The challenges of getting farmers to adoptIntegrated Weed Management (IWM) strategies

Globally, adoption of IWM has been poor, with little evidence of the anticipated reductions in herbicideuse. Reluctance to adopt IWM is not due to a lack of knowledge but to a lack of farmer motivationand action. Greater use of non-chemical alternatives will only occur if: (۱) there is betterrecognition of the reasons why farmers are reluctant to use non-chemical techniques; (۲) farmersare encouraged to adopt a longer-term approach to weed control; (۳) farmers’ attitudes to pesticideschange; (۴) more attention is given to the individual farmer’s perspective; (۵) there is greater involvementof economists, social scientists and marketing professionals; (۶) research and extension prioritiesare re-evaluated; (۷) there is a change in the mindset of funders of research and extension. Increasedadoption of IWM can be achieved by effective knowledge transfer (KT) initiatives combined with‘carrot’ and ‘stick’ strategies. ‘Carrots’ could include financial or other incentives while ‘sticks’ couldinclude the implementation or threat of tougher regulations (e. g. banning specific herbicides) or financialdisincentives (e. g. pesticide taxes). Ironically, increasing herbicide resistance may act asan IWM incentive in itself by compelling farmers to consider alternative weed control methods as aconsequence of declining herbicide efficacy.