Climate Change Data

Consortium for International Crop Protection

Climate Impact & Sustainability Data (1979)

Reporting Period: 1979

Environmental Metrics

Total Carbon Emissions:Not disclosed
Scope 1 Emissions:Not disclosed
Scope 2 Emissions:Not disclosed
Scope 3 Emissions:Not disclosed
Renewable Energy Share:Not disclosed
Total Energy Consumption:Not disclosed
Water Consumption:Not disclosed
Waste Generated:Not disclosed
Carbon Intensity:Not disclosed

ESG Focus Areas

  • Environmental
  • Social

Environmental Achievements

  • Large-scale IPM programs on major agricultural crops (cotton, corn, tobacco, apples, grain sorghum, soybeans, peanuts, and citrus) showed feasibility with little or no reduction in yields and higher net profits than conventional programs.
  • IPM programs in forestry, public health, and urban sectors were also successful.
  • In Berkeley, San Jose, Palo Alto, Modesto, and Davis, an IPM program significantly reduced insecticide use on city-owned shade trees (reduced to 7% of pre-program levels).
  • Results from mosquito control districts in California showed a 10-fold decrease in insecticide use (from 615,000 pounds in 1968 to 63,000 pounds in 1976) with effective mosquito control.

Social Achievements

  • Increased farmer profits through IPM implementation (e.g., Texas cotton farmers saw profits increase from $62 to $170 per acre).
  • Reduced pesticide-related occupational illnesses.
  • Reduced human deaths attributed to pesticides.

Governance Achievements

  • Not disclosed

Climate Goals & Targets

Long-term Goals:
  • Not disclosed
Medium-term Goals:
  • Not disclosed
Short-term Goals:
  • Reduce insecticide use by 40-50% in 5 years; 70-80% in 10 years for cotton, citrus, deciduous fruits, soybean, and alfalfa.

Environmental Challenges

  • Rising prices of synthetic organic pesticides.
  • Development of pest resistance to pesticides (over 300 species of insects, mites, and ticks resistant to one or more pesticides).
  • Despite increased pesticide use, annual crop losses remained constant or increased.
  • Uncertainty among farmers and other users about IPM's effectiveness.
  • Inadequate information sources for farmers (reliance on pesticide salespeople instead of extension services).
  • Shortage of qualified IPM personnel.
  • Government regulations and programs favoring chemical pesticides.
  • Stringent FDA regulations on insect parts in food and cosmetic appearance standards.
  • 1972 amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act discouraging commercial development of some IPM alternatives.
Mitigation Strategies
  • Recommendations for policy initiatives, additional research, and education efforts to advance IPM.
  • Recommendations for federal government initiatives leading to a national pest control policy.
  • Recommendations for improved federal-state coordination and implementation of IPM.
  • Recommendations for encouraging utilization of IPM and removing obstacles.
  • Recommendations for expanded education and basic research and evaluation.

Supply Chain Management

Supplier Audits: Not disclosed

Responsible Procurement
  • Not disclosed

Climate-Related Risks & Opportunities

Physical Risks
  • Not disclosed
Transition Risks
  • Not disclosed
Opportunities
  • Not disclosed

Reporting Standards

Frameworks Used: Null

Certifications: Null

Third-party Assurance: Not disclosed

UN Sustainable Development Goals

  • Not disclosed

Not disclosed

Sustainable Products & Innovation

  • Not disclosed

Awards & Recognition

  • Not disclosed