Chapter 4 Pest Management
4.2. C HALLENGES
As mentioned above, the share of pesticide costs in the total cost of production is high.
Therefore, any attempt to increase farmer’s income must also dwell upon interventions required to reduce expenditure incurred on pesticide. It is pertinent to highlight the challenges to be negotiated, if expenditure on pesticides is to be checked. These are:
i. Quality of pesticide
ii. Optimum application of pesticide iii. Popularising IPM techniques
iv. Price of generic pesticides & monopolistic practices 4.2.1. Quality of pesticides
The sale of spurious and misbranded pesticides is one of the biggest challenges faced by the agriculture community. The spurious pesticides are inefficient in treating the concerned pests, leading the farmers to apply them in proportions greater than prescribed by the Registration Committee (RC). This not only increases the expenditure but also engenders repercussions detrimental to the crop, human health and environment. As per the Insecticide Act, 1968, the quality control of pesticides is a shared responsibility between the Centre and the State, and therefore, both must coordinate their efforts for efficiency and effectiveness.
At present, there exists one Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL), and two Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratories (RPTLs) in the country with an annual testing capacity of 4,700 samples.
In addition, there are 68 State Pesticide Testing Laboratories (SPTLs) with an annual test capacity of 73,547 samples. There exist wide inter-state variations in the number of SPTLs.
Tamil Nadu (15) has the highest no. of SPTLs followed by Rajasthan (6), Karnataka (6), Andhra Pradesh (5), Maharashtra (4), Uttar Pradesh (4), Haryana (4) and so on, whereas, States like Bihar, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have only one
56 81 146
220 137
262 295 305 240
703
351 295
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
SPTL.
A comparison of the annual test capacity of all the state laboratories with the total number of registered pesticide dealers, throws up a very disquieting picture. As of 2016-17, there were 2,17,407 number of registered pesticide dealers, whereas the annual test capacity was just 73,547 samples. Therefore, it can be inferred that annual capacity is highly inadequate. Ironically, even these lesser than required number of SPTLs are under-utilized, with only around 70-80 per cent of the total capacity utilized.
The utilisation too exhibits inter-state variations, which is hundred per cent in Gujarat and Maharashtra, 75-100 per cent in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Telengana and West Bengal, and less than 50 per cent in case of Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Tripura and Uttarakhand. Under the provision of the Insecticides Act, 1968, the state governments have notified 13,403 number of Insecticides Inspectors which is less than required numbers.
Hence, the geographical reach vis-a-vis quality control is limited. Induction of non-qualified analysts in the SPTLs has only compounded the problem. In addition, majority of these Inspectors are saddled with other functions limiting their ability to collect samples for quality analysis. Some additional issues vis-a-vis the SPTLs are as follows:
Some states have not established even one SPTL.
Most of the SPTLs have limited capability of analyzing all the 279 pesticides with 542 formulations that are registered under section 9 (3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 as of now. The reasons are insufficient infrastructure, analytical capabilities, trained analysts, availability of certified reference materials and analytical methods.
All the SPTLs and RPTLs are not networked for knowledge sharing, to analyze and discuss the challenges in analysis of pesticides and their formulations.
The total number of misbranded pesticides range around 5 per cent of the total samples collected by the Inspectors and analysed by the Analysts. Many a time, the methodology followed for collection is not adhered to, and tantamount to fulfilling a formality.
Further, as the analysis of newer molecules and newer formulations is challenging, it is observed that most of the Inspectors are collecting such pesticides / formulations which are easily analysed by SPTLs. Hence, capacity building programs need to be regularly
Factors effecting adoption of pesticides i. Quality of pesticides
Inadequate quality monitoring infrastructure (physical and human)
Mismatch between number of registered pesticide dealers and annual capacity of the States
Underutilization of existing capacity
Lack of comprehensive data on dealers and pesticides being sold in the market
ii. Optimum application of pesticide
Lack of trained extension officers
Inadequate sensitization of farmers
Sale of pesticide by unqualified Retailers
Delay in dissemination of required information to the farmers iii. Limited reach of IPM techniques
Lack of effective pest surveillance mechanism
Availability of IPM inputs like bio-control agents, bio-pesticides, light traps, rodent traps, pheromone traps, sticky traps, seed treatment drums etc.
Lack of trust on modern IPM techniques among the farmers
iv. Price of generic pesticides
conducted, and the same can be entrusted to NIPHM (National Institute of Plant Health Management), Hyderabad.
The central government has been supplementing the resources of state/UT governments in quality control testing of pesticides. For this purpose, two Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratories have been established at Chandigarh and Kanpur (earlier there were 4 RPTLs, of which two, namely, Bombay and Madras RPTLs closed in 1980s) under the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage (DPPQ&S), Faridabad (Haryana).
4.2.2. Optimum application of pesticides
One of the factors for increased intensity of white fly in cotton (Punjab) in the year 2015-16 was unscientific application of pesticides with respect to both manner and usage. Pesticide poisoning in Yavatmal region of Maharastra during 2017 is yet another bad experience linked to unscientific application of practices and non-use of personal protection equipments (PPE).
