Synopsis on Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries (NRI, 1991, 20 p.): Institutional constraints

Synopsis on Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries (NRI, 1991, 20 p.)

		(introduction...)
		Acknowledgements
		Preface
		List of acronyms
		A synopsis of integrated pest management in developing countries in the tropics
		Introduction
		Pest management in the developing world
		Constraints to the implimentation of pest managment programmes
		Technical constraints
		Socio-economic constraints
		Institutional constraints
		Political constraints
		Criteria for successful pest management programmes
		The role of international development agencies in the implementation of pest management programmes
		An international framework to support and promote IPM
		Appendix A
		Appendix B
		Appendix C

Institutional constraints

34. IPM is inherently an inter-disciplinary, multifunctional approach to solving pest problems. Current institutional structures in both developed and developing countries do little to simplify the task of the farmer practitioner. Components of the problem, in both disciplinary and operational terms, are commonly abstracted to form the principal axis for the organization of public sector institutions. The management of research, extension and technical support services are frequently operated independently of one another, centred in different institutions and often with conflicting goals and interests. These activities are almost always under-resourced and unable to compete with the commercial sector.

A joint CILSS/FAO/USAID project looking at control of Striga in West African countries noted institutional constraints which manifest in poor co-ordination and co-operation between plant protection services, research institutions and extension services. All three organizations were located in different ministries and appeared to be more interested in their own independence and domains than in co-operating with each other. This resulted in the setting of partisan priorities, poor use of available human and material resources, waste of technical assistance funds and ultimately, no IPM at farmer level.