Reorienting Pest Management Strategies: 
Why should Corporations rethink their policies for sustainable pest management?

Anil K Gupta

The paradox of plant protection policy is evident from the growth trends of pesticide consumption and overall agricultural production in the country.   While the latter has declined in some years or stagnated in other but the former has continued to increase.   Not only that, one has to apply far more plant protection chemicals today to get the same amount of impact than say, two or three decades ago, that is their productivity has declined.    This does not take into account the negative impact on environment and other living beings.   The supporters of chemical intensive strategies consider average consumption of chemical pesticides to be far lower in India than is the case in many other countries.   And therefore, for them the problem is not too much consumption but too little.   

I was earlier invited a few years ago by the Pesticide Formulators Association of India in Gujarat and I asked them the same question that I asked the organizers of this conference.  My question was, “Why do you invite me when you know that I am a strong critique of chemical pesticide based plant protection strategies in this country?”  And the answers I got were similar.  Perhaps the industry is realizing more than the scientists and policy makers that given the non-sustainability of the present approach, they have to find alternatives. And they wish to see this alternative through the eyes of an outsider.   

In part one of the paper I mention the factors responsible for non-sustainability of the current approach and also highlight some of the features of the current bias.  In part two, I review some of the trends apparent from the farmers’ own innovations in the field of pest management.   My contention is that there is a great potential in packaging non-chemical plant protection practices as commercialisable ventures where feasible.   In part three I highlight the issues that the corporations and public policy makers need to reflect upon.
	
Part One:

Non-sustainability of present chemical intensive plant protection approach:   

It is well understood, all around the world that indiscriminate use of chemical pesticide has led to tremendous decline in the productivity of the inputs apart from causing severe environmental and health damage.  The predators have been killed, the pests have become resistant, many minor pests have become major pests, the alternative hosts being available round the year have led to enhancement of the pest reproduction potential, the lack of fallowing has also provided round the year continuity for pest multiplication, etc.  A treadmill effect has thus become evident.  In addition, the environmental effects are no less serious on soil, avian or aquatic biodiversity.   The health effects through direct exposure or through residues have also caused tremendous concern.   Not all problems can be attributed to the shortsighted policies of the corporations.  Many of the effects are also result of poor extension and shortsighted policies of the farmers who have tended to use all kinds of cocktails and thus speeding up the resistance among the pests.   International standards of permissible level of residues are likely to come in the way of the export competitiveness of our crops and other agricultural products.   The health effects of different pesticides have been researched elaborately over the years.   

Major crops like wheat, which did not have the problems of pests so long have become vulnerable to this menace.   Likewise, the weeds and the diseases have become resistant to many chemicals.  

The choices are very clear:  Either we go on moving on the current path and therefore make the environment the human animal life more vulnerable and through mothers’ milk even the future generations bear the burden of our past follies.   Or we change the course, correct our strategy, look at the nature more carefully and identify business opportunities in working with nature rather than against it. 

Many of my students in the Agri Business Management Programme at IIMA ask me a question when I teach various concepts of management of technological change of Sustainable Agriculture.   Their question is; why am I creating a dissonance in their minds when they know that their career depends on doing more of the same, i.e., violating the principles of nature and toxifying the environment and increasing the cost of the farmers.   And my answer is, look at the behaviour of agri-chemcials firms worldwide. Why should US EPA award a firm for developing a nano-chemical of which just one drop keeps away pests from home?  Why should firms worldwide become responsive to the issue of pesticides residues, phase out persistent organic pollutants, spend such a great deal of resources on non-chemical pest management strategies. If residues become a non-tariff barrier to export from developing countries, who would they blame?   Even if the students do not see much change happening in our own society in near term, my plea with them is that any firm, which provides more information to the consumers (in this case farmers or even householders for domestic pesticides consumption or for sanitation purposes), would command greater consumer loyalty eventuality. After all, biotechnological interventions, controversial as these are, are making one thing clear. And that is if there is any way, farmers can reduce the cost of chemical inputs, they would explore that way. Increasing awareness about organic agriculture and non-chemical means for plant protection worldwide are signs of hope. 

