By Owen Atkin, Director, ANU Agrifood Innovation Institute

Australia’s agrifood sector is entering a new era of crop protection. The challenge is how quickly we can adapt and whether we can do so while maintaining productivity, profitability, and the long-term resilience of our farming systems.

That is why the ANU Agrifood Innovation Institute convened a workshop in December last year - Pathway to Biocontrol – Australia’s Future Crop Protection System. The workshop brought together experts from across the value chain with a simple goal: map what is holding back biocontrol in Australia and identify what we can do to address it.

The result is a report released this week Advancing Biocontrol in Australian Agriculture: Opportunities and regulatory pathways.

In this article, I want to share a personal perspective on why this matters, why it is urgent, and what I believe we need to get right next.

Why biocontrol matters right now

Biological control products and strategies are not new. Many growers have already incorporated biological products into their programs, and Australia has a long history of classical biocontrol in the landscape.

What is changing is the pace and breadth of innovation.

Today, “biocontrol” spans microbials, metabolites, RNA-based approaches, semiochemicals, and endosymbiont technologies. Some products are living organisms, others are biologically active molecules. Some are used as direct pest suppressants. Others support plant resilience or work preventively within integrated pest management approaches.

Our report describes this expanding biological toolbox and the opportunities it creates for Australian agriculture. These tools generally exhibit lower toxicity than conventional chemicals and can reduce residues, protect beneficial organisms, and support resistance management when deployed appropriately in farming systems.

The global trend is clear. Biological control markets have been growing rapidly for years, and the momentum is accelerating. International comparators such as Brazil and the United States have adopted dedicated regulatory pathways and invested in coordinated field-demonstration systems.

But in Australia, the opportunity is being slowed by regulatory, technical, and market barriers that hinder timely product development and adoption.

Not because there is a lack of innovation or need. But because the system that surrounds biocontrol in Australia – regulation, trials, manufacturing, extension, investment – has not yet caught up with overseas advancements in technology and market growth.

And this matters because climate change will not wait for us to catch up.

Biocontrol and the climate reality facing agriculture

When people discuss climate change and agriculture, the focus is often on drought, floods, heat stress, and emissions reduction.

All of those issues are real and impacting now. But one of the most immediate and underappreciated impacts of a changing climate is the changes in pests and diseases.

Warmer temperatures can expand the geographic range of pests. Changing rainfall patterns can alter disease pressure. Extreme events can disrupt established cycles. New incursions are more likely, and existing pests are more persistent.

At the same time, climate volatility makes it harder to rely on “business as usual” crop protection approaches.

This is where biocontrol becomes increasingly important.

Biological products can offer new modes of action that complement existing approaches. They can reduce pressure on synthetic pesticides, slowing resistance. They can help growers respond to residue-sensitive export requirements and evolving market expectations. And they can support more preventative, systems-based programs rather than purely reactive interventions.

However, our report makes clear that many biologicals are sensitive to environmental conditions. Their efficacy can be impacted by temperature, humidity, UV exposure, soil conditions and timing. In other words, they are not “plug and play”.

That means climate change creates both the case for biocontrol and the need for better enabling systems to support it.

If we want biologicals to work in Australian conditions, we need to understand how they behave across our country's diverse climates. We need trial designs that reflect real-world variability in our climate. We need advisory pathways to help growers use these tools correctly.

What we heard: the barriers are real and interconnected

Across the day, structured sessions and breakout discussions surfaced a consistent set of barriers.

What struck me was not that any single barrier was surprising. It was how often people described the same friction points, from completely different parts of the value chain.

1. Regulatory uncertainty and fragmentation

Australia’s system involves multiple agencies. Most biological products require a biosecurity import permit through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (via BICON). Registration and approval sit with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Poison scheduling is managed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). For some emerging technologies, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator may also be relevant.

Each agency has a legitimate role. But navigating this multi-agency system was identified as a major challenge.

Participants cited uncertainty regarding regulatory requirements, particularly around efficacy expectations and alignment among APVMA, DAFF/BICON, and TGA. The APVMA’s outcome-focused approach has strengths because it allows burden to align with risk. But without clearer guidance, it can create uncertainty for applicants, especially those with limited regulatory experience.

