always including IPM options.
The need for a strong evidence base to demonstrate value for money for the public investment in ELMS is clear. PAN UK recommends this includes a specific strand of work assessing the long term cost-benefits of IPM investment to deliver multiple outcomes, including the reduced cost of clean-up, enhanced biological control, pollination services, biodiversity and lower soil compaction with less need for pesticide application.
Given that the LPM will allow farmers and land managers the choice of what and how to achieve ELMS outcomes rather than being prescriptive, it will be crucial that they understand the opportunities and incentives available for applying IPM. Adequate IPM training for advisors and clear, accessible guidance on the likely results will be essential. It will also be important to create a system for oversight of the Defra appointed assessors and the LMP development process as a whole. One option is for this oversight role to be played by via an IPM Working Group which could be made up of independents experts.
f) The Land Management Plan (LMP)
g) Knowledge hub and guidance development
The LMP will allow the farmer or land manager to start planning and working towards system change over time. PAN UK understands that plans may be developed and agreed with a Defra appointed, accredited assessor and will ideally be regularly reviewed and amendable as the farmer or land manager develops new system approaches. This could present a unique opportunity to drive the uptake of IPM. If each land management plan covers a farm holding in its entirety, it will be easier to incorporate new IPM approaches. Unlike chemical applications, genuine IPM tends to involve a wide range of a farm’s assets (such as hedgerows and cultivation techniques such as rotations) and therefore requires the kind of whole systems approach that could be promoted and underpinned by LMPs.
Information about the use of IPM should be incorporated into all written guidance to maximise impact and opportunities. This could be in the form of short tips, signposting to longer advice and guidance documents and an IPM portal for more detailed, context-specific advice and links to suppliers.
e) Evidence base
We have yet to see any designs for this plan, but suggest it needs to incorporate the IPM elements listed above, including ways to monitor IPM impacts on public good outcomes as well as the impacts on farm net income over time. As mentioned above, PAN UK’s ‘IPM Ladder’ (included as an annex to this briefing) could provide a valuable tool for planning and assessing progress. Crucially, the LMP must avoid replicating the pitfalls of Integrated Pest Management Plans (IPMP),
8
adopted by the UK in 2014. The IPMP is little more than a questionnaire which is completed by individual farmers online, with no methods for checking the veracity of the information provided. As a result, the IPMP can been criticised as a box-ticking exercise which focusses on individual techniques rather than a whole systems approach and therefore drives little change in farming practices but meanwhile overstates of the level of IPM uptake in the UK24.
The development of this guidance should include capturing the learning on pesticide and IPM approaches in research institutes, but also crucially in current schemes such as cluster farms and PBR projects already underway, organic, conservation grade, LEAF, Innovative Farmers and Nature Friendly Farmers Network, and the Agricology learning platform, along with the EU ENDURE network in which several UK research institutes participate. We would recommend that Natural England staff who are developing the guidance are provided with training in the eight IPM principles and organic principles, how they can be applied and why they are beneficial in a range of farm sectors and settings. They should be tasked with including IPM tools to most clusters of guidance as IPM is likely to be relevant in the majority of situations.
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
h) Advisors and Training needs Assessors and others involved in the ELMS scheme development, testing, piloting and delivery should have a solid knowledge of IPM approaches and outcomes and should be independent of agrochemical businesses. Their IPM support could be complemented with a network of demonstration farms, mentors willing to deliver support to local farmers, and an online IPM portal linked to ELMS to demonstrate techniques, outcomes and measurements.
i) Monitoring and evaluation framework At national, regional, local and holding level, the monitoring of IPM and organic approaches (on target outcomes but also socio-economic impacts) needs to include an assessment of impacts and progress on delivering the 25 Year Environment Plan’s objectives as well as other strategic objectives such as those contained in the National Pollinator Strategy. At the holding level, where self-assessment may be used to monitor outcomes, we would expect to see any self-assessment strongly backed up with spot-checks by independent assessors and effective non-compliance action.
