3. Integrated Pest Management

Guidelines for Country Report:

3.1 National IPM Policy

Observations (from 21 country reports)

• Only 11 countries responded
• All responding countries had an IPM policy memorandum/statement; one country reported IPM in the national legislation
• Few countries had IPM-based policies such as pesticide reduction targets or food quality standards
• Five countries had an IPM section or station
• Four countries financed IPM activities from their own budget

Notes

• The NPPO may not have had enough information about IPM implementation
• IPM policy statements need to be translated into actual pesticide and food safety policies
• More countries need to institutionalize IPM

To Be Considered

• Assistance needed to put IPM policies into action
• IPM indicators:
  – Pesticide reduction targets
  – Subsidies/promotion of biopesticides
  – Non-chemical recommendations

3.2 IPM Programmes

 Observations (from 21 country reports)

• All responding countries (19) reported IPM activities
• Eight countries reported to have a National IPM Programme, mostly in connection with external support.
• Seven countries financed their IPM activities themselves, but none had a National IPM Programme
• Eight countries reported positive impacts from IPM programmes, mostly in form or pesticide reduction on farm level, followed by increase in yields/income and higher production efficiency; two countries reported fewer outbreaks, and one country (only) reported a reduction in national pesticide consumption

Notes

• Many National IPM Programmes may have been only created in response to external funding, but are not yet integrated to
• There is a general agreement on the positive effects of IPM

To Be Considered

• Key indicators
  – % plant protection budget for IPM
  – % of major crops under IPM
  – % agric. extension officers able to give farmer training in IPM

3.3 Results from IPM Research

Observations (from 21 country reports)

• Only 9 countries responded to the question
• Most IPM research is being conducted by Agric. Research Institutions
• Only 2 countries reported IPM research by universities
• Reports do not clearly distinguish between IPM research, IPM implementation and pest outbreak management
• Four countries are developing IPM in response to invasive pest species
• Besides insect and disease IPM, only 2 countries worked on weed IPM and one country mentioned vector IPM research
• Most IPM research focused on biological control and biopesticides; all reported research was on pest control interventions
• Most research is done on vegetables, followed by fruits, rice, cotton and corn

Notes

• The reporting institution may not be aware of IPM research because of poor linkages to plant protection research institutions
• There appears to be little research on natural/ecological pest suppression

To Be Considered

• Exchange of ‘best practices’

3.4 International Cooperation

Observations (from 21 country reports)

• Half the countries reported to receive external assistance for IPM implementation
• The institutions most often mentioned were FAO, EU and DANIDA

Notes

• Reporting institutions were not always aware of the international cooperation programmes for IPM
• Most external assistance was coming to an end, indicating a dwindling interest in IPM

To Be Considered

• Inquire about country successor programmes after cooperation projects

3.5 Development of Pest Control

Observations (from 21 country reports)

• All responding countries are engaged in developing pest control technology; only 2 countries mentioned weed control, and one country mentioned nematodes
• Most pest control activities involve biological and chemical control, followed by cultural control methods and biopesticides
• Eight countries maintain surveillance and forecasting activities
• Strengthening natural control was only mentioned 3 times
• Most pest control activities take place in rice and vegetables, followed by fruits

Notes

• Insect and disease control is an important aspect of agricultural production
• All countries report to use a mixture of different techniques

To Be Considered

• Inquire about number of official recommendations by crops and method

3.6 Pest Control Extension

Observations (from 21 country reports)

• Of the 14 countries that reported pest control extension, 11 used farmer field schools, some with farmer trainers
• Two countries (Korea peninsula) appear to rely much on media extension
• Two countries reported facilities to multiply biocontrol agents, and one country has a factory for neem-based biopesticide
• One country still maintains a spray service

Notes

• Most countries provide pest control extension to small farmers, very often using farmer field schools and IPM technologies
• There is not enough information on the size of the extension programmes or their integration into general extension
• More industrialize countries employ different extension methods than developing countries

To Be Considered

• There may still be a need to integrate pest control extension into a more holistic approach, aiming at country development objectives and not only technologies
• Inquire about plant protection extension part of/separate from general extension
• Number of IPM-FFS trainers
• Number of IPM-FFS