This manuscript was originally presented at the ACRI, ATRI, WorldVeg, and FFTC workshop titled “Pest and Disease Management Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture,” held in Taichung, Taiwan, on May 5–6, 2026.
ABSTRACT
Sustainable agriculture relies on a number of pest and disease management strategies that maintain crop productivity while minimizing risks to human health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Biological crop protection products (biopesticides), including microbial agents, macrobials, semiochemicals, and naturally derived substances—are increasingly integrated into Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems in response to pesticide resistance, regulatory pressure, climate variability, and societal expectations for low‑residue food production (Marrone, 2025; Galli et al., 2024). Scientific evidence shows that biopesticides can support pest suppression, delay resistance development, and strengthen agroecosystem resilience when appropriately deployed within IPM frameworks (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018; Mawcha et al., 2024). This paper examines the role of biological crop protection products in sustainable pest and disease management, with particular emphasis on stewardship practices outlined in the CropLife International Stewardship of Biological Crop Protection Products and Their Role in IPM Strategies guideline (CropLife International, 2024). Drawing on peer‑reviewed literature and international guidance, the paper reviews biological classifications, stewardship requirements across the product life cycle, and challenges affecting field‑level implementation, including environmental sensitivity, short shelf‑life, climate‑related variability, and the proliferation of counterfeit and illegal products. The paper concludes that rigorous stewardship systems are essential to ensure that biological crop protection products deliver consistent, safe, and sustainable outcomes within IPM‑based agricultural systems.
Keywords: sustainable agriculture, pest and disease management, biological crop protection products, stewardship, Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
INTRODUCTION
Pests and diseases remain a major constraint on global agricultural productivity, with estimates indicating that 20–40% of crop yields are lost annually despite ongoing pest control efforts (Oerke, 2006; Galli et al., 2024). Historically, pest management has relied heavily on synthetic chemical pesticides; however, in significant markets the number of modes of action of pesticides are being reduced due to regulatory decisions. In addition poor practice in the deployment of pesticides has led to the development of resistance, impacts on non‑target organisms, and environmental contamination (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) emerged as a holistic response, combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to manage pest populations below economically damaging thresholds while minimizing risks to human health and the environment (FAO, 2014). Biological control agents are central to modern IPM systems due to their diverse modes of action and alignment with ecological processes (CropLife International, 2024). Nevertheless, their effectiveness is highly dependent on correct handling, storage, application timing, and integration with other IPM measures, highlighting the importance of stewardship (Marrone, 2025).
Expanding role of biologicals in sustainable pest and disease management
The global use of biological crop protection products has increased rapidly over the past two decades, with growth rates exceeding those of conventional pesticides in many markets (Marrone, 2025). There are over 2,000 biologicals active ingredients which make up the market of around $9bn, giving an average product size of $4.5 million. This is very small compared to the average size of a conventional crop protection (CP) product, 700 of which make up a market of $70bn (average sales $100m) (Shoham in press), Rather than replacing conventional products entirely, biologicals are increasingly deployed as complementary tools to enhance system resilience and long‑term sustainability.
Research demonstrates that biopesticides contribute to sustainable agriculture by reducing resistance selection pressure, preserving beneficial organisms such as pollinators, supporting compliance with residue standards, and reinforcing ecosystem‑based pest regulation mechanisms (Galli et al., 2024; Mawcha et al., 2024). However, they are not panacea. The impact of biopesticides on non-target organisms should be considered before such products are registered and promoted. In addition, inconsistent field performance can occur when environmental sensitivity or stewardship requirements are not adequately addressed (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018). Proper stewardship of biological farm inputs, particularly biopesticides is critical.
Types of biological crop protection products
Biological crop protection products are commonly classified into four groups, consistent with FAO/WHO and CropLife International guidance (FAO/WHO, 2017; CropLife International, 2024).
Macrobial agents
Macrobial agents include predatory insects and parasitoids that suppress pests through predation or parasitism. Their performance depends on synchronized release, habitat suitability, and climatic stability. Climate‑driven shifts in pest and natural enemy phenology increasingly complicate macrobial deployment (Galli et al., 2024; Sandhu et al., 2025).
