Cover Image
close this bookExtension of Complex Issues - Success Factors in Integrated Pest Management (LBL - SKAT - SDC, 1997, 102 p.)
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentAbbreviations
View the documentPreface
View the documentAcknowledgements
Open this folder and view contents1 Introduction
Open this folder and view contents2 Project descriptions: Ways of extending IPM
Open this folder and view contents3 Theses: Success factors in extension for IPM
Open this folder and view contents4 Concluding remarks: Respect as the basis for successful IPM extension
View the documentReferences
View the documentAnnex I: National IPM Training Programme Indonesia
View the documentAnnex II: The IPM Project Zamorano in Nicaragua
View the documentAnnex III: IPM Development Programme
View the documentAnnex IV: IRRI: Rice IPM Network
View the documentAnnex V: TREE: Development of Neem-Based Plant Protection Practices in Thailand
View the documentExtension of complex issues

Annex I: National IPM Training Programme Indonesia

by Peter Schmidt, LBL

1. Background

· Indonesia and its farming systems: Indonesia in South East Asia is the world's fourth most populous country and the third largest rice producer (Kenmore 1991, 5). The farming systems are mainly rice-based and the socio-economic structure is characterised by small holdings run by farming families. 20 million rice farmers cultivate 10,000,000 hectares of paddy. Average rough rice yield reaches 4.38 tonnes/hectare (ICP 1992, p. 25).

· Extension approaches: In the late sixties the Government of Indonesia (GOI) promoted intensive rice production as part of "Green Revolution" technology in order to intensify the rice production. The BIMAS (= Mass Guidance) Secretariat was established. At that stage BIMAS "was defined as an intensive extension campaign supported by inputs and credit facilities delivered down to the village level, stimulated by market prices favourable to farmers" (van de Fliert 1993, 5). At the grass-root level farmers groups and village co-operatives were established. Most of these groups, however were dormant from the beginning. In 1976 the National Agricultural Extension Programme under the guidance of the World Bank introduced the T&V System in Indonesia and the respective extension structure was set up.

· Pest outbreaks: Multinational agrochemical companies were contracted to handle pest control over large geographic areas. Aerial spraying was common during the early 1970s, a factor which has since been identified as contributing to pest outbreaks of this decade (Pincus 1996). The indiscriminate use of pesticides caused ecological problems, threatened human health, and led to economic losses, in particular due to massive brown plant-hopper (Nilaparvata lugens S.) pests (1975 - 77). 1985/86 a second nation-wide brown plant-hopper outbreak endangered the recently achieved self sufficiency in rice production (van de Fliert 1993, 13). But according to Nakasuji (1995), the primary reason for the brown plant-hopper resurgence was the introduction of the less resistant high yielding rice variety IR8 and only as secondary reason the application of non-selective pesticides that killed natural enemies.

· Pesticides banned: However, as a consequence in 1986 a Presidential Decree declared IPM as the national plant protection policy, banned 57 of 66 pesticide formulations from use on rice, doubled the plant protection staff (from 1300 to 2900), and introduced IPM training for staff and farmers. Within two years the pesticide subsidies (previously $ 120 million per year (The National IPM Programme, 3) were completely removed.

2. Main features of the project

· Name, phase and donors: After an initial phase subsequent to the mentioned presidential decree, the actual "Indonesian National Integrated Pest Management Programme" began with a first phase from 1989 - 92 with funds from USAID. It is presently in its second phase (93 - 98) which is sponsored by the World Bank, USAID and GOI, and technically assisted by the FAO. The Integrated Pest Management Training Project (IPMTP) which forms the backbone of the IPM Programme has a budget of $ 53 million for the current phase.

· Area and coverage: Of the IPMTP: 12 provinces (out of 26 total), focus on 6 "rice bowl - provinces". As organisational unit for the programme serves the sub-district.

· "Target population": The target population is rice farmers in the twelve project provinces.

· Objectives: The objectives of the IPMTP are to stabilise agricultural production, particularly paddy, and to promote environmentally sound crop production systems by strengthening institutional capacity on IPM by training 800 000 farmers, 25 000 farmer trainers, 1100 field extension workers, 520 pest and disease observers. Besides, the IPMTP aims at policy support to strengthen the regulatory and environmental management of pesticides (MTR, 2).

· Indicators mentioned: The impact of the IPM programme is well proven in reliable studies (compare for example Pincus 1991, IPM National programme 1993). Indicators mentioned are: Rice yield per area (stable or increased by IPM applying farmers), profits per area (higher for IPM applying farmers), insecticide applications (decreased by IPM applying farmers), pesticide expenditures per area (lower in case of IPM farmers), rice production at national level (continuous increase), pesticide use at national level (drastic decrease), infestation by brown plant-hopper (Kenmore 1991, 16), Internal Rate of Return for programme as well as for training. A recently conducted study among 107 rice farmers revealed that not only the yields of IPM applying farmers are higher compared to conventional practices but that IPM farmers have lower risks and lower uncertainty. The indicator for risk applied was the variance about the mean of net income per area.

· Main focus of the project: The Indonesian IPM programme follows four principles:

1. Grow a healthy crop,
2. Observe the field weekly,
3. Conserve natural enemies, and
4. Farmers become IPM experts.

"With these principles, a set of agronomic and ecological concepts are provided to farmers as tools for their decision making. The farmer remains the central manager and independent decision maker" (van de Fliert, 26). In accordance to these principles the IPM programme applies a new extension approach, namely learning through experience, focusing on field problems and empowering farmers. The central extension method applied is called "Farmer Field Schools" (FFSs). In brief, the main focus of the project lies in the process to enable farmers to take their own decisions.

· Success: The programme is considered successful on a national level because the national rice production increased while the pesticide use drastically decreased. Because of the fact that the pesticides had been subsidised substantially this results in a considerable saving for the national economy of 120 million US $ per year. Besides, further losses from Brown Plant-hopper pests (that had caused much larger losses) could be avoided. On the micro level the producers who follow the IPM principles gain larger profits per area. From the ecological point of view the programme is considered successful because of the reduced usage of pesticides and because risks for human health are ameliorated. From an extension point of view the programme is remarkable because it achieved a very broad coverage (600'000 farmers trained so far).

· Sustainability: The programme claims to be sustainable because local governments and village councils started to fund FFSs, because from FFSs stable groups with other activities developed, because farmers themselves started to spread the IPM principles (The national IPM programme, 12).

3. Institutional set-up

· ICP (Intercountry Programme for the development and application of integrated pest control in rice in South and Southeast Asia) started in 1980 It is conducted by FAO and presently funded by the Netherlands, Australia and Switzerland (3.5 millions SFr or 17% of the current phase (1993 -1997) budget It operates at a regional level having at present 13 member countries (among them China, India and Indonesia) The main objectives are

- Networking and sharing of information which is required to initiate and sustain national IPM Programmes

- Verification and adaptation of core functions (especially ecological principles and experiential learning) to the national levels

- Support to national policy, strategy and project formulation

- Human resource development relating to IPM, specially training of trainers and IPM advocacy

- Conduction of IPM development studies (ICP 1992, 50 pp)

· Indonesian IPM Programme In the centre of our interest is the major human resources development activity for Indonesia's national IPM programme, namely the Integrated Pest Management Training Project (IPMTP) Since 1994 the project is co-ordinated by the IPM Implementation Team within the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) The project is directly under the Secretary General of this ministry The IPMTP is funded by the World Bank and the GOI. Increasingly other sources contribute to the costs of the IPM Programme, particularly local governments It is claimed that these sources contribute up to 25% (Kenmore 1991, 18).

· Ministry of Agriculture Besides the farmer families, the core actors of the IPM Programme are the PHPs (Pest Disease Observers) Administratively they belong to the Department of Food Crops, Directorate of Food Crop Protection Since 1992 they are stationed in Sub District Level Offices Originally their job description was oriented towards pest forecasting Later they were made IPM trainers because they availed knowledge about crop protection and were already stationed in the field The PHPs collaborate with the grass-root level extension workers of the Indonesian extension set up, the Village Extension Workers (PPL) 1986 the number of PHPs amounted to 2900 against 26000 PPLs Each PPL deals with 1000 to 3000 farmer families In 1992 the MOA has been restructured and the PPLs have got commodity line responsibilities Remarkable in the set up is that the staff concerned with IPM originates from a side line (namely the Directorate of Food Crops Protection) in the Indonesian extension set up where various levels of the Agriculture Service and the Agency for Agricultural Education, Training and Extension together form the T&V set up

4. Policy level

· IPM is the declared national plant protection policy (compare background)

· The Indonesian IPM programme is the one that is most advanced in Southeast Asia and serves as example for other countries

· The ban of pesticides proved to be difficult to implement The GOI even subsidised pesticides by means of small emergency pest outbreak budgets for pesticides (MTR, 5) It is estimated that perhaps as much as 50% of the chemicals being applied to rice comprise those formulations banned on rice under the decree (ICP 1996, 9)

· A major breakthrough with regards to pesticide policies happened in June 1996 The pesticide formulations that had been banned ten years ago for the use in rice only, have now been banned totally

· In order to pave the way for IPM, the managers of the government bureaucracy are invited to IPM field days (The national IPM Programme, 9)

· The planning of the project is in the hands of the MOA following the administrative set-up of the Indonesian Government (provinces, districts) (Pincus 1996).

· "Farmer Planning Meetings" are conducted on the sub-district level with the objective of giving farmers a forum to discuss and create local IPM programme initiatives. These meetings co-determine the direction of the IPMTP (ICP 1996, 3 and 9). They are an example for real farmer involvement in planning an extension programme.

5. Research

· International level: Co-operation among others with: International Rice Research Institute and International Institute of Biological Control, co-ordinated by the Global IPM Facility.

· Regional: Exchange of research results is facilitated by the ICP.

· National: Research is conducted by several universities together with the staff from the Department of Agriculture's Pest and Disease Forecasting and Control Laboratories (FAO 1993, 81). They conducted as basis for the entire IPM programme so called "habitat studies" to explore the structure and function of the rice eco-system. Such field level ecological investigations are still continued and their results have been translated into exercises for the Training of Trainers and FFSs (ICP 1996, 4).

· Today the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (AARD) within the MOA carries out most of the research funded by the project. These funds are disbursed based on research proposals submitted by the various institutes under AARD and universities. In 1994 and 1995, 40 IPM research contracts have been made. The topics are directly related to problems identified in the field (ICP 1996, 3).

· As a new approach, temporary "Action Research Facilities" are set up in the field in order to respond to problems identified by farmers. Farmers are the key actors from problem identification to study implementation until designing and taking actions based on study results (ICP 1996, 4).

· As response to a low participation of women in FFS, gender issues are taken up in gender studies (ICP 1996, 5).

· In the FFSs the participants themselves set up small trials and conduct applied research.

6. Logistical base

· The IPMTP is in no way concerned with the supply of agricultural inputs.

· There is an open market for these inputs in Indonesia and they are readily available. Indeed, the agrochemical companies market their products at all levels, including the village level. The problem is not one of supply, but of informed and scientific use of the available inputs.

· Some Village Extension Workers sell agricultural inputs, among them pesticides, to supplement their incomes. Van de Fliert (1993) describes role conflicts that can emerge from such a situation (p. 9 and p. 151).

· The PPLs are involved in the distribution of "packages" to farmers that at times also contain pesticides. This is an example for conflicting paradigms in the pest management strategy of Indonesia.

7. Extension

7.1 Farmer Field Schools

· Farmer Field Schools: As basic extension approach serve the so called Farmer Field Schools (FFSs). FFSs function as follows: A group of 25 farmers meets regularly during one rice growing season, i.e. 10 to 12 times. On their own learning field (size of 1000 square metres) the farmers compare different treatments (usually conventional practice and an IPM practice). This comparative study is based on the analysis of the prevalent agro-ecosystem. In a session the group usually divides into small teams of five persons, go to the field, analyse the agro-ecosystem, present the findings to the other groups and then decide about the indicated management practice.

