Off the ‘treadmill’: Cotton IPM in Pakistan

Ashraf Poswal and Stephanie Williamson report on efforts to reduce pesticide dependence through a farmer participatory integrated pest management (IPM) cotton training project in Pakistan.

Pesticide use on cotton has increased dramatically in recent years in Asia and more pesticides are applied to cotton than to any other single crop in the continent(1) (see figure 1). Pakistan is the fifth largest producer of cotton in the world, with 3.15 million hectares under cultivation. The majority of cotton farmers are smallholders with less than 5 ha of land and their growing dependence on pesticides has had serious consequences for the health and livelihoods of rural families. A recent study has shown that while men carry out pesticide application in cotton, women suffer the longest exposure as they treat the seed before sowing and pick the cotton over a period of 2-3 months(2).  
     Two of the most commonly used products on cotton in Pakistan are monocrotophos and methamidaphos, both organophosphate pesticides and both classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organization.  
    The rise in pesticide usage has been dramatic. Ten years ago a quarter of smallholder cotton farmers in Pakistan produced their crop with no use of pesticides. By 1997 the minimum number of applications was four per season with nearly half of all farmers spraying at least seven times (see figure 2). Yet these increases in pesticide use have not solved pest and disease problems or led to higher yields. In most cases smallholders’ income has fallen as they are spending more and more on pesticides. Pesticide consumption in cotton has risen by 40% since 1987 but yields for six of the last ten years were lower than the 1987. Aggressive marketing of agrochemical products and fear of pest outbreaks have caused cotton farmers to become trapped on a pesticide treadmill of more frequent applications, which, in fact, is the root problem of the current crisis.

The cotton whitefly ‘treadmill’  
In Pakistan the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, which is the vector for cotton leaf curl virus (CLCV), is by far the most serious insect pest on cotton. Leaf curl virus alone reduced Pakistan’s cotton production by 24% between 1992 and 1996. Whitefly infestations have worsened since 1992 and farmers are spraying two or three times in the early season alone unaware that whitefly has now developed resistance to many of the commonly used insecticides.

Research  identified natural enemies  
Whitefly is frequently a resurgence pest which becomes problematic when its natural enemies are destroyed. Research in 1996 at the PARC-IIBC Station of the International Institute of Biological Control at Rawalpindi, (now renamed CABI Bioscience Centre Pakistan) in Vehari Distict, Punjab, showed that whitefly may be kept under good natural control by a natural enemy complex composed of five species of parasitic wasp, lacewing and ladybird predators and a fungal pathogen similar to Paecilomyces  spp(3).  Of the parasitoids, Eretmocerus mundus occurred in all cotton areas surveyed: active from about one month after planting until cotton harvest, E. mundus controlled 28-67% of the white-fly populations. Of the predators, the lacewing Chrys-operla carnea was found in cotton fields throughout the season and reached densities of 5-11 larvae and 2-5 adults per plant. The fungal pathogen was found in the late season, and infected and killed up to 61% of whiteflies.
    National and international cotton researchers agree that whitefly outbreaks in Pakistan are a direct result of the elimination of these key natural enemies in cotton fields by increased and early insecticide application in cotton. The shift to earlier spraying also reduces populations of the predators which usually keep bollworm pests in check later in the season(4).

Delivering research to farmers  
On-farm research and demonstrations had indicated that it is quite feasible to reduce farmers’ current insecticide applications by at least 50%, while maintaining or even increasing yields(5). The keystone of this IPM strategy lies in the conservation of natural enemies, complementary cultural methods, augmentation of parasitoids, or the use of biopesticides. Field research in the Punjab in 1995-96 proved that it is possible to reduce insecticide applications from six per season (the average in current farmers’ practice in this region) to two under IPM decision-making whilst obtaining the same or slightly higher yields. This increases the farmers’ net income by up to 20%.
    However, for farmers to gain the confidence to abandon preventative calendar applications and make their own decisions based on farm-specific needs, they need to understand agro-ecological processes and cotton plant compensation for damage. They need skills in observation and basic ecological study methods. The traditional top-down model of IPM, based on threshold scouting has simply not worked in Pakistan, while insights and experience from the regional cotton project indicate that the farmer field school (FFS) approach is more appropriate and successful.  
    Vehari, a very hot, dry area of the Punjab, about 300km south of Lahor, became the site of the first FFS project in cotton in Pakistan—to develop a training curriculum for extension staff and farmers. The district cultivates 0.25 million hectares of cotton­—more than the entire province of Sind. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) supported the project, IPM Implementation through Training of Trainers (TOT) and Farmer Field Schools  as part of its Management of CLCV project, initiated following the declining yields since 1992 and the failure of the current research and extension system to curb the dramatic rise in insecticide use.  

Training of trainers course  
A 14 week training of trainers (TOT) course was held in blocks between May and October 1997. Trainees included the entire body of 20 Agricultural Officers for Vehari District, the Extra Assistant Director of Agriculture for Vehari and two PARC-IIBC entomologists. The first block was from 21 May -7 June 1997, before most cotton in Vehari was sown, to familiarise participants with non-formal education methods and to collect baseline data with a sample of participating farmers and to organise the subsequent setting up of the FFS groups. TOT participants also planted their experimental plots and began weekly agro-ecosystems analysis observation. The second block took place from 15 July -15 October to include vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage of cotton. The third block from November to December included harvesting of experimental plots, participatory evaluation of the TOT and FFS groups, graduation days and planning for 1998.  
    The curriculum for the TOT and FFS was developed and refined by facilitators, drawing on work in the ADB regional cotton IPM project but also developing new discovery-learning exercises for the particular cotton pest and natural enemy complex in Pakistan. Specific exercises developed for Pakistan included:  

