The development of an integrated pest management programme involves three distinct phases, viz., the problem definition phase, the research phase and the implementation phase.
1. Problem Definition Phase:
The successful integration and use of control options in an integrated pest management programme depends to a very large extent on the time and effort apportioned to the definition phase of the programme. This is a critical phase that is rarely given the amount of consideration needed for the subsequent development of an appropriate management programme.
It is essential that the true dimensions of a pest problem be understood, not just in terms of perceived damage or yield losses caused by a pest, but in terms of actual yield losses and the socio-economic context of the farming system, in which these losses are known to occur.
An understanding of the impact of a pest attack in this wider context, will point the way to an appropriate selection of control measures. To take this approach, however, would involve a significant effort, since yield loss evaluations and a socioeconomic exploratory survey would be required, with the former possibly taking a number of years to carry out properly.
Such long-term approaches to simply defining a problem are clearly ideal, but rarely practical, especially where pest outbreaks are having a major impact on crop production and immediate control action is required. It will rarely be possible for all of the information required to be obtained, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the least that is required in these initial stages is a socioeconomic evaluation of the situation.
This should take the form of an exploratory survey. While other information may have to be obtained from the literature, this information and that obtained from an exploratory survey, will need to be carefully analyzed in order that the best possible representation of the pest problem can be produced.
This problem framing part of the procedure should aim to define the limits of the problem, i.e., it needs to identify the key processes and variables, provide a synthesis of what is already known, and determine exactly what needs to be known if a pest management programme is to be developed.
It is at this stage of the definition phase that modeling can play an important role, with the construction of a conceptual model of the problem. The model may or may not be developed as a mathematical model as the programme progresses.
2. Research Phase:
The emphasis on specialisation in research has meant that research projects are considered for funding on a piecemeal basis and on individual merit. There is little or no co-ordination between projects and in some cases, different institutes working on similar projects do not know of the other’s work.
While this approach to funding research may be highly appropriate for promoting innovative, specialist projects within a single discipline; it is much less suitable for promoting the objectives of a co-ordinated multidisciplinary research effort such as that required for a research programme in IPM.
Even if the separate components needed for an integrated approach were funded, there would still be little hope for integration because no organizational structure exists to co-ordinate the efforts and direct them towards a common goal. This lack of an appropriate organizational structure for management of research projects has important implications during both the definition and the research phases of a programme.
During the definition phase, it is important that a common paradigm of the problem be developed to integrate the individual goals of each research group and to provide a common objective. In the absence of this, each group will carry out their own research in isolation from every other group.
This will result in a number of separate solutions to a number of unrelated problems, because each group will perceive their objectives differently according to their own perceptions and expertise. Thus, organizational structures have an important role to play in pest management research to provide an appropriate institutional framework within which, integration can take place.
3. Implementation Phase:
The development of an implementation strategy should not be left to the final phases of any IPM programme. It should initially be considered during problem formulation and then continually readdressed throughout the research phase of the programme.
Various factors essential for the implementation of most IPM programmes are discussed below:
(i) Farmers’ Participation:
To be effective and economically feasible, implementation of IPM at the farm level requires a degree of training, experience and attention to individual field conditions beyond the capabilities of most farmers, who must devote most of their time and energy to other aspects of crop production.
On the other hand, top-down extension perpetuates an ideology of elitism, paternalism/passivity and social control. There is, thus, a need for a relationship of equality and dialogue between extension agent and farmer such that the partial knowledge of each is combined to solve problems and bring about positive change more effectively.
Since it is relatively complex, location specific and management-intensive, IPM is an educational challenge. The farmer must learn the principles and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to make autonomous decisions based on specific farm conditions.
There is a need for farmers’ participation at every step of the R&D process in order to draw on farmers’ intimate understanding of local conditions and constraints, their innovativeness and their skill at making the best possible living using limited resources.
Agricultural specialists should not dominate but instead should act as consultants, facilitators and collaborators, simulating and empowering farmers to analyse their own situation, to experiment and to make constructive choices. Extension agents should teach them analysis and decision making process.
Placing the farmer at the centre of the technology development process is wholly consistent with the IPM goal of making the farmer a confident manager and decision maker, free from dependence on a constant stream of pest control instructions from outside.
An innovative approach recently applied for the implementation of IPM programmes is the ‘Farmer First’ approach which is being used for IPM on rice in Indonesia. In this method, farmers are divided into small groups to monitor the crop and then each group analyses the field situation by identifying the key factors.
Group members then decide whether any action is required. At a combined meeting, each group presents and defends its summary to other trainees. The trainer facilitates by asking leading questions or adding technical information if necessary. This process allows farmers to integrate and practise their skills and knowledge, and gives trainers an opportunity to evaluate the trainees’ ability.
