This section is divided into three subsections following the structure of research questions. In
Section 4.1, we analyze how farmers understood the concept of IPM. In
Section 4.2, we analyze whether farmers changed their pest-management goals, IPM knowledge, or behavior after IPM became mandatory, and in
Section 4.3 we examine whether farmers embrace IPM even if it reduced profits, along with any variation among farmers concerning this issue.
4.1. How Do Farmers Understand the Concept of IPM?
The Post-survey, focus groups, and qualitative interviews provided information about how Norwegian grain farmers understand the IPM concept. The general picture from the focus groups and qualitative interviews is that most of the farmers have an understanding of IPM that corresponds well to most of the eight IPM principles in the new regulation. When asked what IPM is, many of the focus group farmers and those in the qualitative interviews mentioned considering several measures (including both non-chemical and chemical) and preventive measures. As one farmer said, “IPM is all measures you do before you touch your tractor sprayer”. Another understanding among some of the farmers was that IPM is equivalent to good agronomy and that there is nothing new about the concept. A typical statement was that “they have introduced a new concept for things that I learned from my father and grandfather”. Many farmers in the qualitative interviews and a few in the focus groups mentioned that IPM meant need-based spraying. A few of the farmers in the focus groups also mentioned measures such as seeking counselling, using anti-resistance strategies, and evaluating the measures.
Some of the farmers in the qualitative interviews mentioned weed harrowing when they were asked what IPM is, and they expressed distrust in the suitability of this technology for their farm. Some of these farmers reported that IPM is to “do weed harrowing and stop spraying” and that “reduced dosage is not IPM”. One of the farmers in the qualitative interviews emphasized that IPM is to “not use pesticides”. These understandings go beyond the aim of the SUD.
In the Post-survey, the farmers were asked what would happen if they increase the use of IPM in their grain farming and what such an increase would require.
Table 1 shows that the farmers perceived that increased use of IPM foremost would require increased knowledge and more time. More than half of the farmers also perceived that increased use of IPM would increase yield risks. About half of the respondents disagreed that increased use of IPM would reduce yields and profits. This result indicates that only a minority of the farmers perceive IPM as entailing some sort of economic sacrifice. Most of the farmers in the focus groups were not explicit about whether practicing IPM meant some economic sacrifice or not. The farmers who emphasized that IPM is need-based spraying expressed that this practice in terms of economic thresholds is positive for farm profits. One farmer stated that IPM is “a moral principle that implies applying as little pesticides as possible”, and several farmers expressed a similar sentiment without defining it as a moral principle. Two focus group members emphasized that IPM is holistic thinking to achieve good yield quality and high yields.
4.2. Pest-Management Goals, IPM Knowledge, and IPM Behavior before and after IPM Regulation
To generate knowledge about whether farmers changed their pest-management goals and knowledge about IPM after it became mandatory, we compared responses regarding these factors on the Post- and Prior- surveys. As shown in
Table 2, the responses changed significantly for some of the pest-management goals. The most significant change was that using means other than spraying has become more important. This feature is a crucial part of IPM and could indicate that introduction of the SUD influenced pest-management goals. Two other important parts of IPM—preventing pesticide resistance and producing grain without traces of pesticides—have also become significantly more important for the farmers. Highest possible yields have become significantly less important and low workload significantly more important. Less emphasize on maximizing yields might ease the adoption of IPM, while more emphasize on low workload might reduce the adoption.
Although we observe significant changes in the farmers’ goals in
Table 2, we observe that pest-management goals such as producing grain without traces of pesticides, preventing pesticide resistance, and highest possible crop quality and yields were the four most important goals both before and after introduction of the SUD. Using means other than spraying, low workload, and complete eradication of weeds were the least important goals in both periods.
The results in
Table 2 also show that the farmers’ self-reported knowledge of IPM had increased significantly from 2014 to 2017, indicating that introduction of SUD had this effect. The fact that several of the farmers in the qualitative interviews and focus groups reported that IPM is nothing new could, however, indicate that they have increased knowledge of the term “IPM”, but not so much about the practices captured by the term. For example, farmers certainly knew about crop rotation prior to the introduction of the SUD, but they did not call it “IPM”.
To examine whether farmers changed their behavior after IPM became mandatory, the respondents in the Post-survey were asked whether they had changed their use of IPM during the last five years. The results in
Table 3 indicate that more than 40% of the farmers began using IPM to a greater extent whereas most reported using IPM to the same extent as before. Less than 5% reported using IPM to a lesser extent. For more concrete responses from farmers who reported increased use of IPM, we asked them to specify which IPM measures they had adopted. The measures most frequently adopted represent different aspects of IPM, including need-based spraying (e.g., monitoring, reduced dosage), preventive measures (e.g., crop rotation, tolerant crop, and soil tillage), and preventing pesticide resistance.