Microbial agents
Microbial biologicals such as Bacillus, Trichoderma, Beauveria, and entomopathogenic viruses are widely used against insect pests and plant pathogens. Their efficacy is strongly influenced by formulation quality, storage conditions, and microclimatic factors during application (Mawcha et al., 2024; Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Semiochemicals
Semiochemicals, including pheromones, are extensively used for pest monitoring, mating disruption, and mass trapping. Studies confirm their effectiveness in reducing insecticide use when integrated with other IPM tools (Galli et al., 2024).
Natural Substances
Botanical and fermentation‑derived products offer multi‑target activity with low environmental persistence. However, variability in efficacy and regulatory complexity remain challenges to wider adoption (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Stewardship as a Foundation for Sustainable Use
Stewardship encompasses the entire product life cycle and applies equally to biological and conventional crop protection products. CropLife International emphasizes that a favorable toxicity profile does not eliminate risks arising from misuse, mishandling, or inappropriate application (CropLife International, 2024).
Storage and transportation
Microbials and macrobials contain living organisms. Improper storage conditions, particularly exposure to heat and sunlight, substantially reduce microbial viability and field performance, leading to economic losses for farmers (Mawcha et al., 2024).
Application and personal protection
Although biologicals generally present lower acute toxicological risks, best practice recommends basic personal protective equipment during mixing and application to reduce occupational exposure and contamination risks (CropLife International, 2024).
Environmental and climatic considerations
Rainfall, temperature extremes, humidity, and ultraviolet radiation are among the most frequently cited causes of biological control failure under field conditions (Marrone, 2025; Sandhu et al., 2025). They need to be considered before application. Our ability to use formulations to reduce the impact of ultraviolet radiation is improving but can still affect the longevity of microbial products.
Record‑keeping and traceability
Resistance to biopesticides can develop. Accurate application records support resistance management, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement in IPM implementation (FAO, 2014).
Challenges to effective implementation
Key challenges with biopesticides include changes in climate‑driven pest dynamics, limited product shelf‑life, knowledge gaps among users, and the circulation of counterfeit and illegal biological products. These factors undermine farmer confidence and compromise stewardship efforts, necessitating stronger collaboration between industry, regulators, extension services, and growers (CropLife International, 2024; FAO/WHO, 2017).
In addition, commercially available biopesticides tend to be sold at a price similar or more expensive to chemical pesticides. A broad spectrum chemical pesticide can control a number of pests whereas biological pesticides tend to be more pest specific. Therefore effective pest management can require the purchase of additional products and potentially additional time spent on their field application.
Role of biologicals within integrated pest management
IPM has evolved from early integrated control concepts into a systems‑based approach that emphasizes prevention, monitoring, economic thresholds, and integration of multiple control tactics (FAO, 2014). Biological crop protection products reinforce IPM by enhancing ecological resilience and enabling reductions in chemical inputs when stewardship principles are applied (Galli et al., 2024; Marrone, 2025).
CONCLUSION
Biological crop protection products are important components of modern pest and disease management strategies for sustainable agriculture. However, their successful integration into IPM systems depends not merely on product availability but on rigorous stewardship practices that ensure efficacy, safety, and environmental protection. Strengthening stewardship capacity through training, extension, and policy support is therefore essential for achieving long‑term agricultural sustainability across the Asia‑Pacific region.
REFERENCES
CropLife International. (2024). Stewardship of biological crop protection products and their role in IPM strategies.
https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CLI-Stewardship-IPM-Guideline-2024.pdf
FAO. (2014). International code of conduct on pesticide management. FAO.
FAO/WHO. (2017). Guidelines for the registration of microbial, botanical and semiochemical pest control agents. FAO.
Galli, M., et al. (2024). Can biological control be the game‑changer in IPM? Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 131, 1–15.
Lengai, G. M., & Muthomi, J. W. (2018). Biopesticides and their role in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines, 6, 7–41.
Marrone, P. G. (2025). Increasing the use of biological pesticides in IPM. Frontiers in Insect Science, 5, 1552361.
Mawcha, K. T., et al. (2024). Biopesticides and sustainable agriculture. In Advances in Biological Control. IntechOpen.
Sandhu, P., Kumar, R., & Bhatt, R. (2025). Challenges in utilisation of macrobials and microbials in biological control. Indian Journal, 172–192.
