What
is IPM ?
Integrated Pest Management is not a new concept-ideas
synonymous with IPM have been proposed at least since the beginning of this
century. In recent years the concept has evolved both in range and
implementation methodology. It is still evolving. However, IPM has meant
different things to different people-to some it means no chemicals under any
circumstances, to others it means biological control, to others it means proper
pesticide management. This has sometimes led to confusion, mixed messages and
failures. The debate continues, but it is more widely accepted now that IPM is
“the farmer’s best mix of control tactics in comparison with yields profits
and safety of alternatives”, according to Peter Kenmore of the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO). A recent expert group on IPM described it as “
a set of practices that maintain pest problems at a level below that which
causes economically significant losses; it emphasises minimal
intervention-particularly with synthetic biocides (pesticides)-and husbandry of
natural regulating mechanisms be they biological or cultural.”
When a chemical pesticide is used, one should be chosen that
is effective against the pest species but has low toxicity to non-target
organisms. The correct and safe use of pesticides (eg efficient and effective
application) should be emphasised. IPM is, therefore, concerned with combining a
number of control techniques, in a particular cropping system, for a whole range
of pest species in order to provide an overall coherent strategy for pest
management. IPM is now seen as essential to the development of sustainable
agriculture. There are normally several options that can be used for the control
of a particular pest. Farmers selection of a control or management technique is
based on the relative merits of each practice in terms of the ability of each
option the meet the farmer’s particular constraints and goals in relation to
expected profit and their perception of the risk. Socio-economic aspects of pest
management consider the constraints imposed by the cultural and economic
situation of the farmer on the type of management practices that are
appropriate, and the subsequent likelihood of their adoption. For successful
adoption of IPM the farmer must a) be able to identify problems b) have access
to appropriate control measure c) have the confidence to make appropriate
choices.
However, it is not
solely pest control measures that are considered as part of IPM-crop tolerance
to pest attack is also important This is greatly influenced by growing
conditions. Thus agronomic practices such as, land preparation, water
availability and nutrient availability, all effect the general ‘health’ of a
crop and hence ability to withstand pest attack. All must be considered part of
an appropriate IPM strategy-indeed the term ‘integrated crop management’ is
becoming increasingly popular to describe the range of interventions that should
be promoted.
|
CARE
and IPM
In 1990, CARE International adopted a Pesticide Policy
which adopts IPM as its official pest management philosophy. The policy also
discourages the use of the most acutely toxic pesticides (WHO class 1A and 1B)
and those that have demonstrated chronic toxicity. CARE is actively promoting
IPM in several developing countries-most notably Bangladesh, Peru, Nicaragua and
Sri Lanka. However, IPM is relevant as part of many project interventions and is
promoted as part of many other projects.
Training is a key
element to the implementation of IPM, but this needs to be backed up by
appropriate technical research and support, as well as suitable government
policy and institutional framework. Effective Implementation normally requires
close collaboration between government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
who provide different skills. For example, in Sri Lanka CARE collaborates
closely with the local Department of Agriculture, Agrarian Services and
Universities, as well as local community-based organisations and NGOs. Technical
support is also provided by international organisations such as the Natural
Resources Institute and FAO. Sustainability is aided through promotion of an
appropriate infrastructure to support collaboration in research and extension,
and the adoption of pro-IPM policies by government.
Is
IPM effective?
An example of successful implementation is CARE’s IPM
project in Sri Lanka (INTEGRATED). INTEGRATED aims to reduce exposure of Ski
Lankan farmers to hazardous chemicals, through the promotion of IPM and adoption
of safe and efficient pesticide practices. The project began in September 1993
and runs for five years. It is funded by the Commission of the European Union
(DG-1, Environment in Developing Countries). The final goal of INTEGRATED is to
reduce the exposure of 22,000 Sri Lankan farmers to hazardous chemicals through
the adoption of IPM practices, including the safe and efficient use of
pesticides. This is being achieved through:
 |
The project uses participatory training methodologies to
ensure the sustainable adoption of IPM. A key element of the project is the
training-of-trainers where farmer leaders, local NGO collaborators and other
groups will be trained in IPM and able to set up their own IPM demonstrations.
The projest is
implemented throughout Sri Lanka from six CARE Sri Lanka area offices in
Anuradhapura, Batticaloa, Galle, Kandy, Kilinochchi and Kurunegala. In each area
training is provided to community-based groups in pesticide safety, pesticide
poisoning and IPM. IPM demonstration plots are established and IPM is introduced
through a process of Farmer Field Schools, which is widely promoted by FAO in
the region, where farmers and trainers work together over an entire season.
Briefly, this training approach is based on the concept of ‘learning through
doing’. Farmers are taught to recognise pest and non-pest species and though
weekly observations to determine whether pest control is necessary.
Participatory research activities are set up to demonstrate fertiliser
requirements and alternatives, the effect of crop damage on yield and plant
compensation for damage, as well as the life-cycle, impact of pests and
effectiveness of alternative control techniques. The aim of the training is to
enhance the farmers’ ability and confidence to make decisions of when, and
more importantly not to apply pesticides. The central theme of the demonstration
plots is that farmers make their own decisions based on their observations and
discussions; this process is facilitated by the trainers. Target crops include
paddy and vegetables as the most important cultivations. Comparisons are made
between the IPM plots and neighbouring Farmer Practice plots. The latter are
normally located in the same field as the IPM plot. However, it soon became
apparent that farmers that observed the IPM plot rapidly adopted IPM practices.
Thus, the Farmer Practice plots did not represent the ‘typical’ practices
carried out by farmers. Therefore, additional information is taken from other
farmers in the area (non-CARE farmers) to determine average yields and income.
The results of one season’s demonstrations are shown below.
 |
Overall, for both paddy
and vegetables, yields and income have been shown to be greater in the IPM plots
compared to the Farmer Practice plots. When compared to the ‘typical’ yields
and income for the area the differences were even greater. As a result of
increased profits several farmers have indicated they are knowable to pay off
long-standing debts. In all IPM plots very little pesticide was used. In paddy
an average0.6 (standard error 0.36) sprays were applied during the season
compared to the normal practice of 3.2 (standard error 1.28) sprays
(3.0[standard error 0.66] were sprayed in the Farmer Practice plots, however,
these were influenced by the IPM plots). In the IPM plots pesticide applications
were made mainly for weed control. Similarly, in vegetables less pesticide was
applied in the IPM plots compared to the Farmer Practice plots.
In Chili the number o f
pesticide applications over three months in the IPM plots were 15.6 (standard
error1.8), compared to 28.5 (standard error0.99) for the Farmer Practice plot.
For cabbage the number of applications in the IPM plot was1 ( using neem, a safe
botanical pesticide), compared to 6 in the Farmer Practice plot (synthetic
pesticides were used).
In all areas surrounding the IPM plots farmers recognised
the success of the IPM practices and adopted them. This behaviour is typical and
is a major route of dissemination of the IPM message. This process is enhanced
through Farmer Field days. At mid-season and following harvest at the end of the
season, ‘field days’ are held where neighbouring farmers are invited to the
IPM demonstration areas and the IPM farmers explain what they have learnt during
the season and present and discuss the results of the IPM demonstrations such as
yields and income.
Initial training in pesticide safety and handling, and introduction to
the concepts of IPM is given to participating farmers prior to establishing
demonstration plots. The training programme is designed to introduce the
concepts of the safe and efficient use of pesticides as part of IPM. It is
important that training in pesticide safety is given as part of an IPM programme.
Pesticide safety training given in isolation is counterproductive as it tends
tore-enforce the practice of using pesticides. In contrast, when presented as
part of an IPM package the emphasis is on the minimum and efficient use of
pesticides. Farmers, local NGO groups, schoolteachers and school children, as
well as agrarian services staff are all targeted for training in the areas where
IPM demonstration plots are located. Since the initiation of the training
programme in January 1994 a total of 11,303 participants have been trained. A
training curriculum has been
produced by CARE, aimed at farmers, farm leaders, NGOs and school children and a
standard training manual is being designed in collaboration with the steering
committee members which will be available for use by all IPM trainers.
An IPM steering committee and local co-ordinating committee (district
for a) were formed during the first year of the project. The steering committee
includes representatives from the Department of Agriculture (DOA), FAO, Ministry
of Environment, Mahaweli Economic Agency, Pesticide Association of Sri Lanka,
Universities of Peradeniya and Ruhuna, Sarvodaya (national NGO) and CARE. These
organisations represent the major organisations involved in IPM research and
implementation in Sri Lanka. The membership of the local district for a include
representations from Provincial Dept. of Agriculture, local universities,
Agrarian Service Department, District Education offices staff, and local NGOs.
The function of these
fora is to co-ordinate activities at a local level. Collaboration has been
initiated at several levels with the DOA, this has included conducting joint
training courses and where appropriate joint IPM demonstration plots. Links have
been established with local universities ) Eastern University, University of
Peradenyia and University of Ruhuna) which will be the primary focus for testing
of IPM technologies prior to introduction to farmers. Links have also been
established with several international organisations which have provided
resource material and advice on pesticide safety and IPM.
The project has
demonstrated to farmers and to government and NGOs that IPM is effective,
practical and feasible under a wide range of ecological and agro-economic
conditions encountered in Sri Lanka and on several different crops. It is also
working successfully in conflict-affected areas where government extension
agents have little access and the availability of inputs, such as fertilisers,
are limited, thus indicating that IPM can work for farmers with little resources
or access to government back up, using NGOs as a lead agent.
Dr
Keith Jones works for CARE International, Sri Lanka (on secondment from the
Natural Resources Institute) and can be contacted through: CARE International,
36 Southampton Street, London WC1E 7HE, Tel.+44 (0) 171 379 5247.
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 31,March 1996, pages 4-5]