Resource information
Concerns about the sustainability of
conventional agriculture have prompted widespread
introduction of integrated pest management (IPM), an
ecologically-based approach to control of harmful insects
and weeds. IPM is intended to reduce ecological and health
damage from chemical pesticides by using natural parasites
and predators to control pest populations. Since chemical
pesticides are expensive for poor farmers, IPM offers the
prospect of lower production costs and higher profitability.
However, adoption of IPM may reduce profitability if it also
lowers overall productivity, or induces more intensive use
of other production factors. On the other hand, IPM may
actually promote more productive farming by encouraging more
skillful use of available resources. Data scarcity has
hindered a full accounting of IPM's impact on
profitability, health, and local ecosystems. Using new
survey data, the authors attempt such an accounting for rice
farmers in Bangladesh. They compare outcomes for farming
with IPM and conventional techniques, using input-use
accounting, conventional production functions, and frontier
production estimation. All of their results suggest that the
productivity of IPM rice farming is not significantly
different from the productivity of conventional farming.
Since IPM reduces pesticide costs with no countervailing
loss in production, it appears to be more profitable than
conventional rice farming. The interview results also
suggest substantial health and ecological benefits. However,
externality problems make it difficult for farmers to adopt
IPM individually. Without collective adoption,
neighbors' continued reliance on chemicals to kill
pests will also kill helpful parasites and predators, as
well as exposing IPM farmers and local ecosystems to
chemical spillovers from adjoining fields. Successful IPM
adoption may therefore depend on institutional support for
collective action.
