Biopesticides in India: technology and sustainability linkages

Abstract

Despite enhancing the crop yields, the so called green revolution (GR) has proven unsuccessful in assuring long term agricultural sustainability. The methods used for productivity enhancement during GR have not only proven to be problematic but have also resulted in deterioration of soil quality and several other issues related to ecosystems and health issues. The damage was mainly caused by the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides. Various types of pesticides, are now known to be causing huge problems in the agro-ecosystems. In such a situation, where chemicals have caused or are causing irreversible impacts on agroecosystems, the use of biopesticides has emerged as a sustainable alternative leading to safe organic farming. At the global level, environmentally benign nature and target-specificity of biopesticides are gaining wide popularity. However, in developing countries like India usage of biopesticides is still minuscule in comparison to conventional chemical pesticides. Although the Indian government has encouraged the use of biopesticides by placing them into many of the agricultural schemes, at the grassroots level, biopesticides are facing many challenges. The lower adaptability and declining interest of farmers towards biopesticides have become a matter of concern. However, technological challenges related to production, manufacture and application in agroecosystems have also raised a question on their long-term sustainability. The main objective of this review is to highlight the developing trend in the field of biocontrol products in India. Apart from this, the review also focuses on the technological perspectives that are required for the long-term sustainability of biological control products in Indian agriculture and market.

Introduction

Scientific interventions have made our lives more comfortable. Researchers and scientists have continuously worked on important breakthroughs for the welfare of society. In the agriculture sector, which can be considered as the primary reason for the development of various civilizations, many discoveries happened which took human development to newer heights. The effective use of scientific tools and technologies have strengthened the conventional agriculture. The multifaceted role of science and technology (S&T) in the field of agriculture can be seen in terms of enhancement of productivity, development of pest-resistant crop varieties, creation of hybrid seeds, and restoration of degraded land. India too has witnessed the significant roles that S&T played in the field of agriculture. For example, during the Green Revolution (GR), rapid increase in the yield of wheat and rice was a technology-driven breakthrough in Indian agriculture (Chakravarti 1973). According to Pingali (2012), this was the first wave of Green Revolution (time period from 1966 to 1985), where apart from providing infrastructure, and market development, huge efforts were also made in conducting crop research and applying appropriate policy support for solving the Nation’s food crises. For India, this was the first time when the government emphasized on the use of technological innovation in the field of agriculture. The scientific interventions were related to improved seed varieties, irrigation, and the extended use of fertilizers and chemical inputs for attaining food self-sufficiency. As the long-term effects of using chemical fertilizers and pesticides for enhancing yield were not easy to quantify, the concern for environmental problems were overlooked at that time. Later in the '80s, it was realized that besides the benefits associated with GR, it has darker side too and that is related to the harmful effect on the environment (Pingali 2012). GR itself is one amongst the other causes associated with land degradation, biodiversity losses, and environmental pollution, causing a severe health risk to humans (Benbi 2017).

The lesson from GR was so obvious that it became very clear that for increasing agricultural production, only sustainable approaches should be employed i.e. meeting the demand without further degradation of the natural resources. It has also been realized that possible reclamation measures have to be taken for the restoration of soil health and productivity. In GR, farmers used high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice, which resulted in the reduction of the use of locally-adapted varieties and increased extinction of indigenous varieties. Even Professor Swaminathan, known as the father of GR in India, admitted that the agriculture during GR was ‘exploitative agriculture’ and caused ecological and social harms by the involvement of indiscriminate use of groundwater, chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Kesavan and Swaminathan 2008).

In contrary to synthetics, biopesticides have emerged as a green tool in the era of sustainable agriculture. These are the most likely alternatives to some of the most problematic chemical pesticides currently in use. Biopesticides offer solutions to concerns such as pest resistance, public health issues and detrimental effects on the surrounding environment. Despite the benefits associated, the overriding challenge for the biopesticide industry is to live up to the promises and expectations of the end-users or the market and public as a whole. It is a well-known fact that as far as environmental perspective is concerned, biopesticides are far better than synthetics, but at the same time, we can’t deny that this greener approach is struggling for its place in established conventional chemical pesticide market. There are many constraints that are responsible for their lower adaptability amongst farmers. However, technological challenges and long-term sustainability are the major issues that require immediate consideration. Hence, keeping these views, the main focus of this review is to provide a clear-cut picture of the present status of biopesticide production, development and technological challenges involved. Discussing the ongoing efforts by the government towards wide adaptation of this greener technology is also targeted in the review.

