For Official Use ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 19-May-2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________ English - Or. English ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE

JOINT MEETING OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND

THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

Working Group on Pesticides

THOUGHT STARTER ON HOW INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) CAN HELP FILL

MINOR USE GAPS

31st Meeting of the Working Group on Pesticides

30 June to 1 July 2016

OECD Conference Centre - 2 rue André Pascal, Paris, France

beginning at 10h00 on 30 June

Mr. Leon VAN DER WAL

Tel: +33 (0) 1 85 55 93 10; Email: leon.vanderwal@oecd.org

JT03396316

Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of

international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

EN

V/JM

/PE

ST

(20

16

)11

Fo

r Officia

l Use

En

glish

- Or. E

ng

lish

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

2

THOUGHT STARTER ON HOW INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) CAN HELP

FILL MINOR USE GAPS

As part of the 2013-2016 Work Programme, the Working Group on Pesticides (WGP) agreed to

promote the adoption and implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for pesticides. To that

end, the WGP's Expert Group on IPM included in their work programme an activity to review how IPM

tools and technologies can help fill the gaps in available crop protection products as regards minor uses.

The Secretariat subsequently requested a consultant to draft a thought starter paper on this issue with

the aim to critically evaluate the state of play for this topic, with particular emphasis on how OECD

activities can proceed, i.e. move forward from discussing possible concepts that governments have in place

regarding IPM and minor use gaps to concrete examples of how IPM tools and techniques address minor

use gaps. Input was requested from the chairs and members of the RRSG, EGIPM, EGMU and BPSG.

In December 2015, a first draft of this thought starter paper was presented at the RRSG meeting in

Brisbane, and the RRSG was requested to provide answers to the questions included within the document.

The RRSG was also asked to provide copies to the Secretariat of case studies in this area which could be

described/cited as real-world examples in the thought starter.

The draft thought starter was amended with the suggestions provided during the RRSG meeting and

circulated for additional commenting and the provision of the above mentioned case studies. Several

countries as well as IPM practitioners kindly provided case studies and additional information, which have

been included in the current thought starter.

The current thought starter provides the WGP with documentation regarding the current state of play

in OECD countries, drivers for success and obstacles with applying IPM tools and technologies to address

minor use gaps, recommendations, as well as case studies on how IPM was applied in minor use situations.

ACTION REQUIRED: The WGP is invited to:

(i) discuss the thought starter on how IPM tools and

technologies can help fill the gaps as regards minor uses;

(ii) comment on the proposed Recommendations for

Governments and OECD;

(iii) consider ways to make best use of the information available in

the thought starter; and

(iv) determine if the specific issue of applying IPM to address

minor use gaps warrants further activity by the WGP, and if

so, how should such an activity be structured and resourced.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

3

INTRODUCTION

1. Since 2007, OECD and its member countries have been working together to support regulatory

(and non-regulatory) approaches for ensuring that safe and effective pesticide products are available for the

plant protection needs in minor crops and/or against minor pests (minor uses). In parallel to this work,

OECD is carrying out a number of activities related to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) – a holistic and

sustainable approach to pest control emphasising the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible

disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms. The OECD has also had a

long-standing programme of work on biological pesticides. In the framework of OECD, biological

pesticides or bio-pesticides include microbial (bacteria, algae, protozoa, versus, fungi), pheromones and

semiochemicals, macro-organisms such as insects and nematodes, as well as plant extracts/botanicals. Bio-

pesticides are an important tool for IPM strategies and are also needed in minor use situations. To date,

while recognising linkages between the three areas (minor uses, bio-pesticides and IPM), OECD activities

in these areas have been carried out, in general, somewhat independently of each other.

2. It is the aim of this thought-starter paper to bring a new and broader perspective to the minor use

problem and potential solutions. This paper explores how IPM tools and technologies can be used to

address minor use gaps and what could be done to help growers to adopt IPM strategies. In particular, it

describes current government and OECD work related to addressing minor uses, work related to supporting

IPM (including bio-pesticides), as well as providing examples where IPM has been applied in the minor

use context. It also looks at some of the challenges and opportunities associated with applying IPM tools

and technologies to address minor use gaps. Based on this information, the paper concludes with

recommendations on how: governments can promote and develop policies in favour of IPM adoption and

to minimise any barriers to IPM implementation for minor uses, as well as how OECD can support such

work.

Minor Uses

3. Minor use is the need for, and use of, conventional chemical pesticide or bio-pesticide crop

protection product in situations where the use is relatively small scale. Typically these situations involve

high value speciality crops (minor crops) but can also involve the need for pesticides in areas of restricted

pesticide use, the need for pesticides to control emerging pests or diseases or outbreaks of minor pests and

diseases in major crops.

4. Ultimately minor use is where the cost of obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval is not an

economically viable proposition for the registrants of a crop protection product and broader efforts are

needed to ensure products, that have been assessed and approved, are available to growers to help them

manage pests/diseases.

5. The problem for minor uses is the gap (or gaps) in available crop protection products (per se).

Problems can also arise when pests and diseases develop resistance to registered products or access to

products is lost as a result of re-evaluation and de-registration processes. The consequences of the lack of

available products are:

lower productivity and quality of produce and loss in economic viability to grow those crops;

limited choice of available crop protection products, increased likelihood of the risk of resistance

and limited ability to focus on risk reduction; and

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

4

the potential for illegal use and consequent risks to the user, the consumer and the environment.

6. There is no one internationally accepted definition for minor use. Countries or regions may

define minor use either in terms of area or tonnage of production (i.e. based on economic return) and/or

dietary intake (i.e. based on risk assessment). Furthermore, a crop which is a minor crop in one region or

country may well be a major crop in another region or country due to differences in environmental and

climatic conditions and/or agricultural practices. The definition of minor use is important in the context of

harmonisation of approaches, work sharing and regulatory approvals of crop protection products (including

bio-pesticides) for minor uses.

7. The OECD has produced a guidance OECD Guidance document: Defining Minor Uses of

Pesticides. The purpose of the document is to provide countries with guidance on methods for defining

minor uses of pest control products at the local or regional level with the aim of enhancing consistency

between countries. The guideline serves to facilitate efforts to harmonise regulatory approaches and

incentives specifically aimed at enhancing efficient and effective regulatory approval of crop protection

products for minor use situations.

8. Countries and regions use a number of approaches to address the lack of registrations/approvals

of products for the control of pests/diseases in minor use situations. Minor use gaps are principally

addressed through:

regional and global sharing of information on minor uses;

regional and global coordination and cooperation on trials required for regulatory approval of

minor uses;

funding (or contribution to the funding) for trials required for regulatory approval of minor uses

by third parties; and

regulatory incentives to encourage minor uses registration/approvals.

9. Examples of regional and global sharing of information on minor uses include the European

Minor Use Database (EUMUDA; http://www.eumuda.eu), the Interregional Research Project No4 (IR-4

project http://ir4.rutgers.edu) program in the United States and the Global Minor Use Portal

(http://www.gmup.org).

10. Examples of regional and global coordination and cooperation on trials required for regulatory

approval of minor uses include the EU Minor Uses Coordination Facility (https://www.minoruses.eu/) as

well as the US IR-4 Project which includes collaborative research projects with Canada. In September

2015 the First Global Minor Use Priority Setting Workshop took place in the United States

(http://www.gmup.org/Workshop.html). The intention of this workshop was both to consider and agree on

global minor use priority needs as well as a global work-sharing approach for the assessment of the data.

One proposal put to the workshop is to set up a Global Minor Use Foundation linking regional capacity

building to global priorities including the pooling and use of resources.

11. The OECD Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management includes a program of

activities to develop tools to facilitate minor use registration/approvals led by the Expert Group on Minor

Uses (EGMU) http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/minoruses.htm. The focus of the

work is to facilitate international co-operation on minor use, to develop technical guidance and to minimise

barriers for the registration/approval of safe minor uses.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

5

12. The work of EGMU has largely been focused on technical issues to facilitate the registration and

approval of conventional crop protection products for minor use situations (see Appendix A). More

recently EGMU has carried out a survey on existing national and/or regional processes for addressing

minor use gaps as well as known data exchanges in OECD member countries. The survey consisted of two

parts. Part 1 deals with the collation of existing national and/or regional processes for minor use gaps. The

responses indicate that responding most countries have minor use programmes in place and there is some

level of co-operation on minor use issues with other countries. Part 2 of the survey deals with the collation

of known data exchanges between continents and for the EU countries, between the two/three zones. The

responses indicate that most responding countries have some level of data exchange with other countries

but that such exchange is hampered by differences in Good Agricultural Practices and environment and

climatic conditions, differences in product formulation and issues with ownership of data. A draft report

has been prepared and is currently being considered by EGMU.

13. Reduced risk chemistry and IPM and how bio-pesticides can help minor use issues have been

identified as potential areas for work for EGMU but have not yet been prioritised or progressed. The work

of EGMU has, to date, focussed on issues related to pesticide product approvals for minor use and not

considered other solutions (for example mechanical tools or cultural techniques). Establishing linkages to

the work of the OECD Expert Group on Integrated Pest Management (EG IPM - see below) would

facilitate a broader approach to addressing minor use needs (see Recommendations 1. and 2). Furthermore,

linkages, coordination and cooperation between EGMU, Bio-pesticides Steering Group (BPSG - see

below) and EG IPM would facilitate sharing of expertise and resources to achieve common goals (see

Recommendation 5.).

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

14. IPM is – a holistic and sustainable approach to pest control emphasising the growth of a healthy

crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.

15. IPM recognises that there is a range of tools and technologies that can support the production of

healthy crops including:

comprehensive knowledge of the life cycles of crops and of pests and diseases and their

interaction with the environment;

agricultural practices and technologies that aim to reduce pest/disease establishment,

reproduction, dispersal and survival (i.e. pest/disease preventative measures). Examples are

practices such as crop rotation, use of pest/disease-resistant varieties or pest/disease-free

rootstock, mechanical and physical controls to make the environment unsuitable for the

pest/disease, biological control methods (e.g. natural enemies of the pest/disease);

knowledge, tools and technologies for the identification and monitoring of pests and diseases as

well as the success of a particular pest management measure;

establishment of an ‘action threshold’ (the point at which pest and disease levels or environment

conditions indicate that preventative measures are no longer effective and pest/disease control is

required);

a range of available pest control methods including mechanical and physical controls, bio-

pesticides and conventional pesticides; and

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

6

the ability to evaluate and select the appropriate control method for effectiveness and risk (the

aim being to minimise harm).

16. International organisations and countries have developed their own specific definition of IPM,

however generally there is broad agreement on the general principles of IPM as set out above.

17. The OECD has incorporated IPM in its strategic objectives: OECD Work on Pesticides and

Sustainable Pest Management Vision for the Future (2014) (the Vision)

http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/OECD-Pest-Vision-Final.pdf. One of the six

strategic objectives for 2024 that forms part of the Vision is:

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) will become the accepted approach in all OECD member

countries. IPM will be based on OECD-wide harmonised principles, and non-chemical and biological

measures will play a greater role.

18. Core elements include:

A sustainable approach towards plant protection (with IPM considered the key strategy for the

sustainable use of pesticides); and

Reduction of risks arising from agricultural pesticides (where IPM will be promoted, leading to a

broader suite of control methods and lower risks to health and the environment).

19. The OECD first considered how IPM could help reduce the risks associated with pesticides used

in agriculture at a workshop in 1998. The report from the workshop identified actions that governments,

farmers, retailers, OECD and Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) could take

to promote IPM

(http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=env/jm/mono(

99)7).

20. A second OECD workshop on IPM was held in 2011 to examine the progress of implementation

and adoption of IPM since the 1998 report and to make recommendations to facility further progress. This

workshop found that the conceptual framework for IPM is now generally in place (in particular in OECD

countries) and that countries were now dealing with technical implementation issues relating to the

adoption of IPM

(http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2012)32&doclang

uage=en).

21. The OECD is currently carrying out a number of activities on IPM, following up on

recommendations from the 2011 workshop. It has established an EG IPM including experts on IPM from

OECD countries and international organisations such as FAO and the European Plant Protection

Organisation (EPPO). The EG IPM oversight a program of activities to promote and develop policies in

favour of IPM adoption, to develop indicators of IPM adoptions and impacts and to facilitate awareness

raising about IPM. One of these activities includes the development and oversight of an OECD IPM Hub

to facilitate information sharing and cooperation on IPM (http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/integrated-

pest-management/). There is potential to further develop the Hub to more specifically support minor use

needs. In order to meet the objective of the Hub (to facilitate exchange of information on IPM among

countries and stakeholders), the on-going development and maintenance of the Hub will need continued

commitment and support by governments, experts and the OECD (see Recommendation 7.).

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

7

22. Another activity is to identify general principles and elements of IPM with the aim of providing a

common understanding of IPM. This is a key piece of work (see Recommendation 8.) given that a common

understanding of the term IPM is considered to be important for policy development and impact

assessment processes (OECD (2016), Farm Management Practices to Foster Green Growth, OECD Green

Growth Studies, OECD publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10/1787/9789264238657-en).

23. A summary of outcomes of OECD current and planned activities to promote the adoption and

implementation of IPM led by the EG IPM is provided in Appendix B. The review of how IPM tools and

technologies can help fill gaps as regards minor uses is one of a number of activities that are intended to

promote the development of policies in favour of IPM adoption and implementation. The EG IPM work

plan identifies that this work should be coordinated with the work of other OECD groups, in particular

EGMU and the BPSG. As noted above, linkages between EGMU, BPSG and EG IPM would facilitate

sharing of expertise and resources to achieve common goals (see Recommendation 5.).

24. Bio-pesticides and biocontrol methods play an important role in IPM. These methods are

recognised to pose different and generally lower risks compared with conventional pesticides1.

25. Bio-pesticides and biocontrol methods can have a role in monitoring and prevention as well as

control of pests and diseases. Taking the example of codling moth (Cydia pomonella) as a pest of apples,

pest management programs may typically include:

pheromone and plant-derived (kairomone) lures/traps as a monitoring tool;

pheromones as a mating disruption tool;

Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV) as a microbial control method; and/or

entomopathogenic nematodes or trichogramma wasps as a macro-organism control method.

26. There is a wealth of information available about specific bio-pesticide and biocontrol methods for

pest management in crops from grower organisations (eg Apple and Pear Association in Australia

http://apal.org.au/supply-chain/orchards-farms/integrated-pest-management-ipm/), academic institutions

(eg http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html) and international organisations that describe

and provide information on biopesticide/bio-control methods as well as providing services (eg Plantwise

Knowledge Bank, Centre for Agricultural Biosciences International (CABI)

http://www.plantwise.org/KnowledgeBank/home.aspx; International Organisation for Biological and

Integrated Control (IOBC) - Integrated Production Guidelines http://www.iobc-

wprs.org/ip_ipm/IP_guidelines_crop_sprecific.html and the IOBC official journal BioControl

http://www.iobc-wprs.org/pub/index.html#biocontrol). The issue is however whether these methods and

pest management guidelines cover the minor use needs of growers. Here, governments can show

leadership by ensuring that minor use needs are embedded in research, development and implementation of

bio-pesticide control methods (see Recommendation 1.) supported by tools, methodologies and guidance

developed through OECD (see Recommendation 6).

27. It is recognised that bio-pesticides and biocontrol methods play a key role as pest control options

for minor uses. The IR-4 program for example, has programs both for prioritising research and data for

chemical pesticides as well as biological products. The focus of the IR-4 Bio-pesticide and Organic

Support Program (which commenced in 1982) is to further the development and registration of bio-

1 The topic of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is outside the scope of this paper

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

8

pesticides for use in speciality crops and minor uses in major crops

(http://ir4.rutgers.edu/biopesticides.html).

28. Traditionally the main focus for crop protection (including minor uses) has been in the

development and application of conventional chemicals, including new chemistry development as well as

generic products (once intellectual property rights have lapsed). However. the development of bio-

pesticides and other biocontrol methods is a rapidly growing area driven by pressure for safer and more

sustainable crop protection products as well as the desire of crop science/crop protection industry to

develop integrated crop management and protection solutions for growers (https://www.agra-

net.net/agra/agra-europe/policy-and-legislation/environment/analysis-global-biopesticide-regulations---

challenges-opportunities-and-future-prospects-477586.htm; see also report of the Annual Biocontrol

Industry Meeting (ABIM) 2015: http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/crop-protection/biocontrols-

still-show-promising-growth-

trend/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=specialsend+102120

15&omhide=true&eid=318733297&bid=1213491 and the presentation by IBMA (International Biocontrol

Manufacturers Association) to the RRSG/RSG Workshop on Sustainable Pest Management in Practice:

Anticipating and Adapting to Changes in the Regulatory landscape - 30 November-2 December 2015,

Brisbane Australia: Biological Control Methods, expected growth over the next 15 years and the key

factors impacting their adoption). The issue here is whether these developments also adequately cover the

minor use needs of growers. There is a role for both governments and OECD to ensure that minor use is

addressed as part of these developments (see Recommendations 1, 2. and 6.).

29. Bio-pesticides and biocontrol methods are regulated in different ways in different countries and

regions. For example microbial, pheromones and semiochemicals are often covered within conventional

pesticide legislation while macro-organisms may be regulated under other legislation, for example

quarantine and/or environmental legislation.

30. Emerging new technologies in particular present challenges in terms of how they are/should be

regulated. These include biocontrol methods involving biostimulants, plant strengtheners, soil conditions,

endophytes and RNA interference techniques (see IBMA presentation to RRSG/RSG 2015 workshop). It

should be noted also that the OECD is establishing a new area for work relating to novel technologies in

plant protection (e.g. RNA interference techniques). An Expert Group on Novel Technologies is currently

being established.

31. Countries and regions may operate mechanisms that provide incentives for the registration of bio-

pesticides and biocontrol methods usually in the context of these products being ‘reduced-risk or low-risk’.

These incentives may include data waivers, fee reductions, simplified registration processes and/or

increased timeframe for re-registration/review. Such incentives are important to promote the

development/registration of bio-pesticides and providing safer, alternative crop protection products that

can be used in an IPM strategy and particularly also in minor use situations.

32. The OECD programme on bio-pesticides is led by the BPSG2. The focus of the work is to help

countries share information and working together to harmonise methods and approaches used to assess bio-

pesticides. The work covers reviewing regulatory requirements, developing guidance for the submission

and evaluation of bio-pesticides, issues papers and holding regular seminars and workshops on key issues

of concern to OECD governments and other stakeholders.

33. A summary of outcomes OECD work to date and the current and planned activities to further

facilitate bio-pesticide registrations (led by BPSG) is provided in Appendix C. Case studies described later

2 Issues associated with GMOs is outside the scope of the BPSG.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

9

in this thought-starter paper illustrate how bio-pesticides can help fill minor use gaps in the context of their

role as an IPM tool3.

34. Bio-pesticides and biocontrol methods play an important role but are not the only tool and

technology for IPM and/or minor uses. As outlined above, IPM strategies include a broad range of tools

and technologies including agricultural practices such as crop rotation, use of pest/disease-resistant variety

or rootstock, optimising growing conditions to prevent and suppress pest and disease development, new

intensive monitoring methods and decision support tools, mechanical and physical controls and application

by precision technology. While the OECD Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management

facilitates work on pesticide application technology in the area of spray drift it has to date not considered

IPM tools other than bio-pesticides and conventional pesticide control methods.

35. The OECD Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management should pursue further

work on IPM tools (in addition to bio-pesticides and conventional pesticides) while considering the needs

associated with minor uses.

Examples of how IPM is applied to address minor use gaps

36. This section outlines some examples of countries/regions and global organisations that have

embedded IPM in their policy frameworks including minor uses and provides some case studies of how

IPM tools and technologies have been used to address minor use needs.

37. IPM policies are embedded in national and/or state/provincial agricultural policy frameworks

(including minor use programmes) in many countries. International organisations such as the FAO promote

IPM as the preferred approach to crop protection (including minor use programmes) and industry

organisations such as CropLife International are committed to promoting IPM as part of their stewardship

programmes. Academic and state/provincial institutions as well as grower organisations typically develop

and provide IPM advice and strategies for the growers in their region. The question is how these IPM

policies play out in minor use situations. This paper recommends that minor use should be an integral part

of IPM policies (see Recommendation 1.).

Governments

38. The European Union (EU) has mandated implementation of the general principles of IPM

through Directive 2009/128/EC which sets out a legal framework for Member States for the sustainable use

of pesticides. An European Research Area Network (ERA NET) “Coordinated IPM in Europe” (C-IPM)

was launched in 2014 to coordinate IPM research and development priorities across Europe including

coordinating joint transnational research calls. In the C-IPM both major and minor crops are addressed and

one work area is specifically focussed on the mapping and analysis of minor uses problems and possible

IPM solutions (Work package 3) http://c-ipm.org/what-is-c-ipm/wp3-mapping-and-analysis-of-minor-use-

problems-and-possible-ipm-solutions/. The first C-IPM call for collaborative research projects occurred in

2015 with “minor uses” being one of three topics. http://c-ipm.org/fileadmin/c-

ipm.org/Call_documents/Amendment_ANNOUNCEMENT_FINAL_100605.pdf.

39. An EU Minor Uses Co-ordination Facility which is responsible for coordinating and support

minor use work among EU member states was established in 2015. The Facility has embedded IPM into its

mission: to enable famers in the EU to produce high quality crops by filling minor uses gaps through

efficient collaboration to improve availability of chemical and non-chemicals tools within an integrated

3 Encouraging access to bio-pesticides is a separate and complementary activity for the EG IPM - see

Appendix B

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

10

pest management (IPM) framework’(https://www.minoruses.eu/). The Facility will have a strong link with

the ERA NET C-IPM. It is important that the OECD Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest

Management should, where possible, link into and align with the work of the ERA ET C-IPM and the EU

Minor Use Coordination facility (see Recommendation 9).

40. Both the C-IPM and the EU Minor Uses Co-ordination Facility are in their initial stages of work

so it will take some time to understand the success or otherwise of addressing minor use gaps in the context

of IPM.

41. In the US the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act provides the framework for the

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to work with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)

to ‘develop approaches to the control of pests based on integrated pest management that respond to the

needs of producers, with special emphasis on minor pests’ (Sec 28(c)). The Department of Agriculture

coordinates activities relating to minor use including ‘supporting integrated pest management research’

(Sec 32(a)(2)). A case study from the US is included here with further information provided in Appendix

E.

42. The work of Canada’s Minor Use Pesticides Program (a joint initiative between Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)) has a

particular emphasis on reduced-risk (chemical as well as non-chemical) products

(http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1286197216280). The Pesticide Risk Reduction Program, another joint

initiative between AAFC and PMRA provides a framework for the development and implementation of

alternative pest management approaches, practices and technologies (including bio-pesticides)

(http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1288277891464). Examples of the application of IPM tools and

CASE STUDY from the Netherlands (Appendix D):

In the Netherlands an Expert Centre for Speciality Crops (ECSC) was established in 2010 as a

knowledge network focussed on speciality crops and minor uses. The main role for ECSC is to

facilitate processes that support speciality crops including tools and technologies required to enable

their production to be viable not only in the Netherlands but also more widely in Europe (see Appendix

D and also www.specialitycrops.eu). When seeking to fill minor use gaps, ECSC relies on its multi-

disciplinary network to look at a broad range of tools and to focus on addressing minor use gaps in an

IPM context.

CASE STUDIES FROM THE US (Appendix E):

The key pests in fresh-cut rose production systems include the two spotted spider mite, western

flower thrip and powdery mildew. Heavy use of pesticides has also led to the development of

resistance and worker safety concerns. New re-entry intervals for existing products also limited that

number of pesticides available for use. An IPM strategy was developed through a partnership of

researchers, advisors, growers, industry and government and included government funding. The

strategy was successful for the control of mites but further work was needed to address secondary pests

and powdery mildew (adaptation of a predictive model used in grape production was of limited use).

The cost of IPM methods for mite control was initially higher than the cost of the use of conventional

pesticides, but once established, costs were comparable. (https://ucanr.edu/repositoryfiles/ca6102p71-

69402.pdf).

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

11

technologies to address minor use needs are provided below and in Appendix F.

43. The Australian Government supports research into more effective methods of pest control,

including combinations of existing techniques and non-chemical control techniques (where there is no

commercial imperative to drive research). It invests in strategic research into weed and pest animal

management through rural research and development other research organisations, as well as grant funding

for strategically targeted on-ground action. However the development of new pesticides is considered a

CASE STUDIES FROM CANADA (Appendix F):

1. Leek moth is an invasive alien species limiting yield in allium crops. The Pesticide Risk

Reduction Program of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Pest Management Centre

supported several projects toward the development of an IPM strategy to address the emerging

pest issue. Minor use gap for control products was identified at the Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada Minor Use Pesticide Priority-Setting Workshop. A multi-faceted integrated approach

including a pheromone monitoring system, physical barriers, introduction of a parasitoid and

registration of a bio-pesticide and registration of an insecticide was developed.

2. Potential loss of conventional pesticides due to regulatory re-evaluation and resistance to

existing registered products limit management options for cabbage maggot in brassica

vegetable crops. The need for options to address this minor use was identified in the Pest

Management Regulatory Agency’s Diazinon Transition Strategy and at the Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada Minor Use Pesticide Priority-Setting Workshop. A reduced-risk strategy

and strategy action plan was developed under the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program in

consultation with stakeholders (http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1301498388181) and includes

establishing a knowledge case on management approaches, developing physical barriers for

cabbage maggot management, developing rutabaga lines resistant to cabbage maggot and

evaluating potential for bio-pesticides as cabbage maggot management options. To date

exclusion fence and row cover techniques have been developed and rutabaga cultivars for

resistance to cabbage maggot have been field tested.

3. The lack of a variety of alternative controls options to control sclerotinia rot in carrots and the

desire to minimise the the need for using pesticides to control this pest led to the development

of a reduced-risk strategy and strategy action plan under the Pesticide Risk Reduction Program

(http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/?id=1309379944976). The goals include filling technology gaps

with reduced risk control solutions (registration of products including bio-pesticides, reducing

pesticide use through better decision making and transfer of technology to facilitate adoption

of reduced risk practices). Minor use gaps were identified at the Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada Minor Use Pesticide Priority-Setting Workshop. The IPM strategy included

mechanical trimming of carrot foliage achieving regulatory approval for a bio-pesticide and

two fungicides.

4. Concerns regarding the products available to growers to control onion maggot in onions, the

need for a diverse set of solutions to reduce the potential for resistance development and the

lack of approaches and products suitable for the organic vegetable sector were a driving force

for finding alternate solutions. Minor use gaps were also identified was identified in the Pest

Management Regulatory Agency’s Diazinon Transition Strategy and at the Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada Minor Use Pesticide Priority-Setting Workshop. Efficacy of release of

sterile males of the onion maggot flies was demonstrated on a large scale and contributed to

IPM management of this crop/pest issue.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

12

commercial activity that is generally not financially supported by the Australian Government. A case study

from Australia is provided below with further information in Appendix G.

44. In Japan implementation of IPM is promoted both at the prefectural and national government

level (see plenary presentation by Japan to the OECD IPM workshop in 2011 (Issue1: Technology and

Information)

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2012)32&doclang

uage=en). Checklists for IPM practices are developed and promoted by prefectural governments. The

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries may provide funding for research, development and

promotion of IPM technologies. Case studies from Japan are summarised below with further details

provided in Appendix H.

CASE STUDY FROM AUSTRALIA (Appendix G):

Increased pest pressure (Rutherglen Bug and Western Flower Thrip), reliance on old pesticides,

development of resistance and detection of unacceptable residues in strawberries (and potential for

compliance, market and consumer issues) were the driving force for developing an effective IPM

strategy. The strategy was developed through the cooperation and support of the strawberry industry,

industry bodies (including financial support) and other stakeholders, the engagement of IPM experts

and engagement at state government level.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

13

CASE STUDIES FROM JAPAN (Appendix H):

1. The limited number of registered products available to control a range of pests and diseases that occur

in greenhouse production of asparagus is a problem. In addition, the prefectural government requires

farmers to reduce pesticide and fertiliser use. An IPM strategy and tools are being developed and

tested with training and promotion provided through the prefectural government. Effective techniques

have been developed for leaf spot, thrips, Lepidoptera and stem necrosis. Further research is needed

in order to be able to control the full range of pests and diseases including phytophthora rot and spider

mites. Cooperation among farmers and regional experts to implement and effectively use the IPM

strategies was found to be important.

2. There are only a limited number of pesticides registered for use on Wasabi and in particular for the

control of caterpillars. It is difficult to get products registered due to concerns over environmental

contamination. The prefectural government actively promotes the use of IPM to achieve Wasabi

productivity with minimal environmental impact. The driving force for IPM implementation was

registration of BT bio-pesticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) which was found to be as effective as

chemical pesticides with no adverse environmental effects. Timing of application is key to ensure

efficacy. Advisors play a key role in communicating how Bt should be used to achieve maximum

efficacy.

3. Prevention of powdery mildew in strawberries grown in greenhouses was becoming increasing

difficult due to the development of resistance to existing pesticides. The prefectural government

actively promotes the use of IPM recognising that pests and diseases are a problem in greenhouse

strawberry production and that, at the same time, consumers were looking for less use of pesticides.

Through financial support from the national government, prefectural government support and the

support of a manufacturer, a UV-B light mechanical device was developed. Farmers can now control

powdery mildew using the device together with application of pesticides. Pesticide use was reduced

and the quality of the fruit was increased. Early models of the device were expensive but

improvements have now reduced the cost. This case study noted that it is important to have

cooperation across a broad range of disciplines including private enterprise.

4. Spider mites are a serious problem in the production of Myoga (a traditional Japanese spice/herb).

There are only limited number of pesticides registered for their control and resistance can be a

problem. In addition the prefectural government is promoting environmental-friendly agriculture

including the use of natural predators. The driver was to develop a pest control system including

pesticides compatible with the use of natural predators during cultivation. Financial support from the

prefectural and the national government enabled trials to be conducted to support registration of IPM-

compatible pesticides. Spider mites are now controlled more effectively through the use of IPM

strategies. However commercially available natural predators are expensive and assessment of their

pest control effect was found to be difficult. Problems were also encountered with secondary pests

which otherwise would have been controlled through broad spectrum pesticide application. More

work is also needed to develop forecasting models.

5. The control pests and diseases and lack of available pesticides to support cultivation of tea was a

problem. Public concerns over the safety of pesticides, the need to meet MRL requirements in

importing countries as well as local government policy for environmentally friendly agriculture were

the drivers for the introduction of IPM. Factors for success included the introduction of disease-

resistant varieties, the use of mechanical tools and farmers sharing information about the effectiveness

of IPM tools. Obstacles included the need to establish different tea production and distribution

systems corresponding to MRL requirements of the different importing countries though this then

provided new opportunities to export to countries that had set lower MTLs than those in Japan. The

introduction of IPM raised the value of tea produced in the region.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

14

International organisations

45. The FAO promotes IPM as the preferred approach to crop protection and is the basis for its

activities involving crop production and protection internationally (including minor uses).

(http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/ipm/en/).

Industry programmes

46. The plant science/crop protection industry represented by CropLife International are committed

to promoting IPM. They can provide a range of tools, technologies, services (including training programs

for farmers) and crop protection products that can be incorporated into IPM strategies

(https://croplife.org/crop-protection/stewardship/integrated-pest-management/).

Other programmes

47. Many academic, state/provincial institutions and grower organisations provide advice on, and

have developed strategies for, IPM. For example the University of California Agriculture & Natural

Resources Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program provides information on IPM programmes for a

comprehensive list of crops including crops that are considered to be ‘minor crops’ in many countries or

regions (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html).

Global Minor Use summit

48. Two global minor use summits have been held (2007 and 2012). The summits have been co-

organised by FAO, USDA, US EPA, Canadian Pest Management Centre and IR-4 to provide a forum for

the exchange of information and to identify both technical and policy challenges and opportunities in the

area of minor use.

49. The second summit held in 2012 recognised “providing highly effective integrated pests

management solutions to growers is often more important, than relying solely on chemical pest control

solutions. Such solutions should be based on integrated pest management (IPM) approaches built on the

careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate

measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides another interventions to

level that are economically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment.’

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/agns/news_events/2_final_report_GMUS_12-08-05.pdf. The

First Global Minor Use Priority Setting Workshop took place in the United States in September

(http://www.gmup.org/Workshop.html). The workshop developed a list of priorities but at this stage it is

not clear whether further work on potential pest/crop solutions for the identified priorities will be

considered in an IPM context.

Drivers, factors for success and obstacles with applying IPM tools and technologies to address minor

use gaps

50. The case studies described provide some insight into the drivers for IPM solutions, factors for

success and obstacles with applying IPM tools and technologies to address minor use gaps. These insights

are further supported information provided in interviews with three IPM practitioners in Australia (a

grower, a bio-pesticide supplier and IPM technical expert and strategist) - see Appendix G.

51. The key drivers for the adoption of IPM solutions for minor use gaps identified in the case studies

were:

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

15

issues related to reliance on conventional pesticides (limited number of products available,

resistance to registered products, loss of products/uses as a result of re-evaluation/de-registration

processes, residue violations, residue limits for produce to be exported);

supported by (in some, but not all, cases)

government policies and initiatives (risk/pesticide use reduction, economic and environmentally

sustainable agriculture and horticulture) and/or consumer expectations.

52. Interviews with IPM practitioners (Australia) identified resistance, market requirements (residue

testing) and the drive for smarter use of resources as well as public health, occupational health and safety

and environmental concerns as key drivers.

53. The key factors for success identified in the minor use case studies were described as:

engagement, cooperation and collaboration across all sectors (growers, growers associations,

industry, competent authorities, research and government);

availability of registered bio-pesticides;

demonstrated effectiveness and promotion of success to others;

IPM adoption over wide area/most growers; and

incentives/support for IPM including financial support.

54. Interviews with IPM practitioners (Australia) identified access to advice and information,

growing conditions conducive to IPM, collaborative and participatory approach with farmers, providing

site-specific advice and grower committed as key factors for success.

55. Facilitating and supporting engagement, cooperation, participation and collaboration between

growers, industry, research and government is an important factor for success (see Recommendation 3.)

56. The key obstacles in the minor use case studies were described as:

multiple solutions/tools are needed and cost of implementing tools;

limited number of IPM compatible products are available;

Understanding the minor use problems growers are trying to address

The minor use problems growers are trying to address are their limited pest management options

exacerbated by development of resistance to pesticides, loss of pesticide products as a result of re-

evaluation and de-registration processes, residue violations leading to loss in consumer and market

confidence and limited options to address emerging pest/disease issues. The key issue for growers is to

be able to produce a high yielding, marketable crop.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

16

it is resource intensive to identify and prioritise needs;

regulatory approval requirements;

lack of information/knowledge of crop/pest biology/ecology;

conditions required for success; may not work as well under high pest pressure;

not all growers are willing to adopt IPM approaches.

57. Interviews with IPM practitioners (Australia) identified obstacles as: lack of knowledge and tools

to properly identify and monitor pests, lack of people with necessary skills to help growers adopt IPM,

difficulty in access to biological control agents and inadequate infrastructure to facilitate supply, difficulty

in getting bio-pesticides registered, consumer/market drivers for blemish/pest free food disadvantaging

growers that use IPM, and that pesticides are a readily available and simple form of insurance for growers.

58. Regulatory requirements are a common issue. It is therefore important that legislative and

regulatory settings support the development and implementation of innovative tools and technology (see

Recommendation 4.)

59. The key learnings in the case studies were:

that it possible to address a minor use issue and/or facilitate change using IPM tools and

technologies;

cooperation between growers and experts and demonstration and promotion of effective IPM

strategies is important; and

cultural techniques/conditions required for successful implementation including how to deal with

secondary pests.

60. Interviews with IPM practitioners (Australia) identified key learnings as growers have to have the

right tools and good understanding of the crop/pest/disease relationships, to keep an IPM strategy as simple

as a conventional pesticide spray programme, growers need to be prepared to put in extra effort and time,

growers need to be prepared to sacrifice crop yield in order to sustain successful IPM practices (at least in

the transitionary period) and that consumer attitude is important. In this respect consumer communication

and awareness of IPM is considered key.

61. Interviews with IPM practitioners (Australia) also discussed other aspects that they feel need to

be addressed in order to encourage the adoption of IPM tools and technologies. These aspects included:

What are the gaps and barriers that prevent adoption of IPM tools and technologies?

The barriers that prevent adoption of IPM tools and technologies are the limited number of tools

and lack of information and knowledge to help growers implement IPM. Traditionally the main focus

for crop protection has been the development of conventional chemicals; IPM is seen as complex and

generally growers see access to chemicals as the solution to minor use problems. Other gaps include

flexibility in legislative frameworks and regulatory processes to facilitate the registration of biological

control agents and IPM-compatible pesticide products.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

17

the need to address the culture amongst growers - conventional pesticides are the first point of

call;

the need to educate growers and their families;

acknowledging that growers have commercial imperatives;

helping growers to adopt IPM principles including demonstration trials;

that there is a difference between IPM awareness and the steps needed to implement a change to

a different method of pest management; and

consumer and market attitude currently do not support IPM practices.

62. Much of the literature on IPM tools and technologies and government and non-government

policies and programmes supporting and promoting IPM strategies focusses on all aspects of crop

protection (major crops and speciality (minor) crops) as well as pest control in non-crop situations. There is

little information on whether the drivers for IPM solutions are different for minor crops and minor uses

when compared to major crops per se.

63. Several examples from the literature would suggest that at least two drivers for IPM solutions in

major crops are similar to those identified in the minor use case studies summarised above and presented in

Appendix D-H. Thus pesticide resistance problems and environmental concerns are reported as key

drivers for IPM implementation in the cotton industry in Australia (see plenary presentation by Australia to

the OECD IPM workshop in 2011 (Issue1: Technology and Information)

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2012)32&doclang

uage=en). A desire to reduce pesticide use and concerns about the environment are cited as reasons for

broad acre farmers moving to IPM strategies in several other published case studies from Australia (Jessica

Page and Paul Horne (2012) Controlling Invertebrate Pests in Agriculture, Chapter 8 Examples of

Changing Pest Management - Specific Crops. CSRIO Publishing.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6734.htm).

64. Examples for major crops from the publications above, noted that there were economic

drivers/cost benefits for IPM solutions from the growers perspective (one of these case studies notes that

the annual cost of the IPM program for that particular farming enterprise is one-fifth of the annual cost of

applying insecticides). Economic drivers and costs benefits are not as readily apparent for minor use

situations. Several minor use case studies provided above (US, Canada and Japan) noted that the cost of

implementing IPM tools and technologies is high, at least initially and, once implemented can be

comparable to a conventional pesticide spray programme.

What should be done to help growers take better IPM measures?

A broader approach should be taken to managing crop production and the options available to

manage the risks of loss of productivity and marketability through pests and diseases. Research and

development and implementation of IPM tools and technologies should be be done through a

coordinated, participatory and cooperative approach across all sectors of research and development,

education and awareness and implementation.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

18

65. The recently established ERA NET C-IPM and the New EU Minor Uses Co-ordination Facility

illustrate that it has been recognised that, in order to meet a broader policy objective for the sustainable use

of pesticides, a specific and co-ordinated effort to promote and implement IPM for minor use situations is

needed.

Challenges and opportunities

66. IPM tools and technologies include specific agricultural practices (crop rotation, use of

pest/disease-resistant variety or rootstock), mechanical means to prevent or control pests/disease, and using

natural enemies of the pest/disease (macro-organisms). Other tools are required to assist growers to

identify and monitor pests and diseases and to enable them to make decisions about using crop protection

products. Availability of registered bio-pesticides and/or conventional pesticides is also an important

component of an IPM ‘tool kit’.

67. There are two aspects regarding the use of IPM tools and technologies:

availability, innovation, research and development of IPM tools; and

infrastructure to support implementation/adoption of IPM tools and a change in culture in

agriculture and horticulture.

68. These aspects are relevant to both major use and minor use situations.

69. The priority focus in dealing with the lack of available crop protection products for minor use

situations in the past decades has been on gaining registration/approval of pesticide products (to a lesser

extent bio-pesticides) for such situations. There as a cultural aspects to this, with growers and grower

organisations (and hence research) focusing on access to conventional pesticides as their first priority and

primary insurance for crop protection.

70. The 2012 Global Minor Use Summit recognised that “there are specific barriers and difficulties

associated with minor use pesticides that need to be addressed within the context of effective and

sustainable mechanisms for the provisions of pest management solutions for the life cycle management of

pesticides.” Furthermore the Summit agreed “that effective and sustainable crop protection does not

depend solely on chemical pesticides but should be built on ecologically based IPM where pesticide use

and other interventions are set to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risk to

human health and the environment.”

71. There are both challenges and opportunities in considering how IPM tools and technologies

(including bio-pesticides) can help fill minor use gaps and “effective and sustainable crop protection”

“built on ecologically based IPM”.

72. The challenges include:

minor use programmes are focussed on registration/approval of crop protection products

the availability of IPM tools and technologies for minor use situations - multiple solutions/tools

are needed and regulatory requirements are an obstacle;

demonstrating effectiveness and cost benefit of using IPM tools and technologies in minor use

situations to growers is important;

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

19

how to address barriers to the implementation of IPM tools and technologies including

willingness to change practices, training and advice, marketing standards, consumer

communication and awareness.

73. While not specifically addressed in the context of minor uses some of these challenges were

discussed at the 2011 OECD IPM workshop. Thus the workshop identified:

the need for research and development of tools in particular in the area of identification and

monitoring of pests and diseases, forecasting models and decisions support systems;

the need to show that IPM production is feasible and can provide benefits;

there is a wealth of information related to IPM but limited technology transfer across regions; and

adoption of IPM requires training of growers and advisors as well as knowledge transfer from

researchers to growers and advisors; there is a need to engage with the food industry on the issue

of industry-based marketing standards - such standards should not be a barrier to reduced

risk/IPM strategies; and that it is important to inform consumers about IPM-based food

production as it can help to create market demand for sustainable food.

74. Many of these issues are being addressed with projects and activities identified in the EG IPM

work Plan (See Appendix B). As these issues apply equally to minor use situations as they do to major

crops, it is important that EG IPM projects and activities should look at both major crop and minor use

needs.

75. The opportunities include:

policy frameworks for IPM exist in many countries and some national and regional initiatives are

seeking to address minor use needs within an IPM framework;

there is a wealth of information available on IPM - education, training and on-site support is

important;

national, regional and international efforts to facilitate enhanced access to bio-pesticides - more

work may need to be done to ensure that regulatory frameworks don’t act as barriers to

innovation;

development of bio-pesticides/bio-control methods is a growing area.

76. These opportunities are a sound basis to begin to drive a cultural change towards taking a broader

approach to minor use problems and addressing them with a ‘tool kit’ of sustainable solutions and

ultimately to help growers adopt IPM strategies. This is important, as new emerging challenges for

agriculture and horticulture include climate change affecting the distribution and abundance of pests and

diseases and increased potential for biosecurity risks as a result of the increased globalisation of trade and

tourism.

77. There are opportunities here to link into and avoid duplication of the work of ERA-NET C-IPM

and EU Minor Use Coordination Facility on IPM solutions to address minor use needs and improving

availability of chemical and non-chemical tools for minor uses within an IPM framework. Furthermore the

OECD IPMHub is an important resource for information sharing also for minor uses and there is the

potential to continue to develop IPMHub to support minor use needs.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

20

78. As regards bio-pesticides, the OECD BPSG has a comprehensive work plan aimed at facilitating

registration of bio-pesticides. Linkages, co-ordination and cooperation among the OECD groups EGMU,

BPSG, EG IPM have already been identified and could be strengthened.

79. It would also be worthwhile to engage more broadly with the plant science/crop protection and

other industries that are developing plant crop protection tools and management plans that include both

chemical and non-chemical solutions.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

21

Recommendations

80. The OECD and its member countries have agreed that “A holistic approach to plant protection

will be taken and issues will be reviewed from the sustainability point of view rather than looking at one

chemical at a time.”, that “Integrated Pest Management will be considered the key strategy for the

sustainable use of pesticides.” that “Farmers will have better access to the tools necessary for plant

protection, in particular integrated pest management, in agriculture, horticulture and forestry.” and that

“Research on and registration of lower risk chemicals and bio-pesticides as well as research on other non-

chemical alternatives will be fostered and facilitated”.

81. This approach serves as a good basis to refocus efforts to develop solutions to address gaps in

minor use situations and to help growers to adopt IPM strategies. Using IPM as a key strategy for the

sustainable use of pesticides requires broader and more holistic consideration of minor use needs, priorities

and research funding across multiple levels including science, technology, education and training,

marketing and consumers information.

For governments

82. In addressing gaps as regards minor uses governments should take into account the OECD

Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management strategic objective for 2024: Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) will become the accepted approach in all OECD member countries. IPM will be based

on OECD-wide harmonised principles, and non-chemical and biological control measures will play a

greater role. They should do this by:

Recommendation 1.

83. Specifically incorporating minor use needs as part of their research, development and

implementation initiatives and programs for IPM.

Recommendation 2.

84. Taking a broad approach to minor use needs including a range of IPM tools and technologies*

when:

coordinating, cooperating and sharing information on minor uses;

identifying minor use gaps;

prioritising research and funding to address minor use gaps; and

implementing outcomes from the research and regulatory approvals.

Recommendation 3.

85. Facilitating and supporting engagement, cooperation, participation and collaboration across all

sectors (growers, growers associations, industry, competent authorities, research and government).

Recommendation 4.

86. Re-examining the legislative and regulatory settings to ensure they support efficient and effective

regulatory approval of all (including new and innovative) IPM tools and technologies. Tools and

technologies include:

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

22

precision farming and other computer-aided technologies,

plant breeding, pest and disease monitoring tools and crop protection decision support tools,

training and extension services,

research and development in biocontrol and bio-pesticide control methods as well as data to

research and approval of conventional chemicals.

For OECD

87. The strategic objectives for minor uses will be supported by current activities within the OECD

Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management work programme and by incorporating a new

focus for this work:

Recommendation 5.

88. Strengthening linkages, co-ordination and cooperation among OECD groups, in particular

EGMU, BPSG, EG IPM, for example, through annual cross-discipline workshops and alignment of

priorities and activities.

Recommendation 6.

89. Developing tools, methodologies and guidance to support Recommendations 1. - 4.

Recommendation 7.

90. Supporting on-going development of the OECD IPMHub and its maintenance in partnership with

governments and experts.

Recommendation 8.

91. Developing OECD-wide harmonised principles for IPM.

Recommendation 9.

92. Facilitating linkages, co-ordination and cooperation with ERA-NET C-IPM and EU Minor Use

Coordination Facility.

