Academic Advisory Panel - integrated pest management (IPM): advisory note

This advisory note has been prepared by the Academic Advisory Panel (AAP) to provide advice on strategies to increase the future uptake of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) options, ways to utilise available data to demostrate and maximise the benefits of IMP adoption, and methods to track the potential impact of greening measures on IMP uptake. This note summarises the discussion held during the AAP meeting on the 28 OCtober 2024.

Key summary of the discussion

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a sustainable approach to managing pests, weeds, and diseases, supporting resilient agriculture, healthy crops, and biodiversity. IPM reduces reliance on chemical pesticides by more targeted applications and use of natural control mechanisms. The result is that IPM cuts pollution of the environment, helps manage pesticide resistance, and lowers costs. IPM adoption reduces risks to human health, and supports Scotland’s climate and nature goals. Note that in the context of IPM, the term “pests” is taken to mean any harmful organisms (animal pests, weeds and fungi/bacteria/viruses/oomycete etc. that cause disease). It should be clarified that IPM practices do not aim to replace pesticide use entirely but offer alternative approaches to reduce reliance on them.

Using an existing Integrated Pest Management planning tool or Scottish IPM Assessment Plan, growers can record their use of IPM measures and receive an IPM score, as of September 2023 around 2250 plans had been completed in Scotland. The adoption of IPM in Scotland, as recorded in this way, varies by farm type, size, region, soil types and crop. Larger arable farms tend to have higher IPM adoption rates, possibly due to more flexibility in cropping choices and resources, while mixed (crop and livestock) farms often adopt IPM at a lower rate. Regional differences reveal higher uptake in the east of Scotland, with farms primarily dedicated to arable production achieving higher IPM scores. Key factors influencing adoption include farm size, farmer education, and the involvement of advice, in particular from an agronomist. Further research is needed to better understand and address barriers to adoption to boost uptake.

To maximise adoption and impact of IPM, we recommend several strategies should be deployed:

• educating growers through training, peer learning, and inclusive CPD programmes to build confidence in engaging with IPM and improve risk management decisions
• increase IPM uptake through engaging agricultural advisors with comprehensive IPM knowledge and access to reliable evidence, while ensuring transparency regarding potential vested interests
• enhance collaboration among stakeholders, research institutions, agricultural firms and the supply chain to drive development of practical solutions tailored to specific circumstances
• target messaging to emphasise the environmental and economic benefits of IPM, such as reduced chemical usage and associated costs, as well as limiting impacts to targeted pests or weeds only, thereby reducing unintended effects on non-target species. This could be combined with financial incentives
• integrate IPM into crop certification programs
• regularly review progress to ensure continued improvement in sustainable pest management

In depth analysis of data from the IPM Assessment Plans can maximise benefits identifying barriers to adoption and improving strategies for promoting IPM practices. Linking IPM data with pesticide use information can improve monitoring of the uptake of IPM practices and policy assessment.

We recommend more granular data collection through sources such as the Single Application Form (SAF), to ensure that public funds contribute to achieving environmental goals. A farm-level IPM assessment should be accompanied by reporting on specific practices, with assurances that data will be used for analysis only. Additionally, more detailed information on pesticide use in grassland and expanding the June Agricultural Census to include IPM data would provide valuable insights into trends over time and across regions. Transparent mechanisms are essential to build trust and prevent misuse of data while promoting wider adoption of IPM practices.

Proposed changes in the Agriculture Act aimed at restoring nature and biodiversity may impact pest, weed and disease management, potentially increasing reliance on pesticide use in some cases. Measures such as reduced ploughing or use of cover crops may have both positive effects and unintended consequences. However, there is no indication of severe adverse effects from these measures from current evidence assessments but often the evidence can be scant or show weak relationships.

We recommend routine plant health monitoring as crucial to track pesticide use trends, provide farmers with information on seasonal risks, address emerging threats and safeguard agricultural production and the environment. Active monitoring of issues from devolved nations can provide valuable lessons for Scotland. 

Key discussion points:

IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests, weeds, and diseases on the land. It can be used by all farmers, growers, and land managers and aims to support resilient and sustainable agricultural production while ensuring healthy crops. By reducing reliance on chemical pesticides, IPM helps manage pesticide resistance, encourages natural control mechanisms, and contributes to enhancing wildlife and biodiversity. IPM also provides economic benefits by lowering the costs associated with pesticide use. Sustainable practices like biological controls or crop-rotation prevents crop losses and support good quality produce. Adoption of the IPM reduces chemical risks to human health and contributes to achieving Scotland’s climate and nature targets.

