Fall 1994 (v6n4)
by Monica Moore, Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center
In 1992, the Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center (PANNA) began considering how its study of national pesticide use reduction (PUR) plans in several European countries could contribute to the ongoing transition to more sustainable agricultural practices in California. At the time, pesticide use reduction as an explicit policy goal was not widely discussed in the state. PANNA recognized that the historic lack of an overall state pest management policy and consistent regulatory framework created obstacles to investments in new, more ecologically and economically sound farm technologies and enterprises. Experiences in a number of European countries suggested that a comprehensive pesticide use reduction plan would help address many of these uncertainties. This article summarizes the activities of PANNA's California Pesticide Use Reduction Project to date.
State Pesticide Use Reduction Plan
In 1993, with a grant from
the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program (UC SAREP), PANNA undertook a consultative process to develop
an outline for a preliminary pesticide use reduction plan for the state
of California. To begin the project, investigators identified persons
knowledgeable about aspects of pesticide use reduction potential in California.
Forty-six project cooperators agreed to participate in a process to assess
the utility and optimal design of a state PUR plan. Cooperators were selected
to provide input from sectors likely to be affected by the adoption of
pesticide use reduction policies, including farmers (organic, transitional
and conventional growers), farmworkers and farmworker advocates, regulatory
and other government agency officials, health workers, pest control advisors,
pest control operators, extension workers, and citizen group representatives.
A summary of the European
PUR plans was produced and circulated to cooperators, who were asked to
provide written feedback on the appropriateness of specific policy tools
in a California context; relevant policies they noted as absent from European
plans; and PUR-related policies that were already in place in California.
These comments were gathered into a questionnaire format and distributed
to cooperators to obtain more specific commentary on policy proposals
of fellow cooperators and adapted from various European plans.
A draft pesticide use reduction
program for the state of California was developed directly from cooperator
responses to the questionnaire. Policies receiving a plurality or a majority
of positive responses were included in the draft plan. This draft plan
was sent to cooperators, with a complete compilation of responses to the
questionnaire. Next, a series of cooperator meetings in Sacramento, Merced,
and San Francisco were convened to discuss and solicit in-person comments
on the draft plan. The meetings were structured to allow the groups to
focus on what cooperators identified as the most problematic aspects of
the draft plan, as well as policies considered most promising for achieving
real reductions in pesticide use in California. Resulting discussions
identified a number of components that seemed fundamental to a successful
state pesticide use reduction policy. PANNA also found that most project
cooperators were in agreement on the feasibility of introducing the following
policies in the California context.
Key Policy Components
- Establish a numerical use reduction goal that is voluntary and ambitious. PANNA proposes a target of at least a 50% reduction of pesticide use in the state by the year 2000, with 1992 set as the base year against which to measure reduction.
- Establish specific reduction strategies by sector. This process must include the participation of affected communities and interested parties, including farmers, environmentalists, farmworkers, consumer organizations, structural pest control operators, health workers, pest control advisors and extension workers
- Phase out high-hazard pesticides according to specific criteria based on impacts to human health and the environment.
- Increase funding for alternative agriculture research and extension, specifically through competitive grants programs. Priority should be placed on farmer-identified research problems, and emphasize on-farm, systems research. The role of the extension service should be clearly defined to emphasize the provision of technical assistance regarding alternative production methods.
- Develop a program of financial incentives for growers in transition to alternative agricultural practices.
- Develop a pesticide fee-based mechanism for funding both research and extension on alternatives and financial incentive programs. An additional fee should be levied on high-hazard pesticides to discourage use and encourage phase-out.
These and other project findings
were written up and circulated to cooperators, as well as a broader list
of policy makers, agricultural and farmers organizations, extension agents,
regulatory officials and non-profit organizations.
Financial Incentives and Funding Mechanisms
In 1994, UC SAREP provided
additional funding for follow-up research, development and discussion
of specific policy options in two PUR related areas: financial incentives
that encourage transition to alternative pest management practices, and
funding mechanisms for the implementation of a state pesticide use reduction
strategy. A draft document is now being finalized that examines the potential
of a variety of financial incentives to promote adoption of alternative
pest management, and how specific incentives might be structured with
respect to three crop production systems (cotton, strawberries, and oranges).
Crop budget data and direct interviews with farmers, farm advisors and
independent pest control advisors were used to identify and develop the
incentives studied. The document also examines possible fee and tax structures
as a means to recover basic pesticide regulatory costs, social and environmental
damages of pesticide use, farm-based transition needs, and expanded research
and extension services promoting alternatives to pesticides.
The incentives and funding
mechanisms discussion paper will be sent to an expanded list of cooperators
for written comment. From these responses, a set of policy recommendations
will be developed and recirculated. Meetings with project cooperators
are scheduled in September (in the Southern San Joaquin Valley) and November
(in the Northern San Joaquin Valley). Following an analysis of written
feedback and responses obtained from these consultations, a set of policy
recommendations will be prepared, with a record of cooperator concerns
not resolved by the final recommendations. Finally, the revised set of
policy options and discussion paper will be published and circulated among
the group participants, policy makers and other interested people.
For more information,
project publications, or to offer comments on the 1994 Pesticide Use Reduction
Incentives and Funding Mechanisms discussion document, contact. Monica
Moore or Angus Wright (principle investigators)or Doreen Stabinsky (project
staff) at Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center, 116
New Montgomery St. Room 810, San Francisco, CA 94105, Tel: (415) 541-9140
Fax:(415)541-9253 Email: panna@igc.apc.org. Related project publications:
Pesticide Use Reduction
Policies in Europe. Pesticide Action Network North America Regional Center.
March 1993.
Pesticide Use Reduction
in the State of California: A Synthesis Report. Pesticide Action Network
North America Regional Center. August 1993. A summary of 1993 project
results also appeared in Volume 3, Number 4 of Global Pesticide
Campaigner, PANNA's quarterly Journal.
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]