Repository | Book | Chapter

The EU and its Member States have been working on reducing the use and risk of pesticides for decades. This has largely been achieved by regulating the authorisation of pesticides under Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. Consequently, the number of active ingredients authorised for pest and disease control in ornamental crops (e.g. flowers) has dramatically decreased. Now, growers face a shortfall of control options, and there are growing numbers of reports on unlawful use of pesticides in ornamental crops. The Food Inspection Authorities try to change this by imposing fines on these growers. Furthermore, retail companies start to impose restrictions on pesticide residues on ornamental products. In case of exceeding they reject the products supplied. On the one hand, the growers are thus justifiably punished for unlawful use of pesticides. On the other hand, their violations indicate that growers find themselves in a desperate position. The question is how this unsatisfactory situation can be solved. The objective of this paper is to improve understanding of the positions and interests of the involved parties in relation to pesticides and pest control. We therefore study how pesticide use in ornamental crops is framed by the various parties involved. Furthermore, power relations in both the knowledge and value chain are studied. Examples of framing pesticide use are: my pests are difficult to control, surface water quality is below standards, working in greenhouses should be safe, authorisation of control agents is too expensive, ornamental crops should be safe for consumers, chemical pesticides close the door to biological control agents, growers should apply decision support systems. These examples illustrate the frictions among the parties on the playing field of crop protection. The aim is to explore some options for sustainable development of crop protection in floriculture. Our suggestion is that new interactions and initiatives have to be developed between flower growers, value chain partners and/or knowledge partners. Bringing partners together for collective action under a national agreement or in a public-private partnership for plant health research are considered to be the most promising options. The lesson learned is that social innovation needs special attention in governance of sustainable crop production.

DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_14

Full citation: