European Agricultural Policy Alert

When Definitions can Exclude: the Future of Biocontrol in Europe

IBMA Warns Against Mixing Administrative Pathways with Risk Criteria in Proposed EU Frameworks

In an official policy address published by the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA), experts warn that a current European proposal linking the long-awaited biocontrol definition to low-risk criteria will severely penalize growers. While the European Commission’s simplification package aimed to accelerate farm-level access to innovation—shortening a lengthy registration pipeline that currently takes five to eight years—conflating an up-front definition with end-stage risk outcomes threatens to over-complicate the process. Industry analysis indicates that tying these concepts together could systematically exclude nearly 50% of existing, highly effective biocontrol tools from fast-tracked approvals, restricting crucial integrated pest management options across the continent. Review the complete technical statement regarding this critical agricultural policy development at When Definitions can Exclude: the Future of Biocontrol in Europe.

________

Around me is a working citrus farm, a farm that faces many challenges: pest, climate, resistance. And to face these challenges, we need access to innovation. What we don’t need is more bureaucracy.

Last December, the European Commission presented a simplification package for food and feed safety. This package included for the first time a long-awaited EU definition of biocontrol, something other major agricultural countries have had already for decades.

The objective is simple: define biocontrol products and then modify certain administrative pathways to accelerate the access of these technologies to EU farmers. Currently in Europe, it takes five to eight years to have these technologies available versus the two to three elsewhere, and this package will do this without touching safety. Same standards, same data, same scrutiny—every biocontrol product would undergo the same scientific rigorous assessment.

So why are we here? Where is the problem? The problem is now a proposal is being discussed that would link the biocontrol definition to the so-called low-risk criteria. That is a mistake. A definition answers one question: what is biocontrol? A low-risk status answers a very different question: what is the outcome of the risk assessment?

You see, these are very different concepts. A definition happens at the beginning—I define to choose which pathway to follow—and I conclude on the risk at the very end. So mixing these concepts together will not simplify; it will only make things more complex. And Europe has tried for years to accelerate biocontrol through the low-risk system and guess what? It didn’t work.

If we define biocontrol through the low-risk criteria, then many valuable technologies—almost 50% of the biocontrol technologies that are currently supporting IPM, protecting the ecosystems, helping in resistance management—they will be excluded from these very measures that were designed to accelerate their availability on the market.

Other geographies that have a biocontrol definition keep it separate from the risk assessment, and Europe should do the same because simplification should really simplify, and a definition should only define. So let’s not make the same mistake of the past. Let’s make it right and choose the right definition for EU growers, for EU innovators, and for Europe.

International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA)

Brussels, Belgium | Policy & Regulatory Briefing | June 2026 | ibma-global.org