IPM points of view 
interview with Dr Jeff Waage

The International Institute of Biological Control (IIBC) supports and develops biological control-the use of organisms as pest control agents-and integrated pest management (IPM) world-wide, through research, training and provision of advice and information.  Director, Dr Jeff Waage, explains why IIBC is committed to promoting farmer-led agricultural strategies and how this can contribute to food security.

What is IIBC's unique contribution to pest control?
The IIBC mission is to promote biological control as the basis of sustainable pest management. We began our life helping countries with alien pest problems, by introducing safe and specific biological control agents from the country of origin of these introduced pests. We are still the only international organisation dedicated to this effort on a global scale, but we have learned over the years that the potential for biological control is much greater than simply the sustainable control of alien pests. Today, we are increasingly assisting developing countries to use their own biological resources to develop biological control methods, such as local biological pesticides, which can replace dependence on imported agrochemicals. But perhaps most importantly, we have come to appreciate that the most important contribution of biological control to agriculture is that which local natural enemies provide, day after day, working in farmers fields to suppress pests. This is why our work focuses increasingly on IPM and working with researchers, extensionists and farmers in a participatory way, to establish a common understanding of local natural enemies and how they can be encouraged and conserved.

What is the reason for the focus on IPM?
If we look at our serious pest problems around the world today, a substantial proportion of them have been introduced or made substantially worse by pesticide use: rice planthopper, cotton bollworm and whitefly, diamondback moth on cabbage, and I could name many more, in virtually all the major crops systems including vegetables, cereals, cotton and plantation crops. These induced pest problems, in turn, can be traced to the elimination of local natural enemies by insecticide use. The solution to this problem must involve restoring this biological control, but it must also involve other elements too, such as policies and practices which empower farmers to solve pest problems, reduce pesticide use and develop alternative methods for pest control. This whole process is IPM, and this is why it is so important for a biological control institute like ours to embrace this broader concept, if it is to make a meaningful and sustainable contribution.
    Other aspects of what we do fit well into this, for instance the control of alien pest species. Introduced alien pests rank high alongside pesticide-induced pests as our most severe pest problems today, because they easily reach outbreak levels in new countries where there are no local and specific natural enemies to keep their numbers in balance. Alien pest problems are growing rapidly worse, as a result of increased agricultural trade, both North/South and South/South, which in turn is a consequence of GATT. Export horticultural crops are a good example-most of their problems are caused by alien pests which are rapidly becoming cosmopolitan. In the wake of this, farmers are resorting to pesticide use and risking their own livelihood by selling produce with unacceptable pesticide residue levels. The solution must be IPM, supported in this case by the introduction of safe, specific natural enemies against alien pests.

Is IPM too oriented towards biological control and insect pest management, rather than a holistic approach which looks at weeds, diseases and soil fertility?
It is true that IPM has been strongly oriented towards insect problems, and this is largely historical, because this is where problems with pesticides, including pest resistance, environmental pollution and human health really began. However, IPM of insect pests is a useful entry point for a broader approach to IPM. Insecticide-induced pest problems are so widespread and extreme that training of farmers in IPM methods, including awareness and conservation of natural enemies, can lead quickly to reduced insecticide use which means greater and more dependable returns to farmers. These substantial, short-term benefits of IPM programmes help to spread and gain the support of policy makers. It also orients farmers and governments towards a more holistic, farmer-participatory approach to all aspects of crop production.
    IPM programmes on rice in Asia, which were stimulated by insect pest problems, have as their strategy three elements: grow a healthy crop; inspect fields regularly; and conserve natural enemies. The last may apply particularly to insect pest problems, but the other two emphasise good crop management.
    If you look at weed and disease problems, the concept of IPM, and the contribution of biological control, is not as well established. Some of this can be explained by the nature of the problems. Herbicides, for instance, are often much cheaper than insecticides, show less dramatic problems as yet with resistance, pollution and toxicity. And alternatives such as manual control are becoming less desirable as farm economies diversify and labour costs rise. But  pesticide resistance is growing for plant diseases and weeds, use of some fungicides and herbicides do interfere with natural enemies, such as fungi which suppress plant diseases. There are effective, though less well known, farmer-based methods which can have a major impact, for instance the protection of nursery plots to keep out insect vectors of plant diseases or the use of grazing animals for weed control.
    Soil fertility is a crucial factor in many subsistence farming systems and intimately linked with pest management. For instance, in farmer participatory IPM projects which IIBC is assisting in Asia and Africa, we are trying to understand how processes of using crop residues for composting and improving soils relates to the prevalence and transmission of plant diseases from crop to crop. Ideally, farmers and researchers can discover ways in which crop residues can be processed which both produces excellent compost and reduces disease transmission.
    In Kenya, IIBC is working with the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF) to build farmer-participatory IPM training into their existing, more holistic training programmes which support improved soil fertility. The focus here is on insect pest and disease management in vegetables and coffee, and is built on establishing an understanding of pest and disease life cycles, natural enemies of pests and the effect of crop protection measures on these.

You have said that IIBC promotes IPM in a participatory manner with farmers. What do you mean by this?
The long history of biological control has been mostly about 'intervention' for instance the introduction of biological control agents against alien pests, the mass production of predators or parasites for release into crops or the sale and use of biopesticides. These are important elements of IPM, particularly as alternatives to chemical pesticide use, but like chemical pesticides, they may not be effectively used unless farmers are involved in their development and application. For instance, an introduced parasitic wasp which now underpins IPM of Asia's worst cabbage pest, the diamondback moth (DBM), has been established for decades in countries which are still on a pesticide treadmill for DBM control. The wasp has little effect because of widespread insecticide use. When that use is reduced, and farmers understand how to help the wasp survive to provide free control of DBM, then the IPM solution can develop. IIBC has recent experience of this through its assistance to a Philippine national programme on IPM and DBM, which has now trained over 2,000 cabbage farmers in IPM through farmer field schools in which they discover by their own observations and experiments the value of biological control.
    We now appreciate that an important role for our institute must be this assistance in helping farmers to discover biological control for themselves and to participate themselves in research on biological control as part of their local IPM solutions. We are a small institute, and do not propose to become involved in large-scale farmer training programmes, but what we can contribute is expertise in biological control methods for a wide range of crops and pests, locally-focused curricula for biological control and IPM training for these different systems and programmes to 'train the trainers'.

What is the role of researchers and scientific research institutes in this approach?
This is a question which has been very much on our minds, as we come to realise that our traditional research focus will not make its best contribution unless we re-orient out biological control work to engage farmers, extensionists and policy makers, and not just colleagues in the research community. There are many scientists around the world today doing potentially valuable work in IPM and biological control, working in their own laboratories or field plots on solutions which they hope a farmer in a far-off land can use to his or her benefit. Research scientists do have an enormous role to play in the development and implementation of IPM, but developing holistic IPM practices with a particular local farming community is a departure from traditional research careers which reward specialising in narrow fields and publishing papers of international, not local, significance. So there is a challenge facing institutions like IIBC-you might say it is the challenge to 'act globally, act locally' to paraphrase the popular expression. And for us it involves making a commitment to a more participatory approach.

Food production has been consistently falling in Africa. Many believe that Africa does not use enough chemical pesticides and fertilisers, and that increasing their use would reverse this trend, What is your view?
The way in which we set about food production in Africa or anywhere is important. We can learn from our experiences of agricultural intensification elsewhere. Development assistance programmes continue routinely to prescribe pesticides as part of a package of high-yielding crop varieties and fertilisers, without an understanding of local pest problems or a commitment to IPM. African food crops receive very little pesticide application today, while African crops which do, such as cotton, coffee, sugar cane and particularly vegetables, have serious induced pest problems. There is a need for IPM here, so it is possible to anticipate a need with food crops, where inputs like pesticide increased. I think so, and this recommends getting IPM into the system at the beginning of intensification programmes.
    A few years ago, we undertook with the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) a study of the bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, in small farmers crops. The bollworm was an important pest of cotton in Kenya, but not of maize, sorghum, pulses or oilseeds, although it fed on these crops. We wanted to understand why it was not a pest, and part of our motivation was to anticipate what might happen with pests like bollworm if food crops were to be intensified with higher pesticide inputs. The ecological studies revealed that bollworm was suppressed in most crops by natural enemies, particularly ants and predatory bugs. From experience in other parts of the world, we know that these natural enemies are particularly susceptible to chemical insecticides. Thus, we concluded that insecticide use in a maize intensification system might induce new problems with pests like bollworm, and this should be considered when designing pest management in that programme.
    But perhaps the best way to address the need for IPM in programmes to increase food production in Africa is to make progress with IPM in African crops which need it, such as vegetables or export horticulture, where benefits can be quickly shown and public and national policy-level support for IPM can be built.

Jeff Waage is the Director of the International Institute for Biological Control (IIBC), CABI International, Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berks, SL5 7TA, UK, Tel. +44 1344 872 999, Fax +44 1344 875 007, Email cabi-iibc-hq@cgnet.com

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 33 as part of the Focus on Food supplement, September 1996, pages 14-15]