ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND MONOGRAPHS SERIES NO. 13 iT-n in progress 1-l public discussion a, Integrated Pest Management Strategies and Policies for Effective Implementation WN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.g E~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 ESD Proceedings Series - . ..... . . . ...... -...... 1 Culture and Development in Africa: Proceedings of an International Conference (Also in French) 2 Valuing the Environment: Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development 3 Overcoming Global Hlunger: Proceedings of a Conference on Actions to Reduce Hunger Worldwide 4 Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development: Proceedings of a Conference 5 The Human Face of the Urban Environment: A Report to the Development Community 6 The Human Face of the Urban Environment: Proceedings of the Second Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development 7 The Business of Sustainable Cities: Public-Private Partnershipsfor Creative Technical and Institutional Solutions 8 Enabling Sustainable Community Development 9 Sustainable Financing Mechanismsfor Coral Reef Conservation: Proceedings of a Workshop 10 Effective Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development: Proceedings of the Third Annual World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development 11 Servicing Innovative Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development 12 Ethics and Spiritual Vlalues: Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development 13 The Self and the Other: Sustainability and Self-Empowerment 14 Meeting the Challenges of Population, Environment, and Resources: The Costs of Inaction ESD Studies and Monographs (formerly Occasional Paper) Series . . ..... 1 The Contribution of People's Participation: Evidencefrom 121 Rural Water Supply Projects 2 Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action 3 Sociology, Anthropology, and Development: An Annotated Bibliography of World Bank Publications 1975-1993 4 The World Bank's Strategyfor Reducing Poverty and Hunger: A Report to the Development Community 5 Sustainability and the Wealth of Nations: First Steps in an Ongoing Journey 6 Social Organization and Development Anthropology: The 1995 Malinowski Award Lecture 7 Confronting Crisis: A Summary of Household Responses to Poverty and Vulnerability in Four Poor Urban Communities (Also in French and Spanish) 8 Confronting Crisis: A Comparative Study of Household Responses to Poverty and Vulnerability in Four Poor Urban Communities 9 Guidelinesfor Integrated Coastal Zone Management ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND MONOGRAPHS SERIES NO. 13 Integrated Pest Management Strategies and Policies for Effective Implementation Tiaart W Schillhorn van Veen, Doug/as A. Forno, Steen Joffe, Dina L. Umali-Demninger, and Sanjiva Cooke Copyright C) 1997 The Intemational Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing May 1997 This report has been prepared by the staff of the World Bank. The judgments expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors or of the governments they represent. Cover photograph by Dely P. Gapasin. Farmers examine potato plants for pests and natural enemies as part of the weekly IPM field school activity, Malang, Indonesia, 1994. Tjaart W. Schillhorn van Veen is a senior specialist and Douglas A. Forno a division chief in the Agriculture and Natural Resources Department of the World Bank. Steen Joffe is a consultant to the Overseas Development Administration. Dina L. Umali-Deininger and Sanjiva Cooke are consultants to the World Bank. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Integrated pest management: strategies and policies for effective implementation / Tjaart W. Schillhorn van Veen ... [et al.]. p. cm. - (Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs ; no. 13) Includes bibliographical references (p. ISBN 0-8213-3748-3 1. Agricultural pests-Integrated control. 2. Agricultural pests- Integrated control-Government policy. I. Schillhorn-van-Veen, T. W. II. Series. SB950.I458 1996 338.1'62-dc2O 96-38301 CIP Contents Foreword v Acknowledgments vi Abbreviations and Acronyms vii Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 1 Farmers and Pest Management 8 Pest Management, Farmers, and the Chemical Industry 9 Economic Threshold in Pest Management Decisions 9 2 Policy Issues in Pest Management 12 Agricultural Development Strategies: Changing Incentives for Pesticide Use 12 Governments, Donors, and Excessive Use of Chemical Pesticides 13 3 Integrated Pest Management and the Public Policy Toolbox 15 Government Policy Interventions 16 International Agreements and Conventions 19 4 Implementation Strategies for Integrated Pest Management 21 National Integrated Pest Management Policy 21 Information, Analysis, and Priorities 22 Economic and Regulatory Measures 24 Farmer-Centered Research, Extension, and Training 25 5 World Bank Project Portfolio, Instruments, and Policy Options 27 Portfolio Review 28 Instruments and Policy Options to Promote Integrated Pest Management 29 iv Integrated Pest Management Boxes 1. What is integrated pest management 5 2. Integrated pest management technical toolbox 6 1.1 Factors affecting the economic feasibility of pest control measures 8 1.2 Indigenous technical knowledge 8 1.3 Market for agrochemicals 9 1.4 Changing pesticide industry 10 2.1 Approach to pest management in the Sahel 12 2.2 Integrated pest management is information intensive 14 3.1 Human health 15 3.2 Regulating use to prevent resistance 17 3.3 Selected international institutions, agreements, and conventions covering pesticide use and trade 19 4.1 Integrated pest management in Indonesia 22 4.2 Integrated pest management in Cuba 23 4.3 Information requirements for integrated pest management policy 24 4.4 Pesticide deregulation and development of resistance in China and India 25 4.5 Farmer education and extension 25 4.6 Lessons learned in Indonesia 26 5.1 Key policy measures to implement integrated pest management 31 5.2 Integrated pest management implementation in an integrated pest management facility 32 5.3 Steps for introducing integrated pest management 33 Tables 2.1 Direct and indi.rect measures fostering pesticide use 13 3.1 Common pesticide regulatory activities 17 3.2 Examples of st[ccessful integrated pest management applications 18 5.1 Summary of World Bank pest management projects or components, 1988-95 28 5.2 Financing pesticides, 1988-95 29 Figure 5.1 Distribution of environmental categories 29 Foreword S ince the 1940s pest management technology known and has been applied in a number of has relied increasingly on chemical pesti- World Bank projects, broad acceptance has been cides. Although in many cases their use has slow. significantly alleviated pest problems in the short The World Bank considers IPM to be the pre- term, it has also generated secondary pest prob- ferred approach in pest management and lems and pesticide resistance, putting farmers in encourages staff and clients to enhance the appli- a vicious cycle of pests and pesticides and increas- cation of IPM. Important steps are development ing the burden on the environment. Chemical of a sound policy framework and organizational pesticides are also associated with public health structures conducive to adoption of IPM, provi- risks to farmers and others who apply them and sion of technical backup through research and to consumers of agricultural products. In the past extension, technical training of farmers, and decade, however, farmers and policymakers have encouragement of farmer participation in the become increasingly aware of the limitations of design and administration of IPM initiatives. chemical pest control and the need to reevaluate This volume examines IPM as it applies to pest management strategies. different levels of government, to farmers, and As discussed in this volume, efforts to imple- to the World Bank and other agencies that are ment environmentally sound pest management involved in supporting agricultural develop- strategies have often been impeded by govern- ment. I hope that the strategies described here ment policies and regulations that inadvertently will contribute to more wide-scale application of promote the use of chemical pest control over policies and practices that are conducive to sus- more sustainable practices. Such sustainable tainable pest management in agriculture. practices encompass a number of technologies and farmer-centered actions that are often Ismail Serageldin referred to as integrated pest management Vice President (IPM). Although the concept of 1PM is well- Environmentally Sustainable Development Acknowledgments T his volume is part of the World Bank's Sarkar. Outside reviews and comments were program to mainstream sustainable provided by Peter Kenmore and Niek van der policies and technologies that lead to Graaff of the Food and Agriculture Organiza- more sustainable agri.culture. It follows from tion (FAO), Jeff Waage of Commonwealth an earlier draft written largely by Steen Joffe, Agricultural Bureaux International, and the then a staff member of the Natural Resources Environmental Defense Fund (representing a Institute in the United Kingdom on temporary number of interested nongovernmental organi- assignment at the World Bank, with Tjaart W. zations, including the Institute for Agriculture Schillhorn van Veen, Dina L. Umali-Deininger, and Trade Policy, the Institute of Food and and Sanjiva Cooke, who contributed data Development Policy, Consumer Policy Institute analysis. and Consumers' Union, Partners in Rural The final version was written by Tjaart W. Development and the Pesticide Action Net- Schillhorn van Veen and Douglas A. Forno. work, Rural Advancement Foundation Interna- Comments were received from interested tional, and the World Sustainable Agriculture World Bank staff, in particular Michael Association). A. Cohen, Peter DeWees, Jumana Farah, Amy Smith Bell, Alicia Hetzner, Grace Gershon Feder, Russ Freed, Dely Gapasin, Aguilar, and Lisa Barczak were instrumental in David Gisselquist, Agi Kiss, Joan Martin- editing and preparing the volume for publica- Brown, Alexander McCalla, and Sudipto tion. Damon lacovelli desktopped the text. vi Abbreviations and Acronyms CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade IPM integrated pest management NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NGO nongovernmental organization OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PIC prior informed consent UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme WHO World Health Organization vii Executive Summary T he past half century has seen a worldwide IPM uses sound agronomic practices based on trend toward more intensive agricultural an understanding of the ecology of animals, systems and an associated shift toward crops, and pests, thereby minimizing the use of monoculture and chemical-based approaches to synthetic chemicals. This approach is now pest management. Fueling this trend have been widely analyzed, and in many cases it has several factors more or less attributable to agri- proven to be more economical than pest control cultural development strategies and associated based solely on agrochemicals. But full adop- macroeconomic and sector policies supported by tion is slow, in part because of an established or governments and donors. Increasingly, however, lingering "pro-synthetic chemical" policy envi- questions are being raised about the long-term ronment in many countries and in part because sustainability of production systems that depend the IPM approach is information- or knowl- on intensive use of agrochemicals. Negative exter- edge-intensive and requires education, train- nalities associated with such systems indude ing, and a technology-generating (research) direct public health risks, the destruction of nat- backup. ural enemies and emergence of secondary pests, Worldwide, changes are taking place in agri- the development of pesticide resistance, increas- culture, especially a rising concern for agricul- ing soil and water contamination, the contribution tural and environmental sustainability, shrinking to ozone depletion, and other environmental lia- government fiscal resources, and increased har- bilities. Agricultural productivity gains, however, monization of international trade regulations. remain critical to secure food availability and These changes provide an opportunity to review livelihoods in the developing world. To achieve and redirect this policy environment toward such productivity gains in the future will require more sustainable farming practices including approaches that are consistent with the conserva- 1PM. tion of the natural resource base and protection of human health. This effort will involve more judi- Government Policies cious use of external inputs, greater dependence on management skills, location-specific knowl- Governments can have a tremendous influence edge of agroecosystems, and less reliance on on pest management practices, both through chemicals. policies or incentive structures and regulations During the past decade there has indeed that affect the choice of pesticides or alternative been an increasing interest in, and support for, approaches, and through public support for more sustainable approaches in agriculture and research, extension, education, and training ini- in agricultural pest management, especially in tiatives. Examples of policies that encourage the use of integrated pest management (IPM). pesticide use include: 2 Integrated Pest Management * Macroeconomic policies such as overvalued * Development of a regulatory framework exchange rates that facilitate pesticide imports governing production, distribution, and use * Minimum wage requirements that discrimi- of pesticides and reorientation of economic nate against labor-intensive pest control pro- incentives through appropriate agricultural cedures and environmental policies, including taxes * Direct or indirect price subsidies of agro- and special levies on pesticide use to account chemicals for negative externalities, and short-term * Support for research and extension with a subsidies to account for the positive exter- strong pesticide focus, or excessive privati- nalities in the use of IPM zation of research and extension, which sub- * Reorientation of research and technology sequently leads to a greater role of industry policies to generate a socially optimal supply * Regulations that are either weak or, through of pest management information and tech- subsidies for research, promote pesticide use nologies * Government or development agency sup- * Creation of a system that informs policy- port for procurement and distribution of pes- makers, consumers, and producers of the ticides and application equipment such as hazards of unlimited pesticide use. sprayers. An important factor in ascertaining safety and Apart from the nonsustainable increase in quality is the evaluation and registration of pesti- pesticide use, these policies discourage other cides and the regulation of their use, as imple- management practices that are more in line with mented worldwide by many governments. the principles of IPM. Support for monocropping Regulation is increasingly influenced by interna- of high-yielding crops or for high-density live- tional organizations such as the Food and stock production can lead to conditions that are Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health ideal for the rapid growth of pest populations Organization (WHO), the General Agreement on and disease. The risk that such populations or Tariffs and Trade (GAIT), the North American diseases will reach epidemic proportions is great. Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and interna- The common response of formal agricultural tional standards such as the Codex Alimentarius research and extension systems has been to and the Montreal Protocol (see chapter 3). emphasize the development of technology pack- ages that are pesticide- or drug-based. World Bank Portfolio and Strategy These technology packages exacerbated the pest-control problem in the long term by reduc- A review of World Bank investments during ing natural pest predators ("good bugs," or ben- 1988-95 points to the need for increased atten- eficials) that traditionally help keep populations tion to more environmentally safe pest manage- of "bad bugs" in check. Less emphasis has been ment through World Bank development placed on maintaining genetic diversity or assistance. The review showed that pesticides breeding disease- and pest-resistant plants and for agricultural use were procured in 44 percent animals. The introduction and continuing of the ninety-five pest management projects or development of cheap and quick-acting pesti- project components. Only 23 percent of these cides and veterinary pharmaceuticals have led projects provided for the implementation of to products that are effective and bring high IPM-related programs. While $361 million was economic returns in the short term. But long- allocated to finance pesticides, just $81 million term sustainability and health concerns are was provided to finance on-farm implementa- raising questions about these practices in many tion of IPM-related activities (a sum that countries. excludes the often significant contribution of A variety of tools can be used to assist in the farmers and training institutes). Among projects creation of a policy environment that is con- supporting pesticide procurement, 43 percent ducive to IPM, thereby promoting safe and had a Category B environmental assessment effective pest-manageiment methods. These classification, requiring environmental review; tools include: 32 percent were rated Category C, not requiring Executive Summary 3 any environmental assessment; and 24 percent The World Bank does have limited relevant of projects, most of them begun before 1989, expertise to assist its task managers in deter- were not assigned an environmental assessment mining whether appropriate and sustainabil- category.' ity promoting policies and techniques are Against this background the analysis and pursued in Bank-financed projects. There is a discussion in this volume provide guidance on need to increase exposure of Bank staff to the policies and best practices that are drawn from concept, economics, and implementation of the collective experiences of a wide range of IPM; to enhance their awareness; and to pest management programs. Accordingly, it is improve in-house IPM project (component) recommended that the World Bank reasserts its identification and review processes. As such operational policy on pest management in favor IPM is included in the core training programs of a more proactive role for the Bank in pro- being developed for Bank staff who work in moting and supporting environmentally safe the Agriculture and Natural Resources and and sustainable pest management practices. To Environment Departments. achieve this goal, use of the following instru- Finally, it is recommended that the World ments and best practices are recommended: Bank use clear directives and good practices to * Assessment of needs and priorities in rela- specifically adopt an IPM approach to pest tion to IPM and other sustainable production management and to accommodate quality technologies should move upstream in coun- assurance, handling, storage, and disposal try programming and be an integral compo- issues that are chemical-specific. These direc- nent of sustainable growth strategies. tives should be followed by additional best - More use should be made of economic and practice papers to further assist task managers sector work to analyze and define relevant in implementing IPM and procurement proce- sector policies and associated regulatory and dures that enhance the judicious and safe use of institutional frameworks. pesticides. * Project screening tools such as the environ- The World Bank, the United Nations Devel- mental assessment process should be used opment Programme (UNDP), the United more to analyze the sustainability aspects of Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), proposed strategies, including prospects for and FAO recently established a joint program IPM. to facilitate the development and pilot testing The main objective of using these instruments is of IPM. This program is expected to lead to an to encourage an early dialogue among World increasing number of high-quality lending Bank task managers (and member country offi- operations that contribute to sustainable cials), the regional environmental divisions, and agriculture. the agricultural, technical, and policy staff in the region, as well as in the Agriculture and Natural Note Resources Department, regarding best practices 1. The World Bank assigns projects an environmen- relative to sustainable production technologies. tal assessment category (A, B, or C) according to the Specific IPM assessments may be warranted in degree of oversight necessary to ensure prevention or some circumstances. mitigation of potential environmental or health risks. Introduction G enerating the agricultural productivity factors, including yield, profits, risk, sustainabil- gains necessary to secure food availabil- ity, and safety (box 2). IPM is a key component of ( 3 ity and livelihoods in the developing integrated farming practices (that is, good agron- world over the coming decades requires an omy) that are based on an understanding of ecol- approach in which the intensification of agricul- ogy and the interaction between crops or animals tural systems is consistent with conservation of and their pests, as well as an understanding of the the natural resource base. This approach requires environments in which pests operate. The concept less reliance on the intensive use of external inputs is nearly as old as agriculture itself, but modem and greater dependence on management skills research has greatly enhanced the understanding and location-specific knowledge of agroecosys- of population dynamics and broadened the scope tems. Integrated pest management (IPM) consti- and scale of pest control strategies. tutes one such approach (box 1). Although IPM is used mainly in the context The 1PM concept is far from new. Farmers used of cropping, the principle also applies to forestry integrated pest control long before scientists and animal and public health. coined the term. In traditional farming systems, IPM is the preferred strategy for pest man- pest management is inseparable from sound farm agement under Agenda 21 of the United Nations management. It involves farm practices that pro- Conference on Environment and Development mote good plant and animal health and keep pest (UNCED 1992,7). Agenda 21 states: losses in check without the use of manufactured chemicals. Changes in farming systems during the Chemical control of agricultural pests has past half century lost sight of this approach, and dominated the scene, but its overuse has chemical control methods increasingly became the pillar in the control of pest and diseases in modem agriculture. During the past decade, how- Box 1. What is integrated pest management? ever, growing concerns about the risk and nega- IPM is a knowledge-intensive and farmer-based tive effects of chemical methods have spurred management approach that encourages natural agriculturists, environmentalists, and economists control of pest populations by anticipating pest to explore pest management strategies that have problems and preventing pests from reaching eco- fewer side effects on public health and the envi- nomically damaging levels. Appropriate tech- ronment. The most well-known among these niques are used, such as enhancing natural strategies isIPM. enemies, planting pest-resistant crops, adapting eIeM canbest be described as a farmer's knowl- cultural management, and, as a last resort, using 1PM can best be described as a farmer's knowl- petcie juiiosy pesticides judiciously. edge and use of an optimal mix of pest control Source: Adapted from USDA/ARS 1993. tools and tactics, taking into account a variety of 5 6 Integrated Pest Management adverse effects on farm budgets, human An essential aspect of IPM is its integration of health, and the environment, as well as technical and social knowledge. This integration on international trade. New pest prob- requires a sound understanding of key pest con- lems continue to develop. Integrated pest straints and biological and farm management management, which combines biological systems. These are often highly location-specific, control, host plant resistance, and appro- and farmer participation and networking are priate farming practices and minimizes essential in the design of modern science-based the use of pesticicles, is the best option IPM schemes. The major limiting factor, how- for the future, as it guarantees yields, ever, is insufficient backup of farmers with ade- reduces costs, is environtnentally friend- quate and applicable IPM-related technologies. ly and contributes to the sustainability of Another problem is a lack of appropriate farm- agriculture. focused research. Development agencies, notably bilateral pro- Box 2. Integrated pest management technical grams sponsored by Germany, the Netherlands, toolbox and the United States, as well as those sponsored . . ~~~~~~~~by FAO, have been advocating and supporting The main features of IP'M involve the use of non- eo tO impemen foramoegtan tent chmclmtoso.etcnrl efforts to implement IPM for more than twent,v chemical methods of pest control: * Biological controls. The use of natural enemies, years. The World Bank is now a significant IPM often called beneficials, which include parasites, supporter and has invested some $80 million in predators, and insect pathogens. implementation projects since 1988. However, * Cultural and crop or livestock management controls. despite these efforts and notable successes in Tissue culture, disease-free seed, trap crops, some countries, widespread implementation of cross protection, cultivation, refuse manage- IPM remains an elusive goal in most parts of the ment, mulching, field. sanitation, crop rotations, world. The conventional paradigm of agro- grazingrotation, and itercropping. gtratPing lation, timing ofn. chemical control continues to be attractive to *Strategic controls. Pla,nting location, tirming of... planting, and timing of harvest. farmers and governments alike because it is sim- * Genetically based controls. This includes insect- ple and can lead to high immediate economic and disease-resistant varieties and root stock. returns. In many cases it is the standard Environment-friendly chemical interventions approach extended to farmers by both govern- are sometimes inclucled in biological controls, ment and private commercial interests, and the such as the use of semiochemicals, including traditional farming system and pest manage- pheromones and feeding attractants, and ment tools are neglected. biopesticides (for example, specific and benefi- ment to n ected. cial friendly insecticides). If 1PM is to become widespread, farmers In practice IPM often combines natural forms of must have the appropriate incentives, relevant control, taking advantage of (and providing train- knowledge, and practical techniques to make ing in) ecological relationships in the agricultural use of nonchemical-based approaches. lTo apply system, with economically derived rules for the IPM, farmers need to accept a practice that is application of pesticides. However, the pesticide usually more management- and labor-intensive use in IPM differs from the approach used in con- than the use of chemical agents. Hence farmers ventional pest control. When possible, IPM relies on will need to see a demonstrable economic pay- pesticides that target specific pests, can be applied at lower rates, and are less toxic to beneficial organ- off. Ultimately, the choice of pest management isms. New application rnethods are being devel- technology will be influenced by the costs, ben- oped that employ biological materials such as efits, and availability of competing alternatives, pheromones and feeding attractants to lure the tar- as well as by any rules or other social norms gov- get pest to the pesticide. Application rates, timing, erning its use. and frequency are chosen to minimize effects on Governments influence the prospects for beneficials. Pesticides that can be substituted for widespread implementation of IPM through the each other are interchanged to slow the develop- ment of pest resistance to pesticides. incentive structures and regulations affecting te Source: Adapted from Vandeman and others 1994. choice of pesticides or alternative approaches. Governments' influence is also strong through Introduction 7 support for research, extension, education, and related to development strategies and govern- training initiatives. This dimension of IPM imple- ment policies and shows how many countries mentation, including the influence that donor have created a policy environment that favors organizations can have on government polices, is the use of chemical pesticides. The third chapter one of the most important but least-documented assesses the policy instruments that govern- aspects of the challenge facing the international ments can use to create a more level playing field community in implementing UNCED recom- for alternative pest management practices and mendations on IPM. to promote IPM where appropriate. The fourth Consequently, this volume reviews how gov- chapter discusses national IPM policy and the ernments can support and encourage IPM need for more farmer-centered research, exten- implementation and how the World Bank and sion, and training. Finally, the fifth chapter ana- other development agencies can assist this lyzes the World Bank's current portfolio of process. The first chapter considers the factors relevant projects and looks at the instruments that affect farmers' choice of pest management and options available to pursue pro-IPM poli- technology. The second chapter reviews issues cies and to promote wide-scale adoption of IPM. 1. Farmers and Pest Management P ests, diseases, and the losses that they cause lar production systems. Poor farmers, however, are an inescapable part of agricultural pro- are limited in their choices, and may especially duction. In principle, farmers have avail- benefit from cost-effective integrated pest man- able a range of pest management techniques, from agement (IPM) approaches. natural controls based primarily on cultural, The perceived economic importance of the physical, and mechanical techniques, to the use of losses caused by a particular pest and t:he avail- biological control agents or chemical pesticides. ability of the relevant information and skills to This chapter examines the factors that influence deal with them are important factors influencing farmers' choices and techniques (box 1.1). In sim- the choice of pest management practice. Farmers ple terms the choice of pest management tech- combat the pests that they know about, are con- niques is a function of the costs (purchased inputs, cerned about, and can successfully afford to do other variable costs such as labor, and fixed costs something about. The breadth of information such as sprayers or information costs) and returns and technologies available is a function of the (labor saving preventio:n of crop loss in monetary number and quality of supply channels, includ- or subsistence terms) , In practice, however, ing formal research and extension systems, whether farmers act to limit losses due to pests farmer training, farmer networking, chemical and what measures farmers take are determined suppliers, and indigenous technical knowledge by a number of factors largely specific to particu- (box 1.2). Box 1.1 Factors affectijng the economic Box 1.2 Indigenous technical knowledge feasibility of pest control measures Indigenous technical knowledge has been shown to * Yield and quality effects be a rich source of innovation in pest management, * Severity of damage but it tends to break down in the face of rapidly * Pest spectrum changing farming systems. In general, farmers' * Frequency of pest problem knowledge about specific pests tends to be influ- * Technical effectiveness of the (bio-) control agent enced by the visibility of the causal relationship * Output price between pest and losses (Bentley 1989). This knowl- * Risk edge is not always complete or accurate-for exam- • Timely availability ~~~~ple, farmers may not be aware of the yield losses * Timely availability caused by viruses or of details of a pest's life cycle * Price of control agent that indicate key points for intervention. A partner- * Cost of implementaticin ship between farmers and scientists will often yield * Benefits and cost of altemative programs practical information based on a mutual exchange * Community and regional organization of information. 8 Farmers and Pest Management 9 Because agricultural pests are rarely limited to single farms but occur regionally or beyond, there Box 1.3 Market for agrochemicals are limits to farmer-centered approaches. Most The global market for agrochemicals is currently pest control programs also need a regional or estimated at $21 billion; nearly 27 percent of this is national base as a guide, as exemplified by in North America, 30 percent in Western Europe, national and regional quarantine regulations, by and 14 percent in Japan. The market growth in thehighly andcressful auaradicatonte ofrewworm b OECD countries has flattened out, but use in the the highly successful eradication of screw-worm developing world is expected to grow consider- disease in the United States and more recently in ably. In 1990 developing countries accounted for northern Africa, and by the beneficial effects of 20 percent of world agrochemical use, but this per- nationally or regionally harmonized pesticide centage is expected to almost double by 2000. use. However, use in these countries is limited largely to a few crops-cacao, cotton, coffee, flowers, Pest Management, Farmers, fruits (mainly banana), maize, rice, tobacco, and and the Chemical Industry vegetables. Source: World Bank data; OECD 1995. The chemical industry has received most of the blame for the detrimental environmental and The industry's bottom line is cost and benefit. public health effects of pesticides. Initial Future profit margins may be affected by the increases in pesticide use after World War II decreasing subsidization of agriculture in the were fueled by extra supplies and industrial developing world, as well as by the increasing capacity, but in later years the industry has regulation of agrochemicals, which society been responding to the demand, albeit some- demands. Judicious use of low volumes of highly what manipulated, of its clients.2 Farmers targeted nontoxic chemicals and IMP is not embraced pesticides because of labor savings, mutually exclusive, but such use should be mon- increased crop security, higher quality and itored to prevent stepping back on the pesticide homogeneity of product, and persuasive mes- treadmill by locking farmers into pesticide use sages from research, extension, and industry through the bundling of seed, equipment, and advertising activities (box 1.3). Consumers pesticide or other marketing tools (box 1.4). increasingly demanded visibly blemish-free agricultural and horticultural products; the Economic Threshold industry responded by developing an array of in Pest Management Decisions pest control chemicals. Just as public attitudes have changed so too The concepts of action thresholds and economic has the pesticide industry. Insecticide use in agri- thresholds are often used, albeit in a simplified culture, initially the major culprit in public health way, to explain decisionmaking in pest manage- concerns, has been stagnant or declining in the ment. Thus Stern (1973, 261) defines the action past two decades in industrial countries (NRC threshold level as "the