• whitefly parasitization studies  
• natural enemy action thresholds for adults and larvae of pink, spotted and American bollworms  
• natural boll shedding studies  
• impact of bollworm and bollworm predators during square shedding and early boll formation  
• yield loss studies for bollworms and defoliators  
• insect zoos for whitefly and jassids with Encarsia, Eretmocerus and Trichogramma spp. of hymenoptera; lacewings; coccinellids, staphylinids and carabids; geocorid, reduviid and anthocorid bugs; and oxyopid spiders

Experiments included cotton varieties resistant to CLCV; whitefly population growth studies; pesticide effects on livestock and natural enemies; defoliation and desquaring experiments. In addition, the trainers investigated special topics, such as: neem oil on pests and beneficials, compared to OPs; cotton soil fertility and structure and nutrient management; organic cotton; benefits and risks of Trichogramma releases. The curricula for both TOT and FFS also included group dynamics and games to build team spirit, gain confidence in non-formal education methods and encourage self-evaluation.

Predator and pest identification is crucial for successful IPM

Farmer field schools  
Ten FFS groups of twenty-five farmers each were set up from July-December 1997 at locations scattered over Vehari District. Each group of four TOT trainees facilitated two FFS groups. Thirteen sessions were organized at fortnightly intervals with each FFS group starting around 20 days after planting, when the first whitefly begin to appear. A draft of the Cotton FFS Handbook for Facilitators was prepared by the facilitator team and consultants for revision and refinement in 1998(6).
    IPM and farmers’ practice (FP) fields of at least 0.5 ha were set up in each of the ten FFS sites, in addition to the TOT practice and experiment plots. No insecticide applications were made on any of the IPM fields in the first 8-10 weeks after planting, thus allowing natural enemy populations to build up. In contrast farmers’ practice (FP) fields had already received 1-2 sprays of monocrotophos or other OPs over the same period (Fig. 3).
    Through the training, farmers observed the role of predators and parasites in controlling whitefly, jassids and bollworm in their IPM plots. In addition to small insect zoos in plastic bags, all sites also set up field cages to observe spider predation on jassids.  
    After experimenting with whitefly resurgence after OP application, one FFS group even demonstrated the impact of unnecessary application to local agrochemical salesmen, Department of Agriculture officials and neighbouring farmers.  

The results  
The average number of applications in the IPM plots was 1.4, compared to 5.2 in the FP plots. Two FFS groups succeeded in reaching the end of the season without a single application of synthetic pesticides on their IPM plot, compared with 3-7 applications under FP. The other groups applied 1-3 sprays under IPM and 4-7 under FP. Rich complexes of beneficial arthropods were found in all IPM plots (spiders, predatory bugs, whitefly parasites, ants, ladybird beetles, lacewings) and the absence or greatly reduced application of pesticides allowed these natural enemies to exert effective control of whitefly, jassid and bollworm pests.  
    Seven of the ten IPM plots obtained a higher yield than in the FP plots, including both sites where no pesticide applications at all were made. IPM plot yields averaged 1,363 kg/ha and FP plots averaged 1,245 kg/ha:  a resounding confirmation of the ability of natural enemies to keep cotton pests in check and of the success of the FFS training approach in convincing farmers to step off the pesticide treadmill in cotton.  
    Of equal importance to the participating farmers and the FFS facilitators is the saving in input costs; the FFS groups involved translated IPM as Increased Profit Margins. The IPM plots spent an average of 1,974 Rupees per hectare on pesticides, compared with 6,066 Rupees on FP, a reduction of 68%.

Further development  
The Vehari pilot has provoked considerable interest at different levels, from Punjab provincial government to cotton farmers. Pesticide companies are worried enough by its success to have mounted a smear campaign in Vehari. Dr Kees Eveleens, cotton IPM expert from Wageningen University has confirmed that the FFS methodology and curricular contents in general are sound and offer the best chance to get off the pesticide treadmill.
    What is needed now is further refinement and validation of the curriculum over the 1998 season and expansion of the TOT and  FFS programme to build on the national enthusiasm generated by the Vehari experience.

References  
1. IIBC, Technical Assistance Completion Report for RETA 5514 (IPM in Cotton), Unpublished report, IIBC Malaysia Regional Station, 1997, 17pp.  
2. Habib, N., Invisible farmers—rural roles in Pakistan, Pesticides News  37, 1997, pp 4-5.  
3. IIBC, Annual Report 1996 pp 69-70, CAB International, Wallingford, 1997.  
4. Eveleens, K.G., Consultancy report for ADB CLCV subproject IPM Implementation through Training of Trainers (TOT) and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). Unpublished report for PARC-IIBC Station, 1997, 16 pp.  
5. Op cit. 1.  
6. Mangan, J., Interim report for ADB CLCV subproject IPM Implementation through Training of Trainers (TOT) and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). Unpublished report for PARC-IIBC Station, Pakistan, 1997, 19 pp.

The ‘Management of CLCV, Pakistan’ project and the subproject ‘IPM Implementation though Training of Trainers and Farmer Field Schools’ are funded by the ADB. The project was executed by CABI Bioscience Centre-Pakistan in collaboration with the Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock, Islamabad; the Department of Agriculture, Punjab (Extension), Lahore; and the Regional Agriculture Economic Centre, Vehari District.

Dr Ashraf Poswal is Director of CABI Bioscience Centre, Pakistan, Data Gunj Baksh Road, PO Box 8, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Fax: +92 (0)51 451147, Cabipak@isb.comsats.net.pk

Stephanie Williamson is the IPM Coordinator, CABI Bioscience UK Centre, Silwood Park, Ascot, SL5 7TA, UK, Fax +44 01344 875 007, S.WILLIAMSON@cabi.org

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No.40, June 1998, p12-13]