• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Preface
 Main
 Back Matter
 Back Cover






Group Title: Gatekeeper series
Title: Designing integrated pest management for sustainable and productive futures
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00089565/00001
 Material Information
Title: Designing integrated pest management for sustainable and productive futures
Series Title: Gatekeeper series
Physical Description: 21 p. : ill. ; 25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Pimbert, Michel P
International Institute for Environment and Development -- Sustainable Agriculture Programme
Publisher: International Institute for Environment and Development ( IIED )
Place of Publication: London
Publication Date: 1991
Copyright Date: 1991
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural pests -- Integrated control -- Forecasting   ( lcsh )
Insect pests -- Control -- Forecasting   ( lcsh )
Pesticides   ( lcsh )
Agricultural chemistry   ( sigle )
Agronomy, horticulture and plant pathology   ( sigle )
Pesticide pollution and control   ( sigle )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
international intergovernmental publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 18-19).
General Note: IIED, Gatekeeper series, number 29
Statement of Responsibility: Michel P. Pimbert.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00089565
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 25280046

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Preface
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Main
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Back Matter
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Back Cover
        Page 25
        Page 26
Full Text
Published by the Sustainable Agriculture Programme of the
International Institutefor Environment and Development


Designing Integrated
Pest Management for
Sustainable and
Productive Futures




Michel P. Pimbert








IIED
GATEKEEPER SERIES No. 29
INTERNATIONAL
INSTITUTE FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT












































The Gatekeeper Series of the Sustainable Agriculture Programme is produced by the Interna-
tional Institutefor Environment andDevelopment to highlight key topics in thefield ofsustainable
agriculture. The Series is aimed at policy makers, researchers, planners and extension workers
in government and non-government organizations worldwide. Each paper reviews a selected
issue of contemporary importance and draws preliminary conclusions of relevance to develop-
ment activities. References are provided to important sources and background material. The
Swedish International Development Authority and the Ford Foundation fund the series.

Michel P. Pimbert was Principal Entomologist in the Legumes Program of the International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O. 502 324, A.P.,
India. This is a modified version ofa paperpresented at the Asian Farming Systems Research and
Extension Symposium on "Sustainable Farming Systems in 21st Century Asia, 19-22 Novem-
ber, 1990, Bangkok, Thailand. He is now coordinator of the Biodiversity Program of the World
Wide Fund for Nature and Natural Resources (WWF) in Switzerland.

1991


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29 1








































































2 GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







DESIGNING INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE AND
PRODUCTIVE FUTURES


Introduction

Pests have plagued agriculture ever since people began domesticating plants and animals. Over
the centuries, farmers have developed a wide range of methods to combat these pests, but with
varying degrees of success. In the 20th century, however, the introduction of commercial
pesticides revolutionised pest control. These modem pesticides have helped to control and reduce
crop and livestock losses to a remarkable degree.

The use of these pesticides has, however, created some of today's major environmental and health
problems: reduction in the abundance and diversity of wildlife, human health hazards associated
with acute or chronic exposure to dangerous products in the workplace, and contaminated air,
food and water (Conway and Pretty, 1991; Gips, 1987; Pimbert, 1985). Most of the social costs
are unevenly distributed within and between countries. For example, about half of all pesticide
poisonings of people, and 80% of pesticide related deaths, are thought to occur in developing
countries, even though this is where only 15-20% of pesticides are consumed.

The self-defeating nature of the chemical control strategy that dominates today's crop and
livestock protection efforts has also become more apparent in recent years. Repeated applications
of synthetic pesticides have selected pesticide resistant pests worldwide, and there are now at least
450 species of insects and mites, 100 species of plant pathogens, 48 species of weeds resistant to
one or more products. In addition, the deaths of natural enemies has allowed previously harmless
organisms to reach pest status. The impression is that more and more pesticides have to be used
to achieve less and less.

For these reasons, crop protection specialists are increasingly being asked to develop pest control
methods that are more compatible with the goals of a sustainable, productive, stable and equitable
agriculture. To meet these aims, research must seek to integrate a range of complementary pest
control methods in a mutually enhancing and fashion, namely as Integrated Pest Management
(IPM). IPM focuses on five control areas:

- cultural pest controls: the manipulation of sowing and harvest dates to minimise damage,
intercropping, vegetation management to enhance natural con processes, and crop rotations;
host plant resistance: the breeding of crop varieties that are less susceptible to pests (insects,
diseases, nematodes, parasitic weeds, and so on);
biological control: the conservation of natural enemies, manipulation/augmenta of natural
enemy populations, and the introduction of exotic organisms;
the wise and judicious use of pesticides: chemical, microbial, botanical icides used along with
information on economic thresholds;
legal control: the enforcement of measures and policies that range from quarantine to ated land


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







and water management practices. This approach to pest manent must involve area-wide
operations that include many rural households are enacted for the common good of both
farmers and society at large.

But amongst users and promoters of IPM, such as researchers, donors, policy makers, pesticide
companies, and extension staff, there are significant differences in emphasis and approaches.
Some of the more fundamental differences are briefly discussed here clearly to identify IPM
approaches that reflect and reinforce the goals of sustainable and equitable production systems.
There will be a need to focus on structural changes in agroecosystems, give greater importance
to self-sustaining control methods, and draw on the local stocks of knowledge useful for pest
management.


IPM Systemic Adjustment or Structural Change?

The scope and content of various approaches to pest management are compared in Table 1. The
alternatives to the single goal, high intervention, industrial model of pest control broadly fall into
two styles:

- curative ecological solutions that seek for more efficiency in the use of pesticides and product
substitution (e.g. biocontrol agents for pesticides) within a farming landscape that remains
essentially unchanged in structure and function. This is the most commonly held perception
of the role and scope of IPM today.
preventive ecological pest management that seeks to redesign farming landscapes by injecting
appropriate levels of biological diversity and by maximising beneficial functional connec-
tions.

Whilst some of the defining characteristics listed in Table 1 are, to some extent, common to both
"alternatives" to the industrial or green revolution model (e.g. mixed strategies of pest control,
diversification), others are fundamentally different (e.g. overall goals, boundary conditions and
research goals and modes) (Table 1). These divergences primarily relate to human values and are
important because they highlight the ideological framework that IPM practitioners consciously
or unconsciously adopt in their work. Human values and subjective elements enter the theory and
practice of IPM by:

- defining what to think about and how to think about it;
- informing the choice of a research problem and the way it is tackled;
- setting limits on the thinking and imagination of scientists, policy makers, and donors;

and thus partly determine the ultimate nature of pest control technologies.


The Relative Importance Given to Self-Sustaining Control Methods

The methods used for plant protection are either self-sustaining or require periodic human and/
or capital input (Figure 1). Under this definition, all forms of chemical and most cultural controls


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29








Table 1: Approaches to pest management


Industrial and
green revolution


Present IPM Sustainable Agriculture
(systemic adjustments) (structural changes)


Eliminate or Reduce costs of
reduce pest species production


Single pest


Single for Calendar date or
intervention presence of pest


Principal
method








Diversity

Spatial
scale


Pesticide


Single farm


Time scale Immediate


Goal



Target


Single season


Multiple economic,
ecological and social
goals

Fauna and flora of a
cultivated area and
linkages with non-
cultivated ecologies


Multiple criteria


Several pests around
a crop and their
predators


Economic threshold


Prevention by plant
breeding and crop
timing, careful
monitoring, product
substitution, insecti-
cide resistance
management
and multiple
interventions

Low to medium

Single farm or small
region defined by pest


Boundary Everything as is:
conditions crops, cropping
system, land tenure,
microeconomic
decision rules,
social organisation


Research Improved
goal pesticides


Research Transfer of
mode technology (TOT)


Major crops, land
tenure, and decision
rules. Economy treated
as given but subject
to some intervention
via price supports and
subsidies


More kinds of
interventions


TOT mode


Social goals


Minimize need for
intervention


Complementarity
between TOT and
Farmer First mode (FF)


S(Modified from Levins 1986)


are non-self sustaining and, whilst some forms of biological control require periodic inputs, most
are self-sustaining. Most methods that emphasize agroecosystem design and reorganisation
based on renewable, farm derived resources, are self-sustaining (Figure 1).


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29


Agroecosystem design to
minimize pest outbreaks
and mixed strategies
including group action on
an area-wide basis to
complement pest controls
aimed at individual
households


High

Bio-geographic regions


Long-term steady-state
oscillatory dynamics

















NON SELF SUSTAINING



Chemical Cultural Host Plant Resistance


Sorghum
Crop rotation (Shoot fly)
Multicropping Groundnut
Tillage (Leafspot)
Sanitation Pigeonpea
Water management (Helicoverpa)


Autocidal
Fruit flies
(others)


I I
Inorganic Organic






Synthesized Synthesized Synthe:
Natural (industrial) (industrial) Living
Sulfur Copper sul- Chlorinated Semioci
(others) fate (others) hydrocarbons Pyre
Organophosphates N.
Carbamates Toxins
Pyrethroids thurin
(others) (otl





Notes
1 Some forms are self-sustaining
2 Partially self-sustaining


SELF SUSTAINING
1


Biological


Augmentation
of Natural
Enemies2
Trichoaramma
(Cornborer)
Encarsia
(Whitefly)
Virus (granu-
losis, NP)
Nematodes
(Others)


Biological Control
Vedalia beetle
(Cottony cushion
scale)
Klamath beetle
(Klamath weed)


Anta
microo
(Plant
Some ba
(Rhinoc
Som


Some
(oth






sized by
Drganisms
chemicals
thrums
eem
(Bacillus
siensis)
iers)


e Biotechniquesei
e.g. genetic engineering


Conservation
of Natural
Enemies
(Management
Practices)


gonistic
rganisms
pathogens)
culoviruses
eros beetle)
e fungi
protozoa
ers)


Agroecosystem
design and
reorganisation



Mimicking natural
succession and eco-
system structure
Functional diversity to
enhance cultural and
natural control
High proportion of
perennial plants in
the system
Biological structur-
ing and patterning
with resources inter-
nal to the system
Synergies/complementary
linkages with whole
system (water and soil
management, wildlife,
energy, fiscal structures,
employment...) designed to
secure sustainable
livelihoods


Figure 1. Methods for crop protection with some specific examples







IPM is premised on the idea that a mix of strategies should be deployed to contain pest damage
within acceptable limits. However, whenever IPM practitioners fully internalise the sustainabil-
ity concept in their minds, self- sustaining methods tend to be consciously chosen and preferen-
tially built into pest management schemes. Examples of biological pest control methods
deployed in the context of re-designed agroecosystems are shown in Table 2. Figure 2 shows a
multifunctional design primarily fuelled by solar energy in which the feeding activities of chicken
help suppress weeds and some insect pests. In this instance, pest management is a function of
carefully designed biological restructuring of the landscape that closes nutrient cycles by
integrating poultry and vegetable production along with grain and tree crops.