Several participants noted that unclear expectations complicate funding pathways and delay progress. Developers cannot easily estimate costs and timelines. And in a small market like Australia, that uncertainty can be enough to shift a product’s priority elsewhere.

2. Efficacy evidence requirements: a major bottleneck

A second theme that emerged strongly was the mismatch between traditional chemical efficacy frameworks and the nature of biological products.

Many biologicals do not deliver the same “immediate knockdown” effect as conventional chemistries. Their value may be cumulative, seasonal, or synergistic when used with other tools. That means meaningful evaluation often requires large, block-integrated, season-long trials.

Yet current trial permit settings and small-plot constraints can limit the scale required to evaluate biologicals effectively. Our report highlights that biological efficacy is often affected by environmental conditions, necessitating different trial designs compared with conventional chemistries.

In other words: the evidence challenge is not just “more trials”. It’s better trials suited to our conditions. 

3. Capability gaps and infrastructure constraints

Participants identified gaps in specialist regulatory expertise and trial design knowledge.

At the adoption stage, there are also gaps in adviser capability. Many advisers and growers still expect chemical-like reliability, but biologicals often require different timing, stewardship, and systems-based integration.

If we do not invest in capability, we risk repeating a familiar pattern: innovation that never scales because the people and infrastructure needed to support it are missing.

4. Market constraints and the economics of a small country

Australia is a relatively small market for global developers which means the costs of trials, regulatory requirements, consultant fees and time delays can be proportionally larger barriers here than in larger jurisdictions.

Participants described how high trial and assessment costs reduce incentives for investment and limit product availability.

5. Behaviour, trust and social licence

Finally, the workshop surfaced behavioural and systemic barriers.

Biologicals are not always well understood. Trust is shaped by field performance and peer experience. Social licence considerations are growing, particularly for emerging technologies such as RNA-based approaches.

Participants emphasised the need for transparent communication, trusted demonstrations and stronger extension to manage expectations and support correct use.

Why “chemical-centric” thinking is holding us back

One of the most useful phrases that came out of the workshop is “chemical-centric regulatory architecture”.

Australia’s agvet regulatory framework was designed around conventional synthetic chemistries. Definitions, data expectations, efficacy standards and trial permit settings do not always map cleanly onto biological products.

This is not a criticism of regulators. It is a recognition of the history.

Regulators have done an enormous job protecting people, markets and the environment.

But biologicals are different.

They often work through ecological interactions rather than direct toxicity. They can have dual impact properties, functioning both as biostimulants and pest suppression products. They can require integrated trials and different endpoints.

If we apply the same frameworks without adjustment, we risk unintentionally disadvantaging the very innovations we will need in the future.

The report highlights classification ambiguity for dual impact products and the need for clearer definitions and guidance. It also notes the risk of regulatory avoidance, where suppliers may attempt to avoid APVMA registration by avoiding pesticidal claims.

Clearer classification and guidance would benefit everyone: regulators, developers, advisers and growers.

The roadmap: practical steps we can start now

One of the most important outcomes of the workshop was that participants did not just identify problems. They also prioritised solutions.

The report sets out recommended actions and a road map for implementation.

None of these actions requires us to lower standards. They are about making standards fit for purpose.

They are about making pathways clearer, making evidence more meaningful, and making adoption more likely.

They are about enabling safe innovation.

A final reflection: why I’m optimistic

It is easy to focus on the barriers. From my perspective, the value of this workshop is not in producing another report that sits on a shelf. It was the level of shared intent from participants.

Regulators expressed a willingness to coordinate more closely and to engage early with applicants. Industry participants were clear about what would make the investment more viable. Researchers highlighted the innovation pipeline and the need for trial infrastructure. Growers and advisers shared practical insights on adoption, trust, and what works in the field.

Most importantly, there was broad agreement on the direction of travel: biologicals are not a niche. They are becoming a core part of future crop protection.

In a changing climate, the cost of not preparing is high.

If Australia wants to maintain productivity, protect trade access, and meet rising sustainability expectations, we will need a crop protection toolkit that is more diverse, more resilient and more adaptive.

Biocontrol is not something any one agency, company or research group can solve alone. It is a system challenge that will require system leadership.

That is the work ahead, and it is work worth investing in.

If you are interested in being involved in future workshops, or contributing to the future of biocontrols, I encourage you to reach out to the ANU Agrifood Innovation Institute.