Case studies - EU showing success with outcome based schemes Across Europe, IPM is already a core element of many agri-environment programmes and growers can claim additional payments for IPM-related measures.
66 In Germany, growers can claim additional payments for IPM-related measures such as using biological controls against the European corn borer in maize and pheromones in orchards to control codling moth, establishing buffer zones adjacent to water courses, and including flower strips in arable fields. In Lower Saxony, growers can claim additional support payments for crop rotation practices and including flower strips in arable fields.25
66 In Sweden, farmers can receive additional payments under Rural Development programmes for measures taken under the scheme. Participating farmers receive a series of visits to guide them
in improving their practices and attend farmerled group discussions on specific problem areas. While the primary focus is nutrient use efficiency, several aspects of IPM, including crop rotation, crop nutrition, plant protection and conserving biodiversity are incorporated into this scheme.26
66 In France, there are measures in place to promote and encourage the implementation of IPM principles (such as the monitoring networks for pests and diseases, the DEPHY network and the “30,000 farm” scheme) which aim to reduce dependency on plant protection products. France’s agri-environment-climate sub measure “Système de grandes cultures” is targeted at arable farmers with predominantly cereal and/or protein crops and aims to promote lasting change in the farming system, with the following characteristics: - A range of crops planted at any one time, use of long rotations, legumes and alternate winter and spring planting; reduced use of nitrate fertiliser with particular attention paid to the risk of losses from bare soils; reduction in the use of pesticide products, achieved through greater resilience to threats. This is to be achieved through longer rotations, more crop diversity, changes to the dates and density of sowing and better management of landscape features (trees, hedges, banks, etc.) that support fauna and flora which play a useful agronomic role. There are two levels of pesticide reduction proposed to farmers. The payment for this package varies from €90/ha up to €235/ ha, depending on the region where farmers are located, and the level of commitment they choose. It also includes a reduction in the frequency of pesticide treatments compared to an index calculated to take account of the characteristics of the farming system being used. There are similar “system” operations for grassland farming and for mixed farming (with an emphasis on recoupling crop and livestock systems on the farm).27
66 In Italy for arable and fruit and vegetable crops, funding was available to apply a holistic approach to IPM – such as selective pesticides use combined with an integrated production system (including crop rotation, fertilisation plan, soil protection measures) € 100/ha (arable) €300/ha (vegetables), €550/ha (fruit).28
9
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
66 In The Netherlands an alternative to unpopular pesticide-free field margins which could be part of the ELMS is to use targeted flower mixes in field margins that help deliver pollination alongside pest control services. Based on extensive research, these flower mixes have been composed of flower species that cater for the specific nutritional needs of pollinators and pest natural enemies. In commercial field trials in the Netherlands and the UK these targeted field margin mixes were shown to provide multiple benefits for growers. Numbers of natural enemies in the flower margins were two to six-fold higher, relative to control margins. The higher numbers of natural enemies clearly spilled-over into the crop, with elevated levels recorded up to 50 metres from the flower margin. Crop pests suffered more attacks from the larger contingent of insect predators and were effectively suppressed on the field side with the flower strip. 10-30% higher yields were achieved near flowering margins in two out of the three years and for three out of the four crops tested. This shows that crop production and meeting key conservation objectives and policy requirements can go hand-in-hand. Adopting multi-functional seed mixes should ensure that farmers no longer need to lose combined pollination and pest control benefits. For further details see www. ecostac.co.uk.