Biopesticides in India

In India, the concept of biocontrol of plant diseases has been in practice for a very long time (Schmutterer 1985). The neem tree (Azadirachta indica A. juss) and its derivatives, i.e. leaf extract, oil, and seed cake have been used as fertilizers and also for minimizing the risk of post-harvest loss in stored cereals (Isman 1997; Brahmachari 2004). There are evidences where some insects and birds were used in pest eradication (Subramaniam 1952). During the 1960s, the concept of integrated pest management (IPM) had also emerged with a target of judicious use of pesticides in agriculture (Smith and van den Bosch 1967). Later, the US National Academy of Sciences’ also exemplified the term IPM in a broader way, and along with multiple complementary methods to suppress pests, biocontrol was also added (Peshin et al. 2009). However, in India, a major technological breakthrough in the field of biocontrol happened when chemical insecticides failed to control Helicoverpa armigera, Spodoptera litura, and other pests of cotton (Kranthi et al. 2002). It was realized that biocontrol is the only means that can be utilized as a safe, cost-effective, and eco-friendly method to control the widespread resistance of chemical insecticides towards pest insects. Later, biopesticides became a part of IPM which was previously completely based on the use of chemical pesticides.

Brief history

The journey of biocontrol in India has its linkages with premier global institutes dedicated to the field of biocontrol research. The Commonwealth Institute for Biological Control (CIBC), formerly known as Commonwealth Bureau of Biological Control, is one amongst the oldest institutes devoted to taking the lead in biocontrol research at the global level. The CIBC was established by the Imperial Parasite Service, Belleville, Ontario, Canada, and its headquarters are currently in Trinidad, West Indies. In 1957, the India station of CIBC was also established to initiate organized and systematic research in biological control. The importance of efficient, eco-friendly methods for pest disease control gained momentum and, in this context, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) also started an All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Biological Control of Crop Pests and Weeds (AICRP-BC&W), in the year 1977. This was a huge project, and even after closing of India station of CIBC, this project was shifted in 1988 in the same campus where CIBC used to run. Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi, also launched National Bio-control Network Programme in 1989. At the beginning of the program, 10 R&D projects were started for a period of 5 years (1989–1994). Later the programme was extended, and over 200 projects were implemented in various national institutes and state agricultural universities (SAUs) (Wahab 2004). In the year 1985, Government of India had included IPM in the National Policy statement but a major initiative was taken by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC), Ministry of Agriculture by launching a scheme on “Strengthening and Modernization of Pest Management Approach in India in 1991–1992” and with this strengthening and establishment of biocontrol research at regional level was also started. Hence in the year 1993, i.e. the eighth 5-year plan of India, AICRP-BC&W project was further upgraded as an independent Project Directorate of Biological Control (PDBC) with its headquarter in Bangalore. The mandate of PDBC was to undertake basic and applied research on biological control of crop pests and weeds in different parts of the country. PDBC is the nodal agency in India and coordinates with 16 centers spread across the country. PDBC name has been changed twice. During XIth 5-year plan, PDBC was upgraded as National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects (NBAII) and in the XIIth 5-year plan it was renamed as National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR).

In India, Bio-Control Research Laboratories (BCRL), a division of Pest Control India (PCI) Limited (now known as Rentokil-PCI) under contract with Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI) was the pioneer in commercial production of biocontrol agents (Manjunath 1992). Currently, the BCRL is manufacturing and selling formulation of antagonistic fungi (Trichoderma viride, Tricoderma harzianum, and Beauveria bassiana) and bacteria. Apart from these, pheromone lure and traps are also commercially used in pest control. In the year 1999, National Centre for IPM (NIPM) performed a demonstration program on rice in a village in west Uttar Pradesh on 100 acres and substituted chemical pesticides with the bio-control product named Trichogramma. Later, National Policy on Agriculture (2000) and National Policy for Farmers (2007) also supported IPM. DBT is also providing R&D support for the development of bio-based approaches of disease and pest control in crops. DBT is amongst leading funding agencies that has schemes on biocontrol research in India (Singh et al. 2002; Sharma et al. 2003). Currently, not only DBT but other funding agencies such as the Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi and ICAR have also raised several schemes with a major focus on judicious use of pesticides in agriculture and sponsoring research on biopesticides. However, these government agencies are also very much concerned about gathering toxicological data of using biopesticides in various agro-climatic zones.

