Produced by the International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS). To join IAPPS and receive the Crop Protection journal online go to: www.plantprotection.org
India: National speed breeding crop facility inaugurated
Union Minister of Science & Technology, Dr. Jitendra Singh today inaugurated the first-of- its-kind “National Speed Breeding Crop Facility” at the premier National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute (NABI) in Mohali.
Speaking on the occasion as chief guest, Dr. Jitendra Singh said, “this initiative is in line with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s priority of doubling the farmer`s Income, ensuring their economic empowerment and promoting Agri-StartUps”. He said, farmers will now have the opportunity to improve their crop qualitatively as well as quantitatively.
Dr. Jitendra Singh said, “Biotechnology speedy seeds facility will cater to all the States of India, but it will especially be useful for the North Indian States like Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and the UT of J&K. Adding further, he said, “this facility will augment transformational changes in crop improvement programs by accelerating the development of advanced crop varieties that could sustain climate change and contribute to the food and nutritional demand of the population with implementation of speed breeding cropping methods.”
The Minister said, “DBT institute of NABI has developed technology of ‘Climate- resistant crops’, by harnessing these technologies the farmers will not be restrained to cultivate a crop in a particular season rather they will have the liberty to practise farming irrespective of climate conduciveness”.
Dr. Jitendra Singh, while highlighting the recent achievements of institutes under the Ministry of Science & Technology, said, “Our institutes have specialized technologies in fruit, flowers, and crop cultivation through modern genetic means.” He recalled the success of ‘Tulip’ Cultivation by CSIR Palampur, and he also recalled the development of ‘108-petal lotus’ by CSIR Lucknow, which won an award in the TV series KBC. He further emphasized that applying the latest technology in the farming sector will add to the country’s economic growth by supplementing modern Science and Technology tools to the traditional vocation of farming in India.
“Bio-manufacturing and Bio-foundry will drive India’s future bio-economy and promote Green Growth,” said Dr. Jitendra Singh. According to him, the Ministry is working with a synergy and integrative approach, keeping in view the emphasis of PM Modi on combining Science and Technology with traditional knowledge to supplement India’s economy.
Dr. Jitendra Singh also highlighted the fact that under PM Modi, “India’s bio-economy has grown 13 folds in the last 10 years from $10 billion in 2014 to over $130 billion in 2024”.
Addressing the inauguration, Dr. Jitendra Singh said, “In the 3rd consecutive term of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has been projected to emerge as the 3rd largest economy of the world and rise to be the largest in coming years. Contribution of the agriculture sector will therefore be crucial for the Indian economy”.
Dr. Jitendra Singh informed that the Modi Government is conscious of the importance of Bio-economy, and thus, the recent ‘Vote of Account-Budget’ had a provision for a special scheme for Bio-manufacturing.
According to Dr. Jitendra Singh, institutes like NABI will have an important role to enable the transformational progress and value addition in farming sector productivity.
The facility will directly help a) Scientists and Researchers from government institutions, private institutions, and leading industries in India engaged in agricultural and biotechnology research and development of improved crop varieties and products, b) Plant Breeders working for crop development, and c) Progressive farmers who are contributing to adoption of new varieties with superior yield and nutritional traits.
In his address, Prof. Ashwani Pareek, Executive Director, NABI, said the speed breeding crop facility will be used to develop new varieties such as wheat, rice, soybean, pea, tomato, etc., by using a precisely controlled environment (light, humidity, temperature) to achieve more than four generations of a crop per year.
The NABI institute has significantly contributed to ‘Atal Jai Anusandhan Biotech (UNaTI) Mission (Poshan Abhiyan) and Biotech Kisan Hubs for Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana etc, he said.Publication date: Tue 12 Mar 2024
‘Dinosaur’ pesticide law clings to life as SA dithers on poisons reform
Some critics suggest that South Africa remains locked in a chemical culture time warp, where pesticides continue to be cast in a ‘heroic’ role, discouraging less toxic products and non- chemical weed and insect control alternatives. (Photo: schmidtlaw.com / Wikipedia)
There are more than 3,000 registered pesticides sprayed across South Africa, several of which are banned or severely restricted in Europe and other countries because of human and environmental safety risks. Despite the government’s promises to reform outdated pesticide policies, public health experts say there has been little movement.
It has been 77 years since the first law to regulate chemical pesticide safety was passed in this country. This was back in the days of King George VI, Jan Smuts and the Union of South Africa.
Since then, South Africa has become the largest consumer of pesticides in Africa, accounting for roughly a third of all farm chemicals used on the continent.
The primary law regulating pesticides dates back to 1947, but there are more than a dozen other laws, with overall administration fragmented between seven different government departments. (Government Gazette and Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division)
Here is one example: The current Act still specifies a fine of “£500” for government officials who unlawfully disclose any confidential business affairs of the agricultural industry.
Juxtaposed against this £500 fine (roughly R12,000 at today’s exchange rate), the current version of the Act only permits a maximum penalty of R1,000 for violations of the country’s main pesticide control law.
The Adjustment of Fines Act of 1991 does provide for a retrospective stiffening of fines using a ratio determined by periodic government notices, so the R1,000 fine may now be closer to R80,000.
Nevertheless, the £500 fine crafted to protect industry secrecy and the derisory scale of maximum fines for pesticide law violations, remain on South Africa’s statute book – stark evidence of an outdated legal legacy and powerful influence of vested industry interests in an era where modern agricultural systems seemingly remain addicted to chemical poisons to sustain the growth of food or cash crops.
As evidence continues to pile up about the serious harm to humanity and the environment from the increasing volumes of pesticides sprayed across the world, the government has failed to implement a series of reforms recommended by its own policy document – the “new” Pesticide Management Policy published 14 years ago.
Several pesticides have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and obesity, along with neurological damage to children, kidney and lung disease and other serious health impacts. (Image: Brewer International / Wikipedia)
There has also been a two-decade delay in passing domestic laws to enforce the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty ratified by South Africa in 2002 to limit the global movement of banned or severely restricted pesticides.
It was only in May 2021 that Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy gazetted new Rotterdam domestic regulations, which introduced new penalties of up to R5-million for pesticide manufacturers and distributors who either import or export hazardous chemical and pesticide formulations in contravention of the international treaty obligations.
But in November 2021, Creecy changed her mind and suspended the implementation of the new regulations for 12 months. Following a further series of delays, she has since repealed the original regulations and published a new version that is only due to take effect in mid-June 2024 (barring further delays).
Creecy’s department has rejected claims of any improper influence from the agrochemicals industry in delaying the new Rotterdam domestic regulations and attributed some of the delays to “substantive” objections that included the apparent omission of CAS chemical registry numbers from the published regulations.
Croplife SA, an industry body whose members include agrochemical companies such as BASF, Bayer, Corteva, UPL and Syngenta, says it is also “not of the opinion that Minister Creecy is intentionally delaying the implementation, but rather ensuring that the regulations are free of errors, which is of paramount importance”.
