DOI: https://doi.org/10.56669/LRLI3489
ABSTRACT
The paper provides an overview on biopesticides in Malaysia, highlighting the factors driving their use and the challenges in establishing them as preferred agricultural intervention. The key drivers for biopesticide use include: (i) Growing concerns over pesticide misuse and associated risks; (ii) Government initiatives supporting a sustainable ‘Green’ Agenda; (iii) Expanding business opportunities for business growth; (iv) The relatively straightforward registration process for low-risk pesticides; and (v) Increasing the awareness among farmers and other stakeholders through effective communication. Additionally, the paper presents the perspectives of two key stakeholders, farmers and the pesticide industry —regarding the use of biopesticides, the challenges involved and the crucial role of government in facilitating their adoption.
Keywords: Biopesticides, Malaysia, use, challenges, farmers, pesticide industry
MAJOR DRIVERS TOWARDS BIOPESTICIDES
Increasing concerns of pesticide misuse and the associated risks
The tangible impacts of unilateral and indiscriminate use of pesticides on people, environment and other ecosystem services are now well documented (Pimental 2005, Grovermann et al., 2013; Heong et al., 2013). Countries in Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, are generally confronted by major challenges due to indiscriminate and overuse of pesticides and, more recently, with the use of illicit pesticides (Norida et al., 2024). According to Norida et al. (2024), the market for counterfeit products in Southeast Asia is worth approximately US$35 billion annually, and in 2023, the loss of revenue from illegal products in Malaysia was estimated at US$41.4 million, i.e., about 25 % of total market value of pesticides. One estimate of the quantity of substandard pesticides sold in developing countries puts the figure at 30%. Counterfeit and illegal pesticides can pose severe health risks to the farmers who handle and use them.
Farmers use pesticides in crop systems largely as an insurance or as a preventive measure against potential risks of pests and diseases. Decisions made are generally heuristic with very little scientific basis (Heong et al., 2015). These behavioral responses are also in response to incentives driven by the high correlation between the amount of pesticides used to the crop’s expected profit (Schreinemachers et al., 2011; Grovermann et al., 2013 and Praneetvatakul et al., 2024). However, despite the financial imperative, the fact remains that the amount spent on pesticides are usually more than what should be the economic optimum to be used on the crops. For example, in Myanmar, insecticide misuse on rice and vegetables (i.e. cauliflower) was found to be extremely high, i.e., about 90% (Annamalai, 2021). Heong et al. (2015) asserted that farm yields and insecticide inputs were not related implying that productivity gains of Myanmar farmers from insecticide use is negligible or negative. Further, an assessment based on structured surveys of rice and vegetable farmers in Myanmar on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP), key beliefs and factors driving their practices revealed that farmers had serious deficiencies, such as ecological illiteracy, misconceptions, negative anchored beliefs and overreliance on chemical control (Annamalai, 2021). In some countries, pesticides are still sold and used like Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs).
The government’s policy-driven sustainable ‘Green’ Agenda
Malaysia’s domestic stimulus towards sustainability is driven largely by the country’s 12th Malaysia Plan (12th MP) (2021-2025) – one that envisions a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable Malaysia, with priorities aligned with the UN-SDGs and 2030 Global Agenda for Sustainable Development. Under the 12th MP, the advocation to sustainable agriculture aims to improve food safety and security, as well as to minimize its impact on the environment. In that context, efforts to inculcate green production practices are being intensified by encouraging farmers to adopt Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and the relevant certification standards such as myGAP (e.g. MS 1784:2005 Crop Commodities – Good Agricultural Practice), Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Standard (MSPO; MS2530:2022) and myOrganic. In addition, the government’s agriculture procurement for contract farming will be leveraged to promote adoption of green practices. This procurement initiative intends to enable agricultural farmer cooperatives and associations to facilitate farmers in adopting smart farming and environment-friendly farming practices. This is underscored in the recently initiated game changing PINTAR or SMART farming program or approach by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), Malaysia. Invariably, the country’s initiatives are trending towards the sustainable ‘green’ agenda with focus on developing green technologies, including those on biopesticides, and providing enablers that enhance the registration of such ‘green’ technologies (refer Driver 4 below). With the continuing increase in interests, especially for biopesticides, the government has also increased funds for R&D and to some extent for commercialization via various finding mechanisms. According to Ganisan et al. (2016), for microbial biopesticides in the past decade, at least 96 research projects were executed by universities and Public Research Institutes (PRIs). The main research focus was on bioprospection of microbial biopesticides, biopesticide formulation, mass production of biopesticide products, field application technique and efficacy testing in open field. There were also a significant number of private-sponsored biopesticide projects conducted in collaboration with universities and PRIs for testing the efficacy of their improved products.
Growing business opportunities
Despite the small market share in countries in the region, globally there is currently an upward trend for the biopesticides market. According to a report as quoted by Istriningsih et al. (2023), the growth of the world’s biopesticide market is estimated to increase from US$4.3 billion in 2020 to US$8.5 billion in 2025 with an average growth rate of 14.7% per year. In Malaysia, the market potential for biopesticides (Local and Export) was estimated at US$5.95 million in 2021, growing at a CAGR of 13.2% from 2016 to 2021 (https://www.micromarketmonitor.com/pressreleases/malaysia-biopesticides.html) (Sivapragasam, 2022). Based on crop type, the fastest growing segment, from 2016 to 2021, is in cash crops such as oil palm, rubber, cocoa and rice. Pivoted and driven by the increasing interest of the government, as reflected in the National Agro-Food Policy 2.0 (2011-2020) and the 12th Malaysia Plan (2021-2025), towards sustainable agriculture, there is an increased focus on biopesticides for pest management. The demand is also associated somewhat with the increasing demand for organically produced crops. The increasing demands of a consumer and market-based economy for environment-compliant and safe produce, underscores the future potential growth of the biopesticides sector in the rice, horticultural and plantation crops sectors. In addition, considering the concerns of household safety and pollution that had been raised recently (Abdul Alih et al., 2019), the housing and the property sectors could potentially see increasing demands for especially safe and environment-compliant biopesticides, such as herbal-based ones for use in indoor environments.
Enabling a low-risk pesticide registration process
In Malaysia, the Pesticide Act (PA) 1974 is the principal legislation that regulates the management of pesticides. Whether a pesticide is required to be registered or otherwise, will depend on the active ingredient listed under the First Schedule of the PA 1974. If it is listed, then registration is required. The Act, to date, has established several guidelines. Since 2016, the Guidelines on Biopesticides Registration (i.e. GP7/2016) has come into effect to facilitate the registration of biopesticides, viz., for both microorganisms and botanical plant extracts, essentially to promote the use of safer pesticides as components of IPM programs. In the First Schedule of PA 1974, there are now more than 360 potential registrants of micro-organisms (bacteria, fungi and virus) based active ingredients and over 30 botanical plant extracts and others (include the antibiotic, kasugamycin and the Trypsin Modulating Ostatic Factor). In the Guidelines, the summary data requirements for microbial registration include: (1) Biological and chemical characteristic; (2) Bioefficacy; (3) Packaging and labelling; (4) Infectivity and pathogenicity or toxicity to non-target organisms; (5) Human health exposure, environmental fate and effects; and (6) Residue. For botanicals or plant extracts, the data requirements include: (1) Biological and chemical characteristic; (2) Toxicological evaluation (toxicological data and environmental and ecotoxicology and safety testing); (3) Efficacy; and (4) Residue. Further details on each of the requirements and the efficacy test protocols for both the microbial and botanical biopesticides can also be obtained from the Guidelines.