Production and consumption

According to the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage (DPPQS), a total of 361 biocontrol laboratories and units are working in India, but only a few of them are involved in the production (Fig. 1). However, data suggests that in India the consumption of biopesticides has increased in the last few decades. For example, consumption of neem which is one of the most common biopesticides’ used in India has increased from 83 metric tons (MT) during 1994–1995 to 686 MT in 1999–2000 and in case of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) it has risen from 40 to 71 MT during the same period. However, it was only a few years ago that the standing committee on chemicals and fertilizers (2012–2013) during the 15th Lok Sabha submitted its report on the production and availability of pesticides in India. The committee stated that the use of biopesticides had increased beyond the expectations from 123 metric tons (MT) in 1994–1995 to 8110 MT in 2011–2012. Data obtained from DPPQS suggested that the all-India consumption of biopesticides has increased by 40% from 2014–2015 to 2018–2019 (Fig. 2). Statistics also show that Maharashtra, West Bengal and Karnataka have utilized maximum amount of biopesticides i.e., 5549, 4416 and 3478 MT, respectively, while Himachal Pradesh and Goa have used least, 36 and 38 MT respectively, (https://ppqs.gov.in/statistical-database). This data also explains a low reach of biocontrol programs in northern states of the country in comparison to southern.

Fig. 1.

An overview of the current structure of biocontrol laboratories and units working in India

Fig. 2.

Consumption of biopesticides in India during last 5 years

(Source: data obtained from DPPQS, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India)

Currently, there are 970 biopesticide products registered with the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) which is the major governing body related to all types of usage of biopesticides in India. The industries are producing bacterial, fungal, viral and other (plant-based, pheromones) biopesticides with a percentage share of 29, 66, 4 and 1, respectively (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Different types of biopesticides with their percentage distribution. Products are registered under Central Insecticidal Board (CIB) Act 3 & 3 (B).

(Source: DPPQS, DAC, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India)

Government agencies

Central and state agricultural universities and various ICAR institutes are major government agencies involved in commercial production of different biopesticides. Data derived from DPPQS shows that amongst the government biocontrol units, production is carried out only by a few of them. In the southern region, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI), Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, Directorate of Oilseed Research (ICAR), Hyderabad and Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Kerala are known to have dedicated biopesticide production units. In the northeast, Assam Agriculture University and Central Agricultural University, Manipur are producing biopesticides against invasive pests. In north, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Punjab, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology (GBPUA & T), Uttarakhand are involved in the production of biopesticides. Whereas in Central Uttar Pradesh, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research (IISR) and Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, and Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage in Lucknow, which works under The Central Integrated Pest Management Centre are the major government agencies involved in manufacturing of biopesticides. Apart from these, with governmental support, several Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) and State biocontrol labs have also been developed, which are producing biopesticides for managing the local demand. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) has also started to promote the use of biopesticides.

Private firms

In India, most of the biopesticide production takes place in public sector units. It is estimated that the public sector contributes to almost 70% of the biopesticides production. Major companies are Biotech International Ltd. (New Delhi), International Panaacea Ltd, New Delhi, Ajay Biotech (India) Ltd, Pune, Bharat Biocon Pvt. Ltd. (Chhattisgarh), Microplex Biotech & Agrochem Pvt (Mumbai), Excel Crop Care Ltd., Mumbai and Govinda Agro Tech Ltd. (Nagpur), Jai Biotech Industries, Satpur, Nasik, Ganesh Biocontrol System, Rajkot, Gujarat Chemicals and Fertilizers Trading Company, Baroda, Gujarat Eco Microbial Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara, Chaitra Agri Organics, Mysore, Deep Farm Inputs (P) Ltd., Kan Biosys Pvt. Ltd., Pune Indore Biotech Inputs & Research Pvt. Ltd., Indore, Romvijay Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pondichery Neyattinkara, Kerala, Devi Biotech (P) Ltd., Madurai, T. Stanes & Company Ltd., Coimbatore, Harit Bio Control Lab., Yavatmal and Hindustan Bioenergy Ltd., Lucknow. Some foreign companies have also entered in biopesticides production, but most of them are working in collaboration with Indian companies. For example, Lupin Agrochemicals, a Bombay based company, is now working with US-based Abbott Laboratories. Sugar and distillery companies such as KCP Sugar & Industries Corporation Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh), Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (Tamil Nadu), New Swadeshi Sugar Mills (Bihar), and Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. (Tamil Nadu) have also started to produce biopesticides mainly of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma harzianum. However, lack of experience and quality control are the major issues still plaguing most of the products.

Technological development

Technology development in biopesticide production embraces four core areas of research: (i) selection of biocontrol agent (ii) formulation type (ii) manufacturing and packaging process and (iv) application methods. Over the past few years, technology and research in the field of biocontrol has upgraded. It is why the reliability of biocontrol products has also increased in the market. However, in a broader perspective, the entire process of the development of biopesticides is still facing some technological barriers such as poor shelf-life, narrow host range, and low in consumer faith. For better penetration of biopesticides in the conventional chemical controlled market, these barriers should be addressed on a priority basis. In this section, we are focusing on the major technical developments which are essential for the widespread use of biopesticides in agriculture.