1. How to maximise the future uptake and benefits of the IPM plans.

The IPM plans used across Scotland and England record inputs and provide individual users with feedback on their IPM measures. When used in aggregated forms the data can be used to track adoption rates and correlate practices with farm demographics and types. Data collected through the plans provide an opportunity to examine trends in uptake of IPM practices over time and their resulting impact on pests and pesticide use. Data also allow for the analysis of the key factors influencing the adoption of IPM plans. The following trends have been identified so far:

• impact of farm type and size – larger arable farms tend to have higher IPM adoption rates, possibly due to greater flexibility and resources for diverse practices (e.g., crop rotation). In contrast, grassland farms, mixed farming systems, and livestock farms generally show lower adoption rates, and IPM is often viewed as more applicable to arable farming
• Differences in IPM practices by region and crop type - IPM adoption varies across Scotland, with higher adoption rates in arable-focused regions. Pesticide availability (either as result of resistance or from regulatory withdrawal of approvals) is driving alternative practices in certain crops (e.g., potatoes, oilseed rape)
• role of agronomists and membership in schemes promoting IPM – access to agronomists and membership in assurance schemes promoting IPM play a crucial role in guiding IPM practices and contributing to better IPM adoption. Attending farmer discussion groups is linked to higher IPM scores for all farmers
• other factors and IPM adoption - IPM adoption correlates with farmer’s age, education, and access to agronomists

We recommend further research to understand the reasons for lack of engagement, identify strategies to increase uptake levels, and to understand how climate change will affect trends in pesticide application practices and the adoption of IPM measures.

We recommend deploying several strategies that can be effective in maximizing future adoption and benefits of IPM:

• increase Awareness and Education. Data indicate that the more information growers have and use, the better their risk management decisions are. Leading IPM adopters utilise more preventative measures and consider a wider range of factors in their planning. Accessible training on IPM principles and techniques, participation in discussion groups, and field demonstrations can encourage wider adoption of IPM practices. Peer learning networks can further boost the adoption of successful practices shared by others. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) programmes should include modules on relevant IPM practices, to empower growers to engage with IPM more confidently. Diversity and inclusivity issues should be addressed when designing a CPD programme to ensure that it can be effectively accessed by people from a range of geographic locations and different incomes, education level, age, gender, and ethnicity

“Ultimately, a deeper understanding of IPM practices equips farmers to actively participate in IPM discussion with their agronomists. This enables the collaborative development of an effective IPM strategy and, in turn, increases the adoption of IPM practices.” Creissen et al. (2024)

• engagement with Agricultural Advisers. Farmers and crofters often rely on trusted advisers for guidance on decision making on the farm. IPM principles should be embedded into advisory services to ensure widespread adoption. Agronomists should have comprehensive knowledge of IPM measures and access to reliable, relevant evidence. Agronomists may have vested interests, if alongside advice they are also involved in promoting pesticides. To eliminate conflict of interest, consideration should be given to promoting greater transparency in disclosing vested interests or mandating a clear separation between advisory services and product sales. More insights into impartiality of farm advice can be found in this study: Should ‘Impartial’ Advice be a Priority of European Agricultural and Rural Policies? - Sutherland - 2022 - EuroChoices - Wiley Online Library
• stakeholder Collaboration: The success of IPM relies on engagement from research institutions, agricultural firms, industry stakeholders and the supply chain. Promotion of IPM practices should emphasise their sustainability and environmental protection benefits. Widespread implementation of IPM practices will require active support from retailers and end-users, e.g., the use of pest-resistant crop varieties. IPM is a dynamic process that requires continuous learning, collaboration, and adaptation to achieve environmental and productivity goals. Solutions should be tailored to regions and farming practices to ensure they are practical and accessible. In the horticulture sector, agronomists representing buyers often approve pesticide applications and promote alternative approaches where necessary; this practice could be considered for other agricultural sectors to promote sustainable practices
• targeted Messaging. A wide range of approaches should be employed to promote the adoption of IPM measures. Highlighting the environmental benefits, sustainability, improved soil health, improved productivity, and profitability of IPM practices can appeal to farmers and crofters. Messaging should reassure growers that IPM does not aim to eliminate pesticide use entirely. Even in low input systems, pesticides remain permissible when pests/diseases cannot be controlled without pesticide and other specific circumstances, such as managing high weed burden, addressing weeds after reseeding, or meeting policy mandates such as cross-compliance requirements for controlling noxious weeds

Control of weeds in grassland is crucial for minimising economic impacts on forage yield and quality. However, issues such as herbicides entering watercourses - potentially contaminating drinking water, harming aquatic ecosystems, and disrupting biodiversity by killing non-target plants and organisms – should be addressed. These challenges, often caused by inappropriate timing of applications, can be mitigated through education on proper herbicide use and correct management practices.