· Non formal education: The FFSs follow the principles of non-formal adult education. The participants are actively involved, work in groups, are invited to analyse, discover, compare and to decide accordingly. The relationship to the trainer is non-hierarchical. The participants gain analytical skills, communication skills and decision making skills. As the participants prepare presentations to the other group members, they produce their own training material.

· Single crop - single issue approach: The FFSs focus on rice production and there on the management of pests. Beyond that, certain time is reserved for the discussion of actually emerging issues, like how to deal with rats in a collective action. As a tendency, this single crop and single issue approach is being widened. For example more and more weed management is included as a topic. Other crops, mainly soybeans, are treated in follow up activities (compare 7.2.)

· Selection of villages and participants: As selection criteria of villages where a FFS is going to take place are mentioned: Availability of rice land, accessibility, presence of an active farmers' group, coincidence of planting season with FFS schedule. The selection of participants is usually left to the PPLs who in turn rely on the opinion of village authorities. FFS participants quite often belong to farmers' groups that had been initiated in earlier extension programmes. Selection criteria are the ability to read and write, the possibility to attend regularly and the ability to disseminate. It is empirically shown that FFS participants in an average are more affluent than the average rural community (van de Fliert 1993, 130). However, bearing in mind that so far 24000 FFSs have been run, it is difficult to generalise about the selection process.

· Participation of women: The participation of women in FFSs is low but increased from 6% in 1990 to 10% in 1995 and to 14% in 1996. In 1995 still 60% of all FFS did not include any women participants. Attitude and approaches of field-workers and the selection-process of participants have been found to have a greater influence on women participation than external economic or cultural factors (ICP 1996, 5).

· Compensations paid to participants: Until 1993 the participants got a small compensation of 0.5 US $ per training day. The compensation was below an average daily wage. It is stated that the compensation was often used to finance snacks, joint excursions or to purchase emblems (like a T-shirt) demonstrating the corporate identity of a FFS. Today the participants receive a snack-money of about 0.15 US$ (Pincus 1996).

· Funds for FFSs: The FFSs are financed by the IPMTP. Increasingly local governments and village bodies financially contribute to the FFSs.

· Costs of an FFS: An average FFS costs US $ 500.-.

· Evaluation of FFSs: The learning effect of FFSs is regularly evaluated by means of pre- and post tests in which the participants are asked the same practical and field-oriented questions. In the FFS the clients evaluate the extension staff. The impact of FFSs has been described in a number of case studies.

7.2 Follow up activities

· Overview over presently conducted follow-up activities:


Technical aspects

Organisational aspects

Field Leader

Technical topics, facilitation skills, management training

Field Worker

Refresher Training

Monthly Technical Meetings


Training of Farmer Trainers
FFSs in rotational crops
Farmer studies

Farmer Technical Meeting
Farmer Planning Meeting
Farmer Media

· Farmer Trainers: In order to reach scale, from each FFS two outstanding participants are asked to become farmer trainers. For this purpose they attend a one week Training of Trainers (TOT). In teams of two they then lead a FFS. They receive continuous support from Field Workers and from Farmer Trainer Workshops. In 1995 ca. 5000 Farmer Trainers have been educated.

· Farmer led Field Schools: In the years 1994 and 1995 around one third of the farmers who have been trained in IPM had received this training in FFSs that were facilitated by Farmer Trainers, In figures this are 118000 farmers! (ICP 1996, 2)

· FFSs in rotational crops: As second Follow Up activity the programme offers FFSs in rotational crops. As the scientific basis for IPM in soy-beans and maize -the two main rotational crops - is by far not as sound as in the case of rice, further technical assistance will be required.