Shoham, J. (in press). Biologicals – commercial reality – current and future potential market. Agriculture for Development, 51
Stewardship of Biologicals Crop Protection Products
This manuscript was originally presented at the ACRI, ATRI, WorldVeg, and FFTC workshop titled “Pest and Disease Management Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture,” held in Taichung, Taiwan, on May 5–6, 2026.
ABSTRACT
Sustainable agriculture relies on a number of pest and disease management strategies that maintain crop productivity while minimizing risks to human health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Biological crop protection products (biopesticides), including microbial agents, macrobials, semiochemicals, and naturally derived substances—are increasingly integrated into Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems in response to pesticide resistance, regulatory pressure, climate variability, and societal expectations for low‑residue food production (Marrone, 2025; Galli et al., 2024). Scientific evidence shows that biopesticides can support pest suppression, delay resistance development, and strengthen agroecosystem resilience when appropriately deployed within IPM frameworks (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018; Mawcha et al., 2024). This paper examines the role of biological crop protection products in sustainable pest and disease management, with particular emphasis on stewardship practices outlined in the CropLife International Stewardship of Biological Crop Protection Products and Their Role in IPM Strategies guideline (CropLife International, 2024). Drawing on peer‑reviewed literature and international guidance, the paper reviews biological classifications, stewardship requirements across the product life cycle, and challenges affecting field‑level implementation, including environmental sensitivity, short shelf‑life, climate‑related variability, and the proliferation of counterfeit and illegal products. The paper concludes that rigorous stewardship systems are essential to ensure that biological crop protection products deliver consistent, safe, and sustainable outcomes within IPM‑based agricultural systems.
Keywords: sustainable agriculture, pest and disease management, biological crop protection products, stewardship, Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
INTRODUCTION
Pests and diseases remain a major constraint on global agricultural productivity, with estimates indicating that 20–40% of crop yields are lost annually despite ongoing pest control efforts (Oerke, 2006; Galli et al., 2024). Historically, pest management has relied heavily on synthetic chemical pesticides; however, in significant markets the number of modes of action of pesticides are being reduced due to regulatory decisions. In addition poor practice in the deployment of pesticides has led to the development of resistance, impacts on non‑target organisms, and environmental contamination (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) emerged as a holistic response, combining biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to manage pest populations below economically damaging thresholds while minimizing risks to human health and the environment (FAO, 2014). Biological control agents are central to modern IPM systems due to their diverse modes of action and alignment with ecological processes (CropLife International, 2024). Nevertheless, their effectiveness is highly dependent on correct handling, storage, application timing, and integration with other IPM measures, highlighting the importance of stewardship (Marrone, 2025).
Expanding role of biologicals in sustainable pest and disease management
The global use of biological crop protection products has increased rapidly over the past two decades, with growth rates exceeding those of conventional pesticides in many markets (Marrone, 2025). There are over 2,000 biologicals active ingredients which make up the market of around $9bn, giving an average product size of $4.5 million. This is very small compared to the average size of a conventional crop protection (CP) product, 700 of which make up a market of $70bn (average sales $100m) (Shoham in press), Rather than replacing conventional products entirely, biologicals are increasingly deployed as complementary tools to enhance system resilience and long‑term sustainability.
Research demonstrates that biopesticides contribute to sustainable agriculture by reducing resistance selection pressure, preserving beneficial organisms such as pollinators, supporting compliance with residue standards, and reinforcing ecosystem‑based pest regulation mechanisms (Galli et al., 2024; Mawcha et al., 2024). However, they are not panacea. The impact of biopesticides on non-target organisms should be considered before such products are registered and promoted. In addition, inconsistent field performance can occur when environmental sensitivity or stewardship requirements are not adequately addressed (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018). Proper stewardship of biological farm inputs, particularly biopesticides is critical.
Types of biological crop protection products
Biological crop protection products are commonly classified into four groups, consistent with FAO/WHO and CropLife International guidance (FAO/WHO, 2017; CropLife International, 2024).
Macrobial agents
Macrobial agents include predatory insects and parasitoids that suppress pests through predation or parasitism. Their performance depends on synchronized release, habitat suitability, and climatic stability. Climate‑driven shifts in pest and natural enemy phenology increasingly complicate macrobial deployment (Galli et al., 2024; Sandhu et al., 2025).
