Following Defra’s policy paper announcing how the revised Sustainable Faming Incentive (SFI) will operate, ADAS and SRUC have responded to say that, while it is a useful step to encourage further Integrated Pest Management (IPM) adoption, there is considerable technical scope for further action.
Defra’s policy paper of 26 January describes how the SFI is intended to encourage uptake of IPM by farmers agreeing to undertake ‘paid actions’ within an SFI IPM Standard.
ADAS and SRUC have been working with Defra and the farming industry to gather evidence on the effectiveness and practicality of IPM measures, to underpin a successful SFI Standard. While aspects of the IPM Standard – such as a payment to produce an annual IPM plan – are strongly supported, there are other aspects where the evidence suggests impact could be weak.
The ‘Test and Trial’ project, and the evidence gathered
For the past two years ADAS and SRUC have been providing evidence to Defra to inform the development of the IPM Standard. This has been delivered as part of a ‘Test and Trial’ project1 with a steering committee chaired by the NFU.
The project has:
- Summarised evidence from hundreds of research papers and reports on the effectiveness of different IPM actions.
- Provided expert input to Defra on the practicality and beneficial impacts from potential paid actions.
- Worked with farmers to determine how IPM actions fit within different farming systems, and to indicate payment rates required to incentivise uptake of paid actions.
- ADAS and SRUC welcome the publication of the SFI IPM Standard.
- A clear message to Defra from the farmer workshops was the importance of flexibility to choose those IPM actions that are achievable on farms with different cropping practices and conditions.
- Funding of IPM planning as a paid action is a useful step. The project is currently testing an IPM Tool to aid planning. Hundreds of farmers and agronomists are trialling the tool, and their feedback will be used to improve it. We are working to align the IPM Tool with existing IPM plans by the Voluntary Initiative and LEAF, to avoid duplication of effort.
- The paid actions on flower rich margins/strips, companion cropping and no insecticide use are all actions which are readily visible or understandable by tax-payers, and verifiable for auditing. However, the evidence base shows there are better IPM actions for farmers. A pre-season decision to not use insecticide is not within the principles of IPM, whereby treatments are used according to need.
- The role of the project team has been to provide evidence to inform design of the Standard through Defra’s Tests and Trials Programme. Some policies adopted in this Standard do not align with the evidence gathered and the recommendations made.
- Other possible paid actions were identified by the project which would be more effective as IPM control measures for insect pests, weeds and diseases, but were not included in the Standard at this stage. These include increasing use of: precision application, crop diversity in the rotation, pest and disease resistant varieties, and decision support.
Dr Henry Creissen, Research Fellow, Crop Protection, SRUC says:
In summary: the SFI IPM Standard is a useful step to encourage further IPM adoption. There is considerable technical scope for further action.
