106 | IAASTD Global Report

ments of their effects in actual use, particularly in small scale farming conditions in the tropics, have not been made.

     The multinational agrichemical industry has also launched "safe use" programs to train farmers in the use and handling of pesticides and to ensure that products are used in a manner consistent with national regulatory frameworks (Syngenta, 2003; CropLife, 2005b). The efficacy of these pesticide use training programs is disputed, with some sources reporting considerable success (Tobin, 1996; Grimaldi, 1998; Syngenta, 2006) and others finding no reduction in poisoning incidence among participating farmers (McConnell and Hruska, 1993; Murray, 1994; Kishi et al., 1995; Murray and Taylor, 2000). "Safe use" measures are often not affordable or feasible in tropical climates and under actual conditions of use in poor countries (Dinham, 1993, 2007; Cole et al., 2000; FAO, 2007). Even when pesticides are used according to label specifications, adverse health effects have been documented (Nurminene et al., 1995; Garry et al., 1996; Wargo, 1996; Schettler et al., 1996; Reeves et al., 2002). The industry's overall contribution to broader equitable and sustainable development goals, particularly in developing countries, has not as yet been clearly demonstrated. Overall assessment of trends and challenges in pest management

Despite the tightening national and international regulatory environment around synthetic pesticides and notwithstanding the documented success of ecological pest management in most crops and a fast-growing market for organic products, sales and use of synthetic pesticides is still growing, especially in developing countries. These trends continue to result in pesticide-induced pest outbreaks (Yudelman et al., 1998) and an unacceptably high level of unintentional pesticide poisonings under conditions of actual use, mostly but not solely in the developing world (Wesseling et al., 1993; Kishi, 2005, London et al., 2005). Public sector commitment to pesticide reduction efforts and investments in IPM and other ecological approaches has not been consistent over time (Cate and Hinkle, 1994). The prevalence of the use of synthetic pesticides today reflects their immediate results, path dependency at farm and institutional support levels, and the significant political and economic influence of agribusiness interests, trade associations and lobbying groups in the regulatory and policy arena (Ferrara, 1998; FAWG, 2001; Irwin and Rothstein, 2003; CAP/OMB Watch, 2004; Mattera, 2004; UCS, 2004; Dinham, 2005; Wesseling et al., 2005; Shulman, 2006; Hardell et al., 2007). This influence has sometimes downplayed research findings on harmful effects and weakened regulatory assessment of risks (Castleman and Lemen, 1998; Watterson, 2001; Hayes, 2004).

Scientific and technological progress has not been linear; successful pathways (e.g., in biocontrol) have gained and lost popularity according to the economic and political priorities of dominant institutional arrangements. Advances in ecological sciences (e.g., population, community, landscape ecology) have contributed to development of pest management options, but have been underutilized by most conventional extension systems. Genetically-engineered crops were expected by many to reduce the need for and therefore use


of synthetic insecticides. However, their impact on both insecticide and herbicide use has been mixed, in some cases leading to increased recourse to synthetic controls. Their cultivation is perceived by some scientists and critics as potentially introducing new environmental hazards (Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000; CEC, 2004; Donald, 2004; Snow et al., 2005), reducing efficacy of biocontrol measures (Obryki et al., 2002) or leading to adverse social impacts (de Grassi, 2003; Pengue, 2005; FOE, 2006) and health risks (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999; Prescott et al., 2005), constraining their adoption in sustainable development initiatives.

     The central technical issue facing pest management today is no longer yield maximization, but long-term stabilization and resilience in the face of unknown and changing stresses (Reganold et al., 2001). New directions in science and technology can strengthen IPM efforts if the latter have a strong foundation in basic biology (entomology, botany, plant pathology, taxonomy, ecology), economics and the social sciences (CGIAR TAC, 2000). Agroenvironmental partnerships among farmers, extension agents and researchers that balance social and environmental learning (Warner, 2006b; Stone, 2007) and strengthen ecologically-informed decision-making capacities (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998; Getz and Warner, 2006; Warner, 2006a; Mancini et al., 2007; van den Berg and Jiggins, 2007) offer robust possibilities for meeting technical, social and institutional challenges in sustainable pest management.

     Policy decisions in pest management knowledge, science and technology often have been implicitly or explicitly based upon perceptions of tradeoffs. The uneven distribution of gains and losses from these decisions reflect power asymmetries between competing actors (Krimsky, 1999; Kleinman and Vallas, 2001). They have fuelled social and political tensions; in some cases, these have contributed to the development of new institutional arrangements such as international treaties and conventions to manage pesticide problems. Dominant approaches to pest control have in many cases failed to ensure the now-recognized human right to a safe home and working environment (Fabra, 2002; Robinson, 2002; Reeves and Schafer, 2003). The evidence shows that if crop production is assessed solely by a simple economic metric, then other societal goals will not be properly valued. Informed decision-making in pest management requires integration of ecological and social equity metrics as well.

     The policy and investment choices regarding pest management have significant implications for how successfully societies will respond to major global challenges ahead (associated with, e.g., clean water, climate change, biodiversity, etc). Responses are varied, reflecting the complex and sometimes competing interests of diverse actors. UN agencies such as the FAO, national governments, public health professionals, labor groups, NGOs, development experts and some private firms are working to eliminate WHO Class I and phase out WHO Class II pesticides. Some pesticide manufacturers are developing new less toxic products and improved delivery systems, although many continue to sell and promote highly hazardous pesticides at the same time. Market leaders and innovators in the food industry are moving towards sourcing organic, fairly traded products. Governments, international commissions and initiatives such as UNCED