population density at 1989), although herbicide use has increased. which control action will result in little likeli- "Cure-all" drugs and agrochemicals are very hood of the pest population exceeding the eco- slowly being replaced by target-specific chemi- nomic threshold level." The economic threshold cals, albeit at higher costs. Current research in the level is "the break-even point at which the value agrochemical industry is increasingly directed at of loss in yield quantity or quality is equal to the highly specific interventions and at disease- or cost of a control method that successfully elimi- weed-resistant genetics (as well as herbicide-resis- nates pest damage and yield loss." The action tant crops that could increase future herbicide and economic thresholds overlap, but they are use). Following stricter regulation, as demanded not necessarily the same; farmers' actions may by society, considerable improvements have been derive from a lack of specific knowledge (for made in the safe handling of pesticides, although example, "seeing many bugs" rather than assess- this has been more widely applied in the indus- ing potential damage), or from various advertis- trial world than in the developing world. ing campaigns that promote use at levels at 10 Integrated Pest Management of production (land, labor, capital, and man- Box 1.4 Changing pesticide industry agement skills). The type and level of produc- The agrocheniucal industry, accused of creating the tion factors that farmers choose to use depend agricultural poisons of the past, is changing. From on their price, availability, and ease of applica- a commercial perspective, the industry is consoli- tion. For example, an increase in cost of aL cho- dating through mergers and buy-outs and is sen pest management technique, such as increasingly branching intc seed production. This pesticide use, may lead farmers to delay appli- diversification is in part a result of the increasing interest to produce pest-resistant plant and animal cation until a higher threshold level, resulting varieties on the one hand, and varieties tolerant to in less frequent and thus lower usage. New specific pesticides on the other. The most modern ideas or technologies, as well as changes in the disease-resistant varieties are those with inserted Bt price of one technique in the pest management genes (genes derived from Bacillus thuringienses, a "choice set," will also encourage farmers to naturally occurring bacterium that produces a pro- change the composition and the level of use of tein toxin with insecticidal properties. Different the different techniques available (for exam- strains of Bt control different types of insects). The agrochemical industry, which historically pie, less pesticides and more cultural manage- pursued a goal of finding one "cure-all," is now ment). At the same time, a higher value of reversing its tune and is trying to develop highly expected losses for a given level of damage specific pesticides with minimal effects on benefi- will encourage more pest management activity cials. However, these developments are costly and at a lower threshold level; thus investments in lead to more expensive agrochemicals. A major pest management tend to increase with crop limit to the development of resistant varieties is the value. development of resistance. The registration of Bt Uncertainty about the degree of crop losses hybrids of com and soybeans in the United States, for example, is contingent on the implementation of because of pests creates output risks for farm- an effective resistance management plan. ers. The manner in which farmers respond to these risks (or their degree of risk aversion) will in turn influence pest management activity. If which costs may be higher than benefits. Too there is considerable perceived uncertainty often farmers, because of a limited understand- about the level of pest infestation and dam-age, ing of pest ecology, assuine that all bugs are farmers may apply pesticides at a lower thresh- harmful. Hence there can be considerable diffi- old level to reduce the risks of crop losses. This culties in the field in applying rigid quantitative decision contributes to increased frequency of threshold values, given localized variability in application and total volume applied. Uncer- pest populations and in farmers' diagnostic and tainty about the effectiveness of a particular management skills. technique could also lead to increased pest The major flaw of this approach is that it is management activity to reduce risk at the rnar- based on very simple population dynamics and gin (Feder 1979). Farmers, as well as unin- control tools. In some cases it may indeed pay to formed researchers and extension staff, tend to take action very early against emerging pest prefer modern technologies over traditional populations, thereby preventing later buildup. methods. In other cases it may not pay to take any action Many farmers rely on agricultural advisers to at all; many farmers may underestimate the assist in decisionmaking. These advisers can be recuperative ability of their plants and animals. government crop-protection specialists, exten- Cotton plants, for example,can compensate well sion specialists, pesticide sales personnel, or for early defoliation by leafworms; yet Sudanese independent operators. In many cases these cotton growers still spray early, inadvertently advisers are influenced by promotional activi- eliminating beneficials and thus creating subse- ties of the agrochemical industry, and t]heir quent problems with aphids and whiteflies. advice may not always take long-term sustain- Technologies used in pest management, ability or even economic efficiency into account. like all agricultural technologies, make differ- The recent drive toward privatization of farm ing absolute and relative clemands on factors advice and extension may in some cases Farmers and Pest Management 11 decrease farmers' options for receiving Notes independent advice. On the other hand, some of 1. See Norton and Mullen (1994) for a literature the technology packages recommended by review of the economic evaluation of integrated pest (public sector) extension services in developing management programs. countries often include preset spraying dates or 2. Agroindustry is a major advertiser in the agri- other interventions, without much considera- cultural press in most industrial countries, and the tion for farmers' health or for the development industry often provides support for research and extension. This practice raises questions about the of informed judgment on the use of pest man- independence of the farm community's major infor- agement tools (see chapter 2). mation suppliers. 2. Policy Issues in Pest Management In traditional farming systems a dynamic increased potential for creating conditions con- equilibrium (or endemic stability) exists ducive to the rapid growth of pest populations between many pests and beneficial organ- and the risk that such populations will reach epi- isms. A degree of loss is accepted (box 2.1), but demic proportions. Formal agricultural research a varied and ecologically well-balanced crop and extension systems have responded with the (and livestock and wildlife) mix helps limit development of high-yielding plant (and live- losses. The past half century has seen a world- stock) varieties, combined with technology pack- wide trend toward more intensive and often ages of pesticide- or drug-based approaches to mechanized agricultural systems to increase counteract losses. Though an effective and eco- productivity and food supplies. This has been a nomic course of action in the short term, the use principal development goal for many countries. and continuing development of cheap and quick- With declining opportunity to bring new land acting pesticides and veterinary pharmaceuticals into cultivation, production increases can be may exacerbate the long-term pest problemn by achieved only by increasi;ng output per unit eliminating the population of pest predators area. More intensive production systems have ("good bugs," such as ladybirds, earthworms, also been promoted to achieve the growth and birds) that help to keep populations of unde- deemed necessary to defend per capita rural sirable bugs in check. Pest predators thus incomes.1 improve the natural defense systems of plants and animals.2 Agricultural Developmenit Strategies: Changing Incentives for Pesticide Use Box 2.1 Approach to pest management in the Sahel Production intensification, however, has been In capital- and labor-scarce rainfed millet systems associated with a trend toward monoculture and in the Sahel, chemical pesticides are not commonly chemical-based approaches to pest management. used despite regular losses of perhaps 40 percent of Several factors (more or less attributable to agri- potential yield to insect pests. The value of such cultural development strategies) and the associ- extra production at local market prices rarely justi- ated macroeconomic and sector policies pursued fies the capital outlay for insecticides; the same by governments and supported by donors, have investment would yield a higher return if allocated fueled this trend. to hiring additional labor for weed control (the Agricultural development policies have dis- principal pest) or to extensify production. On the couraged traditional management practices and other hand, pesticides are widely used on industrial oadtrdiioalmaagmtrat a crops such as cotton, promoted by vertically inte- supported monocropping and high density live- grated production systems and contract farming. stock production. One side effect has been 12 Policy Issues in Pest Management 13 Less emphasis has been placed on maintain- measures (table 2.1) and through the mechanism ing genetic diversity, including the maintenance of prices (Waibel 1994; Farah 1994). Direct gov- of beneficials, or on breeding for disease and ernment price subsidies reduce the farmer's costs pest resistance in plants and animals. Macro- of using pesticides and encourage increased use. economic policies have also contributed to the Weak or inappropriate legislation and regulations focus on pesticide-based agricultural produc- and their inadequate enforcement contribute fur- tion. A widely pursued development policy of ther to improper use. Bilateral and multilateral aid industry-led growth was accompanied by the for pesticide use, provided through grants or sub- taxation of agriculture (keeping food prices sidized prices, permits governments to distribute low), which was partly compensated through pesticides to farmers at low or no cost. Moreover, input subsidies (including pesticides). Rising lack of information on alternative, more environ- labor costs associated with the commercializa- mentally benign approaches to pest management tion of agriculture further discouraged the use of often biases extension service toward pesticide more labor-intensive traditional pest manage- use (box 2.2). ment practices. Governments have indirectly subsidized the cost of pesticides through overvalued exchange Governments, Donors, and Excessive Use rates that make pesticide imports more avail- of Chemical Pesticides able, through public sector investments in pesti- cide research and development that are not The increased dependence on pesticides fos- recouped from pesticide users, and through spe- tered by agricultural development strategies cial foreign and domestic investments incentives led over time to the entrenchment of a chemical (for example, duty-free imports of capital goods mode of pest control as the dominant paradigm and tax incentives) that extend to pesticide man- in pest management. Today, many developing ufacturing. Policies that create barriers to the country governments have incentive frame- entry of new technologies (for example, lengthy, works that favor pesticide use over the adop- cumbersome, and costly registration procedures tion of more environmentally benign IPM for seeds of improved disease-resistant plant approaches. varieties or lack of intellectual property protec- Pesticide use tends to be promoted through tion) also limit farmers' pest management tech- both direct and indirect government and industry nology options. Table 2.1 Direct and indirect measures fostering pesticide use Direct measures Indirect measures Price factors Nonpnce factors Price foctors Nonprice factors * Govemment price subsidies * Public sector policies, such as * Indirect public sector subsidies * Public sector policies, such as * Public sector production and direct involvement of the public -Overvaluation of exchange rates taxation distribution sector in marketing that facilitate pesticide imports * Technology policy restricting entry * Cost subsidies to private * Weak or inappropriate pesticide *Pesticide bias in government of more environmentally benign pesticide manufacturers legislation research investments technologies (import ban, lack of * Pesticide sales tax exemption * Weak (or lack of) enforcement *Foreign and domestic direct- intellectual property protection) * Subsidized credit and insurance of pesticide-use regulations; investment incentives, including * Weak (or lack of) environmental tied to pesticide use conflicts of interest for pesticide manufacture policy * Preferential import duties and * Public sector extension service * Minimum wage policy that * Farm input trade guarantee exchange rates for pesticide promotion of pesticides discriminates against more * Inadequate curriculums of imports * Government pest management labor-intensive environmentally agHcultural extension and education * Plant protection outbreak budget policies, such as support for benign production techniques * Donor price subsidies promotion or pesticide research *High import duties on alternative * Donor pesticide grant or aid (pest eradication; specific technologies at subsidized costs legislation regarding prophylactic treatments) * Prochemical bias of industry information and extension advice * Strong pesticide lobby or interest groups Source: Adapted from Waibel 1994. 14 Integrated Pest Management Deficiencies in environmental policies also sively toward high-input and high-output interfere with a reorientaltion toward more sus- approaches. Banks may also encourage pesti- tainable development strategies or delay the cide use by linking credit to certain agronomic implementation of corrective actions. Even practices, including the use of pesticides when legislation is enacted, it often proves too (Thrupp 1990). cumbersome to implernent. Governments, National governments sometimes also use through public sector-supported agricultural pesticide regulation to protect their own pesti- research, may indirectly encourage pesticide cide industry. In some cases such protection is use by focusing on pesticide development and provided to outdated manufacturing processes pesticide application techniques and by ori- or to unsafe manufacturing plants or products, enting crop technology development exclu- which prevents new and safer products from entering the market. Pesticide industries often Box 2.2 Integrated pest management is use governments to expand the market for their infornation intensive products by encouraging them to promote tech- Because different crops face different pests and dif- nology packages that combine seed, fertilizer, ferent pests require different IPM strategies, IPM and pesticide; by supporting applied research relies heavily on research and education. It takes using pesticides; or by supporting extension ser- education to help farmers understand information vices that endorse pesticide use in general. and use it at a level with which they are comfortable and change from "spraying by the calendar" to Notes scouting and trapping to identify outbreaks and instead spray only when neEded. 