F
Farah Kamaleddine
Guest
- Thread Author
- #1
By Farah Kamaleddine, Luwieke Bosma and Shadi Indary
Input providers are among the actors closest to farmers’ day-to-day realities. They hear about problems, recommend solutions, and influence which products and practices ultimately reach the farm. Their stock is often filled with, among other things, pesticides, fertilizers, and seeds. But what decisions do input providers, also known as ‘agricultural pharmacies’, make in terms of the products on offer? What shapes these choices, and what opportunities and constraints are there for introducing alternative approaches? And, importantly, how does this influence the farmer?
Through a household survey (2025) conducted in Shouf district, Lebanon, under the RESOLVE project, it was found that more than 70% of farmers identified input providers as their main source of advice on rodent management. Hence, input providers in Lebanon are seen as key enablers for the transition towards Integrated Pest Management (IPM) providing agroecological solutions, this can be traps, biopesticides ,and other non-chemical options.
We therefore held a discussion with a group of input providers from the Shouf Region in Lebanon. This brought out several seemingly conflicting perspectives. Some participants were clear that they do not want to play the role of agricultural extension workers. Their role, as they described it, is to present farmers with the available options – chemical and non-chemical – explain the terms of use for each, and let the farmer decide.
This raises a simple question: What choice are we actually giving farmers? And perhaps an even more important one: How was that choice shaped in the first place?
One participant, who works in agricultural extension, put this into perspective. Farmers’ choices are not made in a vacuum; they are shaped by years of experience, habits, advice, incentives, and institutional decisions. A striking example came up during the discussion. Between 2010 and 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture distributed chemical rodenticides to farmers. Extension agents mentioned that some farmers continue to ask each year when the government will subsidize chemical rodenticides again. This explains, at least partially, the reliance of farmers on chemical rodenticides.
Focus Group Discussion with input providers in Lebanon under the LOCAL-STEP project (Credits: GOPA MetaMeta)
The discussion also revealed another uncomfortable reality. Input providers reported that banned chemical rodenticides continue to enter the Lebanese market through informal channels. Some of these products, they explained, are no longer legally permitted but remain available through the black market.
This is where the distinction between what farmers are supposed to have access to and what they can actually access becomes important. Regulation alone does not determine behaviour. Availability, price, trust, past experience and the perceived effectiveness of a product all influence what ends up being used on farms.
When asked what could encourage farmers to adopt new and more sustainable approaches, participants repeatedly pointed to incentives. At the same time, some participants expressed concern that a shift towards sustainable agriculture could reduce their own profits. This does not mean that input providers cannot contribute to the transition. It means that their role, incentives, and business models need to be considered as part of the transition itself.
The discussion covered the different EBRM approaches, including short- and long-term ones. Chemical control remains an option in EBRM, yet a last resort, with strict professional guidance to ensure targeted application of the poison. A simple tool, called a ‘black box’ or ‘bait station’, is recommended for placing the bait in a protected station to reduce exposure to non-target animals and the surrounding environment.
While input providers are aware of the importance of such a tool for safe rodenticide application, they discussed that less than 10% of farmers purchasing rodent poison also purchase the black box used for its targeted application. Besides, they mentioned that such a tool is not a common find in agricultural input provider shops
That leaves us with a rather basic question: How can we expect farmers to choose a safer method if the safer method is not even readily available? And when it is there, are farmers able to make an informed choice themselves?
Many farmers in Lebanon do not come from a formal agricultural or technical background. Farming can be a secondary source of income for many. While they do accumulate experience over the years, this cannot replace technical support and professional guidance. Such distinction becomes particularly important when introducing approaches such as EBRM, where successful implementation depends on understanding the ecology of the problem and addressing it collectively.
Interestingly, while input providers saw themselves as having a role in supporting farmers’ transition towards more sustainable agriculture, they were also clear that they did not see themselves as the actors responsible for leading this transition.
The Ministry of Agriculture came up repeatedly in the discussion. When discussing the applicability and potential scaling of EBRM – particularly in the context of Lebanon’s ongoing work around Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) – participants stressed the importance of having a clear implementation mechanism and strategic framework supported and supervised by the Ministry.