· Farmer Studies: Facilitated by Field Workers, FFS graduates have become researchers by conducting their own season long experiments. During 1996 farmers in 800 locations are planning and conducting their own farmer studies covering topics like rat management, diseases, insect pests etc.

· Farmer Technical Meetings: These meetings provide a forum to share the results of farmer studies among FFS alumni from different groups on Sub-District level.

· Farmer Planning Meetings: Technical Meetings are followed by Farmer Planning Meetings. These meetings are an opportunity for FFS graduates to discuss and analyse problems related to crop management. Facilitated by a Field Worker, farmers learn planning tools like mapping and they design their own IPM programme for the coming season. The meeting also deals with questions related to fund raising. Both meetings are scheduled once a season. The National IPM Programme plans for 1996 to have in each Sub-Province at least one Sub-District with a "full model" which means that the entire set of Follow Up activities is implemented.

· Farmers Media: A last Follow Up activity is called "Farmers Media" and is yet an other way to facilitate horizontal learning from the experience of other IPM farmer groups. Case studies are actively looked for, analysed by study teams comprising of Plant Protection Staff and farmers, written up, edited in an appropriate way, field tested and distributed. Case studies can deal with anything relevant to IPM farmers groups, starting from pure technical contents like natural pest control methods to how to initiate a IPM graduates group.

7.3 Training of trainers

· Trainers: As trainers act the PHPs. They are supposed to spend 50% of their working time for FFSs, i.e. to conduct three FFSs per year. They basically perform as facilitators, not as teachers. They do not try to transmit "packages" but principles. The PPLs, that often are locally stationed, are responsible for organisational matters like selection of participants, identification of the field school site. At times they replace the PHPs during single gatherings.

· Training of trainers: The PHPs had been trained in "Field Training Facilities" (12 FTFs in 8 rice producing provinces) in a three seasons training which is complemented by a one season training on the campuses of state universities. The training includes facilitation and communication skills, group dynamics etc. As particularity of the training the PHPs grow their own paddy fields, which then are used for ecological analysis, field studies and experiments. In this way the trainees produce their own teaching material. Under the guidance of a mentor the PHPs conduct two FFSs as part of their training. In brief, the training is geared towards practical skills, scientific knowledge and social skills. The core method of the training is "learning by doing". The PPLs get an opportunity to learn about IPM in short training courses and when they attend FFSs.

· Agricultural Extension Academies: In 1994 and 1995 the above described three season training model was introduced at two Agricultural Extension Academies. This programme served as trial run for the integration of IPM training methods, content and approaches into the formal Agricultural Extension Worker education system. In 1996 this programme will be expanded to cover all 5 Indonesian Agricultural Extension Academies in order to institutionalise IPM approaches and methods within the extension system (ICP 1996, 3). In accordance, the previous FTFs are being dissolved by 1996.

· Refresher training sessions: Sub-Provincial Officers and District Project Officers (so called Field Leaders) are trained in ecology, facilitation methods, farmer-level organisation methods and database development (ICP 1996, 3). Field Workers undergo refresher training sessions too and have the opportunity for an horizontal experience sharing in monthly technical meetings

Overview over extensionists and farmers trained in IPM since 1986 until 1995


Field Leaders

PHPs trained in IPM

PPLs trained in IPM

Farmer Trainers (5 days)


Initial Phase 1986-1988

10'300 (target 125'000)

First Phase 1989-1992


1'640 (target 1 '000)

3230 (target 2'000)

(target 100'000)

Second Phase 1993-1998

472 (target 500)

944 (target 1'100)

1994 and 1995: 6'940 (target 4'890)

1993 43'500 1994 120'000 1995200'000 (target 800'000)

Sources Van de Fliert 1993, p 25, MTR, 8, ICP 1996

8. Clients

· Selection: Selection and origin of FFS participants: Compare 7.1.

· Farmer to Farmer Extension: It is part of the extension concept that the IPM principles are horizontally spread. Originally the means foreseen for this process were field days and people's theatre. Later the above described programme to train farmers as trainers was added.