Thousands of farmers have been trained utilizing this approach and it is being tried on a pilot scale. A survey among these farmers during the first post-training season revealed that they really decreased their frequency of pesticide sprays to a level consistently lower than that of non-IPM farmers.
The percentage of farmers not applying pesticides was also significantly higher among the trained ones. Inspite of lower pest control expenditures, these farmers obtained higher yield than the non-IPM farmers. Other viable and easily implementable approaches need to be developed locally taking into account small holding size, low income and general literacy level of the average farmer in the area.
(ii) Legislative Measures:
IPM is an information system and its adoption reduces pest control costs. The alternative to IPM is the indiscriminate use of broad spectrum synthetic organic pesticides. Unfortunately, while pesticide manufacturers and users (farmers) derive the full benefits from the use of these chemicals, they pass on the environmental and ecological costs of their use to the society as a whole. If they are made to bear the full cost of the use of these toxicants, they may find IPM a more economical and attractive alternative. This could be achieved by enforcing suitable legislative measures.
Secondly, in order for an IPM programme to be successful, it must be followed by most, if not all, farmers in a geographical area. Ideally, all farmers may adopt an IPM programme voluntarily but some farmers may hold out. Such farmers called ‘spoiler holdouts’ may impair the success of a programme by failing to adopt a necessary practice. Legislative measures are required to impose the programmes upon an unwilling minority.
Thirdly, the importance and benefits of pesticides are being overemphasized by a multibillion dollar industry utilizing the services of not only their salesmen but also agricultural scientists, administrators and planners. There is not yet a strong market in IPM information.
Much important information which might induce a farmer to adopt IPM is not immediately observable and is, therefore, not sought by him. A manufacturer has no incentive to recommend a programme that uses less pesticides or even selective pesticides that kill a limited range of pests. This distortion could only be corrected by legislative action.
(iii) Government Support:
Both the national programmes of developing countries and the donor agencies must have policy commitment to IPM in the context of national economic planning and agricultural development. The costs to developing countries of not bringing their policies in line with the objectives of IPM are relatively greater than the costs of developed countries.
National policies to promote IPM require close regulation at all stages related to the importation and/or manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of pesticides. In the case of pesticides which do not meet prescribed standards for safety, persistence, etc., import and manufacturing bans should be enacted.
At a minimum, the conditions laid out by the FAO Code of Conduct on the Regulation, Distribution and Use of Pesticides should be adopted. Pesticide subsidies need to be eliminated in order to make IPM an attractive alternative. The funds so saved may be utilized for the implementation of IPM.
Funds may also be diverted from some of the current research programmes to IPM-oriented plant protection programmes. Additional monetary resources may be generated through cooperation with bilateral/multilateral agencies willing to support such programmes.
(iv) Improved Institutional Infrastructure:
IPM cannot be implemented unless there is a basic infrastructure for plant protection in a country. There is a need to develop and support national programme capabilities for on-farm testing and technology extrapolation. At the international level, establishment of IPM Working Group to coordinate and monitor funding of IPM projects is bound to provide impetus to the implementation of IPM. IPM is predominantly a knowledge technology, the use of which requires training of the many groups involved.
There is currently little training material for most of these groups including farmers, extension personnel and researchers. If IPM is to become the major approach for pest management in the developing world, this deficiency must be remedied urgently. Another aspect requiring greater attention is co-ordination of effort within and between countries, between national research, training and implementation institutes/ programmes, and amongst international development agencies.
Lack of a reliable database has also hampered progress of IPM programmes. A reliable source of accurate information on the status of crops and pests in farmer’s fields is necessary for many IPM activities. Most of the successful IPM programmes both in developed and developing countries have a reasonably accurate system of monitoring and evaluating various biological and environmental parameters in the agro-ecosystem. A reliable data base on crop yield and pest losses is required for planning and resource tool for IPM in developed-country cropping system and may be used in the developing countries as well.
(v) Improved Awareness:
Increased education and awareness regarding the objectives, techniques and impact of IPM programmes are required at all levels including policy makers, planners, farmers, consumers and general public. The importance and benefits of pesticides are being over-emphasized by a multibillion dollar industry utilizing the services of not only their salesmen but also agricultural scientists, administrators and planners.
There is not yet a strong market in IPM information. Policymakers and planners need to be convinced that without IPM current agricultural production systems are not sustainable. Similarly, much important information which might induce a farmer to adopt IPM is not immediately observable and is, therefore, not sought by him. A manufacturer has no incentive to recommend a programme that uses less pesticide, or even selective pesticides that kill a limited range of pests.
Consumer groups and the general public may also be able to support the implementation of IPM programmes by demanding residue-free commodities. There is now a distinct market for organically produced food and other products. Non-government organizations and consumer groups need to be strengthened in developing countries, so that there is a public-oriented movement for implementation of IPM.