Microbial agents
Microbial biologicals such as Bacillus, Trichoderma, Beauveria, and entomopathogenic viruses are widely used against insect pests and plant pathogens. Their efficacy is strongly influenced by formulation quality, storage conditions, and microclimatic factors during application (Mawcha et al., 2024; Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Semiochemicals
Semiochemicals, including pheromones, are extensively used for pest monitoring, mating disruption, and mass trapping. Studies confirm their effectiveness in reducing insecticide use when integrated with other IPM tools (Galli et al., 2024).
Natural Substances
Botanical and fermentation‑derived products offer multi‑target activity with low environmental persistence. However, variability in efficacy and regulatory complexity remain challenges to wider adoption (Lengai & Muthomi, 2018).
Stewardship as a Foundation for Sustainable Use
Stewardship encompasses the entire product life cycle and applies equally to biological and conventional crop protection products. CropLife International emphasizes that a favorable toxicity profile does not eliminate risks arising from misuse, mishandling, or inappropriate application (CropLife International, 2024).
Storage and transportation
Microbials and macrobials contain living organisms. Improper storage conditions, particularly exposure to heat and sunlight, substantially reduce microbial viability and field performance, leading to economic losses for farmers (Mawcha et al., 2024).
Application and personal protection
Although biologicals generally present lower acute toxicological risks, best practice recommends basic personal protective equipment during mixing and application to reduce occupational exposure and contamination risks (CropLife International, 2024).
Environmental and climatic considerations
Rainfall, temperature extremes, humidity, and ultraviolet radiation are among the most frequently cited causes of biological control failure under field conditions (Marrone, 2025; Sandhu et al., 2025). They need to be considered before application. Our ability to use formulations to reduce the impact of ultraviolet radiation is improving but can still affect the longevity of microbial products.
Record‑keeping and traceability
Resistance to biopesticides can develop. Accurate application records support resistance management, regulatory compliance, and continuous improvement in IPM implementation (FAO, 2014).
Challenges to effective implementation
Key challenges with biopesticides include changes in climate‑driven pest dynamics, limited product shelf‑life, knowledge gaps among users, and the circulation of counterfeit and illegal biological products. These factors undermine farmer confidence and compromise stewardship efforts, necessitating stronger collaboration between industry, regulators, extension services, and growers (CropLife International, 2024; FAO/WHO, 2017).
In addition, commercially available biopesticides tend to be sold at a price similar or more expensive to chemical pesticides. A broad spectrum chemical pesticide can control a number of pests whereas biological pesticides tend to be more pest specific. Therefore effective pest management can require the purchase of additional products and potentially additional time spent on their field application.
Role of biologicals within integrated pest management
IPM has evolved from early integrated control concepts into a systems‑based approach that emphasizes prevention, monitoring, economic thresholds, and integration of multiple control tactics (FAO, 2014). Biological crop protection products reinforce IPM by enhancing ecological resilience and enabling reductions in chemical inputs when stewardship principles are applied (Galli et al., 2024; Marrone, 2025).
CONCLUSION
Biological crop protection products are important components of modern pest and disease management strategies for sustainable agriculture. However, their successful integration into IPM systems depends not merely on product availability but on rigorous stewardship practices that ensure efficacy, safety, and environmental protection. Strengthening stewardship capacity through training, extension, and policy support is therefore essential for achieving long‑term agricultural sustainability across the Asia‑Pacific region.
REFERENCES
CropLife International. (2024). Stewardship of biological crop protection products and their role in IPM strategies.
https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CLI-Stewardship-IPM-Guideline-2024.pdf
FAO. (2014). International code of conduct on pesticide management. FAO.
FAO/WHO. (2017). Guidelines for the registration of microbial, botanical and semiochemical pest control agents. FAO.
Galli, M., et al. (2024). Can biological control be the game‑changer in IPM? Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 131, 1–15.
Lengai, G. M., & Muthomi, J. W. (2018). Biopesticides and their role in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines, 6, 7–41.
Marrone, P. G. (2025). Increasing the use of biological pesticides in IPM. Frontiers in Insect Science, 5, 1552361.
Mawcha, K. T., et al. (2024). Biopesticides and sustainable agriculture. In Advances in Biological Control. IntechOpen.
Sandhu, P., Kumar, R., & Bhatt, R. (2025). Challenges in utilisation of macrobials and microbials in biological control. Indian Journal, 172–192.
Shoham, J. (in press). Biologicals – commercial reality – current and future potential market. Agriculture for Development, 51