If the shift to self-sustaining pest control methods based on structural changes is to occur, then it
will be necessary for institutions greatly to broaden their knowledge bases. Whilst the industrial
pesticide approach depends mainly on the disciplines of taxonomy and toxicology, cultural and
biological methods add on population biology, behaviour, ecological genetics, agroclimatology
and micro-economics. Future self-sustaining designs that minimize the need for pest control
interventions will require more understanding of complex ecological systems and bio-social
wholes. Moreover, the move towards system design to minimize pest outbreaks calls for the
decompartmentalisation of knowledge and decision making as IPM becomes more broadly coor-
dinated with land and water management, conservation of biodiversity, public health protection
and socio-economic development.


The Stocks of Knowledge Used by IPM Practitioners

IPM practitioners may rely on four separate stocks of knowledge, of which two are as yet
embryonic in their development.

The first is derived from the Western positivist and mechanistic science and technology. The
industrial model of pest control is firmly rooted in this tradition and much present day IPM that
seeks systemic adjustments derives its tools of intervention and legitimacy from this stock of
knowledge. One example is the crops genetically engineered to resist insects and viral diseases
that are introduced as quick fixes for increasingly complex pest control problems. These new
genetically manipulated organisms are being developed to fit into conventional agriculture's
industrialized monocultures. Like chemical pesticides, they further accentuate farmers' depend-
ence on new products from corporations that have recently moved into the genetic supply
industry.

The second are traditional, empirical, experimental, and operational stocks of knowledge that
have been nurtured by rural people to secure their livelihoods within the constraints of a wide
variety of environments. Farmers have traditionally developed several strategies to cope with
undesirable organisms. Mixtures of various crop species and varieties minimise risks of crop
losses by insect pests and disease. Complex crop canopies and overplanting can effectively
suppress weed growth and reduce the need for weed control. Other control practices include:
planting in times of low pest potential, the use of resistant varieties, the use of botanical
insecticides or repellents, cultural practices to enhance natural enemy activity, and mulching to
minimise pest interference. Many of these traditional pest control methods and their underlying


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29








Table 2. Examples of pest control relying on diversity and renewable, farm derived,
resources.

a) Insect pests

Cropping system Pest(s) regulated Factor(s) involved

Chickpea and coriander Helicoverpa armigera Increase in natural enemy
activity

Cotton intercropped with Helicoverpa spp. Increase of beneficial
sesame insects and trap cropping

Tomato and tobacco Flea beetles Feeding inhibition by odours
intercropped with cabbage (Phyllotreta cruciferae) from non-host plants

Mungbeans and natural Beanfly (Ophiomyia Alteration of colonisation
weed complex phaseoli) background

Soybean and weeds Nezara viridula, Increased abundance of
(Cassia spp) Anticarsia gemmatalis predators

Cassava varietal mixtures Whiteflies Interference with host
selection behaviour

Cabbage/and natural Aphids (Brevicoryne Alteration of colonisation
weed complex brassicae) background and increase of
predators


b) Soil borne diseases

Crops and pest Soil amendment


Pea root rot

Banana wilt

Coriander wilt


Crucifer tissues

Sugarcane residue

Oil cakes


ecological rationale provide useful tools and ideas for contemporary IPM research (Altieri, 1987).

The third is knowledge that might arise from the interaction and complementarities between the
western positivist and traditional stocks. The detailed intimate knowledge that farmers have of
their local agroecologies can be usefully combined with the more widely applicable scientific
knowledge that comes from research centres. In the context of a sustainable agriculture this may
be indeed necessary: the more gentle, self- renewing IPM technologies are especially site specific.
Potentially fertile interactions between traditional pest control knowledge and modern science
would be encouraged if:

- IPM practitioners rejected the arrogant dismissal of non-scientific knowledge without adopting
the naive, uncritical, view that rural people always know best;


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29










Figure 2. Designed agroecosystem for pest management


Food and forage forest


Densely planted orchard of fruit, nut and
berry bearing trees with shrubs, vines,
herbs and annual food plants.


Pigeonpea
Mulberry
Cherry guava
Persimmon
Guava
Bananas
Pomegranate
Paw paw
Tamarillos
Loquat
Fig
Cherimoya
Wing bean


Carob
Tree Lucerne
Custard apple
Quondong
Bamboo
Kiwifruit
Choko
Dolichos lablab
bean and other beans
Cucumber
Squash
Pumpkin
etc.


germination
beds


Light moveable A frame where chickens
can weed, scratch, manure, feed on soil
grubs and insect pests (eg pupa) and pre-
pare beds for next crop. Controlled rang-
ing fora few hours before roosting can be
used as a means of pest control in veget-
able beds eg. caterpillars of Plutella,
Spodoptera, Helicoverpa, spp.


Appropriate landscape diversity reduces
pest damage by interfering with pest host
selection behavior, population develop-
ment and survival.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







- Farmers met scientists on terms of equality; that farmers were persuaded they have something
to teach and became involved in key decisions relating to IPM research and extension;
Innovative methodologies were used to actively involve farmers in observation, experimenta-
tion and adaptation of general IPM principles to local conditions (see below).

The final stock is knowledge which might come from the significant demand in many countries
(developed and developing) for a simpler, more humane, ecological life style. Some emergent
features of this class of knowledge are: holistic understanding, non-compartmentalised and
inclusive of other stocks of knowledge, lateral and transdisciplinary thinking, consciously life
affirmative and participatory. Despite occasional lapses into sentimentality and some errors of
detail, the conceptual initiatives of these critical movements offer much to the theory and practice
of IPM and sustainable agriculture. One example that merits close study in this context is
permaculture, a philosophy and practice of whole system design that seeks to supply human needs
(food, energy, shelter...) while retaining the self-sustaining features of unmodified ecological
systems (Mollison, 1988).

As we shift from the industrial model of pest control to more sustainable pest management
approaches, the third and fourth knowledge stocks will assume greater importance.


Research for IPM

The three approaches to pest management (Table 1) can be further differentiated on the basis of
their research modes i.e. the way IPM research is decided, carried out, evaluated and how its
products are extended to farmers.

The transfer of technology model (TOT) of agricultural research is typical of both the industrial
formula for pest control and of IPM construed as a systemic adjustment to the sustainability crisis.
In the TOT model, all the key research decisions are made by scientists who experiment on
research stations or under controlled, simplified conditions in farmers' fields. The resulting IPM
technology, such as pest resistant varieties, economic threshold data, and recommendations on
cultural practices is then handed over to the extension services for transfer to farmers.

It has been claimed that industrial and green revolution agriculture have been well served by this
model of agricultural research. The physical and economic conditions on research stations have,
after all, been similar to those of resource rich environments. The simplifying tendencies of
reductionist science have also meshed well with the ecological and social simplicity of standard-
ised, specialised farming systems (Chambers and Ghildyal, 1985). As a result, production gains
per unit area of land have been spectacular. For example, the introduction of DDT and
organophosphates in New Zealand to control soil pests in pastures led to a doubling of the stocking
rate of sheep 30 years ago. But the growing list of social and environmental costs of capital and
energy intensive interventions has drawn further criticism to this high technology model of
agriculture, which is not of pesticides alone, but of the package of which it is part.

Moreover, the TOT model of pest management research has had limited successes in the context
of complex, risk-prone, diverse environments where the majority of the world's rural people live


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







today. Along with many other agricultural technologies developed within the TOT framework,
failure rates have been and remain high: the research priorities often turn out to be wrong, the IPM
packages are rejected, the pest control technologies do not fit, are non-sustainable or inequitable
because of an emphasis on purchased inputs in resource-poor contexts. Examples include:

- pest management research based on scientists' perceptions of pest problems on research
stations rather than on data derived from reliable pest surveys and farmers' rankings of pests
in order of importance;
farmers' non adoption of improved high yielding, pest resistant crop varieties on account of
their poor taste or cooking qualities;
recommended weed control operations that create new insect pest control problems by
destroying the wild plants that key natural enemies rely on for food and shelter within the
farming system;
insecticide resistance management strategies based on rotations of different chemicals are
being introduced in response to field failures or to avoid the gradual build up of insecticide
resistance in major pests. But many low to middle income farmers are unable to afford some
of teh more selective products recommended in these schemes.

This crisis of the TOT model has led some IPM practitioners to explore new approaches that hinge
on farmer participation. These Farmer First (FF) approaches reverse parts of the TOT model
(Chambers et al. 1989):

rather than blame farmers' ignorance or farm level constraints for the non-adoption of IPM
technology, a reversal of explanation points to deficiencies in the technology and the very
processes that generated it;
a reversal of learning has IPM researchers and extension workers learning with and from
farmers;
roles and locations are also reversed, with farmers and farms central instead of research
stations, laboratories, scientists and abstract theories. Analysis, choice and experimentation
are conducted by and with farmers themselves, with IPM researchers and extensionists in a
facilitating and support role.

To combine effectively the theoretical insights and technical power of western science with
indigeneous knowledge on pests and their control, both FF and TOT approaches are needed in
IPM research seeking sustainable pest management (Table 1). This more inclusive research
paradigm is still largely in its formative stages. It recognizes that both scientists and farmers have
limitations and strengths, and so the challenge is to forge active complementarities between these
social actors and fully express their comparative advantages in generating sustainable IPM.

Increasingly, farmers are being encouraged to participate in the evaluation of pest resistant
varieties and improved genetic material (Ashby et al., 1987; Maurya et al., 1988; Pimbert, 1991)
as well as in pest surveys (Figure 3). These provide examples of IPM research in which scientists,
extensionists and farmers are more equal partners in agricultural research and development. In
these examples, scientists have clear advantages at two levels of organisation:

micro level e.g. Accurate identification techniques for causal agents of diseases; taxonomic


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29













Figure 3.
Survey to map the severity and extent of
insect pest damage in pigeonpea/sorghum growing areas
I
Definition of agroecological zones and use of geographical grid to
structure systematic sampling in core production areas


Formal Pest Survey


Agroecosystem analysis

Identification of insect pests and
natural enemies, scoring for pest
damage in farmer's fields.

