You say you want a resolution…
Pesticides in Race Paddy
Side meeting report from Ramsar COP, Bucharest Romania
10 July, 2012
Image: Guilin, Guangxi, China. CC Kyle Taylor on Flickr
Event title: Responsible management of wetland agro-ecosystems for
food security and biodiversity conservation: an urgent global call to
reduce pesticide-related risks in rice paddy production systems.
Lead organizations: Wetlands International & FAO
Chaired by: Jane Madgwick, Wetlands International; Matthew McCartney,
IWMI
Draft resolution 15 at this year’s COP promotes the regulation of pesticide
use in rice paddy. This session makes the case that pesticides not only
damage biodiversity in race paddy, but are also increasing the problems
of rice damage from common pests.
Rice paddy is one of the world’s most important agricultural systems,
supporting over 2 billion people. As the global population grows,
intensification will be needed, but can this be done without compromising
the valuable ecosystem services that rice paddy provides. Pest control is
now known to be one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss. Huge
amounts of chemical pesticide are applied to rice crops every year. It is
big business for the chemical companies, but new research is showing
that its use may be counter-productive.
Speaking via a video clip, Sarojeni Rengam, executive director of
Pesticide Action Network-Asia Pacific said pesticides were creating a
“human tragedy with irreversible impacts”. They were destroying protein
sources such as frogs and fish and having long term effects on health.
But change is happening: there are now 62,000 non-chemical farmers in
Cambodia. More action to promote low-chemcial approaches to farming
were needed, she added.
Helping the hoppers?
Jan Ketelaar of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations said that improved food safety and trade facilitation are the main
drivers of reduced pesticide use. But there are many risks facing farmers.
As people and plants become increasingly mobile, he said, so pests may
move.
For rice one of the most serious pests is the Brown Plant Hopper (BPH)
and there is mounting evidence that increased pesticide use is making the
situation worse. It is directly affecting rice paddy biodiversity, resulting in
fewer predators for plant hoppers and affecting other valuable ecosystem
services. For instance aquatic biodiversity is a hugely important source of
protein for Cambodians accounting for some 70% of consumption.
What can be done? FAO’s approach is twofold: to improve regulatory
control and codes of conduct for pesticides; and farmer education to
increase biological control and reduce pesticide use.
Integrated pest management (IPM) promotes pesticide use as a last
resort. Ketelaar says FAO is convinced that tropical rice production
requires no pesticides at all.
The Philippines is leading the way in this regard, and success has been
remarkable. Spray frequency is down by 70%, whilst corresponding rice
yield is up 12% and variability in annual yield down by 15%. National
production grew by 60% from 1994 to 2007. FAO’s new publication Save
& Grow outlines the benefits of this new approach.
Pesticides are the problem
Finbarr Horgan of the International Rice Research Institute outlined the
massive increase in pesticide use since the 1980s. Yet at the same time
brown plant hopper outbreaks have increased. The insects, which suck
the sap of plants, are highly mobile and capable of travelling from
Vietnam to Japan in 2 days.
When hopper outbreaks occur the animals swarm in their billions affecting
all kinds of economic activity. The damage to rice crops can be
substantial. The swarming is so intense that in some areas locals change
to low energy bulbs during harvest time to reduce the number of hoppers
converging around domestic lights.
But there is a paradox, says Horgan. Countries that have imported more
pesticides over recent years, have had more hopper outbreaks. Data is
clearly showing that increased pesticide use is making the problem worse.
Pesticides are disrupting the natural ecosystems that keep the hoppers in
check.
A new approach?
Convincing framers to move away from pesticides will be a challenge. The
marketing of pesticide companies is well funded and pervasive. Horgan
reported that in farmer meetings that IRRI has been involved with it was
not uncommon for more than half of all farmers attending to be sporting
caps or t-shirts handed out by chemic al companies. New products are
sold as part of prophylactic scheduling convincing farmers that they need
different chemicals for each part of the crops’ life cycle. Marketing
incentives are slick and well-targeted. I Indonesia one company offers a
prize draw with a trip to the Haj for the winner.
IRRI and FAO research is now clearly showing that pesticide use is
actively encouraging BPH attacks, increasing incidences of resurgence.
And this seems to hold true for other pests such as stem borers.
New approaches are needed and progress is encouraging. Planting rice
paddy bunds with flowers for instance, increases local biodiversity and
encourages pest predators.
“The situation is critical,” stated Horgan. Farmer education is vital but
high level regulation will also be needed because pests from farms using
pesticide will directly affect adjacent plots even if they are using more
ecosystem friendly IPM approaches. What is more chemical companies
are now “hijacking” IPM, claiming that their products are an important
element in this type of system.
The situation is further complicated by competing claims about genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). GMO strains are often marketed as requiring
less pesticides than conventional crops, but are also sold by the same
companies which may encourage tie-ins of GMO strains and chemicals.
The resolution will be voted on later this week.