CHAPTER 2 - ASSESSMENT OF THE SP-IPM ACCORDING TO TERMS OF REFERENCES (TOR) GIVEN TO THE PANEL

Here an attempt is made to assess goal, achievements and performance of SP-IPM according to the Terms of References given by TAC. A strong word of caution is necessary at the outset. First, many of the projects are regional and only some are truly global in nature. Second, data were sparse on the performance of most of the SP-IPM projects introducing considerable uncertainty and difficulty in reaching concrete conclusions concerning the success of specific activities of the programme. Nevertheless, we believed that we were able to reach consensus on the overall contribution of SP-IPM in terms of the process, i.e. whether or not the programme in its present form is likely to make a difference for (a) reducing transaction costs of inter-centre collaboration and (b) the extent to which it contributes to the solution of the global problems in crop protection as outlined in Chapter 1 of this report.

2.1 Assess the Relevance of the SP-IPM's Objectives, Priorities and Strategies to the Goals of the CGIAR, Including Evaluating the Mechanisms Used for Setting Priorities (TOR 1)

As stated in several of the CGIAR documents (e.g. SP-IPM Annual Reports) the objectives, priorities and strategies of the Systemwide Programme on Integrated Pest Management are at the vital centre of the mission of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The mission of the CGIAR was stated in the Summary. In pursuance of this mission and in full accord with the articles of UNCED Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs that here includes the CGIAR Centres plus AVRDC and ICIPE), IPM as a system is recognized as contributing to productivity, prosperity and human well-being in an environmentally sound and equitable manner and that IPM has a key role to play in sustainable agricultural development. The IARCs therefore affirm that IPM is the preferred plant and animal health protection strategy and that, through their research and related activities, they will promote the adoption of IPM by farmers.

The following guiding principles for IPM were adopted by the IARCs (TAC 2001):

• IPM research is inter-disciplinary and pursues a holistic approach to management of agricultural and natural ecosystems;

• IPM maintains and utilises biodiversity as the natural foundation for pest management in the context of sustainable agricultural development;

• IPM development is guided by farmer participation, from problem diagnosis through component research to on-farm validation;

• IPM adoption depends on the ability of farmers to make informed decisions based on an understanding of ecological and economic principles. Farmer empowerment is achieved through participatory research and training methods that encourage the integration of traditional and 'science-based' knowledge; and

• success in implementing IPM is contingent on a favourable public policy environment.

As a strategy to promote IPM the IARCs have adopted the following:

• the IARCs will further develop their existing comparative advantages in researching pest problems, developing IPM components, implementing pilot projects and assessing impact;

• the IARCs will maintain and expand their effective partnerships with NARS, NGOs and other appropriate national, international and bilateral organizations to promote IPM research and implementation;

• in full-scale IPM implementation, the IARCs will play a supporting role to organizations such as national extension services, NGOs and IGOs;

• the IARCs will promote more effective communication between farmers, extensionists and researchers to ensure that research efforts are clearly focused on farmers' needs and provide direct support to implementation efforts;

• the IARCs will engage in direct dialogue with policy makers and provide information to the general public to raise awareness of the benefits of IPM and promote a policy environment more favourable for IPM implementation;

• the IARCs will collaborate with the private sector in developing bio-pesticides, semio-chemicals, drugs and other products that can be used in an economically sound and environmentally responsible way within an IPM framework; and

• the IARCs will explore the full potential of biotechnological tools (including tissue culture, marker-assisted selection, diagnostic tools and gene transfer) in developing IPM tactics. Genetically - engineered products will be evaluated for their non-target effects before deployment within an IPM framework appropriate to the biophysical and socio-economic environment.

The Systemwide Programme (SP) on IPM was created to ensure that “IPM principles guide all pest control efforts within the CGIAR System” and that IARCs should “strongly support research leading to its wider application”. SP-IPM has defined Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as:

“an approach to enhancing crop and livestock production, based on an understanding of ecological principles, that empowers farmers to promote the health of crops and animals within a well-balanced agro-ecosystem, making full use of available technologies, especially host resistance, biological control and cultural control methods. Chemical pesticides are used only when the above measures fail to keep pests below acceptable levels and when assessment of associated risks and benefits (considering effects on human and environmental health, as well as profitability) indicates that the benefits of their use outweigh the costs. All interventions are need-based and are applied in ways that minimise undesirable side-effects.”

Guided by the principles set out above, SP-IPM seeks to achieve synergies and greater impact in IPM research and implementation and to ensure that these activities are fully responsive to the needs of IPM practitioners. Its specific objectives were formulated as follows:^[13]

• strengthen inter-centre collaboration;

• enhance communication and co-operation between IARCs and partners;

• provide a collective voice and focus on IPM issues;

• identify IPM opportunities and develop joint projects;

• support IPM implementation through research and training; and

• promote public awareness of CGIAR Centre IPM activities.

In pursuing these objectives it was envisioned that the SP-IPM would help to ensure greater impact of CGIAR IPM activities at the farm level by (a) encouraging farmer participation and the formation of effective collaboration with organizations primarily concerned with IPM implementation; and (b) focus attention of IPM activities on sustainability and human well-being.