Statistical analysis and generation
of biotic stress maps.
I


Overlays showing intensity and distri-
bution of pest damage fed into Geogra-
phic Information System (GIS).

A B
S.... ... 0. .. ..
000**. ...

000. .o00
Snun. 0o
__ ________ *"* *non


Informal Survey, participa-
tory rural appraisal (PRA)

Diagnosis of pest problems via
semi structured interviews with
farmers (women, men). PRA tech-
niques used to elicit information
on relative importance of pests
(past and present), their importance
in household economies and uses of
crops in livelihood systems. (e.g.
proportion of pigeonpea harvest
used as green vegetable).


PRA results organised
acquisition


for GIS


Integration with Geographic Information System
agroclimatic, edaphic,
socio economic data GIS
that are regularly
updated along with
pest survey data.

Uses :


o Fine tuning sorghum, pigeonpea breeding programs to meet requi-
rements of productivity, equity, stability and sustaina-
bility

o Insights into ecology of insect pests and rationalisation of
IPM research.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







skills needed to identify pests and natural enemies (for biological control); instrumentation and
expertise needed to understand cellular, physiological and behavioral processes;
macro level e.g. Satellite remote sensing to spot biotic stresses and environmental factors that
promote pest outbreaks; computer assisted geographic information systems (GIS) to integrate
information on temporal and spatial variations in environment-pest-host interactions; worldwide
electronic communication networks and data banks that make extensive searches for literature
and pest resistant germplasm possible.

But the collective knowledge that farmers and rural people have of their watersheds and
agroecosystems gives them distinctive advantages at the mesolevel where the pest control
interventions are ultimately aimed at. This is, after all, the social and ecological context in which
farmers experiment, adapt and innovate.

The suite of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods used to learn by and with farmers in
the pest survey example (Figure 3) include transect and time line analysis, diagrams, mapping and
analytical games. Semi-structured group interviews and several ranking techniques are used in
farmer evaluations of improved pest resistant genotypes in the field trials needed to identify stable
and acceptable sources of host plant resistance for heterogeneous and risk prone environments
(e.g. pair-wise and direct matrix ranking; Pimbert, 1991). Thus PRA methods allowed farmers
to compare pest-resistant pigeonpea varieties bred by ICRISAT with their own evaluation criteria.
High quality information was generated during group interviews in which Indian farmers ranked
various pigeonpea varieties using piles of tamarind seeds (1 seed for very good, 2 for good, and
3 for less good). The matrix indicating their preferences in reproduced in Figure 4.


Figure 4

Matrix ranking: farmers' pigeonpea preferences.
Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India
Improved Improved
Local ICPL 84060 ICPL 332
Leaf production oo o oo
o
Flower production oo o 00
o
Pod production 0 oo 00 0
0
Pod filling oo 0 00
o
Pest resistance oo oo 0
Seed yield aO oo 00 o
o
Taste 00oo o oo
Wood production oo o 00
and quality o
Market price o oo oo
Storability o 0 0

If only one variety available: 0 0 ooo
1. Rejected because of poor taste.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







ICPL 332, an officially released variety in Andhra Pradesh, was decisively rejected by women
farmers because of its bitter taste. Based on their own criteria of evaluation, farmers selected three
other improved pest resistant pigeonpeas, all non-released varieties (Pimbert, 1991). They also
made helpful suggestions concerning new lines of pest management research which have since
demonstrated the pest controlvalue of mixing different pigeonpea varieties in the same field. This
is an example of the more general risk minimising features of crop variety mixtures in marginal
environments selected by farmers (Jiggins, 1990).

A rich repertoire of PRA methods (see McCracken et al 1988; RRA Notes 1988-1991) thus allows
farmers' knowledge and values to become embodied in IPM research and its products.

In this approach the advantages of scientists (micro and macro levels) are effectively combined
with the strengths of indigeneous knowledge and experimentation when farmers are empowered
by modifying conventional roles and activities as follows:

Farmer activities New roles for IPM practitioners

1. Diagnosis and analysis Catalysts and advisers

2. Choice Searchers and suppliers

3. Experiment Supporters and consultants

4. Evaluation, farmer to farmer Facilitators and removers of legal and
extension of pest control technology administrative obstacles

This decentralised approach makes it uniquely suited for generating diverse, knowledge rich IPM
systems that echo the sustainability and balance of the surrounding natural world. Moreover, its
high level of participation also satisfies the equity criterion: it allows farmers to make their own
demands on their national research organizations and introduces some measure of accountability
and democratic control over agricultural research and extension.

It has been argued elsewhere that this research mode is particularly appropriate for complex,
diverse, risk-prone farming environments (Farrington and Martin, 1988; Chambers et al. 1989;
Richards, 1989). However, creative interactions between FF/TOT and plural stocks of knowledge
are equally relevant for the development of sustainable pest management in well endowed
environments that have been standardized and simplified by capital intensive agriculture. After
all, restructuring industrial and green revolution technologies for sustainability, productivity,
stability and equity will call for research paradigms that emphasize and support:

the maximum use of production inputs that are internal to the system e.g., incorporating
indigenous knowledge on pest controls in IPM design, enhancing local natural control
processes via vegetation management;
the development (or redevelopment) of germplasm well adapted to local conditions and pest
problems (as opposed to germplasm with "broad adaptability");
the selective use of diversity in time and space, both at the genetic and agroecological levels;
the wise and judicious use of insecticides and an economics which does not leave out social
and environmental costs ("externalities") when defining threshold levels;


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29






site specificity and a process that enhances the adaptability of farmers by widening their
choices;
complex interactions and linkages between crops, weeds, livestock, grasses, trees, insects and
fish (within and between cultivated and wild ecologies);
indigeneous experimentation and multi-simultaneous sequential innovations largely based on
the use of renewable resources derived from farms and their surroundings;
a frame of reference and set of concepts that allows us to visualize IPM programs centered more
on pest management than pesticide management (or any other single "magic bullet" tactic).
This calls for the integration of orically distinct fields of crop and pest management, the end
of disciplinary myopia and a more holistic appreciation of the potential role of functional
diversity, patterning, and complementarity in IPM;
collective decision making and community participation in implementing area wide pest
management schemes needed to complement pest controls used by individual farming
families. Many cultural pest controls against some of the more intractable migratory insect
pests that feed on many crops and wild plants require a high degree of inter-farm cooperation
and group action, both within and across watersheds, to realize their full potential, e.g. soil and
water conservation practices, synchronous sowing and harvesting at optimum time, wide-
spread use of pest resistant varieties;
a more open partnership with farmers that involves them in the conception, implementation and
evaluation of IPM tools. This participatory process should help stimulate the acquisition and
use of technological information by farmers. This is critical because IPM in the context of a
more sustainable agriculture requires more management time, substituting thoughtful obser-
vation and information for capital and resource intensive external inputs;
complementarities between food production and other development sectors (energy, housing,
water...) organised to secure sustainable livelihoods.


An Agenda for Change

Appropriate incentives, infrastructure, institutions and attitudes are required to focus mainstream
pest management on designs that suppress pests while achieving maximum yield and quality
without jeopardising the environment and public health.


Changes Within IPM Science and Extension

1. Broadening the scientific method.

In a review of the existing scientific barriers to sustainable food production MacRae et al (1989)
have shown how logical positivist and reductionist methods limit our understanding of complex
biological systems.

The conventional process of scientific enquiry could be broadened by adopting the more inclusive
IPM research paradigms described here. There is a need to lay more emphasis on synthesis and
complementarities between plural stocks of knowledge and research modes (see above). Reduc-
tionist methods and quantification would have their place in holistic explorations of pest manage-


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







ment. However, approaches that seek useful information without requiring exact precision in the
description of events should be regarded as equally valid ways of knowing (e.g. experiential
approaches like phenomenology).


2. A well rounded education for IPM practitioners.

Training people in sustainable pest management is a key strategy for its implementation. IPM
practitioners need to be cognizant with the various crisis that undermine the natural and social
basis h) agriculture and should understand how these crisis compound each other. They must be
able to describe the principles of ecology and their application to agriculture and pest manage-
ment; researchers should be able to recognize and conceptually integrate the technical, psycho-
social and moral aspects of a problem; they must understand the historical evolution of their
science as well as the underlying philosophy and the operational principles of new paradigms that
can be used (eg. FF modes and PRA methods). However, education and training programs should
not only seek to expand the world view and scientific competence of IPM practitioners. They
should also instill attitudes and values that psychologists associate with cooperative, life
affirmative modes of existence: nurturing "being" life orientations rather than the more having,
domineering, exploitative character structures that seek security in absolute control (Fromm
1978). This is important because IPM science and technology are not value free. Like all other
human constructs, they bear the imprint of scientists' life orientations as well as the dominant
values, priorities and character structure of the societies in which they are developed and used.

Equipping IPM practitioners with appropriate conceptual tools, attitudes and techniques for the
21st century therefore imply changes in the content of curricula and the way students are taught.
Some of the desirable features of the pedagogical philosophy and associated techniques needed
to generate productive and sustainable agricultural technologies are highlighted in Table 3.


Institutional and Policy Reforms

Decision makers and donors can play a key role in neutralising the counterproductivity of
chemical intensive pest control by effecting the following changes in international and national
policies.

3. The withdrawal of international financial support and national subsidies for pesticides.

The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and other development banks should discuss with
borrowers the removal of subsidies that undermine the objectives of safe, equitable and
sustainable pest management (Repetto 1985).

4. Adoption and enforcement of legislation regulating international pesticide trade.

Pesticides that have been banned in one country for public health and environmental reasons
should not be exported without the prior informed consent of the importing country. Penalties
should be applied to those who act irresponsibly.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29








Table 3. An educational process that serves the needs of a sustainable agriculture
(Ison, 1990; MacRae et al., 1989; Spring 1975).


Enhancing students learning autonomy and possibilities for self-actualisation and
empowerment

- Emphasis on process; on access to knowledge/information; on how to ask questions, on
"learning how to learn"; on open exploration.

Students as co-instructors in courses, as designers of flexible, learner-centred curricula.

Emphasis on rewarding disagreement/dissent rather than conformity/agreement.

Personal feeling explored.

Emphasis on intuitive guess work, analytic thinking, "open" divergent thinking, alternative
possibilities.

Teachers are facilitators, catalysts, consultants who encourage students to define their
personal goals and act as allies to help students meet these goals.

Students design their own evaluation systems with the aid of teachers.

A people and earth-centred learning system that values participation

- Classroom/learning space reflects interaction and exchange rather than one-way transmission
and "a teacher centred" world.

Emphasis on relationships as aids to learning; on the dynamics and iner-dependence of
biological and man-made systems. Themes that can be vertically integrated are used to
develop ideas and a sense of empathy for the living world that sustains human life.

Emphasis on student participation in the actual ecological design and running of the school's
life-support systems (food, energy, shelter...). The design process and its products (eg.
multistorey food gardens) are integrated in a genuinely cross-curricular praxis rooted in
everyday life (eg. the pest control methods used in producing foof for the school also help
develop and link ideas on food quality, public health, soil and plant science, economics and
ecology..).

A problem determined learning system that emphasises context and history

- Emphasis on applying concepts or knowledge to real life problem situations (a pest
management crisis, environmental/public health issues.....).

Assignments designed to approximate real-world experiences eg. role playing, event
organising, writing articles for the popular media, political action projects, action research.

Students spend time working directly in the agricultural milieu (farms, agro-industrial sector,
government services..)

Emphasis on ability to engage in constructive intellectual and interpersonal conflict
resolution in real problem situations.

Rather than just accepting precise definitions, students are encouraged to study a new
conceptfrom different angles and in different contexts. Facts are always provided in a broad
historical context.

The systemic, rather than linear or sequential, approach is used to return to the subject
several times but at different levels.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







5. Increased funding for IPM research that reflects and reinforces the goals of sustainable
agriculture.

Budgetary allocations for IPM research based on holistic explorations of agroecosystem design
and management are still pitifully small in comparison with funds for pesticide management
research. Governments should no longer provide financial support for R and D that are only of
immediate benefit to agroindustrial corporations. The use of public money to fund biotechnology
research that leads to patentable products (e.g. herbicide resistant crop varieties) should be
discontinued. Powerful transnational companies are the most likely immediate beneficiaries of
the monopoly control conferred by patent rights on life. These large firms can pay for
biotechnology derived pest control technologies that are protected by the intellectual property
rights currently being extended to plants, animals and microorganisms by the General Agree-
ments on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Chakravarthi, 1990).

6. Reward systems

As scientists and extension staff do respond to rewards, these can be used to redirect IPM research.
IPM practitioners who pioneer successful blends of FF and TOT research modes in national and
international agricultural research systems need to be encouraged, supported and rewarded.
Scientists and national extension personnel must be given the incentive and freedom to behave
and work in new ways.

References

Altieri, M.A. 1987. Agroecology. The Scientific Basis ofAlternativeAgriculture. Westview Press.
227pp

Ashby, J., Quiros, C., and Riviera, Y. 1987. Farmer Participation in On-farm Varietal Trials.
Discussion Paper, Agricultural Administration Network No. 22. UK: Overseas Development
Institute.

Chakravarthi, R. 1990. Recolonisation: GATT, the Uruguay Round and the Third World. Third
World Network. 319pp.

Chambers, R. and Ghildyal, P. 1985. Agricultural research for resource poor farmers : the farmer
first and last model. Agricultural Administration and Extension 20, 1-30.

Conway, G R and Pretty J N. 1991. Unwelcome Harvest. Agriculture and Pollution. Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London. 645pp.

Chambers R., A. Pacey and Thrupp, L.A. 1989. Farmer First. Intermediate Technology
Publications, London. 218 pp.

Farrington, J. and Martin, A. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research : a Review
of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit Paper 9 Overseas Development
Institute, London. 79 pp.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29







Fromm, E. 1978. To Have or To Be? Jonathan Cape. 215 pp.


Gips, T. 1987. Breaking The Pesticide Habit. International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture,
Minnesota. 372pp

Ison, R.L. 1990. Teaching Threatens Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Pro-
gramme Gatekeeper Series SA21. IIED, London, U.K.
Jiggins, J. 1990. Crop Variety Mixtures in Marginal Environemnts. Sustainable Agriculture Pro-
gramme Gatekeeper Series SA19. IIED, London.

Levins, R. 1986. Perspectives in integrated pest management: from an industrial to an ecological
model of pest management. In: Kogan M (ed). Ecological Theory and Pest Management
Practice. John Wiley and Sons pp 1-18.

MacRae, R.J., Hill, S.B., Henning, J. and Mehuys, G.R. 1989. Agricultural science and
sustainable agriculture: a review ofexisiting scientific barriers to sustainable food production and
potential solutions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 6, 173-219.

Maurya, D.M., Bottrall, A., and Farrington, J. 1988. Improved livelihoods, genetic diversity and
farmer participation: a strategy for rice breeding in rainfed areas of India. Experimental
Agriculture 24, 311-320.

McCracken, J.A., Pretty, J.N. and Conway, G.R. 1988. An Introduction to RapidRuralAppraisal
for Agricultural Development. IIED, London.

Mollison, B. 1988. Permaculture : A Designer's Manual. Tagari Publications. 575 pp.

Pimbert, M. 1985. Les pesticides. In: Cassou, B, Huez D, Moussel M L, Spitzer C and Touranchet
A (eds). Les Risques du Travail, Pour nepas Perdre sa Vie a la Gagner. La Decouverte, Paris.

Pimbert, M.P. 1991. Participatory Research with Women Farmers. 30 min VHS- PAL Video.
ICRISAT Information Services.