Some years ago, hundreds of families of farmers committed suicide in Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka because their crops succumbed to the pest problem. They feared that they would not be able to get the sacred jewellery released from the moneylenders with whom they had pawned it to borrow money to buy pesticides.  They could not bear the shame.   I wrote to the Chief Minister of both the states and enclosed sixty best practices developed by farmers around the country to control the pests of cotton with the suggestion that these could be tried once at least, before throwing these out of the window.  Nothing of the sort happened probably because the advice was free or it threatened the other vested interests.   

Let me give you a few more instances of how the crisis of Indian agriculture is being responded to by the policy makers.  I did an informal survey of expenditure on IPM (Integrated Pest Management) in different states and in Gujarat for three consecutive years the expenditure remained at around 3.5 crores, i.e. less than a per cent of total expenditure on agriculture.  This was the situation when an earlier study (Pastakia, 1995) had shown extremely encouraging results of IPM in a few districts of Gujarat when it was introduced systematically more than ten years ago.  Contrast it with the experience of Indonesia which had about seventeen years ago banned fifty seven trade formulations of chemical pesticide for use on paddy and witnessed increase in the crop productivity and decline in the pesticide consumption rate during 1986-1990 (Kenmore, 1991).   In a recent study, Praneetvatakul, Kuwattanasiri and Waibel (2002) observed that while pesticide had a positive impact on rice production in three models that they tried, the derived production elasticity was low, i.e., the productivity of rice was not responsive to the amount of pesticide applied.  In another study FAO (2002) regretted the cancellation of the national IPM policy in Indonesia in 1999 because of the termination of World Bank loan financing it.   It was found that during the first few years, the pesticide use had dropped by approximately fifty six per cent and the yields increased by about ten per cent.  A doctoral research at University of Indonesia pursued by Resosudarmo found that if IPM programme was not continued, the GDP of Indonesia would increase by about 3.5 times between 1993 and 2020.  However, the health problems could increase by six times and the associated health cost could increase by 4.5 times.  In an interesting simulation, he found that by taxing pesticides by five per cent, it could generate enough revenue to train eighty per cent of rice farmers in next fifteen years in IPM.   And the results of IPM would be far more profitable than would be the case otherwise.   In figure one, one can see the effects of chemical pesticides on human health.   Obviously, such a figure is not found even on the table of plant protection advisor to government of India or Professors teaching the safe use of pesticide or corporate R&D managers interested in developing responsible solutions for pest problems. But it is possible that all the stakeholders cooperate to generate better policy environment so that more informed judgments are made and better and safe products are developed.

Most ICAR and other research institutions would like to charge SRISTI and other such organizations engaged in developing herbal pesticides and other non-chemical alternatives, the same fees for testing their products, as they would charge a large corporation.   It does not matter to them whether the products are based on farmers’ own innovations for sustainable pest management or are outputs of a large corporate research program.   In 1989, in a survey of corporate investment in agriculture research (Gupta and Singh) it was found that barring one or two companies, which had set up a chair in one or two universities, there was hardly any investment by the large or medium corporations in generating sustainable pest management alternatives through support for long term research. Situation has not changed much, as I update my understanding on the subject through our students at IIMA every year. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and to some extent University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore have been pioneer in this regard.   The work on bio control at Gujarat Agricultural University is also well recognized.   But, the state agriculture policies do not consider linkage among agriculture productivity, environment and health issues in a manner that would permit rethinking of our current strategies. 

I had reviewed postgraduate research in five disciplines in twenty six universities and colleges in 1983-84.    For instance, seventy five percent of thesis in agronomy focused on use of fertilizer and within that, 90 per cent on chemical fertilizer and only the remaining focused on conjunctive use of chemical and organic fertilizer.   There was hardly any thesis on agronomic methods of pest management.   It is obvious that those who did their postgraduate research in 1983-84 will now be heading the departments or might be senior leaders of the discipline.   Isn’t it inevitable that the policy should remain so biased if research leaders have been indoctrinated in a particular worldview without being sufficiently exposed to other ways of solving the problem?  Let me give you another instance of myopic vision with regard to pest management.  