Selection and development of biocontrol agent

In India, biocontrol products used are categorized as microorganisms based (microbial biopesticides), plant-derived (also known as plant-incorporated protectants or botanical pesticides) and pheromones or other natural insect growth regulators. Microbial biopesticides contain fungi, bacteria, viruses or entomopathogenic nematodes as active ingredients. In India, amongst all types of biopesticides, the percentage share of fungal products is highest (Fig. 3). Further, in the category of fungal biopesticides, strains of Trichoderma are mostly used, and currently, 355 products are available in the Indian market for the field applications. Although the number of Trichoderma-based biopesticides in the market is relatively high, until now, only two species are reported with biocontrol activity (Kumar et al. 2014, 2019). It indicates a lack of research or insufficient knowledge in understanding the biology of Trichoderma spp. in relation to biocontrol of phytopathogens (Gupta et al. 2014). In the case of bacterial biopesticides, Pseudomonas fluorescens is taking the lead over Bacillus based products that have wide market coverage globally. In India, strains of B. thuringensis, Bacillus sphaericus and Bacillus subtilis are registered as biopesticides. It has also been noticed that a lot of research is mainly done on spore-forming bacterial strains with insecticidal activity and potential of non-spore formers such as Serratia entomophila and Chromobacterium subtsugae which are also pathogenic to a range of insect pests is not tested (Jackson et al. 2001; Martin et al. 2007).

Similarly, commercial production of Yersinia entomophaga and Pseudomonas entomophaga, which are known for entomopathogenic activities, is yet to start in the form of biopesticides (Vodovar et al. 2006; Hurst et al. 2011). In India, only Nucleopolyhedrosis viruses (NPVs) based viral biopesticides are being used for biocontrol of Helicoverpa armigera, and their percentage share is very low (Fig. 3). Natural occurrence of granulovirus (GVs) infecting larvae of sugarcane pests in southern and northern states of India was reported very early, yet their mass multiplication and commercial production in the form of biopesticides has not started (Easwaramoorthy and Jayaraj 1987). Application of nematodes in pest management has started now. Heterorhabditis and Steinernema are the two most effective entomopathogenic nematodes that are being used against different soil-borne pests under field conditions (Sankaranarayanan et al. 2006). However, no registered product is available in the market to date.

In the category of botanical pesticides, neem-based products are at the top, whereas application of other plant-based products such as pyrethrum, eucalyptus leaf extract, and Cymbopogon nardus is less common at field level (Walia et al. 2017; Dougoud et al. 2019). Research on pheromones or other natural insect growth regulators as biocontrol agents has improved in the last few years, and these have also penetrated the traditional biopesticide market. Cotton, sugarcane, and rice are the three major crops where pheromone technology is being utilized to deter pest population (Khergamker 2019). Recently, in some parts of Telangana and Gujarat a very cheap pheromone trap that can be used for trapping of deadly pink bollworm of cotton is being used (Wadke 2018). Some pilot projects have also started in other parts of India for promoting the use of Pheromone Application Technology (PAT) in the management of crop pests.

Formulation technology

For biopesticide production, high-quality formulation processes are required. The utmost requirement of a formulation is that it must be safe, effective, easy to use, and should have a longer shelf-life. Unfortunately, finding a biocontrol product to fulfill all these properties is very rare. CIBRC registration guidelines mandate it to maintain quality parameters in all biocontrol products before their entry into the market. At present there are only few biocontrol products that strictly adhere to CIBRC guidelines. In India, wettable powder (WP), wettable granules (WG), suspension concentrates (SC) and aqueous suspension (AS) formulations are being used. Currently, biocontrol products are formulated in solid carriers which include talc, peat, lignite, clay, wheat husk, rice bran, grinded corn cob, fly ash and sawdust. However, amongst them, some are used for small scale production at a minimal cost. Bacillus based products are being sold in the form of aqueous suspension, dust, WP and granules, charcoal, plaster of Paris and fly ash (Tikar and Prakash 2017). To overcome difficulties associated with solid formulations, i.e. requirement of space for storage, need of milling and drying, and shorter shelf-life, liquid formulations are now being produced and utilized. Currently, the liquid formulations in the form of aqueous suspension (AS), having 0.5–5% active ingredient, are prepared by different firms, but most of AS are Bt products and viral biopesticides, and very few are fungal (Beauveria bassiana). For the rest of biopesticides such as Trichoderma and Pseudomonas based products, WP and WG are the first choices. Still, the major challenge of microbe based biopesticides is in enhancing the survival rate and activity of the microbial cell in different carrier materials.

