beneficial to farmers in the face of powerful trade interests (see 3.4.3).
     Partnerships and linkages between the pesticide indus­try and public agencies have also encouraged the opening of new markets for industry products. The French pesticide company, Rhône-Poulenc Agro, for example, joined a World Bank program in West and Central Africa in the late 1990s, in order to "break into the cocoa, coffee, rice and vegetable [pesticide] markets which account for around 40% of the crop protection market in [West Africa]" (Rhône-Poulenc, 1998).
     Social drivers include perceived inefficiencies in low external input farming as compared to Green Revolution agriculture. Changing food consumption preferences and patterns, with a shift towards more meat and grain in many regions, have led to increased production of specific crops such as wheat and rice. As newer generations of farmers lost much of traditional AKST in countries that embraced the Green Revolution, they naturally resorted to the Green Revolution technologies that surrounded them (Shiva, 1991; Rosset et al., 2000; Meir and Williamson, 2005).
     In China, the situation is slightly different. Self-suffi­ciency in food formed a central component of national pol­icy. The agricultural systems focused on the use of external inputs and mechanization of agriculture to increase yields (Xiaoyun et al., 1997). Agriculture was characterized by ex­tensive monoculture and use of HYVs, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and biotechnological products. The collectiviza­tion model of agricultural production was followed until the mid 1980s, after which the Household Production Respon­sibility System emerged (Xiaoyun et al., 1997; Wen, 2005), within which technological change has become the primary engine of agricultural growth.
     China relied heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesti­cides to achieve short term yield gains. Central planning of­fices compelled the planting of Green Revolution crops, thus increasing the demand for pesticides to control the associ­ated pest outbreaks (Xiaoyun et. al., 1997). Widespread loss of traditional AKST, including non-chemical approaches to pest management, occurred among peasant communities, who were required to adopt the collectivization model and expert advice of agricultural scientists (Hamburger, 2002).
     Since 1975, the value of pesticide imports into China has grown from US$76 million to $293 million in 1994 (Pretty, 1995). A more recent spur for the growth of the Chinese pesticide industry has been the growth of pesticide exports and collaboration with multinational pesticide com­panies since the opening up of the Chinese economy. Dur­ing this period, the Chinese Ministry of Chemical Industry signed cooperation agreements with Dupont, Ciba-Geigy, Bayer, BASF and Rhône-Poulenc and established joint ven­tures with Dupont, Ciba-Geigy, Zeneca and Agrevo to pro­duce herbicides and insecticides. The Chinese government has also supported the pesticide industry by subsidizing im­portation of raw materials (although this type of assistance is decreasing quickly), tax exemption, lower costs for raw materials allocated through the central planning mechanism and preferential electricity rates and bank loans (US Em­bassy Beijing, 1996).
     According to data from Nanshen Pesticide Company,

China produced 250,000 tonnes of pesticide active ingredi­ents in 1995, equivalent to 1.5 million tonnes of formulated product (PAN-UK, 1996). Data from 2000 indicate that China is the second largest producer in the world of agro-chemicals by volume, of which 35% is exported (Dinham, 2005). In 2004, China's pesticide industry experienced high production and growth in exports (China CCM, 2005). Do­mestic use of pesticides in Chinese agriculture has continued to grow and China has become one of the primary exporters of cheap pesticides to Asian markets.

3.4.3     Technology choice for sustainable agriculture: integrated pest management
As the Green Revolution model of agriculture began to break down in ESAP, with increasingly evident health and environmental impacts, farmers, scientists and governments began to look for alternatives, including Integrated Pest Management (IPM). IPM is generally understood to focus on maintaining pest populations at economically acceptable levels through a systems approach that can include cultural practices, soil, field and habitat management, use of resistant varieties, biological and sometimes chemical control strate­gies (Shennan et al., 2005). Organic farmers have taken IPM a step further and have eliminated synthetic pesticides from farming practices. This is also known as non-pesticide man­agement (NPM). Pest management among organic farmers can range from simple input substitution (e.g., use of biope-sticides) to more comprehensive ecological approaches.
     Advances in ecological understanding of pest popula­tion and community dynamics in rice fuelled the develop­ment of a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to pest management (Kenmore et al., 1984; Settle et al., 1996). FAO's paradigm-shifting work in Asia in the late 1980s pro­vided (1) the scientific demonstration that pesticide-induced pest outbreaks were, at times, responsible for crop failures in rice; (2) the ecological evidence that removing pesticides would restore yields and system stability; and (3) the policy insight that a number of directives (e.g., ban on pesticides, removal of pesticide subsidies and national support for IPM) could transform the situation.
     Participatory field-based educational processes in pest management replaced conventional "transfer of technol­ogy" methods (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998). IPM pro­grams that utilize non-formal education methodologies and build on—rather than replace—farmers' traditional knowl­edge, have longer lasting success in farmers' adoption of and innovation in AKST, than training methods that disseminate fixed instructions for input use and pest control (Mangan andMangan, 1998).
     The IPM Farmer Field School (FFS) methodology pio­neered in Southeast Asia typified this knowledge process and was  subsequently  adapted  by governments, NGOs and farmers' associations. As such, IPM has evolved from a classical and technological insect management approach towards one in which the focus is on education and social change, whereby farmers develop the scientific research skills to test hypotheses and manage pest populations (Mat-teson, et al., 1994; Ooi, 1998). This, of course, is expensive; but it builds the knowledge of the farmers, which is the base of improvements in production.