One could move from one end of the country to another and would never find a billboard or a large poster educating farm workers about the right ways of using chemical pesticides in local language.  There are any number of posters and billboards advocating the use of particular brands or makes but none about the safe use.   It is true that there is a lot of literature which may be enclosed with the pesticide bottle including in fine print various methods and safety measures.   But when you observe, the popular knowledge and practice on the subject you realize the ineffectiveness of such communication in creating wider awareness about pesticide hazards.   In Cambodia, pesticides were found to be used often at wrong time, in an inappropriate strength and usually against the wrong target pests.  The cocktails were made, as also practiced in India.   Only seven per cent farmers in FAO survey were found to have changed their clothes after spraying and almost fifty per cent did not wash their hands.   What was more worrisome was found in another study in 2000 that fifty one per cent of the farmers mixed pesticides in drinking water containers.  

The industry is estimated to spend about one billion dollar annually on advertising and marketing in Asia www.bayer.com/en/unternehmen/unternehmenspolitik/produkte.html in Trent and Shanahan, 2002 and hardly a fraction of a per cent on safe use.   An IDRC study found similar hazards in pesticide use in Ecuador (IDRC Reports, April 2001) and in fact noticed decreased mental capacity caused by higher exposure.

Of late, some of the pesticide companies have started popularizing the bio control measures and distributing lenses to farmers to identify the friendly insects so that they could take precautions while spraying.    However, even now companies would seldom educate the farmers about the threshold levels of pest below, which there was no case for pesticide spray at all.  I will conclude this section by quoting an advertisement which was given by a large pesticide multinational firm in Newsweek in Europe edition several years ago, but was never issued in Indian or Asian media for the reasons best known to it:

“A case where prevention is not better than cure”

There could not be a more effective message within the context of use of pesticide in a safe manner and yet why would not the same company not advertise this message in India and other developing countries.   I asked this question as a member of Advisory Committee of the Task force on Technology, Innovation and Society of the World Business Council of Sustainable Development and I drew blank.    I was indeed informed that many large corporations were doing research on nano chemicals and therefore this problem might go away.

My contention in this section is that problem is serious, its effects on biodiversity, snake population affecting the frog population and in turn the pest population (causing among other problems, malaria hazards) are obvious.   Similarly, the increase in the rodent population is a good indicator of the problem in European agriculture as well as in Asian agriculture. Societal awareness is increasing slowly but surely and it would be difficult for firms to carry on with business as usual. The real challenge is whether Asian economies will be laggards in this march towards a sustainable future or lead a new way.

The prevalent ethics among the people has however, still not given way completely.   One could notice millions of farmers sitting under the scorching sun with their little makeshift shade, scaring the birds away in the field with mature crops, rather than using poison baits to kill them.   Birds and rodents in a fact a far bigger pests than any other pests on which so much resources are spent and yet we don’t realize that controlling the pests only through technological means is not effective.  The institutional arrangements for collective efforts for pest management have received very low attention from the corporations and policy makers.  There are very few research papers on pest as a common property problem except a few in American Journal of Agricultural Economics few decades ago.  Why would there be so much under-investment in research on institutional issues when many experiments have shown positive results. What happened to the concept of corporate social responsibility and good governance and ethical accountability in this regard?   

Part Two:

Farmers’ innovations for sustainable pest management

National Innovation Foundation (NIF) has been organizing competitions for scouting innovations from all over the country in various fields of survival at grassroots.  One of the important areas in agriculture in which many innovations have emerged is obviously plant protection.   Our regret is that not many of these ideas have become commercial ventures through public private partnership.   The result is the real benefits, which must accrue to the farmers for their innovations have not yet accrued. There are several interesting leads that can arise from study of farmers’ innovations.  Crop-wise distribution of farmers’ innovations available in the published portion of Honey Bee database are given in table one, followed by farmers approaches for the purpose in table two and pest-wise crop-wise distribution of farmers’ innovations for the purpose in table three.  It is evident from the analysis that farmers use a variety of approaches in different crops in different places.   Industry has to appreciate the richness of this knowledge base and join hands with the people who produce this knowledge so as to generate sustainable pest management (SPM) strategies for the people. 

Isolating Bio-pesticides from herbal pesticides extracts: Sadbhav SRISTI Sanshodhan Lab at SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions) established with the support from Sadbhav Trust in Mumbai has taken up the pioneering task of pooling the best practices developed by the farmer to develop new products in the field of anti-feedants, repellants of pests, veterinary medicine and microbial diversity.   Thirty four herbal anti-feedants / growth promoters, fourteen herbal veterinary medicines and a few hundred microbial cultures have already been identified.   One of the new concepts that emerged through collaboration between SRISTI-ICRISAT is worth mentioning.   Dr.O.P.Rupela and his team in an award winning paper developed a new concept for pest control.  They identified strains of Metarrhizium anisopliae (‘b’) a fungus and bacteria (‘c’ strain BCB19) pathogenic to Helicoverpa from the herbal anti-feedants and pesticides developed by SRISTI. They found out that the sterilized herbal pesticide and only microbial culture isolated from these herbal extracts had synergistic effects in controlling the pest. When used separately, the effect was thus lesser when used together. If these extracts were isolated through organic solvents as would have been advisable for increasing the shelf life, these microbial cultures could not have been identified.   

Herbal extracts for controlling pests:  Farmers have known plants that are toxic in nature and could thus be a viable source for controlling pests.  Neem is, of course, a very well known example.   However, there are hundreds of such plants (Gupta, Patel and Patil, 1991; Honey Bee Vol. 1 to 14, 1990-2003), which have been used by farmers for this purpose.   Yet, the amount of research by the formal institutional scientists as well as corporations pursued on the subject is highly inadequate.  It is quite likely that a biological material will be safer compared to chemical or biotechnological sources.  Farmers’ ingenuity in the matter can be judged by the fact that there are plants which they have named as kidamari (Aristolochia bracteolate) i.e., an insect killing plant (Kachadia Ratilalbhai Kalyanbhai, Honey Bee, 6(1):13, 1995; in combination with  'arani', Clerodendrum multiflorum  Laxmanbhai Ganeshbhai Thaloda; Honey Bee,5(1):20,1994  with ‘Sitaphal' (Annona squamosa);  Mer Ravjibhai Somabhai, Honey Bee, 4(1):13, 1993).  

It is possible that some of the herbal extracts in combination with others may have not only anti-feedant or insecticidal properties but also growth promoting effects.   There are studies available, which show that mode affection of many herbal extracts is such that it does not produce resistance among insects easily.   In the case of neem, 28 generations of particular insect exposed to neem extracts were found not to have developed resistance at all.   

Managing knowledge for pest management:  There are many other methods such as trap crop, fence crops, agronomic management, micro climatic modification, etc. (see table two) which have been used by farmers to control pests.   Corporations could develop intelligent software or information services paid for by the farmers putting sustainable pest management heuristics in one place.   It is possible that many firms would make profit by dispensing knowledge rather than materials and in the process generate customer loyalty for various products, which may be required in due course.   With the use of GIS, climatic information, soil, crop and whether interaction models, it should be possible to develop Decision Support Systems for pest management that generate choices tailored to individual farm plot/crop variety or combination thereof.   The information technology applications in generating plant protection strategies is a viable area of future investment.   The important issue here is to blend farmers’ knowledge about local environment, crop environment interactions with the modern scientific knowledge.  

Partnership in joint product development: Can farmers and corporations join hands for developing sustainable pest management technologies.  Honey Bee database has more than 300 practices on pest and disease management, many of which can become commercialisable products and services.  The challenge is to evaluate the farmers’ best practices and join hand with them through a fair and reasonable benefit sharing agreement.   SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions) has developed 34 herbal pesticides and anti-feedants by pooling the best practices of innovative farmers.   Many of these products can provide safe alternatives to chemicals and could thus generate new business opportunities.   

Part Three:

Implications for policy, institutional and strategic changes at business as well as societal level

There are several changes required at different levels in corporate, academic and public policy systems.   I am summarizing here only few of the important changes that can be taken up urgently.   Overall thrust of my suggestions here is that the demand for technological change for sustainable agriculture is growing everyday.   It is true that much of this demand is scattered at present and therefore, may not provide sufficient incentives for industry to respond to it in an organised manner.  But it is also true that supply creates its own demand.   Unless industry generates more alternatives for sustainable pest management, there is no way that we can continue with the increase in productivity in a competitive manner.  In a globalizing economy, reducing cost of cultivation and improving quality are necessary concomitants of competitiveness.  Reduction in the cost would require reducing the emphasis on chemical inputs and increasing the importance of knowledge and non-chemical inputs.   Farmers’ innovations for sustainable agriculture documented by Honey Bee Network (sristi.org/knownetgrin.html, or http://knownetgrin.honeybee.org/innovation_database.asp), provide one useful source for the purpose.   But there are many other bio control strategies including the judicious use of biotechnology for the purpose keeping human and ecological health in mind.

Suggestions:

a.	Options with pesticides

1.	Creating Awareness for Safe use: Assuming that chemical pesticides will remain with us for some more time, we have to find ways of managing their use in safe and ethical manner. The level of awareness around the developing world in terms of ecological or human or animal safety is extremely poor.   Part of the responsibility for this lack of awareness has to be shouldered by the industry.  Therefore, the expenditure on advertising for safe use has to go up significantly through various channels that are accessible to common people and are as prominent in their appearance as the advertisements for the products themselves.  

2.	Revitalizing and Strengthening IPM:  The IPM strategies have shown results in most of the countries where they have been tried systematically.  Ideally, IPM should be managed without chemicals.  However, so long as we use chemicals in small quantities, we are reducing the load on environment and human and animal health.   The public policy for this purpose has been extremely tardy and weak.  Experience in India is no different from Indonesia where despite remarkable results, the programme was scuttled.   The competitiveness of many of the commodities having pesticide residues is bound to suffer apart from the cost and environmental implications.   The private sector must join hands with public systems and invest in IPM experiments and innovations to generate location specific packages for sustainable pest management.

3.	Respecting Safety Standards and Withdrawing Banned Chemicals:  Many pesticides banned in the developed countries are used freely in the developing countries.   This is possible through direct support and sanction of public policy makers in these countries.   However, as a part of corporate social responsibility, large multi national corporations should voluntarily stop the production and distribution of hazardous chemicals in the developing countries.   

4.	Supporting Research on Negative Externalities: The corporate investment in research on agricultural, human, animal and environmental health has been extremely poor.  The implication is that we don’t want to learn about the adverse consequences because of various reasons intrinsic to the product or the way it is used.   Lack of information does not make the adverse effects go away.   The civil society is becoming aware of its rights and therefore sooner or later the pressure for greater accountability is bound to increase.   Prudence demands a faster reaction time.   

b.	Without Pesticides
	
5.	Building Upon Farmers’ Innovations for Sustainable Pest Management:   A large  Honey Bee database of farmers’ innovations is available for value addition and commercialization through sharing of benefits in fair and just manner.   NIF has mobilized about 36000 innovations and traditional knowledge examples from over 350 districts of the country in the last three years (nifindia.org) A partnership between peoples’ knowledge and corporations would generate a new model of solving problems by building upon respective strengths.

6.	Farmers Associations have not been very sensitive to the need for sustainable alternatives.  The opposition to biotechnology may sometimes be guided by right reasons but many times it is based on misinformation or inadequate information.   The damage by the chemical pesticides is known while that from the biotechnological means of pest control is yet to be demonstrated (though, there is no doubt that society has the right to demand fuller information about safety for humans and environment).   The biotechnological options need to be explored with much greater peoples’ participation in their evaluation.  

7.	The public policy for testing herbal pesticides developed by farmers or NGOs based on farmers’ innovations has to be much more supportive.   There is no justification that an agricultural university or ICAR institution should charge a multi national corporation and a small farmers group the same fees.   

8.	The postgraduate research on sustainable pest management needs a massive support if future leaders of SPM have to be developed today.   Industry has to support research on SPM in public as well as NGO sector.   

9.	The state extension departments have created markets for private sectors by popularizing their products some times more hastily than needed.   The same extension system has neglected the popularization of such advice and information, which can help in SPM without using costly inputs.   It might appear naïve on my part to expect private sector to support and strengthen the capacity of the public extension system in this regard.   But I assume that creating a demanding client is the most prudent investment that a company can make and therefore, this case for public private premiership.

