The regulation of the use of agricultural pesticides emerged in The Netherlands some years after similar restrictions were introduced in Sweden and Denmark. The Dutch situation could probably be summarised in the words: 'We had no other options left'. Apart from the environmental effects (in water, soil and air) becoming of concern to politicians, farmers started to see the first signs of consumer resistance against the intensive production system. Consumers' objections were in the areas of food (especially taste) and environmental quality. In addition, agronomic disadvantages of a production system in which pesticides were used intensively were also starting to show (such as resistance to pesticides and decreases in yields due to phyto-toxicity). However, when politicians showed signs of wanting to control the use of pesticides, by introducing the Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan, farmers reacted angrily to ('yet another') attempt of regulation.

The focus of the MYCPP is on agronomic and environmental problems. It is generally accepted that the agronomic problems can be left to farmers to solve. However, because of their off-farm nature, the environmental effects are the concern of the society as a whole. As such, the government has found it necessary to step in and 'pull and push' to change the production system, at least to some degree.

In other countries such as Sweden, where the process started first, and in Denmark farmers (who were not consulted about the change in direction and did not agree with it when it was introduced) seem reasonably happy about the situation as it is today. A similar response can be detected in The Netherlands. Although the Dutch farmers' original reaction appears to have been negative, at present the farmers' organisations are committed to making it work. The question then arises whether, once a somewhat different approach to farming is considered, alternatives are less difficult to find than previously expected. It appears that, in all three countries involved in a pesticide reduction scheme, the closing of existing options cleared the way to 'discover' a wider range of options then hitherto imagined existed. Thus, restrictions induced the development of new management practices and techniques.

To detect different options, a change in research is essential, moving in the direction of decreasing the need to use pesticides by considering aspects such as cultivations, machinery and equipment, varieties, rotations, biological control and biological agriculture. The same is valid for those activities (such as education and extension) which bring the results of the research to the farmer. However, adoption of strategies to reduce pesticides, as is happening now, would be slow if there are only regulations to force the farmer. In other words, unless farmers can see 'rewards' to the change it will be extremely difficult to accomplish such a major alteration. These rewards might well be in terms of decreased exposure to pesticides and a feeling of more control, while returns to farming are not necessarily reduced.

The estimate of reduction in quantity of active ingredient used in 1992 as compared with 1984-88 is 20 per cent (with most of this decrease likely to be due to the introduction of pesticides with reduced isomers and of pesticides with higher biological action). Leaving the specific achievements of the MYCPP aside, the most important aspect of the Plan might well be the fact that pesticide use has been queried in the recent past, also by people in positions of power. Once the thought: 'We cannot do it differently' was challenged at a level where many needed to start to think about it, considerable changes proved to be possible.

How the scheme will work out in the future is not quite clear. In Sweden and Denmark the pesticide reduction schemes were initiated, and for a large part run, by the Department of Environment. In both countries concern for the environment (and politicians turning this to their advantage) was the main reason for the introduction of the program. Also in both countries, agriculture is less important in the total economy than in The Netherlands, where the Department of ANMF is the main initiator, and has the main responsibility, for the Plan. Originally, in both Sweden and Denmark, farmers feared that they would become less competitive with the agricultural sector in other countries. In both countries this expectation has changed into a feeling of having gained a great deal, especially in the areas of work safety and cost cutting without a clear decrease in production (improved production efficiency).

A further consideration is emerging. There might well be a tendency towards less use of pesticides in other countries, encouraged by regulations in the European Union. This would be to the advantage of producers in those countries who have a head-start in the area. The scheme in The Netherlands is still at an early stage. However, there are signs already that such a positive feeling towards the pesticide reduction scheme is not out of the question.

What are the implications for Australia of these developments in The Netherlands and other countries?

Lack of data in The Netherlands meant that estimates of pesticide use were not always accurate. Since the beginning of the program data have been gathered by the Dutch equivalent of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE). The pesticide reduction programs were then adjusted according to the results of actual use.

Australia emphasises its low pesticide use in the marketing of agricultural products. However, especially in some industries, actual data could well present some surprises. If pesticide use data were to be gathered in Australia the advisability of a pesticide reduction program could be evaluated or, alternatively, the marketing of agricultural products as 'clean' could be more convincingly presented.

One of the results of data collection in The Netherlands is the observation that pesticide use within sectors under similar circumstances (soil type, weather conditions) varies considerably. In Denmark, experimental groups of farmers and representatives of organisations such as the Department of Agriculture were formed. Farmers came to the meetings with records of actual spraying (such as quantity used and time of application). Variability in amount used was one of the notable characteristics. Discussions between members of the groups about the results lead to considerable reductions in the use of pesticides by other members. In Australia farmer groups, such as Landcare groups, are already in existence. Discussions of pesticide use based on records kept could well fit within such groups.

As far as pesticide approval in Australia is concerned, present criteria could be considered, and examined for the appropriateness as compared to those valid in other countries. Environmental aspects are increasingly included as criteria on which to base acceptability.

Possibly the most important lesson to be learned from overseas programs, however, is that a pesticide reduction program needs a wholehearted and general approach. Only if those who are to institute it are convinced of its merit will it be possible to surmount the problems which they will undoubtedly meet, of which the resistance of producers will not be the least. And only if a number of aspects are tackled simultaneously does such a plan have a chance to succeed. Goals need to be set, attached to time tables, and pathways to reach those goals will need to be defined. A change in research direction towards technologies in which pesticide use can be reduced is essential. Willingness to back up the requirement of reduction with regulations or appropriate taxes are likely to be needed.

If the results in countries such as The Netherlands are indeed as they seem (that is, it is not nearly as difficult to reduce pesticide use without adverse effects than originally expected), Australia might find itself disadvantaged if it does not consider these programs carefully. Pressure from consumers and environmentalists (both domestically and overseas) might necessitate reductions in pesticide use. However, there might be a more important lesson to be learned from countries such as The Netherlands. As environmental regulations become increasingly restrictive overseas, with its consequences for the introduction of new management practices and techniques, Australia's agricultural sector may become less competitive unless it develops and adopts similar practices and techniques suitable for Australian conditions.