|Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries Proceedings (NRI, 1992)|
The initiative leading to the publication of this report on integrated pest management (IPM) in developing countries stemmed from a crop protection conference held by CAB International in the United Kingdom in April 1989, and from the mid-term meeting of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in Australia in May of the same year. The first meeting, attended largely by scientists, highlighted the problems of limited adoption of IPM in developing countries; the second, a forum for donor agencies, suggested an approach to addressing the problem - initially through the establishment of a small task force. The latter comprised interested representatives from the following development assistance agencies: IDRC, USAID, ODA, ACIAR and FAO (see Appendix 1 for abbreviations). Funds for the IPM Task Force's operations and associated consultancies came from these five organizations.
The prime concern driving this initiative was the limited adoption of IPM in the developing countries of the tropics (as well as in many developed countries), despite the very large body of relevant knowledge that has accumulated, particularly over the past two decades. Environmental and human health concerns over excessive pesticide usage; the increasing resistance of pests to existing chemicals; and the limited scope for production of new, environmentally benign pesticides are among the many compelling reasons that have been repeatedly stressed for turning to IPM.
Most IPM activities, from research and development to extension and adoption, take place within national programmes, supported from many funding sources. Because of a lack of co-ordination at the international, regional and, in some cases, even national levels, there have been few opportunities to take comprehensive stock of the reasons for the lack of adoption of IPM in developing countries, or to develop rational approaches for overcoming these constraints.
The IPM Task Force was therefore asked to evaluate past and present attempts at IPM in representative developing countries, with particular emphasis on reasons for lack of success, and to identify constraints on wider adoption of IPM where pilot work had been successful. Armed with this information, the Task Force was to propose criteria for successful IPM and strategies for achieving this through the establishment of appropriate institutional mechanisms in national programmes, assisted by co-ordinated efforts of international development agencies and other necessary support. As a major first step in this initiative, the Task Force commissioned a group of consultants to undertake the required background studies and prepare a series of working papers and reports. The Task Force was fortunate to obtain the services of individuals with strong international reputations in their respective fields for this work. They were the Group Convenor, Michael Way, and Clive James, Paul Teng, John Terry, David Groenfeldt and Malcolm Iles (see Appendix 2).
This report is the outcome of their efforts and, reinforced by inputs from others associated with the programme, will provide a firm basis for other activities now under way in this initiative. It is intended to stimulate discussion of issues important to the implementation of IPM in developing countries of the tropics; it reflects the personal views of the authors, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the IPM Task Force.
G.H.L. Rothschild 29 January 1991