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 V: TREE: Development of Neem-Based Plant Protection Practices in Thailand

A Participatory Technology Development
Experience gained by an NGO

Maja Hnn (LBL), Gaby Stoll (Misereor), Withoon Lianchamroon (TREE)

1. Background

The Suphanburi province Is located in the Northwest of Bangkok. The province is considered to be part of the rice-bowl of Thailand and a big centre of commercial farming. High-yielding rice varieties were used with the highest amount of farm inputs, highest fertiliser and chemical pesticides in this region which resulted in outbreaks of brown plant-hopper (Nilaparvata lugens) since the late 1980's. 1990 and 1991 crop loss due to brown plant-hopper outbreaks reached up to 75%. In the Suphanburi Province brown plant-hopper caused 75 % of losses (more than 2,5 million tons of rice). In 35 out of 72 Provinces, outbreaks of brown plant-hopper were recorded and 3'500'000 rice (= 56 000 hectares) of rice have been destroyed which is equivalent to an estimated yield of 2,5 million tons of rice for the years 1991 and 1992.

There was no more success with chemical pesticides. In vegetable cultivation, particularly crucifers, pests (such as Plutella xylostella) developed high resistance towards chemical pesticides, (particularly carbamites and pyrethroids).

Up to now Thailand has no restrictions for pesticides by state decree like e.g. Indonesia and the pesticide regulation has never been correlated to the IPM policy.

Despite being an agriculturally important production zone, many farmers in the Suphanburi province face the problem of indebtedness. According to official data from 1993, 44,14 % of the farmers in Central Thailand are indebted. The national average is 42,5 %.

History of the Project

TREE is a Thai NGO linked to other NGOs through the AAN (Alternative Agriculture Network). This loose network of NGOs active in rural development makes use of each others resources. The co-ordinator of TREE is the president of the AAN. AAN coordinates the training sessions of the NGOs and organises also training sessions on the use of alternative crop protection measures and botanicals for their members all over the country. TREE uses these training sessions to bring in its experiences, which proved a very good tool for the dissemination.

The project of TREE in Suphanburi started in 1988. Initially, the NGO ATA (Appropriate Technology Association) conducted a survey on locally available methods of natural crop protection. During this survey, they learned about a method which was developed by an innovative farm entrepreneur, Khun Annop, near Bangkok. He had developed a plant-derived crop protection agent made from leaves of neem, citronella grass and the rhizome of galanga (Alpinia galanga (Zingiberaceae)), to protect his orange orchard from pests and diseases since 1985. TREE organised farm visits with farmers from Suphanburi in 1988 and started an own natural crop protection project.

In Thailand, there are meanwhile more than 20 000 farmers practising different kinds of alternative farming systems (sustainable agriculture, integrated farming, organic farming etc.). Botanicals as developed by TREE play a major role as crop protection agents for farmers following one of these cultivation systems. This does not mean however, that 30 000 farmers are using botanicals as some of these systems have very little or no pest problems. But this crop protection method can be considered as having had a major stimulating effect for farmers to practice sustainable agriculture.

The understanding of natural crop protection:

By Natural Crop Protection it is meant to use all possible natural functions to protect a crop. That is why it is not called pest control - the goal is to protect the crop with all available natural means. Botanical pesticides have become a main pillar in the natural crop protection component because of the interest of farmers and their familiarity with spraying (of pesticides). An other major activity of TREE, the local seeds component is insofar also a component of natural crop protection, it is expected to select varieties, which are resistant to pest and diseases.

2. Main Features of the Project

Objectives of TREE:

TREE has the vision/mission to promote ecologically sound farming based on three pillars:

1. Local or locally-improved seeds, conservation of local seedstock
2. Organic soil management and
3. Natural crop protection

During its implementation the project in Suphanburi was based on the two major pillars:

1. To develop non-chemical crop protection methods which are easy to integrate into a farm organism.

2. To gain experiences with conducting research with farmers or developing appropriate crop protection methods together with farmers.

TREE understands its role as a pure catalyst who responds to the farmer co-operators in first place. Therefore, out of the three major lines of activities, crop protection was a priority to the farmers. Insofar, the farmers are the ones who determine what TREE should contribute. They are also the ones who monitor and evaluate the proposed practices. Therefore, farmer co-operators are indirectly involved in policy formulation, planning, monitoring and evaluation.

