|Synopsis on Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries (NRI, 1991, 20 p.)|
48. There are many interested groups that contribute to the formulation and delivery mechanism required to implement IPM. Their roles and relationships are reviewed by Clive James (see Appendix C). For the developing countries these included: farmers and farmer groups; national extension services; crop protection technical services; national R & D institutions; national governments and NGOs. In the industrial countries and the international arena the following were considered: international agricultural research centres (including CGIAR institutions) non-associated centres and others; regional institutes and organizations; multilateral and bilateral aid organizations; industrial country R & D organizations and the private sector.
49. Like the technical pursuit of IPM goals, the institutional framework on which their implementation depends suffers from fragmentation rather than integration of effort. Lines of communication are poorly developed and activities are compartmentalized both vertically and horizontally. Thus duplication of effort occurs and appropriate feedback mechanisms between, for example, research, extension and implementation do not exist.
50. The Working Group considered a number of options identified by the James report and reached broad agreement that there is no case for establishing new institutions; rather, a framework to facilitate the interactions between existing institutions needs to be put in place to maximize effective collaboration. This would probably take the form of a small authoritative group of professionals representing the major donors with interest and expertise in pest management.
51. Such a body could be based on the existing Working Group, appropriately modified to broaden donor and technical representation. The objective would be to generate an IPM Action Plan analogous to the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) which seeks to achieve this for tropical forestry and to carry this forward to the definition and implementation of these actions. The immediate objectives would include promoting collaboration between new and existing projects funded by individual donors, and the provision of supplementary resources in support of national programmes. In the longer term joint programmes would be designed exploiting the comparative advantage of collaborating bodies and based on problem identification in representative farming systems.
52. The revised Working Group should be based on an existing organization. The most appropriate organisation to serve as a base for the Working Group Secretariat is still under discussion. It would provide the Group with international links, expertise in information management and the provision of support facilities for pest management. The secretariat would then provide the hub for a series of commodity/cropping system and IPM component technology-based networks.
53. Such an initiative would include collaboration with the private sector and IARCs in maintaining catalogues of sources of host plant resistance, monitoring of resistance breakdown, development of insecticide resistance, biological control agents and pest status. It would also include the provision of an international source of reference for pest identification and the characterization of variability.