Transcript IPM CRSP LAC Planning Meeting: Toward IPM Packages for LAC

Paul Backman, Penn State University
Memphis, TN
27 March 2012
Objectives
 Discuss challenges associated with building capacity
for IPM programs in LAC;
 Discuss different approaches to short- and long-term
training and how these approaches vary according to
local conditions
 Identify unique challenges associated with training for
IPM packages (with an emphasis on integrated)
 Describe training efforts for IPM in Latin America and
Caribbean Region promoted by a specific project—the
IPM CRSP.
IPM and technology diffusion
 Standard extension models involve training farmers about new






production processes, techniques, etc. The model is one of technology
transfer;
IPM is different because it involves knowledge about pests and their
life-cycles, can include multiple practices (e.g. IPM packages), multiple
disciplines, enhanced decision making—it is knowledge intensive and
not easily transferred;
IPM research is often participatory, recognizes farmer needs, and
brings farmers into the process—it is a people-intensive process;
However, for IPM to have an impact, widespread adoption has to take
place;
Public agricultural extension budgets have been cut and often there are
few incentives for private sector involvement;
Conundrum: difficult to train, few agents involved in dissemination,
dissemination needed to ensure impact
Solution: innovative diffusion mechanisms
Country examples
 Two countries where IPM research is well-established:
Ecuador and Honduras
 Key pests/complexes identified
 IPM components tested
 Some solutions are available, and are being tested and
disseminated
 Different challenges for short-term training:
 Scientist training
 Access to extension and outreach systems
 Generating buy-in
 Engagement of women and other stakeholders
Challenges
 Research prioritization (objective): crops (economic importance
versus food security) and pests/diseases
 Secondary data to identify most important in terms of food security
and exports
 Stakeholder assessments (producers, extension agents, scientists) to
identify major pest problems
 Research prioritization (subjective): scientist preferences/training: pet




pests/diseases
Need to resolve differences & possibly build capacity to address
objective priorities
Building collaboration across disciplines: systems approach versus
discipline-centric
Moving from laboratories to farmer field experiments
Publications: few incentives to publish in developing-country
institutions
Overcoming the challenges: Shortterm training
 Scientist training (early in process):
 Participatory methods—build stakeholder support
 Train scientists in multi-disciplinary partnerships—involve
pathologists, entomologists, and others
 Social science inputs: (i) prioritize research (according to
objective criteria); (ii) gender training (especially important
for IPM and participatory research)
 Moving from laboratory science to farmer fields. Bigger
problem with university scientists than with NARS scientists
 Scientist training (through project):
 Participation with US scientists on identifying research
themes, designing the research, analysis, and writing
 International short-term training: IPM CRSP has provided
several opportunities, mainly through its global themes
Short-term training for scientists
 Regional virus workshop in Honduras, trichoderma
workshop in India, virus workshop in India


Permit CRSP-affiliated scientists to learn state of the art
techniques
Low-cost means of building capacity
 Visits to US universities




Examples: (i) annual visit to Purdue University for work in
entomology and weed science; (ii) impact assessment at
Virginia Tech; (iii) Penn State
Strengthen long-term linkages
Build correspondence between field research and that in US
More likely to publish
Short-term training for project
stakeholders
 First principle is to include stakeholders in research planning:
participation builds ownership
 IPM CRSP has evaluated a number of training/dissemination
measures
 General lessons:
 Farmer field schools are effective, but expensive and generally do





not reach many people
Field days are effective (and inexpensive) means of disseminating
one or two practices, but not for complete IPM packages
Extension visit are effective, but relatively expensive
Mass media can work for simple messages, but not complex
packages
Broad participation by farmer groups in research helps—training as
a form of learning by doing
No “silver bullet”: need to combine methods
Example: Honduras Gender
Workshop
 22 farmers(14 women and 8 men) from the area around La Esperanza,
Honduras participated in a gender workshop (March 2012).
 Women and men were split into two groups to perform activities (using the
Harvard Analytical Framework) to identify
 Activities they performed on a daily basis; Agricultural activities they performed
throughout the year; Resources and benefits they controlled or had access to;
IPM technologies they adopted & why or why not; and, Other factors that
affected their roles in agriculture and in the household
 The IPM-CRSP objective of identifying gendered adoption rates for various
technologies was met
 Workshop Perspectives
 The workshop was productive and fairly efficient in obtaining necessary
information in a short amount of time.

All of the above tasks were accomplished in approximately 4 hours.
 Several more workshops should be completed to obtain information that is
more representative of and consistent with Honduran agriculture as a whole.
 Workshop approach represents model to simultaneouslu conduct research
and disseminate IPM practices to farmers
Short-term training and
dissemination
 Dissemination is most effective when private sector is
involved
 Honduras: combine IPM training with program to
link farmers to high-valued market
 Produce purchaser has incentive to train and monitor
 Producer has economic incentive to learn methods
 Ecuador: grafted naranjilla is sold by private company
 Company provides technical assistance to ensure that
product (fusarium-resistant naranjilla) is properly
managed
Challenges to long-term training
 Mismatch between host-country institution needs and US
scientist interests


Social sciences—little interest in training economists, gender
specialists, and other among NARS directors
US scientists focus their research on US-specific problems and
applicability to developing countries is often difficult to
communicate (example: naranjilla research in Ecuador)
 Preparation of host-country scientists is limited


Language and the TOEFL
GREs—challenge to get students who meet US university standards
 Expensive to train degree students at US universities


Sandwich type programs have not been successful in LAC
Training at regional (LAC) universities is less expensive, but at cost
of limited linkages with US scientists
Solutions
 Focus on US scientists with a commitment toward
service to host-countries (Rachel Melnick, others)
 Build pipeline early—identify students and get them
prepared; do not be shy about evaluating quality
 Build wide pipeline—identify several options for one
or two positions
 Language training can be built into degree training
program
Summary
Acknowledgement
This presentation was made possible through support provided by the
Agriculture Office within the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture,
and Trade (EGAT) of the U.S. Agency for International Development, under
the terms of the Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research
Support Program (IPM CRSP) (Award No. EPP-A-00-04-00016-00). The
opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.