Another dimension which critically affects the biopesticide production is fermentation technology. As biopesticide products contain living organisms, hence specific fermentation parameters and conditions are needed to overcome challenges, such as shelf-life, quality, and stability. The utilization of agricultural by-products and industrial waste materials as substrates in fermentation has been tried for (Bt) spore and delta-endotoxin production (Poopathi and Kumar 2003; Paul et al. 2010; Devidas et al. 2014). Similarly, for fungal biopesticides, locally available agricultural waste materials are being used for mass cultivation (Mishra and Arora 2016). However, in comparison to bacteria, production of fungal biopesticides is much easier. The solid-state fermentation (SSF) process for mass production is quite simple (Barrios-González and Tarragó-Castellanos 2017). Even, informal training to farmers has made it possible to produce fungal biopesticides at the local level. Recently research on nanotechnology-based biopesticide formulations such as nanoencapsulation and nanoemulsions has showed wide applicability of bioagents in the environment (Koul 2019). However, these techniques are still in infancy and yet to be commercialized at the industrial level.

Manufacturing and packaging technology

Some industries and agricultural universities are producing biopesticides at the commercial level. Agricultural universities are producing biopesticides at laboratory-level, and they are using solid-state fermentation (SSF) and submerged fermentation (SF) process with the capability of 5–50 L. Apart from this, production at small-scale (which involves at the level of villages or local communities) is also known. However, in these cases due to the absence of sophisticated machinery, and meager technical cooperation from government agencies, production and distribution (of biopesticides) is limited to local use only. Many private companies equipped with in-house machinery and technological know-how are producing biopesticides on a larger scale which may vary from 10 tons per annum (TPA) to 2000 TPA of formulated products. In India, the capital cost of settling a model biopesticide unit with a capacity of 200 TPA may cost 226,117.59 USD (https://ncof.dacnet.nic.in/Operational_Guidelines/Guidelines_for_Capital_Investment_Subsidy.pdf). For settling up large scale biopesticides production units, some functionalities need to be evaluated. An operational design should facilitate desired environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, and ventilation, whereas there should be no risk of contamination during the storage and processing of materials. In the case of viral biopesticides, production plants should have a separate insect rearing facility, and the air circulation should be free from contaminants. Industry personals should also have in-depth experience in fermentation and formulation technologies essential for virus based biocontrol product development.

Packaging of biocontrol products is a vital component in manufacturing and also governs the success of biopesticides in the market. According to Keswani et al. (2019), packaging is one amongst three major constraints affecting the use of biopesticides in India. The type of packaging must ensure and maintain the quality of the product so as to meet the expectations of the end-users. In principle, packaging must adhere to the international standards and guidelines, but unfortunately, most of the manufacturers overlook these details and do it according to their convenience. Mostly, granular formulations are preferred over liquid due to the logistics, bulk order and susceptibility towards temperature and humidity. Large and bulk packaging of solid granular biopesticides should use more than one ply of material such as polyethylene, fibers or coregulated paper, and it should be leak-proof. Packaging must ensure shelf-life of active ingredients and preventable to cross-contamination during storage.

In some cases, prior application of other products or additives (such as jaggery) are to be added in the field; hence, packaging must provide tank mixing ability. For liquid biopesticides high- density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle, measuring 15 ml^–1 L are used. Whereas for bulk, HDPE containers of 5 to 10-L volume are used. New directions in the field of biopesticide research stress on using packaging material with gas and water exchange and complete protection from exposure to UV light. Recently, barrier packaging is gaining attention at the global level in the manufacture of biocontrol products. According to Gotor-Vila et al. (2019), high barrier packaging with an oxygen absorber or desiccant enhances shelf-life and stability. Whereas, adjusting packaging and formulation conditions to promote the shelf-stability of the formulated product which retains biocontrol activity, as in fresh cells, is also suggested by some workers (Burges and Jones 1998; Costa et al. 2002).

Application technology

The performance of biopesticides is directly related to the applications and methods used for delivery of biocontrol agents in a formulation product. At present, different biopesticide formulations are available that can be used as seed dressers, soil mixers, and foliar applications. Seed coating is a very simple and cost-effective method used for the control of soil-borne phytopathogens, but the success is greatly dependent on technology and type of material used for coating (Glare et al. 2012). O’Callaghan (2016) found that at a commercial scale, seed-coating faces significant technical challenges of maintaining viable microbial cells during seed treatment and storage. Most of the Indian firms are using talcum powder (with 50–80 μm particle size) as coating material. This can hold active ingredients for over one year. In India, farmers of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Karnataka are already using seed-coating method for oil seeds. The use of granular biopesticides is more common in soil applications for the control of weeds, nematodes, and insects. As in granular biopesticides, active ingredient is slowly released, hence moisture sorption profile of formulations needs to be carefully evaluated before its application in the fields (Lyn et al. 2010).