The ethical standards for doing business around the world cannot be tailored according to the level of economic conditions in different parts.   The globalization of markets will have to be accompanied with the globalization of ethics.   And hence my appeal to the corporate leaders to realize that SPM is in their own long term interest.  It will stimulate more research in creating new knowledge, which will substitute materials for solving the problem.   People will pay for this knowledge and society would be better off if they get safe food, safe soils, safe air and of course, safe future.

FIGURE: 1

TABLE: 1	CROPWISE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMER’S INNOVATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT

Sr.	CROP TYPE	PRACTICES	
1.	Cereals & major millets
(Paddy, Wheat, Bajra, Maize and other grains)	101	
2.	Vegetables 
(Chilli, Tomato, Brinjal, Cucurbits, Potato, Cole crops, etc.)	59	
3.	Fruit
(Mango, Coconut, Banana, Amla, Ber, Arecanut, Citrus, etc.)	56	
4.	Pulses 
(Pigeon pea, Gram, Green gram, Bengal gram, etc.) 	46	
5.	Fiber
(Cotton & Jute)	30	
6.	Spices
(Cumin, Fenugreek, Pepper, Fennel, Turmeric, etc.)	24	
7.	Oilseeds 
(Groundnut, Mustard, etc.)	19	
8.	Fodder 
(Sorghum, Lucerne, etc.)	10	
9.	Minor Millets 
(Kodo, Nagli, & Ragi)	8	
10.	Others
(Tobacco, Castor, Sugar cane, Ornamentals, etc)	26	
11.	All	86	
12	Total	465	

Source: Honey Bee Data base, www.sristi.org

TABLE: 2 FARMER’S APPROACHES TO CONTROL PESTS

Sr.	APPROACH	FREQUENCY	
1.	Spraying of insecticide of plant origin / animal/other material or in combination 	152	
2.	Use of repellents (Material, sound, other than fumigation)	70	
3.	Changing the cropping system
( Trap crop, Inter crop, Crop rotation, Cover crop, etc.)	56	
4.	Mulching	28	
5.	Seed treatment	27	
6.	Dusting/Broadcasting	20	
7.	Application of the active ingredient to the infected region/pasting in tree species	18	
8.	Delivery through irrigation water	17	
9.	Fumigation	15	
10.	Attracting the predators	14	
11.	Incorporation of the active material into the soil	14	
12.	Trapping (sticky trap, etc)	08	
13.	Placing the active ingredient in to the burrows/holes	07	
14.	Others
Manipulating the microclimate 
(Reducing irrigation, water logging, other than fumigation etc)	
07	
	Mechanical and others means	07	
	Toxic herbal substances mixed with manure	05	
15.	Total	465	

Source: Honey Bee Data base, www.sristi.org

TABLE: 3	PEST TYPE AND CROP WISE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS INNOVATIONS
Approach	Cereals	Vegetables	Fruits	Pulses	Fiber 	Spices	Edible Oilseeds	All	Others	Total	
Sucking Pest	22	9	7	2	7	1	3	10	7	68	
Leaf eating 	8	10	16	3	8	1	5	5	7	63	
Root feeder & Cutter	6	5	11	2	2	-	4	17	3	50	
Shoot feeder & cutter	3	-	13	-	2	1	-	-	-	19	
Grain feeder	13	1	-	13	-	1	2	6	3	39	
Fruit & Pod borer	2	7	4	7	5	1	2	3	2	33	
Stem borer	12	2	3	2	-	-	-	3	2	24	
All pests	14	9	10	3	7	5	5	13	4	70	
Fungal	12	-	-	6	1	2	2	1	4	28	
Bacterial	2	2	3	2	-	4	-	2	2	17	
Viral	1	14	2	-	-	-	-	13	3	33	
Nematode	3	2	3	-	-	1	-	-	-	9	
All diseases	2	3	2	3	1	9	2	3	4	29	
Birds, Rat, Grazing animals, etc.	3	2	3	3	-	-	-	22	1	34	
Weeds	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	10	2	12	
Other pests	103	66	77	46	33	26	25	108	44	528	
*** Note: Single pest may cause damage of different types
*** Note: Others include cash crops like tobacco, sugar cane, castor and other fodder crops, ornamentals and minor millets.
Source: Honey Bee Data base, www.sristi.org