1. Although widely accepted, there is growing Communication among farmers helps in scout- debate about the economics and sustainability of high- ing. This can be accomplished by regularly updated input and high-output systems compared to low-input phone messages about pests found or by weekly and low-output systems (NRC 1989). meetings to discuss scouting reports, outbreaks, 2. A broader definition of beneficials may include and control recommendations. pollinators, whether indigenous or introduced, such as I honey bees. 3. Integrated Pest Management and the Public Policy Toolbox T here are sound reasons for state inter- causing a rise in world cotton prices. In both ventions to influence farmers' choice of countries the problem was associated with technology between pesticide- and non- the lack of effective regulation of pesticide pesticide-based approaches. These reasons are marketing. When pesticides are misused, based mainly on two factors: both the private and the social costs of pest Environmental and public health implications of management can increase rapidly Private the use of pesticides. These include harmful costs increase because greater amounts of effects on public health, ranging from acute pesticide tend to be applied. Social costs poisoning and a higher risk of cancer among increase through associated environmental pesticide-handling farm workers to food cont- and health effects.2 And a lack of knowledge amination with pesticide residues (box 3.1). or of suitable alternative skills may also fos- There are also wider environmental effects on ter poor practice in pesticide use. water, soil, and a variety of nontargeted organ- A reappraisal of the role of pesticides in agri- isms. These hazards give rise to negative exter- culture has been under way since the publication nalities in which costs are imposed on society and the environment. But these costs are usu- Box 3.1 Human health ally not reflected in the price that the user pays, The human health threat is particularly evident in and other forms of compensation are not developing countries, where users are poorly edu- applied.' In this situation there is divergence cated and ill-protected. Most attention is given to between the private costs to the user and costs acute toxicity, which is associated with improper to society, the true "social costs." Thus the level storage, handling, and application and the lack of of pesticide use is not optimal from society's protective clothing. The World Health Organization perspective, and intervention is warranted. (WHO 1990) estimated that occupational pesticide poisoning may affect 25 million people in the devel- Agron use O oping world. Relative to overall pesticide use, the pesticides. The major concern is the develop- proportion of affected people is considerably ment of pesticide-resistant pest populations higher in developing countries, where user safety is (Georghiou and Mellon 1983). When this not well managed because of illiteracy and insuffi- occurs, the sustainability of production sys- cient regulations. The long-term effects (cancers tems can be undermined: output variability and other systemic dysfunctions) are not well doc- increases and economic viability declines. An umented. Rola and Pingali (1993) developed a lin- example of chemo-resistance is the develop- ear equation to measure the health costs that ment of pyrethrin resistance in cotton boll- includes parameters such as a farmer's age, weight, ment of pyrethrm reslstance m cotton boll- height, smoking or drinking behavior, and total and worm, which caused a drastic decline in relative dosage of pesticide used. cotton output in China and India in 1994, 15 16 Integrated Pest Management of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring forty years ago a time when little information was available on (Farvar and Milton 1972). But only in the last few the health hazards of pesticide use and on sus- years has the topic shifted from technological tainability. Greater awareness of these issues solutions (for example, better protection of work- among policymakers, producers, and con- ers and consumers, classification and phase-out sumers, which can be achieved by better infor- of the most dangerous chemicals) to the main- mation flows, helps to reduce pesticide use stream of government and donor agricultural because decisions better reflect true social costs. policy agendas. This has been associated with a Informed consumer preferences can become a wider shift in focus from agricultural production powerful factor influencing pest management per se to environmentally sustainable manage- practice. Informed consumers can make their ment of production systems, as reflected in the preferences clear through pressure on public UNCED Agenda 21 agreements. authorities to regulate the development, han- dling, and use of pesticides; through the market, Government Policy Interventions by paying a premium for pesticide-free prodLuce; and directly through dialogue with producer A number of policy and regulatory instruments groups. Public investment in education and are available to governments to encourage envi- communications media to provide unbiased ronmentally sound and economically rational information on the benefits and risks of pesticide pest management practices. The more impor- use is necessary as part of a general effort to level tant of these instruments are outlined below the playing field between pesticide dependency (implementation options of these instruments and IPM. are discussed in chapter 4): * Development of a system that increases the Regulation awareness of policymakers, consumers, and producers of the hazards of pesticide use Establishment of a pesticide regulatory system * Development of a regulatory framework to is the primary means used to ascertain pesticide ensure appropriate and safe production, dis- quality, to minimize exposure, and to determine tribution, and use of pesticides a proper balance between the risks and benefits * Reorientation of agricultural and environ- of using agrochemicals. The major objectives mental policies to introd uce appropriate eco- are: nomic incentives including taxes and special * Protection of pesticide users and handlers levies on pesticide use to account for nega- * Protection of public health tive externalities and short-term subsidies to * Prevention of negative ecological effects account for positive externalities in the use of * Prevention of buildup of pesticide resistance integrated pest management (IPM) in target and nontarget populations * Orientation of research and technology poli- * Protection of beneficials. cies to generate a steady supply of relevant Regulatory systems operate through a vari- pest management information and technolo- ety of compliance provisions and mechanisms gies, including adequate budget allocations (table 3.1). Regulatory authorities may restrict, for research, extension, and training. tax, or ban the production, import, sale, or use of The strengths, weaknesses, and costs of each certain pesticides. Use criteria may be deter- instrument are situation- and country-specific. mined by geographical zones (for example, sen- Tailoring interventions to local capacity and the sitive habitats), according to different classes of character of the agricultural sector is therefore user (for example, institutions or individual crucial. farmers), or by commodity-production system and pesticide resistance management (box 3.2). Information Programs and Education Introduction of such a regulatory framework requires an understanding of the feasibility of Many of the policies that encouraged excessive various regulatory options under prevailing pesticide use (see chapter 2) were developed at conditions in a particular country. Integrated Pest Management and the Public Policy Toolbox 17 Table 3.1 Common pesticide regulatory activities cropping patterns, farmer education, and appli- Type of regulation Enforcement process Torget group cation methods and needs. An efficient regulatory system is a powerful Pesticide registration * Quality control of Manufacturers, new agrochemicals formulators, and means of influencing pest management prac- -Risk assessment of distributors tices and increasing safety. Cost is the main new pesticides - drawback, including costs for monitoring and Pestcide reregistration * Continuous risk Manufacturers, enforcement, although there is some potential (of new formulations assessment of formulators, and or other use) existing agrochemicals distributors for recovery through registration fees, user fees, and taxes.3 The imposition of demanding stan- Banning unsafe * Banning sales and Manufacturers, lien singn f re gistan pesticides manufacturing formulators, distributors, dards for licensing and certification, registration and end users (no fees, and other costs selectively raises private indemnification for costs, thus reducing overall pesticide consump- tion, though it may also increase the risk of Food safety * Development of Producers, processors abuse and rent seeking. Overregulation may quality standards market chain, and Monitoring food quality researchers also inhibit market entry of newer, more effec- prosecuting violators tive, and often safer products. Pesticides in * Monitoring application Producers and groundwater and groundwater manufacturers Economic and Legal Disincentives residue; prosecuting violators Pesticide storage * Certification and Producers, distributors, One approach to internalizing the negative and disposal inspection; prosecu- and pesticide applicators externalities associated with pesticide use is tion of misuse called the polluter pays principle. According to User or farmworker * Certification and Producers, applicators, this principle, polluters should be made to pay safety training and farmworkers the costs of the damage they inflict on society. Resistance prevenbon * Voluntary or manda- Producers, applicators, In the case of pesticides, strict implementation tory participation and distributors of polluter payment is complicated by the dif- Source: Authors. ficulty and the cost of clearly identifying who the polluters are, to what degree each user con- A pesticide registration scheme requires tributed to the damage, and the need to esti- manufacturers to demonstrate, by providing mate the optimal level of pesticide use and the relevant data, the safety and efficacy of specific associated optimal tax. pesticides for particular uses when used accord- ing to the registered instructions. Often allied to the registration process is a requirement for Box3.2 Regulatingusetopreventresistance accurate labeling, including information about Whereas most regulations relate to the quality and safe use of the product and any potential haz- safety of a drug or pesticide and to the protection of ards. This requirement usually carries over to users and the environment, some countries also advertising and extension messages. Monitor- regulate use. The purpose of regulating use is to ing and evaluation of specific products may also prevent rapid buildup of pesticide resistance. The use of insecticides for bollworm and related pest be required . Through a licensing. and certifica- control in cotton, for example, has strictly been reg- tion scheme pesticide handlers (from manufac- ulated in such countries as Australia, part of the turers to individual users) may be required to United States, and Zimbabwe and has significantly demonstrate adherence to set standards and increased the useful lifetime of pyrethrum-based completion of relevant training. The registra- insecticides. By contrast, the uncontrolled insecti- tion of pesticides in the United States and cide trade in India and China has led to rapid Europe is often used as a baseline for suitability buildup of resistance, which currently affects the of use in other countries. Although this is a use- overall outlook for growing cotton in those coun- tries. Similar rules apply to the use of trypanocidal ful starting point, registration in another coun- drugs, which are used to treat livestock in Nigeria try does not, of itself, guarantee that a pesticide and other African countries. is suitable for use in countries with different 18 Integrated Pest Management Implementation of the polluter pays principle farmer groups may initiate a collective pest scout- has included imposition oi licensing fees, user ing scheme or other means of enhancing pest fees, and a sales tax. These measures can be tai- monitoring or farmer networks. lored to the characteristics of individual pesti- cides. Such levies are usually further supported Research, Extension, and Training by legislation providing for penalties for non- compliance, negligence, and failure to meet rele- A pro-pesticide bias in the funding of research, vant standards. Overall, taxation of pesticide use extension, and training in many countries is a offers a more flexible tool thlan the "all or noth- response to distorted economic incentives that ing" pesticide registration requirement (that is, artificially boost the returns to pesticide-related the pesticide is either approved for use or not), research. This bias also reflects the economic but taxation requires more sound (and probably strength of pesticide industries, both domestic costlier) enforcement. and foreign, that have been able to promote and The revenues generated from these taxes support use of proprietary packages. One means could be used to support other actions to pro- by which governments can encourage a socially, mote improved pest management and more sus- nearly optimal mix of research and related down- tainable agriculture in general. One drawback of stream activities is through judicious use of the the use of these funds, however, is the risk of an economic and regulatory provisions outlinled unhealthy dependence of research funding on above. This will have the effect of bringing the pesticide sales. Using the polluter pays principle costs of pesticide use closer to the social cost, tlhus to control pesticide use is being seriously con- stimulating demand for alternative techniques sidered in the European Union and elsewhere including IPM (table 3.2 shows some examples of (Bonny and Charles 1993). In the United States a successful switch from pesticides to IPM). (in Iowa) pesticide tax revenues are used to fund Industry would also be further encouraged to sustainable agricultural research. invest in the supply of environmentally benign The use of the legal process, either by govern- technologies.4 ment or by affected individuals or groups, to Although research, extension, and training penalize or assess damages for injury for non- priorities can be expected to adjust to the eco- compliance, negligence, or failure to meet relevant nomic and regulatory environment over the long standards is a tool that is commonly used in the term, there are some direct options to encourage United States. The risk of being sued is an impor- uptake of IPM through appropriate research and tant risk factor affecting the actions of would-be technology policies. One option is to evaluate and polluters. modify (where necessary) the organizational mode of research and extension in light of the loca- Economic Incentives tion-specific nature of much IPM technology. Research, extension, and training that are decen- Positive incentives could also be used to promote tralized (to farmers' fields) may fit local conditions environmentally benign pest management prac- and thus encourage adoption. Promotion (exten- tices. These incentives include support for alter- native practices, either through temporary grants Table 3.2 Examples of successful integrated pest and tax breaks or through research and extension. management applications For example, to encourage the adoption of envi- Crop Country' Impact ronment-friendly technologies, governments Soybeans Brazil Decrease in pesticide use on soybeans by could set up short-term, time-bound programs 80% in seven years Nce India(Orissa)Insecticide use on rice reduced that provide matching grants to farmers who Rice Indonesia Pesticide use on rice reduced by more adopt IPM practices. This subsidy may be eco- than 60% nomically justified because it rewards early Cotton Nicaragua Pesticide use reduced by one-third during the 1970s adopters who are paving the way for more wide- Various Cuba Pesticide use reduced by 80% spread adoption through their demonstration crops duringthe 1980s effect; for example, an initial matching grant to Source: Postel 1987. Integrated Pest Management and the Public Policy Toolbox 19 sion), of technology packages that are developed International Code of Conduct on the Distribution on research stations tends to be less successful. A and Use of Pesticides (FAO 1990). These guidelines decentralized and farmer-driven process of defin- cover all aspects, including regulatory provi- ing research priorities and financing and reward- sions and industry practice. Acceptance of the ing research facilitates IPM adoption. Research code has been slow, often because implementa- policy for pest management can also be oriented tion is in the hands of agricultural plant protec- to the specific needs of different production sys- tion departments, many of which are also tems. Project preparation and review procedures involved in pesticide distribution. can be focused on internalizing the potential social A relatively recent addition to internationally and environmental costs and benefits of specific accepted practice is the prior informed consent research activities, whether by encouraging multi- provision (PIC) that is being jointly implemented disciplinary efforts or by identifying specific by FAO and UNEP. Under the informed consent approval stages when these aspects are consid- procedures, "listed" products (those that have ered. Multidisciplinary teams and tasks should be been banned or severely restricted in a number of designed carefully to avoid "turf" conflicts countries) can be exported to another country between extension and plant protection or veteri- only if that country has full information and gives nary agency interests (R6ling and van de Fliert explicit consent. The original list of twelve chem- 1994). icals is being expanded to thirty-nine. Currently, 120 countries are signatories to the agreement. International Agreements and Conventions Another important international standard, established by WHO, groups pesticides accord- Since the early 1980s the United Nations system ing to their oral toxicity in mammals. These data has taken the lead in the establishment of inter- provide a reference for relevant standards includ- national agreements covering pesticides.5 FAO, ing the maximum residue levels of allowable pes- for example, has issued a series of detailed ticides in the Codex Alimentarius agreement, guidelines on the procurement, trade, and han- which governs the quality of agricultural pro- dling of pesticides under the umbrella of the duce. International codes and agreements Box 3.3 Selected international institutions, agreements, and conventions covering pesticide use and trade * The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has for Aid Agencies on Pest and Pesticide Man- produced a series of detailed guidelines on pro- agement" (OECD 1995). curement, trade, and handling of pesticides under * The Basel Convention (1992) provides directions the umbrella of the International Code of Conduct on on the disposal of hazardous waste, including pes- the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO 1990). ticides (UNEP 1990). FAO introduced the prior informed consent (PIC) * The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rule, incorporated in the International Code of (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Conduct. Agreement (NAFTA) aim to harmonize trade * The Codex Alimentarius sets overall standards for rules, including the regulation of pesticides and quality and residues of foodstuffs. For pesticides it drugs. The World Trade Organization has a num- sets the maximum residue level for different agri- ber of committees that touch on pesticide trade, cultural and horticultural products. including the committees on agriculture, sanitary * The Organization of African Unity defined the Ban and phytosanitary measures, trade and environ- on Import into Africa and Transboundary Movement of ment, government procurement, and technical Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Bamako Convention) barriers to trade. (OAU 1991). * The Montreal Protocol (1988, 1992, 1995) concerns * The London Guidelines detail the Exchange of substances that deplete the ozone layer and pre- Information on Chemicals in International Trade cludes their funding by multilateral funding agen- (UNEP 1987). cies (the major agricultural product affected is * The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant) Development (OECD) produced the "Guidelines (UNEP 1994). 