Since May 2019, there has also been increased interest to look at the Low-Risk Pesticide (LRP) registration pathway as an option to overcome the current constraints in the conventional Pesticide Registration system. Essentially, the LRP scheme is a simplified registration process that determines a product to be a LRP based on whether the risk to the public and the environment is sufficiently low as to not require all the data and review necessary for registration. This LRP scheme will be helpful towards promoting the biopesticide sector especially with the increasing registration requests from companies with several herbal-based products. To date, only 3 products, viz., citronella oil, eugenol and rosemary oil, could be considered for the LRP Scheme as per the First Schedule of PA 1974.
Enhancing knowledge and awareness through effective communication
There is increasing knowledge, awareness and communication on biopesticides by the government via the following links: (i) information on the list of registered pesticides (http://www.portal.doa.gov.my/racunberdaftar/); and (ii) Pesticide Information System (SISMARP) (http://www.portal.doa.gov.my/sismarp/). Both these links are easily accessible via the Department of Agriculture, Malaysia’s official portal ( https://www.doa.gov.my/). In this context, the Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) recently launched an open-access CABI BioProtection Portal (www.bioprotectionportal.com) with the DoA, Malaysia. This portal is targeted primarily at growers and advisors, and available in multiple languages, including in Bahasa Malaysia. It offers a free- and simple-to-use information related to nationally registered biological control and biopesticide products in Malaysia and displays over 4,000 bioprotection products covering more than 900 crops and 2,200 pests in the other 40 countries featured. The Portal also provides potential benefits to national regulators as it enables them to ensure that information about their registered biological control and biopesticide products is readily available, up-to-date and easily searchable for all key national stakeholders that require.
CHALLENGES TO INCREASING THE USE OF BIOPESTICIDES
In terms of wider acceptance, there are several challenges faced by the biopesticide sector. These include: (i) competitive landscape with fragmented market with the presence of various small and regional players operating in the market. (ii) Highly specific for certain pests – low efficacy range of product use not attractive to industry players; (iii) Pricing of products can be costly, i.e. 20-30% higher, compared to conventional pesticides due to economics of scale of production; and (iv) overcoming farmer’s perception that nothing works better than ‘hard’ pesticides.
What are the perspectives on biopesticides of the two key players or stakeholders, viz., the farmers and the pesticide industry?
Farmers perspective
In Malaysia, the acceptance of biopesticide products by farmers as a mainstreamed intervention strategy against pests and diseases is still low, despite the purported promising potential and prospects of the biopesticide business. The study by Kamarulzaman et al. (2012) on the use of biopesticides in vegetables highlighted various challenges for the poor usage amongst farmers such as: (i) lack of knowledge and awareness among the farmers; (ii) little understanding on the quality of biopesticides; (iii) a lack of research activities; and (iv) a lack of promotion. Furthermore, there is an increasing number of types of biopesticides available in the market for which awareness is still low pertaining to their efficacy. Some farmers too believe that the use of biopesticides is not an economically attractive alternative to ‘hard’ chemicals as most of the biopesticides target specific pests, thus with low sales or business spectrum. The current Pesticide Act and Regulations in Malaysia, however, have put the biopesticides in the same class as chemical pesticides. This has in fact affected the effort to encourage farmers to increase the use of biopesticides. Further, the lack of availability of appropriate ecotoxicological data for registration has hampered the introduction of new biopesticides.
These challenges are not unique to Malaysia and generally apply to the other countries in the Region. In Indonesia, a study by Istriningsih et al. (2023) using a conceptual framework of intention viz., the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) to determine the factors that were expected to influence the intention of non-user’ rice farmers to use commercial biopesticides. Using this framework Istriningsih et al. (2023) suggested that such non-user farmers were expected to be influenced largely by variables such as performance expectancy (i.e. the extent to which farmers believe that using commercial biopesticides products will provide benefits or maximize profits), effort expectancy (i.e. the degree of ease of use of commercial biopesticide products), social influence (extend to which farmers perceive that their peer groups should use biopesticides), facilitating condition (farmer’s perceptions on the availability of resources and support), price value (farmer’s perceived benefits versus costs incurred for application), perceived need for the technology or innovation (i.e. whether the use of biopesticides is in accordance with the needs of the farmer); information publicity (i.e. efforts made to disseminate information on the advantages of biopesticides) and product marketing (i.e. market demand, ease of marketing and selling prices to motivate farmers to apply biopesticides). It was suggested that understanding these factors may help policymakers and other decision makers to formulate and implement strategies to increase the non-user farmer’s intention to use commercial biopesticides products.
What about other regional countries? In Thailand, Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) identified some key obstacles among farmers in adopting biopesticides such as limited knowledge on the benefits, methods of use and their active characteristics, high costs of labor for application, high pests’ specificity versus a limited range of products and technological limitations for scaling up production. In Myanmar, Costa et al. (2020) highlighted some of the challenges for farmers to adopt bio-based solutions. These included lack of knowledge amongst farmers (28%); Takes too much time (18%); Lack of supply (14%), Lack of government support (14%), Too expensive (12%; e.g. Neem-seed cake), Too complicated (6%), Lack of knowledge on product and its application (4%), and Lack of extension materials (2%). In Cambodia, vegetable farmers also depend on chemical pesticides in pest control, while only 2% of them have experience in bio-pesticide use (Schreinemachers et al., 2017; Ramasamy et al., 2019; Sok, 2023).
The pesticide industry perspective
Recently, we did a brief industry assessment with the support of the Malaysian CropLife & Public Health Association (MCPA) to gauge the pesticide industry’s views and interests on various aspects of biopesticides.
The study revealed the following responses from the industry:
- The interest in biopesticides is largely driven by concerns on: (i) Overall food safety & health; (ii) Business sustainability with conventional pesticides; and (iii) Challenges faced towards managing resistance to chemical pesticides;
- On the prospects or outlook for the future for the biopesticides industry/market, the feedback was as follows: in the short term (<5 years) - low; both in the Medium (6-10 years) and Long-term (>10 years) – low to moderate;
- On future investments, it was noted that there are no clear plans yet for biopesticides, and that any investment made will be dependent on internal resources available, changes in the regulatory framework, market acceptance, and effective enforcement especially on unregulated biological products. On the nature of investment(s) (e.g. in R&D for new products; purchase of established products; acquiring existing biopesticide business set-ups; online marketing platforms etc.), companies are actively looking for product licensing and co-development opportunities. However, the recent slowdown in agrochemical industry will limit big ticket investments viz acquisitions etc. The focus will also now shift to amalgamate the best from sustainability and bio efficacy aspects of new solutions, on R&D and purchase of established products;
- The issues and challenges faced by the companies already in the biopesticide business in meeting the overall biopesticide revenue targets include:
- Market and field: this ranges from market adoption (e.g. farmer skepticism on efficacy); product efficacy (e.g. variability in performance, shorter shelf-life and narrower target pests spectrum); production and scalability (e.g. challenges to consistency of product quality, stability during storage and transportation); integration with existing practices (e.g. with IPM and compatibility issues with other non-pesticide inputs); environmental factors (e.g. sensitivity temperature, relative humidity and UV light) and costs of production (considered higher than conventional pesticides);
- Regulatory: concerns that the current categorization limits registration to only microbial and botanical plant extracts (i.e. GP7/2016) and lacks other categories such as pheromone and other new technologies such as enzymes, essential, macro-organisms etc.; flexibility in terms of requirements for registration (e.g. acceptance of shorter shelf-life test and reports on analysis from third-party laboratories); timeline for registration and cost.