66 Other examples from rural development schemes to reduce herbicides in France, Luxembourg and Belgium can be found in the report on ‘Alternatives to Herbicide Use in Weed Management’.29
Concluding remarks and key recommendations IPM can provide a range of beneficial outcomes for government environmental and natural capital strategies – including the 25 Year Environment plan and the National Pollinator Strategy – as well as valuable business outcomes. We have identified opportunities for securing those benefits through the ELMS design processes. Case studies from across Europe suggest that many useful and well-established examples already exist, showing public benefits being provided alongside
10
the achievement of farmer productivity goals. Further research on the learnings from these examples (including some site visits) could help ensure the best tools can be incorporated into the development phase of the ELMS scheme. In addition to the detailed proposals above, to ensure that the development of the new ELMS drives uptake of IPM and reduction in pesticide use, PAN UK recommends that DEFRA: 1. Introduces a strong focus on IPM as a delivery tool for policy outcomes and that all elements of the design of the ELMS scheme – such as the payment design, land management plan, guidance and advice and so on – are able to promote IPM. 2. Ensures IPM is covered in some of the tests and trials over 2019 and beyond. 3. Rapidly sets up an IPM Working Group made up of independent experts for ELMS to inform all stages through to 2027. 4. Sends DEFRA and Natural England staff to undertake site visits to farms applying IPM techniques to understand how they work, particularly on a whole holding level, and how the different elements can work together, be measured and deliver multiple outcomes. 5. Works with Natural England to introduce specific IPM elements into the knowledge hub, guidance, promotion and communications for ELMS so farmers and land managers become familiar with the expectations, approaches and benefits. 6. Provides investment into the research, training, facilitation, demonstration and advice required for all farmers and land managers to be able to deliver the outcomes using IPM approaches. 7. Considers how to ensure IPM is delivered in all farm and related agronomy courses at further and higher education, thereby building the competence and skills of future farmers and growers.
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
Useful resources 66 IOBC working group on integrated production guidelines: https://www.iobc-wprs.org/ip_ipm/download_documents.html
66 IOBC, IBMA and PAN Europe’s report ‘Working with Nature’: https://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/ files/public/resources/reports/integrated-pest-management-working-with-nature.pdf
66 IOBC, IBMA and PAN Europe’s films ‘IPM in Practice’: https://www.low-impact-farming.info/what-ipm 66 How French arable farmers work with nature as part of the French EcoPhyto plan: https://www.low-impact-farming.info/arable-france
66 How Luxembourg wine growers obtain CAP funding to reduce dependency on pesticides: https://www.lowimpact-farming.info/viticulture
66 Assured Produce crop-specific IPM protocols: https://assurance.redtractor.org.uk/standards/fresh-produce-crop-protocols
66 Agricology platform: https://www.agricology.co.uk/ 66 ENDURE European network for diversifying crop protection: http://www.endure-network.eu/ 66 Innovative Farmers Network Field Labs: https://www.innovativefarmers.org/find-a-field-lab/ (see those relevant for IPM such as ‘Electrical weeding for bush and cane fruit’; ‘Cabbage stem flea beetle control in oilseed rape’; ‘Willow woodchip for top fruit scab control’ etc.)
Organic farmland, Hampshire.
11
12
Some selection of less toxic products?
Applications linked more rationally to field observation or forecasting for better decision making
Some pest/disease scouting
Rotation of chemicals with different modes of action as part of resistance management
Industry “safe use” training
HHPs = Highly Hazardous Pesticides
Use of IPM methods
Regular poisoning incidents, contamination + their external costs
Hazardous products + dangerous handling leads to high exposure & serious risk
Use of many broad-spectrum HHPs
Calendar-based or ‘random’ spraying
Improved pesticide handling practices
= mainly Integrated Pesticide Management i.e. improvingrationalising pesticide use but little or no shift (yet) to IPM key principles 1-3 Still high use of HHPs, quite a lot of ‘insurance’ spraying
Conventional practice, highly dependent on chemical control
High reliance on HHPs; high risk; unsustainable
IPM-‘lite’
Zero IPM
Identifying HHPs in use & their pest targets
Assessing economic costs & benefits, looking to reduce external costs of pesticide harm
Finding out/ trialling/introducing new & different ecological methods
Avoiding pesticides known to disrupt natural pest control and commercial BCAs
Choosing to avoid HHPs where possible and prefer non-chemical methods
Training of staff/smallholders in IPM skills + best practices in pesticide risk reduction
More attention to good cultural practices, adapting these to provide a growing environment less conducive to pest & disease incidence & proliferation. Different crop rotations and/or cultivars?