The Panel fully endorses the relevance of the principles adopted by the IARCs in promoting IPM in relation to the global problems of crop protection as elaborated in the Summary. The Panel also endorses the definition of IPM adopted by SP-IPM and recognises the relevance of its specific objectives. The global challenge that emanate from pest problems and from the failure of past unilateral approaches to pest control with an over reliance on chemical pesticides demands co-ordination among the IARCs (and beyond) if IPM methods are to be widely adopted by farmers around the world. To promote public awareness of IPM in the CGIAR and to provide a collective voice as well as to enhance and strengthen collaboration and co-ordination among stakeholders, sound policy on IPM is a necessary, albeit not a sufficient pre-condition, to achieve significant improvement of the global crop protection situation.

In reviewing the wording and logic of SP-IPM's specific objectives, the Panel notes that they only partially reflect the priorities as laid out in the guiding principles and in the strategies adopted by the IARCs on IPM. For example, while it is recognised that success in implementing IPM is “contingent on a favourable public policy environment” and that the IARCs “engage in direct dialogue with policy makers and provide information to the general public to raise awareness of the benefits of IPM and promote a policy environment more favourable to IPM implementation”, this is not clearly mentioned as one of SP-IPM's objectives. The Panel feels the SP-IPM approach is warranted for pest problems that are truly global in nature (e.g. whitefly/gemini viruses) and would be especially useful in the field of policy dialogue on IPM. Systemwide co-ordination is necessary if such dialogue is going to have impact and achieves the high level recognition required for a wide spread adoption of IPM.

The Panel was unable to identify a formal mechanism for setting priorities. SP-IPM's main mode of operation was through the organization of taskforces and subprojects for pest problems that were biologically diverse and often covered wide disparate geographic areas. Priority setting was developed though discussion at taskforce workshops, but the research and implementation priorities often appeared to be largely driven by funding opportunities. This makes comparison of taskforce research and implementation areas difficult and qualitative at best. In general, however, the Panel observed collegiality and co-operation among collaborators at all levels and found a sincere desire to achieve SP-IPM group objectives. This has improved communication among IARCs and their partners and has strengthened inter-centre co-operation and hence the capacity of SP-IPM to meet its objective. Allied to this is that some progress was made in marshalling additional resources across centres to help achieve systemwide objectives, resources that in the past may not have been available.

The Panel notes that the individual taskforces seem to operate well, but the development of a truly holistic approach to solving pest problems on the global level is in its infancy. For example, the working group meeting on impact assessment in Nairobi 2001 showed that only minimal input from economists and that little discussion on the methodologies for impact assessment had occurred. Such inputs are crucial because of IPM's considerable informational contributions to the impact assessment debate and because of IPM's importance in natural resource management and community-based actions. For example, a mostly descriptive “soft-science” case study approach to impact assessment was adopted by the SP/IPM-Parasitic Plant Management project in its pilot sites work (see below). The study design did not foresee the “double delta principle” making it difficult to perform standard econometric analysis of IPM impact assessment (e.g. Fernadez-Cernejo 1997). This example suggests that SP-IPM priorities tended to be on operating taskforces that addressed specific pest problems, while the larger methodological questions have only recently been moved up on the agenda.

The Panel also suggests that SP-IPM actively engage in the establishment and strengthening of IPM policy dialogue within the CGIAR and beyond. To achieve this, SP-IPM is encouraged to strengthen its links within the CGIAR, especially with IFPRI and ISNAR and to develop intensive exchanges of ideas with “outside” institutions such as the Global IPM Facility (GIPMF) and development organizations such as especially the World Bank. These links are of utmost importance to the successful development of IPM's potential within the CGIAR and beyond. This will requires more than an efficient paradigm for IPM research and implementation. Success will depend, as recognised in the overall IPM strategy adopted by the IARCs, on a favourable policy environment.

2.2 Assess the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the SP-IPM (TOR 2)

Achieving coherence in pest management related research across the CGIAR System and other stakeholders, especially NARs and NGOs;

• stimulating new directions in research which contribute to the System's overall IPM research agenda;

• adding value to the System's ongoing research, to the benefit of knowledge relevant to IPM, agriculture and ecosystem sustainability and human well-being^[14]; and

• part of the question raised in TOR 2.2 was dealt with under Section 1.1. Here we review this TOR as it relates to the taskforces and projects of SP-IPM and more generally for SP-IPM.

The Panel notes that the very nature of SP-IPM was a novel undertaking within the CGIAR and world-wide for that matter. There is evidence that SP-IPM was instrumental in soliciting funds that stimulated innovative and problem-oriented research of global relevance. Twelve taskforce working-groups were proposed and some developed proposals^[15] that were submitted to donors for funding. The taskforce on whiteflies and gemini viruses in the tropics (SP/WF-IPM) began in 1997, while the taskforce on parasitic flowering plants management (SP/PPM-IPM) was funded at the end of 1999 as a $300,000 grant from CGIAR central funds used for year-2000 IPM implementation activities. Switzerland funded a third taskforce on Farmer Participatory Methods. Some taskforces that did not get funding pursued limited objectives using extant resources and only a brief review is given of their current status. Appendix V summarises the most recent information on funding.

The subject areas and research entry points of the funded taskforces were quite different, with some viewed as “more of the same” while others show potential to upgrade the research programmes of the IARCs. One taskforce that fits into the latter category is the “whitefly taskforce” (SP/WF-IPM). It is global in dimension and initially emphasised pure research. The “parasitic plant management taskforce” (SP/PPM-IPM) was regional and sought immediate implementation of well-studied best-bet IPM options in farmer fields (against several pests) using FPR methods.