However, this evaluation does not only address effectiveness of the botanicals proposed, but is holistic in its nature. This means, farmers' evaluation encompasses everything from access to the raw materials, processing, time requirements, convenience, effectiveness, investments, yields, market, prices etc.

3. Institutional set-up

Alternative Agricultural Network (AAN) in Thailand

The AAN is a network of NGOs and has four regional subgroups (North, Northeast, South and Central). Altogether it has about 45 member organisations, which are organisations active in rural development, integrated farming, natural farming, organic farming in both uplands and lowland. The AAN addresses technical and methodological issues - but also acts as a lobbying body. E.g. it was very active during the consultations prior to the development of the 8th National Economic and Social Development Plan. Today it recognises its issues in this Master Plan. The AAN also maintains actively informal contacts to powerful figures in the formal system.

In 1995, the AAN has set up a body to define national standards for organic farming as well as an inspection system. In these standards, which are based on the basic standards of IFOAM, the use of agricultural inputs is regulated.

Lately, the AAN has taken the lead in developing an alternative marketing system for products from sustainable agricultural systems. A separate marketing system, following two models, has been set up. By the end of 1995, around 25 GREENSHOPS were operating in Bangkok and ca. 18 in some other bigger cities (Model 1: European-style Bio-Shops), which sold fresh fruits and vegetables, rice and processed food. Further, farmers do sell directly to local markets (Model 2).

Institutional Set Up & Staff Organisation of TREE Suphanburi

Committee of TREE (setting of policy)


1 administrator

2 secretaries

3 technology development

3 field staff

1 information staff

1 dissemination staff

Every six month TREE has a midterm review and planning workshop in which the activities and experiences of the last six months are discussed and the direction is laid for the next six months - within the framework of the overall project mandate. During these six months, the staff members are relatively independent to organise their work and to respond to new impulses.

During 1987-1990 Gaby Stoll worked as a foreign advisor to two NGOs: The McKean Rehabilitation Institute in Chiang Mai and ATA (Appropriate Technology Association). Later on she worked with TREE which is an off-spring of ATA. Her task was to develop plant-based crop protection agents for major pests in Thailand together with farmers, because during those days, it was perceived, that it is difficult to translate scientific information into information useful at farm level. Her job was helping to bridge that gap either by using scientific information or local knowledge and test if those methods are effective under farmers conditions. Another major part of her task was to link the different actors around plant-based crop protection agents such as farmers, extension workers (GO/NGO) and researchers. This was done through working directly with some of them at field level but also at national level through four national workshops held so far.

The funds of TREE for staff and operations mostly derive from European NGO donors. Presently, TREE is undergoing a conversion process into a foundation in order to be able to gain access to public funds from the Thai Government for its activities.

4. Policy Level

Political support of non-chemical plant protection

In the beginning there was no formal support. Indirect support was given through some co-operations and exchanges with the Farming Systems Research institute (FSRI) and the interest of some individuals at different Provincial Plant Protection Departments (Suphanburi, Chiang Mai). But during that time, there was no clear national policy that formed the ground for any official body to support the work of an NGO like TREE.

Meanwhile, political support has changed. The AAN has actively participated in the regional consultations before shaping the 8th National Plan. Quite some of AANs recommendations have been included into this plan. Now it is being felt, that framework conditions have improved, more budget is being allocated to research, extension and support structures in relation to alternatives to pesticides.

The 8th National Plan, the Thai Master Plan for economic development set a goal to put 25 % of the farmland under sustainable agriculture practices within the next five years. This requires from the Government to invest financial means into the implementation of this plan, that is research, extension etc. TREE sees, that this is a clear response to the incessant lobby work of basis organisations and NGOs. The Thai NGO approach is based on informal direct contact with policy makers, (e.g. members of the Board of the National Economic and Social Development Plan, Vice-Director of the

Department of Agriculture etc.) and contacts with media, which pick up topics of NGOs and make them accessible to the public.

Prior to this plan there were scattered activities of different governmental departments on IPM and on botanical pest control, but there is no national policy comparable to Indonesia.

The Farming Systems Research Institute conducted field experiments with botanical pesticides and set up small marketing facilities for chemical-free vegetables. The Agriculture Toxic Substances Division of the Department of Agriculture conducted and expanded its research facilities on botanical pesticides. The Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) already undertook a project on IPM in rice before. In the present plan, the DOAE also has a strong mandate on promoting botanicals. However, they are lacking adequate training for their extensionists, training materials and other media and the necessary financial means therefore. On the other hand the budget for the "Agriculture Toxic Substances Division", which handles particularly research on botanicals, has been raised considerably during the last four to five years. But altogether, co-ordination between the different activities is lacking.

