Pesticides News No. 61 - Editorial

Most of the world’s poor depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. The strategies promoted for poor farmers are frequently based on approaches in industrialised countries. In particular, many decision makers believe that increasing agrochemical inputs is the way to expanding production and is therefore an answer to rural poverty. This issue of Pesticides News discusses the limitations of this approach, explaining how farmers may continue buying pesticides even when there is no financial benefit to them, with examples from PAN UK’s recent research. Sound strategies for managing soil fertility, seeds, crops and pests are, of course, crucial for successful farming. Certain policies have cultivated farmers’ reliance on pesticides, and led to over-use and unnecessary applications. The use of inputs must be linked to the ability to make good decisions about which ones to use and when to use them.

Researchers, trainers, and farmers give evidence of the economic benefits of Integrated Pest Management strategies, delivered through Farmer Field School (FFS) training. In Farmer Field Schools, participants learn about their agro-ecosystem, and can take informed decisions on when, or whether, to use pesticides based on an analysis of need – breaking the cycle of chemical dependency. Women and men farmers in developing countries welcome FFS as focused on their needs for reducing expenditure on inputs and increasing yields. In the centre pages, rice farmers in Sri Lanka, for example, tell their own stories in pictures: expenditure on inputs reduced considerably, yields increased by 41%, and the cost of training is US$7 per farmer. The evidence also suggests that investment in people is a very important, if not the most important, vehicle for poverty alleviation in rural areas. 

There is another bonus: ‘... very often after spraying the field people suffered from headaches and were sent to hospital.’ ‘Pesticides kill even the beneficial insects and water is polluted.’ These are some of the voices of African farmers. The health and environmental costs of pesticides use are rarely quantified, let alone internalised in pesticide use calculations, but these problems create an extra burden for poor farmers. 

How to spread the word more widely? Agricultural policies and decision-makers’ perceptions often lag behind farmer needs. But when those responsible for agricultural development visit the fields and talk to farmers engaged in FFS training, they become converts. One representative of a UN agency became an enthusiast after a field visit, exclaiming ‘this is science in action!’ Showing decision makers what farmers gain from FFS training is important in closing the gap between policies and field priorities. 

We hope the articles in this issue will stimulate debate, and encourage support for strategies that build agro-ecological knowledge and empower farmers’ decision-making at field and policy levels.

Closer to home, this issue looks at policies to promote biopesticides, experiences from European practitioners of integrated and organic farming, a new consultation aimed at solutions to reduce pesticide spraying near residential areas, and concerns with triazine pesticides. PAN UK makes its own proposals for pesticide use reduction in the form of a strategy for the UK.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 61, September 2003, page 2]