- The government’s role was generally rated as poor in the aspects of training, enforcement, policies and funding whereas product registration protocols was rated as satisfactory or average;
- The adoption and/or acceptance rate of biopesticides among farmers was indicated as very low (10-20%); and
- To facilitate, step-up and support the increased use of biopesticides by farmers, the industry suggested the following roles for the various agencies and institutions:
- The government should initiate campaigns to promote biopesticides, build better understanding and awareness among farmers, provide incentives to farmers, involvement of industrial experts to share, enforcement on unregulated biological portfolios, and to clearly define the biopesticide category & simplify the requirement of biopesticides registration;
- Government-linked companies can be the leader and pioneer to apply and provide testimonial to use biologicals efficiently; to collaborate with companies for R&D activities & sharing the findings of the biopesticides trials; to start promoting & using good biopesticides products in government linked plantation groups; and conduct research to improve formulations, reduce costs, and increase the shelf-life of biopesticides.
- Key Associations/ industry players (e.g. MCPA, Farmer Organizations) should foster initiatives to educate farmers, supporting government campaigns to promote biopesticides, work with researchers and extension services to provide evidence of effectiveness and share best practices for use; and
- NGOs should try to understand the role of the pesticide industry better to help promoting biopesticides without compromising food security; support programs in partnership with government agencies and other organizations to offer support programs that include funding, resources, and training for biopesticide adoption.
Currently, multinational companies (MNCs) that are involved in crop protection solutions or innovations are increasingly moving into the sustainability space. For example, in the recent international conference on plant protection in Malaysia, Dr. Shoumo Mitra, the APAC Head of Field Sciences at Corteva Agriscience, highlighted in his plenary lecture that the company has a strong commitment to meet their “sustainability criteria by 2025” by “ensuring that each new product from our pipeline meets stringent baseline requirements” and “these products must deliver at least one notable sustainability advantage aligned with the UN SDGs”.
More specifically, based on our discussion with a pesticide related local company that has currently a > 100 product range with yearly sales revenue of >US$6.9 million, of which only 1.25% are biopesticides viz., neem and white oil spray. The company has biopesticides as part of its strategic growth and indicated that the prospects for biopesticides in Malaysia may be bright in the long term. It highlighted some of the headwinds for growth as follows; (i) Online marketing and regulation with imitation and adulterated products; (ii) farmers need ‘hard’ pesticides – heuristic behavior and beliefs of farmers that these are better; (iii) no incentives from the government even in the US$23 million rice subsidy program to include biopesticides whereby US$46 is allocated to each rice farmer to purchase pesticide inputs; (iv) small organic farming sector; (v) weak harmonization efforts within the ASEAN region especially for registration for sharing data etc. -unlike say the EU where there is broader efforts in this aspect.
The Company suggested the following to stimulate further growth of the biopesticides sector, such as: (i) Expedite registration process, e.g. for LRPs’ requirements; (ii) reduce uncertainties in registration due to constantly changing new requirements for registration.
In the Malaysian context, it is encouraging that there had been some successfully registered and ongoing use of commercial products. These include: Bacillus thuringiensis based products such as Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (e.g. Dipel®) and Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai (e.g. Florbac®), azadirachtin based neem product (e.g. Neemix® 4.5) and Metarhizium anisopliae based fungal product ( e.g. ORY-X FGV®) used against the rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros in major industry crops such as oil palm and coconut. Invariably, the success of some of these products was largely driven by the combination of various factors such as the market scale or size of the target sector (e.g. in the case of ORY-X FGV -the oil palm sector), user-friendliness of the product (Dipel’s wettable powder versus Florbac’s as a flowable concentrate), product safety, longevity of product use, i.e. the ability to mitigate resistance development of target pests, reliability (e.g. synthetically manufactured Neem-based products, i.e Neemix® versus its crude extract-based counterparts) and the ability to meet specific environmental (e.g Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) and market requirements (e.g. organically grown products).
With the government likely to continue imposing strict safety criteria on conventional chemical pesticides, that will invariably result in fewer products on the market, there is real opportunity for biopesticide companies to help fill the gap. However, there will also be major challenges for biopesticide-based companies with limited resources for R&D, product registration and promotion. Further, there are real concerns on illicit pesticides that include the pesticide spectrum of counterfeits, fakes, unauthorised ones and obsolete ones as highlighted by Norida et al. (2024). These products are accessible to farmers and distribution has been facilitated by online platforms that are yet to be duly regulated or enforced by the government.
Moving forward, the industry’s needs broadly include: (i) seeing the business imperative for the biopesticide before embarking on the commercial aspects; (ii) simplifying the current registration process or protocol for LRPs; (iii) Creating awareness among various stakeholders including farmers; (iv) being cost-effective; (v) Needing guidelines in the local context, rather than adopt one for developed economies; (vi) Training needed for competent authorities for proper evaluation of the registration application for LRPs.
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE VERSUS FARMERS BEHAVIOR
Kamaruzaman et al. (2012) suggested that both the government and the industry players must put in serious effort towards increasing the use of biopesticides, and concomitantly, transform the agricultural sector as desired. Several recommendations were suggested, such as to encourage the public, investors, and owners of pesticide companies to involve themselves in bio-enterprises; develop different channels for biopesticides registration to maintain the quality and availability of biopesticides at affordable price and support the reduction of chemicals used in agriculture with policies and regulations limiting maximum residue levels by applying more ‘good agricultural practices’ (GAP) for increased food safety and reduced environmental concerns. Many of these are already in place or work in progress by the government. Chandler et al. (2011) cautioned that “governments are likely to continue imposing strict safety criteria on conventional chemical pesticides, and this will result in fewer products on the market. This will create a real opportunity for biopesticide companies to help fill the gap, although there will also be major challenges for biopesticide companies, most of which are small and medium enterprises with limited resources for R&D, product registration and promotion.” Chandler et al. (2011) also asserted that biopesticide development has largely been done according to a chemical pesticides model that has the unintended consequence of downplaying the beneficial biological properties of biopesticides. On the positive side though, they noted that the pesticides model still has much to offer, for example, in improving the formulation, packaging and application of biopesticides.
In terms of overcoming the farmers’ perception that nothing works better than ‘hard’ pesticides, one needs to deep dive to understand farmers’ behavior – an aspect relatively poorly studied and understood in Malaysia. Arguably, pivotal to the theme of biopesticide acceptance is one of farmers’ behaviour (e.g. in rice, Escalada et al., 2006). Farmers usually place a premium to production, and thus monetary, gains and their personal safety. Thus, their choice of interventions should lead to these key outcomes. Can biopesticides fill this need? if they do, a greater use or adoption rate could be anticipated - but not if otherwise.