· Lateral spread: Besides it happened that FFS participants spontaneously trained other farmers without governmental financial support. As a matter of fact farmers were found to be organising FFSs before the programme knew about this lateral spread. "A follow-up survey of some 400 Farmers' IPM Field Schools over 10000 farmers indicated that, depending on location, from 60% to 70% of the trained farmers' groups had spontaneously started giving season-long field training activities with other farmer's groups. This lateral spread is unprecedented anywhere in extension" (Kenmore 1991, 19).

· Self produced learning material: The fact that they had produced their own learning material is considered a furthering element.

· FFS and farmer organisations: IPM is revitalising existing farmer groups by field schools. Examples are described where FFSs turned into stable groups that for example set up a saving scheme (FAO-IPM 1993, 39).

9. Main positive experiences (strengths)

· Decision making capacity: The concept of the FFS which provides the farmers with the skill to take their own decisions.

· Reduced pesticide use and economic benefit: The well proven reduction of insecticide use by FFS graduates, the stable or even increased yields and the reduced risk for farmers following the IPM principles.

· The broad impact.

· Plat-forming for horizontal exchange: The spontaneous and further the organised horizontal exchange through Farmer to Farmer FFSs and through activities like the Farmer Planning and Farmer Technical meetings.

· Farmers are owners of the programme: The hints that farmers (Farmer Trainers) have become the driving force and the owners of the programme for example expressed in the steps to found a Farmer Trainer Association.

· The increased local funding.

· Policy support: The support through strong political measures.

10. Challenges

· Critical mass to guarantee sustainability: The present Integrated Pest Management Training Project is going to terminate in March 1998 and a continuation is not anticipated. However, nobody doubts that the IPM programme as a whole will continue. Factors contributing to sustainability are farmer encouragement through skill development, the emergence of operational IPM Interest Groups and Farmer Trainer Associations related to IPM and the increasing fund allocation by local governments. The major risk factors to sustainability of the programme are the competing paradigms in crop protection as well as in extension. Reversals to the "old" paradigms of calendar spraying based on large scale pest-surveillance and of a directive top-down extension approach can only be prevented if a critical mass is supporting the new paradigms. This critical mass has been reached on the level of the field staff of the Directorate of Food Crop Protection and on the level of local government bodies. Also among the top-level policy makers the programme enjoys proven support. The weakest link in the chain appears to be among mid-level government officials at the national level. Unless a critical mass of officers on this level is actively supporting the IPM programme, the sustainability of the programme will be threatened.

· Attempts to hijack the FFS approach: The chemical industry (Ciba-Geigy) has copied the FFS extension approach in Indonesia. In view of the advocates of a participatory IPM extension this is an attempt to capture the "form" but substitute the "content". Also on the level of policy decisions the chemical industry tries to convince policy makers to earmark funds for pest-outbreak budgets, to run "safe-use of chemical" training sessions etc.

· Maintaining quality and creativity: The programme in Indonesia has gone to scale! The main challenge the programme will face in future is to maintain quality (of the trainers training, of the FFSs etc.) and to keep its capacity to remain innovative in order to cope with change. At present the programme is investing in a number of activities to ensure quality and innovation-capacity. For example the introduced horizontal exchange forums on the different organisational levels provide most important opportunities to monitor and improve quality. Learning from the experience from fellow farmers, from fellow trainers etc. is the logical consequence of the FFS extension approach. As the horizontal exchange forums are interlinked with feed-back loops, they also serve as means to get hold of innovations developed by farmers. In the present situation the FAO Technical Assistance together with the Field Leaders play the role of a "think tank" and are able to process innovations from farmers into proposals for action. Examples are the Farmers Media and the development of Action Research Facilities from the earlier Field Laboratories. In 1998 the FAO Technical Assistance will phase out. A counterpart group that could step in and continue to fulfil the functions of the FAO Technical Assistance does not exist. A possible solution to this problem could be to strengthen the Field Leaders by facilitating a horizontal exchange among them by providing further training for them.