To gain more in-depth knowledge about how the SUD has influenced farmers’ crop-management practices, the focus groups and the qualitative interviews included questions about these issues. Farmers who had increased their use of IPM stated that they had become more conscious about treatment deadlines, dosage, weather conditions, time of spraying, and using preventive measures such as cover crops and increased soil tillage (e.g., plowing, harrowing). The farmers who had not increased their use of IPM the last 5 years reported that they have been practicing IPM for several years. An interesting finding from these interviews is that several of the farmers reported that their greatest change in pest management was the adoption of need-based spraying and that this change happened 10–15 years ago. According to them, this change was triggered by information from the Norwegian Extension Service and environmental pesticide taxes. One of the farmers said, “In the 1990s, pesticides were cheaper, so then we sprayed to be certain. We bought pesticides before we had observed the crop”.
The farmers in the focus groups and qualitative interviews reported that the most concrete change following the SUD was the obligation to record the assessments made and any principles applied and to offer a justification for their choices if pesticides were used. The farmers were divided, however, regarding whether the record obligation influenced their pest management. Those who felt that the obligation to record influenced their pest management reported that it made them more conscious and made them think twice. As one of the farmers said, “I think it sharpened us a bit! We need to think about it because we have to write some words about it”. The farmers who expressed that the record requirements had not affected their pest management felt that it had no practical consequences and was about post-rationalization and adjusting the pesticide record to their spraying practices and not vice versa. One of the farmers said, “What I write in the pesticide record, I adjust to the spraying. It should have been put up in a way that forced me to think a bit differently”. Several of the farmers in the focus groups and the qualitative interviews also expressed some frustration concerning the pesticide record obligation. They felt that it resulted in more paperwork, along with being humiliating by forcing them to justify their choices, and that doing good work in their field should be more important than writing good sentences. One of the farmers asked, “Why should I document something that I always have been doing?” Some of the farmers were also uncertain about the practical implications of the pesticide record obligation. They were uncertain whether “the authorities are going to judge the decisions”. They felt unsure about whether their farm subsidies could be reduced based on what they write in the record and whether they could, e.g., write year after year that they did not have access to a weed harrow.
4.3. Do Farmers Embrace IPM Even If It Reduces Profits?
In the Post-survey, the farmers were asked whether they felt positive about IPM even though it could entail reduced profits. The results in
Table 4 show that the farmers were quite divided on this issue.
An important question that can offer suggestions about how to ensure farmers’ adoption of IPM measures that can entail moderate economic losses such as preventive measures, is how different variables correlate with farmers’ willingness to adopt IPM practices even though doing so can reduce profits. To answer this question, we ran an OLS regression model with the survey item, “I am positive about IPM even though it can entail reduced profits”, as the dependent variable.
Table 5 presents the mean response to the independent variables that were included in the OLS regression model.
To reduce the number of items regarding goals and attitudes (A and B in
Table 5), we used PCA to detect the links among the 18 items regarding what was important for the farmers in general and when they manage weeds and fungal diseases (A and B). We removed three items associated with low communality and/or cross-loading from the final PCA model, as presented in
Table 6. Four components were extracted. One item was removed from the second component because of reliability problems. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin overall measure of sampling adequacy for the final model was 0.85.
The first component was termed Economy and covers economic considerations as well as yield and being a skillful grain farmer. The second component was termed Environment and covers different environmental considerations such as protecting biodiversity, low use of pesticides, loss of soil nutrients, and protecting the environment in general. The third component, ‘Crop quality and resistance’, is more heterogeneous than the others. Two of the items concern crop quality in general and grain without traces of pesticides. The third item concerns preventing pesticide resistance. The mean for these three items is higher than for the other items and the standard deviation is lower (see
Table 2). The fourth component, ‘Clean fields’, concerns the importance of entirely eradicated weeds and diseases. This component represents the opposite of IPM.
The results from the OLS regression in
Table 7 identify factors that make a farmer more likely to be positive about IPM even though it can entail reduced profits. These features include being environmentally engaged, female, and reporting having received advice and knowledge about pest management from the certificate course, all but one with significance levels
p ≤ 0.01. Of note, we found that the variable ‘Economy’ was highly significant, and as expected, with the opposite sign. We further observe that farmers communicating often with other farmers about pest management (
p < 0.05) and farmers of younger age (
p < 0.01) are more likely to be negative to IPM if it means reduced profits. There seems to be a tendency that farmers with high income from agriculture (
p < 0.1) are more likely to be positive about IPM even though it can entail reduced profits. The opposite tendency exists for farmers not wanting to report income from agriculture (
p < 0.1).