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

本研究探讨了1960年至1990年全球南方虫害控制运动中杀虫剂使用的争议和谈判过程。使用三种杀虫剂的例子，它开发了一个历史帐户的证据，农药使用的发展计划在全球范围内的观点。滴滴涕、艾氏剂和特美磷都用于全球疾病控制和农业发展方案。这些杀虫剂相互通知的应用和流通模式在东非和西非和南美洲地区在这一关键的时间框架。我们的研究的主要目的是了解农药使用的历史作为一个独特的证据制度的历史;探索如何在这些制度的环境，农业和健康的知识产生和修改。20世纪70年代西方政策发展的危机及其随之而来的转变，体现了证据的去稳定化和再稳定化的动力。与现有的奖学金相比，这项研究将突出非洲和美洲地区之间的农药专业知识流通，以及隔离和比较的动态。通过以对象为中心的方法，我们将非洲非殖民化地区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。借鉴我们的研究小组的概念框架，我们比较了不同制度的证据谈判的成本，效益和风险，特别是长期的环境后果的农药use.The分析分为三个部分：福尔斯第一，探讨全球视野和农药的地方实施之间的紧张关系，以及在这些紧张关系导致全球农药制度的转变。第二，全球虫害控制计划中方法的一致性如何塑造农药的生命，更具体地说，农药应用技术在各种情况下的可移植性如何产生有效影响。第三，使用的概念，农药作为“公共技术”，我们的目标是描述不同的公众在辩论和谈判农药法规的作用，并探讨如何形成和共同构建的证据practices.Preliminary研究表明，20世纪70年代的政治变革导致谈判领域的多样化与独特的规则和妥协。我们假设，这种领域的碎片化，以及它们的相互依赖性，导致了一个临时的方式来了解和塑造全球害虫控制制度，这与证据实践的反身性越来越强。在这方面，证据的去稳定化和重新稳定化的动态不仅为发展政策提供了信息，而且也使人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.