IPM as imperative: Securing India's farms against climate, pest pressures

The Indian government has placed strong emphasis on agricultural production and farmer welfare, promoting sustainable solutions through a range of ambitious policies and initiatives. This was evident in the recent decision to reduce GST on agricultural equipment, biopesticides, and raw materials. Such measures are intended to boost productivity, ensure environmental sustainability, and improve farmer livelihoods, while also modernising agriculture to withstand the pressures of climate change, resource scarcity, and global market fluctuations. However, despite these top-down intentions, implementation remains weak — particularly in one of the most crucial areas of sustainability: crop protection.

Crop protection is central to agricultural sustainability. India loses 15–25 per cent of its crops annually to pests such as weeds, insects, diseases, nematodes, and rodents—losses that translate into Rs 1.3–2 lakh crore ($15–$23 billion) each year. Pest management already accounts for 15–25 per cent of input costs in farming, yet it rarely receives proportionate policy or extension support. Heavy dependence on chemical pesticides has led to serious ecological and economic consequences, including pest resistance, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and harmful residues in food — threats to both farmer incomes and consumer health.

This is where Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers a sustainable alternative. It advocates intelligent, judicious use of chemical pesticides—only when necessary—combined with other practices such as resistant varieties, cultural methods, and biological controls. The goal is to minimise economic losses, delay pest resistance to chemical pesticides, reduce environmental harm, and ensure food safety. Unlike blanket chemical spraying, IPM is precision-orientated and system-centric, designed to lower input costs, delay resistance, and protect ecosystems.

Biopesticides lie at the heart of IPM. Derived from living organisms or natural compounds, biopesticides disrupt pest cycles naturally without harming beneficial insects, soil health, or human beings. They are especially well-suited to India’s diverse agro-climatic zones, where sustainable solutions are required to meet both local and export market standards. Although they may be costlier per unit and work more slowly than conventional pesticides, their long-term advantages are undeniable: they leave no hazardous residues, protect pollinators, sustain beneficial microbes, and align with rising global demand for residue-free produce. 

The government recognises this and has increasingly highlighted IPM as a sustainable, science-based alternative. By reducing GST on biopesticides, the government has taken a meaningful step toward levelling the playing field between chemical and sustainable pest management options. However, while IPM may be central to sustainable agriculture in theory, in practice, its mainstream adoption remains alarmingly low. Despite its inclusion in government schemes and training modules, only 5.7 per cent of Indian farmers currently use biopesticides, a key component of IPM—compared to 43 per cent who rely heavily on synthetic chemicals.

This wide gap between policy ambition and field-level adoption exposes a structural weakness in implementation. The constraints are manifold. Barriers include weak extension services, limited availability of quality products, high regulatory costs for innovators, and rampant circulation of substandard or misbranded biopesticides that erode farmer confidence. More than 65 per cent of marketed biopesticides are unregistered, chemically adulterated, or falsely labelled as “organic”. This regulatory gap undermines trust in the system and restricts adoption. 

To mainstream IPM, India needs a coherent policy and institutional framework. Regulatory approvals should be streamlined with faster, risk-tiered evaluations. Farmers must be assured of affordable access to high-quality, CIBRC-approved biopesticides. Extension networks—ranging from Farmers’ Field Schools and Krishi Vigyan Kendras to digital platforms like pest surveillance systems—must be strengthened to provide real-time guidance. Markets should incentivise residue-free produce through certifications by NABL-accredited labs, ensuring farmers receive premium prices. Youth-led micro-enterprises under ICAR’s ARYA scheme can help localise IPM input production, while robust public-private partnerships in research and development can accelerate innovation. 

The continued ground-level neglect of IPM is leading to a missed opportunity for India. Persistent chemical dependence is degrading ecosystems, exposing farmers to health hazards, and risking trade rejections due to pesticide residues. In contrast, IPM offers a clear, practical, and sustainable path forward—but it must be backed by the will to reform how pest management is understood, supported, and delivered. Climate change adds further urgency. Rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and new invasive species are intensifying pest pressures while limiting the effectiveness of conventional pesticides. Many horticultural crops already lack approved chemical solutions, opening space for biopesticides to fill the gap. In this context, IPM is not merely an option but an imperative to secure India’s agricultural future. 

India today stands at a decisive moment. Continued dependence on chemical pesticides is proving costly to farmers, destructive to ecosystems, and hazardous to public health. IPM, by contrast, offers a proven, cost-effective, and sustainable pathway that aligns with both national priorities and global market expectations.  

(The writer served as a principal scientist at the ICAR-Central Research Institute for Jute and Allied Fibres, West Bengal)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)