• incentivised Adoption. The Government can encourage adoption of specific IPM measures by offering payments, making the transition financially appealing and offsetting the initial costs or risk associated with changing current practices. For example, measures such as promoting pollinators can provide varying benefits depending on the crop type and could therefore be selectively incentivized to boost adoption. IPM uptake policies should allow for flexible, incremental adoption of individual measures rather than mandating simultaneous implementation of entire bundles. This gradual approach could reduce barriers for those unable to adopt a full suite of practices at once. Incentivization can also engage individuals who may not typically interact with peer networks.
• inclusion in quality assurance plans. The inclusion of IPM plans in certification programmes like Red Tractor and Scottish Quality Crops has increased the adoption of IPM practices among arable growers. Integrating IPM plans into agricultural certification systems promotes widespread adoption and provides farmers and crofters with additional incentives to implement effective pest management practices
• regular evidence-based review of metrics. The importance and weightings of IPM options should be user-derived and based on practitioner perception linked to scientific research. The weightings should be regularly updated as better understanding emerges regarding the impact of each option. Additionally, uptake of greening measures may alter pest, weed and disease risk, necessitating continuous monitoring

If producers are achieving high IPM scores but corresponding pesticide use does not decrease, data should be reanalysed to identify underlying causes. Metrics must be tracked consistently to ensure progress in adopting IPM measures and their impact on pesticide use and to understand reasons behind it.

2. How can data from the IPM plant health tool be used to maximise benefits?

We recommend collection and analysis of data at more granular level to advance IPM uptake and impact:

• analysis of IPM data. Analysing data collected through the IPM plan is crucial for understanding the factors influencing the adoption rate of IPM practices. It would be beneficial if the data currently collected by the Plant Health Centre of Expertise were linked to the Business Reference Number, enabling integration with other policy models and additional analysis. A deeper understanding of barriers to adoption will help in developing effective strategies to promote higher uptake of IPM. Additionally, farmers and crofters who are already implementing IPM at a higher level should be encouraged to maintain and further enhance their practices
• lLinking IPM data with Pesticide Use Data. Data collected through the Plant Health IPM tool should be linked with pesticide use data collected by the government to allow for spatial and temporal trend analysis. This would enable better monitoring of the uptake of IPM practices and assessment of the success (or lack of thereof) of government policies

Since the uptake of IPM practices is incentivized by public funds, data of a higher granularity should be collected in return for these payments to ensure they contribute to delivering public goods such as environmental improvement. Data on pesticide use, manures, nitrogen, and phosphates should be collected at the field level through the Single Application Form (SAF) for meaningful analysis, rather than treating it as a tick-box exercise.

The requirement to complete an IPM farm-level assessment should be accompanied by reporting on the uptake of specific IPM practices on the farm level. A mechanism should be put in place to reassure farmers and crofters that collected data will be used for analysis only and will not result in prosecution.

• lessons from past missteps. Past issues, such as the use of English IPM plans to avoid submitting data to the Scottish Government, highlight the need for transparency and trust. Mechanism must be implemented to prevent such perverse actions and to ensure data collection aligns with the intended goals of improving IPM adoption and environmental outcomes
• pesticide use in grassland. More detailed information on pesticide use and the adoption of IPM practices in both extensive and intensive grassland is needed, given the differing patterns of pesticide application rates in these settings. Grasslands occupy a significantly larger area than arable land in Scotland. Ongoing collection of data across a wide number of farms over an extended period (ideally 10-20 years) will provide valuable insights into trends in pesticide use, particularly in the context of a changing climate
• the June Agricultural Census. The census should be expanded to enhance data collection on IPM practices. Adding a module on IPM to the census would enable broader data collection across the country. This approach could capture wider use of IPM practices or specific aspects of it, helping to build a more comprehensive understanding of the topic

3. What is the potential impact of greening measures on IPM.

• the adoption of changes proposed in the Agriculture Act, aimed at restoring nature and biodiversity, is expected to impact weed, disease, and pest management in crops. These changes may lead to trade-offs between restoring nature and increased reliance on pesticide use. For instance, moving away from ploughing to reduce tillage system has shown a higher need for grass weed herbicides. Some trash borne diseases may be increased (current RESAS SRP work with SRUC and JHI), although a few may be suppressed. Cover crops can provide additional shelter for beneficial insects but could also lead to higher pest levels and may become weeds themselves. However, the environmental benefits of these measures should also be considered when evaluating their overall impact
• a report prepared by Scotland’s Plant Health Centre of Expertise on the impact of agricultural reforms on plant health risks in Scotland provides guidance on maximising plant health benefits. The report highlights that evidence on measures proposed by the bill is limited. However, there is no indication of severe adverse effects from the new measures, nor a need for introducing additional regulations alongside the adoption of new management practices
• routine plant health monitoring should continue to provide context to pesticide usage trends in the data sets described above, and to address any emerging threats promptly, safeguarding both agricultural production and the environment. Active monitoring of issues arising in England can serve as an early warning system for Scotland, given the slightly warmer climate in England and the currently slower migration of pests to Scotland