Evidence regimes of local and international pesticide use. Negotiations of pest control in the Global South, (1960s to 1980s)

这项研究探讨了1960-1990年间全球南方害虫控制运动中关于杀虫剂使用的争议和谈判过程。它使用三种杀虫剂的例子，从全球的角度对发展项目中使用杀虫剂的证据做法进行了历史记录。滴滴涕、艾氏剂和特美福斯被用于全球疾病控制和农业发展项目。这些杀虫剂在这一关键时期在东非、西非和南美洲地区相互通报的使用和流通模式。我们研究的主要目的是了解杀虫剂使用的历史作为独特证据制度的历史；探索关于环境、农业和健康的知识是如何在这些制度下产生和修改的。20世纪70年代西方政策发展的危机及其随之而来的转变，证明了证据的去稳定化和再稳定化。与现有的学术研究不同，这项研究将展望非洲和美洲地区之间农药专业知识的传播，以及隔离和区隔的动态。通过以对象为中心的方法，我们将非洲各区域非殖民化的历史与南美洲的发展历史、环境运动的出现和国际组织的历史结合在一起。借助我们研究小组的概念框架，我们比较了不同的证据制度如何协商农药使用的成本、收益和风险--特别是长期的环境后果。分析分为三个部分：首先，探索全球愿景与当地农药实施之间的紧张关系，以及这些紧张关系如何导致全球农药制度的转变。第二，全球虫害防治方案中方法的一致性如何影响农药的使用寿命，更具体地说，农药应用技术在各种背景下的可携带性如何产生验证效果。第三，使用农药这一“公共技术”的概念，我们旨在描述不同公众在讨论和谈判农药法规方面的作用，并探索公共证据定义如何塑造和共同构建证据实践。初步研究表明，20世纪70年代的政治变革导致了谈判领域的多样化，具有不同的规则和妥协。我们假设，这种领域的碎片化及其相互依存导致了一种了解和塑造全球虫害控制制度的临时方式，这与越来越多的证据做法的反映性密切相关。在这方面，证据的去稳定化和再稳定化的动态不仅为发展政策提供依据，而且使我们能够反思当前全球历史上关于非殖民化和国际主义的辩论。

This study explores the controversies and negotiation processes of insecticide use in pest control campaigns in the Global South between 1960 and 1990. Using the examples of three insecticides, it develops a historical account of evidence practices for pesticide use in development programs within a global perspective. DDT, Aldrin and Temephos were used both for global disease control and agriculture development programs. These insecticides mutually informed modes of application and circulation in regions of East and West Africa and South America during this pivotal timeframe.The primary aim of our research is to understand the history of pesticide use as a history of distinctive regimes of evidence; to explore how knowledge about environment, agriculture and health was produced and modified within these regimes. The crisis of western policy development and its following transformation in the 1970s exemplifies the dynamics of de- and re-stabilization of evidence. In contrast to existing scholarship, this study will foreground circulations of pesticide expertise between regions in Africa and the Americas, as well as dynamics of isolation and compartementalisation. Via an object-centered approach, we bring together the history of decolonizing regions in Africa with South American histories of development, the emergence of the environmental movement and the history of international organzations. Drawing on the conceptual framework of our research group, we compare how different regimes of evidence negotiated the costs, benefits and risks–particularly the longterm environmental consequences–of pesticide use.The analysis falls into three sections: first, exploring the tensions between global visions and the local implementation of pesticides, and the ways in which these tensions resulted in the transformation of global pesticide regimes. Second, how the uniformity of approaches in global pest control programs shaped the life of pesticides and, more specifically, the ways in which the portability of pesticide application technologies across a variety of contexts had a validating effect. Third, using the concept of pesticides as “public technology”, we aim to describe the role of different publics in debating and negotiating pesticide regulations, and explore how public definitions of evidence shaped and co-constructed evidence practices.Preliminary research suggests that the political transformations of the 1970s led to a diversification of spheres of negotiation with distinctive rules and compromises. We hypothesize that this fragmentation of spheres, as well as their interdependency, led to a provisional way of knowing and shaping global pest control regimes, which goes hand-in-hand with an increasing reflexivity of evidence practices. In this regard, dynamics of de- and re-stabilization of evidence not only inform development policies but also allow for reflection on current debates of decolonization and internationalism in global history.