2020 BRIEF 52 - SEPTEMBER 1998: PEST MANAGEMENT AND FOOD PRODUCTION: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Montague Yudelman, Annu Ratta, and David Nygaard

Montague Yudelman is a senior fellow at the World Wildlife Fund and a former director of agriculture and rural development at the World Bank; Annu Ratta is an independent consultant; and David Nygaard is director of Rural Development Programmes, Aga Khan Foundation, Geneva.

This brief is based on 2020 Vision Discussion Paper 25 of the same title.

The supply of food - especially grains - in developing countries will have to rise by around 70 percent by 2020 if the 6.5 billion people who are expected to be living there are going to be food secure. Nearly all of this increase in food supply is expected to come from developing countries themselves. Meeting this projected increase will require both a sustained rise in yields of the major grains and legumes and reduction in crop losses due to pests.

Because opportunities for expanding irrigation and productive arable land are limited, future strategies will have to focus on raising the productivity of available land and water resources. There could hardly be a less efficient use of these resources than to invest time, money, and effort in producing food only to have it totally or partially destroyed by pests (see table). Depending on the levels of losses and costs involved, improved pest management would seem to be an important strategic component for increasing available supplies of food in developing countries.

A LACK OF ADEQUATE DATA

A serious drawback to formulating a strategy for improving pest management is the inadequate state of knowledge about actual losses from pests and the real and potential gains from pest management. If overall losses from pests are as high as 50 percent, as some researchers have indicated, then governments and organizations such as the World Bank and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) may well need to devote more resources to reducing losses. But; if losses from pests are much lower, maybe 10-15 percent, as other researchers claim, then it may well be appropriate to give a lesser priority to pest control relative to other investments in agricultural development.

Improving the estimation of crop losses and the costs and benefits of reducing crop losses will require the development of appropriate methodologies as well as field-level monitoring, using standardized criteria in representative areas and covering a reasonable period of time. A data bank could help establish the priorities to be given to improved pest management. The conflicting views about the costs and benefits of pest management make it important that any such initiative be objective and seen to be objective. It could be organized by an international body, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or the CGIAR, with their global responsibilities for promoting food security.

Actual production and estimated losses for eight crops during 1988-90, by pest and region

Source: E. Oerke, et al., Crop production and crop protection: Estimated losses in major food and cash crops (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995).

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES

The use of chemical pesticides is and will continue to be important for reducing pest-induced crop losses in the years ahead. The pesticide market is now around US$30 billion a year, and about 80 percent of the pesticides in use are applied in developed countries. It is widely expected that the demand for pesticides will grow apace as developing countries intensify crop production to meet national needs. This expansion will probably be encouraged by many of the forces that have led to rapid growth in use in the past: the emphasis on "chemical" solutions to agricultural problems; the promotion of the use of pesticides by extension services; the aggressive salesmanship of the distributors of pesticides; the near absence of investment in developing alternatives to pesticides for crop protection, especially in developing countries; and increased pest resistance in plants, leading to ever more intensive use of pesticides to limit further losses.

There is continuing controversy over the extent of the harmful side effects of chemical pesticides. The cumulative evidence of actual and potential damage and the effective pressure from environmental groups has led to tighter regulation of pesticide use and the banning of the use of some pesticides, especially in developed countries. As a result, the major transnational corporations that dominate the pesticide market are investing heavily to develop new, less toxic, less persistent, narrow-spectrum products to conform to the stricter regulatory standards in their major markets of North America, Western Europe, and Japan.

These newer, costlier, improved products have to compete in developing countries with cheaper, older products. Many of these older products are off-patent, nontargeted pesticides that contain hazardous compounds banned in developed countries. They may also be banned in developing countries, but, in the absence of strong environmental movements and "green" political parties, the enforcement of these regulations is extremely lax.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)

Promoting IPM would be one way of reducing chemical pesticide use. At present, 20 years or more after the introduction of the concept in the United States, there is still no universally accepted definition of IPM. Some see IPM as part of a broad-based approach that leads to a "chemical-free" agriculture, while others see it as a system that involves the most efficient use of chemical pesticides. All agree though that IPM calls for a much greater reliance on nonchemical approaches to pest management.

Given the current reliance on chemical pesticides, along with the uncertainties about many nonchemical approaches, it is unlikely that there will be pesticide-free agriculture over the next several decades. Rather, it is highly probable that the forms of IPM that will be encouraged will include a greater reliance on biological approaches and the judicious use of some chemical pesticides. Greater attention will be paid to applying the right quantities of pesticides at the appropriate times and safeguarding the natural enemies of pests. At the same time, IPM will also incorporate the use of crop rotations and pest-resistant varieties of crops.

Policies that support IPM will include removing the existing biases that encourage pesticide use (such as subsidizing pesticides), in addition, public sector research and development will have to focus on the most effective farming systems consistent with IPM. Above all, though, governments will have to commit themselves to promoting IPM, supporting the very substantial educational efforts required to persuade millions of producers to modify their approaches to pest management, developing appropriate methodologies, and teaching IPM's knowledge-intensive practices.

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Another important issue regarding pest management in the future centers on the role of biotechnology in crop production. The next 20 years will see a substantial increase in the use of genetically engineered plants. Some of these plants have been engineered so that the application of herbicides will destroy weeds but not the economic crop. Other genetically engineered plants have been designed to resist pests such as stem borers and nematodes without the need for pesticides. Others are expected to combine both herbicide resistance and insect resistance in one seed.

The overall effects on pesticide use remain to be seen. It is probable that the use of herbicides may expand while the use of certain insecticides may diminish. There are concerns, however, that the rapid diffusion of improved varieties may well lead to pest resistance, including the possible transfer of genetic qualities from modified plants to weeds, creating new generations of weeds resistant to herbicides. There are also concerns about the long-term effects of increased consumption of genetically altered materials on both humans and animals.

OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The new technologies have been developed in North America and Europe by the private sector. Developing countries will have a limited number of options if they wish to take advantage of any opportunities afforded by biotechnological research. One option is for the larger, more advanced countries to invest in domestic biotechnology research suited to national circumstances.

Another option would be to "leapfrog" the technological gap by arranging to share new technologies with the corporations that own the rights to these technologies. This would involve some form of partnership between either the public or private sector in developing countries and the patent owners in the developed countries. But technology and new-product transfers may well hinge on legal codes in developing countries that recognize the sanctity of patents and intellectual property rights in addition to the right to repatriate profits.

THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The private sector will be the driving force in research and development regarding innovative agricultural inputs in the years ahead. The social consequences of the use of industry products continue to be of concern when the production of socially acceptable products raises costs and lowers profits. Thus, an important issue ahead will be what role, if any, can or should governments and others play in encouraging transnational corporations to produce agricultural inputs that lessen harmful side effects without leading to a decline in output. Attaining this outcome might well involve moving against the trend toward reducing the role of the public sector by encouraging public-private partnerships for specific product development. Efforts can be made to encourage corporations to adopt significant responsibility to society at large. It may well be that industry itself can agree to develop and enforce an international code to govern the development and distribution of new products. Failing this, the governments of both developed and developing countries could establish and collectively enforce such a code.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers interested in effective crop protection have to balance the social benefits and costs of pesticide use, and to do this, better knowledge about pest losses is required. Options for improving pest management include the development of pesticides that are more benign than current products. IPM promises to be the most pragmatic approach. Governments not only need to support IPM but also regulate hazardous pesticide use. Genetically engineered crops offer great promise but need to be monitored. Developing countries will have to invest in their own technological capacities or enter into sharing arrangements with corporations. Finally, ways to encourage corporate responsibility will have to be addressed.