More & better use of commercial biocontrol for more of the problem pests/diseases
Use and dependence on HHPs decreasing Toxic Load decreasing Suite of IPM tools expanding & improving
Use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides/ Toxic Load
Better handling practices + Better understanding of hazards/risks
Looking for IPM advice, support, useful experiences
Introduce 1-2 other IPM methods
Some use of biological control agents (commercial) and/or biopesticides
More decision support
Still quite a few HHPs and high chemical dependence but moving in the right direction Improved field monitoring
Gaining confidence & experience Possible focus on replacing specific HHPs with IPM alternatives
1st steps in moving up the IPM ladder
High
Intermediate IPM Low Next steps Learning & trying things out
Beginners IPM
Investing in IPM planning, in close liaison with experts, retailers, clients
Targets & action plans to reduce HHP use, risk (residues)
Holistic approach incl. crop, soil, water management, climate change, resilience
Make best use of ecological interactions to replace synthetic agrochemicals & fossil fuel use
Assessing & refining different tools to develop flexible but robust IPM strategies
Effective use of biocontrol
Practices & crop rotations maximise ecosystem services for natural pest control; pollination; nutrient cycling
Agroecological “Nirvana” Fully redesigned agroecosystems, functioning with zero use of synthetic or traditional mineral pesticides No use of HHPs, minimal Toxic Load
Confidence built over several seasons’ experience
HHPs mostly or completely eliminated Replaced with multiple IPM tactics
Advanced & ‘ecological’ IPM Refining & consolidating proven methods, pioneering new ones Strong preference for non-chemical tactics
The IPM Ladder conceptual framework, from PAN UK’s perspective
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
Annex – PAN UK’s IPM ladder
Building Integrated Pest Management outcomes into the design of the Environmental Land Management Scheme
References 1 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO), International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, p.4, http:// www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/code/en/
16 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 24 January 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/ G1701785.pdf
2 PAN UK, unpublished document, 2019. Available upon request.
17 Richard F. Pywell, Matthew S. Heard, Ben A. Woodcock, Shelley Hinsley, Lucy Ridding, Marek Nowakowski & James M. Bullock, Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification, October 2015, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1740
3 Taken from Defra presentation, Environmental Land Management: Our vision for a future system, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ file/4764267014520832 4 UN, Sustainable Development Goals, https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/?menu=1300 5 Note: the term ‘pesticides’ is used throughout this document referring to plant protection products including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, molluscicides and nematicides, as well as plant growth regulators, defoliants and desiccants. 6 Agriculture Bill 2017 - 2019, New Clause 11, https://services.parliament.uk/ Bills/2017-19/agriculture/documents.html (accessed July 2019) 7 Rural Economy and Land Use Programme (RELU), Centre for Rural Economy, Overcoming Market and Technical Obstacles to Alternative Pest Management in Arable Systems, Policy and Practice Notes, Note No. 10, October 2009, https://www.low-impact-farming.info/sites/default/files/2017-01/baileyppn10_0.pdf 8 SEGES and Aarhus University, Neighbour check on the implementation of IPM, May 2019, http://www.endure-network.eu/about_endure/all_the_ news/how_are_the_neighbours_implementing_ipm 9 Defra, A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, January 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25-year-environment-plan. pdf 10 Taken from Defra presentation, Environmental Land Management: Our vision for a future system, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ file/4764267014520832 11 PAN UK, Using pesticide policies as a tool for implementing the 25 