Biopesticides, Regulatory Innovation and the Regulatory State
| Date | 01 July 2009 |
| Published date | 01 July 2009 |
| Author | Justin Greaves |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076709103810 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Biopesticides, Regulatory
Innovation and the Regulatory
State
Justin Greaves
University of Warwick, UK
Abstract This article analyses regulatory innovation. It considers, in particular, how a
regulatory environmental agency has been encouraged to innovate in the area
of biopesticides. The literature on regulatory innovation is reviewed, the
discussion situated within Moran’s theory of the regulatory state. It considers
to what extent innovation has occurred within the agency, looking at its
proactive stance, and how unusually for a regulatory body it has negotiated
new policy spaces in which to operate. The article looks at the contextual
drivers and also the exogenous and endogenous pressures behind the
innovation. It shows how the executive has intervened in order to promote
more use of biopesticides and how pressure is also being exerted within the
regulatory authority. By using the existing literature and empirical evidence a
framework is outlined for explaining the likelihood of regulatory innovation
occurring in regulatory agencies.
Keywords biopesticides, regulatory agency, regulatory failure, regulatory innovation,
regulatory state, Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD)
Introduction
Bureaucrats and regulators are typically risk averse. The desire to avoid things
going wrong means they are not natural innovators. Risk averseness does not
create an encouraging environment for regulatory innovation (indeed, the term is
almost a contradiction). This article uses the example of the Pesticides Safety
Directorate’s (PSD) work on biopesticides to examine and develop accounts of
regulatory innovation. PSD is an agency of the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE), employs around 200 scientific, policy and support staff and is responsible
DOI: 10.1177/0952076709103810
Justin Greaves, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry,
CV4 7AL, UK. [email: J.Greaves@warwick.ac.uk] 245
© The Author(s), 2009.
Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/
journalsPermissions.nav
0952-0767
200907 24(3) 245–264
for the registration of agricultural pesticides.1They advise Ministers on the devel-
opment and enforcement of pesticide policy and legislation and also on all aspects
of pesticides approvals policy. Applicants for regulatory approval must submit
scientific evidence in the form of data packages that follow PSD’s guidelines. The
data is evaluated by their scientific experts, who in turn prepare reports for con-
sideration by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). It then advises
Ministers on whether the pesticide should be authorized for sale and use.
The article considers to what extent regulatory innovation has occurred within
the agency. Furthermore, how and why has this occurred? To what extent are the
characteristics of the agency conducive to regulatory change? The article is based
on research interviews, unstructured discussions in informal settings and observa-
tions of meetings at PSD. The literature in regulatory innovation is reviewed and
based on empirical findings a framework is provided for how innovation may be
promoted in other regulatory bodies. At the outset we should stress a methodolog-
ical point. It is often not appropriate to generalize from a case study to other cases;
in other words, they lack external validity.2It is difficult (perhaps impossible) to
identify typical or representative cases; a case study is not a sample of one. The
key purpose of this method is not one of generalization in the usual sense, but
whether we can effectively generate theory out of the findings (Yin, 1989).
Therefore, we can use the insights of our study to propose a new framework for
understanding regulatory innovation in regulatory bodies that could then be tested
further in subsequent research.
What are Biopesticides?
Biopesticides are made up of a broad group of agents. They are defined here, as
mass produced, biologically based agents used for the control of plant pests. This
definition includes not only the active ingredient of a biopesticide but also the way
it is used.3They can be divided into three sub categories (Copping and Menn,
2000): (1) living organisms (aka natural enemies), which includes invertebrates
(e.g. predatory insects), nematodes and micro-organisms; (2) naturally occurring
substances including plant extracts and semiochemicals (e.g. insect pheromones);
(3) in some countries – but not the UK – genetically modified plants that express
introduced genes that confer protection against pests or diseases (so called plant
incorporated products) are also classified as biopesticides. In the UK microbial
agents and naturally occurring substances used as plant protection products are
regulated by PSD. Non-native invertebrates (which include nematodes) included
for release in the UK are regulated by Defra under advice from ACRE (Advisory
Committee on Releases to the Environment). Our main focus is on microbial
biopesticides. These tend to be applied inundatively, in a way similar to chemical
insecticides, but many exhibit desirable biologically-based properties. (e.g. speci-
ficity, reproductive potential, low impact on non target organisms, compatibility
with other natural enemies, limited toxic residue) (Dent, 2000).
Public Policy and Administration 24(3)
246
To continue reading
Request your trial