Links to the Governmental Institutions

There exist informal contacts between TREE and the Farming Systems Research Institute in Bangkok, the Department of Agricultural Extension in Bangkok, the Provincial Plant Protection Department of Suphanburi and Agricultural Colleges (Nan, Phrae). One of the national workshops had been planned jointly with the Plant Protection Department of the University of Khon Kaen.

Relations of TREE to the Department of Agriculture or Agricultural Extension

During the time of project implementation, the relationship was very informal. Very few formal co-operations could be established, even though this was sought for by TREE, e.g. testing of some promising botanicals, comparison of plant material from different localities. The way the DOAE was organised, made co-operation very difficult. Today, since the 8th National Plan is being implemented, this has improved considerably.

With the provincial DOAE Office, co-operations are based on TREE providing information and know-how on botanicals, DOAE providing information and know-how on insect pests and beneficiaries, farmer to farmer exchanges by exchange visits of farmers groups and seminars.

5. Research

What research concerns, TREE followed two distinct but complementary approaches, namely (5.1.) the interaction with the formal research system and (5.2.) participatory technology development with core farmers.

Interactions with the formal research system

1. Work-shopping: One level of co-operation were the joint organisation of the "National Workshops on Participatory On-Farm Experimentation with Botanicals" with the FSRI (Farming Systems Research Institute) in 1988,1989 and the Plant Protection Department of the University of Khon Kaen.

2. Field experiments: There was some informal co-operation with the Provincial Plant Protection Office (PPP) in Suphanburi. TREE provided the PPP with information on the use of botanicals. A volunteer working with the PPP co-operated informally with TREE and contributed some academic work on neem in fruit orchards. Further the PPP provided TREE entomological know how.

3. Impulses to researchers: An example of research collaboration with others is the use of Tinospora crispa in seedbeds of rice against thrips, which proved to be a successful method. This method came from the Philippines. It is there reported to be a traditional method and it has been widely researched. TREE work has inspired professors at Kasetsart University to conduct also studies on T. cripsa.

Further the book "Natural Crop Protection" by Gaby Stoll has been translated into Thai in 1988.

PTD (Participatory Technology Development) with core farmers

The concept of PTD: Research takes mainly place as action research by farmers with the assistance and advice of the TREE field staff. Experiments are conducted locally in a participatory technology development process. External (local) methods are tried out and adapted to local possibilities and understanding (farmers using their own criteria, their own value systems, their own categories for plant species with plant protection purposes). Farmers are actively involved in the conducting of the experiments (comparison of treated against untreated plots by visual judgement). The adaptation of the original formula is farmer-managed. In the process of adaptation, farmers started to make use of their local/traditional knowledge. The research approach is directly linked with the extension part. The relationship with the farmers is highly interactive. The TREE field worker always have to listen to the farmers who are co-operating in the experimentation. They are constantly evaluating the methods both in respect to their effectiveness but also in respect to practical aspects.

Formal research methods for field experiments were dropped because the time requirements were too high. Therefore, this action research type of technology development is used.

Steps of developing a local plant protection method

Step 1: Searching for local solutions. Assumption: Most farmers know the root causes of their problems, but they are lacking ideas on how to search for alternative practices and on how to test them.

Step 2: Introduction of new ideas. Visit of TREE staff with nine farmers from Suphanburi Province to the fruit orchard of Khun Annop to learn from his experiences.

Step 3: Small-scale experimentation with external idea. Three Farmers in Suphanburi were testing the neem-based extract of Khun Annop on a test plot of their own fields.

Step 4: Process of adaptation of the introduced neem-based extract with close monitoring and observation by the TREE field staff. "Frequent visits by the field staff were a major factor for the success. Visits helped to encourage farmers and in case of problems, they could be addressed immediately and solutions could be sought". In the course of this experimentation, farmers developed their own criteria, judgements and suggestions.

Step 5: Further adaptation of external ideas. Farmers together with the assistance of the field staff adapted the originally introduced method of using the neem-based extract (e.g. citronella grass and galanga were dropped because they were locally not available and because of observed phytotoxicity).

Step 6: Impact, acceptance and dissemination of the adapted methods: Core farmers act as resource persons for other farmers (in 1993, over 20 core farmers and more than 100 farmers adopted the method in Suphanburi). Informal networks (farmers and NGOs) were developing around the project and its methods. The field-workers of TREE gave training sessions in the North, South, and Northeast of Thailand on invitation by NGOs (member of the AAN). TREE arranged visits of farmers groups form other areas to farmers with experience in Suphanburi. But the main objective was to develop and verify an appropriate technology for non-chemical crop protection. This technology should not be spread by TREE particularly - but offered to other groups and their networks to act as multiplicator. This approach is necessary, as TREE is a small organisation with limited capacity only.

It is impossible to give exact figures on the number of farmers who have adopted the use of botanicals as a result of the work of TREE. However, it is estimated, that today ca. 30 000 farm families are practising alternative methods of farming, particularly in rice, vegetables and fruits. Farmers are motivated mainly by the higher benefits from their products and therefore the engagement in marketing.

The adaptation of the original formula was mostly triggered by two factors:

1. Availability of plant material (dropping of species, adding new species based on their rediscovered traditional/local knowledge).

2. To save labour. These core farmers are not chopping the plant material anymore and leave the extracts for a longer period of up to three weeks in the containers (the extract turned into a fermented product!). Thus they could use the crude extract and dilute it anytime they want to spray. The change from using an extract to using a fermented plant liquid is quite fundamental, as these two products differ in their mode of action.

The recognition of the impact of the application of neem by the farmers plays a very essential role. But the farmers have their own parameters to defining impact. E.g. after using powdered neem seeds in the rice paddy, farmers started to observe, that the rice which had received the neem seed, was quite healthy and strong (which has as scientific explanation the decrease of the population of denitrifying bacteria). So the farmers considered the neem seeds as fertiliser. Farmers observe also clearly, if repellent effects are taking place or if beneficial insects increase. When using PTD approaches, the use of farmers' parameters is essential, because they derive from their perception system. But in a first step, we have to learn about their perception system and their parameters. Farmers have another thought pattern when it comes to parameters describing impact than scientists have.

In Suphanburi, the PTD approach differed from the one applied in Chiang Mai due to different socio-economic conditions. In Chiang Mai, it was possible to work through the group approach whereas in Suphanburi, TREE had to work with individual farmers, Therefore, TREE worked with each core farmer at an individual relationship, even though, they all knew each other. But they did not want to act in a group in the experimentation. For extension purposes however, group events took place, such as farmer-to-farmer exchanges, meetings etc.

6. Logistical Base

Supply with agricultural inputs: The role of TREE

a) Plant material

· No plant material was supplied by TREE.

· DOAE of Suphanburi started to organise collection and distribution of neem seeds. Later they set up a system for the semi-processing of neem seeds to be sold to farmers.

· Plant material which was unavailable, was dropped. In some cases unavailable plant material was replaced by species which farmers knew traditionally.

b) Other incentives

· Know how

· Compensation in case of crop loss

· Publicity

· No credits were supplied by TREE.

Production of commercially available neem

Through the work of TREE on botanical pesticides, it became obvious, that farmers are also interested in ready-made products. Through TREE, a co-operative-owned company was set up (with members mostly from the NGO sector but also private individuals) with the task to develop and market neem-based plant protection agents. This company managed to develop the following products: Dried neem seed powder, neem emulsion and a dog shampoo. This company is still operating but under different ownership conditions. There are two more companies in Thailand, producing ready-made neem products for crop protection (one from a university professor and one from another NGO).

Near Suphanburi, there is another local company "Sadao Thai", which grew out of their co-operation with TREE and out of the neem seed distribution system of the DOAE. Sadao Thai produces now several hundred tons of crude extracts from the neem seeds. Their product is being sold mostly within the province. TREE thinks about 1000 farmers are using this product.

Basically no relations exist with the chemical industry. Ciba-Geigy once engaged in a discussion on registration of commercial neem products during the "Third National Workshop on Botanicals in Khon Kaen", 1991.

Logistical Problems

Within a short time after introducing neem seeds, the price per kilo doubled from ca. five Baht to nine to ten. In some areas in Central Thailand, it became even difficult to find people collecting neem seeds (for money). If a large number of farmers would want to use neem seeds, then there would not be enough seeds. Meanwhile, those companies which market organic products, are organising the collection of neem seeds and provide them to the farmers who cultivate them.

Many farmers are using neem leaves. Thus, they do not need to collect, dry and store seeds, but can collect the neem leaves freshly. From the work economic point of view, farmers prefer using leaves.