93. The OECD Programme on Pesticides and Sustainable Pest Management can serve as a platform

to facilitate a priority focus on IPM adoption and implementation (including bio-pesticide/biocontrol

methods) in minor use situations. It can play a key role in bringing together the knowledge and experience

on IPM (though the EG IPM), on bio-pesticides (though the BPSG) and on minor uses (though the EGMU)

to develop a broad and cooperative global approach. The outcome would serve both the purpose of risk

reduction as well as supporting growers to produce and market quality food that can be produced

sustainable (green growth).

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

23

APPENDIX A.

A summary of outcomes of OECD work to date and the current and planned activities to further

facilitate minor use registrations (led by EGMU)

The OECD work on minor uses completed by EGMU and published on the OECD website include

the following:

OECD Guidance document: Defining Minor Uses of Pesticides [ENV/JM/MONO(2009)39]

OECD Survey on Efficacy & Crop Safety Data Requirements & Guidelines for the Registration of

Pesticide Minor Uses: Survey Results [ENV/JM/MONO(2011)13]

OECD Survey on Regulatory Incentives for the Registration of Pesticide Minor Uses: Survey Results

[ENV/JM/MONO(2011)14]

Guidance Document on Regulatory Incentives for the Registration of Pesticide Minor Uses

[ENV/JM/MONO(2011)16]

The Pesticides: 2013-2016 Work Programme includes the following current and planned activities to

further facilitate minor use registrations:

Develop a Guidance Document to address and solve problems related to minor uses

Develop a Guidance Document on the exchange and use of international efficacy & crop safety

data for minor uses

Develop and maintain ways to organise information including recent minor use approval, minor

use needs (gaps) and current projects

Develop principles for data extrapolation, minimum at a, crop grouping (including representative

crops) and of international data including zoning, and recognising authorisations

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

24

APPENDIX B.

Summary of outcomes of OECD work to date and the current and planned activities to promote the

adoption and implementation of IPM (led by EG IPM)

The OECD work on minor uses completed by EGIPM and published on the OECD website include

the following:

Development of IPMHub

The Pesticides: 2013-2016 Work Programme includes the following current and planned activities to

promote the adoption and implementation of IPM:

Facilitate coordination and information exchange

develop a platform for information sharing, dialogue and cooperation, including all

stakeholders: the structure (e.g. website, clearinghouse, etc), functioning and content of such

a system would need to be defined.

Promote the development of policies in favour of IPM adoption and implementation, possibly

applying lessons learned from other sectors, by:

encouraging enhanced access to bio-pesticides/low risk selective pesticides

considering developing guidance on the evaluation of broad ecological impact of pesticides

on a agricultural production systems (possibly as part of the registration process)

reviewing how IPM tools and technologies can help fill gaps as regards minor uses

considering exploring the requirements of countries (trade barriers), in an effort to identify

and possibly remove unnecessary/unjustifiable requirements that could have a negative

impact on the implementation of IPM

Develop indicators to measure:

IPM adoption and implementation

impacts (performance) of IPM

Facilitate awareness raising about IPM (in order to facilitate understanding of IPM by pubic and

food chain operators, including understanding of certification/branding schemes) by e.g.:

developing guidance on certification, labelling or branding of IPM-based crop production

facilitating meaningful, science-based dialogue regarding the setting of food standards

identifying the most effective way of communicating IPM to consumers

Explore the contribution of IPM in green growth

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

25

APPENDIX C.

Summary of outcomes of OECD work to date and the current and planned activities to further

facilitate bio-pesticide registrations (led by BPSG)

The OECD work on bio-pesticides completed by BPSG and published on the OECD website

(http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/pesticides-biocides/publications-on-biopesticides.htm) include the

following:

OECD Guidance for Industry Data Submissions for Microbial Pest Control Products and their Microbial

Pest Control Agents and OECD Guidance for Country Data Review Reports on Microbial Pest

Control Products and their Microbial Pest Control Agents (http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/pesticides-

biocides/formats-and-guidance-for-biopesticide-data-and-reviews.htm)

Guidance for Information Requirements for Regulation of Invertebrates as Biological Control Agents

(IBCAs) [ENV/JM/MONO(2004)1]

Guidance for Registration Requirements for Microbial Pesticides [ENV/JM/MONO(2003)5]

OECD Guidance for Country Data Review Reports for Pheromones and other Semiochemicals and their

Active Substances and OECD Guidance for Industry Data Submissions for Pheromones and Other

Semiochemicals and their Active Substances (http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/pesticides-

biocides/oecdguidancedocumentsforpesticideregistration.htm)

Guidance for Registration Requirements for Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals Used for Arthropod

Pest Control [ENV/JM/MONO(2001)12]

OECD Working Document on the Evaluation of Microbials for Pest Control [ENV/JM/MONO(2008)36]

OECD Issue Paper on Microbial Contaminant Limits for Microbial Pest Control Products

[ENV/JM/MONO(2011)43]

OECD Guidance to the Environmental Safety Evaluation of Microbial Biocontrol Agents

[ENV/JM/MONO(2012)1]

Guidance Document: Outline on Pre-Submission Consultations For Microbial Pest Control Products

[ENV/JM/MONO(2016)4] Seminar Series:

6th OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on Hazard and Risk Assessment of Secondary

Metabolites Produced by Microbial Pesticides (May 2015 - publication pending declassification)

Report of the 5th OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on Application Techniques for Microbial

Pest Control Products and Semiochemicals: Use Scenarios and Associated Risks

[ENV/JM/MONO(2015)38]

Report of the 4th OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on Trichoderma sep. for the use in Plant

Protection Products: Similarities and Differences [ENV/JM/MONO(2013)25]

Report on the 3rd OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on Characterisation and Analyses of

Botanicals for the Use in Plant Protection Products [ENV/JM/MONO(2012)36]

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

26

Report of the 2nd OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on the Fate in the Environment of

Microbial Control Agents and their Effects on Non-target Organisms [ENV/JM/MONO(2011)42]

Report of the 1st OECD BioPesticide Steering Group Seminar on Identity and Characterisation of Micro-

Organisms [ENV/JM/MONO(2010)43]

Workshops:

OECD/KEML/EU Workshop on Microbial Pesticides: Assessment and Management of Risks

[ENV/JM/MONO(2014)2]

Workshop on the Regulation of Biopesticides: Registration and Communication Issues

[ENV/JM/MONO(2009)19]

Microbiological Plant Protection Products - Workshop on the Scientific Basis for Risk Assessment

The Pesticides: 2013-2016 Work Programme includes the following current and planned activities to

facilitate bio-pesticide registration:

Develop an OECD Guidance Document on botanicals/plant extracts covering issues like

extraction methods; identification and analytical methods; method of manufacture; low

risk/concern; efficacy based on existing guidance (such as the draft in progress in the EU)

Develop an OECD Guidance Document on Trichoderma sep. for the use in Plant Protection

Products covering issues like different modes of action of various strains; secondary metabolites;

methods of detection; impact of use on soil; taxonomy issues

Develop a Guidance Document on how to do an equivalence check of different sources of active

ingredients for microbial

Assist and coordinate the implementation of the OECD harmonised templates (OHTs) for bio-

pesticides

Continue the development of “issue papers” on:

storage stability

pheromones

efficacy evaluation

Review the regulatory status of invertebrates used for pest control: review previous BPSG

activities, the 2007 OECD BPSG survey and the REBECA report

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

27

APPENDIX D. CASE STUDY - THE NETHERLANDS

Example of how integrated pest management (IPM) has been applied to address minor use gaps in the Netherlands (January 2016)

What was the minor use

problem/gap the

producers were trying to

address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

The minor use

problem/gaps were

selected on the basis of

an inventory of needs

made by growers

associations

Availability of chemical

plant protection products

to support long term,

sustainability of

agriculture and

horticulture

Cooperation between

growers associations,

industry, competent

authority, research and

government

Availability of plant

protection products

It takes time to product

the inventory

Often more than one

solution needed

None available as yet The Expert Centre for

Speciality Crops (ECSC)

is a (virtual) network to

facilitate minor crops

and their inputs which

are of importance to

keep these high-quality

crops viable, not only in

the Netherlands but for

Europe as well. The

ECSC does not deal with

specific minor use gaps

but is a facilitating

procedure to address

them.

www.specialitycrops.eu

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

28

APPENDIX E IPM CASE STUDIES - US

Examples of integrated pest management (IPM) in the US (February 2016)

This annotated bibliography of case studies and success stories where IPM practices were applied, evaluated, adopted and/or improved in the

US. This supports OECD’s Registration Steering Workgroup preliminary information gathering efforts and addresses the following key questions

related to the “Thought Starter” on how IPM tools can help fill knowledge gaps for minor uses, including unique challenges and opportunities.

What was the minor use problem/gap the producers were trying to address?

What was the driving force for developing solutions in an IPM context (e.g. regulation, government policy, marketability of produce, cost,

sustainability etc.)

What were the factors for success?

What were the obstacles (e.g. lack of suitable tools, difficulty in sourcing research/ development funding for development of package of

tools vs just one tool, uncertainty around regulation of innovative tools, time to develop and implement, cost to implement etc.)

What were the lessons learned?

In general, there are a limited number of readily available, IPM-centric case studies. There are more studies examining control tactics, often

pesticide-centric, for specific pests on certain crops, including minor crops. The examples below were compiled in consultation with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (Office of Pest Management Policy), IR-4 Project, and Regional IPM Centers.

I. Projects that Evaluated and/or Improved IPM Practices

McGhee, P.S., Epstein, D.L. and Gut, L.J. 2011. Quantifying the Benefits of Areawide Pheromone Mating Disruption Programs that

Target Codling Moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). American Entomologist 57(2), 94-100.

This four-year research and implementation project in Michigan apple production provided comparative data on the benefits of using pheromone on

an area-wide basis versus an individual orchard block basis. The project demonstrated that an area-wide approach to mating disruption

improves the benefits of deploying pheromone in individual blocks.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

29

Vargas, R.I., et. al. 2008. The Hawaii Fruit Fly Areawide Pest Management Programme.

The program showed that implementing a sterile insect technique and fruit fly parasitoids significantly reduced fruit fly populations infesting large

monocultures. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1661&context=usdaarsfacpub

Adoption and Impacts of Integrated Pest Management in Agriculture in the Western United States.

Examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature and studies conducted by or on behalf of commodity groups or other agriculture interests,

published since the 2000 to document IPM adoption rates in the western US, and the impacts of IPM adoption.

Full report: http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/about-the-center/publications/special-reports/adoption-and-impact-of-ipm-in-western-

agriculture/

Abstract: http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/about-the-center/publications/special-reports/adoption-and-impact-report-abstract/

Integrated Pest Management Improvements in Hops from 2008 to 2015 .

Report compared the Pest Management Strategic Plans for hops in 2008 and 2015 to gauge improvements in IPM over time. Significant IPM

improvements were observed in the management of spider mites, Prionus beetles and mildew diseases, and regulatory changes promoting the

use of reduced-risk pesticides. http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/about-the-center/publications/special-reports/ipm-improvements-in-hops-pdf/

Impacts of the Regional Integrated Pest Management Competitive Grants Program in the Western United States .

Report highlighting the impacts generated by 66 competitively funded IPM research and extension projects to reduce risks of pests and pest

management practices from 2003 to 2012. Projects involved 107 collaborators in 15 universities across 13 western US states.

