• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Devinder Sharma

Ecologists have concluded that using insecticides on rice is a waste of the farmers' time and money.

IT took three decades for the International Rice Research Institute to realise that pesticides — used indiscriminately during the Green Revolution — are unnecessary. But by then they had already polluted the environment, poisoned the fertile soils and contaminated the groundwater.

Not far from where the IRRI is located in the Philippines, rice farmers in Central Luzon province had become increasingly disillusioned with pesticides. From a peak in the mid-1980s, pesticide use is now at an all-time low.

Contrary to what the agricultural scientists and the chemical industry maintained all these years, the decline in insecticide use has been accompanied by an increase in productivity. From an average of 2.75 tonnes per hectare, productivity rose to 3.25 tonnes in 2002. It also helped the farmers save up to 1,000 pesos a hectare.

Equally significant is the courage with which the IRRI Director General, Dr Ronald Cantrell, accepted the facts. "It shows that the mistakes of the Green Revolution — where too much emphasis was sometimes put on the use of chemicals for pest control — have clearly been recognised and corrected," he said.

"Because of their toxicity, insecticides should be used by farmers as a last resort, and we are very pleased to see that farmers have realised this for many years, especially here in the Philippines." His colleagues at the IRRI are equally critical of pesticide use. Mr Gary John, an ecologist, said, "The simple fact is that in the rest of Asia most insecticide use on rice is a waste of the farmers' time and money."

The Philippines is not the only country where farmers proved the scientists wrong. In Vietnam, almost two million rice growers in the Mekong Delta were persuaded to reduce the use of harmful, and often unnecessary, farm chemicals. The campaign — a joint effort by a team of Philippine and Vietnamese scientists — has sharply reduced pesticide misuse. The collaborative effort received the $25,000 Saint Andrews' Environmental Prize for 2002. The prize money is now being used to extend the campaign to another million rice farmers in the Red River Delta. "What we hope to learn next is why the farmers of Central Luzon learned these lessons more quickly than those elsewhere," said Mr John.

First launched in 1994 in the Mekong Delta, the research and the subsequent campaign marked a milestone in rice production for two reasons. The IRRI said that it first clearly identified the damage caused by insecticide overuse — which kills friendly insects and, therefore, helping the pests they would otherwise help control — and also developed a new way to communicate with the farmers.

The basic premise of integrated pest management (IPM) is that no single method can be successful over a long period. Therefore, a mixture of biological, physical and chemical methods must be integrated to sustain a pest-management system. The ultimate goal of the IPM is sustainable agricultural systems with minimal or no pesticide use, said an IRRI release. One wonders when this newfound wisdom be applied to cotton which consumes more than 50 per cent of the total pesticides used.

Also, isn't it a fact that the agricultural scientists were misleading the farmers all these years? Isn't it a fact that because of the over-emphasis on the use of chemicals to control pests, more problems were created than those addressed? Isn't it a fact that besides polluting the environment, insecticides have changed the pest profile, and turned many minor insects into major pests? Does it not mean that if scientists had learnt from farmers they could have found simple time-tested technologies that are safe?

In Tamil Nadu, more than 8,000 farmers in some 10 districts have been using herbal pest repellents, even though no agricultural scientist will ever accept their efficacy and utility. Though the scientists are promoting the expensive and unwanted pesticides, the farmers are looking for safe alternatives.

A Karikali-based group in Tamil Nadu, Vazhviyal Multiversity, which calls itself a university with multifarious ecological roles, has produced an herbal pest repellent from knowledge derived from Vriksha Ayurveda. The repellent is prepared from the leaves of five plant species not eaten by cattle. These can vary from place to place, but ideally the repellent will have neem, tulsi, and datura. The leaves are collected, cut into pieces and pounded.

The biomass — which is put in an earthen pot filled with cow urine — is fermented by keeping it in a compost pit for 10 days. The fermented solution is filtered with a cotton cloth, and water is added. This solution can be used as an herbal spray. The only catch is that it should be used before the insects appear. Such simple techniques, unfortunately, do not find any mention in the agriculture textbooks and curriculum. The reason is simple: There is no industry behind it.

With the advent of modern science the collective wisdom of generations of farmers was lost. The chemical industry cleverly used agricultural scientists as promoters. By the time the scientists realised their folly the damage had been done.

The chemical industry, meanwhile, moved on to life sciences. The same industry now decries pesticides and sings virtues for the new "promising technology" — genetic engineering. Pesticides are now being replaced with genetically modified crops. The tragedy is that agricultural scientists are being once again used as promoters of a technology whose negative impact has not been fully studied.

Once again, agricultural scientists appear more than keen to take the farming community on the wrong path. And as with pesticides, it may be decades before the disastrous implications of the technology become known. But then, who is responsible for and should be directed to pay for the clean-up operations to restore the sustainability of the lands and environment?

Why shouldn't the "polluter pays" principle be applied to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) which governs the 16 international agricultural research centres, and of course, the multi-billion dollar chemical industry to pay for the environmental damages? It is time that agricultural science is made accountable.

The CGIAR should be directed to pay for the environmental destruction its technologies have wrought. Modern science cannot be allowed to cause irreparable damage to in the name of experimentation. A beginning has to be made, the sooner the better.

(The author is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Channelled view

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line