The same point came up around organic and agroecological production. Participants noted that such products can sometimes be associated with lower yields, quality concerns, or lower market prices. Whether or not these perceptions hold across all production systems, they point to another part of the transition that cannot be ignored: Farmers need a market for the practices we are asking them to adopt. This means that technical change, regulation, extension, incentives, and market development cannot be treated as completely separate issues.
The discussion left the project team with a list of things to unlearn and things to learn when it comes to rodent management:
EBRM challenges the idea that rodent management starts and ends with poison. It starts with understanding the rodent population, the production system, the landscape, and the different measures available to manage the problem.
A choice is shaped by what is available, accessible, affordable, trusted, recommended and supported.
Farmers, input providers and extension agents are all part of a much larger system of advice, incentives, regulation, markets and institutional authority. It’s this enabling environment that must be reshaped to allow farmers to deploy ecologically sustainable pest management approaches.
Not only as recipients of new practices, but as actors whose constraints, incentives, and realities need to shape those practices.
Government authorities, particularly Ministries of Agriculture, are trusted sources of guidance for farmers. The incentives they introduce can have significant long-term effects and should therefore be designed with care. They should support and reinforce the government’s broader, long-term pest management strategy.
Training farmers about a tool that they cannot find, afford or use properly will not create lasting change.
Demonstrating that alternative approaches can work under local farming conditions can help turn an abstract alternative into a credible option.
This work is part of the LOCAL-STEP project, implemented in partnership with Al-Shouf Cedar Society (ACS), which aims to advance the adoption of scalable agroecological practices in Lebanon, strengthening the capacity of farmers and institutions to address persistent agricultural challenges and build long-term resilience.
The post Unlearning and Learning: Rethinking Rodent Management appeared first on TheWaterChannel.
Input providers are among the actors closest to farmers’ day-to-day realities. They hear about problems, recommend solutions, and influence which products and practices ultimately reach the farm. Their stock is often filled with, among other things, pesticides, fertilizers, and seeds. But what decisions do input providers, also known as ‘agricultural pharmacies’, make in terms of the products on offer? What shapes these choices, and what opportunities and constraints are there for introducing alternative approaches? And, importantly, how does this influence the farmer?
Through a household survey (2025) conducted in Shouf district, Lebanon, under the RESOLVE project, it was found that more than 70% of farmers identified input providers as their main source of advice on rodent management. Hence, input providers in Lebanon are seen as key enablers for the transition towards Integrated Pest Management (IPM) providing agroecological solutions, this can be traps, biopesticides ,and other non-chemical options.
What choice are input providers really giving farmers?
We therefore held a discussion with a group of input providers from the Shouf Region in Lebanon. This brought out several seemingly conflicting perspectives. Some participants were clear that they do not want to play the role of agricultural extension workers. Their role, as they described it, is to present farmers with the available options – chemical and non-chemical – explain the terms of use for each, and let the farmer decide.
This raises a simple question: What choice are we actually giving farmers? And perhaps an even more important one: How was that choice shaped in the first place?
One participant, who works in agricultural extension, put this into perspective. Farmers’ choices are not made in a vacuum; they are shaped by years of experience, habits, advice, incentives, and institutional decisions. A striking example came up during the discussion. Between 2010 and 2013, the Ministry of Agriculture distributed chemical rodenticides to farmers. Extension agents mentioned that some farmers continue to ask each year when the government will subsidize chemical rodenticides again. This explains, at least partially, the reliance of farmers on chemical rodenticides.
Focus Group Discussion with input providers in Lebanon under the LOCAL-STEP project (Credits: GOPA MetaMeta)
Market realities
The discussion also revealed another uncomfortable reality. Input providers reported that banned chemical rodenticides continue to enter the Lebanese market through informal channels. Some of these products, they explained, are no longer legally permitted but remain available through the black market.
This is where the distinction between what farmers are supposed to have access to and what they can actually access becomes important. Regulation alone does not determine behaviour. Availability, price, trust, past experience and the perceived effectiveness of a product all influence what ends up being used on farms.
When asked what could encourage farmers to adopt new and more sustainable approaches, participants repeatedly pointed to incentives. At the same time, some participants expressed concern that a shift towards sustainable agriculture could reduce their own profits. This does not mean that input providers cannot contribute to the transition. It means that their role, incentives, and business models need to be considered as part of the transition itself.
What could be suitable options?
The discussion covered the different EBRM approaches, including short- and long-term ones. Chemical control remains an option in EBRM, yet a last resort, with strict professional guidance to ensure targeted application of the poison. A simple tool, called a ‘black box’ or ‘bait station’, is recommended for placing the bait in a protected station to reduce exposure to non-target animals and the surrounding environment.
While input providers are aware of the importance of such a tool for safe rodenticide application, they discussed that less than 10% of farmers purchasing rodent poison also purchase the black box used for its targeted application. Besides, they mentioned that such a tool is not a common find in agricultural input provider shops
That leaves us with a rather basic question: How can we expect farmers to choose a safer method if the safer method is not even readily available? And when it is there, are farmers able to make an informed choice themselves?
Many farmers in Lebanon do not come from a formal agricultural or technical background. Farming can be a secondary source of income for many. While they do accumulate experience over the years, this cannot replace technical support and professional guidance. Such distinction becomes particularly important when introducing approaches such as EBRM, where successful implementation depends on understanding the ecology of the problem and addressing it collectively.
The role of the government
Interestingly, while input providers saw themselves as having a role in supporting farmers’ transition towards more sustainable agriculture, they were also clear that they did not see themselves as the actors responsible for leading this transition.
The Ministry of Agriculture came up repeatedly in the discussion. When discussing the applicability and potential scaling of EBRM – particularly in the context of Lebanon’s ongoing work around Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) – participants stressed the importance of having a clear implementation mechanism and strategic framework supported and supervised by the Ministry.
The same point came up around organic and agroecological production. Participants noted that such products can sometimes be associated with lower yields, quality concerns, or lower market prices. Whether or not these perceptions hold across all production systems, they point to another part of the transition that cannot be ignored: Farmers need a market for the practices we are asking them to adopt. This means that technical change, regulation, extension, incentives, and market development cannot be treated as completely separate issues.
Unlearning and Learning
The discussion left the project team with a list of things to unlearn and things to learn when it comes to rodent management:
To unlearn
EBRM challenges the idea that rodent management starts and ends with poison. It starts with understanding the rodent population, the production system, the landscape, and the different measures available to manage the problem.
- That giving farmers options automatically means they can make an informed choice.
A choice is shaped by what is available, accessible, affordable, trusted, recommended and supported.
- That farmers, input providers and extension agents need a shift in behaviour.
Farmers, input providers and extension agents are all part of a much larger system of advice, incentives, regulation, markets and institutional authority. It’s this enabling environment that must be reshaped to allow farmers to deploy ecologically sustainable pest management approaches.
To learn
- That smallholders need to be part of the conversation from the beginning.
Not only as recipients of new practices, but as actors whose constraints, incentives, and realities need to shape those practices.
- That governments need to design farmer incentives carefully.
Government authorities, particularly Ministries of Agriculture, are trusted sources of guidance for farmers. The incentives they introduce can have significant long-term effects and should therefore be designed with care. They should support and reinforce the government’s broader, long-term pest management strategy.
- That alternatives need to be practical and accessible.
Training farmers about a tool that they cannot find, afford or use properly will not create lasting change.
- That pilots are still a valid approach.
Demonstrating that alternative approaches can work under local farming conditions can help turn an abstract alternative into a credible option.
This work is part of the LOCAL-STEP project, implemented in partnership with Al-Shouf Cedar Society (ACS), which aims to advance the adoption of scalable agroecological practices in Lebanon, strengthening the capacity of farmers and institutions to address persistent agricultural challenges and build long-term resilience.
The post Unlearning and Learning: Rethinking Rodent Management appeared first on TheWaterChannel.