Full report: http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/about-the-center/publications/special-reports/western-ripm-retrospective-full-pdf/

Abstract: http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/about-the-center/publications/special-reports/western-ripm-retrospective-abstract-pdf/

II. IPM Success Stories

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

30

Reducing Pesticide Usage in IPM Adoption Helps Onion Growers Manage Thrips and Other Pests, http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/ipm-in-

the-west/success-stories/progress-against-onion-pests/

IPM Program Successful in California Greenhouse Cut Roses, https://ucanr.edu/repositoryfiles/ca6102p71-69402.pdf

IPM Adoption Helps Onion Growers Manage Thrips and Other Pests, http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/ipm-in-the-west/success-

stories/progress-against-onion-pests/

IPM Saves Maine Potato Growers $17 Million, http://www.northeastipm.org/about-us/publications/ipm-insights/ipm-saves-maine-potato-

growers-17-million/

Growers, Scientists Tackle Spotted Wing Drosophila, http://www.northeastipm.org/about-us/publications/ipm-insights/growers-and-scientists-

tackle-spotted-wing-drosophila/

Collaborators in Region Join Chorus against Spotted Wing Drosophila, http://www.northeastipm.org/about-us/publications/ipm-

insights/collaborators-in-region-join-chorus-against-spotted-wing-drosophila/

III. IPM Assessment Resources

Western IPM Center’s IPM Online Toolkit for Assessing IPM Outcomes and Impacts, http://westernipm.org/index.cfm/center-

projects/project-websites/toolkit-for-assessing-ipm-outcomes-and-impacts/

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

31

APPENDIX F IPM CASE STUDIES - CANADA

Examples of integrated pest management (IPM) or contribution to IPM in Canada (January 2016)

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

Crop:

Pest:

IPM:

Onion, leek,

garlic

Leek moth

(Acrolepiopsis

assectella)

1) Monitoring

system using

leek moth

pheromones and

degree days

2) Physical

Barriers: Row

Covers

3) Introduction

of the parasitoid

wasp

Diadromus

pulchellus

4) Registration

of the

biopesticide

Bacillus

thuringiensis var

- Leek moth was

an invasive alien

species limiting

yield in allium

crops.

- Public funding

support provided

through the

Pesticide Risk

Reduction

Program of

Agriculture and

Agri-Food

Canada’s Pest

Management

Centre

- Understanding

pest and parasitoid

biology

- Survival and

successful

overwintering of

the introduced

parasitoid species

- Engaging and

collaborating with

growers through

regular on-site

visits and

discussions

- Grower outreach

to transfer gained

knowledge

- Initial lack of

knowledge of

pest and

parasitoid

biology

- Row cover and

labour costs

- Regulatory

approval for the

introduction and

the release of an

organism into a

new

environment

- Regulatory

requirements for

the registration

of pest control

products

- All solutions fit

together well,

forming a

multipronged,

reduced risk,

integrated pest

management

approach adopted by

leek growers in

Ontario

- High parasitism

rates achieved with

Diadromus

pulchellus

An Integrated

Approach to

Management of

Leek Moth

(Factsheet)

- Leek moth was

first detected in

eastern Ontario and

Quebec and has

rapidly expanded its

range to Prince

Edward Island and

New York State

- Diadromus

pulchellus was

released in Ontario

in 2010

- Dr. Peter Mason at

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada is

a potential contact

- Minor use gap for

control products

identified at the

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

Minor Use Pesticide

Priority-Setting

Workshop

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

32

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

kurstaki (Btk)

5) Registration

of the insecticide

spinosad

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

33

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

Crop:

Pest:

IPM:

Brassica

vegetable crops

Cabbage maggot

(Delia radicum

(L.))

1) Exclusion

fence for

cabbage maggot

2) Meshed row

cover (insect

netting)

3) Breeding of

cabbage maggot

resistant

rutabaga line

(ongoing)

- Few

conventional

insecticides

available and

potential loss due

to regulatory re-

evaluation

- Confirmed

cabbage maggot

resistance to

chlorpyrifos in

some areas

- Stakeholder

identified priority

pest issue and

public funding

support through

the Pesticide Risk

Reduction

Program-led

strategy work

- Negative image

of conventional

pesticides in the

media

- In context of

exclusion fence:

considering that

most damage by

cabbage maggot is

found within 13 m

of the fence,

square plots

greater than 1 ha

are preferable to

optimize results ;

also the fence

works best under

low pest pressure

- Access to

germplasm of

resistant crops

- Labour and

fence or row

cover costs

- Timing of

fence erection

must be before

the planting of

the Brassica crop

or shortly

thereafter

- Previous-year

crops should be

non-host plants

to reduce

overwintering

pupae

- Under high

pest pressure the

fence is less

effective as the

number of flies

that defeat the

fence is

proportionally

higher, causing

an increase in

crop damage

- Time required

for plant

breeding and

trials

- Trees, bushes, or

upward slopes or

high ground around

the field enable

incoming flies to

more easily fly over

the fence and into

the crop

- Weeds outside the

fenced field should

be removed or

maintained at low

height - Insecticide

sprays may only be

required to control

the pest population

along the 13 m

corridor inside the

fence, therefore

reducing the amount

of pesticide required

compared to

unfenced fields

where the entire

field must be treated

Exclusion fence

technique for

cabbage maggot

management in

Brassica vegetable

crops (Factsheet)

Row covers as

physical barriers in

brassica vegetable

crops to control

cabbage maggot

Field testing

rutabaga cultivars

for resistance to

cabbage maggot

(Summary of

Results)

- Dr. Bob Vernon

regarding the

exclusion fence;

Josée Owen

regarding row

covers, both at

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

are potential

contacts

- The need for

options for this

minor use was

identified in the Pest

Management

Regulatory

Agency’s Diazinon

Transition Strategy

and at the

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

Minor Use Pesticide

Priority-Setting

Workshop

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

34

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

Crop:

Pest:

IPM:

Carrot

Sclerotinia rot

(Sclerotinia

sclerotiorum)

1) Mechanical

trimming of

carrot foliage

2) Registration

of the fungicides

fludioxonil and

fluazinam

3) Registration

of the

biopesticides

Bacillus subtilis

strain QST 713

and

Coniothyrium

minitans strain

CON/M/91‐08.

- Economically

and

environmentally

sustainable carrot

production, as it

can reduce the

need for fungicide

use

- Lack of

alternative control

options in the tool-

box

- Stakeholder

identified priority

pest issue and

public funding

support through

the Pesticide Risk

Reduction

Program-led

strategy work

- Foliage trimming

can significantly

reduce carrot

storage rot

- Trimming is

mainly useful for

carrots destined for

long-term storage

-Trimming helps

to ease the

machine

harvesting process

as there is less

foliage to clutter

the harvester

- Initial cost of

purchasing or

building the

trimmer

implement to

trim the carrot

foliage

- Regulatory

requirements for

the registration

of pest control

products

- Trimming does not

adversely affect

carrot yield

-Trimming fits well,

and can be

complemented by

using soil (Contans),

foliar (Serenade

Max, fluazinam),

and/or post-harvest

(fludioxonil)

applications

Carrot Foliage

Trimmer Reduces

Storage Rot

(Factsheet)

Carrot Foliage

Trimmer (Video)

Efficacy of

CONTANS®WG

for the control of

sclerotinia rot in

carrot: A case study

for other susceptible

muck soil crops

(Summary of

Results)

- Sclerotinia rot is

found in all carrot-

growing areas in

Canada but is more

prevalent in eastern

Canada where

conditions are more

humid and wet

- Mechanical

trimming is now

adopted

commercially in

several provinces of

eastern Canada;

- Regarding

trimming, Dr. Rick

Peters at Agriculture

and Agri-Food

Canada is a potential

contact

- Minor use gap for

control products

identified at the

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

Minor Use Pesticide

Priority-Setting

Workshop

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

35

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

Crop:

Pest:

Contribution

to IPM:

Onion

Onion maggot

(Delia antiqua)

Release of sterile

males of onion

maggot flies

- Concerns

regarding the

products available

to growers to

control the pest

- Need for a

diverse set of

solutions to reduce

the potential for

resistance

development in

pest populations

- Lack of

approaches and

products suitable

for the organic

vegetable sector

- Negative image

of conventional

pesticides in the

media

- Reduction of the

cost of production

of sterile flies

- Higher efficacy

can be achieved

when technique is

adopted over wide

areas

-Financial

incentives by

provincial

government to

promote uptake

- Costs related to

sterile insect

release are

greater than

those of

conventional

insecticides

- Quantity of

sterile flies

available

- Efficacy

demonstrated on a

large scale

- Numbers of sterile

flies released can

decrease in

subsequent years

without affecting the

efficacy of the

control in green

onions

- most viable in

farms where known

damage by onion

maggot

Five years of sterile

flies on onion

biological efficacy

and economics

(Presentation; FR

only)

The sterile flies

factory (Web page;

FR only)

Sterile onion flies

(Video; FR only)

- Collaborators

included: Collège

Montmorency,

Phytodata inc.,

Stratégie

phytosanitaire

québécoise en

agriculture,

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

- Francois Fournier

at the College

Montmorency is a

potential contact

- Releases are

currently done in

Quebec

- Provincial grant is

offered along with

free evaluation of

onion maggot

populations and a

recommendation for

the appropriate

release dosage for

specific fields

- Minor use gap for

control products

identified in the Pest

Management

Regulatory

Agency’s Diazinon

Transition Strategy

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

36

Description Driving force

behind IPM

solutions

Factors for success Obstacles Lesson learned Further information Comments

and at the

Agriculture and

Agri-Food Canada

Minor Use Pesticide

Priority-Setting

Workshop

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

37

APPENDIX G IPM CASE STUDIES - AUSTRALIA.

Example of how integrated pest management (IPM) has been applied in an Australian minor use context (January 2016)

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

There was an

increased pest pressure

in particular

strawberry seasons

from Rutherglen Bug

and Western Flower

Thrip (WFT)

There had been a

reliance on the use of

old insecticide

chemistry by growers

The development of

resistance and reported

lack of efficacy of

registered products

(e.g. spinosad) meant

there were limited

options to address the

Rutherglen Bug and

WFT issue

Early control of

Rutherglen Bug and

WFT with non-IPM

compatible chemicals

had flow on impacts to

other pests (e.g. two

Detection of

unacceptable residues

of trichlorfon and

fipronil in many (30%)

strawberry samples by

the then Victorian

Produce Monitoring

Program (VPMP)

operated by the

DEDJTR

Exposure of the

strawberry industry in

the media regarding

the deletion of

unacceptable residues

in strawberries

Possibility of further

compliance action

being taken on

strawberry growers for

non-compliant

chemical use

Possibility of the

detection of

unacceptable residues

affecting market

Relatively high

adoption (over 50% of

the production area) of

IPM by the strawberry

industry

Willingness of the

strawberry industry to

make practice changes

with respect to the use

of agricultural

chemicals

Active and

representative peak

industry bodies

Financial support (via

levies) by the industry

bodies and other

stakeholders (eg

Victorian Strawberry

Growers Association,

Strawberries Australia,

Horticulture

Innovation Australia)

Availability of IPM

experts (IPM

Technologies)

Not all growers were

willing to adopt IPM

There were a limited

number of products

available that were

IPM compatible

It is possible to

facilitate change in an

industry with a high

reliance on insecticides

The Victorian Department of

Economic Development, Jobs,

Transport and Resources

(DEDJTR) can be contacted

through Michael Laity, Senior

Policy Officer - Chemicals

michael.laity@ecodev.vic.gov.au

IPM Technologies were contracted

to deliver an IPM project for the

industry

http://ipmtechnologies.com.au

Victorian Strawberries:

http://vicstrawberry.com.au

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

38

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

spotted mites) due to

reduction in beneficial

insects

access by the

strawberry industry

Engagement and

regulation by

government through

DEDJTR and its

predecessor

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

39

Three IPM practitioners’ views on how IPM has been applied in an Australian minor use context (February 2016)

What was the

minor use

problem/gap

the producers

were trying to

address?

What was the

driving force

for developing

solutions in an

IPM context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

pest and

disease

control in

greenhouse

ornamental

(rose)

production

and berry

production

limited number

of registered

products

resistance very

quick to

develop against

chemicals

in respect of

berries,

producing high

quality ‘safe’

ready to eat

fruit

requirement to

apply

withholding

period

requirements

by

supermarkets

including

regular residue

testing

smarter use of

labour costs

and resources

as well as OHS

concerns

access to advice,

information on

beneficial organisms and

how they can be

incorporated into IPM

program through state

agriculture departments

personal commitment

and being proactive in

IPM implementation

green house

environment more

conducive to

retaining/maintaining

beneficial organisms

(compared with outdoor

setting where changing

weather conditions can

have a negative impact

on beneficial organisms)

being able to identify

pests accurately -

misdiagnosis can cause

systems failure in an

IPM approach

might have to sacrifice

crop/crop yield to

maintain IPM

approaches; once you

use chemicals it can be

difficult to re-establish

the balance

access to

biologicals/beneficial

organisms - limited

number of

manufacturers and

difficulties with

transport/supply

difficulty in getting

biological IPM tools

registered - need better

incentives

regulatory system

insufficiently flexible to

deal with IPM tools

(focussed on addressing

chemical risks)

access to biologicals

is key

ability to monitor is

key

grower has to have a

good understanding

of the

crop/pest/disease

relationships

growers need to have

the right tools e.g.

microscopes

need to think outside

square and be

prepared to put in

extra effort and time

patience is important

- IPM takes longer

need to address

culture of growers -

often many

generations involved

and familiar

approaches are

retained

need to have more

demonstration trials;

encourage farmers to

take up IPM

grower of greenhouse hydroponic roses,

raspberries, blueberries & strawberries

awarded Nuffield Scholarship in 2015 to do

research IPM strategies for greenhouse

hydroponics production of berry crops and in

particular to investigate how to overcome a lack of

chemical options to control pests in berry crops

(Nuffield Australia supports Australian farmers to

travel overseas on an agricultural research

scholarship http://nuffield.com.au)

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

40

What was the

minor use

problem/gap

the producers

were trying to

address?

What was the

driving force

for developing

solutions in an

IPM context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

not applicable key drivers for

change are:

consumers

driving the

change

system failure

(eg resistance

against

registered

products)

educate

growers and

their families;

acknowledge

that they have

commercial

imperatives;

help growers

adopt IPM

principles

legislation (but

not considered

the best way to

drive change)

number of biocontrol

agent manufacturers is

increasing

not many growers are

aware that there are

better ways of doing

things

growers are

commercially driven;

pesticides are relatively

inexpensive and readily

available form of

insurance

legislation/regulation

for IPM biological tools

are counter productive -

almost impossible to get

products on market -

especially for small

crops

lack of people with

necessary skills to help

growers adopt IPM

government policy re

reduction in

availability of

pesticides or

restriction on use or

more stringent

conditions on use

can drive growers to

alternative tools but

is not an effective

tool - causes

animosity and

resentment

consumer most

important driver

(attitude that

anything that moves

is unacceptable) and

through the

consumer the

supermarkets; e.g. of

IPM grower of corn

having consignment

rejected as it

contained lady bird

beetles -

disadvantages

growers that use IPM

supplier of biological control agents; specialises in

IPM

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

41

What was the

minor use

problem/gap

the producers

were trying to

address?

What was the

driving force

for developing

solutions in an

IPM context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

Not

applicable

desire to do

something

different

because there

is a systems

failure such as

resistance to

registered

products or

loss of

registered

product

other reasons

include

concerns over

destruction of

natural

enemies,

residues,

adverse effects

on

environment

and human

health

collaborative and

participatory approach

need an integrated

approach

working with individual

or small groups of

farmers

providing site-specific

advice

monitoring is the key to

ensuring biological

control component of

IPM is working

IPM is seen as being

complex and difficult -

requires a shift in

understanding

level of damage to crop

may initially increase

during transition to IPM

program

many IPM manuals

available; they focus on

the tools and

technologies but have

no information on how

to integrate them

legislation does not

facilitate softer products

getting registered

advisors who can advise

on IPM in crops

difficult to find

researchers usually

focus on specific

pest/crop

what is

permitted/available for

minor use in Australia

depends on what

growers have asked for -

tendency for growers is

to ask for access to

chemicals rather than

keep IPM as simple

as possible and as

attractive as a spray

program

growers focus on

producing high

yielding, marketable

crop

IPM strategies need

to deal with the crop,

not just the pest;

demonstrate to

farmers how it works

reasons for low IPM

adoption pesticides

are effective, legal

and familiar

recognise the

difference between

awareness and steps

needed to implement

a change to a totally

different method of

pest management

IPM in indoor

cropping may

involve controlled

release of

beneficials; IPM in

outdoor cropping is

more focussed on

company specialising in helping farmers to

implement IPM

Publications:

Paul A Horne and Jessica Page Changing to

Minimal Reliance on Pesticides in Pesticides in the

Modern World - Pesticides Use and Management,

Margarita Stoytcheva (ed) 2011 Chapter 16 pp337-

346

http://www.intechopen.com/books/pesticides-in-

the-modern-world-pesticides-use-and-management

Paul A Horne, Jessica Page & Cam Nicholson

When will integrated pest management strategies

be adopted? Example of the development and

implementation of integrated pest management

strategies in cropping systems in Victoria

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

2008 48:1601-1607

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

42

What was the

minor use

problem/gap

the producers

were trying to

address?

What was the

driving force

for developing

solutions in an

IPM context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

other tools and

technologies

naturally occurring

beneficials

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

43

APPENDIX H IPM CASE STUDIES - JAPAN.

Examples of how integrated pest management (IPM) has been applied in a Japanese minor use context (January 2016)

Case1: Pests and diseases control using IPM on Asparagus cultivation in greenhouse (Saga prefecture).

Asparagus is a minor crop in Japan and therefore the number of agricultural chemicals registered for use on asparagus is limited.

In Saga Prefecture in Kyusyu Island, asparagus is cultivated mostly in greenhouse. Saga Prefecture is the second largest asparagus producer

and its yield in 2013 was 3090 t, corresponding to ca.10% of the total yield of asparagus in Japan, and its area of cultivation in 2013 was 127 ha.

Saga Prefecture has been promoting the environmental-friendly and resource-saving agriculture, such as developing and implementing a production

system with reduced chemical fertilizer and pesticide uses. IPM is a good example of this kind of system.

Fig. 1 Asparagus cultivated in

greenhouse in Saga Prefecture

Fig. 2 Lepidoptera on asparagus

and damage of young shoot

Fig. 3 Pheromone product

(red tube)

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

44

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

Asparagus grown in

greenhouse is

susceptible to many

kinds of pests and

disease (Leaf spot:

Stemphylium

botryosum, Stem

necrosis: Phomopsis

asparagi, Phytophthora

rot: Phytophthora

asparagi, Thrips:

Thrips tabaci,

Lepidoptera, and

Spider mite:

Tetranychidae).

However, due to its

being a minor crop,

only a small number of

agricultural chemicals

are registered for use

on asparagus, which

make it difficult for

producers to control

these pests and

disease.

The primary driving

force is that Saga

Prefecture has been

promoting agricultural

system in which the

use of chemical

pesticides and

fertilizers must be one

half or less of the

conventional

agriculture there (so

called “Agricultural

Produce from Special

Cultivation”. In order

for farmers to meet

this requirement, there

has been a need to

develop and

implement an IPM

system to control the

damage caused by the

pests and diseases

without relying on the

use of chemical

pesticides.

The agricultural

experimental station

and the research center

tested various

measures which can be

used for IPM and

demonstrated that the

following are effective

for control of specific

pests and diseases and

combining them into

an IPM system for

implementation in the

field.

- Use of UV-cut film*

: Leaf spot, Thrips

- Use of pheromones:

Lepidoptera

- Removal of infected

parts of plant: Stem

necrosis

In order for interested

growers and

agricultural

technologists to

experience The

effectiveness of the

IPM system above,

The system was put to

verification tests in

The IPM system now

employed is not

capable of controlling

some pests and

diseases, such as

phytophthora rot or

spider mites etc.,

which remain the

significant hurdle for

steady production of

asparagus in Saga

Prefecture. There need

to be further research

and verification to

control these pests and

diseases.

Importance of

cooperation among

farmers and regional

experts for systematic

implementation and

effective use of the

IPM system. It is also

equally important to

verify and demonstrare

the effectiveness of the

system for growers to

implement it.

[Outcome]

Systematic implementation of the

IPM system, control of the pests

and disease have became possible.

As a result,it realizes the expansion

of asparagus produce and

management assurance in the

region.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

45

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

their greenhouses.

There have been

effective promotion

activities, such as,

presentation of

successful cases of the

IPM systems in

training courses by

local government

officials and uploading

these cases onto the

local government's

websites.

*: Some plant

pathogenic fungi and

pests needs UV

light(380nm) to form

spore or to make

orientation behavior.

Installation of UV-cut

film inside greenhouse

inhibits the growth of

pathogenic fungi and

disturbs pest activities

and sense of

orientation.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

46

Case 2: Control of Green-caterpillars using IPM on Wasabi cultivation (Shizuoka Prefecture)

Wasabi is a herb/spice that characterizes the Japanese cuisine. Now wasabi is used in many countries as an ingredient or seasoning in a variety

of processed foods and cooked foods.

Wasabi cultivation requires plenty of clean runnning water. The wasabi cultivation area in Shizuoka Pref. was 128 ha in 2013, corresponding

to ca. 60% of the total yield of wasabi in Japan）. Value of Wasabi producted in Shizuoka Pref. was 3.2 billion yen in 2013.

Because of this, Shizuoka Pref. promotes pest control practices using IPM system to keep aquatic environment clean and to maintain stable

Wasabi produce.

Fig. 1 Wasabi cultivated in Shizuoka

Prefecture

Fig. 2 Green caterpillars on Wasabi leaf

Fig. 3 Wasabi plant with no leaves due to

damage caused by green caterpillars

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

47

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

Wasabi is a minor crop

in Japan, which

requires beds of gravel

through which water is

flowing constantly.

The number of

agricultural chemicals

registerd for use on

Wasabi, specially for

the control of green

caterpillars（Pieris

melete） is limited.

While growers in

Shizuoka have been

wishing registration of

agricultural chemicals

which can be used

against green

caterpillars, there is

also strong concern

that agricultural

chemicals would

contaminate the water

system of the lower

reaches of wasabi

fields. As a result it is

rather difficult to

register more

BT pesticide is

registered for control

of green catarpillars on

Wasabi now in Japan.

In order to keep

aquatic environment

clean and conserve the

ecosystem around the

producing areas,

registered agricultural

chemicals for Wasabi

are limited. Therefore,

introduction of BT

pesticide was one of

the most suitable case

for IPM initiative.

Wasabi grown in

Shizuoka Pref. has

gained national fame

and established its own

bland value. Use of the

IPM system will

enforce its reputation.

Shizuoka Pref. has

been considering use

of a chemical

pesticide(s) for drench

application to young

BT pesticide has been

verified that it has a

high efficacy as much

as the chemical

pesticide and it don't

have adverse effects to

the surrounding

environment. This

meets the objective of

using BT pesticide for

the control of green

catapillars. Besides,

Wasabi growers well

understood the validity

of the BT pesticide use

through the field

demonstrations and the

seminars by advisors

and started using BT

pesticide effectively.

As a result, practical

use of BT pesticide on

Wasabi produce are

accelerated and spread

to many of growers.

Shizuoka pref. aimed

at completion of

studies for application

for registration of the

chemical pesticides for

drench treatment of the

cell tray. However, it

will take longer to

establish proposed

GAP considering the

prevention leaching

from the cell tray,

which is important to

assess the effect on the

environment and is

required for

agricultural chemicals

registration.

In some cases, BT

pesticide was not used

effectively by growers,

mainly due to later

application timing. It is

necessary for advisors

to provide proper use

instructions to growers

repeatedly.

According to the

cooperation with the

growers, the

agricultural

cooperative

association and the

local goverment, the

IPM system using BT

pesticide for the green

catapillars on the

Wasabi fields have

become common. It

was recognised that

attempt to work

together with the

persons concerned is

so important to

facilitate IPM system

to producing district.

[Outcome]

Drastic reduction of the damage

caused by green catapillars with the

effective use of BT pesticide as

IPM practice.

Preservation of stable Wasabi

production and minimization the

pollution of the water system. As a

result, vitalization of local

communities of Wasabi growing

district have advanced.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

48

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

insecticide for use on

Wasabi.

plants of Wasabi

grown in the cell trays

in combination with

BT pesticide to control

green catarpillars. The

chemical pestcide(s)

under consideration

is(are) yet to be

registered.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

49

Case 3: Control of Spider mites using IPM on Myoga cultivation in greenhouse (Kochi Prefecture)

Myoga（Zingiber mioga), which belongs to the same genus with ginger（Zingiber officinale), is native to East Asia and traditional

agricultural produce in Japan. It has a large domestic demands as herb or spice.

In Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku Island, myoga is cultivated mostly in greenhouse. Kochi Prefecture is the largest myoga producer and its yield

in 2010 was 4382 t, corresponding to ca. 80% of the total yield of myoga in Japan）.

Myoga is a minor crop in Japan and therefore the number of agricultural chemicals registered for use on myoga is limited,

Kochi Pref. has been promoting the environmental-friendly agriculture, such as IPM agriculture practice using natural enemy insects.

Fig. 1 Myoga (flower bud)

Fig. 2 Myoga plants grown in greenhouse in

Kochi Prefecture

Fig. 3 One of natural enemy insects

"Phytoseiidae" (Amblyseius swirskii)

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

50

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

Myoga is a minor crop

in Japan and the

number of agricultural

chemicals registered

for use on myoga is

limited.

Specially, the damage

caused by spider

mites（Tetranychus

urticae and T.

kanzawai) is a serious

problem. Development

of the stable myoga

production system was

necessary in Kochi

pref.

Natural enemy insects

should be used for

efficient application

with agricultural

chemicals, but there

were few agricultural

chemicals for this

purpose.

For the cultivation of

myoga, spider mites

are the most harmful

insect. Spider mites

develop pesticide

resistance easily due to

its high quantity of

population and fast

breeding. Thus,

introducing the pest

control method using

natural enemy insects

in myoga cultivation is

highly preferable.

To develop the pests

control system,

registerd agricultural

chemicals with less

negative impacts on

the natural enemy

insects are desirable so

that they can be used

together with the

natural enemy during

myoga cultivation

period.

Kochi Pref. has been

promoting the

Kochi pref. has a

experimental station

and research center

which can be used to

put into practice the

tests for registration of

the agricurtural

chemicals, and human

resource who collect

samples and analyze

pesticide residues.

Therefore, some data

for application of

registration of

agricultural chemicals

which have less

negative impacts to the

natural enemy insects

was collected so that

they can be used

together during myoga

cultivation period.

There is financial

supports from the

budget of Kochi

prefecture or the

national goverment to

conduct the studies for

development of spider

Assessment of the pest

control effect using

natural enemy insects

is difficult.

Introduction cost of

the natural enemy

insects, which are

commercially

available, is still

expensive.

It is not sufficient only

to use the natural

enemy insects against

target pest. The

compatibility between

natural enemy insects

and crops applied

should be confirmed in

advance (i.e. host

adaptivity for laying

egg, appropriate

temperatrure and

humidity etc.).

In some cases, it is

necessary to deal with

to newly occurring

insects caused by the

decrease of

agricultural chemical

uses.

Development of the

methods of forcasting

pests and diseases for

growers is needed to

get the appropriate

timing to apply the

natural enemy

efficiently.

Establishment of the

labor-saving and

effective usage for

pesticide application is

needed to make

efficacy by natural

enemy insects more

stable.

[Outcome]

Controling spider mites has become

more effective by the spread of IPM

system using natural enemy insects,

which are applied on myoga

cultivation in Kochi Pref. at a rate

of 50% now.

IPM sysytem using natural enemy

insects is applied to other crops

grown in Kochi Pref. too such as

eggplant or bell pepper. Kochi pref.

is regarded as the best region of

IPM uses, in both the spread and

level of application.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

51

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

environmental-friendly

agriculture, such as

IPM agriculture

practice using natural

enemy insects.

*One of natural enemy

insects "Phytoseiidae"

prey on spider mites

and the their density

can be controled.

Natural enemy

insects has confirmed

that itself has no

adverse effects for

crops and the human

body, and registered

by Ministry of

Agriculture as

agricultural pesticide.

mites control system

combining some IPM

technology. Therefore,

IPM system regarding

spider mites on myoga

have been finalized for

spread among

producing districts.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

52

Case 4: Powdery mildew control using IPM on Strawberries cultivation in greenhouse (Hyogo Prefecture)

Strawberry, with its significant consumption is mainly cultivated in greenhouses as a high profit crop in Japan.

In Hyogo Pref., there are about 30 ha of cultivation area and 900 farmers of strawberry

Strawberry produced in greenhouse is susceptible to many kinds of pests and diseases compared to open cultivation. On the other hand, some

consumers want to buy strawberries cultivated with less chemical pesticides. Therefore, introduction of IPM system has been promoted in Hyogo

Pref.

Fig. 1 Strawberries cultivated on elevated

bench in greenhouse

Fig. 2 Powdery mildew occured on strawberry

fruit

Fig. 3 UV-B light device (bulb type lamp)

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

53

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

A variety of

strawberry susceptible

in powdery mildew

(Sphaerotheca

aphanis) has become

the main variety

produce in Hyogo

Pref.

The chemical

pesticides used to

prevent powdery

mildew have been

used throughout the

crop year for many

years, the prevention

of powdery mildew

became difficult due to

the development of

resistance.

Considering the

sustainability of the

strawberry cultivation

in Hyogo pref., it was

necessary to apply

IPM system to solve

many problems as

follows:

- It will become more

difficult to control

powdery mildew

because of the

occurrence of resistant

strains resulting from

the disease control

system relying on

agricultural chemicals,

increase of the number

of agricultural

chemicals application

and the management

costs.

- Some consumers

believe that reducing

the use of chemicals

would lead to safer

produce.IPM system is

regarded as a tool to

respond to the disease

The research and

development project to

control plant diseases

using UV-B light was

conducted by a

company (Panasonic)

and Hyogo Pref. under

the financial support of

the Ministry of

Agriculture, and the

development of UV-B

light device was

completed and the

products was sold in

growers.

While it was

impossible to

sufficiently control

powdery mildew by

application of

agricultural chemicals

only, now farmers who

introduced UV-B light

device can control the

powdery mildew on

the strawberries well

in combination with

agricultural chemicals.

Due to the expensive

initial costs to install

early version of UV-B

light device, one-

million yen per 10 a, it

didn't spread well to

farmers. But, later, a

new bulb shape lamp

was developed, with

one half introduction

cost (half-million yen

per 10 a) and higher

durability. Therefore,

IPM system for the

control of powdery

mildew was fast

spread to farmers

producing strawberry.

The UV-B light should

be irradiated before

powdery mildew

occurrence to induce

defence related gene-

expression in

strawberry for

powdery mildew and

suppress damage

caused by disease

infection. Therefore, it

This IPM technology

was realized by using

illumination

technology of a private

enterprise upon request

from the production

area. It was important

to have cooperation

with other disciplines

than agriculture.

It is encourage for the

researchers in Hyogo

Pref. to see that the

farmers become able

to control the pests and

diseases using IPM

system.

[Outcome]

After the establishment of the IPM

technology, interested farmers

began to introduce the UV-B light

system into their fields to control

powdery mildew. It accomplished

about 30% reduction of costs and

the total application number of

agricultural chemicals for

strawberry cultivation, and

strawberry production with less

agricultural chemistries than

conventional agriculture there.

Thereafter, it was confirmed that

UV-B light system is valid also for

control spider mites and another

plant disease. This device can be

used effectively not only in

strawberry cultivation, but also in

other crop production.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

54

What was the minor

use problem/gap the

producers were trying

to address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

for safer agricultural

produce and to avoid

excess use of chemical

pesticides

Less use of

agricultural chemicals

make the working cost

reduced. In addition,

coloring of the

pericarp is accelerated

and sugar content

increases, resulting in

higher quality fruits.

These positive effects

help to introduce the

IPM measures in the

strawberry cultivation

in Hyogo Pref.

was difficult to control

the disease if light

irradiation was

delayed. Proper use

instruction to growers

by advisors are

needed.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

55

Case5: Pests and diseases control using IPM on Tea cultivation (Kagoshima Prefecture)

Green tea is consumed everyday by the general population in Japan, it's consumption is increasing all around the world. Thereby amounts of

tea exported from Japan is growing now.

In Kagoshima Prefecture in Kyushu Island, cultivation area and the yield of Tea in 2014 was 8670 ha and 25800 t. Kagoshima Pref. is the

second largest tea producer in Japan.

Kagoshima Pref. have been promoting tea produce using IPM system with reduced chemical pesticide use as part of the prefecture policy,

which is to drive environmental-friendly agriculture.

Fig. 1 Water sprinkler in tea fields

Fig. 2 Disease-resistant variety

Fig. 3 Cyclone suction and washing machine to

control pests and diseases

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

56

What was the minor use

problem/gap the producers were

trying o address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

In tea cultivation with less

amounts of agricultural chemicals

than conventional agriculture, it

is difficult to fully control many

kinds of pests and diseases

(Empoasca onukii (tea green

leafhopper), Caloptilia theivora

(Lepidoptera), Pseudaulacaspis

pentagona (Mulberry scale),

Homona magnanima (Oriental tea

tortrix), Tetranychus kanzawai

(spider mite) and Discula theae-

sinensis (Anthracnose)).

Stable production of tea is

difficult and farmers wanted to

solve this problem.

Introduction of IPM

system was supported by

the rise of public

concerns for the safety of

agricultural products,

and the necessity of a tea

production system by

compliance with the

MRLs of there countries

where tea is exported to.

In addition, Kagoshima

Pref. have been

promoting tea produce

using IPM system with

reduced chemical

pesticide use as part of

local goverment policy,

which is to drive

environmental-friendly

agriculture.

Farmers personally

organized IPM study

group, and verify and

demonstrate the

effectiveness of the

water sprinkler

devices* to control P.

pentagona on there own

tea fields.

Introduction of disease-

resistant variety and

human-driven machine

which uses suction and

washing with water and

air to remove small

pests and diseased

leaves from the tea

canopy enabled farmers

not to rely on

agricultural chemicals

to control them.

*Egg hatching of P.

pentagona is restricted

under the conditions of

high humidity and

existence of plenty of

water. So water

sprinkler which keep

It was necessary to

establish different

tea production and

distribution systems

corresponding to

these MRLs in

different importing

countries of tea.

Microbial pesticide

(granulosis viruses

of H. magnanima,

HmGV) which is

used widely in

Kagoshima Pref. to

control C. theivora

has not been

assessed in overseas.

Established IPM system

are applied achively in the

production areas where

tea is grown for export.

This contributed to the

reduction of the

agricultural pesticide uses

for tea, and farmers came

to realize that it is possible

to export tea to the

countries setting lower

MRLs than these of Japan

using IPM system.

It was also rediscovered

that it is important to keep

soils fertile utilize the own

potential of tea plants for

healthy tea cultivation.

[Outcome]

IPM sysytem

contributed to the

reduction of the

agricultural

pesticide uses for

tea, resulting in

about 60% reduction

of the cost for

pesticides from that

of conventional

practice.

And, tea exports

from Kagoshima

Pref. have increased

since few years ago,

e.g., 86 tons of tea

exported to the

U.S.A and EU in

2014.

As a result, the IPM

system raises the

value of tea

produced in this

region leading to

revitalization of the

local economy.

ENV/JM/PEST(2016)11

57

What was the minor use

problem/gap the producers were

trying o address?

What was the driving

force for developing

solutions in an IPM

context?

What were the factors

for success?

What obstacles were

encountered?

What lessons were

learned?

Further information

tea branches wet is

valid for P.pentagona

control.