The systemwide Programme on Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM) is one of the currently 15 systemwide initiatives of the CGIAR. The purpose of these systemwide programmes in general is to catalyse research, avoid duplication of efforts, enhance complementarities and reduce transaction costs of the overall research process in international agriculture. In this sense systemwide programmes are not simply an addition to the research programmes of the individual centres, but rather are designed to produce “added value” from well planned and targeted interactions among scientists across CGIAR Centres and their ARI and NARS partners. This also applies to the SP-IPM whose focus is on pest problems of large regional and/or global nature.
Relative to the other systemwide programmes, the SP-IPM is unique as IPM concepts and principles are already widely applied in the research and development activities of most International Agricultural Research Centres (IARC) regardless of their mandates. An impact assessment study of IPM in the CGIAR-Centres including AVRDC and ICIPE found that the benefits of IPM were well recognised within these centres and by the scientific community globally (CGIAR 2000). Also, pilot IPM programmes involving CGIAR Centres have shown remarkable economic benefits with the rate of return on investments in IPM being well in line with other investments in international agricultural research. The benefits of IPM are likely underestimated since, in addition to productivity enhancement and risk reducing effects, there are large non-market benefits in the area of human health and the environment. What then is the rationale of a systemwide programme on IPM? The answer is clearly that the constraints and challenges IPM faces on a regional and global scale cannot be met by individual researchers or by individual centres. To meet these challenges a co-ordinated effort is necessary to address two key issues: (1) the need to develop control strategies and tactics for pests (often man-induced) with a regional or global dimension; and (2) the need to create a policy environment that favours the adoption of IPM methods on a global scale.
As conclusions of its findings, the Panel offers five major recommendations:
the Panel recommends that in view of the global challenges from pests and pest management issues there exists a strong need and a high relevance for SP-IPM in the future. In view of the changes that the CGIAR is currently undergoing, the Panel views advancements in the internal coherence of the CGIAR research portfolio as an important pre-condition for SP-IPM to perform its role effectively. The Panel recommends that in order to be successful in the future SP-IPM should go beyond its present focus of improving co-operation among centres and should widen its scope and take a more outward-looking approach in seeking international assistance and co-operation;
the Panel recommends that SP-IPM should more thoroughly analyse its taskforces with regards to scope and extended problem definition in order to expand their potential global relevance. In order to carry out this task the Panel sees a strong need for an independent and strong global research network on IPM and recommends that the CGIAR make the SP-IPM a more visible part of its strategy for achieving its stated objectives;
the Panel recommends that in order to make full use of relevant disciplinary expertise, SP-IPM should more seriously explore the complementarities among programmes including different systemwide programmes and relevant Centres not included in the systemwide programme as well as outside research institutes be they advanced NARS or ARIs. To fully utilise recent advances in computer modelling and GIS that offer new potentials for the transfer of site-specific research results SP-IPM should adopt these concepts as unifying part of its major research strategies;
the Panel recommends that socio-economic and policy research be added as a major component of SP-IPM. There are at least three broad themes that deserve to be given more attention if the SP-IPM wants to make relevant and significant contributions to international agricultural developments, namely (1) economically defined crop loss assessment, (2) policy research in response to national crop protection policies and international trade issues, i.e. IPM and globalisation and (3) impact assessment that incorporates natural resource management aspects into social science research; and
the SP-IPM Review Panel recommends that the status of IPM be greatly elevated within the CGIAR and to be upgraded beyond the focus of the current systemwide programme. That SP-IPM in the future should be organized as a “virtual Centre” with minimal infrastructure but maximum linkages. The Panel views this as the best way to develop a global structure that has a fair chance to overcome the problem of rising crop losses from pests and the growing level of pesticide use world-wide. The co-ordinator position should serve as a liaison and “honest broker” between the centres and other IARCs, donors, development organizations and the GIPMF on IPM issues. The co-ordinator position should be at the level of a Centre Director. Funding for the SP-IPM programme co-ordinator position should come from CGIAR core funds. The Panel recommends to establish the virtual IPM Centre either directly under TAC/SC or alternatively with any other research organization of international status in IPM to be determined through an open bidding process and to be coupled contractually to the CGIAR.