Nevertheless, documents on its website suggest that it is pushing back against international pressure to phase out at least 29 chemical substances linked to greater risks of cancer, genetic damage and other harms to people, animals and the environment.
Members of the Women on Farms Project marched in Worcester on 5 May 2022 demanding an urgent ban on 67 pesticides. (Photo: Ashraf Hendricks)
At a series of workshops last May for farmers, government officials and journalists, senior Croplife leaders said there was a need to “bring the African narrative more firmly into relevant policy discussions” around the European Green Deal – a recent initiative to protect human health and restore damaged ecosystems. This includes plans to reduce use of the most hazardous pesticide types by 50% by 2030.
According to European Health and Food Safety commissioner Stella Kyriakides: “It is time to change course on how we use pesticides in the EU … We need to reduce the use of chemical pesticides to protect our soil, air and food, and ultimately the health of our citizens. For the first time, we will ban the use of pesticides in public gardens and playgrounds, ensuring that we are all far less exposed in our daily lives.”
According to a European Commission “Farm to Fork” policy document, EU scientific advisers have concluded that the current food system in Europe is no longer sustainable.
“This does not mean that pesticides are not needed. There are cases where satisfactory pest control can only be achieved in commercial food production through the use of chemical pesticides. However, chemical pesticides should be used only as a last resort.”
Rather than intensive pesticide use, the European Union promotes pest management systems where toxic chemicals are used only as a last resort. (Image: European Commission 2022)
The commission also cites a World Health Organisation report which estimates that there are about 1 million cases of unintentional pesticide poisonings every year, leading to approximately 20,000 deaths. A more recent review estimated about 385 million cases of unintentional acute pesticide poisonings occur annually worldwide, including around 11,000 fatalities.
Chemically active pesticides were found in up to 30% of European rivers and lakes, and regulators are worried about the increasing impact on the pollination of food crops at a time when up to 10% of bee and butterfly species in Europe are on the verge of extinction, and 33% are in decline.
Croplife SA has made it clear that it will push back against so-called EU “mirror clauses” that would prohibit South African farmers from using certain pesticides if they export products to Europe – even if these pesticides are legally registered in South Africa.
Global pesticide distributors have frequently been accused of double standards, by peddling in African and other developing countries agrochemical products that have been either banned or severely restricted in Europe because of human safety and environmental concerns.
Croplife SA, however, responds that enforcing European policies on local farmers is a “threat to the government’s right to make decisions for its people based on the local conditions and requirements”.
“Products cannot just be ‘dumped’ in South Africa as some activists claim; they must go through a rigorous registration process that considers the local production conditions and environmental impact.”
Croplife insists that the current regulatory framework in South Africa remains “robust” and “very strong” even though the original Act dates back to 1947.
But that is not how several other interest groups view the 1947 pesticides control law.
Precision farming techniques using drones or modifying the flow rate from spray nozzles can significantly reduce pesticide volumes compared to more conventional manual methods. (Photo: iStock)
Prof Leslie London, a senior University of Cape Town (UCT) public health research expert on pesticide hazards, chemical neurotoxicity and farm worker safety, says: “I think what Croplife really mean is that South Africa has a regulatory environment very favourable to industry. It would be laughable to consider it ‘strong’ unless you mean strongly biased to industry.”
He argues that at a time when many developed countries are adopting policies that promote pesticide reduction, South African policy remains largely out of step with international concerns
The primary 1947 law to control pesticides is regulated by the national Agriculture department, via the Registrar for Pesticides. But because this department is also mandated to promote agricultural expansion, Prof London believes this creates a clear conflict of interest concerning independent pesticide regulation.
He also suggests that the national department has done little to promote the Integrated Pest Management philosophy, which encourages farmers to reduce their reliance on chemical pesticides.
These are some of the alternatives proposed to reduce chemically-intensive farming. (Image: European Commission 2022)
In a journal critique published in 2000, Prof London and fellow UCT public health researcher Prof Hanna-Andrea Rother argued that pesticide regulation fines were “grossly inconsistent with the gravity of offences” while inspectorates were hugely understaffed.
Nearly a quarter of a century later, those derisory fines remain unchanged, and Prof London says that though there has been some “tinkering”, the current pesticide regulation model remains more or less unchanged.
He suggests that South Africa is still locked in a “pesticide culture” that sees intensive chemical control of farm pests as the norm, rather than as a last resort.
“This consent is manufactured by many forces, economic and ideological, and can be seen in the nature of pesticide advertising, and discourses surrounding the heroic role pesticides can play in economic development in the new South Africa,” according to the two researchers..
They noted that 100 to 200 cases of pesticide poisoning were reported every year to the Department of Health (mostly farmworkers or rural residents), while other surveys suggested that the true rates were anything between five and 20 times higher.
Several farm workers live in close proximity to crop fields sprayed from the air, potentially exposing them to toxic spray drift via contaminated air and water. (Photo: Professor Leslie London)
To resolve conflicts of interest and the fragmentation of regulation, the two researchers call for a new independent regulatory body to act as guardian of the public interest, separated from the economic motive to promote agricultural production.
Similar proposals for reform have also been made by Advocate Susannah Cowen SC on behalf of the Real Thing natural health products company.
In a legal opinion submitted to the SA Law Reform Commission in 2021, Cowen draws attention to the apparent double standards of South Africa importing hazardous chemicals from countries where these same chemicals are banned.
Cowen (now a judge of the labour court) said: “No amount of tinkering or amendment can render the 1947 Act fit for purpose in a democratic South Africa. It is wholly outdated.”
At the time of the submission, she said there was also no requirement for periodic safety reviews of currently registered pesticides or re-evaluations of old chemicals.
“The State made important reform commitments in the Pesticide Management Policy for South Africa in 2010. However, these commitments have not been realised and very little has been done since 2010 when these commitments were made.” DM
The Department of Agriculture Land Reform and Rural Development responds:
“The (1947) Act may only be amended once its relevance, applicability, suitability and responsiveness is under question, and so far the Act is still potently applicable
“Over the years, the department has phased out or banned many pesticides of concern under the same Act. We will continue to review the pesticides on concern, and where applicable we will phase out or ban them.
“There have been several regulations under the Act which the Minister has made in order to respond to some substantive recommendations which were part of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy. The regulations relating to agricultural remedy, as published in Government Notice No. R. 3812 of August 2023, are aimed at addressing the recommendations of the 2010 Pesticide Management Policy.
“The latest regulations were published on 25 August 2023, which, among others, are aimed as phasing active ingredients and their pesticides formulations that potentially may cause cancer, genetic mutation and damages to fertility of a human being (including negatively affecting the unborn child); implementation of the Globally Harmonised System of classification and labelling of chemicals; restrictions of sale and use of certain hazardous pesticides, disclosure by agrochemical companies of amounts the of pesticides sold and other measures.
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE)responds:
A spokesperson said the department “categorically rejects [suggestions] that it has taken 20 years to implement the Rotterdam Convention. DFFE has been facilitating the exchange of information for more than 17 years (as far back as 2006).”
Commenting on the reasons for a recent series of notices to suspend, repeal or amend the convention’s domestic regulations, the department said it was compelled by law to undertake public participation when developing regulations.
“There were submissions on substantive matters that were submitted after the finalisation of the (Rotterdam) PIC Regulations that influenced the department to reconsider and opt for the suspension of the PIC Regulations. The department rejects claims or any perceptions of improper influence and maintains that the Batho Pele principles of consultation, courtesy and responsiveness remained at the centre of the department’s decision to suspend the regulations while the specific amendments were being attended to.”
Croplife South Africa responds:
Croplife confirmed that it made submissions to Creecy’s department to correct certain errors in the registration status of chemicals listed in the Rotterdam regulations.
Responding to criticism about the “double standards” of selling pesticides in Africa when they were banned in Europe or other developed nations, Croplife said: “It is quite normal for some countries to have plant protection solutions authorised for local use when they are not registered in other countries. Local climatic conditions, pest occurrence, crops and regulatory procedures differ from country to country. Therefore, products can be registered in one country and not in another.”
The industry group acknowledged that current laws only provide for a R1,000 fine for contraventions of the 1947 Act, but noted the government could impose much more severe sanctions – such as a banning or cancelling sales of certain chemical products.
There had also been “several” amendments since 1947, while specific product registrations were reviewed every three years.
New regulations published in August 2023 also contained a clause that a pesticide registration holder was obliged to inform the registrar of any new data pertaining to environmental or human toxicology
“Act No 36 and its supporting regulations provide a robust regulatory framework for plant protection solutions in South Africa. As with any government department, the Act No 36 of 1947 regulatory team could be more efficient if central Treasury provided greater funding. In this way, the approval and registration process could bring newer technologies to South African farmers more quickly.
“Government still has the overall right to approve or not approve a product. But our opinion remains that the system for product registrations can be more efficient, bringing newer technologies to farmers quicker, by better utilising the fees already paid to government for product registrations”.
Global agricultural exports have more than tripled in value and doubled in volume since 1995, exceeding US $1.8 trillion in 2018. Plant and plant-based products contribute more than 50% to the total trade. International trade in fruits and vegetables stands at 24% followed by 15% cereals; and 10% comprising coffee, tea, cocoa & spices.
This progress was possible by smaller and bigger economies coming together under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) trade agreement umbrella. Membership was confirmed with the signing of agreements, including the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement.
SPS agreement
The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement is defined as, “including all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements, and procedures regarding food safety”. It ensures that nations enact health and safety measures based on sound scientific methods. What is more, it sets the framework by which international, regional, and national agencies create and implement SPS standards. Obligations towards its implementation are a crucial step toward enhanced transparency in the trade of agriculture commodities between member countries.
However, the emergence of new and stricter standards for agricultural imports in developed economies has also led to a number of new challenges for developing countries trying to increase their trade as a means for economic growth. Many of these challenges are related to compliance with these rigorous standards. In addition, weak institutional capacities of National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) in the least developed countries (LDCs) for compliance and trade agreement negotiations involving SPS are key factors in limiting the inclusivity of small-scale actors in value chains.
CABI and FAO study
To understand these challenges and take advantage of the opportunities, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and CAB International (CABI) are leading a study in the Asia and Pacific region. Entitled “Regional webinar on Opportunities and Challenges in Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures – Modernizing SPS to facilitate agricultural trade in Asia”, it focuses on Bangladesh, Bhutan, Kiribati, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Solomon Islands, and Vietnam.
The study’s objective is to understand the status quo and specific challenges for each country. In addition, what SPS requirements would allow the individual countries to meet the requisite compliances and support improved and wider integration into global value chains? The study is being conducted by CABI experts from India, China, Pakistan, the UK, and Kenya.
Understanding the realities
Mr. Gopi Ramasamy (Regional Director, CABI South Asia) stated that despite agriculture contributing significantly to country GDP in most Asia pacific countries, Asia’s share of global trade is still at 20-25%. Intra-regional trade is happening much easier than global trade. The ongoing study will help us to understand the ground realities in the Asia Pacific region in terms of trade and the way forward to augment global trade from Asia through technological and policy interventions.
Dr. Yubak Dhoj GC (FAO RAP, Bangkok) said that FAO through its strategic narrative of supporting the transformation to more efficient, inclusive, resilient, and sustainable agri-food systems and respective programme priority area (PPA) BN5: Transparent markets and trade is committed to improved market transparency and equitable participation in markets, global value chains and international trade that can be achieved through policy coordination and human and institutional capacities for evidence-based decision-making. The commissioned study will identify such issues and opportunities to achieve the objective of PPP for improved transparency and trade.
SPS issue in Asia and Pacific countries
Dr. Vinod Pandit (CABI India), Project Manager for the study stated that “Such barriers or trade restrictions to market access must be understood, removed or complied with, in order for smallholder farmers in these countries to move beyond subsistence agriculture”. He further said that the study has a well-drafted plan to a) analyse & document the issues pertaining to SPS in Asia and Pacific countries, b) Develop a position statement on SPS issues in the region, c) Orientation and introduction of digital tools like PRA, HST, ePhyto, PCE, etc. Dr. Pandit reported that the country reports developed out of this work will serve as a ready reckoner to national and international organizations. The project team also envisages using the outcomes of this study for future implementation in the region.
Study team member Dr. Julie Flood (CABI UK), explained that though countries in the region are having almost uniform issues related to pests, pesticides, and procedural issues, they are at different stages of adoption of SPS agreements and systems (e.g., digital uptake).
Stakeholder motivation
Ms. Kritika Khanna (CABI India), Team manager highlighted the interest and motivations of different in-country stakeholders in being part of this study. She mentioned that as a part of the project, a series of workshops and webinars have been conducted with active participation, meaningful debates, and discussions from a large number of stakeholders. An immediate need was felt to help countries in raising the bar on compliance with international standards and trading partner requirements.
Dr. Shama Praveen (CABI India) who has done an in-depth analysis of the country reports informed that though countries broadly face issues related to pests and MRLs, country trends show significant cases of MRL issues related to pesticides and aflatoxins.
Dr. Hongmei Li (CABI China) team member who worked extensively in South East Asia pointed out that the Asia and Pacific region is making major contributions to agricultural production and export globally. Timely and effective alignment with SPS will effectively reduce unnecessary losses among the international trades. This will improve the incomes of smallholder farmers.
Strengthening infrastructure
There is an urgent need to strengthen infrastructure and capacity building for pests identification and pesticide issues. Dr. Jayne Crozier (CABI UK) team member is of the view that this in-depth study will lead to a better understanding of issues countries in the region are facing. What’s more, critical analysis will help in developing a regional approach to minimizing the issues related to agri-trade.
