| Previous | Return to table of contents | Search Reports | Next |
| « Back to weltagrarbericht.de | ||
Historical Analysis of the Effectiveness of AKST Systems in Promoting Innovation | 103
|
Box 2-8.continued Opportunities and constraints Successful biocontrol systems have required public sector investment, political commitment to maintain and adequately finance research, breeding and release programs, close collaboration between technical and regulatory agencies and donors at national and regional levels, and minimal pesticide use to create a safe environment for biocontrol agents (Neuenschwander, 1993, Neuenschwander et al., 2003; Maredia and Raitzer, 2006; Omwega et al., 2006). Where such commitments have existed (Western Europe; Kazakhstan, post-Soviet Cuba, many countries throughout Africa), biocontrol programs have been important contributors to agricultural production and national food security (Greathead, 1976; van Lenteren et al., 1992; Rosset and Benjamin, 1994; Pretty, 1995; Neuenschwander, 2001; Omwega et al., 2006; Sigsgaard, 2006; van Lenteren, 2006). Biological control has provided effective control of pests in many cropping systems, while maintaining high agricultural production (DeBach 1964; DeBach and Rosen, 1991; Bellows and Fisher, 1999; Gurr and Wratten, 2000). Yet public sector investments, institutional support for research and practical applications have been uneven over the period, reflecting shifting priorities of dominant institutional arrangements (NRC, 1989; Cate and Hinkle, 1994; Jennings, 1997; Greathead, 2003; Hammerschlag, 2007). |
Substantial taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge is crucial to support successful biocontrol (Pennisi, 2003; Herren et al., 2005), but these fields have been neglected in many research institutions (Jennings, 1997; Kairo, 2005). Greater public and private sector investment in institutional capacity could increase the ability of farmers, extension staff, scientists, policy makers and the food sector to capitalize on opportunities afforded by biocontrol (Neuenschwander, 1993; Waage, 1996; Williamson, 2001; van Lenteren 2006; Hammerschlag, 2007). Global challenges for biocontrol include a possible growth in exotic pest problems due to globalization and climate change and the threat posed by degraded agricultural and natural ecosystems to maintaining natural enemy communities. The Convention on Biological Diversity raises important conceptual and practical issues for biocontrol: how to develop capacity and ensure safe and equitable sharing of resources, research and benefits among actors and countries (Waage, 1996). Natural enemies have previously demonstrated capacity to adapt to changing climates encountered in expanding their geographic range (Tribe, 2003) and to control invasive species (van Driesche and Hoddle, 2000; Greathead, 2003) in a safe and sustainable manner. These attributes, along with the imperative to reduce pesticide contamination of drinking water supplies, suggest that biological control will play an increasingly important role in future pest management practices. |
|
China, Thailand and Vietnam) have taken the lead in banning WHO Class 1a and 1b pesticides (FAO, 2006a). Various European countries have implemented Pesticide Use Reduction programs with explicit benchmarks for pesticide reduction (Box 2-9) and Organic Transition Payment programs (Blobaum, 1997). Domestic US programs emphasized IPM in the 1970s and 1990s but shifts in political priorities have led to uneven national support and a more narrow interpretation emphasizing pollution mitigation strategies over preventative approaches to ensuring crop health (Cate and Hinkle, 1994; GAO, 2001; USDA/NRCS, 2001; Brewer et al., 2004; Hammerschlag, 2007; see Hoard and Brewer, 2006 and Getz and Warner, 2006 for state-level innovations in IPM). The CGIAR has established an inter-institutional partnership to promote participatory IPM (http://www .spipm.cgiar.org). Bilateral donor agencies have also prioritized biocontrol or IPM in their development aid, e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, IPM Europe and the United States (ter Weel and van der Wulp, 1999; SIDA, 1999; Dreyer et al., 2005; USAID, 2007). Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) regulations for pesticides in food have been established at national and international levels (see 2.3.3.). These and other international and national standards continue to undergo revisions in light of emerging scientific findings on possible and actual effects of low dose and chronic exposure to pesticide residues (NRC, 1993; Aranjo and Telles, 1999; Baker et al., 2002; Thapinta and Hudak, 2000; Kumari and Kumar, 2003; Pennycook et al., 2004). The UN FAO Code on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Box 2-9) focuses not only on minimizing hazards |
associated with pesticide use but also on promoting IPM. It indicates that "prohibition of the importation, sale and purchase of highly toxic products [such as] WHO Class I a and I b pesticides may be desirable" and recommends that pesticides requiring use of personal protective equipment (e.g., WHO Class II pesticides) should be avoided where such equipment is uncomfortable, expensive or not readily available (e.g., in most developing countries). In 2007, the 131st Session of the FAO Council mandated FAO to pursue a "progressive ban on highly toxic pesticides" (FAO, 2007). FAO has urged chemical companies to withdraw these products from developing country markets and is calling on all governments to follow the example of countries that have already banned WHO Class Ia and Ib pesticides (FAO, 2006a). Also in 2007, FAO hosted an international conference that highlighted organic farming's capacity to meet food security goals without reliance on chemical pesticides (Scialabba, 2007; Sligh and Christman, 2007). The FAO conference confirmed similar findings from numerous recent studies on organic agriculture (Parrott and Marsden, 2002; Pimentel et al., 2005; Badgley, et al., 2007; Halberg, et al., 2007; Kilcher, 2007). The World Bank revised its pest management policy in 1998, in response to internal impact assessments (Schillhorn van Veen et al., 1997), public pressure (Aslam, 1996; Ishii- Eiteman and Ardhianie, 2002) and donor government concerns (e.g., Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, United States). The policy now emphasizes "reducing reliance on chemical pesticides" and promoting "farmer-driven ecologically-based pest control" (World |
| Previous | Return to table of contents | Search Reports | Next |
| « Back to weltagrarbericht.de | ||