For better technology adoption and use, various Models and Theories (M&Ts) had been used to explain the behavior (attitudes, perception, intention etc.) of farmers (Amini et al., 2021). These include the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1986), Diffusions of Innovations (DOI) (Rogers, 2003) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Most of these M&Ts were used for studies to elicit individual behavior intentions, whereas Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) UTAUT was developed for application in the organizational and non-organizational context. UTAUT was later refined to study the acceptance and use of technology in a consumer context (UTAUT2) (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
To be fair to the farmers, we need to acknowledge that the use of biopesticides requires deeper knowledge of the science in terms of the mode of action and thus packaging of the information that are easily understandable by farmers – one that is generally effectively practiced in the case of chemical pesticides. Every type of biopesticide needs a specific usage approach, confounding the challenges faced by the farmers. For example, the use of bacterial-based biopesticides (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis) have specific requirements of strain selection, timing of spraying, spray location etc. The same applies also to the other biopesticides such as fungal or virus-based ones.
CONCLUSION
The biopesticides industry is not a recent one to Malaysia. From the turn of the last century, there had been numerous efforts towards stimulating, facilitating and enhancing the greater use of biopesticides of various kinds in agriculture, with the efforts speeding up from the 90s onwards, the impetus provided by large scale integrated pest management initiatives (Sivapragasam, 2009). However, despite this history and the millions of dollars allocated by the government and others through various funds, grants and research and development (R&D) programs to support biopesticide development in the country, to date, the sector remains very much at the early growth stage based on the industry life cycle framework. In an unpublished report, it was noted in a market study by Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in 2015 that the biopesticide industry is moderately competitive. As highlighted by the results of our assessment (Section 2), there are inherent challenges -resulting in fewer players are currently being involved. Favorable government policies may help in nurturing the growth to a competitive level. The fact remains that the market for biopesticides in the world is expected to expand into double digits in the future and in concert with this trend, biopesticides in Malaysia is poised for growth.
The pivotal role of government cannot be overemphasized as a catalyst towards greater awareness, and thereafter, adoption of biopesticides by farmers. In the regulatory frame, simplifying and/or fast tracking a less costlier registration process could help as attempted in Malaysia and Thailand. However, there is a ‘chicken or egg’ dilemma when the biopesticide market’s demand pull is not in tandem with the supply-push. Herein, lies the crucial public-private sector role. In Thailand, results from Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) showed that the wider use of biopesticides by stakeholders viz., farmers, especially in rice and vegetables, was positively correlated with their education and attitudes. Advice from extension agents also had a similar effect suggesting the important role of government in promotion of biopesticides, especially with training to address the various challenges indicated earlier. This builds on confidence to convince especially with the hard-core ones who are totally chemical dependent. There is also a need to overcome production challenges to meet potentially increasing demand – a situation we encountered in Myanmar when scaling up biopesticides such as neem and neem seed cake use after promoting them to rice and vegetable farmers there. In fact, there is not sufficient local production to meet local demand especially when we talk about the rice sector which needs substantial amounts for application due to the large acreages of production. Local production is also affected by raw material supply, which if imported, may not be cost effective. To meet economic of scale production challenges, in Thailand, Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) suggested the support of community-based enterprises, organized as an Association, to produce and sell biopesticides, in addition to helping with coordination, promotion and research on biopesticides.
REFERENCES
Abdul Alih, A.H., Muhammad Lokman, M., Afzan, M.Y., Siew, P.L., Nik Fakhurudddin, N.H., and Hussin, M. (2019). The Alarming Community Concern on Household Insecticide Exposure and Usage. IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia, 18(2). Pp. 133-138. https://doi.org/10.31436/imjm.v18i2.80
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Amini, M., Rahmani, A., Abedi, M., Hosseini, M., Amini, M., Amini, M., & Gostar, M. (2021). Mahamgostar.com as a Case Study for Adoption of Lavarel Framework as the Best Programming Tools for PHP Based Web Development for Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, May, 100–110.
Annamalai, S. (2021). Final report: Plant Health – A major challenge to achieving sustainable ‘green’ agriculture in Myanmar. (https://www.aciar.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/final-report-CROP-2019-103.pdf).
Chandler, D., A. S. Bailey, G. M. Tatchell, G. Davidson, J. Greaves and W. P. Grant (2011). The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management – A Review. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2011) 366, 1987–1998 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0390.
Costa, A., Sivapragasam, A and Thaung, M. (2020). CABI Services to strengthen the plant health system in FARM, Myanmar. Final Report (mimeograph); Pp. 49.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3652.1648
Escalada, M. M., Heong, K. L., Sengsoulivong, V., & Schiller, J. M. (2006). Determinants of insecticide-use decisions of lowland rice farmers in Laos. Rice in Laos. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines, 283-290
Ganisan, K; M. R. M. Noor, A. Jack and S. Haron (2016). Research, Development and Commercialisation of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms in Malaysia. In: H.B. Singh et al. (eds.), Agriculturally Important Microorganisms, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2576-1_9 © Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016; PP 149-166.
Grovermann, C. ∙ Schreinemachers, P. ∙ Berger, T. (2013). Quantifying pesticide overuse from farmer and societal points of view: an application to Thailand. Crop Protect. 2013; 53:161-168
Heong, K.L., Wong, L. and Delos Reyes, J.H. (2013). Addressing planthopper threats to Asian rice farming and food security: Fixing Insecticide Misuse. ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. No. 27, August 2013. Pp. 20
Heong, K.L., Escalada, M.M, Chien, H.V. and Delos Reyes, J.H. (2015). Are there productivity gains from insecticide applications in rice production? Pp 181 – 192. Chapter 9. In Heong, KL, Cheng, J.A. and Escalada, M. M. (eds) ‚Rice Planthoppers: Ecology, Management, Socio Economics and Policy‛ Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9535-7.
Norida, M., Muhammad Bushairy, B.H. and Goh, M.C.F. (2024). Illegal pesticide use in Malaysia and its content analysis (2024). In: Program Book, 12th International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics)(ICPPT), 25-27th September, 2024, Penang, Malaysia (abstract only)
Kamarulzaman, N.H., Mazlan, N., Rajendran, S.D. and Mohayidin, M.G. (2012) ‘Role of biopesticides in developing a sustainable vegetable industry in Malaysia’, Int. J. Green Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.243–259.
Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides, primarily in the United States, Environment, Development, and Sustainability, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.229–252.
Praneetvatakul, S., Schreinemachers, P. , Vijitsrikamol, K. , and Potchanasin, C. (2024). Policy options for promoting wider use of biopesticides in Thai agriculture. Heliyon, Volume 10, Issue 2, e24486. Elsevier Publication.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth Ed.). Published by Simon and Schuster. 576 pages.
Istriningsih, Ujang Surmawan , Hartoyo, Budi Suharjo (2023). Proposed conceptual framework for studying non-users rice farmers’ intention to use commercial biopesticides products. Jurnal Riset Manajemen Sains Indonesia, 14 (2) 2023, 78-90. e-ISSN: 2301-8313 DOI: doi.org/10.21009/JRMSI.014.2.07.
Ramasamy S., Sotelo P., Lin M., Heng C. H., Kang S., and Sarika S. Validation of a bio-based integrated pest management package for the control of major insect pests on Chinese mustard in Cambodia. Crop Protection, 135, 104728. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2019.02.004.
