04.03.2014 Views

Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS

Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS

Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!