Summer 1994 (v6n3)
[Editor's Note: David E. Schlegel, regional co-coordinator of the federal USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program in the western U.S. and Plant pathologist and University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources administrator, wrote this commentary for Sustainable Agriculture. UC SAREP director Bill Liebhardt will return from sabbatic leave in July; his commentary will return in the fall.]
In April I attended the second national IPM symposium/workshop in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was very successful in every sense. The conference was at tended by about 700 Agricultural Experiment Station, Cooperative Extension and Agricultural Research Service scientists as well as food processing company representatives, private agricultural consultants and others from the general public. The audience represented the cross-section of people interested in the implications of integrated pest management for agriculture.
The turnout was 30 percent greater than the first symposium, but more importantly, the tone and content of many of the discussions and posters were remarkably similar to what would be expected at a national sustainable agriculture symposium. Indeed, on numerous occasions reference was made to IPM strategies that are environmentally, economically and socially acceptable.
More than 200 posters were presented, which were spectacularly informative. Technical application was a key component of the presentations. As I walked through the aisles of displays, I could not help but notice that many, if not most, exemplified more systems-oriented and interdisciplinary approaches, in sharp contrast to IPM activities reported during the first symposium. I also saw posters displaying projects funded by the federal sustainable agriculture initiative, USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program, which was authorized by Congress in the 1990 Farm Bill.
There is no question in my mind that IPM and sustainable agriculture need to be much more closely linked. This has been one of my goals since the beginning of the sustainable movement, but it is a slow process. At the federal and regional levels, the USDA SARE program has worked from the premise that pest management is a vital part of whole farm systems and must be addressed in research and education proposals. It has been clear to me for a very long time that these connections should exceed simple awareness; there needs to be joint funding for both pursuits, where appropriate. We need to devise ways to formally link these programs at the federal level, as well as regionally and locally, when appropriate. Integrated pest management, however, should not be pulled entirely under the "sustainable agriculture umbrella" because IPM has activities singular to its mission.
Vice President Gore has stated
that "75 percent of the agricultural land in the U.S. will be under
IPM by the year 2000." The USDA has taken this proclamation very
seriously and has charged its agencies (13 in all) to come up with a plan
that provides for coordination of the various programs. In my view this
plan must include a formal relationship with the federal USDA SARE program,
and this should set an example for similar cooperation between state and
educational programs throughout the nation. I am optimistic about the
funding picture for both sustainable agriculture and integrated pest management,
but it will be more promising if we can devise a realistic and functional
plan for coordination and joint funding.-David E. Schlegel, regional
coordinator, USDA Western SARE, University of California Division
of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]