SEPTEMBER 2020

Integrated Pest Management andNatural Farming Solutions
Increasing Agriculture’s Productivity and Resilience

The Rainforest Alliance is creating a more sustainable world
by using social and market forces to protect nature andimprove the lives of farmers and forest communities.

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION

3IPM AT THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE

4IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL CONTEXT AND
KNOWLEDGE

5

TRAINING AND SUPPORTIVE POLICIES FORSUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT

5THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE’S IPM
STRATEGY

5GLOBAL CONTEXT AND SHAREDRESPONSIBILITY—A CALL FOR ACTION

6CONCLUSION

7REFERENCES82

INTRODUCTION

For all these reasons, the assumption made by many farmers
that pesticide use leads to higher productivity and profitability is not so clear-cut. Research shows that pesticide use could
be cut by 40 percent without effects on productivity6. Generalizations in this regard are difficult, but there is a consensus
among researchers that increasing pesticide use does notnecessarily increase productivity and profitability.

Pests are a constant threat for farmers. They can reduce theyield or quality of a crop, or in the worst cases wipe it out altogether. For farmers who already struggle to achieve a sustainable livelihood, this can be devastating, which is why the
first reaction of most farmers worldwide is to use pesticides1
to eliminate pests, or even as a prevention method.

A practical and very often a cost-effective answer to reduce
the reliance on pesticides and its negative consequences is
integrated pest management (IPM).

It is estimated that every year between 20 and 40 percent
of global crop production is lost to pests2. Each year, plantdiseases cost the global economy around US$220 billion, andinsect pests around US$70 billion3.

IPM is an ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different management strategies andpractices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides. It is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) as “the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate
measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep pesticides and other interventions to levels
that are economically justified and reduce or minimize risks
to human health and the environment.”7

Consequently, the quantity of pesticides used worldwide
has risen 50-fold since 19504. Approximately 3.5 billion kg of
pesticides are applied globally each year5, with no significant decrease in crop losses recorded. Among these pesticides, many are classified as “highly hazardous”, and canpose serious human health problems in both the short andthe long term. Effects of pesticides on the environment arealso serious. Impacts include biodiversity loss, as well as soil
degradation and pollution. Certain pesticides can persist in
the environment for decades, and pose a threat to the entire
ecological system on which food production depends.

A farm in Waslala, Nicaragua supporting a wide variety of productive species which includes citrus, banana, mango, cacao,
coffee as well as laurel tree for timber and Inga for firewood. Such complex agro-ecosystems deliver services like pollination andnatural pest control.
3

IPM AT THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE

Our approach is based on harnessing the inherent strengths
within agro-ecosystems to bring pest populations down toacceptable levels, rather than trying to eradicate them. The
choice of control methods9 is made bearing in mind costs
and benefits, as well as ecological and social aspects. The
long-term conservation of the ecosystem and its services,and people’s well being, are the ultimate priorities.

Agriculture is one of the main factors causing environmental degradation, loss of natural habitats and biodiversity, soil
degradation such as erosion, and depletion and pollution ofnatural water resources. As a result, the Rainforest Allianceconsiders IPM to be a vital component of a sustainable or regenerative agricultural sector.

The Rainforest Alliance puts this into practice through an IPM
system where the first approach to controlling pests is basedon prevention, focusing on building a resilient crop and farmcapable of withstanding pest infestations, before pesticides
should be considered.

For the Rainforest Alliance, managing pests, diseases, andweeds is part of climate-smart and a holistic approach toecosystem management8, where we aim at a substantial
reduction of the use of pesticides by strengthening and balancing the functions of the agro-ecosystem. The Rainforest
Alliance believes that pesticide use can be decreased by implementing alternative practices based on risk assessments
and an intensified knowledge of the ecosystem—a holisticapproach. We aim to achieve a change in mindset that firstlooks at the environmental and social components of managing pests, and sees external inputs such as pesticides as alast resort (Figure 1).

Next come non-chemical control options such as culturalcontrol (e.g., crop sanitation or hand weeding), and physicalor biological control (e.g., natural enemies). Only when thesemethods have been exhausted should farmers consider selective use of low-toxicity chemical pesticides, with strictrisk-mitigation measures, and based on safe, controlled, andappropriate use to control specific pests in a specific situation.

Figure 1. A holistic approach that prioritizes the environmental and social components of pest management and sees external
inputs as a last resort.
(Source: adapted from Fig. 1 of Lewis et al., 1997.104

We believe that pesticide stewardship is largely the responsibility of the producers and distributors of pesticides, whoshould inform farmers on their safe use, and have systems
in place for collection of empty pesticide containers and disposal of old and obsolete active ingredients.

Concurrently with training in sustainable pest and pesticide
management, policies need to be developed to strengthen
in-country regulations for the use and distribution of pesticides, and to enhance the capacity to enforce these regulations. So far, the most common interventions have been not
to encourage IPM, but to limit, severely restrict, or ban the useof certain pesticides.

