Possibly the most important aspect of the introduction of the pesticide reduction scheme in Sweden in 1985 was that issues related to the use of agricultural pesticides were widely discussed. Increased incentives for a change in technology were in the form of measures to enhance the process of change (increased resources into research, extension, education and equipment calibration) and the prospect of the introduction of measures which make the use of pesticides less attractive (pesticides taxes). This led relevant bodies in Sweden (such as the Farmers' Federation) to argue that, instead of experiencing a loss in efficiency, Swedish farmers might well be in the process of becoming more competitive in the international market.

The main impression one gets from talking with people involved with the Swedish pesticide reduction scheme is that the plan has been carried out without major trauma. When the scheme was introduced there were no major parties who objected to it, so that no major compromises needed to be contemplated to make the plan work. The reasons for this is likely to be that the main group affected, the farmers, were willing to try it out. The knowledge that research and extension efforts were going to be directed into this area, with subsidised training and equipment testing, would undoubtedly have contributed to the stance taken by the farmers. Experiencing positive sides to the program in the form of decreased risk to health, while not suffering from a significant decrease in competitiveness, must have made the negative side of the scheme appear relatively less significant.

In practice the change in research direction and funding for extension did refine farmers' knowledge about the timing and doses of pesticide applications and, together with improved calibration of equipment is likely to have decreased pesticide use. Reduced subsidies for output prices affecting areas cropped (and pesticide use) and technology development favouring low-dose pesticides undoubtedly helped in reaching the target of 50 per cent pesticide use decrease in 1990 as compared to 1981-85.

In this context it was possibly not so surprising that the Farmers Federation had no problems with a second cut (to 25 per cent of the 1981-85 average), and is not averse to discuss a further cut, if it becomes relevant.

The other group affected, the pesticide industry, is possibly not a powerful group as most of the members are importers and the market is comparatively small. Lack of objections against the pesticide reduction program might well be ascribed to that.

In summary, the Swedish experience suggests that, if a change of this magnitude in approach to using pesticides is contemplated, many aspects need to be considered, and reactions anticipated:

- in order to be able to decrease the quantity of pesticides used there needs to be knowledge about how much pesticides are being used at the time the decision is made. Davies (Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services, personal communications, October 1993) mentions that the only data available in Australia are factory gate turnover figures on insecticides, herbicides and fungicides ($), held by the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Association of Australia (AVCA). This figure covers about 85-90 per cent of the farm chemical manufacturers. No figures are available for quantities of different active ingredients used in the different industries for different purposes;

- the decrease was generated by a number of factors, such as a change in research direction; extension; considerations of future taxes; and greater professionalism of those who apply sprays (greater awareness of when and how to spray; calibration of equipment). In Australia Agsafe, a division of AVCA, has started to address some of the issues in the area of safety and pesticides;

- it is generally recognised that, in a pesticide reduction scheme, decreasing the quantity is not sufficient and that attention should be given to the quality of the pesticides. This is mainly in connection with the fact that not all pesticides have the same effect. In Australia Penrose, Thwaite and Bower (1994) have started the discussion;

- at the introduction of a pesticide reduction scheme farmers are likely to consider that their options have been restricted. Benefits to farmers, in terms of effect of the changes, are to be derived mainly from a change in direction within research, which needs to be followed up with appropriate extension activities. The resulting technology is likely to stop a decline in international competitiveness. The experiences in Sweden and other countries are likely to lead to a more general acceptance in, for example, the EU. Decreased pesticide use (even without a decrease in yield) might not necessarily increase farm profits, as this depends on other factors such as pesticide price. However, the consumers' increased awareness of environmentally sustainable production methods could well determine the producers' (lack of) market possibilities in the future.

In summary, the program in Sweden seems to be reasonably successful in terms of the goals set, and the level of willingness of farmers to co-operate. Even though the results, regarding human health and environmental effects, might not be as positive as the figures on quantity of pesticide use suggest, the infrastructure has been developed to implement decreases in the future if considered to be desirable.