20 Integrated Pest Management provide indirect influences on pest management 2. Pesticide subsidy also raises a social equity ques- providhon because wealthier farmers and corporations tend practices in developing countries (box 3.3). to benefit more than small farmers; small farmers and These agreements and codes provide valuable farm laborers, however, are often at greater risk of information and reference standards for imple- direct contamination or exposure to contaminated food menting national legislation., thus reducing infor- and water supply. mation and transaction costs. However, direct 3. Strict regulations can sometimes inhibit the use of safer biological and traditional methods of pest influence is more limited, and, as with most vol- control because limited markets discourage the untary agreements, transgressions are frequent expensive certification process. (Fleischer 1994). Agreements that result in spe- 4. Whereas the pesticides industry originally cific commitments to phase out agreed products sought broad-spectrum efficacy, environmental con- (for example, the Montreal Protocol) have more cerns and tougher regulation have led to a change in clout, as does the implementation of strict maxi- focus toward more specifically targeted effects. Although better targeting reduces environmental risks, mum residue levels by importing countries. A the increasing cost of development and approval, as key issue affecting international agreements cov- well as a narrower market, leads to higher costs of such ering pesticides is that trade in pesticides, a siz- products. able global industry, is subject to the same 5. Given the range of interests, these agreements free-trade arguments as any other product or increasingly reflect and involve broad stakeholder interest. Multinational conglomerates control most of commodity. Thus pesticide r egulation has been a the global pesticide industry and, because of their specific issue under GAIT and NAFTA, not in size and widespread geographical interests, have terms of environmental impact but with respect considerable influence on pesticide use and regula- to the creation of unfair trade barriers. The GAIT tion (either directly on individual governments or is guided by the Codex Alimentarius, and stan- through industry organizations such as Groupernent dards on pesticide residues that are stricter than International de Fabricants de Produits Agyro- chimiques, on international organizations such as the the Codex maximum residue levels may be con- Food and Agriculture Organization, the Codex sideredatradebarrier. Alimentarius Committee, or the World Health Organization. On the other end of the spectrum, non- Notes governmental bodies (such as the Pesticide Action Network, Environmental Defense Fund, and others) 1. See James (1995) for a simple example of inter- point to the risk of pesticide use, to alternative nalizing externalities that are associated with the effect approaches, and they provide an increasingly effec- of a single pesticide on birds. tive lobby in favor of "green" policies and practices. 4. Implementation Strategies for Integrated Pest Management E xperiences from Africa, Asia, Latin specific measures are also needed to minimize America and the Caribbean, and the United the economic costs associated with policy shifts, States (in California) are yielding valuable in particular where this will create or strengthen lessons about implementation of integrated pest a constituency opposed to change. management-based programs in developing countries (Teng and Heong 1988; Wiebers 1993; National Integrated Pest Management Policy Kiss and Meerman 1991; Murray and Nathan 1994). These experiences suggest that there are Establishment of a national IPM policy frame- two key strategic elements in implementing IPM work provides a useful first step in implement- on a wide scale: ing an IPM strategy at the national level.' * Creation of a level playing field for different Several countries have already moved to do modes of pest management, which means this, such as Cuba (Rosset and Benjamin 1994), eliminating policies that promote environ- Indonesia (Kenmore 1991), the Netherlands mentally unsustainable pest management (Vijftigschild 1996), and the United States techniques and strengthening regulatory (USDA/ARS 1993). The advantages stem from institutions overseeing the disparate package of measures i Implementation of positive measures to pro- needed to implement IPM, both upstream pol- mote IPM through support for public aware- icy elements and on-farm IPM implementation, ness, research, extension, and training, with an within a single, coherent decision framework. emphasis on decentralized, farmer-centered The same decision framework can provide the initiatives. basis for consultations with all relevant stake- The first of these measures is necessary to cre- holders to secure broad institutional support ate an enabling environment for IPM, but usu- for what may involve a significant shift (box 4.1 ally it will not be sufficient for promoting and 4.2). Finally, the explicit statement of intent implementation. The second measure is also relative to IPM on behalf of government pro- necessary, but it will fail to have a significant vides a strong signal to all relevant actors. impact unless the enabling environment is in The question arises, Where do IPM policies place. This chapter discusses effective use of and the institutional framework necessary to these tools to promote uptake of IPM. The polit- implement them belong, institutionally speak- ical commitment and management needs in ing? IPM policies not only relate to agriculture terms of policy and institutional change are com- and forestry but they also have implications for plex in that they cross sectoral boundaries and public sector management of the environment, need to cover both macro- and micro-level ini- research and technology, industry, and educa- tiatives. Careful sequencing and targeting of tion. There are strong parallels between the 21 22 Integrated Pest Management issues and options relating to IPM implemen- consumers and producers about the health and tation and those relating to the wider question environmental risks associated with pesticides of sustainable development of agriculture and and to help create a broad constituency in favor natural resources and the appropriate policy of IPM and the mobilization of public funds to and institutional framework to support it. Thus support implementation. The NGO community the establishment of an 1PMI task force or work- can be natural allies in this process. ing group could be considered in the context of a more broadly focused initiative, such as a Information, Analysis, and Priorities national environmental action plan or a national committee for sustainable develop- Policies that support IPM will increase aggre- ment. Special public sector-sponsored initia- gate social welfare, but they may also negatively tives and measures on IPM should be affect the productivity and livelihoods of some established only for a set period of time-that groups in the short term. Thus Zilberman and is, only until appropriate pricing, regulatory, others (1991) found that bans on pesticide and other incentives are established and rele- imports, when no provisions have been made vant institutions are operating effectively to for effective substitutes, result in reduced pro- monitor, regulate, and provide a flow of rele- duction levels, higher prices, a substantial loss of vant information and technologies. discretionary income for consumers, and a A broad consultation process using work- redistribution of income toward agricultural shops and seminars can be used to help define producers who do not use pesticides. To achieve targets and priorities and to define appropriate a smooth transition to environmentally sound institutional roles and responsibilities for differ- pest management practice and to maintain ent elements of IPM implementation, thus help- progress toward wider agricultural sector ing to bring the various public, private, and growth targets, some targeting and phasin,g of NGO IPM stakeholders together within a con- policy changes are necessary. The areas in which certed and open program. Ihis process also acts information is likely to be required are discussed to raise awareness and uncderstanding by both below. Box 4.1 Integrated pest maniagement in Indonesia In the early 1980s extensive a:reas of rice production During 1987-90 the volume of pesticides used on in Indonesia were infested wvith the brown plant- rice fell more than 50 percent, while yields increased hopper Nilaparvata lugens. It was no longer economi- about 15 percent. Farmers' incremental net profits are cally possible to control the pest, despite ongoing estimated at $18 per IPM-trained farmer per season. resistance breeding by the International Rice This compares with an estimated average training cost Research Institute and intensive pesticide applica- of about $4 per farmer. The federal government bene- tions by farmers. fited from a $120 million a year (85 percent) reduction The Indonesian national IPM policy was in pesticide subsidies and has begun to realign these announced in 1986 by presidential instruction and funds into further IPM initiatives. In 1993 the govern- supported by FAO.2 This followed research evidence ment of Indonesia, the World Bank, and the U.S. that insecticides were not increasing rice yield signif- Agency for International Development (USAID) comn- icantly and that, by destroying natural enemy popu- mitted $53 million to a project that will build on and lations, the insecticides were destabilizing the rice extend the use of IPM throughout the country. production system. Many insecticides were banned; This Indonesia project is an often-quoted example, subsidies were reduced or removed; crop protection but India's irrigated rice ecosystem is well suited to and associated research and extension institutions natural pest control. Complete IPM approaches in were strengthened. A major IPM training effort other production systems and ecosystems may began. By mid-1992 about 1,000 pest observers, 3,000 require more information and different approaches. extension staff, and at least 150,000 farmers had been However, the field school and farmer training and trained to observe and understand the local ecology empowerment concept has positive effects beyond of the planthopper and its natural enemies and to fol- pest control. low simple threshold rules. Source: Kenrore 1991; World Bank data. Implementation Strategiesfor Integrated Pest Management 23 Box 4.2 Integrated pest management in Cuba gated rice production systems in Indonesia (see Cuba started the process of reducing farmer box 4.1) and other Asian countries.3 Although dependence on chemical control in the early such an intensive training effort can be costly, 1980s, adopting an IPM approach in 1982. A major there is a growing body of evidence that sug- pillar of this approach was the development of gests high economic returns (Pincus 1994). biological controls, which led to a campaign to In the case of the Indonesian IPM program for replace pesticides with biological agents and IPM. irrigated rice, alternative techniques were avail- This led to a major reduction in pesticide use, but able or readily adaptable, and effective services Cuba still imported $80 million of pesticides in for research, extension, and training were in 1991. The campaign was reinvigorated after the breakup of the former Soviet Union, leading to place. At the same tme, escalatig private costs further reduction in pesticide imports (to $30 mil- of pest management ensured a constituency of lion). An estimated 56 percent of crop land was producers willing to experiment with alterna- treated with biological controls. A strong compo- tives. To date, similar successes in less intensive nent of the Cuban pest control program is the 218 and market-oriented production systems have Centers for Reproduction of Entomophages and been elusive. Indeed, the challenge for countries Entomopathogens, where decentralized produc- is to manage the transition from relatively low- tion of biocontrol agents takes place. . . . The Cuban program benefited from the coun- input, traditonal agricultural systems into more try's investment in human capital during the 1980s intensive systems, without fostering excessive and was strongly supported by younger scientists dependence on pesticides. who criticized the dependence of Cuban agricul- Although measures to ensure undistorted ture on foreign inputs and the environmental pricing for pest management technologies con- degradation it was causing. Whether the alternative tinue to be important, a critical constraint to IPM model of agricultural development will survive its implementation is likely to be the availability of current crisis is still an open question. effective and competitive alternative (nonchem- Source: Rosset and Benjamin 1994. ical) techniques. For example, there remains a shortage of low-cost IPM technologies that are A first step is to determine the status and relevant to the mixed-farming systems preva- availability of suitable IPM technologies and the lent in much of Sub-Saharan Africa (Kiss and prospects for farmer adoption. This determina- Meerman 1991). In the absence of viable alterna- tion will be production system-specific and tives, any measures that would raise the costs of requires field data based on a multidisciplinary pesticides may be perceived as placing unwar- assessment. For example, in some high-input ranted limitations on growth of productivity systems direct measures to limit pesticide use, and livelihoods, with the long-run social bene- through either the pricing mechanisms or regu- fits being heavily discounted by both producers lation, may be the single most important way to and policymakers. A relatively substantial influence technology choice toward IPM. In investment in the generation of new knowledge theory, agricultural service providers, both pub- and practical IPM techniques is therefore essen- lic and private, will adjust the supply of infor- tial, along with improved infrastructure and ser- mation and technologies to meet farmers' vices. The aim is to ensure that as farming requirements for alternative techniques. In prac- systems evolve, farmers continue to have access tice, a variety of market imperfections and tech- to relevant pest management technologies that nical limitations and constraints on information make minimal use of chemical pesticides. A key flow could slow the pace of any adjustment. criterion for setting priorities for these research Thus simultaneous attention to research, exten- and extension efforts will be the status of farmer sion, and training is usually necessary. demand for new technology. A concerted effort to support farmers' transi- It is clear that analyses of needs and priorities tion to IPM through on-farm adaptive research, for implementing IPM need to be targeted to demonstration, and training can be a powerful specific production systems and to be dynamic, and effective adjunct to economic and regula- taking into account the evolution of pest man- tory measures. This has been effective in irri- agement practices that occur in conjunction with 24 Integrated Pest Management agricultural intensification and diversification. initially on farmers engaged in cash crop pro- The relative impact and costs of other available duction, who use most pesticides. These are both policy instruments should be considered within powerful interest groups. this framework to identify a suitable balance Given such constraints, there is a need to: among economic, regulatory, and technical * Develop a streamlined regulatory system interventions. with low administration costs (registration procedures, for example, can often use data Economic and Regulatory Measures from other countries with comparable or higher standards). There are significant constraints for many devel- * Ensure that the institutions charged with oping countries to implementing the economic implementing economic and regulatory mnea- and regulatory provisions required to support sures have adequate authority to push IPM (box 4.3). Surveys indicate that 25 percent through and enforce relevant measures. of developing countries lack the legislation and * Seek to recover implementation costs with 80 percent lack the resources to implement or revenue (for example, through registration enforce such legislation (FA.O 1993). This is espe- fees). cially the case in Africa, with 76 percent of coun- * Combine implementation of policies with tries lacking pesticide-control statutes (FAO public information and education on the 1993; Tobin 1994). Several factors help to explain benefits. this situation. A comprehensive and rigorous * Encourage a transparent and open process network of registration, legislation, standards, that includes consultation with industry and training, monitoring, and information systems other interest groups for possible resolution appears expensive relative to alternative public of conflicting interests. sector programs with a shorter term and more Targeting and setting priorities for economic visible direct impact. These costs are raised by and regulatory provisions require certain