Year Environment Plan, February 2018, https://www.pan-uk.org/25-yearenvironment-plan/ 12 Breeze, T. D., Bailey, A. P., Balcombe, K. G. and Potts, S. G., Pollination services in the UK: How important are honeybees?, 2011, http://centaur.reading. ac.uk/25072/2/Insect_pollination_in_UK_agriculture_Final.pdf 13 Defra, National Pollinator Strategy: Implementation Plan, 2018-2021, December 2018, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ u p l o a d s / s y s t e m / u p l o a d s / a t t a c h m e n t _ d a t a / fi l e / 7 6 6 2 0 0 / n p s implementation-plan-2018-2021.pdf 14 European Commission, Science for Policy Environment, Agri-environment schemes: impacts on the agricultural environment, Issue 57, June 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/AES_ impacts_on_agricultural_environment_57si_en.pdf 15 European Commission, Science for Policy Environment, Natural enemies of crop pests will feature in the future of environmentally friendly farming, Issue 468, December 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/ research/newsalert/pdf/natural_enemies_crop_pests_feature_in_future_ environmentally_friendly_farming_497na1_en.pdf
Pesticide Action Network UK PAN UK is the only UK charity focused on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens. 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
18 Rothamsted Research, New ‘early warning system’ finds blackgrass evolving resistance to glyphosate, June 2019, https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/news/ new-%E2%80%98early-warning-system%E2%80%99-finds-blackgrassevolving-resistance-glyphosate 19 Steve Foster, Agricology, Insecticide resistance in the peach-potato aphid, March 2018, https://www.agricology.co.uk/field/blog/insecticide-resistancepeach-potato-aphid 20 J. Alford, ORC / GWCT / LEAF / OF&G / Soil Association / SRUC / Agricology - as part of Defra Project OF03111, Use of diverse rotations: Organic Management Techniques to Improve Sustainability of Non-Organic Farming, September 2018, https://www.agricology.co.uk/resources/use-diverse-rotations 21 AHDB/HGCA, Beneficials on farmland: identification and management guidelines, 2008, https://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/185367/g42beneficials-on-farmland-identification-and-management-guidelines.pdf 22 Andrew Howard, OK-Net Arable, Agricology, Is intercropping the way forward for arable?, August 2017, https://www.agricology.co.uk/resources/ intercropping-way-forward-arable 23 Tom Staton, Woodland Trust Research Briefing, Examining the impacts of integrating trees into arable fields on pest control and pollination, June 2019, https://www.agricology.co.uk/resources/examining-impacts-integratingtrees-arable-fields-pest-control-and-pollination 24 Institute for European Environmental Policy, PAN UK & RSPB, Effective policy options for reducing environmental risks from pesticides in the UK, May 2016, pp.29-30, https://ieep.eu/archive_uploads/2211/IEEP_PANUK2016_ RSPB_pesticides_report.pdf 25 PAN Europe, PAN Europe’s position on the proposal for a new delivery model for the CAP after 2020, October 2018, p.12, https://www.pan-europe.info/ sites/pan-europe.info/files/PositionPaper_CAP_post2020_final_pdf.pdf 26 European Commission, Final report of a fact-finding mission carried out in Sweden from 12 to 16 June 2017 in order to evaluate the implementation of measures to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, January 2018, http:// ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=3909 27 D. Mottershead & A. Maréchal, Institute for European Environmental Policy, , Promotion of agroecological approaches: Lessons from other European countries, June 2017, https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/ dbe71322-2b48-4b60-bb7c-8f2f02ff96e4/LUPG%20Agroecology%20 report%20-%20FINAL.pdf?v=63670205327 28 PAN Europe document, in draft, 2019. Available upon request. 29 PAN Europe, Alternative methods in weed management to the use of glyphosate and other herbicides, 2018, https://www.pan-europe.info/ sites/pan-europe.info/files/Report_Alternatives%20to%20Glyphosate_ July_2018.pdf
The Green Hub The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD Telephone: 01273 964230 Email: admin@pan-uk.org