Table 1: The original taskforce working groups organized under the auspices of SP-IPM

* Funded taskforces

2.2.1 Whitefly Taskforce (Lead Centre: CIAT)

Available evidence of the potential to achieve inter-centre leverage in tackling serious global problems in crop protection occurred through the “whitefly project” co-ordinated by CIAT. Whiteflies and the gemini viruses they vector are increasing in importance world-wide. Whiteflies, at present, have reached pest status in numerous crops and over a wide range of geographic areas. Whiteflies have become pests in the tropical highlands of Latin America where they vector viruses in legumes and mixed cropping systems in the tropical lowlands of Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. They are also vectors of viruses to vegetable and legume in mixed cropping systems in Eastern Africa, to mixed cropping systems in SE Asia, to cassava and sweet potato in Africa, cassava in South America and last but not least, they threaten glasshouse horticultural production in North America and Europe. The reasons for the emergence of whiteflies as a major pest remains in question, but links to pesticide overuse as a contributing factor are apparent. Whiteflies are an example of how a pest can become a “global public bad”. Recognising the importance of this problem, the SP/WF-IPM was established as the first of the taskforces. The whitefly/virus problem also provided the pre-conditions where inter-centre co-ordination had demonstrable benefits and proved an example of a systemwide IPM approach to pest problem solving through IPM.

The development of SP/WF-IPM has been well documented and the stated goals are highly relevant for implementing extension programmes and policies for whitefly management across an array of horticultural crops. The overall whitefly/gemini virus problem was well conceptualised by the SP/WF-IPM team and the framework for the research activities clearly specified into four logical phases: (1) networking-diagnostic, (2) basic biological data, (3) development of IPM tactics and training and (4) impact assessment. SP/WF-IPM began operation in 1997 with the networking-diagnostic phase of the taskforce beginning in 1998 and completed during 2000. Phase one was designed to develop co-operative scientific networks and to characterise the WF-IPM problem using modern scientific methods. The second phase is just beginning and many of the funding issues appear to have been resolved.

By comparison, the other taskforces fall short of the SP/WF-IPM model for various reasons (see below).

2.2.2 Pilot Sites for Parasitic Plant Management (Lead Centre: IITA)

FAO estimates economic losses due to parasitic flowing plants of US$ 4 billion per year affecting over 100 million people. Species of the parasitic flowing plants in the genera Striga in Africa and Orobanche in West Asia and North Africa pose growing constraints on maize and cereal production. In addition, stem borers and other pests cause significant additional yield losses in maize and other cereals in many areas and thrips, pod borers and other pests may attack the legume components that are important parts of the IPM best-bet solutions in different areas. Although there are multiple pests, we include in the taskforce name only the major pest common to all sites, namely parasitic plant management (PPM-IPM). SP/PPM-IPM was an attempt to roll several potential taskforces (e.g. Cereal Stem borers in Africa, Grain Legume Pest Management, Farmer Participatory Research, Weed Management in the Farming System, Assessing the Farmer Field School Approach in Kenya) into one taskforce.

Funding from the CGIAR Finance Committee arrived late in 1999 and taskforce members agreed to establish six pilot sites to implement best-bet technologies for the control of parasitic plants, maize stem borers and other pests as appropriate in different climatic zones. Sites were established for Striga in Mali (Sahel), Nigeria (West Africa Northern Guinea Savannah), Cameroon (Central African Humid forest), Burkina Faso (Dry Savannah) and Kenya (mid altitude) and for Orobanche in Morocco (North Africa: rain fed) and Egypt (North Africa: irrigated). These sites were selected as representative of the major cropping areas and in addition the pests of concern were well known to the affected farmers. The working IARC partners were ICIPE, CIMMYT, ICRAF and ICRISAT, as well as Kenya's KARI and MOA and other local NARS entities. ICRISAT provided rosette resistant groundnut varieties and IITA provided cowpea varieties appropriate for the area. ICRAF had experience working on improved soil fertility to suppress Striga.

The taskforce efforts to implement best-bet IPM options were unified using a multi-disciplinary learning-by-doing approach that employed common methodology across all sites. The best-bet IPM options were designed to suppress Striga using region appropriate leguminous fodder plants (e.g. Desmodium sp.) inter-planted between rows of maize or sorghum. The legumes cause suicidal emergence of Striga. In the Kenya pilot site, maize stem borers were suppressed using the push-pull strategy developed by ICIPE. Desmodium was used to repel stem borer (the push) and Napier grass planted around the periphery of the plots was used to attract them away from the cereals (the pull). The pull component of the strategy relies on the much higher preference of stem borer for Napier grass relative to maize and the fact that they develop very poorly on Napier grass.^[16]

Expected outputs of this taskforce were:

• development of effective mechanisms to enhance the capabilities of NARSs/NGOs to develop, adapt and transfer best-bet IPM technologies and to increase communication of IPM advances among researchers, extension agents and farmers;

• the development of IPM technologies for adaptation/adoption by farmers in diverse socio-economic conditions; and

• the development and dissemination of extension materials.

Despite the fact that the sites had differing, social, biological and biophysical characteristics, Taskforce members agreed to establish a common model for encouraging IPM adoption of best-bet options for implementation. The basic experimental design agreed upon was not modified in any significant way allowing comparisons across sites. Lead farmers at each site were selected by project management and these farmers selected others farmers to participate in the study. The farmers were trained by local extension personnel about the details of the best-bet IPM options most suitable for their site. These and current practices were implemented by farmers who followed the field trials from planting to harvest. Farmers became research colleagues and extension agents by providing information to other farmers visiting their farms during field demonstration days and casually at other times.

Only the Nigerian and Kenyan PPM-IPM pilot sites were visited and are the major focus of this report. The reports presented by co-operating scientists during the 12-14 March 2001 SP-IPM working group meeting at ICIPE. Unfortunately, at the time of the review, some studies were still under way and others had not analysed their data. Hence, the assessment was based on the Panel's site visits.

The visits to three farmer participatory research trials in mid altitude sites in Kenya showed that the farmers interviewed were exceptional as they generally had a good level of education. They understood the biological bases of each of the best-bet options they were testing, enabling them to give clear interpretations of the experiments and the results. The farmers had preferences among the options and gave articulate explanations for their choices. When Kenyan farmers were asked if they would implement their preferred option on the rest of their land, farmers cited the lack of available Desmodium seed and/or credit to buy it as the major constraint although in principle it is easy to harvest and store this seed. On the other hand, there was anecdotal evidence that farmers at all sites are already beginning to experiment with the best-bet options, leading to local discovery and modification.

The Panel's observations suggest that further education of farmers concerning some of the components of the best-bet options is essential. This requires further testing and perhaps research on appropriate extension tools and supportive policy conditions that would facilitate a wider diffusion of the technology. The Panel notes that such questions were not build into the initial design of the research. Rather, the implicit purpose of these trials was to test a modus operandi of inter-centre and farmer participatory applied research. As processing and analysis of data was still on-going, the Panel feels it is not in a position to give a final assessment. What can be said though, based on the observations made in the field, is that the field experiments were well executed. In principle, the data collected would allow modelling of the biological interactions as a basis for assessing on-farm impact.

Only the Panel chair visited the West Africa Northern Guinea Savannah pilot site in Northern Nigeria. Farmers at this site had low levels of education, but the farmers were reasonable aware of the options and as with Kenyan farmer they had preferences among them. The conclusions reached from Kenya apply fully here, except that management was more top-down possibly hampering the execution of the trials and the future development of the work in the area. The data from this site were competently summarised and showed differences among best-bet option. However, the data are probably not sufficient for rigorous analysis at this time.

The Panel did not visit the other SP/IPM-PPM pilot sites and much of our information about them comes from the presentations made by pilot site scientists at the 2001 SP-IPM Nairobi workshop. At this workshop, the taskforce members agreed that greater effort would be made at the remaining sites to strengthen working linkages across sites, to strengthen farmer participation in the experimental design, to identify measurable indicators of impact, to improve methods of biological data collection, recording and analysis and to sharpen and harmonise participatory approaches across sites, make timely preparation and distribution of site reports in a standardised format. Furthermore, an increase in the exchanges among farmers and among scientists and extension staff of pilot sites to share expertise was emphasised. Also identified was the need to scale-up and enhance rapid spread of proven options.

The Panel views the critical self-appraisal of taskforce projects during the 2001 workshop and its recommendations to limit the number of sites and to improve FPR methods and linkages to appropriate groups, as an indication of strong group commitment to the goals and philosophy of SP-IPM. The Panel feels that in the future the overall SP/PPM-IPM project must concern itself with an analysis of the success of IPM implementation at all sites and hence the lack of economic input in the trials is a deficiency that needs to be addressed.

2.2.3 Farmer Participatory Research (Lead Centre: CIAT)

Much of the innovative work on Farmer Participatory Research in IPM (FPR-IPM) has been conducted by the GIPMF, NGOs and other groups outside the IARCs. CGIAR and NARS researchers generally have been slow to appreciate the value of FPR approaches in IPM. The FPR-IPM taskforce was designed to facilitate understanding, spread and adoption of participatory research processes in IPM. This taskforce is closely aligned with the Systemwide Programme on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA)^[17] hosted by CIAT. The PRGA Programme develops and promotes methods and organizational approaches for gender-sensitive participatory research on plant breeding and on the management of crops and natural resources. The 2001 Nairobi workshop asked FPR-IPM to:

• design outputs and products that enable project managers to integrate participatory approaches in project planning and execution;

• collate existing information and case studies on FPR methodologies for distribution to SP-IPM partners;

• expand the composition of the learning workshop to include representatives of selected SP-IPM pilot site partners;

• provide research planners/managers with guides to key participatory elements of successful IPM projects; and

• encourage the incorporation of elements identified in (4) into on-going and planned projects that serve the needs of CGIAR Centres and other SP-IPM partners with less experience in FPR.

The Panel views FPR as a key component of IPM implementation, but notes that no consensus exists within the IARCs about how and where FPR-IPM should be integrated in IPM R&D. And while it is premature to evaluate SP/FPR-IPM, it is apparent that its activities within SP-IPM could be better co-ordinated with those of SP-PRGA and GIPMF.

2.2.4 Non-funded SP-IPM Taskforces

Despite the fact that some taskforces were not funded, all organized workshops clearly demonstrate the need and desire for inter-centre collaboration. The progress of non-funded taskforces could be reviewed only on the basis of discussions held at the March 2001 SP-IPM workshop. Below is a summary of the workshop recommendations and of the Review Panel's discussion with various participants in the workshop (Table 2, see also Appendix II).

2.2.4.1 Functional agro-biodiversity (Lead Centre: ICIPE)

Advocacy, mainly by developing countries, convinced the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to include agricultural biodiversity in its agenda. Also recognised was the need of CBD to work directly with scientists (e.g. at CGIAR Centres) on focal areas such as pollinators, soil biodiversity, biodiversity that mitigates pests and diseases, crop and livestock genetic resource diversity, diversity at the landscape level and wild biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. The biodiversity represented by natural and classical biological control is a keystone of IPM^[18]. ICIPE has taken the leadership in developing inter-centre participation on functional agro-biodiversity in line with specified CBD areas of interest. Efforts are under way to attempt to establish a taskforce on functional agro-biodiversity to be implemented within the framework of the CBD.

Table 2: List of SP-IPM taskforces reporting at the March 2001 SP-IPM Workshop

2.2.4.2 Beneficial micro organisms (Lead Centre: IITA)

IITA and CIAT are members of this taskforce and IITA, especially, has made considerable progress in developing biopesticides (e.g. Green Muscle® for grasshopper and locust control). None of this development was done under the auspices of SP-IPM, but this project provides an excellent model for future work by other centres on biopesticides relevant to regional pests.

The 2001 Nairobi workshop focused on regulatory aspects of biopesticides and their production and quality control. IITA and CIAT reported successes collaborating with the private sector on relatively small-scale commercial production of biopesticides and the meeting stressed the importance of such linkages by CGIAR researchers.

The SP/BMO-IPM taskforce is active within the Society of Invertebrate Pathology (SIP) and IITA is a full member of the International Consortium of Biopesticide Development (ICBD). The taskforce recognised ICBD as being crucial for the development and commercialisation of biopesticides. At the last ICBD meeting in Mexico, the participants decided to develop two concept notes: one for Latin America (CIP-led, in collaboration with ICBD) and the other for Asia (NRI-led). Because of the strong working linkage between the taskforce members with SIP and ICBD, SP/BMO-IPM is exploring the possibility of relinquishing the leadership of the BMO taskforce to SIP/ICBD. At the same time, other CGIAR Centres (e.g. CIP, CIAT and ICARDA) were encouraged to join ICBD. Recently, IITA in collaboration with Virginia Tech University and several NARSs completed an international workshop at Cotonou, Benin to develop a framework for biopesticide regulation in Africa.

The Panel commends this taskforce for the significant organizational and conceptual progress it has made in this important area of IPM.

2.2.4.3 Soil-borne pests and white grubs (Lead Centre: CIAT)

CIAT has developed regional linkages and contacts with other institutions working on white grubs and is in the process of placing a scientist at its centre to co-ordinate work in this field. The discussion during the workshop focused on the need for taskforce members to engage in further discussion of soil biota in general and plan for a taskforce workshop to formulate ideas to carry this work forward. Not much progress was reported on recommendations of the previous SP-IPM working group meeting of integrating the taskforces on soil-borne pests and white grubs into one taskforce on soil biota.

2.2.4.4 Rice weed management (Lead Centre: WARDA)

The workshop linked WARDA's planned work on rice functional biodiversity to the functional biodiversity taskforce and discontinued the rice weed management taskforce in its original form.

2.2.4.5 Biotechnology for IPM (Lead Centre: IRRI)

The Nairobi 2001 SP-IPM workshop discussed the uses of biotechnology in IPM (e.g. insecticidal plants) and concluded that the need for implementing such technologies must to be demonstrated as technical and economic feasibility may not be sufficient criteria by themselves. The recent IITA EPMR report urges caution in their adoption citing potential ecological disruption. Two excerpts specifically relevant to current SP-IPM activities from that report are given here.

(a) “Proposals for the use of transgenic Bt cowpea must consider the social and political acceptance of GMOs in the region, as well as the probability of evolving pest resistance to Bt.”

(b) “Transgenic Pest Control: The uncritical use of biotechnology to solve agricultural problems in developing countries was questioned by PHMD's Markham and Neuenschwander (1999). They assert that the social and economic perceptions of the recipients should be considered, that greater emphasis should be placed on the sustainability of cropping systems and that its productivity should be examined from a systems perspective (see also Zadoks and Waibel 2000). A similar caution has been expressed by various NARS in SSA; likely because of the ongoing debate in developed countries. The issue is raised here as part of food security issues in SSA using the interaction of predatory mite T. aripo and cassava greenmite as a cautionary example. This predator feeds predominantly on maize pollen when greenmite numbers are low (S.J. Yaninek, Personal communication, 1999), hence, if Bt maize were to be introduced to SSA, even sub-lethal effects of Bt pollen on the predator's vital rates might disrupt biological control of green mite and negatively impact cassava production. This cautionary note flags a known interaction that must be investigated in an interdisciplinary way before Bt maize is introduced to SSA.”

The Panel concurs with SP-IPM's view on the need for exercising caution in the use of biotechnology in IPM. At the same time, the rapid adoption of biotechnology in some countries (e.g. Bt-cotton in China) requires that IPM give more attention to analysing the opportunities, the potential and actual impact of biotechnology in terms of improving the efficiency and sustainability of crop protection. The fact that the vast proportion of existing genetically modified crops is in the field of crop protection poses a special challenge for SP-IPM. Referring also to the observations made in the Summary the Panel sees a strong necessity to bring this issue into the centre of the dialogue on the policy environment of IPM.

2.2.4.6 Quantifying losses and investment opportunities for IPM (Lead Centre: CIMMYT)

SP-IPM working group members were cognisant that reliable data on crop loss assessment for use by scientists and policy makers is scarce and hence begun discussions for developing a crop-loss information database and methodologies for crop loss assessment. Information on yield losses due to pests is a necessary prerequisite for setting priorities and making IPM research investments, to measure the efficacy of current IPM practices, to develop policies at local/regional levels and to measure the need for future research in the context of agricultural change. Good examples of biological-economic analyses are those of the cassava/cassava mealy bug/natural enemy system are found in Neuenschwander et al. (1989), Gutierrez et al. (1999) and Zeddies et al. (2001), but none of this work was done in the context of SP-IPM. The Review Panel sees the need for increased efforts in this area.

However, the global figures of crop loss reviewed in the Summary still dominate the literature (e.g. Oerke et al. 1994). Such non-specific information can be counter-productive to IPM because it may encourage ad-hoc investment in loss-reduction measures often through indiscriminate pesticide use. So far, IPM researchers of the CGIAR have not validated Oerke et al. (1994) widely cited but rather general crop loss figures (Yudelman et al. 1998; Wood et al. 2000). If decision-making on strategies in the area of food security is based on crop loss data that do not reflect actual field conditions, such strategies are based on false premises. On the other hand, if these figure can be confirmed a discussion on the research priorities within the CGIAR seems warranted.

From a scientific point of view crop-loss assessment research must do more than demonstrate that pests can have destructive effects on yield. Instead, such research should lead to a better understanding of the factors that cause crop loss, i.e. factors that affect yield and yield variability and that ultimately lead to IPM solutions. Included in such efforts should also be the analysis of the external costs of loss prevention measures thus linking these questions to food security in the context of “resource security”^[19]. In that sense, yield loss estimates need to be translated into economic loss before the necessary link between crop loss, IPM and food security can be established. Such a link also can help to lay the basis for developing a policy environment conducive for the adoption of IPM globally.

The Panel notes that unfortunately the SP-IPM has not ventured its conceptual thinking in this direction and it was not clear why no funding for an interdisciplinary crop loss assessment project was not solicited. The Panel encourages the SP-IPM to broaden its approach to crop loss assessment and establish links with socio-economists and food policy experts within IARCs and relevant ARIs.

As a summary statement for TOR 2, the Panel is convinced that the SP-IPM has chosen important relevant real world pest problems to research and operationalize as taskforces, some of which received additional external funding and others did not. The Panel feels that the subject areas chosen were tailored to the strengths and the needs of the respective co-ordinating centres. Hence, while there is little doubt that these “projects” are adding value to the System's ongoing research and they are vital to increasing food security, it is more difficult to assess how effective some of these undertakings have been in stimulating new directions in crop protection research within the CGIAR. Succinctly, however, are these initiatives sufficient to “elevate the game” for global IPM? The Panel submits that based on the review of the taskforce activities and outputs this is only partially the case. Some of these projects have good potential to advance the science of crop protection in the context of sustainable agriculture (PPM), others in solving important pest management puzzles (WF) and others in providing new technologies (BMO). However, the Panel is less optimistic as regards the wider impact of these projects, given the existing unfavourable policy environment for IPM as described in the Summary.

2.3 Building on the 1999 IAEG Study to Evaluate the Quantity and Quality of the SP-IPM's Outputs and Impact with Respect to Publications; Capacity Building; Methodologies; Technological Innovations; Research Achievements and Actual/Potential Impact To-date; and, Processes in Place for Monitoring/Enhancing Quality of Outputs/Impact (TOR 3)

The 1999 IAEG study (CGIAR 2000) adopted a four-stage assessment approach that allowed the build-up of a body of evidence for the analysis of the impact of IPM research in the CGIAR system. Soft and hard indicators were used in the context of four analytical steps:

1. a self-assessment process by IARC scientists;

2. an analysis of the quantity and type of material published;

3. a comparison of the perceptions expressed by the IARC scientists and the opinions of their clients and partners; and

4. a review of a sample of economic case studies in IPM.

In relation to TOR 3 the following results may serve as a point of departure for SP-IPM:

• IPM continues to be carried out in all centres. This also includes those that do not have specific IPM research programmes because even IFPRI and ISNAR have published on IPM topics (e.g. Yudelman et al. 1998; Loevinsohn et al. 1997).

• in general, centres allocate little of their core budget to IPM but most centres view IPM as a major research programme.

• the list of high-quality publications on IPM emphasises the high profile of this subject area within CGIAR Centres.

• the centres' relationships with the private sector are highly varied. However, a tendency was found that increasingly the plant-protection products of the private sector (e.g. biotechnology) are viewed as complementary to the development of the Centres' IPM technology. This was different in the past where IPM, which did not preclude appropriate use of pesticides, but was seen as an alternative to the private sector's emphasis to increase the sales of chemical pesticides.

• based on very few economic studies of IPM, past investments in IPM were found to be profitable, but investments were usually made when farmers were confronted with a crisis situation - either as the result of uncontrollable introduced pests, induced pest caused by excessive pesticide use, or where the pest-control technologies of the private sector failed or were unavailable.

• that in cost benefit analysis of IPM high rates of return must not necessarily be viewed as an indicator for a successful crop and/or pest management strategy. Quite the opposite can also be true, i.e. a handsome payoff may simply indicate that a cropping system has become ecologically disturbed. This would be analogous to a human being whose productivity depends on the continuous use of drugs (cf. Regev 1984).

To assess the “added value” of SP-IPM requires evidence on its specific outputs and their impact. This evidence is difficult to obtain, foremost because the “products” turned out by the SP-IPM are mostly “intermediate goods” which are inputs to the individual Centre's research output. As mentioned at the outset, the purpose of systemwide programmes is to facilitate inter-centres co-operation and thus, in theory, reduce transaction costs. In quantitative terms, this is impossible to show for most SP-IPM taskforces because of their early stage of the programme development and implementation. At best, the institutional impact of the individual taskforces can be described. For example, the SP/WF-IPM has been in operation for a period of four years and was found to be well organized and has met nearly all research objectives outlined in its phase 1 project plan. WF-IPM could thus be a model for science management of other SP-IPM taskforces.

On the other hand, it is difficult to attribute specific research outputs to the SP/WF-IPM. At the beginning of the review, there are no publications specifically labelled SP-IPM although the SP/WF-IPM was preparing a book on phase one results and had published 11 papers, 2 book chapters, 1 proceeding and 11 abstracts of presentations. In addition, 4 papers have been submitted, 27 talks have been presented and 2 posters developed for display at scientific meetings. These outputs can be linked to taskforce research but it is not clear if these had not been produced in a counterfactual situation. Unfortunately, little evidence of a “research-quality-enhancement-effect” through SP-IPM could be observed as only two of the papers were published in high-quality journals.

The question may then be asked whether the SP-IPM has been instrumental in bringing about advancements in the methodological issues embodied in IPM research questions. Once more, the Panel maintains that this is difficult to say, firstly because of the interdisciplinary nature of IPM and secondly because of the impossibility to separate Centre research from systemwide research. What evidence exists is found primarily in the WF-IPM taskforce.

The question of the extent SP-IPM has helped to ensure greater impact of CGIAR IPM activities at the farm level by encouraging farmer participation and the formation of effective collaboration with organizations primarily concerned with IPM implementation is likewise not so clear. The Panel, in general, views SP-IPM's focus as being more inward looking, i.e. communication largely took place among collaborating Centres. Conversely, SP-IPM has been less visible in demonstrating its role in global crop protection to stakeholders of IPM outside the CGIAR and in this regard, SP-IPM at this point in its development has probably not been a strong force. These observations in principle may provide some answer to the question of whether or not SP-IPM has contributed to sustainability and human well-being. More precisely, this is impossible to say at this point in time.

To conclude, this is not to say that the SP-IPM has failed as regards the outputs phrased in TOR 3, rather our observations suggest that perhaps in terms of overall impact, the expectations were a bit unrealistic and SP-IPM's research and implementation priorities were not in full accord with its objectives (see 2.1).

2.4 Assess the Effectiveness of the SP-IPM's Governance, Decision-making, Organization, Accountability, Resource Mobilization and Allocation and Mode of Operation, Including Identification of Constraints in Implementing the Programme and Lessons Learnt (TOR 4)

SP-IPM governance structure largely depended on the founding SP-IPM co-ordinator Richard Markham who is commended for scientific vision in helping formulate the research and implementation agenda, for his dedication to organizing the many aspects of SP-IPM, for setting the tenor of management that allowed collegiality to develop and for the genuine strides made toward developing a Centre without walls. SP-IPM's founding management was effective in developing good communication and collegiality amongst scientists from the IARCs, ARIs and NARIs/NGOs and in developing a coherent research agenda within two of the active taskforces. For example, the discussions during the 2001 SP-IPM working group meeting held at Nairobi Kenya were open and constructive and should provide the basis for correcting identified shortcomings outlined for each taskforce and their projects identified in Section 2.2. Among these are management issues within PPM-IPM, co-ordinations of FPR-IPM with PRGA and GIPMF and others. The collegiality that continues to develop within SP-IPM increases the effectiveness of management and facilitated transparent decision-making for resource mobilisation and reallocation and for setting priorities within taskforces. The engagement of NARSs, NGOs, farmers and other stakeholders has been effective but needs improvement and scaling up to meet the implementation demands faced by all taskforce and projects. The Panel noted that socio-economic input in most phases of SP-IPM was lacking or inadequate possibly compromising future impact assessment efforts. Linkages between SP-IPM, SP-PRGA and GIPMF have been established but are not strong and obviously need attention. Many of the shortcomings are in part due to the relatively short time SP-IPM has been active and the failure of most taskforces to secure adequate funding for various reasons.

The programme leader/coordinator position(s) will be crucial for the future development of SP-IPM within the CGIAR and its co-operation with non-CGIAR Centres and ARIs. The Panel views the placement of the SP-IPM Secretariat outside of centre structures a possibility to maximise its coordinating/facilitating role in SP-IPM. The management authority of the Secretariat's position(s) should be increased to enable it to work effectively across centre mandate boundaries, to help focus systemwide IPM research priorities and to facilitate the solution of regional and global pest problem. A major challenge for the future of SP-IPM is that the leader/coordinator position(s) must be more actively involved in creating an environment conducive for IPM within the CGIAR system through effective dialogue with the major policy organizations concerned with international development. The Panel is concerned that important leadership changes were made in SP-IPM without awaiting the outcome of this review.

2.5 Evaluate the Effectiveness of IITA's Convening Role, Including the Relation Between the SP-IPM and IITA's Own Research Agenda (TOR 5)

IITA was asked to take the convening role in SP-IPM because it had extensive experience in IPM in Africa. IITA's role in governance was supportive but benevolent. However, its convening role enhanced its research agenda as additional scientific and logistical expertise from other IARCs and ARIs helped in the solution of crop production problems within its mandate areas of Africa. The greatest benefit of the collaboration likely occurred at the bench level where co-operating IARCs and IARC scientists had important synergism, scientific exchanges that increased networking and the collegiality within and among the various taskforces.

From a disciplinary perspective, the interactions of the CGIAR Centres as facilitated by the SP-IPM were mutually beneficial. IITA's convening role enhanced its research agenda as additional scientific and logistical expertise from other IARCs and ARIs became available to help solve problems within its mandate (e.g. cassava mosaic disease, Striga and stem borers). The same could be said, but to a lesser degree, for the other co-operating Centres. All Centres benefited from the scientific exchanges and the collegiality that developed among the collaborating scientists and from varying amounts of funding. Appendix V was provided by SP-IPM and summarises the relative amounts and source of funding received by the various taskforces as of 2000/2001.

Although, leadership by IITA's Director General, in principle gave SP-IPM a high administrative profile, the challenging task of organizing and developing the programme fell largely on the SP-IPM programme whose terms of reference were those of a facilitator, advocate, consensus builder and day-to-day organizer. The placement of the co-ordinator position deep within the hierarchy of IITA limited its visibility and effectiveness for those outside of crop protection. Furthermore, insufficient personnel with a capacity, for example, to introduce a policy perspective to global IPM and to establish linkages to socio-economists within the CGIAR and to other development organizations, severely constrained the SP-IPM's ability in the area of socio-economics and policy.

Other complicating factors were Centre independence and perceived scientist self-interest, inadequate funding and the fact that the concept of a “Centre without walls” in practise is still foreign to the thinking in most IARCs. These issues made organizing and making SP-IPM functional a daunting task. The lack of initial buy-in to the concept of SP-IPM is reflected in the wide range of proposals initially put forth for funding; proposals that often reflected narrow disciplinary interests (Table 1, see also Appendix 2). Despite these problems, the programme co-ordinator was successful in organizing the SP-IPM taskforce working groups to develop their priorities and goals. The co-operation of ten CGIAR Centres, plus AVRDC, ICIPE, GIPMF and the IPM Forum was a tour de force given the meagre funding available relative to the size of the problems and geographic area. The progress made was due to the force of will of one individual and the hunger of IARC scientists for greater inter-centre collaboration.

The Panel commends former programme co-ordinator Richard Markham for vision, idealism and commitment to the goals and methods of IPM and for fostering by example the collegiality required to establish a Centre without walls in the CGIAR.

Unfortunately, at the beginning of the review, the programme co-ordinator left IITA; leadership of SP-IPM passed to IITA's Director of Plant Health Management and the co-ordinator position was filled as an IITA position. The Panel views these developments with concern and feels that halting this decision until the results of this review were available would have provided a more rational basis for leadership changes in SP-IPM.

Furthermore, the initially agreed upon mechanism of alternating the leadership role of SP-IPM was abandoned through an initiative from IITA. While all participating Centres did not object to IITA's continuing leadership role, recognising that IPM is present in practically all the Centres would suggest that changing this procedure was not necessarily for the benefit of the “common good”. On the contrary, it is strongly felt that in order to be responsive to the global challenges of crop protection, SP-IPM not only needs to have a high profile, but also as much as possible, it should be independent of the interest and strategies of individual Centres. Rotating leadership would enhance this operational principle. It is obvious that the mandate of IITA in Africa and its experience in IPM positions it well to lead regional IPM taskforces. However, the nature of the global challenges of crop protection raises questions as regards the comparative advantage of IITA in leading the CGIAR's global strategy in this area, especially if more emphasis is to be placed on dialogue with policy makers and the various stakeholders of IPM globally.

In summary of TORs 1-5, the Panel concludes that SP-IPM has been a useful concept for restructuring pest management research and implementation across the CGIAR - to foster the idea of Centres without walls and for exploiting the potential of IPM as an example of a global public good. However, the Panel was hindered in its evaluations by the lack of data on a complex programme whose existence was altogether too brief for a final analysis to occur. The shortcomings that were identified by the Panel must therefore also be seen as the result of a young organization organizing itself. The Panel maintains that given strong independent, proactive leadership and stable funding SP-IPM can and should make a bigger contribution to the goals of the CGIAR. In the following chapter the rationale and the strategy for upgrading the SP-IPM is presented.