pre- limitations of infrastructure and communica- conditions. First, it will be least costly to imple- tions. At the same time the financial impact of ment and enforce such measures when a IPM policies-reduction of subsidies, taxation, supportive infrastructure is already established licensing, and registration fees-falls most heav- (for example, quality control programs, moni- ily on producers and marketers of pesticides and toring, and farmer training). At the same time producers are more likely to "buy-in" to the new Box 4.3 Information requirements system when they can see the benefits of rnea- for integrated pest management policy sures that ensure best practices in pesticide use. The following checklist outlines information require- This will be the case, for example, when they are ments for implementing IPM policy: part of an exporting subsector and are aware of Agricultural sector and subsector competition on international markets and the * Characteristics of agricultural sector risk of delivery of low-quality or unsafe prod- * Pest problems and pest maniagement practices ucts. Support for such measures will also be . Externalities of pesticide use greater when there is a close relationship Policies influencing pest managenment between producers and consumers (for exam- * Sector policies * Regulatory policies ple, in village markets), when social controls can * Macroeconomic policies operate on quality and safety. * Environmental and technology policies Targeting should also take different technical * Research, education, and extension systems and economic characteristics of various produc- Structure of agriculture production tion systems into account. For example, in * Farm characteristics Indonesia the ban on certain pesticides used on _ Crop and livestock characteristics rice was an economically sound measure, given * Cost and benefit analysis of alternative pest e ff management methods. evidence from research that production efficiency Source: Adapted from Agne, Fleischer, and Waibel 1994. would increase. Costs were reduced and yields stabilized. Tailoring economic and regulatory Implementation Strategiesfor Integrated Pest Management 25 provisions to specific production systems clearly requires effective communication among agricul- Box 4.5 Farmer education and extension tural research institutes, extension agencies, and * Substance. Farm and pest ecology (for example, other authorities charged with implementing or in-depth understanding of interaction between guiding such provisions, for example, a "pesticide crops, pest, and the environment). (or IPM) commission" (box 4.4). Regulation does * Method. In general, extension can transfer tech- not necessarily have to be the central govern- nologies, organize farmers, and educate (as opposed to instruct) farmers. ment's role (although the GATT assumes nation- - Support need edfor extension. Help shift pure tech- ally defined standards). Many responsibilities nology transfer to organisation and education. regarding pesticide use and monitoring can be delegated to states or provinces. Some may con- sider setting stricter standards (for example, states ment IPM-a finding that is likely to apply with a very high population density).4 equally to other sustainable production tech- nologies and resource-management approaches. Farmer-Centered Research, Extension, The field implementation of IPM requires that and Training farmers, extension workers, and local crop pro- tection technicians have a practical understand- The involvement of farmers in helping to gener- ing of the ecology and life cycle of major pests ate locally specific techniques suitable for partic- and their natural enemies and that this knowl- ular farming systems appears to be an important edge be translated into appropriate decision- factor determining the success of efforts to imple- making tools (for example, action thresholds) and practical control tactics. Box 4.4 Pesticide deregulation and Training of farmers, pest observers, agricul- development of resistance in China and India tural development officers, and extension agents Dramatic declines in cotton production in China in should therefore represent a major component of the past few years have occurred as major pests, such any implementation initiative (box 4.5). This as the cotton bollworm (Heliothis armigera), have training should take place close to the field; much become resistant to many insecticides. The economic of the information will be locally specific and losses have been enormous. In some counties of the generated in collaboration with farmers through Yellow River Valley, yields declined 50-60 percent adaptive research on farmers' fields. Such a through a combination of resistance and drought. In decentralized initiative involving the establish- Hebei, Henan, and Shandong overall yields were reduced 30-50 percent In addition, the number of ment of farmer field schools, has been very suc- sprays used has risen from 8-10 to 15-25, and the sea- cessful in a number of Asian countries (ADB sonal cost of sprays has doubled or tripled over a 1993). short period. In the worst-affected areas, cotton pro- A related feature of successful initiatives duction has become completely uneconomic. A has been the role of pilot projects as the plat- report by the Intemational Organization of Pesticide form for demonstrating and validating IPM Resistance Management (IOPRM 1993) found that techniques before more widespread extension the single most important factor behind the devel- and training. This training is backed up by a opment of resistance was the unregulated pesticide cntinuous flo infoma fo pest market. continuous flow of information from pest A similar picture has emerged in India. Here scouts, farmers, and others to decisionmakers deregulation has led to an increase in the number of and is consequently knowledge-, information-, smaller companies selling (subsidized) pesticides and research-intensive. Such information can with no effective oversight of product quality or of be transmitted daily (weather reports, for the advice given to farmers. Throughout India there example) or weekly (by radio, television, or are more than 86,000 dealers. Under these circum- exape) or pweekly (b Maiotlevision stances of uncontrolled pesticides marketing, it is newspapers). Support for IPM implementation likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, to iS inconsistent with a top-down technology- implement an IPM policy (Gillham and others transfer approach. 1995). An alternative mode, which has been used in Indonesia, has been called the facilitation model 26 Integrated Pest Management (box 4.6). Rather than transferring ready-made The government can help create the condi- packages of technology and blanket recommen- tions for decentralized initiatives and increase dations, this approach seeks to enhance the the participation of beneficiaries, as explained in capacity of farmers to learn, to make use of their The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (1996b), experience, and to adaipt technologies as required for example, by delegating the administration (Rbling and van de Fliert 1994). The use of such a and funding of IPM initiatives to the district different approach has implications for invest- level, possibly on the basis of a matching-grants ment design, the design and management of scheme that creates incentives for involvement institutions, staff training, and research-extension and buy-in by farmer associations and NGOs. links, including those with Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Notes centers and other international research groups. 1. This national effort can be preceded by develop- ment of regional policies. Legislation in California, for Box 4.6 Lessons learned in Indonesia example, preceded that of the federal government. * Introduction of IPM cannot be compared to tech- 2. The initiatives in Indonesia and other countries nology transfer of expert to nonexpert; rather, it were in part supported by the FAO-coordinated requires the facilitation of a learing process. "Intercountry Programme for the Development and * The critical issue in IPM training for rice is Application of Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and Southeast Asia." See Kernmore 1991. udrsaindng IPMingthecolo rice lie. 3. In general, integrated pest management uptake p Training aPM instruc-tol requires a larn- ing has been good in "secure" cropping systems such as process and is directly related to dailyfarming paddy rice, where irrigation takes away rmany of the experiences. (often weather-related) cropping insecurities that dry- * Extension workers will inevitably be involved in land farmers face. IPM training. 4. In most cases, however, the central government * Farmers are considered the best candidates to be deals with registration, and the local government deals the primary IPM trainers for farmers. with issues that can be executed or monitored at local Source: van de Fliert, Pontius, and Roling 1995. levels, such as storage and transport requirements, application techniques, and worker protecticon. 5. World Bank Project Portfolio, Instruments, and Policy Options T he World Bank's support for pest man- Project Appraisal and Supervision in Relation to agement has evolved from programs rely- Pesticides and Pest Management" (1987). ing almost exclusively on chemical World Bank policy on pest control is explained control to a recognition of the economic and in the 1993 operational directive on agricultural environmental significance of nonchemical pest pest management (World Bank, 1993c), replaced control methods and integrated pest manage- in July 1993 by Operational Procedure 4.09 ment (IPM) technology. (World Bank 1996a), and in the 1993 guidelines on In 1982 World Bank President A. W. Clausen agricultural pest management (World Bank stated that as a matter of policy the World Bank 1993a). These documents identify IPM as the pre- would not finance projects that seriously com- ferred approach to pest management in Bank promised public health or safety or that caused operations. They discuss the Bank's use of envi- irreversible environmental deterioration. In ronmental screening through the environmental 1984, 200 nongovernmental organizations assessment process and provide guidance on the (NGOs) petitioned the Bank to take steps to development of pest management plans and on address pesticide abuses that they felt were the selection and use of pesticides in Bank opera- occurring in Bank-supported projects. Bank pol- tions. In addition to these documents, the icy in this area was formalized that same year in Environmental Assessment Sourcebook (World Bank a set of environmental guidelines modeled on 1991) has a chapter on integrated pest manage- U.S. legislation. The subsequent Guidelinesfor the ment and the use of agrochemicals. Three major Selection and Use of Pesticides in Bank-Financed instruments used to translate these policies into Projects and Their Procurement was issued in 1985 action are: and updated in 1993 (World Bank 1993b). The * Sector work, in the form of associated coun- guidelines recognized that the chemicals-only try dialogue and assistance strategies approach was potentially harmful to human * Lending, mainly for agriculture and natural health and the environment and that it did not resource project assistance lead to sustainable and profitable agricultural * World Bank influence on the research agenda production. The guidelines stated that the objec- of national and international institutions. tive of Bank strategy in agricultural develop- Country economic and sector work is an ment should be the IPM approach. Two technical important element of the World Bank's assis- notes aimed to assist task managers were tance to its borrowers. It is designed "to provide released in conjunction with these guidelines- a thorough understanding of [borrowers'] "Checklist of Pesticides Not Recommended for development problems, of the need for and Use in Agriculture or Suitable Only for availability of external financing, and of the ana- Restricted Use" (1985) and "Guidelines for lytical framework for evaluating development 27 28 Integrated Pest Management strategies and donor assistance activities" Noteworthy exceptions were projects dealing (World Bank 1989). with reconstruction (1), recovery or rehabilita- The specific objectives of sector work are tion (6), emergency (4), and critical imports (1). determined by the WDrld Bank's country strat- Nearly half the projects (41) required partial egy, which in turn helps shape country strat- environmental assessment (Category B), while egy. However, a review of some 160 recent 30 did not require any environmental assess- agricultural sector studies revealed that cover- ment (Category C). Enviromnent categories age of pesticide issues was rare.' Although that were not assigned to 20 of the projects (figure may not be surprising given the broad range of 5.1).3 Among projects supporting pesticide pro- issues to be addressed in the agricultural sec- curement, 20 were Category B, and 10 Category tor, it does suggest a low priority level for pes- C. Some 10 projects, all in 1988 and 1989, were ticide-use issues. More common is a listing of not assigned an environment assessment total pesticides or fertilizer use without much category. analysis of impact or risk to users and the Of the 42 projects that financed pesticides, environment. 36 supported the procurement of pesticides worth an estimated $361 million each (table Portfolio Review 5.2). Eleven of these projects received more than $10 million each, for a total of $293 million. A review of World Bank data bases revealed that The 3 largest of these totaled $172.5 million and none of the data sources is amenable to search were all approved in 1988. The objectives of criteria that identify IPM projects or compo- these 3 investments were blanket spraying of nents.2 Thus all project documents that mention cocoa against "mirid" and "black-pod" disease one or more selected words or terms were iden- in Cameroon ($62.7 million), desert locust con- tified. Staff appraisal reports were then exam- trol in Algeria ($59.8 million), and support for ined for the more than 150 projects thus irrigated crop production in Sudan ($50 mil- identified. Examination revealed that 95 projects lion). Of the 5 projects approved since 1990, 3 with staff appraisal reports prepared between were related to emergency situations. 1988 and 1995 had components aimed at pest By comparison, World Bank support for the management (table 5.1.). 22 IPM projects or components amounted to an Of the 95 projects or components, 48 identi- estimated $81 million, with just 2 projects fied themselves as having an IPM component, accounting for much of this ($52 million).4 Just and in 42 of them pesticides for agricultural $5 million (6 percent) was used to finance pro- use were procured. But only 22 actually ject components, demonstrating the small planned to implement the IPM approach. Of scale of investments in IPM. Geographically, those 22 projects, 11 both financed pesticides the projects were distributed as follows: 10 in and implemented IPM. Most projects were East Asia, half of those in China; 6 in Sub- agricultural sector or subsector loans or cred- Saharan Africa; and 2 in each region of Europe its, including two airmed at sector adjustment. and Central Asia, Latin America and the Table 5.1 Summary of World Bank pest management projects or components, 1988-95 IPM-related Number of Pesticide Policy research and Education Management O,-form Year projects procurement interventions extension Registration and training plan IPM 1995 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1994 4 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1993 13 6 0 6 2 8 2 6 1992 20 9 3 8 3 5 0 4 1991 15 3 3 8 1 5 0 2 1990 18 5 1 10 2 5 0 2 1989 1 1 7 2 5 2 3 3 1 1988 13 8 1 7 1 8 1 3 Source: World Bank data. World Bank Project Portfolio, Instruments, and Policy Options 29 Figure 5.1 Distribution of environmental categories Table 5.2 Financing pesticides, 1988-95 X F XNone Total World Bank- 21% ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~funds financed Total Projects or (millions of (millions of investment components U.S. dollars) U.S. dollars) Category B CaeoyD >0-i I0 5.40 n/a 43% > 1-2 2 3.70 n/a >2-5 7 21.37 n/a >5-10 6 37.55 3 1.95 > 10-20 8 120.50 86.00 > 20 3 172.50 132.80 Total 36 361.02 250.75 Category A 32%, n/a Not analzed. 