Research findings have shown that large
reductions in pesticide use are possible without making farming unproductive or
unprofitable. The extent of the human and environmental benefits of these
reductions depend on the toxicity of the products used, the quantity of active
ingredient and the product persistence.
There are currently vast differences in interpretation of IFS
(integrated farming systems) ICM (integrated crop management) and IPM
(integrated pest management) around the world, centred on whether pesticides are
considered an essential part of the approach, or to be used as a last resort and
therefore huge variance in the types of systems being developed. It is useful to
spend a little time reviewing some of these interpretations:
The World Bank Operational Manual bases IPM on:
relying as much as possible on
non-chemical measures to keep pest populations low. The focus is on plant
breeding and on cultural practices aimed at keeping the crop healthy and
resistant or tolerant to attack.
managing pests rather than trying to
eradicate them.
The FAO Field Programme says "The
presence of pests does not automatically require control measures, ... a system
of non-chemical pest methodologies should be considered before a decision is
taken to use pesticides. Suitable pest control methods should be used in an
integrated manner and pesticides used on an 'as needed basis' only, and as a
last resort component of an IPM strategy.
In New Zealand, at a International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements conference, speakers used IPM to describe biological pest
control without any use of chemicals.
Research into IFS in the Netherlands as detailed in PN25 (see
p9) is independent of the agrochemical industry and based on pesticides being
something to avoid and only use if absolutely necessary. As the Nagele farm
research pioneer Dr Wijnands says "this shows a clear difference in attitude
which will inevitably result in a different IFS. The IFS system is an holistic
whole farm concept which promotes management and knowledge in place of
chemicals".
The Less Intensive Farming project at Long Ashton, UK, has
developed an IFS concept described as "a system relying as much as possible on
cultural and biological inputs with chemicals as integrated supplements".
The UK Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has
recently produced a booklet for farmers Pesticides and Integrated Farming - A
Guide to Responsible Pesticide Use which is welcomed because it addresses
questions such as: "Do you always need to use a pesticide?", and: "Have
you thought about biological controls?" But, it also introduces ICM as a
practice which includes better targeting of use of pesticides to help
minimise their potential adverse effects.
Farmers are different
These initiatives and policy approaches clearly have
very different starting points, expectations and outcomes, and in all, farmers
are given additional underlying messages about the use of pesticides. In twenty
years experience working as a nature conservation officer, a reserve warden, a
farm conservation adviser, and environmental consultant and a organic extension
officer, I have become increasingly aware of assumptions being made about farmer
knowledge, farmer ability to change, farmer values and what others consider will
be acceptable to farmer. Farmers tend to be classed as an homogenous mass and
policy and information decisions made for them accordingly. In fact it is
difficult to find a more diverse group of people both in circumstances and
attitudes.
Time for a change
At no time has this situation been more critical than
now when farmers are being asked to reassess their whole approach to land
management. People are concerned about pesticides and their use; this includes
farmers and consumers. They are concerned about their health, their environment
and their livelihoods, and want information, advice and real alternatives. There
is much discussion about achieving sustainability; Jules Pretty gave a valuable
outline of possible steps to achieving this in PN32 (see p6), detailing a
desired state of "locally specific resource conserving technologies, varied by
farmers, and agriculture as a whole structured to emphasise local economic
regeneration". He listed many descriptions of "more sustainable
agriculture" including organic systems, precision farming and "wise use of
inputs", some with precisely defined standards, most without. He asked if it
mattered if we know how much more sustainable a particular approach is.
Given the critical damage we are doing to our environment and
ourselves, it does indeed matter. If we already have viable systems which score
well in terms of sustainability, then this is where enabling policies need to be
concentrated to encourage uptake, otherwise we are just losing time. In relation
to pesticides and policy it is important that we are clear about what we are
trying to achieve, and that farmers world-wide are provided with accurate
information, objective advice, the opportunity to use their own knowledge and
common sense, and policies which enable them to make significant changes in
their farming systems if they so wish.
Health and environmental research shows that pesticide use is
damaging, and for many countries and individuals it is also economically
damaging, yet in the UK many policy makers, advisers and even environmentalists
continue to argue that farmers have no option but to use pesticides, that they
are not willing or able to find ways to stop using them, or if they are and are
currently farming with high chemical inputs, then they have to progress through
integrated farming systems such as LEAF and LIFE in order to change their
farming approach as this is what acceptable to them.
Organic farming is more than just an
option
Mainstream literature for farmers, agricultural
policies and learned discussions on sustainability continue to give these
messages and to make generalisations and assumptions. We are therefore failing
to give farmers positive messages about real alternatives and to let them make
their own choices. Initiatives to reduce agrochemical use are to be welcomed,
but where they mean business more or less as usual they will not address our
problems. They are therefore of limited value, and more seriously they are
promoted at the cost of a quite different system, organic (ecological) farming.
Precision farming or IPM as interpreted in the UK may well be more
"sustainable" than what we have at present, but organic production is not
just another option to add to a menu of choices, it is fundamentally different
since it is a biological, cyclical system. Elements of the system can be and are
used in other approaches, but the whole results in more than the sum of the
individual elements. It has been shown to be viable world-wide, it is profitable
in the UK even with a CAP structure that disadvantages its adoption, and
contrary to a commonly held view and in spite of much negative propaganda, some
farmers really do want to know about it.
A positive change
The newly launched MAFF-funded Helpline and Organic
Conversion Information Service here has received 130 requests for visits in
eight weeks with very little promotion within the farming community. There would
have been much more uptake if all MAFF policies and literature recognised its
benefits. Organisations, such as conservation bodies, should cease to relegate
organic production to a niche market, stating that uptake is unlikely to be
great, which results in them giving more support to reduced input approaches. If
society talks down what is known to be beneficial how can we expect positive
change? If we want to achieve equality in society we first have to believe in
it. The same goes for any new proposal or initiative. We only need to look to
the Netherlands and Germany to see the effect of positive policies, information
for farmers, and consumer support on the rapid expansion of organic production.
(See also p7 for more details of increased organic farming uptake in Europe.)
Integrated farming-a broad spectrum
Mark Redman's article (see PN30 p13) on ICM and
organic production was described as a controversial view, but he makes some
valid points. Do UK ICM protocols represent significant improvements in
environmental protection and farmer and consumer safety? In the book Integrated
Pest Management (edited by Dr David Dent), the authors conclude:
"IPM is not a strategy to replace chemical control although it is a powerful
option and can be applied on a much larger area than at present. For the
chemical industry IPM may result in extended use of products because of slower
development of resistance and a more positive perception by the public of the
role of the pesticides industry".
Policies of IPM and IFS are no doubt promoted by some as a
genuine attempt to reduce pesticide use and, depending on the definition, their
adoption can bring significant benefits, for example in the Asian rice programme.
For others however such approaches are without doubt a means of perpetuating
pesticide use. We must be very aware of these two agendas. My primary concern is
the effect of the policies, that we adopt here and promote in other countries,
on farmers and on the future of organic farming. In the US in the 1970s far
reaching research on food, soils and cropping by the US Department of
Agriculture identified organic production as their best way forward. This policy
was usurped by IPM approaches, and in spite of a policy of pesticide reduction
over the last 15 years, pesticide use by weight has actually increased, along
with the incidence of resistance, and food losses are still up to 50% of crops
produced, with the use of these 'protection' products.
There is considerable MAFF and academic research in this
country, as well as world-wide, demonstrating organic farming to be profitable,
productive, resource conserving and environmentally beneficial. Farmers
converting find it is easier to implement than they have been led to believe.
The frequently repeated view is that the only real difficulty is in thinking
differently! For many producers world-wide organic production with appropriate
technology is a more straight forward option than IPM, in this country many
mixed, low and medium input farms could convert easily without a change in
income, and even high input farms are converting successfully.
Widespread and rapid adoption is possible but it will not
come about whilst policy bodies, farm advisers and environmentalists continue to
take the view that half way houses are adequate or are more acceptable, that
farmers will not consider organic systems, and just drop in reference to organic
production as an after thought in any consideration of sustainable agriculture.
Being a whole farm biological system it is one that farmers everywhere, large,
small, intensive or traditional, can understand and implement, but only with
proper information and backup, and opportunities to find out for themselves,
preferably in a field situation. We need to stop making assumptions, stop
providing selective information, be clear that pesticides are damaging, provide
equal amounts of detail on organic systems to that are currently available on
chemical use, and make organic production central to policy thinking. Farmers
should be allowed to make their own choices about healthy profitable farming
systems, given information and an enabling framework. As is said in extension
work: "Information destroys fear and ignorance."
Organic demonstration farms
Many policy makers, opinion formers and
environmentalists who overlook or dismiss the real contribution organic systems
can make to removing pesticide hazards and progressing to sustainable farming
systems for the future, have no practical experience of how they work on the
ground. Organic production tends to be viewed as a no input system and therefore
non-viable, instead of a fully integrated biological system recycling nutrients
to the greatest extent currently possible. Hopefully the newly established
network of Organic Demonstration Farms set-up by Elm Farm Research Centre with
commercial farmers, and supported by the Soil Association will do much to
increase knowledge and understanding.
Our present implementation and development of organic systems
is by no means perfect but it is an excellent functioning model to build on.
Many farmers in Austria and Switzerland have considered their circumstances and
see it as the way forward. Danish consumers, politicians, conservationists and
farmers are working together rapidly to expand their organic land for health,
environmental and water quality reasons. Organic farming is a practical choice
for eastern block countries, and in the South there are numerous examples of
organic production beginning to restore food supplies, healthy working
conditions and local economies to people formerly trapped in resource draining
intensive farming systems.
Conclusion
I frequently hear people criticising the organic
movement for claiming it has the right and only way and dismissing other genuine
attempts to improve on our current situation. If the claim is that organic is
perfect and everything else is a waste of time then the criticism is deserved.
However, more often than not, organic farmers and promoters are endeavouring to
stress that we have a system which works and which brings real benefits and
needs to be central to policies for the future.
New ideas are generally first ignored, later ridiculed, and
finally frequently accepted as common sense!
Joy Greenall is an independent
environmental consultant specialising in land use and ecology. She is also a
member of the Pesticides Trust [now PAN UK] Board.
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 33, September 1996,
pages 4-5]