Schreinemachers, P. ∙ Sringarm, S. ∙ Sirijinda, A. (2011). The role of synthetic pesticides in the intensification of highland agriculture in Thailand. Crop Protect. 2011; 30:1430-1437
Schreinemachers P., Chen H., Nguyen T. T. L., Buntong B., Bouapao L., Gautam S., Le N. T., Pinn T., Vilaysone P, and Srinivasan P. (2017). Too Much to Handle? Pesticide Dependence of Smallholder Vegetable Farmers in Southeast Asia. Science of the Total Environment, 593–594, 470–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.181.
Sok, V., S. Tong, S. Vann and B. Buntong (2023). A Survey of Bio-pesticide Uses in Cambodia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2023, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-5 ISSN: 2334-2404. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v12n12a1 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jaes.v12n1a1
Sivapragasam, A. (2009). Biopesticides from Malaysian flora – resources for sustainable pest management. In proceedings: S.L Tan (eds). National Seminar on New Crops and Bio-resources 2009, 15-16 December, 2009; Pp 125-132.
Sivapragasam, A. (2022). Biopesticides and their regulation in Malaysia. https://apbb.fftc.org.tw/article/308 ). DOI:https://doi.org/10.56669/IBQE2658
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425– 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWSYM.2015.7167037
Vibol Sok , Socheath Tong, Sokmean Vann and Borarin Buntong (2023). A Survey of Bio-pesticide Uses in Cambodia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2023, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-5 ISSN: 2334-2404 (Print), 2334-2412 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v12n12a1 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jaes.v12n1a1
Mainstreaming Biopesticide Use in Malaysia: Farmer and Industry Perspectives
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56669/LRLI3489
ABSTRACT
The paper provides an overview on biopesticides in Malaysia, highlighting the factors driving their use and the challenges in establishing them as preferred agricultural intervention. The key drivers for biopesticide use include: (i) Growing concerns over pesticide misuse and associated risks; (ii) Government initiatives supporting a sustainable ‘Green’ Agenda; (iii) Expanding business opportunities for business growth; (iv) The relatively straightforward registration process for low-risk pesticides; and (v) Increasing the awareness among farmers and other stakeholders through effective communication. Additionally, the paper presents the perspectives of two key stakeholders, farmers and the pesticide industry —regarding the use of biopesticides, the challenges involved and the crucial role of government in facilitating their adoption.
Keywords: Biopesticides, Malaysia, use, challenges, farmers, pesticide industry
MAJOR DRIVERS TOWARDS BIOPESTICIDES
Increasing concerns of pesticide misuse and the associated risks
The tangible impacts of unilateral and indiscriminate use of pesticides on people, environment and other ecosystem services are now well documented (Pimental 2005, Grovermann et al., 2013; Heong et al., 2013). Countries in Southeast Asia, including Malaysia, are generally confronted by major challenges due to indiscriminate and overuse of pesticides and, more recently, with the use of illicit pesticides (Norida et al., 2024). According to Norida et al. (2024), the market for counterfeit products in Southeast Asia is worth approximately US$35 billion annually, and in 2023, the loss of revenue from illegal products in Malaysia was estimated at US$41.4 million, i.e., about 25 % of total market value of pesticides. One estimate of the quantity of substandard pesticides sold in developing countries puts the figure at 30%. Counterfeit and illegal pesticides can pose severe health risks to the farmers who handle and use them.
Farmers use pesticides in crop systems largely as an insurance or as a preventive measure against potential risks of pests and diseases. Decisions made are generally heuristic with very little scientific basis (Heong et al., 2015). These behavioral responses are also in response to incentives driven by the high correlation between the amount of pesticides used to the crop’s expected profit (Schreinemachers et al., 2011; Grovermann et al., 2013 and Praneetvatakul et al., 2024). However, despite the financial imperative, the fact remains that the amount spent on pesticides are usually more than what should be the economic optimum to be used on the crops. For example, in Myanmar, insecticide misuse on rice and vegetables (i.e. cauliflower) was found to be extremely high, i.e., about 90% (Annamalai, 2021). Heong et al. (2015) asserted that farm yields and insecticide inputs were not related implying that productivity gains of Myanmar farmers from insecticide use is negligible or negative. Further, an assessment based on structured surveys of rice and vegetable farmers in Myanmar on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP), key beliefs and factors driving their practices revealed that farmers had serious deficiencies, such as ecological illiteracy, misconceptions, negative anchored beliefs and overreliance on chemical control (Annamalai, 2021). In some countries, pesticides are still sold and used like Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs).
The government’s policy-driven sustainable ‘Green’ Agenda
Malaysia’s domestic stimulus towards sustainability is driven largely by the country’s 12th Malaysia Plan (12th MP) (2021-2025) – one that envisions a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable Malaysia, with priorities aligned with the UN-SDGs and 2030 Global Agenda for Sustainable Development. Under the 12th MP, the advocation to sustainable agriculture aims to improve food safety and security, as well as to minimize its impact on the environment. In that context, efforts to inculcate green production practices are being intensified by encouraging farmers to adopt Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and the relevant certification standards such as myGAP (e.g. MS 1784:2005 Crop Commodities – Good Agricultural Practice), Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Standard (MSPO; MS2530:2022) and myOrganic. In addition, the government’s agriculture procurement for contract farming will be leveraged to promote adoption of green practices. This procurement initiative intends to enable agricultural farmer cooperatives and associations to facilitate farmers in adopting smart farming and environment-friendly farming practices. This is underscored in the recently initiated game changing PINTAR or SMART farming program or approach by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MAFS), Malaysia. Invariably, the country’s initiatives are trending towards the sustainable ‘green’ agenda with focus on developing green technologies, including those on biopesticides, and providing enablers that enhance the registration of such ‘green’ technologies (refer Driver 4 below). With the continuing increase in interests, especially for biopesticides, the government has also increased funds for R&D and to some extent for commercialization via various finding mechanisms. According to Ganisan et al. (2016), for microbial biopesticides in the past decade, at least 96 research projects were executed by universities and Public Research Institutes (PRIs). The main research focus was on bioprospection of microbial biopesticides, biopesticide formulation, mass production of biopesticide products, field application technique and efficacy testing in open field. There were also a significant number of private-sponsored biopesticide projects conducted in collaboration with universities and PRIs for testing the efficacy of their improved products.
Growing business opportunities
Despite the small market share in countries in the region, globally there is currently an upward trend for the biopesticides market. According to a report as quoted by Istriningsih et al. (2023), the growth of the world’s biopesticide market is estimated to increase from US$4.3 billion in 2020 to US$8.5 billion in 2025 with an average growth rate of 14.7% per year. In Malaysia, the market potential for biopesticides (Local and Export) was estimated at US$5.95 million in 2021, growing at a CAGR of 13.2% from 2016 to 2021 (https://www.micromarketmonitor.com/pressreleases/malaysia-biopesticides.html) (Sivapragasam, 2022). Based on crop type, the fastest growing segment, from 2016 to 2021, is in cash crops such as oil palm, rubber, cocoa and rice. Pivoted and driven by the increasing interest of the government, as reflected in the National Agro-Food Policy 2.0 (2011-2020) and the 12th Malaysia Plan (2021-2025), towards sustainable agriculture, there is an increased focus on biopesticides for pest management. The demand is also associated somewhat with the increasing demand for organically produced crops. The increasing demands of a consumer and market-based economy for environment-compliant and safe produce, underscores the future potential growth of the biopesticides sector in the rice, horticultural and plantation crops sectors. In addition, considering the concerns of household safety and pollution that had been raised recently (Abdul Alih et al., 2019), the housing and the property sectors could potentially see increasing demands for especially safe and environment-compliant biopesticides, such as herbal-based ones for use in indoor environments.