1% Source: World Bank data. Note: licludes ninety-five World Bank projects between 1 988 and 1 995 with a pest management component. solutions. The location-specific nature of IPM Source: World Bank data. suggests that interest in the World Bank and Caribbean, and the Middle East and North other organizations in decentralization and Africa. Investments in South Asia were limited participation may be highly relevant to IPM, to research. especially where such approaches cover not Environmental assessments have been re- only research and extension agendas but also quired since the issuance of an operational direc- the nature of locally relevant policies, spend- tive in 1989 (reissued in 1991). However, this ing programs, and institutions. The following process has not always been used effectively to sections discuss instruments and policy address pesticide issues. For example, the two options available to the World Bank in devel- projects with components that financed pesti- oping a strategy of wider adoption of IPM. cides most heavily, totaling $84.5 million, received an environment assessment of Cate- Economic and Sector Work gory C. The majority of projects assigned a Category C were prior to 1991; distribution Economic and sector work is the World Bank's between Categories B and C has been more even primary tool for analyzing and defining rele- since then. vant sectoral policies and associated regula- tory and institutional frameworks. Although Instruments and Policy Options economic and sector work is not a suitable to Promote Integrated Pest Management instrument for generating detailed location- specific analyses (including environmental, The general strategy should be to strive for a social, and institutional aspects necessary to balance of productivity gains and pest man- design IPM policies), it could serve to better agement practices that minimizes the use of reconcile the efficiency and sustainability chemical pesticides and establishes safe han- goals of sector strategy. A practical recommen- dling. Continuing the emphasis on policies dation would be to include a specific chapter leading to a more open and market-driven in agricultural sectoral studies on policies, economy is not at issue; for example, removal issues, and practices conducive to sustainable of price distortions in input markets is likely to agriculture.5 enhance IPM prospects. But attention is To date, however, very few sector studies needed to reconcile short-run efficiency goals mention IPM or IPM-supporting policies in with longer-term goals, including effects on their recommendations to the government. the natural resource base. Ultimately, IPM Country economic studies, and specifically the implementation requires locally relevant solu- country assistance strategies, also provide an tions to pest management constraints, and the opportunity to promote the use of some key challenge for government policy and strategy practices that are relevant to sustainable agri- is to focus on the development of such culture and natural resource management, 30 Integrated Pest Manag,ement including practices that encourage decentral- gory (A, B, or C), and therefore the subsequent ized, farmer-centered initiatives. In addition, environmental assessment work, depends on these studies could explore valuation of envi- whether a problem is perceived. ronmental and social cost-benefits at appraisal, * It rarely reviews national (as opposed to pro- incorporation of relevant sustainability indica- ject-specific) policy and the regulatory frame- tors, and the creation a sound incentive and work relative to sustainable pest management regulatory framework. practices. * The Bank has limited technical capacity in Environmental Action Plans pest management, handling pesticides, and assessing pest legislation. This instrument, which the World Bank uses to * World Bank guidelines covering use of the encourage and support borrower countries to environmental assessment in pest manage- prepare and implement environmental plans, ment have tended to be somewhat discre- can provide an additional mechanism for identi- tionary. In many cases a simple pesticide fying pest management problems and the means screening process is considered sufficient. to mitigate them. Specifically, the environmental The handling and use of pesticides procured action plan should describe and establish prior- in Bank-supported projects is inadequately ities relating to environmental issues; plans for monitored by the Bank. specific environmentally related legal, policy, A new IPM facility (discussed below) may and institutional change; and types of environ- help build IPM into World Bank lending, but it mentally sustainable investments to be under- does not lessen the need for improvement of in- taken. Its findings are reflected in the Bank's house best practices and skills to provide a more country economic and sector work, country eco- systematic and consistent approach in this area. nomic memorandums and assistance strategies, One outcome of the current system of screening and project investment and adjustment lending. projects in which pesticides are to be procured is The Bank encourages each government to inte- that task managers may include IPM compo- grate its environmental action plan into sectoral nents, mainly to offset the use of pesticides, and national developrnent plans. For IPM this thereby avoiding a low rating in the review would be achieved by: process. This reactive link, although useful, * Ensuring that IPM-related initiatives are should be replaced by more active policies and included in the design of operations the adoption of an IPM approach whenever pest * Determining early on the best-practice management is an issue. approach to sustainable production technolo- gies in a particular setting and country, includ- Supportfor Research and Extension ing the option of commissioning specific IPM activities. Effective implementation of IPM requires sup- port for a mode of research and extension that Environmental Screening focuses on farmers' problems and that supports farmers in the development of locally appropri- Environmental assessments and analyses are cur- ate solutions. This requirement is by no means rently the World Bank's main vehicle for assess- confined to IPM but is emerging as a generic con- ing environmental risks in its lending operations. sideration for sustainable resource management. Projects are assigned an environmental assess- There are several implications for the design ment category that determines the degree of of research and extension components: attention and amount of oversight required. * Need for research policy and interagency However, the environmnental assessment in its collaboration and analysis of short- and present form is of limited value for promoting long-term priorities to support IPM uptake sustainable pest management because: by farmers and the appropriate balance * The process is inherently reactive. Determi- between policy, institutional, and technical nation of the environmental assessment cate- interventions World Bank Project Portfolio, Instruments, and Policy Options 31 * Modes of financing research and extension on the Tender Procedures for the Procurement of that provide incentives and opportunities Pesticides (FAO 1994). The weaknesses in these for local institutions, including farmers directives are their ambiguity regarding quality associations and NGOs, to identify and col- control and registration, their concentration on laborate on IPM initiatives and to create pesticides rather than on pest management, and demand on upstream research agencies, a reticence in applying needs assessments or in including CGIAR centers6 monitoring proper handling and use. * Internalization of social and environmental Although registration at the national level is costs and benefits of alternative research endorsed in these directives and the World Bank investments at appraisal encourages member countries to accept and * Support for the development of 1PM apply international quality standards, the over- approaches and backed by effective inter- riding consideration is the Bank's overall pro- disciplinary collaboration by national agricul- curement policy of obtaining qualified products tural research systems for the lowest price (box 5.1). * Backup of knowledge- and information- This policy makes it difficult to define a intensive IPM practices with adaptive coherent strategy on support of IPM. Some spe- research, education, and training. cific issues are: * Product registration. Though registration is Procurement the main tool in quality control, countries apply it in different ways, so it does not The World Bank's procurement rules on pesti- always provide a reliable quality standard. cides are set out in the Guidelinesfor the Selection The risk is that inferior products will be and Use of Pesticides, an operational directive procured, including products that have (World Bank 1993b). Supporting documentation been poorly manufactured or stored or that can be found in the FAO's Provisional Guidelines contain toxic or carcinogenic substances. Box 5.1 Key policy measures to implement integrated pest management * Adoption of a national IPM policy to cover inter- pest management approaches, status and avail- agency coordination and common agendas, incen- ability of technologies, status of local institutions, tive systems, regulatory and information systems and demand from farmers. for sustainable agriculture, consultation and pub- * Emphasis on the need for new knowledge and the lic awareness, decentralized initiatives and farmer recognition of existing local knowledge through training, and generation and dissemination of setting priorities and allocating resources to public appropriate technologies. IPM research, extension, and training efforts, * Creation of a level playing field in pest manage- including incentives and training to encourage ment, including removal of economically unjus- interdisciplinary and facilitating modes of research tified biases in favor of pesticide use (based on and extension. review of relevant policies in agriculture, tech- * Assessment of possible targeting of special mea- nology, environment, trade and industry, and sures, including rewarding early adopters (for research and extension subsectors). Inform con- example, through matching grants or tax breaks to sumers about the relative value of grading sys- temporarily pay wages of scouts or through con- tems that promote "blemish-free" over "safe" sumer education wages of pest scouts). products. * Development and dissemination of education and * Review and, where necessary, strengthening of training material; review of relevant curriculums. pesticides regulation and the institutions and * Review of means to support or promote decen- information systems for implementation and tralized initiatives in IPM, including specific pilot enforcement, including status of legislation, facili- projects to finance and delegate authority of the ties and resources for registration, and monitoring. district govemment (for example, by way of a * Production system-specific analyses and priorities matching-grants scheme that provides incentives for action based on current pest management prac- for local private involvement or other innovative tices and trends, cost-benefit analysis of different links with NGOs and farmers associations). 32 Integrated Pest Management Low-cost manufacturers may also be low- tion technologies. Ideally, such training should quality manufacturers, producing chemi- be mandatory for task managers who work on cals contaminated with toxic byproducts projects and investments in agriculture, health, and unable to provide the backup and tech- or chemical industries. nical services that are required, especially when introducing newer products. Integrated Pest Management Facility * World Bank procedures. These procedures tend to discount the importance of registration and In 1995 the World Bank, along with FAO, UNDP, to favor procurement of sizable tenders of a and UNEP, agreed to cosponsor a special IPM limited number of pesticides. Such promoting unit intended to enable national IPM procedures facilitate procurement and are programs and development agencies to identify, consistent with the centralized, government- prepare, finance, implement, and evaluate mandated procuremnent systems that still exist farmer-centered IPM more effectively and on a in many borrowing countries. Large tenders larger scale. The proposal for the facility arose can also lead to serious problems of obsolete from a study of the measures and institutional stock, which may require costly disposal mea- arrangements now needed to promote global sures.7 Support for IPM would indicate the implementation of IPM (box 5.2). The facility need for a much more flexible approach, will promote and catalyze implementation including smaller purchases by decentralized through various means, including identifying units to facilitate proper storage and use. and preparing promising projects for invest- In the absence of routine needs assessment, ment by the cosponsors and facilitating dialogue including the scope for alternative means of pest between, and involvement of, a wider set of management, and procedures for monitoring actors, including NGOs. and evaluating pesticide handling and use, it is not possible to be confident that the procurement of pesticides in World Bank-supported projects Box 5.2 Integrated pest management is consistent with best practices and thus the implementation in an integrated pest wider objective of supporting IPM implementa- management facility tion. Prior informed consent (PIC) certification is Key elements of implementing IPM in an IPM facil- sometimes used instead as evidence that obliga- ity include: tions regarding the proper use of pesticides have * Farmer participation in IPM development and been met. Bank guidelines on procurement of on-farm research and training in farmers' fields * Supportive national policies that provide an chemicals are currently being revised to accom- enabling environment modate the quality assurance, handling, storage, * Financing of pilot projects in priority sites and disposal needs specific to chemicals. * Planning and development of national IE'M pro- grams to coordinate IPM activities and support In-House Training local initiatives. Indicators of success include: In line with the new World Bank pest manage- * Development of an enhanced national capability ment operational policy that identifies IPM as to design and implement improved IPM pro- met perahonal pollcy that ldentfles IPM as grams the unifying policy umbrella for operations that * Evidence of national policy reform in support of involve or affect pest management practices, a IPM implementation training package for task managers is being * Substantially increased participation and promi- designed on pest manaigement and IPM as part nence of farmers in formulating and realizing of the core training program for World Bank task IPM strategies managers who work in. the agriculture and nat- * Increased number of investment opportunities ural resources sectors. This would constitute * Evidence of multiplier effects and demonstrated part of a more broadly defined training package synergy in the form of increased national and part f a mre bradly efine traiing pckagelocal investment in IPM. in the preparation, appraisal, and supervision of Source: Interagency Task Force on IPM 1995. operations, making use of sustainable produc- World Bank Project Portfolio, Instruments, and Policy Options 33 The facility's secretariat is managed by the Notes FAO in Rome, and the FAO has sought the help of Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Inter- 1. Examples of such annexes are few but can be national in providing further IPM expertise and found in recent World Bank sector reports on "Republic of Yemen: Strategy for Sustainable data management. An independent advisory Agricultural Production"(World Bank 1993d); Armenia: panel will be established to review the work of ne Challenge of Reform in the Agricultural Sector (World the facility and advise the cosponsors on devel- Bank 1995a); and "Lithuania: Agricultural and Food oping institutional and national IPM policies Sector Review" (World Bank 1995b). and strategies. The panel will also help in iden- 2. The Agriculture and Natural Resources tifin vhghprortyarasfor implementing Development Project Data Base, the Lending Operations tifying high-priority areas for implementmg Data Base, and the World Bank Reports Bibliography IPM, forming strategies for implementing IPM were searched for projects or components of projects at specific locations (box 5.3), and evaluating the related to pest control and management, IPM, and agri- achievements and shortcomings of IPM culture pesticide procurement, handling, and usage. programs. 3. Environmental assessment categories were intro- The intention is to staff the facility with a duced in 1989 and modified in 1991. Category A pro- jects require full environmental assessment, Category B small group of professionals who have extensive projects require an environmental analysis but not a international experience, technical credibility, full assessment, and Category C projects require no project implementation experience, and broad analysis, because they do not have any effect on the recognition by the international research, devel- environment. Category D is a category initiated before opment, and donor communities. The staff of 1989-91 that indicates environmental projects. thisfacility would help World Bank task man- 4. Borrower countries request World Bank assis- tance primarily for foreign exchange. Consequently, agers to propose and prepare IPM components the $81 million may not represent the total IPM effort for Bank projects. The facility will be financed of the countries listed. through a combination of resources, coming pri- 5. See also World Bank, Agriculture and Natural marily from the cosponsors, like-minded Resources Department's Technology Notes, Series no. donors, and private foundations. 2, February 1994. 6. Following the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) set up a Box 5.3 Steps for introducing integrated task force that recommended in 1993 the creation of an pest management "intercenter" IPM network to be managed through the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA). The following steps, proposed by the facility, IITA indeed had an important IPM component in its are recommended for introducing IPM: research agenda since the early 1980s. The . Stimulating awareness of sustainable pest International Center for Insect Physiology and Entomology (ICIPE), however, has been in the fore- managementives 1PM front of IPM application since its creation. * Developing and testing initiatives and pilot 7. Where more sustainable approaches are not yet projects in place and where large quantities are required, for * Furthering capacity building, adaptation, and example, against major invasions of locusts or other validation pests, alternative approaches include the establishment * Stimulating investment, consolidation, and of pesticide banks, based on a regionally sighted institutionalization. revolving stock, or phased delivery schemes, based on direct need. See also FAO 1995. References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1993. IPM Guidelines. International Donor Agencies." In S. Agne, G. Manila. Fleischer, and H. Waibel, eds., Proceedings of the Agne, S., G. Fleischer, and H. Waibel, eds. 1994. Gdttingen Workshop on Pesticide Polices. Gbttingen, Proceedings of the Workshop on Pesticide Policies. Germany: Institut fur Agrarokonomie der Univer- Gottingen, Germany: Institut fur Agrar6konomie sitat Gottingen. der Universitat G6ttingen. Georghiou, G. P., and R. B. Mellon. 