|
A movement conceived by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, funded first by the European Union and now by the Pakistani government, gives farmers in the cotton-growing belt of the Indus valley the skills and confidence to curb the indiscriminate use of pesticides, whilst also reducing poverty
It's hard to imagine cotton farmers abandoning their traditional dependence on pesticides in favour of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach. But, a Food and Agriculture Organisation-European Union (FAO-EU) joint project has managed to do just that -- get thousands of Pakistani farmers to switch over in less than 10 years. The Pakistan government too has come on board an initiative that will train 167,000 farmers to employ pesticide-free methods that not only protect their crops but also their health. Yield increases and less impoverishment are added benefits. It all began with a challenge to conventional thinking in Pakistan -- where there are over 300 pesticide manufacturers -- that pesticides are a routine and irreplaceable agricultural input. A group of government technical experts and officials working in the capital city's research institutes and ministries in the 1990s became alarmed at the effect of excessive pesticide use on the environment, the health of farm families and food safety. "I insisted on massive advocacy first -- bring forward the scientific evidence on pesticide residues," says Dr Iftikar Ahmad, a plant pathologist and Head of the National Integrated Pest Management Programme. "We hired consultants to discover the truth on all issues, and wherever we went we built the case for changing the regulatory framework on pesticides." Dr Ahmad also believed that a movement to reduce indiscriminate pesticide use needed a solid institutional foundation. "I kept delaying the start of the FAO-EU project because we didn't have the capacity to handle it," he recalls. "I said we have to establish a national programme, otherwise it won't last." And so, Muhammad Younis, 27, a small-scale cotton farmer learned field ecology at a farmer field school, a method pioneered by the FAO and first introduced in Pakistan to train cotton farmers in IPM. The FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia, worth US$ 12.4 million, promoted this approach to pest management between 1999 and 2004, in Bangladesh, China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and Pakistan. At farmer field schools, farmers and facilitators spend one morning a week during the cropping season in a typical cotton field, observing insect behaviour and plant growth rates. They learn that beneficial insects often devour pests, and when this happens, pesticides are not required. Farmers, even illiterate ones, gain confidence and begin relying on their own judgement, even in the face of intense pressure from government agents and pesticide sellers to spray frequently and without reference to field ecology. "Before, we used to follow what the neighbours did while spraying pesticide," says Younis. "Last year, I used six to seven applications. This year, after observing my field, I used commercial pesticides only three times and bio-pesticides like neem and aloe vera twice. The crop looks as good as it did last year, and I've saved money on the pesticide." The success of the farmer field school method is based on allowing farmers to learn by observing and debating among themselves, with minimum facilitation. This way, they build the necessary skills and confidence to make their own decisions, which, often, run contrary to prevailing thinking. The old top-down methodology of lecturing farmers might seem easier, but it doesn't work as well in the long run. According to Dr Ahmad, farmers now are using less pesticide: "Our national data shows a dramatic decline in pesticide use in Pakistan. Farmers are making more profit, and a government study shows a 10% increase in cotton production thanks to IPM." Additional benefits include lower exposure to hazardous insecticides, especially for women who pick most of the cotton by hand. The FAO-EU project supported local women physicians to monitor blood samples from women picking cotton; without IPM, their blood enzyme levels were dangerously low for more than a month after field work. With IPM this did not occur. Younis tells a story that is all too common in rural Pakistan: "Two years ago, my brother was applying pesticide when he fainted and started vomiting. We took him to the doctor who said it was pesticide poisoning and that he should no longer do the spraying. He still can't handle pesticides." "Quality is the big issue," says Dr Ahmad about the concerns of building on the success of the farmer field schools. "The momentum is there, but as the movement grows some people who are running field schools are starting to produce manuals. We never had a manual; it stifles experimentation." "One of the cornerstones of the farmer field school approach is innovation. You have to present choices to farmers and listen to what they want. Some newcomers would rather tell them what to do," he adds. Since 2004, the Pakistan government has committed US$ 7.7 million in public funds to integrate IPM into public policy, university curricula, provincial extension services and research and development. Projects at both the national and provincial level are well on their way to using farmer field schools to train 167,000 farmers in IPM over five years. Since agriculture in Pakistan is mainly a provincial responsibility, the FAO-EU project took care to include key provincial officials in the workshops and field training. "They convinced us it is a better approach," says Asif Khan, Provincial Director of a large IPM pilot project in the Punjab, Pakistan's agricultural heartland. "I predict IPM will be accepted in the whole of Punjab. I am also confident farmer field schools will become our new extension method, since many feel the old approach is no longer efficient." Champions and allies were crucial. Besides international support from the UN system, the Asian Development Bank, the European Union, European aid agencies and non-governmental organisations, the IPM movement in Pakistan is backed by key government ministers. "The EU delegation showed keen interest and helped us frame our application for funding. And the FAO representative, if a file stopped moving through a ministry, would phone on our behalf to get it acted upon," says Dr Ahmad. "Another important element is to develop farmers and their organisations as catalysts before the project closes so that there is a likelihood of farmers acting as a pressure group for the continuation of this kind of programme," he adds. Today, many 'graduates' of the project are advocates of IPM and of using farmer field schools as the extension method of choice -- both for passing on knowledge and for empowering farmers to be confident about their crop management choices. -- Lisa Batiwalla InfoChange News and Features, April 2007
|