Swami and Paul (2012) studied the application of Bt containing WP based formulations, and found silica as the best carrier for enhancing the efficacy of Bt biopesticides. The major issue which is faced by Indian farmers in using solid biopesticide formulations is the lack of protective clothing, including hand gloves and face masks required during the handling. In contrast to WP and granular solid biopesticide formulations, application of non-dusty suspension concentrates (SCs), which contain active ingredients dispersed in solid-phase, are easier to use and can also be dispersed in the liquid phase. However, consideration of particle size is essential for ensuring proper bioactivity. In India, SCs of Bt var. kurstaki are in use for the management of Helicoverpa armigera on sunflower (Vimala Devi and Vineela 2015).

Seed treatment or priming with a suitable biocontrol agent is also an effective method for the control of soil-borne phytopathogens. This application method also enhances the pre-germination metabolic activities of seed. There are some success stories where treatment of legume and oil yielding crops with WP (talc-based) products protected them from severe soil-borne pathogens (Vidhyasekaran et al. 1997; Tewari and Arora 2016). However, seed priming also requires a little practice and prior training, and some companies are offering on-ground training to farmers for better application of such biopesticides.

In India, companies are also making liquid biopesticides in the form of oil/water-based suspensions, but these formulations suffer from a technical glitch due to poor spraying characteristics. Foliar application of liquid biopesticides requires necessary equipment, which creates an extra burden in the form of cost to end-users.

Policy environment

Registration/regulation

The Insecticide Act (1968) (amended in 2000) is the only legislation under the Indian Government which governs the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution, and use of all types of insecticides, including biopesticides. The CIBRC also provides an additional framework for this act. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), the Central Government, after consultation with the CIB made insecticides Rules, 1971, which governs the manufacture, grant of a license, expiry of the license, product labeling, packaging and sale, and use of insecticides. The RC grants registrations, only after the data is provided on the efficacy and safety of products to human beings and animals. The rule also assures that the samples of pesticides should be regularly checked for quality purposes. In the case of biopesticides, shelf-life, cross-contamination, moisture content, and packaging is considered. In 2015 the government also passed a bill known as the Insecticides (Amendment) Bill, 2015. The Bill added a modification in Section  9 of the Insecticide Act (1968), after sub-Section (3C), the sub-sections of nanotechnology-based pesticides were inserted. Based on the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the CIB has not only streamlined the guidelines and data requirements for registration but also mentioned minimum infrastructural facilities required for the production of biopesticides.

Guidelines/data requirements for minimum infrastructure facilities and the same for the registration of biocontrol products under Sections  9 and 9 (B) are being governed by RC of CIB. Since its formation, RC conducted several meetings related to issues on the challenges of biopesticides. Although the guidelines and recommendations of RC promise the development of high-quality biocontrol products, for the manufacturers, these are problematic. When talking about botanicals, the guidelines ask for cumbersome information. Furthermore, there is a separate requirement of data for the eucalyptus extract, rotenone, cymbopogom plant extract, pyrethrum extract, and neem-based products. Whereas, in the case of bacterial and fungal biopesticides, the bio-efficacy data need to be generated from ICAR, SAUs, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) or Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) institutes. For claiming shelf-life, the registrants should provide data of two different agro-climatic locations at ambient temperature along with the meteorological data.

Similarly, the data required for toxicity generation also requires a vigorous workout. However, the requirement of agro-climatic and meteorological data creates an extra burden on manufacturers and discourages them in expanding their business. For example, microbes isolated from a particular agro-climatic region showing efficient biocontrol activity may or may not show the same results in a different agro-climatic zone. Hence, CIBC should also take into account such and other issues that are directly affecting the manufacturing process of biopesticides.

Policies

In India for the first time, National Agriculture Policy (2000) was announced on 28th July 2000. The policy emphasized on adequate and timely supply of certified seeds, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals, and biopesticides to farmers. For the systematic development of organic agriculture in the country, National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) was launched in the year 2001 by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The institutional framework for accreditation and certification of organic agriculture was the major highlight of NPOP, which gained recognition agreements with the European Union and United States Department of Agriculturs ( USDA) (NPOP 2018).

Further, for strengthening the wave of organic mission and minimizing the risk of chemicals, the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture introduced Organic Farming Policy in 2005. The policy included organic sources of nutrients like biofertilizers, organic manures, compost, and biocontrol agents (biopesticides) as certified inputs for organic farming. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) also started its capital investment subsidy scheme “Strengthening and Modernization of Pest Management Approach in India' (SMPMA) which provided financial assistance for setting up of Bio-fertilizers/Bio-pesticides units as back-ended subsidy of 25% restricted to 4 million rupees.

