According to IDIS, the decision of the Court of Appeals discouraged other Mindanaoan LGU's to pass the aerial spray bans they had been preparing (personal communication). January 2009 EO-01 The Commission on Human Rights releases a human rights advisory calling for the shelving of the aerial spraying practice, citing the precautionary principle and urging the President to issue an executive order stopping the practice (IDIS 2014). 2009 (?) CE-06 A student of Kyoto University writes a thesis on aerial spraying of pesticides in banana plantations in the Philippines. Two chapters of the unpublished thesis manuscript include:
In various places in the world, aerial spraying of pesticides has met with resistance from local communities potentially endangered by toxic pesticide drift. Social movements, and the counter-expertise that they mobilise, often trigger changes in state regulations of the practice. This article describes such struggles over risk regulation in the Philippines, where aerial spraying is common in large monoculture banana plantations. It has provoked local activism contesting the socioeconomic power of landed and business elites and has challenged the government's approach to managing pesticide risks. This article develops the argument that different types of counter-expertise must be recognised. The case shows that it can be difficult for movements to articulate these different types of counter-expertise. Furthermore, the weak state characteristics of the Philippine state has shaped the ambiguous responses of risk governance to multiple actors' divergent knowledge claims. The result is a legal impasse in which civil society has successfully pushed the issue of aerial spraying onto the national political arena, but the state has as yet been unable to develop a comprehensive pesticide risk regulation independent of powerful business interests.
“Autonomy,” as a desirable state, is a notion often used by food sovereignty‐oriented farmer movements and scholars studying repeasantization. The term is predominantly used rather casually, relying on presumed meanings, but van der Ploeg's book The New Peasantries seeks to elaborate a particular meaning of autonomy as a characteristic feature of the peasantry. The desire of farmers/peasants for autonomy is formulated in tandem with agroecological agriculture, farmers' agency, locally “nested” markets, co‐production with nature, non‐commoditized production, and multiple kinds of peasant resistance. This article identifies the distinctive nature of this take on autonomy and analyses its analytical, normative, and political aspects. It develops several critiques regarding the analytical shortcomings of the notion of peasant autonomy: the methodological problem of a peasant bias; the analytical limitations and incompatibility of intrinsic and “relative” autonomy; and the neglect of accumulation from below and subtle class contradictions. Rather than centring autonomy or relative autonomy, the authors argue for shifting the focus to the nature of different types of dependency relationships, ranging from very exploitative to those vital for human flourishing.
Aerial spraying has been banned by the European Union in 2009. A driving force underlying this ban has been a lobby campaign by the Europe chapter of the Pesticide Action Network (henceforth PAN). In 2000, PAN launched the Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) campaign to lobby for binding EU legislation to reduce pesticide use. Campaign instruments included writing a draft Directive and an Explanatory Memorandum detailing the "factual and scientific rationale for reducing pesticide use". 1 The campaign was supported by 92 signatories from 30 EU countries, representing various interest groups, including trade unions and environment, food, public health, consumers, and farmer movements. This broad support from interest groups contributed considerably to the campaign's effect at EU level. PAN also reported to have gained the support from members of the European Parliament for many elements in their draft Directive. Evidence for increasing exposure to-and adverse effects of pesticides had been growing, and the European Union's Fifth Environment Action Programme had "promised much but delivered very little" (PAN PURE campaign page). National regulations of Member States on pesticide use varied greatly; with regard to aerial spraying between a total ban, ban with exceptions, severe restrictions, no restrictions, and no regulation at all (see the BiPro Impact Assessments, 2004). According to PAN, several Member States had successfully introduced national pesticide use reduction programmes in the 1980s and 1990s, indicating that EU wide legislation was feasible. PAN's draft Directive of the PURE campaign outlined a set of measures to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides, including use reduction targets, making IPM mandatory, promoting organic farming, eliminating unsafe application practices such as aerial spraying, and minimum requirements for pesticide dealers and operators. 2 In PAN's draft Directive, aerial spraying was to be prohibited altogether since it was considered an 'unsafe pesticide practice'. The specific section of the draft Directive further specified the need for minimum technical standards for application equipment, preparation and cleaning thereof, and minimum requirements for storage of pesticides and equipment. The EU's final Directive similarly outlines a comprehensive programme that covers the diverse aspects of pesticide use. Its chapters address training, sales of pesticides, information and awareness-raising; pesticide application equipment; specific practices and uses; and indicators, reporting and information exchange. Aerial Spraying is covered in Article 9 of the chapter on specific practices and uses, which further discusses information to the public, the protection of aquatic environments and drinking water, reducing risks and uses in specific areas, handling and storage of pesticides and packaging, and integrated pest management. The measure on aerial spraying, and the developments of the law making process outlined in this report, should therefore be acknowledged in the conte...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.