Dr. Habat Ullah Asad (CABI Pakistan) team member is responsible for documenting and analyzing SPS issues in Pakistan stated that the Pakistani agro-food industry has a high potential for international exports. However, Pakistan is facing problems due to its wider resource and infrastructure constraints that limit not only its ability to comply with SPS requirements but also its ability to demonstrate compliance. However, the establishment of a national SPS authority for SPS stakeholder coordination; capacity building of relevant public, and private stakeholder personnel, and improvement in infrastructure, and storage facilities will help ensure proper SPS compliance from field to destination.
Digital tool implementation
A regional webinar series on digital tools highlighted that country stakeholders are looking forward to orientation, adoption, and implementation of the digital tools in these countries, and are seeking international support to facilitate their installation and usage. Stakeholders are of the view that these tools will largely facilitate agri trade in their country.
The study as a whole will attempt to understand the field level bottlenecks in different countries in Asia that are influenced by various socio-economic, technological and policy level factors. Documenting these challenges and addressing them through subsequent interventions is expected to augment cross-border trade from Asian countries resulting in increased global trade from these economies.
Effective plant health management is critical for improving the productivity, profitability, sustainability and resilience of agrifood systems. Yet, farming communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, continue to struggle against plant pests and diseases. Each year, these threats cause 10–40% losses to major food crops, costing the global economy US$220 billion. Recent analyses show that the highest losses due to pests and diseases are associated with food-deficit regions with fast-growing populations.
Increasing trade and travel, coupled with weak phytosanitary systems, are accelerating the global spread of devastating pests and diseases. The situation is exacerbated by climate change, driving the emergence of new threats. These burdens fall disproportionately on women and poorly resourced communities.
Diagnostic capacity, global-scale surveillance data, risk forecasting and rapid response and management systems for major pests and diseases are still lacking. Inadequate knowledge and access to climate-smart control options often leave smallholders and marginalized communities poorly equipped to respond to biotic threats. Environmental effects of toxic pesticides, mycotoxin exposure and acute unintentional pesticide poisoning are major concerns globally.
Objective
This Initiative aims to protect agriculture-based economies of low- and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America from devastating pest incursions and disease outbreaks, by leveraging and building viable networks across an array of national, regional and global institutions.
Activities
This objective will be achieved by:
Bridging knowledge gaps and networks for plant health threat identification and characterization, focusing on strengthening the diagnostic and surveillance capacity of national plant protection organizations and national agricultural research and extension systems, and facilitating knowledge exchange on pests and diseases.
Risk assessment, data management and guiding preparedness for rapid response, focusing on controlling the introduction and spread of pests and diseases by developing and enhancing tools and standards.
Integrated pest and disease management, focusing on designing and deploying approaches against prioritized plant health threats in targeted crops and cropping systems.
Tools and processes for protecting food chains from mycotoxin contamination: designing and deploying two innovations for reducing mycotoxin contamination to protect health, increase food/feed safety, enhance trade, diversify end-use and boost income.
Equitable and inclusive scaling of plant health innovations to achieve impacts, through multistakeholder partnerships, inter-disciplinary research and effective communications.
Engagement
This Initiative will work in the following countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Malawi, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Outcomes
Proposed 3-year outcomes include:
National plant protection organizations in at least 10 target countries participate in a global plant diagnostic and surveillance network, exchanging data and knowledge.
At least 25 national partners in 10 target countries use the novel diagnostic and surveillance tools to effectively counter existing or emerging plant health threats.
At least 10 target national plant protection organizations increase their capacity to use epidemiological modeling data and decision support tools for pest risk assessment and preparedness to counter prioritized pests and diseases.
A global plant health consortium comprising 60–70 institutions is operational, codeveloping and deploying integrated pest and disease management innovation packages and educational curriculum for effective plant health management.
Adoption of eco-friendly and climate-smart integrated pest and disease management innovations by at least 4 million smallholders in 15 countries results in reduction in crop losses of at least 5% and use of toxic pesticides of at least 10%.
At least 10 private sector partners in four focal countries in Africa commercialize Aflasafe to 200,000 farmers (400,000 ha of maize), resulting in enhanced availability of safe and nutritious food and feed.
At least 300,000 smallholder households across five countries use affordable and easy-to-use pre- and post-harvest integrated mycotoxin management innovations for mitigating contamination of the food chain.
Plant health research communities in at least 12 targeted countries use needs assessment evidence and data to develop demand-driven, equitable and scalable innovations.
National and regional partners use validated scaling approaches for detection, surveillance and management of pests, diseases and mycotoxin.
Based on science-based plant health policy briefs, investors and decision makers in targeted regions create an enabling environment for research for development and scaling of plant health innovations.
Impact
Projected impacts and benefits include:
POVERTY REDUCTION, LIVELIHOODS & JOBSLivelihoods of more than 27 million people (more than 6 million households) across 13 target countries are improved due to increased yield stability and containment of pest- and disease-induced crop and food losses at the field- and landscape-levels through development and delivery of eco-friendly innovations to detect and control pests and diseases.
NUTRITION, HEALTH & FOOD SECURITYMore than 110 million people (more than 16 million households) benefit from better resilience of crops and cropping systems, better preparedness to counter biotic threats exacerbated by climate variability and changing farming practices, further increasing food security and farm profitability, and reducing food prices.Losses in yield and quality of major food crops due to pests and diseases are reduced through integrated pest and disease management innovations. Food and feed are made safer for consumption by reducing pesticide and mycotoxin contamination in targeted crops, improving human and animal health.
GENDER EQUALITY, YOUTH & SOCIAL INCLUSIONAround 8 million women have increased access to and benefit from plant health innovations through prioritization and implementation of approaches for gender-equitable and socially inclusive design and scaling of plant health innovations. These are supported by multi-stakeholder partnerships and new opportunities for women and youth.
CLIMATE ADAPTATION & MITIGATIONMore than 8 million people (more than 1.27 million households) benefit from reduced impact of climate-induced changes in pests and diseases on crops, food security, and livelihoods through better preparedness and adaptation of plant health innovations based on improved forecasting of threats and modeling of impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & BIODIVERSITYReduction in use of toxic pesticides and associated safety hazards, including pesticide residues in the environment, due to integrated disease and pest management and prioritization of nature-based solutions are applied on more than 9 million hectares of maize crops, benefiting more than 24 million people (more than 5 million households). Natural biodiversity and ecologies are protected from devastating invasive pests and pathogens and toxic pesticides.
Researchers analyze roadmaps toward larger, greener global rice bowl
Nebraska Today/University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Shutterstock
Rice is the main food staple for more than half of the global population, and as the population grows, demand for rice is expected to grow, too.
But increasing global rice production is not a simple prospect.
“Global rice production is challenged now due to the negative environmental impact, water scarcity, labor shortage and slowing yield increases in many parts of the world,” said Shen Yuan, a postdoctoral research associate at Huazhong Agricultural University in China who spent two years as a visiting scholar at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
The challenge is producing more rice on existing cropland, and doing so while minimizing the environmental impact. New research led by Shaobing Peng, a professor of agronomy at Huazhong Agricultural University, and Patricio Grassini, associate professor of agronomy at Nebraska and co-leader of the Global Yield Gap Atlas, provides an analysis of roadmaps toward sustainable intensification for a larger global rice bowl. The research was published Dec. 9 in Nature Communications.
“Comparing rice cropping systems around the world in terms of productivity and efficiency in the use of applied inputs can help identify opportunities for improvement,” Grassini said.
The global assessment was led by Huazhong Agricultural University and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln, in collaboration with the University of California, Davis, and Texas A&M’s AgriLife Research Center in the United States; the International Rice Research Institute; Africa Rice Center; Indonesian Center for Rice Research and Assessment Institute of Agricultural Technology in Indonesia; Federal University of Santa Maria and EMBRAPA Arroz e Feijão in Brazil; National Institute of Agricultural Research in Uruguay; and Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research and Indian Institute of Water Management in India. The study assessed rice yields and efficiency in the use of water, fertilizer, pesticides and labor across 32 rice cropping systems that accounted for half of global rice harvested area.
“This study is the most comprehensive global evaluation of production systems for a major staple crop that I am aware of, and it will set the standard for future global comparison of such systems,” said Kenneth G. Cassman, professor emeritus at Nebraska and a co-author of the paper.
The good news, according to the study, is that there is still substantial room to increase rice production and reduce the negative environmental impact.
“Around two-thirds of the total rice area included in our study have yields that are below the yield that can be attained with good agronomic practices,” Yuan said. “Closing the existing yield gap requires better nutrient, pest, soil and water management, reduction of production risk and breeding programs that release rice cultivars with improved tolerance to evolving pests and diseases.”
Another important finding from the study is that food production and environmental goals do not conflict.
“We found that achieving high yields with small environmental impact per unit of production is possible,” Peng said. “Indeed, there is room for many rice systems to reduce the negative impact substantially while maintaining or even increasing rice yields.”
Producing more and minimizing the environmental footprint is an enormous challenge, Grassini said.
“Improved agronomic practices, complemented with proper institutions and policy, can help make rice cultivation more environmentally friendly,” Grassini said. “Our study marks a first step in identifying systems with the largest opportunities for increasing crop yields and resource-use efficiency, providing a blueprint to orient agricultural research and development programs at national to global scales.”SHARE1
On a recent November morning, more than 20,000 western monarch butterflies clustered in a grove of eucalyptus, coating the swaying trees like orange lace. Each year up to 30% of the butterfly’s population meets here in Pismo Beach, California, as the insects migrate thousands of miles west for the winter.
Just a year ago, this vibrant spectacle had all but disappeared. The monarch population has plummeted in recent years, as the vibrant invertebrates struggled to adapt to habitat loss, climate crisis, and harmful pesticide-use across their western range.
Last year less than 200 arrived at this site in 2020 – the lowest number ever recorded – and less than 2,000 were counted across the California coast.
But ahead of the official annual count that takes place around Thanksgiving, early tallies show monarchs may be thriving once again across California. The rise has sparked joy and relief, but the researchers, state park officials, and advocates say that doesn’t mean the species is safe.
Up to 30% of the western monarch butterfly population converges on Pismo Beach each winter. Photograph: Gabrielle Canon/The Guardian
“The takeaway is that the migration isn’t gone, which some people really feared last year,” says Emma Pelton, the senior conservation biologist for the Xerces Society, an organization dedicated to protecting pollinators and other invertebrates. Between 4 million and 10 million butterflies once graced the California coasts before dropping to just over a million at the end of the 1990s. In the decades that followed, the population plateaued at about 200,000.
Then, in 2017, the numbers crashed to fewer than 30,000 butterflies at the annual counts. Monarchs are resilient and adaptive but they continue to face challenges. This year’s uptick is small when put in perspective with past population levels, but “the good news is that it is not too late”, Pelton adds.
A remarkable migration
There’s still a fair amount of mystery surrounding the western monarchs and their incredible annual migration. Each year, they follow a celestial compass and head west from the Rocky Mountains to the coast. Remarkably, each generation of butterflies often returns the same groves along the coast each year, sometimes even a particular tree, without ever having been there before.
Generally, they arrive in California around November and disembark in the spring, heading east as the weather warms. A separate population of monarchs spends the winter in Mexico, coming from Canada and the eastern United States.
Stephanie Little, a scientist with California state parks, counts butterflies in Pismo Beach. Photograph: Gabrielle Canon/The Guardian
Advertisement
Their dedication to routine makes them easier to count each year. But the process isn’t exactly simple, especially when the numbers are low and they are harder to spot. In the Pismo Beach grove, which usually hosts the largest gathering, there are three state parks officials tasked with tallying them before the Thanksgiving count that relies on help from volunteers.
Armed with binoculars, butterfly counters estimate the numbers based on clusters that can be seen in the branches, roughly 50ft (15 meters) from the ground. California state parks has partnered with advocacy organizations to produce a welcoming environment for them. That means planting more of the non-native eucalyptus trees, which the butterflies love to roost in.
The reasons behind this sharp increase remain a mystery. Monarchs that live in the west tend to have three or four generations each year, each with a different role to play in the migration that can span thousands of miles, and there are opportunities at each stage for big shifts.
Monarch butterflies gather in the branches of a eucalyptus tree, roughly 50ft from the ground. Photograph: Gabrielle Canon/The Guardian
But what’s driving their precipitous decline is clear. Their historic habitats in grassland ecosystems across the US are being destroyed. Commercial agriculture is eating away at their range which is increasingly laced with deadly pesticides. And, susceptible to both fluctuations and extremes in temperatures, monarchs are vulnerable to climate change. That’s partly why they are considered a so-called “indicator species” revealing the devastating toll taken on other insects and ecosystems.
“The butterflies are just very adaptable and strong,” David James, an entomologist at Washington State University who has spent decades studying the species says. “But they are giving us a warning too – and we need to take heed of that,” he adds. “Their decline is going to affect other organisms.”
‘There’s still time to act’
The butterflies have also felt the impact of extreme heat, fires, and drought, as well as the severe winter storms on the California coast where they spend the winter. “Some of those storms have ripped the trees out and thrown butterflies to the ground,” James says.
But he also believes last year’s extremely low numbers may have been the result of dispersion, not necessarily death.
“When we only had 2,000 overwintering at the traditional sites, at the same time there were many reports inland in San Francisco and the LA area of monarch butterflies reproducing in people’s backyards and parks and gardens throughout the winter,” he says, noting that this spread makes them tricky to count.
But even if last year’s low numbers can be attributed to behavior changes, that’s still a sign climate crisis is causing problems. “They are indicating to us that things are going wrong,” James says.
Visitors look for butterflies at the Pismo Beach Butterfly Grove. Photograph: Gabrielle Canon/The Guardian
Individuals can make a difference by planting native nectar plants, including the milkweed that monarchs lay their eggs on and limiting the use of pesticides. Members of the public can also volunteer to monitor monarchs across the west. And, according to Xerces’ Emma Pelton, the promising numbers show that small changes can have a big impact.
“The main message to me is that there’s hope,” she says, noting the way monarchs have inspired the public to reimagine how they see insects and the role that everyone can play in their conservation. “The insect apocalypse narrative and the very real biodiversity crises that we are facing, those can feel really dark” she says. “But the issue is not intractable and we can make a difference. There is still time to act.”
About 5 months ago the US AGRONOMY journal invited me to write a review. Since it is pandemic time I thought it will be a nice mental challenge. After peer reviews, corrections, editing etc, it is finally published. Those interested the online version is available for those interested. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/11/2208/pdf
KL Heong
klheong@yahoo.com
Ecological Engineering for Rice Insect Pest Management: The Need to Communicate Widely, Improve Farmers’ Ecological Literacy and Policy Reforms to Sustain Adoption
by Kong-Luen Heong 1,*,Zhong-Xian Lu 2,Ho-Van Chien 3,Monina Escalada 4,Josef Settele 5,Zeng-Rong Zhu 1 andJia-An Cheng 11Institute of Insect Sciences, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China2Institute of Plant Protection and Microbiology, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou 310021, China3Department of Plant Protection, Mekong University, Vinh Long 890000, Vietnam4Department of Development Communication, Visayas State University, Baybay City 6521, Philippines5Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, 06120 Halle, Germany*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.Academic Editor: George G. KennedyAgronomy2021, 11(11), 2208; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112208Received: 20 September 2021 / Revised: 24 October 2021 / Accepted: 29 October 2021 / Published: 30 October 2021(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Pest Management Based on Ecological Principles) View Full-TextDownload PDFBrowse FiguresReview ReportsCitation Export
Abstract
Ecological engineering (EE) involves the design and management of human systems based on ecological principles to maximize ecosystem services and minimize external inputs. Pest management strategies have been developed but farmer adoption is lacking and unsustainable. EE practices need to be socially acceptable and it requires shifts in social norms of rice farmers. In many countries where pesticides are being marketed as “fast moving consumer goods” (FMCG) it is a big challenge to shift farmers’ loss-averse attitudes. Reforms in pesticide marketing policies are required. An entertainment education TV series was able to reach wider audience to improve farmers’ ecological literacy, shifting beliefs and practices. To sustain adoption of ecologically based practices organizational structures, incentives systems and communication strategies to support the new norms and practices are needed. View Full-TextKeywords: ecological engineering; entertainment-education; adoption; sustainability; rice insect pest management; rice farmers; pesticide marketing; policy reform; ecosystem services▼ Show Figures
Figure 1This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
ROME, Jul 26 2021 (IPS) – Back-to-back droughts followed by plagues of locusts have pushed over a million people in southern Madagascar to the brink of starvation in recent months. In the worst famine in half a century, villagers have sold their possessions and are eating the locusts, raw cactus fruits, and wild leaves to survive.
Barbara WellsInstead of bringing relief, this year’s rains were accompanied by warm temperatures that created the ideal conditions for infestations of fall armyworm, which destroys mainly maize, one of the main food crops of sub-Saharan Africa.
Drought and famine are not strangers to southern Madagascar, and other areas of eastern Africa, but climate change bringing warmer temperatures is believed to be exacerbating this latest tragedy, according to The Deep South, a new report by the World Bank.
Up to 40% of global food output is lost each year through pests and diseases, according to FAO estimates, while up to 811 million people suffer from hunger. Climate change is one of several factors driving this threat, while trade and travel transport plant pests and pathogens around the world, and environmental degradation facilitates their establishment.
Crop pests and pathogens have threatened food supplies since agriculture began. The Irish potato famine of the late 1840s, caused by late blight disease, killed about one million people. The ancient Greeks and Romans were well familiar with wheat stem rust, which continues to destroy harvests in developing countries.
But recent research on the impact of temperature increases in the tropics caused by climate change has documented an expansion of some crop pests and diseases into more northern and southern latitudes at an average of about 2.7 km a year.
Prevention is critical to confronting such threats, as brutally demonstrated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on humankind. It is far more cost-effective to protect plants from pests and diseases rather than tackling full-blown emergencies.
One way to protect food production is with pest- and disease-resistant crop varieties, meaning that the conservation, sharing, and use of crop biodiversity to breed resistant varieties is a key component of the global battle for food security.
CGIAR manages a network of publicly-held gene banks around the world that safeguard and share crop biodiversity and facilitate its use in breeding more resistant, climate-resilient and productive varieties. It is essential that this exchange doesn’t exacerbate the problem, so CGIAR works with international and national plant health authorities to ensure that material distributed is free of pests and pathogens, following the highest standards and protocols for sharing plant germplasm. The distribution and use of that germplasm for crop improvement is essential for cutting the estimated 540 billion US dollars of losses due to plant diseases annually.
Understanding the relationship between climate change and plant health is key to conserving biodiversity and boosting food production today and for future generations. Human-driven climate change is the challenge of our time. It poses grave threats to agriculture and is already affecting the food security and incomes of small-scale farming households across the developing world.
We need to improve the tools and innovations available to farmers. Rice production is both a driver and victim of climate change. Extreme weather events menace the livelihoods of 144 million smallholder rice farmers. Yet traditional cultivation methods such as flooded paddies contribute approximately 10% of global man-made methane, a potent greenhouse gas. By leveraging rice genetic diversity and improving cultivation techniques we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance efficiency, and help farmers adapt to future climates.
We also need to be cognizant that gender relationships matter in crop management. A lack of gender perspectives has hindered wider adoption of resistant varieties and practices such as integrated pest management. Collaboration between social and crop scientists to co-design inclusive innovations is essential.
Men and women often value different aspects of crops and technologies. Men may value high yielding disease-resistant varieties, whereas women prioritize traits related to food security, such as early maturity. Incorporating women’s preferences into a new variety is a question of gender equity and economic necessity. Women produce a significant proportion of the food grown globally. If they had the same access to productive resources as men, such as improved varieties, women could increase yields by 20-30%, which would generate up to a 4% increase in the total agricultural output of developing countries.
Practices to grow healthy crops also need to include environmental considerations. What is known as a One Health Approach starts from the recognition that life is not segmented. All is connected. Rooted in concerns over threats of zoonotic diseases spreading from animals, especially livestock, to humans, the concept has been broadened to encompass agriculture and the environment.
This ecosystem approach combines different strategies and practices, such as minimizing pesticide use. This helps protect pollinators, animals that eat crop pests, and other beneficial organisms.