Randle, D. 1989. Teaching Green. Green Print, London. 236pp.

Repetto, R. 1985. Paying the Price : Pesticide Subsidies in Developing Countries. World
Resources Institute Report No. 2, Washington DC.

Richards P. 1989. Farmers also experiment: a neglected intellectual resource in African Science.
Discovery and Innovation, 1(1) 19-25.

RRANotes. 1988-1991. Nos. 1-13. International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED), London.

Spring, J. 1975. A Primer ofLibertarian Education. Free Life Edition's, New York. 157pp.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA29










GATEKEEPER SERIES

1. Pesticide Hazards in the Third World: New Evidence from the Philippines. 1987.
J.A. McCracken and G.R. Conway.

2. Cash Crops, Food Crops and Agricultural Sustainability. 1987. E.B. Barbier.

3. Trees as Savings and Security for the Rural Poor. 1988. R.J.H. Chambers.

4. Cancer Risk and Nitrogen Fertilisers: Evidence from Developing Countries. 1988.
J.N. Pretty and G.R. Conway.

5. The Blue-Baby Syndrome and Nitrogen Fertilisers: A High Risk in the Tropics?
1988. J.N. Pretty and G.R. Conway.

6. Glossary of Selected Terms in Sustainable Agriculture. 1988. J.A. McCracken and
J.N. Pretty.

7. Glossary of Selected Terms in Sustainable Economic Development. 1988.
E.B. Barbier and J.A. McCracken.

8. Internal Resources for Sustainable Agriculture. 1988. C.A. Francis.

9. Wildlife Working for Sustainable Development. 1988. B. Dalal-Clayton.

10. Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. 1988.
D.M. Warren and K. Cashman.

11. Agriculture as a Global Polluter. 1989. J.N. Pretty and G.R. Conway.

12. Evolution of Agricultural Research and Development Since 1950: Toward an
Integrated Framework. 1989. R.E. Rhoades.

13. Crop-Livestock Interactions for Sustainable Agriculture. 1989. W. Bayer and A.
Waters-Bayer

14. Perspectives in Soil Erosion in Africa: Whose Problem? 1989. M. Fones-Sondell.

15. Sustainability in Agricultural Development Programmes: The Approach of
USAID. 1989. R.O. Blake.

16. Participation by Farmers, Researchers and Extension Workers in Soil Conservation.
1989. S. Fujisaka.


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA 29







17. Development Assistance and the Environment: Translating Intentions into Practice.
1989. M. Wenning.

18. Energy for Livelihoods: Putting People Back into Africa's Woodfuel Crisis. 1989. R.
Mearns and G. Leach.

19. Crop Variety Mixtures in Marginal Environments. 1990. J. Jiggins

20. Displaced Pastoralists and Transferred Wheat Technology in Tanzania. 1990. C. Lane
and J.N. Pretty.

21. Teaching Threatens Sustainable Agriculture. 1990. R.I. Ison.

22. Microenvironments Unobserved. 1990. R. Chambers.

23. Low Input Soil Restoration in Honduras: the Cantarranas Farmer-to-Farmer Extension
Programme. 1990. R. Bunch.

24. Rural Common Property Resources: A Growing Crisis. 1991. N.S. Jodha

25. Participatory Education and Grassroots Development: The Case of Rural Appalachia.
1991. J. Gaventa and H. Lewis

26. Farmer Organisations in Ecuador: Contributions to Farmer First Research and Develop-
ment. 1991. A. Bebbington

27. Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa. 1991. Chris Reij.

28. Tree Products in Agroecosystems: Economic and policy Issues. 1991. J.E.M. Arnold

29. Designing Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable and Productive Futures. 1991.
Michel P. Pimbert

30. Plants, Genes and People: Improving the Relevance of Plant Breeding. 1991.
Angelique Hangerud and Michael P. Collinson





Copies of these papers are available from the Sustainable Agriculture
Programme, IIED, London (2.50 each inc. p and p).


GATEKEEPER SERIES NO. SA 29






The Sustainable Agriculture Programme


IIED


The Sustainable Agriculture Programme of IIED promotes
and supports the development of socially and environ-
mentally aware agriculture through research, training,
advocacy, networking and information dissemination.

The Programme emphasises close collaboration and con-
sultation with a wide range of institutions in the South.
Collaborative research projects are aimed at identifying
the constraints and potentials of the livelihood strategies
of the Third World poor who are affected by ecological,
economic and social change. These initiatives focus on
indigenous knowledge and resource management; par-
ticipatory planning and development; and agroecology
and low external input sustainable agriculture.

The refinement and application of Participatory Rural
Appraisal methods is an area of special emphasis. The
Programme is a leader in the training of individuals from
government and non-government organizations in the
application of these methods.

The Programme supports the exchange of field experi-
ences and research through a range of formal and informal
publications, including RRA Notes, aimed at practitioners
of Rapid and Participatory Rural Appraisal, and the Gate-
keeper Series, briefing papers aimed at policy makers. It
receives funding from the Swedish International Develop-
ment Authority, the Ford Foundation, and other diverse
sources.




International Institute for
Environment and Development
3 Endsleigh Street,
London WC1H ODD, UK

Telephone: 071-388 2117
Fax: 071-388 2826
Telex: 261681 EASCAN G




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs