1. 1 Project aims Assess obstacles to regulatory innovation for environmentally friendly pest control using biopesticides, making use of comparisons with experience elsewhere Assess benefit/cost contributions of biopesticides to sustainability To improve understanding of environmental behaviour of biopesticides

2. 2 Weak policy network Small industry largely made up of SMEs. Failure to appreciate ‘politics of possible’, seize ‘windows of opportunity’. IBMA does not have resources of crop protection industry, still undergoing organisational development. Little coalition building with environmental groups.

3. 3 PSD changes Great strides made by PSD – pilot project leads to Biopesticides Scheme, good example of regulatory innovation. Pre-submission meetings observed and are an important contribution for firms and PSD Many firms still not taking advantage of them – outreach issues, suspicion remains Need a dedicated division within PSD on EPA model.

4. 4 Mutual recognition (EU) Commission admits this is not working, although some progress is being made. We are supposed to have an internal market. Would help to overcome problem of small market size. Need to support 91/414 revision that creates three ‘eco zones’ within EU.

5. 5 Lessons from USA and Netherlands IR-4 programme in US, mission is to provide safe & effective pest management solutions for growers of speciality crops. Biopesticides programme started in 1982, expanded in 1994. Funded 43 projects since 1994 amounting to $2.85M, also gives regulatory advice. Works closely as a partner with EPA and supported growth of trade association. Genoeg scheme in Netherlands helps with registration costs

6. 6 Dissemination plans Website includes all papers presented: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/bio pesticides Outreach to stakeholders, 100 at conference at RASE, October 2006, icast video produced, presentation at Syngenta, further workshop October 2007 Participation in REBECA Book and academic articles planned