Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS
Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS
Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Blum et al.<br />
indicate which of the 12 factors they considered as important in terms of their potential impact on<br />
the evolution of future use of <strong>biological</strong> <strong>control</strong> agents. For those factors selected as important, the<br />
respondents were asked to weigh the expected impact positively or negatively on a scale from 0 to<br />
20.<br />
The data were used to compute for each of the 12 factors:<br />
a) an Influence Index, calculated as the percentage of respondents who selected the factor as<br />
important<br />
b) a Weight Index, calculated as the average of the weights attributed to the factor by those<br />
respondents who selected it as important<br />
c) a Growth Index, combining the two other indices according to the following formula:<br />
GI = (Influence Index)*(Weight Index)/10<br />
This index represents the overall estimate of the influence of a factor on the future use of<br />
<strong>biological</strong> <strong>control</strong> agents by European farmers.<br />
The scores computed for each of the 12 factors are presented in Table 21. Among the factors<br />
deemed to carry the most impact on future use of <strong>biological</strong> <strong>control</strong> by European farmers the action<br />
by far the most cited was the establishment of incentives for farmers (factor D).<br />
Table 21: Impact of twelve factors on the future use of bio<strong>control</strong> agents by European farmers<br />
according to a survey of 320 farmers<br />
A<br />
Factors<br />
Registration for <strong>biological</strong> <strong>control</strong><br />
products remains as present<br />
Influence<br />
Index (%)*<br />
Weight Index*<br />
(scale from<br />
-20 to +20)<br />
Growth<br />
Index*<br />
12 - 15 - 18.0<br />
Rank of<br />
positive<br />
influence<br />
B Involvement of distribution 65 8 52.0 4<br />
C Size / strength of the manufacturers 55 12 66.0 3<br />
D Incentives to growers 87 18 156.6 1<br />
E Education of advisors <strong>and</strong> growers 27 8 21.6 5<br />
F Decision Support Systems available 12 7 7.2 9<br />
G<br />
Pull from wholesalers <strong>and</strong> food<br />
industry<br />
43 16 66.8 2<br />
H Stringent registration of chemicals 16 14 22.4 6<br />
I New safe chemical pesticides 42 - 12 - 3.0<br />
J Progress in R&D of Bio<strong>control</strong> 8 14 11.2 8<br />
K New resistant varieties 16 - 4 - 6.4<br />
L Pull from Consumers 67 2 13,4 7<br />
* see main text above for the specific definition of the indices<br />
The second most important factors based on the Growth Index (G, C <strong>and</strong> B in Table 21) were<br />
linked to the influence of key economic actors (the wholesalers, the food industry, the distributors<br />
<strong>and</strong> manufacturers of bio<strong>control</strong> products). The factors with the lowest scores were those related to<br />
scientific innovation (factors K, I, J). Interestingly, both factors linked to regulatory aspects (factors<br />
H <strong>and</strong> A) also had a relatively low Growth Index. The registration requirements are obviously more<br />
a concern for the industry than for the users of the plant protection products. Surprisingly, the<br />
66