The European Union and its member states have
a unique partnership with the developing nations of the ACP states within the
framework of the legally-binding Lomé Conventions.
Pesticide use in developing countries is set to increase from
18% of global sales in 1988 to 35% by the year 2000, whilst overall sales
are still increasing. The major part of the growth is in Asia and Latin America.
Africa uses fewer pesticides than any other continent, at
approximately 4% of the global market, and of this 50% is used in Northern
States and South Africa. Nevertheless, a number of factors may generate an
increased use of agrochemicals on the continent. These include rural development
policies which develop irrigation schemes for agriculture, transport
infrastructure to enable better movement of crops to cities and ports,
structural adjustment policies which encourage further investment export crops.
A further factor is the concern with falling food production in Africa and
whether policies to reverse this trend will rely on increased and intensive
inputs. Responses to a Pesticides Trust questionnaire strongly supported IPM in
Lomé countries but cited scarce resources as a major constraint.
Commission briefing
In January 1996, Michael Dale of DG VIII, the driving
force behind the initiative, in a consultation meeting on the guidelines said:
“We need to generate both a climate within the Commission that is more
supportive to IPM and encourages IPM-based projects and programmes from ACP
countries.”
The technical aspects of IPM are now well understood in many
of the crops using pesticides in Africa. What is lacking is the means of
transferring this knowledge to farmers to provide them with the tools for
managing and controlling production and increasing their independence.
Experience has shown that the technical aspects of IPM must be regarded within a
broader context, involving training farmers in appropriate field schools.
Peter Kenmore from the FAO Inter-Country Project on IPM in
rice summed up the results of 19 years’ experience of rice IPM in Asia, citing
the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) which now recommends no
insecticide treatment of rice. This is borne out by the Indonesian
experience—following the reduction of pesticide subsidies and the banning of
the use of insecticides in rice, use dropped by half from 1984 to 1990, and rice
production steadily increased. Basing the approach on farmer participation and
training in farmer field schools: "farmers talk, and scientists and
extensionists listen" farmers have become experts in their own fields.
A similar experience was confirmed by Keith Jones, describing
CARE International’s project on rice and vegetables in Sri Lanka, (see p.4)
which aims to reduce pesticide exposure among the 22,000 farmers in its
catchment area—"the CARE approach is to target farmers, not crops."
Pesticide applications in paddy rice was reduced from 3 per season to 0.6, and
in chilli from 28.5 to 15.6. Profits increased and farmers have been able to pay
off long-standing debts as a result.
Jan Willem Ketelaar from FAO’s IPM training programme in
Ghana presented similar results: "IPM is about people and talking. Farmers
must do it themselves." Ghana has been intensifying rice production. A
recent EC-funded scheme has promoted pesticide use. Calendar spraying was
undertaken by farmers with little training and no protective clothing, who mix
pesticides with their hands and wade barefoot in irrigation water whilst
applying pesticides. Now IPM techniques demonstrate that IPM and conventional
pesticide application methods give exactly the same yield; but the net return is
considerably higher in the IPM field blocks.
Many speakers underlined the need to buttress the technical
solutions and farmer involvement with supportive government policy. Jeff Waage
of the International Institute of Biological Control stressed that IPM could be
achieved with “strong government commitment to IPM policy and extension.”
|
Peter Kenmore of the FAO imparts experience of rice IPM in Asia at a consultation meeting in Gembloux, Belgium, January 1996 |
New approach to IPM
The suggested guidelines recognise that pesticides
will be used for the foreseeable future. The draft guidelines propose measures
which will lead to three inter-connected approaches to pest
control:—establishing basic control over pesticides; reducing reliance on
pesticides; and taking action for IPM.
Recommendations for change propose restrictions on pesticide
procurement—including the use only of nationally registered active
ingredients; the linking of chemical management capacity with procurement; the
implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct: the adoption of provisional FAO
Guidelines on Tender Procedures for the Procurement of Pesticides; and improved
donor co-ordination. But, more importantly, the proposals place greater emphasis
on an IPM approach in project and programme management, and provide materials
for an awareness campaign and a step-by-step approach to IPM.
As Michael Dale said in closing the consultation meeting:
“A common approach to IPM is needed in the Commission to promote IPM and to
redress the balance presently tilted in favour of chemical pesticides.”
The next steps will be to take the work to a wider
audience—particularly to EU delegations in ACP countries, agricultural
advisors, and agriculture ministers and decision makers in states,
constituencies—including regulators, industry and NGOs. (PB)
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 31,March 1996, page 3]