The Rainforest Alliance supports pesticide waste policies
that are based on the Extended Producer Responsibility approach11. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) has developed guidance on this policy
approach, and several governments have included it in theirwaste policies. It places on producers significant responsibility—financial and physical—for the treatment and disposal of
post-consumer products.

At national policy level, a combination of promoting safer
control alternatives and restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides is essential to reduce the negative impact ofpesticides on human and environmental health.

THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE’S IPM STRATEGY

In the absence of effective policies in a country, the Rainforest
Alliance monitors the collection of pesticide containers and ofold and obsolete active ingredients, and makes any observed
problems known to governments and pesticide companies
for them to work towards a solution.

The goal of the Rainforest Alliance’s IPM strategy is to guidefarms in developing robust plans to control pests naturally(with pesticides used as a last resort) and to improve ecosystem resilience. We are working to change our approachfrom generalized and prescriptive (top-down) to more context-specific and farmer-driven, supported by tailored training and other resources.

IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL CONTEXT AND KNOWLEDGE
IPM adoption is context-specific, as farmers have different
needs depending on their specific reality. IPM interventions
recommended to farmers often come across as top-down,
without assessing the farmer’s own context—such as labor
availability, economic resources, and literacy. Our aim is tounderstand local contexts and harness local knowledge, taking success stories from producers and the literature, validating those practices, and then scaling them up.

To make this transition, the Rainforest Alliance has designed
a strategy to gain a better understanding of what limits andfacilitates successful IPM adoption and implementation byfarmers; to know what successful IPM looks like; and to understand what baselines we can use to measure improvements.
This knowledge/understanding lies primarily with farmers.

In line with the holistic approach, we aim to identify the constraints to adopting IPM and to support farmers to overcome
them, by sharing knowledge about more sustainable pest
control and regenerative agriculture practices, and by providing alternatives to pest control in line with local realities,
rather than merely lists of prohibited pesticides.

1.

TRAINING AND SUPPORTIVE POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABLE
PEST MANAGEMENT

3.

Our IPM strategy has four main components.

2.

Offering comprehensive training to farmers on IPM and pesticide risk reduction is of utmost importance and urgency. The
success of IPM training, particularly via Farmer Field Schools12,
has been widely demonstrated. This participatory training
and extension method conveys the effectiveness, profitability
and environmental protection gains of adopting IPM.

4.

But soon after training ends, smallholder farmers tend toreturn to intensive use of highly hazardous pesticides. Many
farmers still consider IPM to be time-consuming and complex,
while cheap pesticides represent an insurance policy.
Some of the most important reasons for IPM “drop-out” in theglobal south include “weak adoption incentives” and “pesticide industry interference”13.

5

IPM knowledge bank: creating the necessary information and knowledge pool to make informed decisions
regarding IPM and pesticide use in order to support
farmers in their journey towards more regenerative agriculture and pest control.
Tailored IPM solutions: using the knowledge bank tocreate tailored IPM solutions in specific sectors and locations.
Training and capacity building: applying the Farmer Field School model14 to promote experimentation,demonstration, and exchange of experiences among
farmers, which will be key for IPM adoption.
Advocacy: lobbying and advocating for shared responsibility in IPM and pesticide use (see the following section
on shared responsibility).

GLOBAL CONTEXT AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY—A
CALL FOR ACTION
The global community spends millions of dollars a year onpests due to costly control measures and production losses.
The economic impact of pesticides in non-target species (including humans) has been estimated at approximately US$8billion annually in developing countries15. Effective pest management is not just the responsibility of producers, but is a
joint responsibility for all, including the food industry, companies, governments, and communities, as well as farmers.
Everyone in the food supply chain has a responsibility to contribute to the uptake of IPM and the reduction of pesticide use
by building their knowledge about pests, responding to pest
management issues and strategies, and undertaking thenecessary measures to prevent the introduction and spreadof pests, diseases, and weeds.

Pheromone traps to control coffee berry borer in Peru.

Pesticide producers are responsible for providing sound information to farmers on handling and applying pesticides
responsibly, for example by using pesticides only as a last resort, and preventing overuse. They also need to ensure thateverywhere their pesticides are sold, there is a proper system
in place for the collection of empty containers and old or obsolete active ingredients.
Companies in the food industry are responsible for promoting IPM implementation by supporting their upstream suppliers to design and distribute resources about GAP for producers, and by investing in industry-wide pest management
activities. They can also provide funding and human resources to support the delivery of IPM-related research to increase
the knowledge base, and to promote awareness-raising activities among stakeholders.
Traders that distribute pesticides to farmers could be involved in promoting and supporting the distribution only ofapproved pesticides, and in ensuring responsible use, including responsible final disposal of pesticide containers. Suchcompanies are well positioned to design and distribute resources about GAP. They should refrain from selling prohibited products, and eliminate manipulative pricing practices
and input loan systems that promote pesticide use.

Shade trees help to prevent pests and diseases on crops
by providing the right micro climate.

Retailers in the food industry can use their power and influence to lobby and advocate with governments and the pesticide industry to consider changes that promote responsible
production, manufacturing, and use. They could implementa credible monitoring procedure through direct engagementwith trade unions, labor rights groups, and environmental
NGOs to influence changes in the way pesticides are manufactured and exported to developing countries. They could
also provide funding and human resources to support thedelivery of IPM-related research to increase the knowledge
base and awareness-raising activities among stakeholders.
Retailers are also well placed to support supply chain companies in origin countries to design and distribute resources
about GAP to producers, and to ensure that the farmers’ costof production is reimbursed through a fair price paid to them.
Adequate product prices can substantially boost investment
in IPM.

Mechanical pest control: sticky traps on tea plantationin China.

6

Governments of producer (origin) countries could regulate
the import, availability, distribution, and use of pesticides nationally. They could also take on a broader role as communicators, educators, facilitators, coordinators, assessors, andprotectors of human lives and the environment. This involves
having the resources for communication and education
activities; working with industry and communities on surveillance, management, eradication, and control activities;
undertaking critical risk assessments and analyses; and implementing preventive measures and emergency response
activities.
On the other hand, governments in consuming countries
must prohibit the manufacture, not just the use, of highly hazardous pesticides (as defined by FAO)16; and must forbid theexport of locally banned pesticides to countries with weakerregulatory frameworks.

Ladybird beetle (coccinelid) predator.

Not-for-profit, research, and community organizations
have an important role in promoting the responsible use ofpesticides by providing funding, human resources, the delivery of IPM-related research, field programs, and communication and awareness-raising activities.

CONCLUSION—A CHANGE IN MINDSET IS NEEDEDTo achieve long-lasting and truly sustainable pest control
that benefits people and planet, and also increases profit, weneed to focus on improving agro-ecosystem resilience. Thisrequires a thorough understanding of the factors that contribute to resilience on the farm—good soil health, biodiversity
conservation, proper management of microclimatic conditions, and careful monitoring of pests and diseases.
The Rainforest Alliance’s IPM strategy involves deploying its
IPM knowledge bank to create context-specific solutions; promoting participatory IPM training via effective methods suchas Farmer Field Schools; and lobbying and advocating forshared responsibility in pesticide use. We believe that a soundunderstanding of local conditions and contexts, combinedwith solid IPM strategies, can result in a cleaner environmentand healthier people—as well as increased profit for farmers.
All actors in the food supply chain—producers, processors,pesticide distributors, extensionists and trainers, exportingand importing companies, food retailers, governments ofboth producing and consuming countries, research institutions, and not-for-profit and community organizations—havea shared responsibility to contribute to making resilient, sustainable, and safe food production a reality.

Adult of Chrysoperla externa, a predator.

A spider predating a caterpillar pest.
Photos: Dirceu Gassen

7

REFERENCES

14cit.

1Pesticides are pest killers, and include insecticides,
herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides.

15Aktar MW, Sengupta D, Chowdhury A. (2009). Impactof pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards.
Interdisciplinary Toxicology 2(1), 1–12. DOI: 10.2478/v10102-0090001-7

2
In this paper, the term “pest” refers to animal pests ofplants including insects, and also diseases and weeds.

FAO. (n.d.). Global Farmer Field School Platform. Op.

16
FAO. (2020). Highly Hazardous Pesticides. Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.
org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/code/hhp/en/

3FAO. (2019). New standards to curb the global spreadof plant pests and diseases. FAO News, 3 April. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1187738/icode/
4
PAN Germany. (2012). Pesticides and health hazards:
Facts and figures. Hamburg: Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk e.V.
www.pan-germany.org/download/Vergift_EN-201112-web.pdf
5Pretty J, Bharucha ZP. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture inAsia and Africa. Insects 6(1), 152–182. www.mdpi.com/20754450/6/1/152
6
Lechenet M, Dessaint F, Py G, et al. (2017). Reducingpesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nature Plants 3, 17008. www.nature.
com/articles/nplants20178
7FAO. (2020). Integrated pest management. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.
fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/ipm/en/
8
Lewis WJ, van Lenteren JC, Phatak SC, Tumlinson JH.
(1997). A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
94(23), 12243–12248. www.pnas.org/content/94/23/12243
9Control methods used in IPM may be cultural, physical, biological, or chemical.
10Lewis et al. (1997). Ibid .

11OECD. (n.d.). Extended Producer Responsibility. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
www.oecd.org/env/tools-evaluation/extendedproducerresponsibility.htm
12FAO. (n.d.). Global Farmer Field School Platform.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/overview/en/
13
Parsa S, Morse S, Bonifacio A, et al. (2014). Obstacles
to IPM adoption in developing countries. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences 111(10), 3889–3894. www.pnas.
org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1312693111

Cover photo: A ‘Zone For Birds’ sign at Finca El Platanillo’s organic lot. Rainforest Alliance certified farms protect endangered species with wildlife corridors. These corridors minimize
human-wildlife conflict, conserve the ecosystem and broader landscape of the rainforest.
Photo: Creagh Cross8

rainforest-alliance.org
email: info@ra.org