Phasing out HHPs means phasing in safer alternatives This section covers some practical, policy and farmer support considerations for people interested in replacing specific HHPs with alternative methods for managing the pest, disease or weeds targeted by the relevant pesticide.
using a less toxic chemical or by a single nonchemical method. Switching to reliance on a single chemical substitute runs the same risk of the pest developing resistance (whitefly, for example, are notorious for their speed of resistance development), while a single non-chemical method may not be able to deliver as much control alone as the former HHP and farmers may be disappointed with the results.
The first step, whether at policy level or by a cropping sector, food production company or farmer association, is to identify which HHPs are being used, in which crops and against which particular pest organism. It makes little sense to try and find generic alternatives to, for example, the HHP fungicide carbendazim in Costa Rica. The starting point needs to be pestand crop-specific, for example, alternatives to carbendazim use in coffee groves to control coffee rust disease.
Simple substitutions with readily available alternative products can certainly be a quick and immediate first step, however, to be sustainable in the longer term, additional methods may be needed. Effective and long-lasting control strategies often combine a range of preventative and direct intervention methods – this is the essence of Integrated Pest Management.
Successful phase out integrates different methods for the target pest
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach that makes use of biological principles and ecological science, rather than the pesticide-dominant strategies which many farmers currently rely on. IPM covers not just insect pests, but also crop diseases, weeds and vertebrate pests (birds, rodents) where these cause problems. It is about managing these organisms to prevent them reaching levels where they cause economic damage, not trying to eliminate them. More information on IPM principles and practices can be found under Useful Resources.
When planning to replace or phase out a specific HHP, it is important not to assume that use of a particular HHP (for example, carbosulfan use to control whitefly in tomato), can always be simply substituted by either
EXAMPLE: Integrating several methods to achieve effective pest control The case study on managing coffee berry borer without endosulfan (see section 3.1) highlights how all the farmers studied were using at least two IPM methods: in Colombia, these were intensified cultural controls (field hygiene); regular field monitoring; fortnightly berry picking; and some farmers applied biopesticides. In Central America, farmers undertook pre-harvest field sanitation of bored berries; postharvest removal of breeding sites; and employed trapping techniques or biopesticides.
Effective IPM strategies combine a range of different methods or tactics: a) Methods that prevent the build-up of damaging levels of pests, weeds or diseases b) Methods that encourage natural pest control processes c) Direct interventions when tactics under a) and b) fail to deliver adequate control Table 1 describes successful alternatives for whitefly control in tomato. 6