The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), which was related to the issues of “Sustainable Agriculture,” was launched in the year 2010. The third mission intervention of NMSA was related to pest management, and it emphasized incentivizing research, commercial production, and marketing of biopesticides. The major focus was to develop new biopesticides and technologies by incorporating sterile insect techniques, transgenic insects, applications of novel botanicals, semiochemicals and endophytic microbial metabolites for pest control and disease forecasting (NMSA 2010). Apart from these, Soil Health Management (SHM) and “Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana” (PKVY) have also been initiated for promoting organic farming through the adoption of organic villages by cluster approach and Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification (Reddy 2017). In PGS, farmers pledge that their produce is free from all types of synthetic chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, and hormones and it is done with a self-regulatory support system which includes a local group of five or more organic farmers. The quality assurance standards of produce are harmonized by the PGS Organic Council, which permits the use of its PGS label on a product as a mark of quality (https://www.pgsorganic.in).

In the last five-years, Government has also taken appropriate steps for promoting nationwide use of biopesticides. The “Zero-Budget Farming” which has got huge success in southern India is already being practiced in some other states of the country. The farming practice is also stated as Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (UNFAO) and stresses on bypassing the unnecessary burden of farming inputs such as procurement of high-cost seed, chemical fertilizers and pesticides (https://www.fao.org/agroecology/detail/en/c/443712/). Instead of using such expensive tools, it encourages the use of farmer’s own seeds and locally available natural fertilizers and biopesticides for organic farming.

Societal impact and sustainability

User/consumer awareness issues and negative perceptions about the products

User/consumer awareness is a major factor responsible for the low usage of biopesticides (Arora et al. 2010). Many farmers are not even familiar with the term “biopesticides” and some are in dilemma of whether to use or to continue with chemicals. There are incidences where some have stopped using biopesticides due to unreliable and erroneous results. However, this issue is majorly being faced by non-registered low- quality products because the production techniques employed in such formulations do not meet the criterion defined by regulatory agencies. It is essential to point out that the designed biopesticides should be reliable, specific, indigenous, and replicable in their activity (Mishra et al. 2015). There should be a clear-cut indication on the product about the host range and conditions under which the formulation will be effective.

As farmers are the end-users of biopesticides, knowing their perception of the bio-products is also essential as it forewords the suggestions and requirements of suitable biological control measure in the farming systems. However, there is a marked difference between small and large farmers in adopting biopesticides in practice. Most of the time, smaller farmers either remain unaware or show negligence towards government initiatives and schemes on organic agriculture. Also, there are misconceptions of lower yield, high product pricing, and other requirements for biopesticides. Moreover, illegal sale and use of spurious products is a very grave issue that resulted in the loss of farmer’s faith in biopesticides; this requires immediate Government consideration (FICCI 2015). Private companies may also alleviate this issue by providing orientation and demonstration activities where farmers can gain knowledge on using quality products. For the same reason, farmer field schools (FFS) have been started in some states which provide field-based, location-specific education on biopesticides for knowledge and confidence development among the end-users (Mohanty and Sahu 2019).

Role of concerned authorities/retailers and growers

Due to the subsidy element/incentive on conventional pesticides, the existing agro-industry is reluctant to undertake research and production of biopesticides. However, in the last few decades, restrictions on heavy usage of chemical pesticides and phasing out and banning of a few dangerous chemicals aggravated pressure on manufacturers and big industry houses to produce biopesticides for commercial applications. However, the percentage share of biocontrol products is still far below in comparison to chemicals. Measures, such as training to the potential entrepreneurs, provision of institutional credit, subsidies, insurance, and exemption from taxes and duties can stimulate the production of biopesticides. Promotion by the government for the use of biopesticides and declaration of no pesticide zones may also improve the situation in favor of the bio-products. For example, guidelines laid down in NPOP related with the organic mission were more critically implemented in “Sikkim Organic Mission’’ (SOM), and by converting around 75,000 hectares of agricultural land, it is now India’s first organic state (http://www.sikkimorganicmission.gov.in/about-us/organic-movement/). By studying the SOM model, it was observed that here, authorities and growers were advised of using organic inputs shunning the synthetics. Now states of Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Kerala are trying to follow the same model for becoming organic.

