The best way to reduce pesticide use, reliance and risks on a sustainable basis, while also cost-effectively managing pests, is to promote adoption of biologically based IPM systems.

IPM systems exist in almost limitless variety along what can be thought of as an IPM continuum (see Chapter 7 of PMAC). Biointensive IPM systems -- the kind most people are willing to support -- strive to lessen pest pressure through management of ecological and biological processes and interactions. When pests do emerge as a threat to crop production and quality, such systems rely principally on biological and ecological means to bring pest populations down below economic thresholds.

A strong case can be made for an increase in public and private sector investments in biointensive IPM systems, because of the many benefits that will accrue to society as a result of their adoption. But the same case can not be made at the other end of the IPM continuum. Pesticide manufacturers, and others who profit from pesticide sales, should bear most of the burden in developing and sustaining chemical-dependent systems. Indeed, society is likely to ask manufacturers and farmers to cover more of the social and regulatory costs stemming from pesticide-based systems through fees, taxes and other financial instruments.

Rewarding Progress is Key

Recognizing and rewarding IPM innovation is a critical step in accelerating progress along the IPM continuum. Many consumers, environmentalists and taxpayers express willingness to support farmers who are making progress along the IPM continuum. But to create and sustain tangible rewards, those willing to pay for biointensive IPM adoption in the marketplace, or with tax dollars, will need to be convinced that they are getting what they are willing to pay for -- reduced reliance on risky pesticides. For this reason the ability to distinguish between pest management systems along the IPM continuum will be key in establishing IPM adoption baselines and then in measuring progress.

Considerable effort is underway to develop new tools to distinguish between various levels of IPM adoption -- No IPM, low level IPM, medium IPM, and biointensive IPM. Some of the activities are described elsewhere in this section. Much more work is needed, both in refining methods and in compiling the data needed to credibly measure and monitor IPM adoption.

Another key step is to then measure the difference in pesticide reliance, use and risks between farms at various stages along the IPM continuum. This step is typically easier than measuring IPM adoption. Methods to make such calculations, and sources of data, are described here and elsewhere on this site (links...).