Policy paper
Published on the 21st March 2025
Debated 24th March 2025
Aim of the plan
This plan sets out the priorities of the 4 UK governments for the sustainable management of pests, weeds and diseases. It seeks to minimise the risks and impacts of pesticide use on the environment and human health, while supporting agricultural productivity.
IPM is a holistic and sustainable approach which makes use of a range of methods, and promotes preventative measures, to keep the use of conventional chemical pesticides to levels that are ecologically and economically justified, minimising risks and impacts to human health and the environment.
crop rotation
cultivation and tillage practices (how the land is prepared to grow crops)
growing pest-resistant varieties
hygiene measures (such as regular cleansing of machinery and equipment)
encouraging natural predators
We know that efficacy, availability of alternatives, public perception, safety and compliance with legal requirements all play a role in influencing pest, weed and disease management decisions in the amenity sector (Garthwaite and others, 2020).
We want to address some of the key barriers to IPM uptake in the amenity sector and reduce reliance on pesticides, whilst recognising the continuing role pesticides will play for example, in ensuring public highways are accessible and safe.
Those who work with professional pesticides must ensure that they have undertaken the relevant pesticide training or that they are supervised by someone who has, and that equipment is regularly tested and calibrated. To maintain good practice, it is important that organisations and individuals involved in the sector refresh their training. We want to encourage operators to regularly update their training and certification to include IPM elements. Membership of an assurance scheme can be a way of ensuring best practice is followed and industry standards are met.
Action 1
Increase awareness and knowledge of IPM strategies through the promotion of decision support and planning tools, practical guidance and access to learning and evidence from research and development.
Action 2
Work with farming advice services to improve the current IPM advice offer, so that it supports increased IPM uptake.
Action 3
Work with training providers to review the IPM offer to identify any gaps and areas of improvement to support IPM uptake.
Action 4
Explore opportunities for IPM facilitation funding for farmer, grower and forester led networks.
Action 5
Gather more data on IPM and pesticide usage in the amateur and amenity sectors to better understand use, how these contribute to overall pesticide load and potential IPM approaches.
Action 6
Review regulatory barriers to innovation, particularly around precision application technologies: explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of pesticide application by drones and consider whether rules and guidance need to be amended.
Action 7
Develop an internal evidence-based horizon scanning capability to identify, understand and mitigate pest control gaps.
Action 8
Continue to provide additional support to biopesticide applications.
Action 9
Consider how we can make improvements to the arrangements for GB biopesticides to reduce burdens without compromising environmental and human health standards.
Action 10
Continue to direct funding to facilitate applied research and development on priority areas where alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides are lacking, particularly in major crops.
Over the past 4 years, we have developed the first UK Pesticide Load Indicator (PLI). The PLI is a multi-component indicator, which combines data on pesticide usage with information on pesticide properties. The PLI considers:
the harm pesticides could potentially cause to different species groups
the way pesticides behave in the environment
the quantity used
Action 11
Contact organisations responsible for collecting the underlying data behind the indicators included in the previous NAP to determine any potential to update, improve or replace the existing indicators.
Action 12
All 4 governments to hold discussions with internal and external partners, for example HSE and UK Environmental Regulators, to agree an indicator framework, and develop a plan for production of monitoring reports (on who will input, how they will be reviewed and quality assured).
Action 13
Assess progress against the target, reviewing the available evidence to assess whether the minimum target level should be adjusted to maintain a stretching level of ambition.
Action 14
Publish biennial reports on results of the indicator monitoring, including progress against the PLI target.
Legislation governing the sale and use of pesticides (the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011, The Plant Protection Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011, and the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012) is in place to ensure that anyone working with pesticides does so safely. We want to support awareness and understanding of these legal requirements to ensure good levels of compliance across all sectors.
Action 15
Commission an evidence project to review where data from a range of indicators and metrics can further inform a risk-based approach to compliance.
Action 16
Review how membership of industry/assurance schemes might be taken into account as part of assessing users’ risk profiles, so inspections are better targeted.
Action 17
Ensure guidance on the use of PPPs, in particular, the ‘Codes of Practice for using plant protection products’ (and the ‘Code of Practice for suppliers of pesticides to agriculture, horticulture and forestry’), are updated to be current, remain clear and easily accessible, support compliance and embed IPM as a key part of our long-term approach to pest control.
Action 18
Engage with online marketplaces to discuss findings of research regarding online sales of professional PPPs, and approaches to increasing visibility of the legal requirements of their use for the general public.