2. Agenda
• Introduction
• IPM initiatives in other countries
1) IPM programs and policies in USA
2) West African regional IPPM program
3) Indonesia’s IPM in Rice
4) IPM programs in Asia
• IPM- Farmer Field School
• Adoption of IPM practices
2
3. Introduction
• IPM is an ecosystem –based strategy that focuses on long term prevention
of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as
biological control,habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices
and use of resistant varieties.
• It is followed both in national and International levels.
• In International level, Indonesia has the most successful IPM system by
having more than 2,00,000 IPM farmer schools.
3
5. IPM programs and policies in the USA
• IPM strategies emerged in the USA in 1950s to reduce pesticide use in
agriculture.
• Political leaders and public understood the problems of pollution and
destruction of natural enemies due to insecticides.
• This leads to entomologists conducted research on IPM.
5
6. • The US congress made pesticide regulation law, because due to
extensive damage of environment.
• After 1972, pesticide usage was limited.
• In the same year, the report “Integrated Pest Management” was
published (Council for Environmental Quality,1972).
• A number of IPM Programs were implemented in the USA.
• Among that “Huffaker Project”, also one, after its chairman , Carl
Huffaker of the Entomology Department of the University of
California at Berkeley.
6
8. • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Science
Foundation (NSF) and Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) jointly
financed a 5 year program of IPM to cover around 1.6 million hectares
(the Huffaker Project).
• Six crops such as Alfalfa, Citrus, Cotton , Pines, Pome, and Stone fruits
and Soyabean were covered under the project ( Huffaker and Smith,1972).
• Consortium for Integrated pest management was second large scale
project (1979 to 1985). The coverage of the project was 5.76 million
hectares.
8
.
9. • Adoption of IPM strategies saved USA agriculture US$ 500 million per
year due to reduction in pesticide use ( Rajotte et al., 1987).
• During 2001, United States General Accounting Office (USGAO)
conducted an audit.
• The area under IPM was : Cotton -86%, Fruit and nuts – 62%, Vegetables-
86%, Soya bean -78% , Corn -76%, Barley-71% , Wheat-65% , Alfalfa -
40% and other crops -63%.
9
10. West African Regional IPPM Program
10
West African regional IPPM programme is working with farmers to
sustainably intensify the cotton production system, by boosting yields
through improved agronomic practices including the application of
compost, the planting of leguminous cover crops, and the use of improved
seeds and plant management techniques.
11. IMPACTS
• In Mali, a survey following the training was conducted in 65 villages
of the Cotton farmers , where a 94% reduction in the use of chemical
pesticides and a subsequent increase in the use of organic materials
were observed.
• In Benin, a dramatic success was noted in the irrigated rice systems.
• The IPPM FFS training in Malanville led to more than double the
amount of production and a 66% reduction in use of chemical
fertilizer.
Presentation title 11
13. 13
Practice Before IPM After IPM
SEEDS Not quantified 20 to 25% of
previously used
SPACING Transplanted
randomly
Transplanted in line,
20-25 cm
FERTILIZERS Upto 400kg /ha 150 kg/ha
RICE STRAW Sold in Niger
markets
Buried prior to
transplanting
14. Indonesia’s Integrated Pest Management in
Rice
14
• Rice is the important crop in Indonesia , occupied about 60% of the
total area (Raheja, 1995).
• Before 1969, Indonesia had been the world’s largest importer of rice.
• After that Green revolution ( high yield seed varieties, Fertilizers and
intensive pesticides) Indonesia achieved self-sufficiency in Rice
production in 1984.
15. • Initially , pest control was achieved only through pesticide use.
• Government provided subsidy to farmers for purchase pesticides (at
one point in the 1980s , the subsidy rate was as high as 85%).
• Given training to use of pesticide application equipment (World Bank,
1995).
• Pesticide subsidies amounted was 179 million (US $) , which was
about 0.17% of Indonesia’s Gross Domestic Product (World
Bank,1995).
Presentation title 15
16. • Excessive pesticide use resulted in development of resistance and pest
resurgence. Minor pests became major pests.
• The Brown plant hopper (Nilaparvata lugens) was considered minor
pest, after the Green revolution , it become a major pest.
Presentation title 16
17. • The IPM concept was officially adopted by Indonesia in 1979.
• Indonesian government,Novemeber 5, 1986, was declared IPM the
national pest control strategy for Rice.
• The insecticides should be applied only when an economic threshold was
reached.
Presentation title 17
18. • Later pesticide subsidies gradually decreased in January , 1989
(Raheja,1995).
• The government has saved more than 100 million (US $) of pesticide
expenditures.
• The financial returns, decreased pesticide inputs, and increased yields
are all measures of success for the Indonesian IPM program.
Presentation title 18
20. Presentation title 20
COUNTRY CROP OUTCOME
CHINA Cotton A decline in insecticide
use from 6.3 to 3.1
applications per season a
year after training
BANGLADESH Egg plant A decline in pesticide
applications from 7.0 to
1.4 applications per season
VIETNAM Rice Insecticide use reduced
from 1.7 to 0.3
applications per season
21. Presentation title 21
COUNTRY CROP OUTCOME
SRILANKA Rice Insecticide applications
reduced from 2.2 to 0.4
applications
INDONESIA Rice 65% reduction in
pesticide use and 15%
increase in yield
THAILAND Rice 60% reduction in use of
insecticides
VIETNAM Tea 50-75% reduction in
pesticide
22. IPM –FFS ( Farmer Field School)
• FFS model was initiated by FAO in Southeast Asia in the late 1980s . Over
the past two decades and spread to nearly 90 countries worldwide.
• IPM-FFS encourages farmers not to spray unless pest thresholds reach a
damaging level.
• This is informal learning approach where” classroom” is the farmer’s own
field.
• FFS approach is to improve farmer’s livelihoods through adoption of IPM
practice and employment.
Presentation title 22
23. • IPM –FFS grouped into 25 farmers., learn together through discovery
and experience.
• FFS make farmers better decision makers.
FFS having wide variety of objectives:
• Grow healthy crop, observe the field regularly , conserve on natural
enemies and to make farmers (IPM) experts on crop production.
• It is an innovative tool to facilitate interactive learning.
• This case study was conducted to analyse the implementation on the
FFS approach of IPM during July 2010- June 2023.
Presentation title 23
24. Adoption of IPM Practices
• The adoption of IPM practices by the farmers was significantly higher
after joining FFS compared to before joining in the FFS.
• The area under higher adoption (100%) was use of balanced
fertilizer,synchronized crop production, transplanting healthy seedlings
and line sowing , Bird perching, surveying before using chemicals
pesticides.
Presentation title 24
29. REFERENCES
• Settle, W. and Garba, M.H.2009. A case study of the West African
Regional Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM)
Programme by FAO, Rome , Italy.
• Rajinder Peshin, Rakesh S. Bandral, Wenjun Zhang, Lewis Wilson and
Ashok K. Dhawan 2009. Integrated Pest Management : A Global
overview of History , Programs and Adoption.Integrated Pest
Management : Innovation –Development process.
• McClelland, S. 2002. Indonesia’s Integrated Pest Management in Rice:
Successsful Integration of policy and Education. Environmental Practice
4(4) : 194-195.
Presentation title 29
