POLICY STATEMENT

Drafted by Resource People at the

Programme Advisory Committee Meeting (PAC), July 1999

During the closing session of the PAC Meeting on 18^th July 1999, after a full day of workshops, the participants agreed that a group of resource people should prepare a statement on issues which summarised the workshop outcomes.  The statement, prepared by Sarojeni Rengam, Michel Pimbert and Niels Roling, is as follows:

The PAC meeting comprised 65 men and women intensively involved in Community Integrated Pest Management in Asia. The meeting overlapped with the first farmer organised national congress of more than 400 representatives of Indonesia’s  Farmer IPM Trainers.  The Farmer Trainers attending the IPM Farmers’ Congress formulated their needs, organised their network, consolidated their ideas about farmer R&D, and held extended consultations with the Sultan of Yogyakarta and the Minister of Agriculture in a spirit of self-confidence and assertiveness.  The PAC meeting was also enriched by the presence of 26 ‘A-Team’ members, master IPM Trainers from five countries that are conducting Community IPM activities.

Community IPM has evolved beyond bugs, rice and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) facilitated by government trainers, to include:

1. Rat and disease control, soil fertility, seeds and other technical and development issues;

2. Other crops, such as vegetables, maize, and soy bean; and

3. FFS facilitated by Farmer IPM Trainers, as well as more permanent forms of farmer organisation, such as associations at village, sub-district and district level, technical and planning meetings, and farmer-led action research facilities.

Community IPM in Asia is relevant for, and vulnerable to, global developments.  Vulnerabilities include:

1. The rise of FFS as the dominant model for Non-Formal Education of farmers (replacing T&V) has resulted in a situation where the FFS approach is vulnerable to  misapplication by those who misunderstand how it should be adapted in diverse circumstances.

2. The exposure of small farmers and national food production to the import of cheap food;

3. The increasing pressures placed on farmers to use and hence become dependent upon external inputs, such as pesticides (including bio-pesticides), fertilisers, EM, genetically modified seeds, and genetic material for which intellectual property rights have been privatised;

4. The focus of international banks, the CGIAR, companies, governments and others on production, without concern for farmer incomes and the viability of rural communities, while the benefits are unclear. Although increased production leads to lower farm gate prices and farmer incomes, these are not translated, or only with a considerable lag, into lower food prices for consumers. The emergent space is captured by processors, distributors, input providers, and other companies and commercialised government agencies;

5. An increasingly market-driven agriculture which forces farmers to ignore ecological signals;

6. The feminisation of small-scale agriculture and poverty, which makes women especially vulnerable to the global developments sketched above.

PAC meeting participants agreed that Community IPM in Asia offers answers to these global issues that might also be relevant for industrial countries. The participants also agreed that the further success and consolidation of Community IPM needs decisions at levels and in organisations that are beyond the control of Community IPM. This statement is, therefore, aimed at the FAO, the World Bank and IMF, WTO, CGIAR, donors, national governments, NGOs, and consumer organisations.

Four Issues

The PAC meeting raised the following four major concerns and concomitant recommendations:

a)   Concern: WTO’s Agreement On Agriculture (AOA) is about to be negotiated. The AOA will allow import of cheap agricultural products from industrial countries with decades of advancements, in terms of agricultural productivity based on subsidised research, into countries with millions of small farmers who have no alternative employment. Hence, this AOA is likely to lead to continued and deepened rural poverty while undermining national food security. Some countries have negotiated exemptions, but most populous developing countries have not.

Recommendation: A major review of the impact of AOA on farmers, rural communities, urban consumers, and ecosystems. Develop policy alternatives and support advocacy on agreed positions.

b)   Concern: The use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in agriculture can sometimes reduce pesticide use, however its effects on eco-systems and public health are as yet unknown. Furthermore, GMOs are not compatible with the principles of IPM. Instead of emphasising expert farmers managing their agro-ecosystems, GMOs make farmers dependent on international companies and/or profit-driven public agencies. 

Recommendation: GMOs should not be allowed to become normal ingredients of farming. PAC urges national governments to ban the use of GMOs in agriculture and introduce stricter controls on biotechnological research.

c)   Concern: Pesticide policies of most governments, international banks, international research centres and others still reflect a belief that pesticides are an indispensable ingredient in agricultural development. Pesticide companies continue to aggressively market their products and are given room to do so under the prevailing ideology of free trade. Pesticide sales are increasing in most Asian countries. As agricultural development in countries such as Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands has shown, a pesticide-based agriculture is eventually unsustainable both ecologically and politically.

Recommendation: Direct and indirect subsidies that support the purchase and use of pesticides should be removed. Pesticides should not be part of international loans or credit packages for farmers. Before registering pesticides, their impact on natural enemies should be carefully reviewed. All IPM incompatible pesticides should be restricted or banned.

d)   Concern: Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). In 1999, the TRIPs Agreement is scheduled to be reviewed by the WTO member states as far as the obligation to provide intellectual property rights (IPRs) on seeds is concerned. Compulsory uniform standards for IPRs (patents and variety protection) will undermine farmers rights to save and re-use seeds. TRIPs will also offer strong market incentives for the spread of GMOs protected by patent-like legislation. 

Recommendation: PAC should provide resources for advocacy and urge member country governments to use the 1999 Review to renegotiate the TRIPs Agreement in favour of people and national interests. This means removing all obligations to grant IPRs on seeds and honouring community rights.