Therefore, the application of pesticide as per 3 R’s (i.e. right manner, right dosage and at right time) acquires significant importance in agriculture and for the farmers. The 3 R’s will help in reducing the consumption of pesticide to an optimum level, and result in reduced pesticide expenditure and higher net income to farmers.
The extension officers are the most important functionaries as they help in effective implementation of the policies, by undertaking training/sensitisation of the farmers on various aspects of agricultural production, and also by disseminating required information to the famers at the right time. The 3R approach to application of pesticide is constrained by many factors, and one of them is absence of refresher training programme and extension material for updation of knowledge of the extension officers. When the extension machinery is found to be inadequate, the farmers tend to rely on the local pesticide dealers for pest management advice, who serve as their ‘First Contact Point’, and advise them on pesticide selection, dosage, methods and timing etc. Since majority of these pesticide dealers lack relevant qualification, their advice suffers from scientific rigour. Apart from this, conflict of interest also comes into play, compromising the objectivity of advice given. In this context, the following are suggested:
The local dealers should be made aware of registered uses / recommended uses of pesticides through the concept of the “Read the Label First”, which not only minimizes the secondary effects but also issues of pesticide residues and food safety, as the label reading makes dealers and also farmers to understand about the target pest and crop on which the pesticide is registered for use, and also perfect dose and pre-harvest intervals (PHIs).
As the dealers are “first contact persons”, their knowledge can be upgraded through capacity building programs as para extension workers, for effective pesticide management.
The phenomenon of pesticide spraying has changed in the recent years, due to engagement of persons for pesticide spraying on per tank / acre basis. Hence it is very essential to conduct special short trainings for such persons on maintenance of spray
equipment, good spraying practices and use of personal protection equipment, for not only protecting health of such people but also for obtaining effective control of pests.
4.2.3. Limited reach of IPM techniques
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an eco-friendly approach and aims at keeping pest population below economic threshold levels by employing all available alternate pest control methods and techniques. These include cultural, mechanical and biological techniques and practices with emphasis on use of bio-pesticides and pesticides of plant-origin like neem formulations. The use of chemical pesticide is advised as a measure of last resort, if pest population crosses economic threshold levels (ETL).
The use of pesticides can effectively be minimised, by adoption of IPM approach, and realise higher income of the farmers. IPM not only reduces the input costs, but also helps in minimizing pollution in soil, water and air; reducing occupational health hazards; conserving ecological equilibrium; and reducing pesticide residue loads in food. Though the IPM approach has been accepted by researchers, agriculture extension functionaries and farmers, and has proved its effectiveness in management of pests, there are many constraints in its implementation.
Some of the inadequacies are poor pest surveillance mechanism and availability of IPM inputs (bio-control agents, bio-pesticides, light traps, rodent traps, pheromone traps, sticky traps, seed
Monitoring of Pesticide Residues at National Level (MPRNL) is a central sector scheme being implemented by DAC&FW, since 2005-06 to determine the levels of pesticide residues in food commodities and environmental samples with the participation of various laboratories. During 2012-13 to 2016-17, a total of 98,276 samples have been collected and analyzed for the presence of pesticide residues, out of which 2355 (2.4 %) number of samples have been found with residues exceeding above Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) Maximum residue Limit (MRL). Commodity-wise, 7.2 % samples of the Spices are found to be above MRL, followed by Rice (5.5%), Tea (3.9%), Vegetables (2.6%) and Wheat (2.2%)
0.3
1.6
0.1
5.5
7.2
3.9
2.6 2.2
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Fish/Marine Fruits Pulses Rice Spices Tea Vegetables Wheat
% samples found above MRL
Commodities
% of Samples found above MRL between 2012-13 to 2016-17
treatment drums). Further, quality of IPM inputs is also important to build and sustain confidence in IPM practices. There is inadequacy in respect of this.
Over the years, the governmental effort has sensitized the farming community on use of IPM tools, who now are aware about the tools and techniques. However, due to non-availability of biological control agents in the market, the use of bio-agents is not prevalent. The states should encourage on-farm production and mass multiplication of bio-agents through SHGs, FPOs, Cooperatives, Mahila Sanghs etc. and the inputs should be made available at village level either at the office of Panchayats / Kisan Bhawans, etc. The quality control of bio-agents is also very pivotal for sustainable use of such products and creation of confidence among the farming community. Capacity building programs are organized at NIPHM, but the implementation of production of inputs by trained persons is very shallow.
4.2.4. Price of generic pesticides
The price of pesticides (both branded and generic) is uncontrolled and is determined by the market forces i.e. inter-play of demand and supply. However, of late, prices of generic pesticides are seen to be increasing for unknown reason. As a result, the farmers’ expenditure on pesticides has increased, thereby affecting their net incomes. Before attempting to bring in Price Control System, it is advised that large number of alternates should be promoted so that competition among them will bring in a rational price.