Rajinder Peshin

Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process

World-wide, integrated pest management (IPM) has become the accepted strategy for plant protection over the last five decades. Cotton growers in the Canete valley, Peru were amongst the first to adopt a combination of pest management practices to save the cotton crop from the ravages caused by pests despite applying 16 insecticide sprays on average. However, it was not until 1959, that the concept of “integrated management” was born in the United States of America (USA). A panel of experts from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) put the concept of IPM in operation in 1968. Advancements made in IPM systems for developing sustainable pest management strategies in the USA, Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America and Africa have not generally resulted in wider adoption of IPM, though there have been some successes. Pesticides remain the main-stay of many IPM programs throughout the globe. In the USA and Europe, there is government legislation and mechanisms for implementation and evaluation of IPM programs, especially in Europe, where IPM innovation systems involving the government, researchers, farmers, advisory agencies and market forces are part of a system to reduce pesticide use. In the developing countries farmer education in IPM has gained impetus since 1989, through the Farmer Field School (FFS) extension methodology, originally developed for educating farmers in rice IPM. The FFS model of extension has spread from Asia to Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe. In the developed countries the systematic periodic evaluation of IPM programs provides feedback for improving and formulating future strategies, but in many developing countries there is no periodic evaluation of IPM programs for assessing the extent of adoption and long term impact. This chapter provides a broad overview of IPM programs, policies and adoption of IPM practices in the North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact

The cultivation of transgenic pest-resistant cropsmay reduce pesticide application, improve production and increase economic benefit. Breeding and planting transgenic pest-resistant crops is expected to be a promising way to control pests. Pest-resistant transgenic researches in China began in the early 1990s. In 1992, China developed the country’s first Bt protein gene (CryIA gene) with the intellectual property right of its own. Up till now, the exogenous genes, such as Bt protein gene, trypsin inhibitor gene (CpTI gene), etc., have been transformed into cotton, and more than 50 commercially approved transgenic cotton varieties were developed. Since the 1970s, with the widely uses of chemical pesticides in cotton production, the pesticide-resistance of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)) dramatically enhanced. Cotton acreage in China declined from 6.835 million ha in 1992 to 4.985 million ha in 1993. In subsequent years, cotton bollworm seriously occurred every year. Since 1998 the adoption of insect-resistant varieties has effectively controlled the outbreak of cotton bollworm. Since the late 1990s, the cultivation area of transgenic insect-resistant cotton in China has been rapidly expanding, and its proportion in the total domestic cotton planting area has been increasing year by year. In 1998, transgenic insect-resistant cotton began to be planted in the Yellow River valley, and that year’s acreage reached 240,000ha, only 5.4% of the total cotton planting area; The planting area increased to 647,000ha, 1.2 million ha, 1.933 million ha, 1.867 million ha, 3.067 million ha, and 3.104 million ha in the years 1999–2004, accounting for 17%, 31%, 40%, 45%, 60%, and 50% of the total area, respectively. The planting area of domestic transgenic insect-resistant cotton accounted for 30%, 60%, and 70% in the years 2002–2004. Due to the cultivation of transgenic insect-resistant cotton, pesticide application in China reduced by 123,000 t and cotton yield increased by 9.6% during the three years 1999–2001. Currently, almost all of the planted cotton in Hebei, Henan, and Shandong Province is transgenic insect-resistant cotton. In the Yangtze River valley, transgenic insect-resistant hybrid cotton holds the dominant position and its planting W.J. Zhang (B) Research Institute of Entomology, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China e-mail: zhwj@mail.sysu.edu.cn R. Peshin, A.K. Dhawan (eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9 18, ©C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 525 526 W.J. Zhang and Y. Pang area has been growing in the past years. So far, the total planting area of transgenic insect-resistant cotton in China has reached 4.667 million ha, with an average income of 2,130∼2,400 RMBYuan/ha. Annual reduction in chemical pesticide application reaches 20,000∼31,000 t, equivalent to 7.5% of China’s annual total production of chemical insecticides. Breeding of transgenic insect-resistant rice in China developed quickly in the past years. To date, CryI, CpTI, and GNA genes, etc., have been transformed into the rice, and some insect-resistant rice varieties (strains) were developed in China. They can be used to suppress rice insect pests such as Chilo suppressalis (Walker), leafrollers, and brown planthopper. Researches showed that the adoption of transgenic insect-resistant rice can reduce 70∼80% of insecticide application and would not affect the rice biodiversity. From recent years’ field trials in Hubei and Fujian, indicated that insecticides were seldom used throughout the growing season and rice yield can increase by 12%. So far, the safety evaluations and experiments on the commercial production of transgenic insect-resistant rice have not yet showed any significant security issues. However, as rice is the main food crop in China, the application for commercialization of transgenic rice has never been approved. In addition to cotton and rice, the insect-resistant transgenics for wheat, soybean, maize, and other crops have being made in China. China has imported some of the transgenic crops and resulted in certain impacts. For example, due to the low production cost and better quality, the transgenic soybean of the United States exhibits the obvious economic advantages. The import of transgenic soybean of the United States resulted in the serious stock of domestic soybean production, and undermined the economic interests of Chinese farmers. So far, the most significant negative impacts for planting transgenic insectresistant crops, in particular cotton, are the outbreak of secondary pests and the impairment of arthropod community, etc. Due to the problems of planting transgenic insect-resistant crops, such as the narrow insect-resistance spectrum, the increased resistance of insect pests to transgenic crops, the possible outbreak of secondary insect pests, and the potential environment and biodiversity risks, it is necessary to follow IPM principles and combine the other control measures. Chinese scientists have summarized the practical problems in planting transgenic insect-resistant crops and explored various IPM measures, such as resistance management, intercropping, seed purifying, protection of natural enemies, etc., to address these problems. The IPM measures have being implemented in China.

Integrated Pest Management: Concept, Opportunities and Challenges

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has a prominent place on the policy agenda. Due to continuing concerns regarding unsustainable trends in pest management, promoting the adoption of IPM has been a priority in developed and developing countries. The history of IPM, however, can be traced back to the late 1800s when ecology was identified as the foundation for scientific plant protection. The priorities in IPM shifted from calendar-based use of insecticides to need base, and thereafter, reduce use of insecticides with safety concerns to environment and human health. The development, validation, and dissemination of site-specific IPM and adoption by farmers are key elements for the success of IPM programs. The IPM means do right thing based on a value-based decision system and use of multiple tactics. Because, information delivery is a key part of IPM, the spread of the internet rapidly has enhanced knowledge transfer and access to options. The knowledge acquisition tools are essential for the successful implementation of IPM. Knowledge and information transfer are key to correct pest management. IPM emphasizes correct decisions based on available information on pest management. Internet-based interactive decision support can play a significant role in developing countries. With new innovations coming fast and increasing awareness of the internet, more farmers are using IPM informatics and decision support systems. Environmental risk in IPM is an important issue. Pesticides will continue to dominate IPM in developing and under-developed countries as the target is to produce more for food security. Environmental quality in pest management will continue the focus on alternatives to pesticides and environmentally-safe tactics. Recent developments have the potential to contribute to greater significance of IPM for sustainable development in agriculture. New technological innovations and new modes of delivery have given a new direction to IPM. Biotechnology, including genetic engineering, offers new tools for reducing dependency on chemical pesticides. New products for biological control are becoming more widely applied, and the agrochemical industry is developing more specific and target products. Participatory approaches for farmer training and awareness rising are increasingly employed to ensure sustainability of pest management practices. Requirements of the food industry regarding pesticide residues have become a major force that encourage adoption of IPM practices, and the rising public demand for food safety and quality is creating niche and market nobreak opportunities for certified products, such as organic foods. Pest and pesticide management problems affect most countries and many externalities are global in scope. IPM is gaining recognition as a global policy issue and there is increased involvement of the relevant stakeholders in the IPM policy debate at both the national and international levels. To develop IPM programs for the 21st century, directional research and extension seems to be needed, as well as the development of new nobreak technology.

Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Use

Worldwide, integrated pest management (IPM) is the policy decision for pest management. It has been five decades since the development of threshold theory and harmonious control strategies were the domain of pest management research in the USA, Canada, and some parts of Europe. In the 1970s the work on development and validation of IPM technologies started in developing countries. The implementation of IPM and pesticide reduction programs has been in place in the developed and developing countries for the last three to four decades. There are plausible questions raised about the objectives of IPM, adoption of IPM practices, and pesticide use. Questions are also being raised on the use of robust indicators to measure the impact of IPM research and extension. Pesticide use by volume, pesticide use by treatment frequency index, reduction in use of more toxic pesticides, and environmental impact quotient have been used as IPM impact evaluation indicators. Low volume pesticides and transgenic crops both decreased and stabilized pesticide use in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, the pesticide sales regained an upward trajectory, and pesticide use in agriculture has increased. Transgenetic crops were thus not proven to be a perfect technique in IPM. We propose that the reduction in pesticide use frequency and the environmental impact quotient be the primary indicators to evaluate the success of IPM programs in the future. We have moved full circle from IPM to integrated pest and pesticide management. This chapter analyzes the development and implementation of IPM programs in the developed and developing countries and their impact on pesticide use.

Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Integrated Pest Management

The Diffusion of Innovation Theory dominated the theory and practice of agricultural extension system all over the world for almost half a century. It came under criticism too during the period. The theory was not considered adequate to manage the process of dissemination of IPM technology. The inadequacies may be due to the attributes of IPM innovation as well as due to the sophisticated demands of IPM technology that was not amenable to the limited version of the theory. The diffusion and adoption of agricultural innovation has been a focal measure of agriculture development. IPM is a combination of different technologies that has not diffused as other simple one of technologies. Diffusion of IPM requires educating the farmers for its adoption and it must deal with farmers’ needs, perceptions, constraints, objectives and its complexity demands. IPM is location specific and it requires several years of experiments, trials, repetitions and validations in a given area. It requires a clear understanding about the IPM tactics. The IPM tactics may vary from crop to crop and area to area. It needs a planned strategy of imparting knowledge and skill and active learning and active adoption by the farmers. The diffusion of innovation research has to give up the “ex-post-facto” design, which has been a prisoner of socio-economic factors influencing the adoption of innovation and in correlating the effects to these factors. The diffusion researchers should employ “action research” design to study the IPM implementation and feed the result to develop farmer-acceptable IPM system. The coordination of all the stakeholders of agricultural innovation system need to emphasise the outcomes of technology and knowledge generation and adoption of IPM practices rather than merely strengthening of research and extension systems.

Evaluation Research: Methodologies for Evaluation of IPM Programs

Evaluation is a systematic approach by which the program process and results are compared with set goals and objectives to make value judgments about the program. In this regard, the evaluation of integrated pest management programs (IPM) is vital for making proper programmatic decisions. Formative and summative evaluations are the two major types of evaluation. Formative evaluation is used to assess the program process for its improvement. Summative evaluation is used to assess the program results for accountability. Institutions around the world are giving greater attention to the evaluation of extension programs. However, the evaluation of IPM programs is generally not up to the level it should be in terms of quality and rigger of evaluation research. The purpose of this chapter is to provide basic knowledge to the personnel involved in the evaluation about concept and purpose of evaluation, and appropriate research methods for conducting IPM evaluation studies. The theory based evaluation is helpful in designing the meaningful and rigorous studies. There are evaluation standards to guide the evaluators in this process. Before conducting IPM evaluation studies, it is important to review the practical considerations to ensure the quality and the usefulness of the study. Currently the evaluation of IPM programs lack consensus in selection of the indicators, research designs and adoption of appropriate methodologies. The social, economic and environmental indicators are taken into account while carrying out the IPM evaluation. The quality of an IPM evaluation can be improved by proper planning and selection of appropriate research design. Planning is helpful for achieving the evaluation objectives cost effectively. When the IPM evaluation studies are planned, it is important to consider the social, economic and environmental context of the farming community for achieving the practicality and the usefulness of the evaluation study. The IPM program evaluation is meaningful only if the results are communicated and utilized to achieve the evaluation objectives.

From the Farmers’ Perspective: Pesticide Use and Pest Control

Many studies have shown that farmers in developing countries often overuse pesticides and do not adopt safety practices. Policies and interventions to promote a safer use of pesticides are often based on a limited understanding of the farmers’ own perspective of pesticide use. This often results in ineffective policies and the persistence of significant pesticide-related health and environmental problems, especially in developing countries. This chapter explores potentials and limitations of different approaches to study pesticide use in agriculture from the farmers’ perspective. In contrast to the reductionist and mono-disciplinary approaches often adopted, this chapter calls for integrative methodological approaches to provide a realistic and thorough understanding of the farmers’ perspective on pesticide use and illustrates the added value of such an approach with three case studies of pesticide use in Iran, India, and Colombia.

Crop Loss Assessment in India- Past Experiences and Future Strategies

India is basically an agrarian country. The Green Revolution in India led to a quantum jump in agricultural production thereby allowing domestic food availability to comfortably meet domestic food demand. In the Indian sub-continent, insect pest problems in agriculture have shown a considerable shift from the Green Revolution era to the first decade of the twenty-first century due to agro-ecosystem and technological changes. Global losses due to insect pests have declined from 13.6 % in post-Green Revolution era to 10.8 % towards the beginning of this century. In India, the crop losses have declined from 23.3 % in post-Green Revolution era to 17.5 % at present. In terms of monetary value, Indian agriculture suffers an annual loss of about US

Pesticide Use and Experiences with Integrated Pest Management Programs and Bt Cotton in India

42.66 millions due to insect pests. With the intensive cultivation, commiserative improvement and intensification measures to protect the crops have to be taken. During the last decade, visible progress has been made in the development of biological control strategies, insect resistant crops plants and genetically engineered crops. All these measures if suitably employed in integrated pest management (IPM) along with improvement in crop protection services should lead to a substantial reduction in crop losses due to pests.

IPM Extension: A Global Overview

In India, agricultural productivity of food and other crops has grown tremendously since the advent of the Green Revolution. Pesticides have been one of the drivers behind this growth in combination with high-yielding varieties and increased irrigation and fertilization. Pesticide use increased from 10,993 metric tons in the mid-1960s to approximately 80,000 metric tons in the 1990s. Half was used on cotton, although cotton is grown on only 8 % (ca. 11.6 million ha) of the cultivated area. American-bollworm–susceptible, high-yielding cultivars introduced to cater to the needs of the mechanized spinning mills increased the pest problem and pesticide use on cotton. Pesticide use was also high on vegetable and rice crops. Crop losses from pests, however, increased by 16 %, and many pests developed resistance to the pesticides. This resistance, rather than environmental concerns, led to the birth of integrated pest management (IPM) in India for rice and cotton crops in 1974–1975, and vegetables and other crops since the 1990s, reducing pesticide use in the project areas. In the 1970s and 1980s, the first IPM program under the Operational Reseach Project (ORP) focused on pilot programs using a prescriptive approach to demonstrate IPM practices in cotton and rice crops in a cluster of villages in seven states. The government of India adopted IPM as the main strategy for plant protection in 1985. In the early 1990s, the farmer field school (FFS) model was adopted to implement IPM by educating farmers and extension workers. Between 1990 (before many ad hoc IPM programs began) and 2002 (when Bt cotton was introduced) pesticide use (a.i.) by weight decreased by 35 %, mainly because hexachlorocyclohexane, accounting for 30 % of the total pesticides, was banned in 1997 and low-dosage pesticides were introduced. Only about 2–4 % of the total cultivated area, including only 5 % of the farmers, however, is covered under IPM programs, so whether IPM has reduced overall pesticide use in Indian agriculture is debatable. Although the introduction of Bt cotton has reduced insecticide use in cotton by almost 50 %, mass pesticide use in Indian agriculture overall has increased by 9 % since 2002.