1983. "Pesticide Bentley, J. 1989. "What Farmers Don't Know Can't Resistance in Time and Space." In G. P. Georghiou Help Them: The Strengths and Weaknesses of and T. Saito, eds., Pest Resistance to Pesticides. New Indigenous Technical Knowledge in Honduras." York: Plenum Press. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 25-31. Gillham, F, T. Bell, T. Arin, G. Matthews, C. Le Rumeur, Bonny, S., and R. Charles, 1993. "Perspectives d'evolu- and A. B. Heam. 1995. Cotton Production Prospectsfor tion de l'emploi des engrais et des phytosanitaires the Next Decade. Technical Paper 287. Washington, dans l'agriculture francaise." Cahiers d'economie et D.C.: World Bank. sociologie rurale 26: 29-62. Harper, C. R., and D. Zilberman. 1989. "Pest Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Cambridge, Mass.: Externalities from Agricultural Inputs." American Riverside Press. Journal of Agricultural Economics 71: 692-702. CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). 1995. Interagency Task Force on IPM. 1995. "Concept Paper Funding for Safer Farming: Taxing Pesticides and for an Integrated Pest Management Facility." FAO, Fertilizers. Washington, D.C. IBRD, UNDP, UNEP Interagency Task Force. World FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1990. Bank, Washington, D.C. International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and IOPRM (International Organization for Pesticide Use of Pesticides. Amended version. Rome. Resistance Management). 1993. "The Management . 1993. Safe and Efficient Use of Pesticides in Africa. of Resistant Cotton Pests in China." IOPRM, Paris. Rome. James, P. C. 1995. "Intemalizing Externalities: Granular .1994. Provisional Guidelines on the Tender Carbofuran Use on Rapeseed in Canada." Ecological Proceduresfor the Procurement of Pesticides. Rome. Economics 13: 181-84. . 1995. Prevention of Accumulation of Obsolete Joffe, S., and L. Shaxson. 1994. Client Focus in IPM Pesticide Stocks: Provisional Guidelines. Rome. Research and Implementation. Chatham, U.K.: Farah, J. 1994. Pesticide Policies in Developing Countries: Do Natural Resources Institute. They Encourage Excessive Use? Discussion Paper 238. Kenmore, P. E. 1991. "Indonesia's Integrated Pest Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Management: Policy, Production, and Environ- Farvar, M. T., and J. P. Milton, eds. 1972. The Careless ment." Paper presented at USAID-ARPE Technology: Ecology and International Development. Environment and Agriculture Officers Conference, Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press. September 11, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Feder, G. 1979. "Pesticides, Information, and Pest Kiss, A., and F. Meerman. 1991. Integrated Pest Management under Uncertainty." American Journal Management and African Agriculture. Technical Paper of Agricultural Economics 61: 97-103. 142. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Feder, G., and D. L. Umali, 1993. "The Adoption of Murray, D. L., and E. L. Nathan. 1994. "From Pesticides Agricultural Innovations: A Review." Technological to Integrated Pest Management: Prospects for an Forecasting and Social Change 43: 215-39. Alternative Development Paradigm in Central Fleischer, G. 1994. "Pesticide Policies of Major American Agriculture." Paper presented at the 35 36 Integrated Pest Management Eighteenth International Congress of the Latin Agricultural Research: Theory and Experience. American Studies Association, March 10-12, Discussion Paper 176. Washington, D.C.: World Atlanta, Georgia. Bank. Norton, G. W., and J. Mullen. 1994. Economic Evaluation UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment of Integrated Pest Management Programs: A Literature and Development). 1992. "Promoting Sustainable Review and Publication. Report 448-120. Blacksburg, Agriculture and Rural Development." In Agenda 21. Va.: Cooperative Extension. Geneva. NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Alternative UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: National Academy 1987. London Guidelines for the Exchange of Press. Information on Chemicals in International Trade. OAU (Organization of African Unity). 1991. Ban on the Nairobi. Import into Africa and Transboundary Movement of . 1990. Basel Convention on the Control of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Bamako Convention). Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wlastes and Nairobi. Their Disposal. Nairobi. OECD (Organization of Economic Co-operation and . 1994. Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete Development). 1995. "No. 6 Guidelhiws for Aid the Ozone Layer: 1994 Report of the Methylbromide Agencies on Pest and Pesticide Management." In Technical Options Committee for the 1995 Assessment Guidelines on Environment and Aid. Paris. of the UNEP. Nairobi. Pimentel, D., and H. Lehman. 1993. The Pesticide USDA/ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/ Question. New York: Chapman Hall. Agricultural Research Service). 1993. "USDA Pincus, J. 1994. "Farmer Field School Survey: Impact of Programs Related to Integrated Pest Management." IPM Training on Farmers." Pest Control Behavior USDA Program Aid 1506, Beltsville, Maryland. Internal Report. National IPM Program, Jakarta, van de Fliert, E., J. Pontius, and N. Rbling. 1995. Indonesia. "Searching for Strategies to Replicate a Successful Postel, S. 1987. Defusing the Toxics Threat: Controlling Extension Approach: Training of IPM Trainers in Pesticides and Industrial Waste. Worldwatch Paper Indonesia." European Journal of Agricultural 79. Washington, D.C.: INorldwatch Institute. Education and Extension 1: 41-63. Poston, F. L., L. P. Pedigo, and S. M. Welch. 1983. Vandeman, A., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, S. Jarns, and L. "Economic Injury Levels: Reality and Practicality." Biing-Hwan. 1994. Adoption of Integrated Pest Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 29: Management in U.S. Agriculture. Agriculture 49-53. Information Bulletin 707. Washington, D.C.: USDA Rola, A. C., and P. L. Pingali. 1993. Pesticides, Rice Economic Research Service. Productivity, and Farmers' Health: An Economic Vijftigschild, R. A. N. 1996. "The Relationship between Assessment. Manila: International Rice Research Pesticide Use and Environmental Burden for Institute. Arable Farms in the Netherlands." In Hl. Waibel R6ling, N., and E. van de Fliert. 1994. "Transforming and J. C. Zadocks, eds., Institutional Constraints to Extension for Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of IPM. Hanover, Germany: Institut fur Garten- Integrated Pest Management in Rice in Indonesia." bauokonomie (Pesticide Policy Project). Agriculture and Human Values 11: 97-108. Waage, J. K. 1993. "Making IPM Work: Developing Rosset, P., and M. Benjanmin. 1994. "Two Steps Back, Country Experience and Prospects." In J. P. One Step Forward: Cuba National Policy for Srivastava and H. Alderman, eds., Agriculture and Alternative AgricultLre." Gatekeeper Series 46. Environmental Challenges: Proceedings of the London: International Institute of Environment and Thirteenth Agricultural Sector Symposium. Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Stern, V. M. 1973. "Economic Thresholds." Annual Waibel, H. 1994. "Towards an Economic Framework Review of Entomology 18: 259-80. of Pesticide Policy Studies." In S. Agne, G. Teng, P. S., and K. L. Heong. 1988. "Pesticide Fleischer, and H. Waibel, eds., Proceedings of the Management and Integrated Pest Management in Workshop on Pesticide Policies. Gottingen, Southeast Asia." Consortium for International Germany: Institut fur Agrarokonomie der Crop Protection, Beltsville, Maryland. Universitat G6ttingen. Thrupp, L. A. 1990. "Inappropriate Incentives for WHO (World Health Organization). 1991). Public Pesticide Use: Agricultural Credit Requirements in Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture. Developing Countries." Agriculture and Human Geneva. Values 7:62-69. . 1994. WHO Recommended Classification of Tobin, R. J. 1994. Bilateral Donor Agencies and the Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification Environment: Pest and Pesticide Management. 1994-1995. Geneva. Arlington, Va.: Winrock International Wiebers, U. 1993. Integrated Pest Management and Environmental Alliance. Pesticide Regulation in Developing Asia. World Bank Umali, D. L. 1992. Public and Private Sector Roles in Technical Paper 211. Washington, D.C. References 37 World Bank. 1989. "Operational Directive 2.00, . 1995a. Armenia: The Challenge of Reform in the Country and Economic Sector Work." Operational Agricultural Sector. A World Bank Country Study. Manual. Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. . 1991. Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. . 1995b. "Lithuania: Agricultural and Food Technical Paper 140. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C. Sector Review." Europe and Central Asia - 1993a. "Good Practices 4.03, Agricultural Pest Regional Office, Country Department IV, Management." Operational Manual. Washington, Washington, D.C. D.C. . 1996a. "Operational Procedure 4.09, Pest - . 1993b. "Guidelines for the Selection and Use of Management." Operational Manual. Washington, Pesticides in Bank-Financed Projects and Their D.C. Procurement." Washington, D.C. . 1996b. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. - 1993c. "Operational Directive 4.03, Agricultural Washington, D.C. Pest Management." Operational Manual. Washington, Zethner, O., ed. 1983. Pest Management and the African D.C. (Converted to Operational Procedure 4.09 in Farmer. Nairobi: ICIPE (International Center for July 1996; see World Bank 1996a.) Insect Physiology and Entomology) Science Press. . 1993d. "Republic of Yemen: Strategy for Zilberman, D., A. Schmitz, G. Casterline, E. Sustainable Agricultural Production." Middle East Lichtenberg, and J. B. Siebert. 1991. "The and North Africa Regional Office, Country Economics of Pesticide Use and Regulation." Department It, Washington, D.C. Science 253: 518-22. Distributors of CHINA GREECE ITALY NIGERIA SINGAPORE TAIWANL TANZAIA Distnbutors of ~ChiFMSW &Econ PapasciourSA LiasaComnsistariaSSansmi SPA UrlserstyPeesLimnied MYANMAR BRUNEI abrdObbnuey PresM W orld Bank Puir g House 35 Srornmera S. Vo Duca Di Calaba, 1l Thire Crowns tiling JorMS Asgale Publishing Asia Mtalaka SuomS 8, Da Fo9Si Dong Jie 106682Attrans Camilla PostalbS552 Private MailBag 585 Paec Pie.Lt. PO ox5299 Publications Be*9 Teo (301) 364-1826 50125 Fireore tbadar 41 Kelang Pradiog Road 80443 Dar es Seatm Prices and credit ternis vary TOt (886 16333-8257 Fa: (301) 364-254 Tet (55) 645415 Tel (234 22) 41-1356 Gdden Whee Buiddk Tat (255 51)292U fromI country to country. FM. (88 10)68401-7365 KOGFM,1328 a (55)841-257 Peax: (234 22) 41-20864gpre391 Fax (255,I) 46822 Jronl country to country ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HONG KONG, MACAO Tel: (65) 741-5166 Consult your local distributor COLOMBIA Asia 2004 LId JAMAICA NORWAY Fa: (65) 742-9356 TNAILAND before placing an order. boartce Ltda. Sates & Cirealrss Doperrrnort tan RatanPdePuishers Ud. NC Isleo S e-ma: asthgateoasiancorteo.com Coneral Boaks Distrhbuon Cearora6 No.51-21 Seabird House, unit 10142 206 Old Hopoe Road BoekDekDament 36 Silomr Rad Aopatad AereD 34270 22-28 Wyndham Street, Central KIlngston 6 P.O B68125 Entrstad SLOVAK REPUBUC Bangkok ALBANIA Sanorat de Bagot4 D.C. Hong Ktng Tel: 809-927-2085 N4642 Oslo 6 S9vert G.TG. Ud. Tot (66 2) 23565400 Adrion Ltd. Tel: (571)285-2798 Tel: 852) 2530-1409 Faor88-98774243 Tel: 14722)57-3300 Krupeska 4 Fan (662)2376832 Poerla RelPi S7'. Faa: (57 1) 285-2798 Fan (852) 2526-1107 Fan: (47 22) 68-1901 PO Ba 152 Pati.9 Shk 1 Ap.4 URL: hApJAwe.asnt200D.aom.hk JAPAN 852899 BAnissam TRINIDAD oTOBAGo, Tirane COTE DI VORE Eastern Book Service PAKISTAN Tel: (42 7) 839472 AND THE CARrIBBEAN Tel: (355 42) 274 19; 22172 Ceontr dEdiiDon el de Diffusion HUNGARY 3-13 Hongo 3-chome, Bunkyo-ku Mirua Bok Agency Fan (427)839485 Systemnecs SIes Unit Fan (355 42)274 19 Atricaines (CEDA) Ferndalion tor Market Economy Tokyo 113 85, Shahrah-e-Cuaid-o-Azam 9 Walls Stnt 04 B.P 541 112 PF 249 Tel: (81 3) 38184861 Lahore 540D0 SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA Curope ARGENTINA Abidjan 04 Plateau 1519 Budapest Fa: (81 3)3818-0864 Tel: (9242)7353601 Forngstote Ats: Trnidtad Weo Indies Ofcoia del lilro lntemcional Tot (225)24-8510 Tel: (361) 204 2951t(3b 1)2042948 UAL: h-h ewrbeokkoaMoorjp1-sol-orbs Fax: (92 42)75BS283 Oxfordtirnrivrsiy Press Tel. (809)bS2-5E4 Av Cordoba 1877 Fax: (225)25-057 Fax:(36 1)2042953 Soidhem Africa Fao (809) 625654 ll20Bo) rosAires KENYA Oxlord Untversity Press PO. Box 1141 To: (54 1)581b8156 CYPRUS INDIA Arica Book Serao (EA.) Ltd. SBangaFelooTown CapeTowsn6 00 UGANDA Fax (54 t) 815-354 Cenatrer kApld Reseah Aniad Publilnsers Ltd. wasnHouse, Mtaoyas Street Shane Faioel Tet (2721) 45-728 Gustro Ltd. Cyprus Coflee 751 mount Rood P.O. Boo 45245 PO) Boo 13033 Pea: (27 21) 45-7385 PO BOo 9997 AUSTRALIA, FUIJ, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, 6. Diogens Steet Engomi Madras- GD 002 Nairobi Karachi-75350 Madtward Bading SOLOMON ISLANDS, VANUATrU AND PO. Boo2006 Tol: (91 44) 852-3938 Tel: (254 2) 223 641 Tel: (92 21)446307 Forsutsoiprn orders: Ptot 114 Jinpa Rd. WESTERN SAMOA Ncosia FPa: (91 44) 852-0449 Fan (254 2) 0 2172 Fa: (92 21) 454-7640 Inlereationa Subwotrrion Servica Kanpota DA lnfrrtron Services Tol: (3572)44-1730 E-mil: ap0oup.khir.aem.oo.pk P.O. B 41095 Tel: (25641)254763 648 Whhiels Road Fa: (3572) 46-2051 INDONESIA KOREA, REPUBUC OF Craighai Fax (258 41) 251 468 Mtcham 3132 Pt. Indira LmiLd Daeir Trading Co. Ltd. PERU Johaeomsbnrg 2024 viriat CZECH REPUBLIC JadanBorobadr 20 P.O. Box 34 Youta Editrial Desanrolo SA Tel: (2711)680-1446 UNITED KINGDOM Td: (81)3 9210 7777 NaSonal Infrmation Center PO. Box 181 706 Sesun Bldg Aopanado3824 Fan: (2711)880-4248 Microinfo Ld. Fan (61)392107788 prndolt KoesittksS Jakagt 10320 44-6`abdouDong, YeonsclngpoKu Lirma I PO. Box 3 URL IrtqtrJAwdadirect.o rn.au CS - 113 47 Praguo 1 Tod: (62 21) 390-4290 Semi Td: (51 14) 280390 SPAIN Alon, HamP Gire 0U34 2PG Tel: (42 2) 2422-9433 Fan (62 21) 421-4289 Tel: (82 2) 785-16314 Fa: (51 14) 288628 Mundi-Prenra Libros, S.A. EngBad AUSTRIA Fa: (422(2422-1484 Fan (822)764-0315 Castello 37 Tot: (44142D)88848 Gerold ad Co. URL: httpww.nis.cz/ IRAN PHIUPPINES 28001 Madnd Fanc (44 1420)69B89 Welttahgassa 26 Ketab Sar Co. Puishers Pan Korea Book Corporabon lnternatioal Bookorce Center lc. Tel: (341) 431-3399 URL htpi1tv,o.microidaouk A-1011 Wete DENMARK Khased Estamboi Ae., 134, 1-Ka. Shinmun,Ro, Joegr-Ku Sure 720, Citytd 10 Fax: (341) 578-3996 Td: (43 1) 512-47-314 Satntdsnomrtr 6e Street PO. Boo 101, Kangwhanm Cdoenminim Tower 2 htUp)/%notsaies"rpensa VENEZUELA Fa (431) 51247-31-29 Rosnenems A4e 11 Kusheh Detafrooz No. 8 Seod H.V deb Costa, coner Valero St. Tecri-Cirnia LUbros, S.A. URL htpyhi.gerold.otonl.intne DK-1970 Frederiksberg C P.O. Boo 15745-733 Tel:(822)733-2011 Maka, Meoro Manita Mund-PrnsE Barcelona CeretComSuiad CmeriTarnaaa Tel: (4531)351942 Tehran FP ((822)73668696 Tot: (632) 817-9868 Coosel do Cord, 391 hieo 0C2 BANGLADESH Fan (45 31) 357822 Teln (98 21)8717819; (9821) 8718104 FP: (432)817-1741 0009 Barceloa Camcas Mono lvdntnoo Development Pee: (98821) 8842479 MALAYSIA Tot: (34 3) 488-3482 Tnt (58 2)89595547: 5035; 0018 AssStanca SDCrety (MIDAS) EGYPT, ARAB REPUBUC OF E-mail: ketabos5arneda.nnt.lr UnrsitLy of Malaya Coopeie POLAND Faa: (34 3) 487-7659 Fan (8 2) 989 5636 Honse , Reed 18 AN Ahramr Dosnbuiroin Ageacy Bwsonrap. LAnded lntoreertoel Pubishilng Semico DharinorKfi Ft/Area Alh Goam Strbeetu4i a Kokab Publr P.O Boo 1127 Ul. Pieka 31/37 SRI LANKA,THE MALDIVES ZAMBIA Dhaka 1209 Cairo P. Boo 19575-511 Jaten Pantai Bas 04-77 Wareawa Lake Hesa Booksttp Univresity Boksho,p Tel: (8802)326427 Tl: (202)578-403 Tehran 59700 Kual Luffpur Teo: (482) 6288089 100, Si9r Ciapatam Gaer Mawoatna UnneSity o4Zamk Fan (8802)811188 Fa: (202) 578-b33 Tel: (98 21)258-3723 Tel: (603)756-50D0 Fax: (482)821-7255 Colormbo 2 Great Eaot Road Campus Fa: (98021)258-3723 Fa: (803) 755-4424 Tel: (941)32105 PO Box 32379 BELGIUM The Mddas East Obsenrer PORTUGAL Fax: (94 1)432104 Lusaka Jes De Larnmy 41, Shroi Street IRELAND MEXICO Lihria FPrtogat Tel: (2601) 252 578 Avc dir H 202 Coiar Goenorment Supplies Agency INFOTEC Apartado 2881 SWEDEN Pan (260 1(2538952 1080 Bnrssels Tet (202)393-9732 Ofig an tSolawtair Apaando Postel 22-88. Ttatpan Rua Do Carmo 70274 CE PFzes ABR Tet: (322)b38-5189 Fa: (202)393-9732 4-5 IHanourt Road 14030 Mexco, DE 1200 Lisn Roerngsgaton 12 ZIMBABWE FPa (322)384-84t Dudin2 Tel: (525)6940411;1620 TOt: (1)3474982 S-1647Sto7ddrkhm LatareanZlrbMW"(Pe.)LId. RNLAND Tel: (353 1)b61-3111 Fan (525)624-2822:2824 Pax: (1)347-0264 Tol: (468(6990890 Teral Road, itdibeo- BRAZIL Akaleeointn Ki)katuppa FPa: (3531)475-2670 Fea: (468)2 5021 PO BoxaST125 PubaicecaesTacncas Ientecrioedis PO.O BOX 128 NETHERLANDS ROMANIA Sorlqoe Uda. RN-4016 HNtgold ISRAEL OsLetdebomnnOr-PubluiaOes Compaprd O LibrhnBucuresS.A. Wnnergern-W4ibmsA3 Hrare Rua Poxoto Gombo, 209 Tat (358 0)12141 Yozmtol ULterature Ud. P. BoO 202 Sb. Lpscani no. 26, sector 3 P.05 Boo 1305 Teo (263 4) 6216617 01409 Sao Patio SP. Fa: (358 0)1214441 P.O Box 5409 7460 AE Heaksttrgen Burharasl S-171 25 S0na Fan (23 4) 621870 Tet: (5511)259-4644 URL Idtp0,AknaleLcrifelakat 3thanare Hasandtar Street Tl: (31 53)574-0004 To: (401)613 9645 Tot: (468)70597-50 Fan (65 11)258-49W0 TelAv,61bS0 FPa (3153)572-9296 FPe: (40 1(31240D0 Fan; (468)27-84,71 URL hkpihrwtuoln.br PRANCE Tot (972 3) 5285-397 WorM Bank Pubsio8ano Fax (972 3) 5285-397 NEW ZEALAND RUSSIAN REDERATION SWITZERLAND CANADA 66, averow dlena EBSO tZ Ltd. lsdaWteo