· Link research and extension: In the present phase the project has funds to support a large number of research studies and field investigation, such as the Health Study, Habitat Studies, Action Research Facilities (ARF) and contract research. The original project document has earmarked funds for 25 research contracts annually to researchers at national research institutes and universities. However, Indonesian officials expressed the view that research in general is still not geared towards farmers' needs and that the link between research and extension is still considered to be weak. The recently introduced ARF provide an excellent opportunity to bring farmers, extensionists and researchers together for joint, need based, problem oriented and applied research. Unfortunately, generally the involvement of researchers in the ARF remained poor.

· Improve involvement of women: The steadily growing rates of women participation in FFSs show that the measures taken by the programme in this regard gain momentum. Nevertheless, the present attendance rate of 13.7% underlines what is stated in the programme's Country Brief: "Much work remains to be done in this area."

· Evidence for community development: "Developing a farmer led IPM programme" or "Building community-based IPM programmes" are at the same time titles of brochures issued by the programme as well as slogans indicating objectives of the programme far beyond the mere technical meaning of IPM. Unfortunately the present monitoring system does not include indicators related to the impact of farmer interactive extension or community development. Both aspects are crucial with regard to a broad impact of the programme and with regard to its sustainability. In addition, such information would allow to distinguish the programme from "alibi-IPM programmes" implemented by the chemical industry. The described horizontal exchange forums provide an excellent opportunity to obtain such information, which then could be complemented by in-depth case studies.

11. Documents analysed

Eveleens K.G., Chisholm R., van de Fliert E., Kato M., Nhat P.T., Schmidt P. 1996: Mid Term Review of Phase III. Report. The FAO Intercountry Programme for the Development and Application of integrated pest Control in Rice in South and Southeast Asia. August 1996.

FAO-IPM 1993: IPM farmer training: The Indonesian case. Indonesian national integrated pest management programme. Yogyakarta.

Fliert van de E. 1993: Integrated pest management: Farmer field schools generate sustainable practices. Wageningen Agricultural University. Wageningen.

Heston-Demirel V. 19xx: Integrated pest management: Less is more.

ICP 1992: Intercountry programme for the development and application of integrated pest control in rice in South and Southeast Asia. Phase III. Project Document.

ICP 1996: Inter Country Programme for integrated pest management in rice in South and Southeast Asia. Progress Report for the period 1 September 1995 - 29 February 1996.

IPM National Programme 1993: The impact of IPM training on farmers' behaviour: A summary of results from the second field school cycle. IPM National Programme, Monitoring and Evaluation Team, August 1993

Kenmore P. E. 1991: Indonesia's integrated pest management - A model for Asia. FAO Rice ICP Programme. Manila.

MTR 1995: Mid-term review mission, September 25 - October 13,1995. Aide memoire. Indonesia. Integrated Pest Management Training Project (IBRD Loan 3586). Final Draft. World Bank/Ministry of Agriculture.

Nakasuji Fusao 1995: Indonesia's integrated pest management projects for rice pest control.

Pincus J. 1991: Farmer field school survey: Impact of IPM training on farmers' pest control behaviour. Integrated pest management national programme.

Rg/van de Fliert 1994: Transforming extension for sustainable agriculture: The case of IPM in rice in Indonesia. In: Agriculture and Human Values. 1994: Spring-Summer: 96-108.

The Indonesian national IPM programme 1990: Farmer as experts.

Winarto Y.T. 1994: Encouraging knowledge exchange: Integrated pest management in Indonesia. In: Scoones I. and Thompson J. (ed): Beyond farmer first. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. 150 -154. Intermediate Technology Publications. London.

Personal Communications:

This description of the National IPM Training Programme Indonesia is based on an analysis of the available literature and documents, a short visit to the programme in 1996 in the frame of the Mid Term Review of Phase III of the FAO Intercountry Programme (ICP) for the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Control in Rice in South and Southeast Asia and on several exchanges with Jonathan Pincus, MIS Officer of the ICP. These contacts are referred to as "Pincus 1996".