Enabling a low-risk pesticide registration process
In Malaysia, the Pesticide Act (PA) 1974 is the principal legislation that regulates the management of pesticides. Whether a pesticide is required to be registered or otherwise, will depend on the active ingredient listed under the First Schedule of the PA 1974. If it is listed, then registration is required. The Act, to date, has established several guidelines. Since 2016, the Guidelines on Biopesticides Registration (i.e. GP7/2016) has come into effect to facilitate the registration of biopesticides, viz., for both microorganisms and botanical plant extracts, essentially to promote the use of safer pesticides as components of IPM programs. In the First Schedule of PA 1974, there are now more than 360 potential registrants of micro-organisms (bacteria, fungi and virus) based active ingredients and over 30 botanical plant extracts and others (include the antibiotic, kasugamycin and the Trypsin Modulating Ostatic Factor). In the Guidelines, the summary data requirements for microbial registration include: (1) Biological and chemical characteristic; (2) Bioefficacy; (3) Packaging and labelling; (4) Infectivity and pathogenicity or toxicity to non-target organisms; (5) Human health exposure, environmental fate and effects; and (6) Residue. For botanicals or plant extracts, the data requirements include: (1) Biological and chemical characteristic; (2) Toxicological evaluation (toxicological data and environmental and ecotoxicology and safety testing); (3) Efficacy; and (4) Residue. Further details on each of the requirements and the efficacy test protocols for both the microbial and botanical biopesticides can also be obtained from the Guidelines.
Since May 2019, there has also been increased interest to look at the Low-Risk Pesticide (LRP) registration pathway as an option to overcome the current constraints in the conventional Pesticide Registration system. Essentially, the LRP scheme is a simplified registration process that determines a product to be a LRP based on whether the risk to the public and the environment is sufficiently low as to not require all the data and review necessary for registration. This LRP scheme will be helpful towards promoting the biopesticide sector especially with the increasing registration requests from companies with several herbal-based products. To date, only 3 products, viz., citronella oil, eugenol and rosemary oil, could be considered for the LRP Scheme as per the First Schedule of PA 1974.
Enhancing knowledge and awareness through effective communication
There is increasing knowledge, awareness and communication on biopesticides by the government via the following links: (i) information on the list of registered pesticides (http://www.portal.doa.gov.my/racunberdaftar/); and (ii) Pesticide Information System (SISMARP) (http://www.portal.doa.gov.my/sismarp/). Both these links are easily accessible via the Department of Agriculture, Malaysia’s official portal ( https://www.doa.gov.my/). In this context, the Center for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) recently launched an open-access CABI BioProtection Portal (www.bioprotectionportal.com) with the DoA, Malaysia. This portal is targeted primarily at growers and advisors, and available in multiple languages, including in Bahasa Malaysia. It offers a free- and simple-to-use information related to nationally registered biological control and biopesticide products in Malaysia and displays over 4,000 bioprotection products covering more than 900 crops and 2,200 pests in the other 40 countries featured. The Portal also provides potential benefits to national regulators as it enables them to ensure that information about their registered biological control and biopesticide products is readily available, up-to-date and easily searchable for all key national stakeholders that require.
CHALLENGES TO INCREASING THE USE OF BIOPESTICIDES
In terms of wider acceptance, there are several challenges faced by the biopesticide sector. These include: (i) competitive landscape with fragmented market with the presence of various small and regional players operating in the market. (ii) Highly specific for certain pests – low efficacy range of product use not attractive to industry players; (iii) Pricing of products can be costly, i.e. 20-30% higher, compared to conventional pesticides due to economics of scale of production; and (iv) overcoming farmer’s perception that nothing works better than ‘hard’ pesticides.
What are the perspectives on biopesticides of the two key players or stakeholders, viz., the farmers and the pesticide industry?
Farmers perspective
In Malaysia, the acceptance of biopesticide products by farmers as a mainstreamed intervention strategy against pests and diseases is still low, despite the purported promising potential and prospects of the biopesticide business. The study by Kamarulzaman et al. (2012) on the use of biopesticides in vegetables highlighted various challenges for the poor usage amongst farmers such as: (i) lack of knowledge and awareness among the farmers; (ii) little understanding on the quality of biopesticides; (iii) a lack of research activities; and (iv) a lack of promotion. Furthermore, there is an increasing number of types of biopesticides available in the market for which awareness is still low pertaining to their efficacy. Some farmers too believe that the use of biopesticides is not an economically attractive alternative to ‘hard’ chemicals as most of the biopesticides target specific pests, thus with low sales or business spectrum. The current Pesticide Act and Regulations in Malaysia, however, have put the biopesticides in the same class as chemical pesticides. This has in fact affected the effort to encourage farmers to increase the use of biopesticides. Further, the lack of availability of appropriate ecotoxicological data for registration has hampered the introduction of new biopesticides.
These challenges are not unique to Malaysia and generally apply to the other countries in the Region. In Indonesia, a study by Istriningsih et al. (2023) using a conceptual framework of intention viz., the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) to determine the factors that were expected to influence the intention of non-user’ rice farmers to use commercial biopesticides. Using this framework Istriningsih et al. (2023) suggested that such non-user farmers were expected to be influenced largely by variables such as performance expectancy (i.e. the extent to which farmers believe that using commercial biopesticides products will provide benefits or maximize profits), effort expectancy (i.e. the degree of ease of use of commercial biopesticide products), social influence (extend to which farmers perceive that their peer groups should use biopesticides), facilitating condition (farmer’s perceptions on the availability of resources and support), price value (farmer’s perceived benefits versus costs incurred for application), perceived need for the technology or innovation (i.e. whether the use of biopesticides is in accordance with the needs of the farmer); information publicity (i.e. efforts made to disseminate information on the advantages of biopesticides) and product marketing (i.e. market demand, ease of marketing and selling prices to motivate farmers to apply biopesticides). It was suggested that understanding these factors may help policymakers and other decision makers to formulate and implement strategies to increase the non-user farmer’s intention to use commercial biopesticides products.
What about other regional countries? In Thailand, Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) identified some key obstacles among farmers in adopting biopesticides such as limited knowledge on the benefits, methods of use and their active characteristics, high costs of labor for application, high pests’ specificity versus a limited range of products and technological limitations for scaling up production. In Myanmar, Costa et al. (2020) highlighted some of the challenges for farmers to adopt bio-based solutions. These included lack of knowledge amongst farmers (28%); Takes too much time (18%); Lack of supply (14%), Lack of government support (14%), Too expensive (12%; e.g. Neem-seed cake), Too complicated (6%), Lack of knowledge on product and its application (4%), and Lack of extension materials (2%). In Cambodia, vegetable farmers also depend on chemical pesticides in pest control, while only 2% of them have experience in bio-pesticide use (Schreinemachers et al., 2017; Ramasamy et al., 2019; Sok, 2023).
The pesticide industry perspective
Recently, we did a brief industry assessment with the support of the Malaysian CropLife & Public Health Association (MCPA) to gauge the pesticide industry’s views and interests on various aspects of biopesticides.
The study revealed the following responses from the industry:
Currently, multinational companies (MNCs) that are involved in crop protection solutions or innovations are increasingly moving into the sustainability space. For example, in the recent international conference on plant protection in Malaysia, Dr. Shoumo Mitra, the APAC Head of Field Sciences at Corteva Agriscience, highlighted in his plenary lecture that the company has a strong commitment to meet their “sustainability criteria by 2025” by “ensuring that each new product from our pipeline meets stringent baseline requirements” and “these products must deliver at least one notable sustainability advantage aligned with the UN SDGs”.
More specifically, based on our discussion with a pesticide related local company that has currently a > 100 product range with yearly sales revenue of >US$6.9 million, of which only 1.25% are biopesticides viz., neem and white oil spray. The company has biopesticides as part of its strategic growth and indicated that the prospects for biopesticides in Malaysia may be bright in the long term. It highlighted some of the headwinds for growth as follows; (i) Online marketing and regulation with imitation and adulterated products; (ii) farmers need ‘hard’ pesticides – heuristic behavior and beliefs of farmers that these are better; (iii) no incentives from the government even in the US$23 million rice subsidy program to include biopesticides whereby US$46 is allocated to each rice farmer to purchase pesticide inputs; (iv) small organic farming sector; (v) weak harmonization efforts within the ASEAN region especially for registration for sharing data etc. -unlike say the EU where there is broader efforts in this aspect.
The Company suggested the following to stimulate further growth of the biopesticides sector, such as: (i) Expedite registration process, e.g. for LRPs’ requirements; (ii) reduce uncertainties in registration due to constantly changing new requirements for registration.
In the Malaysian context, it is encouraging that there had been some successfully registered and ongoing use of commercial products. These include: Bacillus thuringiensis based products such as Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (e.g. Dipel®) and Bacillus thuringiensis var. aizawai (e.g. Florbac®), azadirachtin based neem product (e.g. Neemix® 4.5) and Metarhizium anisopliae based fungal product ( e.g. ORY-X FGV®) used against the rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros in major industry crops such as oil palm and coconut. Invariably, the success of some of these products was largely driven by the combination of various factors such as the market scale or size of the target sector (e.g. in the case of ORY-X FGV -the oil palm sector), user-friendliness of the product (Dipel’s wettable powder versus Florbac’s as a flowable concentrate), product safety, longevity of product use, i.e. the ability to mitigate resistance development of target pests, reliability (e.g. synthetically manufactured Neem-based products, i.e Neemix® versus its crude extract-based counterparts) and the ability to meet specific environmental (e.g Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis) and market requirements (e.g. organically grown products).
With the government likely to continue imposing strict safety criteria on conventional chemical pesticides, that will invariably result in fewer products on the market, there is real opportunity for biopesticide companies to help fill the gap. However, there will also be major challenges for biopesticide-based companies with limited resources for R&D, product registration and promotion. Further, there are real concerns on illicit pesticides that include the pesticide spectrum of counterfeits, fakes, unauthorised ones and obsolete ones as highlighted by Norida et al. (2024). These products are accessible to farmers and distribution has been facilitated by online platforms that are yet to be duly regulated or enforced by the government.
Moving forward, the industry’s needs broadly include: (i) seeing the business imperative for the biopesticide before embarking on the commercial aspects; (ii) simplifying the current registration process or protocol for LRPs; (iii) Creating awareness among various stakeholders including farmers; (iv) being cost-effective; (v) Needing guidelines in the local context, rather than adopt one for developed economies; (vi) Training needed for competent authorities for proper evaluation of the registration application for LRPs.
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE VERSUS FARMERS BEHAVIOR
Kamaruzaman et al. (2012) suggested that both the government and the industry players must put in serious effort towards increasing the use of biopesticides, and concomitantly, transform the agricultural sector as desired. Several recommendations were suggested, such as to encourage the public, investors, and owners of pesticide companies to involve themselves in bio-enterprises; develop different channels for biopesticides registration to maintain the quality and availability of biopesticides at affordable price and support the reduction of chemicals used in agriculture with policies and regulations limiting maximum residue levels by applying more ‘good agricultural practices’ (GAP) for increased food safety and reduced environmental concerns. Many of these are already in place or work in progress by the government. Chandler et al. (2011) cautioned that “governments are likely to continue imposing strict safety criteria on conventional chemical pesticides, and this will result in fewer products on the market. This will create a real opportunity for biopesticide companies to help fill the gap, although there will also be major challenges for biopesticide companies, most of which are small and medium enterprises with limited resources for R&D, product registration and promotion.” Chandler et al. (2011) also asserted that biopesticide development has largely been done according to a chemical pesticides model that has the unintended consequence of downplaying the beneficial biological properties of biopesticides. On the positive side though, they noted that the pesticides model still has much to offer, for example, in improving the formulation, packaging and application of biopesticides.
In terms of overcoming the farmers’ perception that nothing works better than ‘hard’ pesticides, one needs to deep dive to understand farmers’ behavior – an aspect relatively poorly studied and understood in Malaysia. Arguably, pivotal to the theme of biopesticide acceptance is one of farmers’ behaviour (e.g. in rice, Escalada et al., 2006). Farmers usually place a premium to production, and thus monetary, gains and their personal safety. Thus, their choice of interventions should lead to these key outcomes. Can biopesticides fill this need? if they do, a greater use or adoption rate could be anticipated - but not if otherwise.
For better technology adoption and use, various Models and Theories (M&Ts) had been used to explain the behavior (attitudes, perception, intention etc.) of farmers (Amini et al., 2021). These include the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1986), Diffusions of Innovations (DOI) (Rogers, 2003) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Most of these M&Ts were used for studies to elicit individual behavior intentions, whereas Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) UTAUT was developed for application in the organizational and non-organizational context. UTAUT was later refined to study the acceptance and use of technology in a consumer context (UTAUT2) (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
To be fair to the farmers, we need to acknowledge that the use of biopesticides requires deeper knowledge of the science in terms of the mode of action and thus packaging of the information that are easily understandable by farmers – one that is generally effectively practiced in the case of chemical pesticides. Every type of biopesticide needs a specific usage approach, confounding the challenges faced by the farmers. For example, the use of bacterial-based biopesticides (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis) have specific requirements of strain selection, timing of spraying, spray location etc. The same applies also to the other biopesticides such as fungal or virus-based ones.
CONCLUSION
The biopesticides industry is not a recent one to Malaysia. From the turn of the last century, there had been numerous efforts towards stimulating, facilitating and enhancing the greater use of biopesticides of various kinds in agriculture, with the efforts speeding up from the 90s onwards, the impetus provided by large scale integrated pest management initiatives (Sivapragasam, 2009). However, despite this history and the millions of dollars allocated by the government and others through various funds, grants and research and development (R&D) programs to support biopesticide development in the country, to date, the sector remains very much at the early growth stage based on the industry life cycle framework. In an unpublished report, it was noted in a market study by Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in 2015 that the biopesticide industry is moderately competitive. As highlighted by the results of our assessment (Section 2), there are inherent challenges -resulting in fewer players are currently being involved. Favorable government policies may help in nurturing the growth to a competitive level. The fact remains that the market for biopesticides in the world is expected to expand into double digits in the future and in concert with this trend, biopesticides in Malaysia is poised for growth.
The pivotal role of government cannot be overemphasized as a catalyst towards greater awareness, and thereafter, adoption of biopesticides by farmers. In the regulatory frame, simplifying and/or fast tracking a less costlier registration process could help as attempted in Malaysia and Thailand. However, there is a ‘chicken or egg’ dilemma when the biopesticide market’s demand pull is not in tandem with the supply-push. Herein, lies the crucial public-private sector role. In Thailand, results from Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) showed that the wider use of biopesticides by stakeholders viz., farmers, especially in rice and vegetables, was positively correlated with their education and attitudes. Advice from extension agents also had a similar effect suggesting the important role of government in promotion of biopesticides, especially with training to address the various challenges indicated earlier. This builds on confidence to convince especially with the hard-core ones who are totally chemical dependent. There is also a need to overcome production challenges to meet potentially increasing demand – a situation we encountered in Myanmar when scaling up biopesticides such as neem and neem seed cake use after promoting them to rice and vegetable farmers there. In fact, there is not sufficient local production to meet local demand especially when we talk about the rice sector which needs substantial amounts for application due to the large acreages of production. Local production is also affected by raw material supply, which if imported, may not be cost effective. To meet economic of scale production challenges, in Thailand, Praneetvatakul et al. (2024) suggested the support of community-based enterprises, organized as an Association, to produce and sell biopesticides, in addition to helping with coordination, promotion and research on biopesticides.
REFERENCES
Abdul Alih, A.H., Muhammad Lokman, M., Afzan, M.Y., Siew, P.L., Nik Fakhurudddin, N.H., and Hussin, M. (2019). The Alarming Community Concern on Household Insecticide Exposure and Usage. IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia, 18(2). Pp. 133-138. https://doi.org/10.31436/imjm.v18i2.80
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Amini, M., Rahmani, A., Abedi, M., Hosseini, M., Amini, M., Amini, M., & Gostar, M. (2021). Mahamgostar.com as a Case Study for Adoption of Lavarel Framework as the Best Programming Tools for PHP Based Web Development for Small and Medium Enterprises. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, May, 100–110.
Annamalai, S. (2021). Final report: Plant Health – A major challenge to achieving sustainable ‘green’ agriculture in Myanmar. (https://www.aciar.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/final-report-CROP-2019-103.pdf).
Chandler, D., A. S. Bailey, G. M. Tatchell, G. Davidson, J. Greaves and W. P. Grant (2011). The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management – A Review. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2011) 366, 1987–1998 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0390.
Costa, A., Sivapragasam, A and Thaung, M. (2020). CABI Services to strengthen the plant health system in FARM, Myanmar. Final Report (mimeograph); Pp. 49.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results [Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3652.1648
Escalada, M. M., Heong, K. L., Sengsoulivong, V., & Schiller, J. M. (2006). Determinants of insecticide-use decisions of lowland rice farmers in Laos. Rice in Laos. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines, 283-290
Ganisan, K; M. R. M. Noor, A. Jack and S. Haron (2016). Research, Development and Commercialisation of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms in Malaysia. In: H.B. Singh et al. (eds.), Agriculturally Important Microorganisms, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2576-1_9 © Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016; PP 149-166.
Grovermann, C. ∙ Schreinemachers, P. ∙ Berger, T. (2013). Quantifying pesticide overuse from farmer and societal points of view: an application to Thailand. Crop Protect. 2013; 53:161-168
Heong, K.L., Wong, L. and Delos Reyes, J.H. (2013). Addressing planthopper threats to Asian rice farming and food security: Fixing Insecticide Misuse. ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. No. 27, August 2013. Pp. 20
Heong, K.L., Escalada, M.M, Chien, H.V. and Delos Reyes, J.H. (2015). Are there productivity gains from insecticide applications in rice production? Pp 181 – 192. Chapter 9. In Heong, KL, Cheng, J.A. and Escalada, M. M. (eds) ‚Rice Planthoppers: Ecology, Management, Socio Economics and Policy‛ Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9535-7.
Norida, M., Muhammad Bushairy, B.H. and Goh, M.C.F. (2024). Illegal pesticide use in Malaysia and its content analysis (2024). In: Program Book, 12th International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics)(ICPPT), 25-27th September, 2024, Penang, Malaysia (abstract only)
Kamarulzaman, N.H., Mazlan, N., Rajendran, S.D. and Mohayidin, M.G. (2012) ‘Role of biopesticides in developing a sustainable vegetable industry in Malaysia’, Int. J. Green Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.243–259.
Pimentel, D. (2005). Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides, primarily in the United States, Environment, Development, and Sustainability, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.229–252.
Praneetvatakul, S., Schreinemachers, P. , Vijitsrikamol, K. , and Potchanasin, C. (2024). Policy options for promoting wider use of biopesticides in Thai agriculture. Heliyon, Volume 10, Issue 2, e24486. Elsevier Publication.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth Ed.). Published by Simon and Schuster. 576 pages.
Istriningsih, Ujang Surmawan , Hartoyo, Budi Suharjo (2023). Proposed conceptual framework for studying non-users rice farmers’ intention to use commercial biopesticides products. Jurnal Riset Manajemen Sains Indonesia, 14 (2) 2023, 78-90. e-ISSN: 2301-8313 DOI: doi.org/10.21009/JRMSI.014.2.07.
Ramasamy S., Sotelo P., Lin M., Heng C. H., Kang S., and Sarika S. Validation of a bio-based integrated pest management package for the control of major insect pests on Chinese mustard in Cambodia. Crop Protection, 135, 104728. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2019.02.004.
Schreinemachers, P. ∙ Sringarm, S. ∙ Sirijinda, A. (2011). The role of synthetic pesticides in the intensification of highland agriculture in Thailand. Crop Protect. 2011; 30:1430-1437
Schreinemachers P., Chen H., Nguyen T. T. L., Buntong B., Bouapao L., Gautam S., Le N. T., Pinn T., Vilaysone P, and Srinivasan P. (2017). Too Much to Handle? Pesticide Dependence of Smallholder Vegetable Farmers in Southeast Asia. Science of the Total Environment, 593–594, 470–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.181.
Sok, V., S. Tong, S. Vann and B. Buntong (2023). A Survey of Bio-pesticide Uses in Cambodia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2023, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-5 ISSN: 2334-2404. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v12n12a1 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jaes.v12n1a1
Sivapragasam, A. (2009). Biopesticides from Malaysian flora – resources for sustainable pest management. In proceedings: S.L Tan (eds). National Seminar on New Crops and Bio-resources 2009, 15-16 December, 2009; Pp 125-132.
Sivapragasam, A. (2022). Biopesticides and their regulation in Malaysia. https://apbb.fftc.org.tw/article/308 ). DOI:https://doi.org/10.56669/IBQE2658
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425– 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1109/MWSYM.2015.7167037
Vibol Sok , Socheath Tong, Sokmean Vann and Borarin Buntong (2023). A Survey of Bio-pesticide Uses in Cambodia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences June 2023, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-5 ISSN: 2334-2404 (Print), 2334-2412 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jaes.v12n12a1 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jaes.v12n1a1