Politics the public and the environment – Pest Management
Government policies may have a substantial impact on insect pest management in a variety of ways. They can influence the availability of money for research and extension, as well as product price and subsidies, as well as their implementation and acceptance. The general idea of IPM will only continue to acquire political traction if the environment of public opinion is conducive to this.
A variety of variables have combined to make IPM more politically appealing than it has ever been. These reasons are very important to many countries like the UK and USA, even though, until lately, these nations were the strongholds of pest management driven by the use of chemical pesticides. The primary driving reasons for this transition have been reduced demand on agricultural land (because of surpluses) and increased public concern about the environment. Huge grain, meat, as well as dairy stocks in Europe have forced reforms to minimize overproduction.
How does Pest management affect Politics?
According to the Busters group, the public's rising worry over pesticide abuse, as well as a general desire for a cleaner, safer place, has led politicians to realize that environmental concerns will affect how people vote. The variables that affect votes in a democratically controlled government will impact policy and, as a result, the growth of 'green politics,' a political movement dedicated to environmental problems. IPM, a pest management concept that aims to decrease the use of hazardous chemical pesticides while encouraging the incorporation of natural or ecologically friendly control measures, is particularly well adapted to the new green era. Green politics and IPM are a good combination.
Governments are now taking public opinion seriously as a significant driver for change in agriculture. But, since public opinion is never uniform, it's not always clear who is being represented when the term public opinion is used. Although pressure organizations frequently appear to represent popular opinion, it is risky to presume that they do, particularly if they hold extreme views or have strong political concerns or a desire to manipulate public opinion.
The public's opinion of scientific concerns, such as the usage of transgenic crops, is heavily influenced by the media. Because the media is controlled by the arts, and scientific observation is all too frequently embellished with creative license in order to make the news rather than merely report it, the concerns are rarely presented accurately. Considering this, people's opinions are a reality, even when they are unfounded and incorrect, and they can have enough sway to impact govt policy and agricultural demand.
Experts and the general people have differing perspectives on risk. Scientists and regulators concentrate on quantitative, quantifiable risk qualities, but customers prefer qualitative, real worth risk traits including fairness and controllability, which specialists tend to overlook (Groth, 1991). The public's view of risk is heavily influenced by whether the risk is unintentional, out of a person's control, unequally distributed, and also has the potential for catastrophic effects (Slovic, 1987).
The more a risk falls into one of these groups, the larger the perceived risk, putting pressure on management and even government laws to reduce it (Luijk et al., 1998). In the United Kingdom, the BSE crisis has harmed public trust in the government's ability to recognize and manage the risk, necessitating new policy strategies (König, 1998).
Part of the challenge that governments confront is a widespread lack of information, education, and comprehension of the science behind the issues that the public perceives as problems. The public frequently has a 'hazy idea' of what is at issue, which may be influenced by widely held ideas and 'truisms' such as the need for 'natural balance among species' or 'humans' desire to live in peace with environment.' Even definitions of what "environment" entails might be ambiguous. All of this may be used to promote a certain group's position or to defend arguments. Broad generalizations regarding systems and approaches may be inaccurate and harmful.
Even though in the past, public worries about pest control were linked to the use of chemical pesticides, the current hot topic is the use of transgenic crops and the possible detrimental impact they may have on "the environment" as well as our food.
The use of biotechnology in food and the environment has been heavily impacted by educational attainment, perceived social and ethical concerns, as well as emotional and sometimes illogical reactions to non-medical disciplines.
However, a balance must be struck, taking into consideration irrational concerns, actual 'environmental' harm, healthcare, and the necessity for knowledge. Governments will have to ensure stronger public disclosure (product labeling) and stricter regulation to achieve this. In reality, such demands are becoming increasingly politically unavoidable, at least in Europe. As a result, governments and policies will continue to have a significant effect on IPM.
Governments can limit the availability of pesticides by offering tax breaks and reductions, low-interest loans, or subsidized pricing for both sprayers and chemicals. As a result, farmers are incentivized to acquire and apply pesticides due to their low cost. Governments believe that by lowering the cost of pesticides, they will be able to boost agricultural output for domestic consumption or to earn income from the export of cash crops.
Farmers may also be given credit to assist them buy spray equipment or pesticides. Credit can be acquired through banks, merchants, or government-sponsored agricultural cooperatives, with the crop's productive potential serving as collateral for the loan if the producers have little other assets. As a result, the lender earns both the capital return as well as interest from the produced crop revenues. Aside from the obvious difficulties of defaulting, certain credit systems have drawbacks.
Conclusion
The elements that drive pest management are evidently numerous and diverse. Each will have varying degrees of effect on IPM's future prospects, and it's difficult to anticipate how much of each will prevail. Nevertheless, it is critical that the future possibilities of IPM be carefully addressed when bringing together the aspects of pest management, its background, treatment choices, concepts, as well as information that connect so much to what is researched and applied. Of course, there's a chance that everything mentioned in this section will turn out to be completely inaccurate in the future. The framework in which pest management is given actual significance - the challenge of pest control in fulfilling the demands of the world's population for a stable food supply - must be defined in order to make this endeavour. The major future developments in pest control may thus be tackled within this perspective.