Future directions

Despite their enormous potential, biopesticides are yet to be employed as major drivers of organic agriculture for pest and pathogen control. Even the government support and schemes at national and state levels in relation to the promotion of biopesticides have not proven to be very effective. Most of the research being done in the field of biocontrol has provided only empirical results at the laboratory level. There are only few incidences where biocontrol research is turned into a commercial product that can be used unhesitatingly at field level. Developing biopesticides that are better performers than chemical pesticides, show broad-spectrum activity, have extended shelf-life, and high tolerance towards environmental factors is a challenging task (de la Cruz Quiroz et al. 2019). In India, research on biocontrol is still having some fundamental issues, hence lacking in the development of quality products. Field testing, registration, and licensing itself takes a lot of time before a new product is commercialized and available for field application. Hence, the current system of registration needs to be streamlined in a way that it should favor the registrants.

Similarly, the requirement of the budget for fulfilling all these formalities is also too high, which restrains an entrepreneur from investing. The provision of tax holidays, easy loans, and small incubation center/startups at regional levels, should be introduced for strengthening financial support and marketing of the product. Whereas, for making the R&D system more robust, schemes and budgetary support are needed from the government or big industrial houses. Being low in pollution index and carbon footprint, these bio-products should be encouraged in comparison to harmful chemical pesticides. In the long run, this will lead to sustainability and fulfilling of the targets of sustainable development (Arora et al. 2018).

It has also been noticed that in India most of the company’s manufacturing biopesticide products contain only single microbial strain. These products have limited applications and can only be used against phytopathogens within a narrow range. Building products in a broad portfolio (such as using a consortium of efficient strains) which are broad-spectrum covering several phytopathogens is going to be a better strategy and such products will be economical and have more trust among the end-users.

Shorter shelf-life of active ingredients in biopesticides has remained a major concern which also affects commercial production. Shorter shelf-life not only reduces the efficiency of biopesticides against the target pest but also impacts their competitiveness with chemicals. Technological breakthroughs in this segment are urgently needed. There are some reports where the coating of active ingredient with suitable biopolymer enhanced the shelf life of formulation (Aziz Qureshi et al. 2015; Sharma et al. 2019). Arora and Mishra (2016) also suggested that adding some additives such as secondary metabolites, precursor molecules along with suitable carriers may extend shelf-life and activity of biocontrol products. However, unfortunately, the commercialization of these techniques has not been done so far (Mishra and Arora 2018).

While talking in terms of patent landscaping, India is far behind other countries where biologicals are mainly used for crop protection (Mittal and Singh 2006). There have been lesser number of Indian patents filed in last ten years (https://ipindiaservices.gov.in). While in the last few years, United States of America (USA), China, and European countries have made much progression in patenting biocontrol products (Saenz-de-Cabezon et al. 2010). These countries have also started to produce nanotechnology-based biopesticide formulations, whereas, in India, research is only at its early stage, and commercially none of the nanotechnology-based biopesticides have been developed (Chhipa and Joshi 2016; Hashem et al. 2018). India still lacks a clear perspective for using genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) in the form of biocontrol products. A series of guidelines related to the safety assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), i.e. research, confined field trials, food safety assessment, and environmental risk assessment are now jointly adopted under Rules, 1989 notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Ahuja 2018). Limited efforts have been made regarding research on GMO applications in the field of biocontrol, and only Bt cotton is commercially approved (Shukla et al. 2018). Hence, it can be concluded that as of now the status of biopesticides in India still requires a lot of support and improvement so as to compete and phase out chemical pesticides.

Conclusion

Since decades, biopesticides are being used for preventing crops from pests and pathogens. However, their market and place amongst agrochemicals are still way behind in comparison to conventional chemicals. Scientific and technological interventions related to the development of biopesticides are also deficient as proven by lack of understanding of mechanisms at ground level, a dearth of reliability on bio-products (by the end-users), and absence of penetration in the market of pest control (in India). Overall, in the global arena consumption of biopesticides has increased fairly, particularly in the European and American region. This is clear from the fact that more than half of the globally produced biopesticides are being used by the USA, Canada, and by the European Union. Similarly, EU directives and the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines of microbial biocontrol products are better suited for the proliferation of these green agro-products in the market. Framework and directives for microbial biocontrol agents in EU and USA are also less complex and more flexible than the Indian system.

The challenges in broad usage of biopesticides in India are related to the efficacy, shelf-life, production methods, narrow range of host or target pathogens/ pests, poor performance in the field, problems in the delivery system, economics, and regulations. Apart from these technical issues, there is a need of push from the authorities for promoting the biopesticides for research, production and sensitizing the farmers. To build confidence in biopesticides, both private and government sectors will have to come together and work with farmers at the grassroots level. Government’s policy and support in providing better R&D infrastructure, ease of regulations and assuring support to farmers for using biologicals will also be important. Chemical pesticides have a huge impact on the environment and soil fertility; hence it is high time that the shift towards biopesticides is realized quickly so as to make our agro-ecosystems sustainable for food security in the future.

Author contribution

All authors equally contributed in the publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the publication.