The challenge is to produce enough food to feed a growing population without increasing agriculture’s negative impacts on the environment, particularly through greenhouse gas emissions and unsustainable farming practices that degrade vital soil and water resources, and threaten biodiversity.
Behavioral and policy change on the part of farmers, consumers, and governments will be just as important as technological innovation to achieve this.
The goal of zero hunger is unattainable without the vibrancy of healthy plants, the source of the food we eat and the air we breathe. The quest for a food secure future, enshrined in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, requires us to combine research and development with local and international cooperation so that efforts led by CGIAR to protect plant health, and increase agriculture’s benefits, reach the communities most in need.
“Impact from India’s new non-GMO requirement has been minimal”
A new requirement imposed by the Indian government on imported produce items has been causing challenges for apple exporters in Washington. “A sizeable list of produce items now requires a non-GMO certificate, and apples are one of the items on the list,” says Steve Reinholt, Export Sales Manager at Starr Ranch Growers.
Shipments to India continue, impact is minimal While the new requirement is bringing a new hurdle for exporters, it’s not preventing them from continuing their shipments. Reinholt explains: “It is not a simple process and will require additional processes and documentation prior to shipping. The issue was larger than any one company because the requirement from India was to have all shipments certified non-GMO by an official body – and here in the US we didn’t have anyone who did that sort of certification. Fortunately, the USDA and the WSDA have both stepped up and developed paperwork that will meet India’s requirements, as long as the grower and packer can produce the correct verification.”
Fortunately, the new requirement came during a smaller than usual season, which means that the overall impact has been minimal, says Reinholt. “Additionally, the red delicious variety has historically been the preferred apple in India and the production of reds has dropped off significantly over the past few years. Therefore, the overall impact has been mitigated to a degree. However, when we have the next large crop, we will need all markets open and available to us to profitably market our products. So, ideally, we will be able to get this requirement removed for future seasons,” he says.
Reinholt explains that the requirement of a non-GMO certificate for apples is not logical in the first place: “All apples grown and packed for fresh consumption in the Pacific Northwest are non-GMO, and the variety of apples that India buys don’t even have a GMO variant. I believe this new requirement is a classic case of a bureaucracy throwing up barriers to free trade.”
Tariffs continue to be biggest barrier for exporters Despite this new requirement and the challenges that have resulted from it, the biggest barrier for US apple exporters continues to be the high tariffs in India. “In the past, India has been a big market for Starr Ranch, as well as for the rest of the apple industry. That changed a couple of years ago when a retaliatory duty of 20% was put on many products, including apples, from the US. Overall volume has dropped off drastically, and the effects of the retaliatory tariffs have a far greater impact on our ability to sell our apples profitably in India than this new non-GMO requirement. Still, India does remain an important trading partner,” Reinholt concludes.
The Environmental Protection Agency released a draft biological evaluation on Wednesday finding that glyphosate is likely to injure or kill 93% of the plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The long-anticipated draft biological evaluation released by the agency’s pesticide office found that 1,676 endangered species are likely to be harmed by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the world’s most-used pesticide.
The draft biological opinion also found that glyphosate adversely modifies critical habitat for 759 endangered species, or 96% of all species for which critical habitat has been designated.
“The hideous impacts of glyphosate on the nation’s most endangered species are impossible to ignore now,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Glyphosate use is so widespread that even the EPA’s notoriously industry-friendly pesticide office had to conclude that there are hardly any endangered species that can manage to evade its toxic impacts.”
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
Hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate are used each year in the United States, mostly in agriculture but also on lawns, gardens, landscaping, roadsides, schoolyards, national forests, rangelands, power lines and more.
According to the EPA, 280 million pounds of glyphosate are used just in agriculture, and glyphosate is sprayed on 298 million acres of crop land each year. Eighty-four percent of glyphosate pounds applied in agriculture are applied to soy, corn and cotton, commodity crops that are genetically engineered to tolerate being drenched with quantities of glyphosate that would normally kill a plant.
Glyphosate is also widely used in oats, wheat, pulses, fruit and vegetable production.
“If we want to stop the extinction of amazing creatures like monarch butterflies, we need the EPA to take action to stop the out-of-control spraying of deadly poisons,” Burd continued.
The EPA has, for decades, steadfastly refused to comply with its obligation under the Endangered Species Act to assess the harms of pesticides to protected plants and animals. But it was finally forced to do this evaluation under the terms of a 2016 legal agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity.
Emails obtained in litigation brought against Monsanto/Bayer by cancer victims and their families have uncovered a disturbingly cozy relationship between the agency and the company on matters involving the glyphosate risk assessment.
In one example, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it would be reviewing glyphosate’s safety, an EPA official assured Monsanto he would work to thwart the review, saying, “If I can kill this, I should get a medal.” The Health and Human Services review was delayed for three years.on.”
Earlier this year, relying on confidential industry research, the EPA reapproved glyphosate. The EPA’s assessment contradicts a 2015 World Health Organization analysis of published research that determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
Sustainable Pulse is a global news outlet covering sustainable agriculture, GMOs and pesticides.Recommended for you
Insects make up the bulk of terrestrial diversity (1). Reports of insect declines, best documented in Europe and North America, suggest that 40% of insect species in temperate countries may face extinction over the next few decades (2), although this figure is probably inflated (3). Other studies have highlighted falling insect biomass in Germany and Puerto Rico (4, 5), as well as threats to many insect taxa in Europe (5) and insect pollinators worldwide (6) that support food production (7). To protect insects, it is crucial that they are considered as separate species with distinct responses to threats, with particular attention to tropical insects and their habitats. Bees and butterflies may serve as an initial focus, but conservation efforts must go far beyond these iconic species. Halting habitat loss and fragmentation, reducing pesticide use, and limiting climate change are all required if insect populations are to be preserved.
The Main Threats
Trends in biodiversity decline are more severe for invertebrates than for vertebrates (4), because the former are highly specialized in terms of food resources and microhabitats. About half of insect species are herbivores and have intimate relationships with their host plants; the slightest alteration to plant abundance or phenology may therefore have severe consequences for insect populations. Multiple interacting threats affect insects, often with negative consequences not just for the insect species themselves but also for other species that rely on them and for overall ecosystem functioning. However, little is known about the identity, genomics, or ecological role of most insect species.
Habitat loss and fragmentation are probably the most serious threats to temperate and tropical insects, particularly to rare, endemic, and specialized species, resulting in reduced and homogeneous assemblages of generalist species across space (8). Habitat loss is fueled by agricultural expansion and intensification, which involves substantial use of chemical pesticides (insecticides and herbicides). The latter are another substantial threat to insect species; insecticides have been linked to insect decline in temperate countries (2, 4) and to global pollinator decline (6). The increasing introduction of large-scale agriculture in the tropics may similarly cause substantial harm to insect populations through the impacts of pesticides beyond agricultural systems (9). The use of fertilizers and herbicides may also shift plant composition, altering the population dynamics of host plants and dependent insects (3).
Climate change, and especially the frequency of extreme climatic anomalies, may be especially detrimental to tropical insects, which tend to have narrow geographic ranges and low tolerance to changes in temperature and rainfall (5, 10). Invasive species and pathogens may also threaten local populations, as can light pollution (2, 3).
Improving Knowledge
Insects are the central component of the living world, and their protection is crucial to maintaining functioning ecosystems and ensuring food security (4, 7). However, scientific knowledge is limited because of insufficient funding for entomological science and the resulting scarcity of adequate field studies. Many past studies have relied on overall insect biomass measurements, which are relatively easy to conduct (2, 5). However, insect biomass greatly varies in space and time and provides little information about the population dynamics of specific species. Instead, population trends can be summarized by combining insect species into different functional groups (10), which may help to identify which species are coping better or worse with anthropogenic changes (3).
Furthermore, many studies are resurveys—that is, snapshots taken at specific time intervals rather than continuous monitoring. The latter is crucial for evaluating how insects respond to individual threats. Comparison of snapshots is further complicated by habitat changes, does not accurately capture which species are present or absent, and may yield misleading trends (3).
Assemblages monitored in the long term must be representative of local insect populations and reasonably diverse. Findings of low insect densities and rates of local extinction must be corroborated with independent studies, particularly in the tropics, where many species subsist at low densities (10). Further, contrasting insect responses to threats must be acknowledged and scrutinized (3, 10). For example, many native species may be declining in temperate forests, but several pest species are expanding their geographical range in response to climate change (7). Efficient monitoring programs can benefit from recently developed technologies involving molecular methods (11) or bioacoustics, as well as from citizen participation (6).
Conservation efforts cannot succeed without sound ecological knowledge of the role of insects in ecosystem maintenance and functioning and of the complex processes, such as adaptive strategies, food behavior, or cascading trophic interactions, that may be disrupted by threats (5). Because even small ecosystem fragments have conservation value for insect biodiversity and ecosystem services, studies should focus on how to preserve forest heterogeneity, enhance the values of fragments by increasing forest connectivity, and promote habitat restoration favorable to insects. Experiments should investigate the consequences of extreme temperatures, which may reduce the fitness of predatory and parasitoid species. A better understanding and delineation of the species that need to be protected is also important. Taxonomic knowledge can be advanced by training more taxonomists and by developing DNA barcode libraries, which provide tractable and testable taxonomic frameworks (11).
Protection Measures
Insects are of crucial importance for ecosystem functioning (including pollination and forest regeneration), for mitigation of pests, and as a source of protein for animals and humans (7). Effective protection measures can be implemented now to mitigate insect decline by examining the evidence available for temperate insects. If decision-makers fulfill their commitments toward the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement to mitigate global warming, threats to insect populations resulting directly from global climate change will be alleviated. In urban areas, policies that favor organic agriculture and insect-friendly gardens can greatly support insect species (12). Planting native species in urban environments such as parks, roofs, and backyards can also help to protect insect populations and deliver pollination services.
In rural areas, insect species would benefit from support for organic agriculture and permaculture, the reduction and more efficient use of pesticides, use of integrated pest management (7), and local-scale farming practices that nurture insect populations. Boosting the abundance, diversity, and continuity of floral resources and providing nesting sites are efficient ways to mitigate pollinator decline (6).
Efficient, appropriate, and permanent conservation measures for natural habitats (such as old-growth forests) and human-influenced areas of even very small sizes can support high insect diversity (3). National coordination, informed by scientific results, can lead to better conservation management, such as supporting effective landscape-scale ecological networks (13). Funding of long-term research activities on habitat conservation in general, and specifically on insect science and taxonomy, is especially important to evaluate and mitigate future changes in insect communities, obtain reliable insect time series, and discover species before they go extinct (1).
Engaging the Public
In general, the public tends to appreciate aesthetic insects such as butterflies and the beneficial role of pollinators (6). These perceptions can be used to strengthen the conservation value of insects. However, bee and butterfly species represent only <4% of the insect species described worldwide (1). Many people have negative perceptions of insects in general and do not perceive them as separate species (14). Further, the roles of insects in ecosystem services can be difficult to comprehend (except for pollinators), as are the consequences of insect species loss and overall attrition of biodiversity.
Although public interest in insects varies from one country to another, biological education about the conservation of insects and their natural habitats is urgently needed at all levels of society, starting with field education programs (14). The extraordinary natural history of insects offers many opportunities in biological education and citizen science (14). Field surveys and experiments help the public to appreciate the importance of insects in terrestrial biodiversity (14). Such activities may promote greater empathy and curiosity toward insects and their habitats. Finally, promoting science through traditional and social media can spread enthusiasm and respect for insects and those who study them.
A male weevil (Rhinostomus barbirostris) protects an egg-laying female in Panama.
PHOTO: YVES BASSET
Tropical Data Gaps
In the tropics, where most insect species live, circumstantial data exist, but long-term records are too sparse to support the conclusion of a global insect decline. Most tropical datasets (see supplementary materials) were collected in locations buffered from the effects of agricultural practices and habitat disturbance. Most of these studies do not unequivocally suggest a decline in insect abundance or species richness; rather, they point to contrasting patterns in population dynamics and to the possible impact of climate change. This may reflect an initial positive effect of rising temperatures or merely the dynamics of common species (see fig. S1 in supplementary materials). For example, the species richness of a community of leaf litter ants in Ecuador remained constant for a study period of 11 years, with little or no evidence of directional change toward a new community (15).
Longer time series including diverse taxa are urgently required to understand what is going on. However, tropical regions mostly composed of developing countries can only devote limited funds to research on nature conservation. Successful examples of conservation planning and public outreach in temperate regions could be shared with tropical regions and could help to guide insect conservation in those locations. International collaborations involving scientists from both developed and developing nations will be key to expertise sharing, as will be the development of global databases with open access.
Outlook
No matter whether the insect apocalypse is global or not, immediate actions are necessary to mitigate insect decline. Here, more insect-friendly agricultural practices are key. Scientific research into the cost effectiveness of pesticide use will help to reduce unnecessary pesticide applications (9). Redistribution of eco-friendly subsidies to favor insect protection (5) can target integrated pest management, the use of pesticide and fertilizers only when necessary for food security and the protection of remaining natural habitats from land-use conversion. Changes of laws can be implemented quickly using bees or butterflies as the focus of attention, as recently demonstrated in Bavaria, Germany, where a grassroots citizen campaign and a state referendum led to a law necessitating drastic changes in agricultural practice to protect biodiversity.
Efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as the boycott of harmful chemical products by both the public and governments, will also help insect populations to recover. To allow insect populations to prosper in both temperate and tropical areas, scientists and policy-makers need to rethink scientific and public priorities to reach out to the public and develop effective protection measures. We need a bioliterate society that protects insects to ensure humanity’s own survival.
For more information:
Global Plant Protection News 
