Abstract

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides an illustration of how crop protection has (or has not) evolved over the past six decades. Throughout this period, IPM has endeavored to promote sustainable forms of agriculture, pursued sharp reductions in synthetic pesticide use, and thereby resolved myriad socio-economic, environmental, and human health challenges. Global pesticide use has, however, largely continued unabated, with negative implications for farmer livelihoods, biodiversity conservation, and the human right to food. In this review, we examine how IPM has developed over time and assess whether this concept remains suited to present-day challenges. We believe that despite many good intentions, hard realities need to be faced. 1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii) inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology development and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts. 2) By diverting from the fundamental IPM principles, integration of practices has proceeded along serendipitous routes, proven ineffective, and yielded unacceptable outcomes. 3) We show that in the majority of cases, chemical control still remains the basis of plant health programs. 4) Furthermore, IPM research is often lagging, tends to be misguided, and pays insufficient attention to ecology and to the ecological functioning of agroecosystems. 5) Since the 1960s, IPM rules have been twisted, its foundational concepts have degraded and its serious (farm-level) implementation has not advanced. To remedy this, we are proposing Agroecological Crop Protection as a concept that captures how agroecology can be optimally put to the service of crop protection. Agroecological Crop Protection constitutes an interdisciplinary scientific field that comprises an orderly strategy (and clear prioritization) of practices at the field, farm, and agricultural landscape level and a dimension of social and organizational ecology.

Highlights

  • 1) We identify the following major weaknesses: i) a multitude of IPM definitions that generate unnecessary confusion; ii) inconsistencies between IPM concepts, practice, and policies; iii) insufficient engagement of farmers in IPM technology development and frequent lack of basic understanding of its underlying ecological concepts

  • Some authors call into question the relevance of IPM in a sustainable agriculture world. These problems include i) modest reductions or increase in quantities of pesticides used, contrary to the aim of the past 70 years; ii) the swarm of definitions and interpretations of IPM, which mean we no longer know what we are referring to when we talk about IPM; iii) the gap that exists between IPM concepts and practices in the field; iv) the frequent lack of ecological sciences, they have been the focus for several decades

  • There are calls for sustainable agriculture, whether at a global level or in circular circuits (Byerlee et al 2009; LaCanne and Lundgren 2018); in these contexts, there is a legitimate place for crop protection strategies that respect the environment and that take into account the ecological functioning of agroecosystems

Read more

Summary

Sixty years of IPM

A quasi-infinite number of definitions and interpretations 3. Traditional practices and emerging IPM technologies 3.5. Cultural barriers and the decline of public interest science 4. Inconsistencies between concepts and practices in IPM

38 Page 2 of 35
Introduction
Conception and development of IPM
38 Page 4 of 35
A quasi-infinite number of definitions and interpretations
IPM roadblocks and adoption barriers
38 Page 6 of 35
User preferences and risk aversion
38 Page 8 of 35
Vested interests and corporate responsibility
Traditional practices and emerging IPM technologies
Hard and soft policy levers
Cultural barriers and the decline of public interest science
38 Page 10 of 35
Integration or juxtaposition of practices?
38 Page 12 of 35
The pervasiveness of chemical protection
The IPM nebula
38 Page 14 of 35
Gaps in research programs
38 Page 16 of 35
Gaps in scientific approaches
A move away from the roots of ecology towards chemicals
Calls for more ecology in crop protection
Origins and definition of ACP
38 Page 18 of 35
Case studies
Moving from IPM to ACP
38 Page 20 of 35
38 Page 22 of 35
Conclusion
38 Page 24 of 35
38 Page 26 of 35
38 Page 28 of 35
38 Page 30 of 35
Findings
38 Page 32 of 35

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.