Marketing of pesticide free products (mainly rice, vegetables)

The middle class in Thailand plays a vital role in making pesticide-free food products respectable and desirable. At markets, the question if the product is pesticide-free, is frequently asked and puts a pressure on conventional products. The marketing of pesticide-free food products constitutes a major incentive for farmers to follow this production system. Meanwhile several companies have developed, which market organic products on a contract farming basis. Their crop protection strategy is based on the work of TREE, particularly neem. Some of these companies have an annual turnover of more than 10 million Baht. They deliver to supermarkets which sell on areas up to 500 square-meters organic vegetables. The know how for cultivating organically and for the alternative crop protection derives from the NGOs. The transfer of technology is provided either by the farmers themselves or by NGO staff which is hired by these companies as consultants.

With the development of organic markets through large-scale business, the number of farmers converting is increasing at a more rapid pace than by promotion through NGOs. Also quite a number of farmers who have worked together with TREE are now in contract relationships with these companies.

Consumer education with mass media by TREE, GREENNET, traders and others is of quite some importance and partly responsible for the big market potential in Thailand for organic products which exists today.

7. Extension

TREE field staff acted as facilitator and back-stop, supporting farmers in analysis and reflection, serving as a window to the outside world with inspirations and fresh ideas and bringing in explanations from outside (e.g. scientific explanations),

It is the opinion of TREE, that it should do pilot work on developing awareness as well as developing alternative technologies and providing information. In the early stage, in the view of TREE it was not yet important to have too many farmers participate. TREE considered it as more vital, to have seriously interested farmers participating. Even if there are only one or two or three farmers, it is acceptable, because one does not need to work against resistance but one has somebody who is willing to explore. Once they have gained experiences and hopefully confidence, then those who are interested but not yet convinced are exposed to them and let interact. This approach is appropriate to the Thai culture. The governmental extension service or the private sector should engage to cover the larger scale. TREE understands its role as stimulator and in preparing the path.

Main extension methods used in the Suphanburi project:

1. Joint assessments (farmer and extension worker)
2. Learning by doing (action research)
3. Experimentation by farmers
4. Farmer-to-farmers extension of experiences
5. Core farmers as extensionists
6. Mass media (TV, radio, newspapers: Today 90 % of the farmers in Thailand know about botanicals and neem).

8. Clients


· Core farmers, who were involved in experimentation and extension activities.

· Practitioners, who were just interested in applying the method.

· About 70 % of the users were women, most of them cultivating vegetables. To women, the health aspect was very important as they are worried about the effects of pesticide poisoning of their family members. Women play also a role as consumers, as they question whether a market produce has received pesticides.

Governmental Extension Service

Although there was a certain collaboration with the governmental extension service, one can not talk of a client of TREE.

Non-Governmental Extension Services

NGOs were provided with information and training, particularly through the AAN (Alternative Agriculture Network).

Agricultural Colleges

Information exchange, support in their experimentation, training sessions & seminars.

Experimentation at the experimental field of the colleges on the effect of botanicals. Generally they used information deriving from NGOs. Usually, professors from agricultural colleges participated in the annual National Workshops on Botanicals. Some of them also had foreign volunteers working with them and promoting botanicals work. Training sessions and seminars addressed the students as future technicians - but also farmers as practitioners.

Foreign Volunteers

Information exchange, support in their experimentation, training sessions & seminars, importing natural crop protection into their local working situation, familiarisation with scientific approach.

Foreign NGOs (Laos)

Through information exchange, farmer-cross visits, training provided to them by the Thais. A Thai volunteer, who worked in Laos, introduced the botanicals to Laos. One foreign NGO, which worked closely with the Laotian Department of Agriculture, picked up this topic and organised several training sessions to which also TREE staff and farmers from Suphanburi were invited.

9. Main Positive Experiences (Strengths)

· Integration of local knowledge

· Farmers rediscovered their traditional knowledge. Experiencing results and becoming more self-confident with new (= neem) methods made the farmers remember their traditional methods better. A lot has to do with confidence-building (getting to know the risk spectrum of a new method). Important to farmers is also to learn about scientific explanations to their traditional knowledge. This adds to confidence-building.

· Knowledge on botanicals becomes widely accessible to major players (farmers, extension, scientists, government, consumers).

· Lobbying the Government, particularly in the development of the 8th National Economic Plan, played an important role for the setting of a favourable framework and to provide needed mandates and budget to governement support structure.

· Women play potentially a special role in promoting non chemical plant protection practices.

10. Main Negative Experiences

· The dissemination is still weak at local and regional level (but can now be improved due to recent Government and private sector involvement).

· Documentation of the technology development is very weak (no data collection).

· Some of the farmers who were using the botanicals in the beginning went back to using chemicals because they feel they are not rewarded adequately (by higher prices) for their higher efforts when using botanicals.

· Governmental extension service is still promoting predominantly chemical control.

· Lack of adequate support from the formal research system (long-term commitment, collaboration between the different players). The formal research system must play a supportive role. Only now, with the 8th National Economic Development Plan, the situation can improve as there is an official mandate to ecologise agriculture.

· Farmers depend on short-term successes for economic survival, therefore they often lack the perseverance required for conversion.

· Lack of alternative marketing channels and pricing system to compensate farmers for risk, losses in quality and quantity, increased labour and time demands. Actually the AAN is working on strategies concerning the marketing system.

11. Conclusions

· There are two categories of farmers using botanicals:

1. Commercial farmers. These farmers want to be rewarded by financial incentives. Their adoption depends very directly from the recognition of their additional efforts by the market. Unfortunately, the development of an alternative market system for products cultivated in the wider sense based on rules of sustainable agriculture, did not simultaneously develop, but lagged the promotion of natural crop protection practices.

2. Mixed commercial and subsistence farmers. For these farmers, saving expenses by substituting chemical pesticides by botanicals is the major incentive.

· The only incentive for farmers to participate is the compensation of crop losses due to experimentation.

· Convenience in practising natural crop protection is very important for the acceptance.

· Natural crop protection practices are part of a holistic concept for the farmers.

· Economic returns have to be significant. The conversion from conventional to organic sustainable farming methods using botanicals depends very much on a suitable framework, adequate support structure and market incentives. Conversion may lead to crop losses and increased risks. Farmers want to be compensated for that. The consequences are, to get more benefits from marketing.

· Mass media play a very important role in the awareness-raising and dissemination of information. Today, 90 % of the Thai farmers are aware of botanicals, above all neem, due to the good relationship between the promoters of natural crop protection and the mass media. The mass media also have contributed that the formal system has taken up non-chemical crop protection and botanicals, even though, most reports are based on the experiences of NGO-mediated projects. After having gained experiences TREE itself invited newspapers and TV actively for field visits, seminars etc. to promote the issues.

· Consumer education plays a major role for market development.

Addresses of projects contacted

Farmer Field Schools

· Peter E. Kenmore, Regional Programme Co-ordinator. FAO Intercountry Programme for IPM in Asia, 14th/F Vernida IV Bldg., Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Philippines. Tel. +63-2-818 64 78, Fax: +63-2-810 94 09, e-mail:

· Jonathan Pincus, MIS Officer, FAO Intercountry Programme for IPM in Asia. FAO IPM Hanoi Office, Khu Van Phuc Quarters, Bldg. A1, Room 305-306, Hanoi, Vietnam, Tel. +84-48-236 828, Fax: +84-48-236 829, e-mail:


· Proyecto Manejo integrado de Plagas con pequeproductores en Nicaragua; Orlando Cres; e-mail: or c/o COSUDE, Aptdo Telcor RP-34 Sucursal Douglas Mej Managua, Nicaragua, Tel. +505-2-66 30 10, Fax: 66 66 97; e-mail:

· EAP Zamorano, Allan Hruska, Head, Dept of Crop Protection, P.O. Box 93, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Tel. +504-7-661 40/50 ext. 2351, Fax: 766 240; e-mail:


· Walter Kaufmann, Novartis Crop Protection AG, Public Affairs, CH-4002 Basle, Tel. +41-61-697 71 84, Fax: +41-61-697 49 56, e-mail:

· Philip Newton, Novartis Crop Protection AG, Head Farmer Support Team, CH-4002 Basle, Tel. +41-61-697 71 20, Fax: +41 61-697 72 38, e-mail:

IRRI IPM Network

· K.L. Heong, Rice IPM Network Co-ordinator, Entomology and plant Pathology Division, IRRI Internal. Rice Research Institute, P.O.Box 933, 1099 Manila, Philippines, Fax:+632-891 12 92/-817 84 70, e-mail:


· Gaby Stoll, c/o MISEREOR, Mozartstrasse 9, 52064 Aachen, Germany, Tel. +49-241-442 307, Fax: +49-241-442 188, e-mail: