It can be argued that the responsibility of Regulatory Authorities should end with checking the information on the label for the ‘users’: be they farmers or their advisors. It is normally understood that in practice, farmers rarely read labels as carefully as they should and that support and extension is needed to reinforce label information. The need for capacity development among farmers has long been recognised and put into practice in the form of farmer field schools and similar programmes. The extension units of governments also provide valuable outreach mechanisms, but extension infrastructure is often understaffed and underfunded. The practical reality in many AMS is that most pest management advice to farmers and growers comes from dealers of pesticides and other chemical inputs. If IPM actually means reduction of pesticides, this appears to inevitably conflict with the business interests of the pesticide industry (20). One of the main target groups for policy change should be farmers and growers themselves. Although the use of BCA has been associated with organic agriculture, it is conventional farming practice that needs reform in ASEAN and actually holds many opportunities for the introduction of a biology-based IPM. Contrary to popular belief, studies on the adoption of environmentally friendly technology by farmers have clearly shown that it is not necessarily the price of a technology but the level of education and knowledge of the farmer that are mostly determining the degree of adoption (16) (17) (64). IPM success appears to depend on regular crop monitoring, and an ability to understand complex systems (66). Psychological and practical product dependencies (‘path dependency’) that govern farmers’ perceptions must be considered as well, in order to promote adoption of new technologies (18) (19). In Chapter 1, we emphasised the need for an appropriate IPM framework which emphasised preventive approaches rather than over-reliance on ‘chemical models’ that frequently assume curative control of pest ‘outbreaks’. However, there are also dangers of denying the role of chemical pesticides in the ‘real world’: not least in terms of resources for product support. There are two approaches to the regulation of efficacy of plant protection products: • A view that ‘the market will decide’ about efficacy and that the primary role of regulation is to ensure safety. This is considered appropriate in the USA and elsewhere, with farmers often benefiting from sophisticated agricultural extension support networks. Effectively, maintenance of brand reputation is thought to be sufficient. • More ‘interventionist’ policies (e.g. as in Europe): where toxicology studies are likewise emphasised, but companies must also demonstrate efficacy against key target pests in order to obtain registration. 52 5.4 User Knowledge 5.5 Perceptions of efficacy The view in most AMS is that farmers will be supported with advice on effective products, often via government research and extension agencies. Such agencies have typically been keen to promote
Implementing Biological Control Agents in the ASEAN Region
To see the actual publication please follow the link above