Agriculture & Rural Development Working Paper 5 World Bank Integrated Pest Management in Development Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Kristina Sorby Gerd Fleischer Eija Pehu First printing: February 2003 © The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agriculture and Rural Development Department 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 USA This paper carries the names of the authors and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the authors' own and should not be attributed to the World Bank Group, its Board of Directors, nor any of its member countries. Sorby, Kristina, Gerd Fleischer and Eija Pehu. 2003. Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies. Agriculture & Rural Development Working Paper 5. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Contents Abstract............................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgments.............................................................................................. vii Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................... viii Executive Summary..............................................................................................x Defining Integrated Pest Management.....................................................................................x IPM in World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Projects .......................................x Constraints...........................................................................................................................xi 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................1 2. New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management......................................3 Rationale for IPM .....................................................................................................................3 Advancements in technology and new modes of delivery......................................................5 Biotechnology as a new tool in IPM......................................................................................5 Biological control..................................................................................................................7 New developments by the agrochemical industry..................................................................8 IPM as part of knowledge-intensive sustainable agriculture...................................................9 Organic farming....................................................................................................................9 Information and communication technology and precision farming.....................................10 Market trends and changes in the policy environment .........................................................11 Demand for food safety and quality.....................................................................................11 Market trends for pest control products ...............................................................................11 IPM as a global policy issue................................................................................................12 Increased involvement of stakeholders ................................................................................13 3. Stakeholder Views on Integrated Pest Management ....................................15 Stakeholders............................................................................................................................15 IPM definitions ...................................................................................................................16 IPM implementation strategies ............................................................................................17 Stakeholder reactions to the trends influencing IPM............................................................18 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................19 4. World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management.................................22 Review of FY2001 Rural Portfolio .........................................................................................22 IPM implementation in ongoing or recently completed World Bank projects.......................24 World Bank corporate-level partnership programs..............................................................27 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.................................................27 iii iv Global IPM Facility ............................................................................................................28 Pesticide policy analysis......................................................................................................29 Mainstreaming IPM in the Bank............................................................................................29 Decline of the importance of agricultural productivity in the Bank's portfolio .....................29 Shift of emphasis in sector strategies...................................................................................30 Role of Operational Policy 4.09 on pest management..........................................................30 Limited experience and technical knowledge in the Bank....................................................32 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................32 Appendix 1. OP 4.09 in Brief: Main Points of the World Bank's Safeguard Policy on Pest Management................................................................................34 Appendix 2. Agrochemical Industry Consolidation, 1983­2002 .....................35 Appendix 3. Indicators in IPM Definitions.......................................................36 Appendix 4 IPM Strategies of Major Stakeholders Development banks ......37 International organizations ....................................................................................................37 Bilateral assistance agencies ...................................................................................................38 Private sector ..........................................................................................................................39 Nongovernmental organizations.............................................................................................39 Appendix 5 Stakeholder Reactions to Trends Influencing IPM.....................41 Appendix 6 Projects Mentioning IPM in Project Appraisal Documents and Safeguard Policy Rating .....................................................................................43 Appendix 7 Intervention Areas of Projects with IPM Components ..............45 Appendix 8 In-depth Study of Projects with IPM Components.....................48 References ...........................................................................................................50 Tables, Boxes, and Figures Table 2.1 Global crop protection market, 2000 ...................................................................11 Table 3.1 Organizations surveyed regarding IPM involvement..........................................16 Table 3.2 Meanings of IPM definition indicators ................................................................16 Table 3.3 Scope of stakeholder involvement in IPM activities............................................19 Table 3.4 Stakeholder reactions to trends affecting IPM....................................................20 Table 4.1 IPM activities in World Bank rural development project portfolio, 1999­2001 23 Table 4.2 Scope and areas of IPM intervention in World Bank projects ...........................24 Table 4.3 Achievements and constraints in World Bank projects with IPM components.25 v Box 2.1 Integrated pest management technical toolbox ........................................................4 Box 2.2 Genetic engineering: effects on pest management....................................................6 Box 2.3 Biological control of the cassava mealybug...............................................................8 Box 2.4 Biological control in Turkmenistan...........................................................................8 Box. 2.5 Integrated management of livestock diseases ........................................................10 Box 4.1 Special IPM Initiative: Comprehensive approach to capacity building and policy reform in Mali.........................................................................................................................27 Box 4.2 Farmer Field School Approach and the World Bank ............................................28 Box 4.3 IPM Thematic Review in Bank's Africa Region.....................................................31 Box 4.4 Project preparation in Timor-Leste........................................................................31 Box 4.5 Agricultural input services in India ........................................................................32 Figure 2.1 Integrated pest management continuum...............................................................5 Figure 2.2 Global areas of transgenic crops, 1996-2001........................................................6 Figure 2.3 Global area of transgenic crops by trait, 2001 .....................................................7 Figure 2.4 Agricultural production and commodity supply chain......................................14 Abstract Global concerns regarding unsustainable pest management have made the promotion of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) a priority for the World Bank and many other governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Recent developments in international policies, markets, and technologies have created incentives for the stronger inclusion of IPM in both global and national development strategies. This report evaluates these trends and presents case studies that illustrate the involvement of a variety of stakeholders in the IPM agenda, with a focus on the World Bank's current projects and its efforts to promote and disseminate the use of IPM. vi Acknowledgments The authors thank all of the individuals and organizations that contributed information and support during the research phase. Special thanks go to, Derek Byerlee, Shawki Barghouti, Gershon Feder, and Tjaart Schillhorn-Van Veen for reviewing this report and providing meaningful comments on the contents. Alicia Hetzner edited this volume, and Melissa Williams coordinated the production and publication. The research for this paper was funded by the Agriculture and Rural Development Department of the World Bank. vii Acronyms and Abbreviations AgREN Agricultural Research and Extension Network (ODI) ADB Asian Development Bank AfDB African Development Bank AHP American Home Products Corporation ARD Agriculture and Rural Development Department BASF (German multi-national chemical manufacturing corporation) Bt Bacillus thuringiensis CABI CAB International (not-for-profit providing information in applied sciences for developing countries) CAN Conservation Agriculture Network CAS Country Assistance Strategy CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIAL (local agricultural research committees) CIRAD Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement CoC chain of custody certification Danida Danish Agency for Development Assistance DFID Department for Development (UK) EIA Environmental impact statement EUREPGAP (association of the European food retail and supply chain industry) FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FFS Farmer Field School FMC (chemical corporation) FSE Farmer-Scientist-Extension FSU Former Soviet Union GAO United States General Accounting Office GAP Good Agricultural Practices (EUREPGAP) GM genetically modified GPS Global Positioning System GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH ha hectare(s) IADB Inter-American Development Bank ICR Implementation Completion Report ICT Information Communication Technology IFAD International Food and Agriculture Organization IFAP International Federation of Agricultural Producers IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture IOBC International Organization of Biological Control IPM-CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program (CGIAR) IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISPAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications IVA Industrieverband Agrar NARC National Agriculture Research Center (FAO Islamabad) NEAP National Environment Action Plan NEDA Netherlands Development Aid viii ix ODI Overseas Development Institute PAIAs Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action PAN Pesticide Action Network POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants PSR Project Status Report SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SOEL Stiftung Oekologie and Landbau (Foundation Ecology and Agriculture) T&V Training & Visitation USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture Executive Summary Since the adoption of Agenda 21 during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has had a prominent place on the policy agenda. Due to continuing concerns regarding unsustainable trends in pest management, promoting the adoption of IPM has been a priority of the World Bank and many other governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Recent developments have the potential to contribute to greater significance of IPM for sustainable development in agriculture, including technological innovations and new modes of delivery as well as changes in markets and the policy environment. Biotechnology, including genetic engineering, offers new tools for reducing dependency on chemical pesticides. New products for biological control are becoming more widely applied, and the agrochemical industry is developing more specific and targeted products. Organic farming has evolved into a globally renowned practice and has many linkages to IPM systems. Because, in IPM, information is key, the spread of the Internet rapidly has enhanced knowledge transfer and access to options. Participatory approaches for farmer training and awareness- raising increasingly are employed to ensure sustainability of pest management practices. Requirements of the food industry regarding pesticide residues have become a major force that encourage adoption of IPM practices, and the rising public demand for food safety and quality is creating niche market opportunities for certified products, such as organic food. The crop protection industry has experienced continued consolidation into a few, global, research-based companies that offer their latest techniques to the high-input agricultural markets in industrialized countries. In many developing countries, the production, import, and use of generic pesticides, which tend to be inexpensive but more toxic for human health and the environment, is growing. Pest and pesticide management problems affect most countries similarly, and many externalities are global in scope. IPM is gaining recognition as a global policy issue, and there is increased involvement of the relevant stakeholders in the IPM policy debate, at both the national and international levels. Defining Integrated Pest Management Over the years, what IPM means in concrete terms has been a matter of debate. However, definitions used by international and bilateral development agencies and other stakeholders, such as the private sector and NGOs, have converged to include a holistic approach toward sustainable development. The only remaining disagreement is the role of chemical pesticides in IPM approaches, of which most of the organizations favor an explicit reduction. Many of these organizations also have broadened their efforts to implement IPM and involve more comprehensive strategies that include research and extension as well as build institutional capacity and assist in policy reform. However, the necessity remains to more actively address the constraints, extension, and farmers. Of particular concern is the lack of documented experiences from scaling up pilot project approaches. A related constraint is the lack of standards for impact assessment, especially regarding the social and environmental benefits of IPM. IPM in World Bank Agriculture and Rural Development Projects During the 1990s, the World Bank support to agriculture declined (World Bank 2002). Furthermore, as demonstrated by this review, the Bank's FY2001 rural project portfolio showed a comparatively low inclusion of IPM, even in projects dedicated to sustainable agricultural intensification. Of the projects that have included IPM, the majority have focused on extension and capacity building, while approximately 33 percent involved research, and only 19 percent included policy reform activities in the work plan x xi (these percentages overlap). Except for the Indonesia Integrated Pest Management Training Project, 1993- 1999, which was a free-standing IPM training program, the share of project investment going to IPM ranged between 2.4 percent and 19 percent. IPM more often is found to be included in projects in which investment in agricultural research is structured in a demand-driven way, for example, through a competitive grant system, rather than in other project types. However, provisions to make the research results actually available to farmers remain limited. In projects that included extension and farmer training, the results were mixed, especially regarding institutional and financial sustainability. Constraints Constraints to a larger role of IPM in Bank projects include the general decline of investment in agricultural productivity enhancement in the Bank's portfolio and the marked shift in sector strategies toward de-emphasizing public goods delivery. As a result, today's Bank has limited experience and technical knowledge in certain specialized areas, such as IPM. This lack of expertise leads to the lack of generally accepted definitions and best practice examples, which creates confusion. The Bank's Safeguard Policy on pest management has an ambiguous role. IPM has a high profile as one of the 10 safeguards, but, in some instances, the requirements to implement the IPM safeguard are counterproductive to the inclusion of IPM in the country programs. The recent move toward programmatic lending approaches in the Bank demands additional instruments to assist countries to upgrade their institutional capacity. 1. Introduction Pest management is one major area of concern for sustainable development in agriculture. In the eight crops studied, Oerke and others (1994) estimated the global harvest losses due to pests to be about 42 percent of attainable production. A study by the International Food Production Research Institute (IFPRI) has highlighted the paradox between the increase of global crop losses over time and the growth of chemical pesticide use (Yudelman and others 1998). If current trends continue, dependence solely on chemical pesticides will not be a sustainable solution, from either an economic or an environmental point of view. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is seen as the way forward to achieve sustainable agricultural production with less damage to the environment. While IPM has no standardized definition, it is commonly referred to as a diverse mix of approaches to manage pests and keep them below damaging levels, using control options that range from cultural practices to chemicals. In practice, IPM ranges from chemically based systems that involve the targeted and judicious use of synthetic pesticides, to biologically intensive approaches that manage pests primarily or fully through nonchemical means. IPM has evolved from a solely technical approach to a more holistic view of the agricultural production system that connects the long-term sustainability of agricultural production with environmental, economic, and social issues, including public health. A range of important stakeholders beyond the research and farming community increasingly are expressing their interest in IPM. A watershed was reached when the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), or Rio Earth Summit, adopted IPM as a cornerstone of Chapter 14 of Agenda 21. National governments, international agencies, and other players were asked to increase assistance to increase adoption of IPM in agriculture. Now, 10 years after the Rio conference, a relatively realistic view of sustainable development has been reached. Case studies demonstrate the economic benefits at the farm level, as well as IPM's contribution to reducing environmental and health externalities. Despite this progress, farmers' adoption of IPM is proceeding rather slowly. Even though traditional low-input farming systems often use similar techniques, in many countries, in the context of raising productivity and household income, IPM techniques still are used by only a small number of farmers, primarily in pilot initiatives supported by external donors. The World Bank is firmly committed to support the wider adoption of IPM practices in client countries through policy dialogue and a variety of financing modalities. The World Bank's position on IPM was published in 1997 (Schillhorn-Van Veen and others 1997). Since that time, several important developments have taken place. The Safeguard Policy on Pest Management was strengthened in 1998. The Operational Policy for Pest Management (OP 4.09) governs the financing of pesticides in project investments and mandates a preference for IPM approaches (appendix 1). Since IPM also is included in strategy documents, such as the Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy, Reaching the Rural Poor (World Bank forthcoming 2003), it is time to review the recent developments in IPM itself and the achievements that the Bank has made in IPM.1 There is little systematic information available on IPM in Bank projects. In fact, the last report using Bank-wide information dates from the mid-1990s (Schillhorn and others 1997). In the meantime, multiple trends in research and development, markets, and policies significantly affect prospects for IPM adoption. 1In July 2002 the World Bank's Rural Development Department (RDV) changed its name to the Agriculture and Rural Development Department (ARD). 1 2 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies The June 2002 World Food Summit and the 10-year follow-on to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit--the World Summit on Environmentally Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in August-September 2002-- drew attention to the global policy agenda, reviewed what progress has been made, and agreed on next actions. The World Bank has been criticized for its limited interest in promoting IPM. NGOs perceive a large gap between stated policy and implementation in projects (Tozun 2001). Some Bank staff also have concerns that, given the different stages of agricultural development and the divergent challenges in client countries, OP 4.09 might be unrealistic to implement. This study has three objectives: 1. Establish whether recent changes in technology and markets for commodities and inputs, together with changes in the global policy environment, support the conviction that IPM is an increasingly relevant approach and that these trends have a potential to increase the significance of IPM for sustainable agriculture. 2. Review the status of IPM policies, strategies, and technical approaches used by different stakeholders in the IPM field and in international development. These stakeholders include multilateral and bilateral donors, international development organizations, the private sector, producers, and NGOs. The review consists of a broad categorization of IPM concepts used, shows the objectives of the IPM policies and strategies, and discusses how they reflect recent developments mentioned earlier. Case studies are included to indicate the extent that the policies and strategies are being implemented. 3. Review progress in IPM implementation in Bank projects. The Bank's most recent Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) portfolio (1999-2001) is screened regarding the share of agricultural project investments designated for IPM. Also presented are an in-depth study of the IPM components in a subset of ongoing projects and an analysis of constraints. This review is intended to contribute to a detailed position paper of the Agriculture and Rural Development Department, which will feed into the Agricultural Approach Paper. The latter is a spin-off of the Bank's new Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy. 2. New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management While farmers have been doing pest management since the onset of agricultural production, the discovery of the pesticidal properties of synthetic chemicals in the middle of the twentieth century revolutionized agriculture. DDT was discovered as an insecticide in 1939 and was used extensively in agriculture and for public health programs. Subsequently, other insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were developed. Their large-scale use started in farming in industrialized countries, resulting in large increases in production and/or cost savings on labor. The first Green Revolution, which began in the1960s, made high-yielding crop varieties available to developing countries, especially in Asia. Exploitation of the production potential of these varieties stimulated the use of fertilizer and pesticides. This dynamic led to large increases in food production in many countries but also to growing pesticide use. Rationale for IPM During the 1960s, due to problems with pesticide resistance in insect populations, a backlash against the agricultural pesticide revolution took place. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was developed by entomologists as a technical system to minimize the occurrence of resistance and to sustain the long-term effectiveness of pest control (Stern and others 1959). A second major factor that boosted interest in IPM was the concern about environmental impacts of pesticides, particularly the group of organochlorines. Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring (1962), raised public awareness and prompted policymakers to regulate pesticide use. In the early 1970s, DDT was banned in many industrialized countries. The 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants enacted a global ban of DDT, except for limited use in public health. Since then, evidence of the health and environmental side effects of other pesticides has become known and led to further restrictions in pesticide availability. Thus, the rationale for IPM comes from two different angles: (1) the limitations in the long-term effectiveness of synthetic chemicals for pest management, and (2) the concerns about the negative health and environmental side effects of their use. IPM is more an approach to sustainable crop protection than a technology or a technology package. In IPM, the available techniques are combined in an integrated management strategy aimed at keeping pest levels below a desirable level (box 2.1). Often, the level is determined by the damage in economic terms. Implementation of IPM comprises (1) knowledge about the techniques, (2) management skills to adapt the available tools to the conditions of the local agroecological environment, and (3) information concerning the status of pests, predators, and other environmental factors influencing crop damage. Therefore, IPM is a more complex approach to pest management than a purely chemicals-based control strategy, the latter often following calendar dates or growth stages of the crop. 3 4 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Box 2.1 Integrated pest management technical toolbox The main features of IPM involve the use of nonchemical methods of pest control: § Biologicalcontrols:theuseofthenaturalenemiesofcroppests,oftencalledbeneficials,which include parasites, predators, and insect pathogens. Environmentally friendly chemical interventions sometimes are included in biological controls, such as the use of semiochemicals, including pheromones and feeding attractants, and biopesticides, for example, specific and beneficial friendly insecticides. § Culturalandcroporlivestockmanagementcontrols:tissueculture,disease-freeseed,trapcrops, cross protection, cultivation, refuge management, mulching, field sanitation, crop rotations, grazing rotations, and intercropping. § Strategiccontrols:plantinglocation,timingofplanting,andtimingofharvest. § Geneticallybasedcontrols:insect-anddisease-resistantvarietiesandrootstocks. IPM combines natural forms of control, taking advantage of ecological relationships in the agricultural system, with economically derived rules for the application of pesticides. However, the pesticide use in IPM differs from the approach used in conventional pest control. When possible, IPM relies on pesticides that target specific pests, can be applied at lower rates, and are less toxic to beneficial organisms. New application methods are being developed that employ biological materials such as pheromones and feeding attractants to lure the target pest to the pesticide. Application rates, timing, and frequency are chosen to minimize effects on beneficials. Pesticides that can be substituted for one another are interchanged to slow the development of pest resistance to pesticides. Source: Adapted from Schillhorn-Van Veen and others 1997. The following factors also all affect the adoption of IPM: the state of the agroecology; the history of pesticide use; the farmer's access to knowledge, information, and inputs; his or her attitude toward pest management and risk avoidance; and the prices of inputs and commodities. It is quite evident that the use of purely chemical pesticides rarely qualifies for being called IPM if this choice is not preceded by an information-intensive decisionmaking process. However, purely biologically based pest management strategies often are economically viable only over the longer term, because the biological equilibrium of the soil requires time to adjust. In such cases, rationalization of pesticide use may be the first step toward making pest management more sustainable. Following Benbrook and others (1996), the adoption of IPM can best be described as a continuum ranging from low to high use of biologically based techniques (figure 2.1).2 2A similar approach was used in a recent study of IPM adoption in the United States (GAO 2001). Approximately 70 percent of the growers adopted 1 of 4 categories of pest management practices: prevention, avoidance, monitoring, or suppression. The USDA counted use of any one of these practices as fulfillment of the IPM target set by the government. However, most of these farmers used practices that could not be directly related to the reduction of chemical pesticides. According to the GAO study, these practices could be called "rudimentary IPM" but would not qualify for a biologically based definition of IPM. For example, the GAO study assessed that biologically based IPM techniques--protecting beneficial organisms, disrupting pest mating, using biological pesticides, and using crop varieties genetically modified to resist insects in corn--were used by only 18 percent of the growers. New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management 5 Figure 2.1 Integrated pest management continuum ? Transitional IPM systems ? No IPM High or Biointensive IPM Low Medium ? ? ? Shifting reliance from treatment to prevention ? ? ? ? ? Chemically based ? ? ? Biologically based ? ? Source: Adapted from Benbrook 1996. Advancements in technology and new modes of delivery Results of biotechnology research, including genetic modification, offer new tools for reducing dependency on chemical pesticides (box 2.2). New products for biological control are more widely applied, especially in niche markets. The agrochemical industry is developing more specific, targeted agrochemicals, which fit better into an IPM approach than the older broad-spectrum compounds. Organic farming has evolved into a globally recognized industry and has many linkages to IPM systems with regard to the technologies used in production. Because information is key to IPM, the spread of the Internet and other information and communication technologies has enhanced access to options. Finally, participatory approaches to farmer training and awareness creation increasingly ensure sustainability of pest management practices. Biotechnology as a new tool in IPM Biotechnology research in plant sciences has made significant advances and is contributing new options to the IPM toolbox. In the broad sense, biotechnology includes techniques such as host plant resistance breeding, molecular markers, and insect population control. Transgenic techniques have the potential to increase productivity through introducing pest resistance traits in high-yielding varieties and to combat pathogens where no adequate control measures existed before. Since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in 1996, the production of transgenic crops has grown from 1.7 million hectares (ha) to 52.6 million ha in 2001. The global distribution can be seen in figure 2.2. The production concentration is 99 percent in four principal countries; Argentina, Canada, China, and the United States. Other countries that grew GM crops in 2001 were Bulgaria, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Romania, Spain, and Uruguay (James 2001b). In developing countries, 13.5 million ha of transgenic crops were grown in 2001, 26 percent of the total global area of 52.6 million ha (figure 2.2). In the past couple of years, the percent increase in area of GM crops has been higher in developing countries than in the industrialized countries (James 2001b). 6 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Box 2.2 Genetic engineering: effects on pest management § SeveralgenescodingforBacillusthuringiensis(Bt)endotoxinshavebeenintroducedinseveralcrops.The major concern is that these crops can select for Bt-resistant insects, especially in cases in which only one insecticidal protein gene has been used, including similar limitations of a finite lifetime as chemical pesticides. § Inarecentstudy,herbicide-tolerantsoybeanwasestimatedtohavesavedUSfarmers$216milliononweed control in 1999 (USAID 2001). Herbicide-tolerant crops also are useful in environmentally beneficial no-till systems. However, there is a risk of "gene jumping" into weed populations, which then would become resistant. § Usingbiotechnology, newvirus-resistantcropshavebeendeveloped,buttheyhavebeencommercialized only in small areas with a few crops, for example, sugarcane, papaya, and squash. § Researchandriskassessmenttrialsontransgenicarthropodstointroduceself-destructinginsectindividuals into the wild pest population are ongoing. § Newvaccinesforanimalandhumanhealtharebeingdevelopedusinggeneticengineeringwiththe potential to reduce pesticide applications to control vector. § ·MolecularmarkersandDNAfingerprintingcanbeusedtospeedupresistancebreedingincropsandto develop diagnostic tools. Sources: USAID/AFS 2001, Raman and others 2001, Dargie 2002. Figure 2.2 Global areas of transgenic crops, 1996-2001 million ha 60 50 Total Industrial countries 40 Developing countries 30 20 10 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: James 2001a, 2001b. Currently, the use of transgenic crops is restricted to a few herbicide-resistant and insecticidal varieties. The distribution of GM crops by traits can be seen in figure 2.3. "Stacked genes" is a term that indicates the presence of both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance in the same variety. The global production of virus-resistant GM crops is less than 1 percent (James 2001a). Smallholders in a developing country can benefit from using GM crops. In China, the number of pesticide applications in cotton dropped from 20 to about 7 per season when switching to the Bt cotton variety (Huang and others 2002). New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management 7 Genetic engineering within an IPM system can Figure 2.3 Global area of transgenic crops by trait, 2001 offer new pest management tools, but genetic engineering requires sound risk and benefit Stacked genes assessment; appropriate regulatory systems; 8% and caution regarding to environmental, social, and economic impacts of transgenic Insect varieties, which have to be evaluated on case resistance by case basis. So far, biotechnology research 15% is dominated by the private sector, which has made huge investments in the technology and targeted it primarily at crops and traits of interest to the industrialized countries. The World Bank supports biotechnology Herbicide research within the context of agricultural resistance research and development support to a few 77% countries. The Bank also supports the development of regulatory frameworks for biosafety in some countries. The monetary Source: James 2001a. allocation to biotechnology from Bank financing totals about US$50 million, directed primarily to research within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) system. Biological control Traditionally, biological control has been an important component of IPM. The concept of biological control is based on the use of agroecological principles to check escalating populations of pests and diseases by counterbalancing natural forces. Entomological research started with the introduction of parasitic and predatory insects to control other insects. Progressively, research has drawn from the entire biological system of microbes--fungi, bacteria, and yeasts--and plants to combat different pests, diseases and weeds. Pheromones are used as attractants, and biocides are derived from plants such as the Neem tree, or from specific bacteria or fungi. Additional techniques involve the introduction of sterile insect individuals and the use of pest behavior modification chemicals. One of the most successful cases in economic terms is the biological control of the cassava mealybug (box 2.3). Some of the states of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) have been active in reviving a large-scale biological control system (box 2.4). Cuba is another example of a large-scale adoption of biological control. Agricultural production in Cuba received a hard blow at the fall of the Soviet Union since the source of subsidized farm inputs disappeared. Cuba imported $80 million worth of pesticides in 1991 but only $30 million after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Cuba already had introduced biological control in the early 1980s to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides but, with the disappearance of Soviet farm subsidies, was forced to intensify this effort. The IPM system is based on a large number of production centers for biological control agents throughout the country. This decentralized system enables easy access for the local farmers and solves the problem of the relatively short shelf life of most biological control agents. The system functions satisfactorily but is very labor intensive and may be suitable only for countries with low labor costs (WRI and others 2001) 8 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Box 2.3 Biological control of the cassava mealybug Cassava is a major staple food for more than 160 million people in Africa. In the early 1970s, the cassava mealybug accidentally was introduced with planting material. The pest had no natural enemy in Africa and threatened production. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) introduced a parasitoid wasp from Paraguay that keeps the pest within its ecological limits there. Since 1981, the wasp has been released in many African countries, and the ecological balance between the mealybug and the predator was restored. Consequently, average cassava yields in Sub-Saharan Africa have increased steadily from 6.7 tons/ha during the 1970s to 8.5 tons/ha in the 1990s. The costs and benefits of the research and release program have been estimated to give an internal rate of return of 261 percent over 40 years. Although the emergency nature of the cassava mealybug problem due to the lack of plant quarantine and other institutional failures probably renders the economic gains exceptionally high, the case demonstrates the potential of biological control in pest management. IITA researchers repeated this success with subsequent research on the cassava green mite, the mango mealybug, and the water hyacinth. Source: CGIAR 2001, Zeddies and others 2001, Waibel 1999. The global production and marketing of living biological control agents, such as beneficial insects and natural enemies, has increased fairly rapidly in the last decade with an annual turnover of US$160 million in 2000 (Jarvin 2000). Biopesticides--based on naturally occurring fungi, bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and entomopathogenic nematodes--used to control insect pests and constitute about 1 percent of the global insecticide market (Dent 1999). Presently, Bt marketing and products have the largest share, but other promising products include the mycoinsecticide, Metarhizium, used for locust control and nuclear polyhedrosis viruses (NPVs). NPVs are manufactured in some developing countries, for example, India and Thailand. Factors such as regulatory requirements, governmental support, and marketing strategies have determined adoption by farmers in these two countries (Dent 1999). However, risks accompany the introduction of biological control agents in new habitats, as well as the use of pheromones or biopesticides. Therefore, risk assessment is needed for each case.3 Box 2.4 Biological control in Turkmenistan Since 1998, the Bank has encouraged the Government of Turkmenistan to re-establish its biological control scheme in cotton production, which had been nearly abandoned after independence. Biological control was introduced in the early 1980s after chemical pesticides became ineffective and residues, especially persistent organochlorine compounds, were found in water, soil and food. The break-up of the centrally planned economy of the Soviet Union led to a deterioration of the mass rearing facilities for the control of insect pests in cotton. Since 1998, the government rehabilitated insect rearing facilities (primarily for Trichogramma and Bracon), and introduced cost recovery from farmers. With over 90 percent of cotton crop protection now under biological control, there are greatly reduced environmental and health risks. Source: Schillhorn-Van Veen 2000. New developments by the agrochemical industry There are three major directions in research effort of agrochemical companies in plant protection product development. q Many of the major multinational companies replacing development of pesticides by genetic engineering to develop insecticidal and/or resistant traits (see biotechnology section). 3CABI Biosciences offers information on new biological control techniques and their application in IPM approaches in its web- based "Biocontrol News and Information" . New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management 9 q Companies are continuing to expand their product portfolio by investing in the research of new chemical compounds, mainly those that have innovative modes of action. In response to increasing levels of regulation in Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries, the agrochemical industry is aiming to develop environmentally friendly and sustainable plant protection products that are more specific and targeted, less toxic, less harmful to beneficial organisms, and effective while using smaller amounts of active ingredients. Product development also is focusing on preventing undesirable side effects of existing chemicals. For example, specialized application devices can reduce the amount of pesticides used as well as the risks for human health and the environment. In addition, appropriate package sizes are being introduced in developing countries for small-scale farmers. The industry strives to find threshold levels for optimal product use and the best practice in combining and handling agrochemicals; however, its efforts are directed primarily toward industrialized agriculture. IPM as part of knowledge-intensive sustainable agriculture For a long time, IPM research was carried out as component technology development and frequently dealt with individual pest species in specific crops. Only in recent years has a farming-systems and farmer- centered view been adopted, providing for more interdisciplinary research. In these more holistic approaches, the agronomic characteristics of the cropping system are considered along with the social and economic constraints that affect the adoption of IPM practices. IPM research has become more oriented toward the needs of various farmer groups, but, within academic research institutions, incentive systems for funding and awards continue to constrain interdisciplinary studies and promote research on isolated issues (Dent 1996). Many research institutions have difficulties reaching farmers. Since IPM is a knowledge-intensive system, farmer education approaches have been developed. CGIAR's Systemwide IPM (SP-IPM) program uses "pilot sites" to build effective Farmer-Scientist-Extension (FSE) partnerships (CGIAR 2002). Participatory and farmer-centered IPM training programs are platforms that enable a closer interaction between farmers and researchers. Within Farmer Field Schools (FFS) or local agricultural research committees (CIALs), farmers perform on-farm research and create a link between local and formal research (ODI 2000). The FFS concept has spread to many Asian countries, where it is used in national IPM programs, most prominently in irrigated rice (ter Weel and others 1999). CABI has used Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) to help validate research results in farmers' fields. IPM concepts also have been introduced for livestock disease control (box 2.5). Farmer participation and capacity building facilitate the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in IPM systems. To reiterate, to achieve a sustainable adoption of an IPM system, economic issues need to be considered in tandem with social and environmental benefits and local cultural values. Organic farming Consumer demand for organic products is rising at an annual rate of 15 percent to 30 percent in the major markets of Europe and North America. The global area under organic production is more than 17 million ha (Yussif and Willers 2002), but that equals only 1 percent of the world's arable land (including permanent crops) (FAO 2000a). Organic production offers important opportunities to developing countries, because it provides a niche market with a premium price. Latin America already holds over 20 percent of the worldwide organic area. A clear distinction exists between IPM and organic farming, which outlaws almost all chemical pesticide use. Nevertheless, the spill-over from the increased interest in organic farming is benefiting IPM in two ways. First, over the last decade, consumer awareness of the environmental and health impacts of modern 10 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies food production has increased, partly in reaction to food scares and scandals involving pesticide misuse. The spread of organic farming has contributed to public awareness of low-input agricultural production systems, which include IPM. Partly in reaction to the growth of the niche markets for organic food, major retailers and food processors have been launching sustainability initiatives, (see the section below on market trends and policy changes). Box. 2.5 Integrated management of livestock diseases Due to emerging resistance of the pathogens to the drugs, the effectiveness of intensive treatment of livestock with veterinary drugs against vector-borne diseases is limited. For example, because the lack of animal traction due to trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness) limits agricultural development, effective control and management of the Tsetse fly are crucial in many areas of Africa. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is combining several tools to develop an integrated approach to resistance management in West Africa. The United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) supported research in collaboration with the Zimbabwe Department of Veterinary Services and has developed an integrated method of Tsetse fly control. By using pheromones, the Tsetse flies are attracted to traps of cloth soaked in insecticides. Compared to aerial spraying, this targeted approach greatly reduces the amount of chemicals used. This system is used throughout Zimbabwe and in the neighboring countries of Botswana and Zambia. Source: DFID 1999. Second, the increasing area under organic farming is contributing to mainstream agronomic techniques that use nonchemical pest management practices. Examples are intercropping, crop rotation, double- digging, mulching, and integration of crops and livestock (FAO 1999a). Organic farmers rely on natural pest control techniques--such as biological control and plants with pest control properties--rather than on synthetic pesticides. However, organic farming does not allow the use of inorganic fertilizers, something that might be important within an IPM regime where soil fertility is low (FAO 1999b). Information and communication technology and precision farming Access to the Internet is increasing exponentially. Internet services can provide pest monitoring and disease forecasting with more direct and updated information than can conventional communication systems. Access to information is a crucial component of IPM, because it enhances the ability of extension workers and farmers to increase their knowledge and enables them to make informed decisions. The spread of the Internet also improves access to expert networks such as the IPMnet . In many places, communal radio is still more important than Internet, because the former reaches rural, often illiterate people. FAO, with two NGOs, is sponsoring a project in Tanzania to devise agricultural training programs for community radio broadcasters to improve food security (FAO 2001b). Precision farming is a technique for advanced farming systems that uses satellite connectivity with a Global Positioning System (GPS) to connect geographic information with a field-level database to process information on soil characteristics, nutrient levels, and pest and weed infestation. A computerized scanning and spreading device can control the amount of fertilizer or pesticide needed for each segment of a field. Today, precision farming is evolving for large-scale agriculture and shows promising results of lowering the inputs in a high-yielding agricultural system (MacRae 1998). Precision farming is out of reach for small scale, subsistence farmers in developing countries. Nevertheless, many of the techniques can be used to improve the efficiency of input use in cropping systems with high levels of input use. FAO considers that future technology will be designed for precision agriculture in the broadest sense of the word, and that site-specific management of land and water has an important role in bridging the yield gap (FAO 2002). New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management 11 Market Trends and Changes in the Policy Environment Requirements of the food industry regarding pesticide residues have become a major force encouraging adoption of IPM practices. The demand for food safety and quality is rising, creating niche market opportunities for certified products, including organic food products. IPM is gaining recognition as a global policy issue, at both the national and international levels. Demand for food safety and quality Consumers increasingly demand that environmental and social considerations in agriculture be taken into account. Food safety concerns about pesticide residues and recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and mad-cow disease in Europe have changed consumer demand patterns for food products. Food processors and retailers are setting higher standards regarding product quality. The rapid growth of organic products has enhanced the public's awareness that there are alternatives to conventional food products. Regulations, such as the United States' regulation on pesticide residues in imports and the new European Union (EU) regulation on maximum residue limits, directly influence the pesticide use on produce destined for these important markets. Developing countries repeatedly have found that shipments with pesticide residues surpassing the limits have been rejected. This adherence to standards has driven some of the smaller export companies out of business. The food processing industry is responding to these developments with increased interest in IPM as a method for quality assurance. A European Retailer Initiative has been formed to issue standards throughout the supply chain, including good agricultural practice and limits for pesticide residues (EUREPGAP 2001). Inspired by the market success of certified organic agriculture, attempts are being made to establish IPM certification schemes, for example, by the International Organization of Biological Control (IOBC) . Table 2.1 Global crop protection market, 2000 Market trends for pest control products $ millions The markets for chemical pesticides have undergone Product type IndustrializedDeveloping Total rapid changes. The crop protection industry of the countries countries industrialized countries has witnessed a consolidation through acquisitions and mergers resulting in a few Herbicides 9,311 4,483 13,794 global research-based companies. The 27 large and Insecticides 3,888 4,121 8,009 medium-sized research-based agrochemical Fungicides 3,913 1,888 5,801 companies that existed in 1983 have declined to 8 in Others 1,028 330 1,358 2002 (appendix 2). The six largest multinational Total pesticides 18,140 10,822 28,962 agrochemical corporations account for about 85 Biotech 2,373 671 3,044 Total 20,513 11,493 32,006 percent of the total annual worldwide pesticide sales, estimated at US$29 billion. Developing countries Source: James 2001a. have bought 37 percent of that total (table 2.1).4 Several forces drive the consolidation of the pesticide industry. First, research, development, and registration of new products are becoming increasingly costly. The German Agrochemical Industry Association estimates that the total cost of product development from compound screening through registration is more than US$100 million (IVA 1999). Second, some companies have adopted the concept of life science (pharmaceutical-agrochemical-seeds) in the company profile. This orientation contributes 4Recent industry data show that the total pesticide sales of the multinational companies declined by more than 7%, from US$27.5 billion in 2000 to US$25.6 billion in 2001 (IVA 2002). 12 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies to a broader perspective over the entire plant production system, because it integrates pesticide and seed technology development. Third, globalized trade patterns necessitate a company's presence in all major markets to ensure rapid market penetration with new products and fast recovery of research and development investments. The ongoing consolidation of the agrochemical industry affects IPM prospects in developing countries. Research-based multinational companies focus on product development for crops with a large area in markets in Japan, North America, and Western Europe. They consider other markets, such as minor crops in high-value markets of OECD countries and many crops in developing countries, to be of secondary importance. Because niche markets do not offer enough economic incentives for large corporations to invest in product development, fewer and fewer innovative pesticide products are being made available to the small markets for crop production in developing countries, Intuitively, one might expect that IPM would benefit from this situation, because farmers' attention would shift to nonchemical tools. However, the opposite has happened. Farmers and extension services are still caught up in the thinking of the Green Revolution, relying on pesticides as quick solutions for their pest management problems. The pesticide industry is investing large amounts to advertise their products worldwide. In addition, the increasing availability of generic, non-brand, off-patent pesticides, which tend to be inexpensive but more toxic for human health and the environment, is not benefiting IPM adoption. The spread of generics is a disincentive to IPM systems since those pesticides, especially insecticides, tend to be broad-spectrum compounds that destroy the agroecosystem balance by killing natural predators that help to keep pests below economically damaging levels. Since generic pesticides are not produced under a respected company's brand name, they involve variable safety regulations. A recent study from Pakistan showed that an increase in the share of generics in the pesticide market has contributed to the deterioration of standards in quality assurance, distribution, use and disposal (Ahmad 2001 and others). In some developing countries, such as China and India, the production and use of generic compounds is increasing. OECD expects that the production of chemicals will continue to shift from industrial to developing countries (OECD 2001). IPM as a global policy issue The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and its Agenda 21 were an important step for spreading the concept of IPM. In chapter 14 of AGENDA, IPM figures prominently as a key element of sustainable agricultural development. For the first time, governments and NGOs agreed on the need for a long-term perspective on resource conservation, safeguarding the environment, and economic development. Although the optimistic view of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit has waned in the last decade and given way to more realistic expectations about the feasibility and political acceptance of the sustainable development paradigm, the global interest in IPM has continued to grow. The need to address IPM as a global policy issue is based on three considerations: 1. Due to increased international trade, pests travel globally. One prominent example is whitefly, which has become a major problem on all continents and in such various production systems as production of flowers, vegetables, cassava, and cotton (Gutierrez and Waibel 2002). 2. Global trade and food standards are changing and influencing developing countries' opportunities in international trade. IPM can help ensure access to export markets and foster global integration. New Trends Affecting Integrated Pest Management 13 3. Pesticides have externalities that, in many cases, not confined to national boundaries, for example, the contamination of international waters. IPM has environmental, health, and social benefits that are difficult to specify and often not accounted for on the local level. Policies at global and national level are increasingly interdependent as they influence pest management through regulations of international trade, food and environmental safety, and intellectual property rights. Recent examples of initiatives at the global level are the Pesticide Risk Reduction Initiative of OECD and FAO (OECD 1999); and the pesticide-related international conventions on Prior Informed Consent, signed in 1998 (Rotterdam Convention), and Persistent Organic Pollutants, signed in 2001 (Stockholm Convention). A Global IPM Facility, has been cofounded and supported by the World Bank, FAO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The facility's mission is to promote the adoption of IPM through, for example, addressing the problem of limited access to IPM expertise by developing country farmers, governments, and NGOs (see the section on the Bank's corporate-level partnership programs). Increased involvement of stakeholders The global debate on sustainability in agriculture has drawn attention to IPM as a mechanism to reconcile agricultural growth and food security objectives with safeguarding the environment. Formerly the domain of technical experts dealing with the agronomic aspects, IPM has attracted the attention of specialists in adult education, community development, and environmental health. As IPM has gained stature as a policy issue, a large number of stakeholders have expressed competing demands to include environmental and public health aspects in pest management policy formulation. As the linkages between consumer and environmental protection have become more obvious, the former "iron triangle" (Bosso 1987) of farm and agribusiness interests, agricultural administration, and parliamentary representatives of agricultural interests no longer is able to unilaterally set policies in agriculture. Because of the pesticide externalities, pest management is a major sector in agriculture in which conflicts with other policy domains have occurred. Figure 2.4 shows the way that public policy in developing countries treated agriculture throughout most of the Green Revolution, which began in the 1960s. The supply chain of agricultural commodities was dominated by producers' concerns and backward linkages to technical inputs and service delivery. Demand patterns from the processor and retailer levels were recognized to a certain extent, but direct linkages to consumer demand patterns were rare. Pest management was perceived as a technical subject to be dealt with by research organizations, the input industry, extension services, and farmers. Policies for the agricultural sector were oriented toward production and supply. Since the 1990s, when environmental, consumer protection, and public health issues have received increased attention, a larger audience has been involved in IPM policy formulation and implementation. The increasing demand for transparency in the food chain has strengthened the interest of other actors in the commodity supply chain (figure 2.5). Increasingly influenced by advocacy NGOs and actual or perceived food safety problems, consumers are showing their preferences for food safety and environmental and social values in the marketplace. The food industry is looking for ways to ensure the high quality of their products, for example, concerning levels of pesticide residues, with demands for traceability of commodities, leading to an increasing role for certification, quality assurance and product labeling. Originally a phenomenon observed in industrialized countries, this trend is expanding to many developing countries. Quality standards for export crops are increasing. Domestic consumers, especially from the well-educated urban middle class, follow global consumption patterns and are demanding higher food safety standards. 14 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Figure 2.4 Agricultural production and commodity supply chain Agricultural Production Food Industry Consumption Input industry Food Food Research Producers process retail Consumers industry industry Extension service Note: The arrows show the physical movement in the supply chain Reorientation of the commodity supply chain toward greater recognition of changed consumer demand patterns is influencing public policies. Therefore, agricultural policies alone no longer shape agricultural production and backward linkages. Competing demands from consumer protection and environmental and public health interests guide research, extension service, and the input industry, for example, in the form of stronger regulations. NGOs have an unprecedented role in promoting the change of the public policy orientation, mainly through their influence on mass media and consumer behavior by raising concerns of perceived or actual food safety issues. Figure 2.5. Emergence of new stakeholders influencing agricultural production and commodity supply chain Policy level Agriculture / environment / consumer protection / public health Agricultural production Food industry Consumption Input NGOs industry Food Food Research Producers process retail Consumers industry industry Extension service Note: The arrows represent the direction of influences in the supply chain. 3. Stakeholder Views on Integrated Pest Management The primary purpose of this section is to review the status of policies, strategies, and technical approaches of IPM used by the stakeholders. This section also reviews the definitions of IPM used by the organizations active in the field and their implementation strategies. Case studies will be used as indicators of how policies and strategies are implemented and how central IPM is in the approaches of each organization. Finally, the responses of the organizations to the trends affecting IPM are analyzed. The analysis is based on a review of the published material of the individual organizations, web information, and personal communication with representatives of the organizations. Stakeholders Stakeholders for IPM implementation are grouped in five broad categories (table 3.1). Development banks exert considerable leverage on national policies through their lending programs. The African (AfDB), the Inter-American (IADB), and the Asian Development Banks (ADB) were reviewed, because they have experience in funding projects involving IPM. Traditionally, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) also has been strongly active in agriculture. Among the international agencies that set technical standards and influence the global policy framework, FAO plays an important role. FAO also conducts field projects, mainly through the collaboration with the Global IPM Facility, which is a separate entity founded by three UN organizations and the World Bank. OECD aims at harmonizing the assistance policies of its member countries. The CGIAR is the most important public international research network. The third group consists of the bilateral donor agencies that support IPM projects on a grant basis. IPMEurope represents the views of the smaller European Union member countries. It works to harmonize approaches of its members and their aid agencies and has an advisory role with EU-Development. Organizations from the private sector represented in this survey comprise the input industry (CropLife International), two major multinational food industry companies (Nestlé and Unilever), a standard-setting body for good agricultural practice of the European food retailers (EUREPGAP), and the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP). Among the nongovernmental organizations, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) has been active for 20 years advocating alternatives to chemical pesticides, including IPM . More recently, other NGOs with a broader focus on advocacy for environmental conservation, such as Rainforest Alliance and World Resources Institute (WRI), have begun to promote IPM. The selection of organizations is biased toward the public sector. This choice reflects the fact that IPM has important public good characteristics. National governments of developing countries have not been included in this survey. The World Bank is studying the national pesticide policies in developing countries in a companion report from the Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) department. 15 16 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Table 3.1 Organizations surveyed regarding IPM involvement Development banks International Bilateral donor Private sector NGOs agencies agencies § WorldBank § OECD § NEDA § CropLife § Pesticide § Asian § CGIAR (Netherlands) International Action Development § FAO § USAID § Unilever Network Bank § GlobalIPM § DFID(UK) § Nestlé § Rainforest § African Facility § SDC § EUREPGA Alliance Development § EU- (Switzerland) P § World Bank Development § GTZ § IFAP Resources § Inter-American (Germany) Institute Development § AfD(France) Bank § Danida § IFAD (Denmark) § IPMEurope IPM definitions IPM includes divergent approaches ranging from methods based on rational management of chemical pesticides to systems based on ecosystem management that include health issues and human capital development. Ten indicators were selected to classify the IPM definitions used by the different organizations. IPM definitions have increased in complexity within the last decade. Technical and economic definitions such as the first four elements in table 3.2 are supplemented to include elements of the sustainable development concept, which increasingly has been embraced by practically all stakeholders, including governments, donor agencies, the private sector, and civil society organizations. Most organizations use IPM definitions that combine several of the elements mentioned in table 3.2. A comparison of the definitions shown in appendix 3 reveals, first, that the trend has been toward more inclusive definitions. It appears that, over time, more elements have been taken into account. Even though it was breaking new ground by embedding IPM in the sustainability agenda, the IPM definition in Agenda 21 of 1992 uses only 3 of the 10 elements. By the time of this survey, all of the organizations included here use more than three elements in their definitions of IPM. The most comprehensive definition is used by the Global IPM Facility, one of the most specialized organizations working in the field. The World Bank's current definition includes most of the indicators, such as selective and minimized pesticide use and recognition of farmers' knowledge. Table 3.2 Meanings of IPM definition indicators Definition indicator Meaning Mix of techniques Includes the basic techniques of IPM without indicating a preference. In practice, this can mean the use of chemical pesticides as a default option if preference for these strategies is heavily entrenched. Economic factors /economic Farmers base their decisions on a comparative assessment of the potential crop and damage threshold levels loss and the costs of pest control. In many cases, this may lead to a rationalization of previous overuse of chemical pesticides. However, actual substitution of other pest management practices for pesticide use hinges critically on the availability of locally adapted information about thresholds, and the risk and time preferences of the farmers. Selective pesticide use The most suitable pesticide is used, considering potential interruption of the agroecosystem functions and environmental and health aspects. There are no provisions on how the integration with nonchemical pest management practices should take place. Stakeholder Views on Integrated Pest Management 17 Table 3.2 Meanings of IPM definition indicators Definition indicator Meaning should take place. Preference to nonchemical Alternative methods of pest management are chosen over the use of measures agrochemicals wherever feasible. Minimization/ reduction of IPM practices are favored that involve a reduction of pesticide use. This is pesticide use particularly appropriate if there is a positive correlation between pesticide use levels and negative impacts. However, no preference is given for replacing the most problematic pesticides with more benign practices. Minimization/ reduction of risks IPM practices are favored that reduce the risks to the environment and public to health, environment health. In other words, the most problematic pesticides are addressed first. Pesticide risk reduction is preferred, with the development of sound agronomic practices relegated to a lower priority. Ecosystem management IPM is regarded as a management system that is based on understanding the entire ecosystem of the field and related areas. Recognition of farmer IPM is developed by using the farmer's indigenous knowledge and knowledge of knowledge ("participatory") his/her own field. Favoring local solutions Preference is given to local decisionmaking over external and centrally planned interventions. Sustainability concept IPM is regarded as a holistic approach for sustainable development, combining economic, social and environmental aspects. The observation of convergent definitions is confirmed by looking at the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. The code is a global agreement negotiated and agreed by the governments of UN member countries and some civil society organizations, including the agrochemical industry, under the leadership of FAO. There is a striking difference between the 1989 definition compared to the revised version of 2001.5 Almost all of the organizations agree on some basic elements of what constitutes IPM. These basics include the technical and economic dimensions, as well as the reduction of health and environmental risks and a farmer-centered view. Only one contentious area still exhibits a lack of consensus: the role of chemical pesticide use in IPM approaches. Some organizations link IPM to a reduction in chemical pesticide use; others avoid this link. For example, the definitions of FAO (2001 version of the code) and OECD both have been elaborated with the participation of the agrochemical industry, which fact might explain why a reduction or minimization of pesticide use has not been included in the definitions. Although the differences in the definitions used may appear small, they can have a decisive impact on the IPM implementation strategies, which will be discussed in the following section. IPM implementation strategies Four levels of involvement were studied to categorize the scope and status of the IPM strategies. Policy and strategy documents as well as specific projects were reviewed to assess the scope of involvement in four major areas: 1. Support to research on technologies used in IPM approaches and to genuine interdisciplinary IPM research 2. Field-level implementation of IPM, such as training extension workers and farmers to use IPM approaches, 5The 2001 version has not yet been adopted by FAO due to disputes unrelated to the IPM definition. 18 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies 3. Support to developing countries to build national institutional capacity for development of national IPM programs 4. Support for a conducive public policy environment in developing countries, including regulatory reform and dismantling pesticide subsidies. The review includes organizations with diverse mandates as well as different experiences and comparative advantages. These variants determine the range of interventions and activities. For instance, OECD focuses primarily on harmonizing the policies and standards of its member countries. It does not fund research or extension operations in developing countries. However, since the adoption of IPM is affected not only by research or technical aspects but also by institutional acceptance and policies, many organizations have widened their scope of involvement (table 3.3).6 Several of the organizations have added support to create a conducive policy environment for IPM to their range of activities. The new stakeholders in the field of IPM, that is, the food industry and the NGOs, are especially active in this area. The bilateral donor agencies in Europe and the United States as well as FAO traditionally have been strongly involved in field implementation of IPM strategies. However, the attention that IPM receives within the agencies and in their intervention strategies differs. Many organizations use multiple approaches: intervening in research; field-level implementation projects; building capacity through training researchers, extensionists, and farmers; and supporting institutional development and reformation of the policy framework. One particular reason for this demand-driven approach of many of the bilateral institutions as well as FAO, IFAD and ADB is the need to address IPM in a specific context of country assistance. Beyond a shift to more attention to the need to address policies that are conducive to the adoption of IPM at the farm level, no particular trend is discernible. However, in the field implementation of projects, there appears to be a continued reliance on pilot activities, which tend to be isolated. Discussion is ongoing concerning the need to establish better research ­ extension ­ farmer linkages. However, a strategy to scale up pilot experiences to influence national policies, pest management practices, and pesticide use trends at national or sub-national level frequently is absent. It seems that the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption of IPM are not yet addressed strategically and comprehensively. Stakeholder Reactions to the Trends Influencing IPM Chapter 2 highlights the recent developments in technology, markets, and policies. Many stakeholders address these issues but to a varying extent. Among the technological trends, those that resonate most strongly in the stakeholders' statements and concepts promoting IPM are biotechnology, biological control, IPM as part of sustainable agriculture approaches, and Information Communication Technology (ICT) (table 3.4). It is commonly perceived that research and dissemination of results have to be performed in a participatory manner, by including farmers as well as scientists from different fields in the dialogue. Public/private partnerships are important to many organizations; however, public research is noted as necessary to develop technologies suited for the smallholder. The market implications of food quality requirements are gaining interest in the discussion and are regarded as primarily an incentive to IPM. The survey documents that the stakeholders actively integrated most of the identified trends in their strategies and project portfolio (appendix 5). The private sector and the NGOs have focused primarily on changes of standards in food safety and quality and consumer concerns. Public sector agencies focus on a broader set of developments, ranging from pushing the development and adoption of new technologies to fostering changes in the policy environment. Most of the regional development banks have not been able 6See detailed discussion in appendix 4. Stakeholder Views on Integrated Pest Management 19 to follow the recent trends as closely as the bilateral donor agencies. The exception is the ADB, which has greater experience in conducting IPM programs than the other regional banks studied. Table 3.3 Scope of stakeholder involvement in IPM activities Organization Research Field Institutional Policy implementation support support ADB XX XXX XXX XX AfDB X XX 0 0 IDB XX X XX X IFAD XX XXX XXX XX FAO XXX XXX XXX XXX OECD 0 0 XXX XXX CGIAR XXX XX XX XX Global IPM Facility X XXX XXX X EU-Development XX XX X X NEDA XX XXX XXX XXX USAID XXX XX XXX XX DFID XXX XXX XXX XXX SDC XXX XXX XXX XX GTZ XX XXX XXX XXX AfD/CIRAD XXX XX XX X Danida XX XXX XX X IPMEurope 0 0 XX XXX CropLife Intl. XXX XXX XX XXX Unilever X XX 0 XX Nestlé XX XX X XX EUREPGAP 0 XX 0 XX IFAP 0 0 X X PAN XX XX XX XXX Rainforest Alliance XX XX 0 XX WRI X X X XX 0 = not mentioned; X = mentioned in strategy and/or policy document; XX = some concrete experience; XXX = strong support and involvement. Note: The World Bank's involvement is analyzed in detail in chapter 4. Conclusions Despite the expansion of the IPM agenda to include the sustainable development dimension, stakeholders still are confused about the actual definition of IPM. However, it has become clear to them that over- reliance on chemical pesticides alone is counterproductive to sustainability in pest management, especially regarding the increasing problem of pest resistance. Consensus is emerging that IPM means the reduction of the most problematic chemicals in agriculture as well as the minimization of health and environmental side effects. The shift toward recognizing the sustainability dimension of IPM is evident in policy documents of all the organizations studied. These documents link IPM to issues such as environmental and health protection, long-term sustainability of resource use, and compatibility with local preferences. Discussion continues concerning the inclusion of biotechnology, especially genetic modification technologies, in IPM approaches. Proponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) often point to the success of the spread of Bt cotton varieties in China to reduce excessive pesticide use. Others argue that the long-term 20 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies stability of an IPM strategy that relies only on resistant varieties is not guaranteed, because resistance can break down. Table 3.4 Stakeholder reactions to trends affecting IPM Trends Stakeholder reactions Biotechnology as a · Genetic engineering's potential for food security and sustainable agricultural new IPM tool practices is recognized by most organizations. · Importance of adequate regulatory frameworks is stressed by all organizations. · Unilever points to significance of consumer's opinion. · Strategy for transparency with objective information reaching farmers, consumers, and decisionmakers is required. · Use of biotechnology in developing countries likely to be limited, because product research concentrates on large-scale commercial agriculture. · Agricultural development carries risk of being corporate-driven instead of farmer- driven. · Stronger liability for biotech companies needs to be introduced (PAN). Biological control · Support is targeted toward research and technology development. · Biological control involves high up-front research cost and slow adoption (ADB). · Biological efficacy of most products is too unreliable (CropLife). · Need to increase local knowledge on biological control, cultural practices, and resistant varieties. · Several organizations support development of biopesticides. IPM as part of · When introducing IPM, most organizations consider a participatory approach knowledge-intensive fundamental, because IPM is a knowledge-based technology. sustainable · Holistic and interdisciplinary IPM research systems are promoted. agricultural systems · Several organizations recommend particular effort to include social scientists in agricultural research. Increased collaboration among scientists, private sector, and farmers is necessary to address farmers' concerns and ensure adoption of research results. · Strengthening public research is essential to address needs of poor smallholders. Organic farming · Several organizations support research on biological control, which benefits both IPM and organic systems. · Low-input agricultural systems and increased demand from industrial countries provide opportunities to raise incomes in developing countries. · GTZ helps establish organic standards and certification procedures with public and private partners. Information · Access to information is a key factor for farmers' decisionmaking ability. Communication · Precision techniques are a potential tool for IPM in developing countries but today Technology and are accessible only to large-scale farmers. Precision Farming Demand for food · IPM's importance for addressing food safety and quality is especially recognized by safety and quality the private sector and the NGOs. · IPM is an important element in the development of export markets for high-value agricultural products. · It is important to assist developing countries to prepare national pesticide residue standards to comply with the market and food quality regulations in industrial countries. · Markets' focus is on traceability in the food chain. Trends Stakeholder reactions Market trends for pest · High costs and limited access of newer pesticides in developing countries control products contribute to their high use of organophosphates. · The contradiction for the industry to promote pesticide reduction and train farmers Stakeholder Views on Integrated Pest Management 21 Table 3.4 Stakeholder reactions to trends affecting IPM Trends Stakeholder reactions in IPM, while trying to optimize profits, is discussed. The large influence of the private sector on the farmer is recognized. · A stronger role for the pesticide industry in promoting IPM has to concur with the commitment to reduce pesticide use (NEDA and DFID). · Future of agrochemical industry lies in the commercialization of IPM systems and chemicals compatible with IPM. · CropLife has adopted standards of product stewardship and a commitment to implement IPM. However, the generic pesticide producers are not represented in the association. · NGOs such as PAN critically examine the pesticide industry. IPM as a global policy · The increasing global dimension of pest management problems is gaining issue recognition. · Bilaterals focus on enabling partner countries to comply with international conventions, such as the Rotterdam convention and the POPs convention. Increased stakeholder · Partnerships with other institutions are seen as necessary. involvement · Public sector agencies recognize the potential to engage with the private sector and NGOs. Some organizations adopt a more strategic approach by integrating their efforts with those of others. Many institutions have a particular comparative advantage in a specific area, for example, public sector agencies in providing support on national or regional level, the private sector in offering technical advice, and NGOs in supporting local initiatives. Stronger collaboration can counter the risk that resources are spread too thinly over a large number of countries. Collaboration is particularly important for public sector agencies, whose financial resources available for agricultural development have declined in the last decade. The current institutional environment of development agencies limits specialization, because agricultural development organizations employ fewer and fewer technical specialists. The institutional environment also hinders cooperation, because individual donor countries have their own approaches to issues such IPM. For example, the Global IPM Facility and IPM Europe are two entities that pool resources from various bilateral and international agencies and have committed themselves largely to global knowledge sharing. However, they still need to develop effective and easily accessible information and knowledge sharing mechanisms. Similarly, the CGIAR's Systemwide IPM, also financed by several donors, is having difficulty establishing itself as a global IPM resource center (see also section on World Bank corporate-level partnership programs). Despite the growing consensus that IPM should be treated in the framework of the global public good, the perception of IPM as an institutional framework is still in its infancy. Declining attention to agriculture in development assistance and interagency competition are among the factors that have prevented the implementation of the quasi-mandate of Agenda 21 on a larger scale. Another constraint is the lack of standards for impact assessment of IPM interventions. Broadening the rationale for IPM beyond the technical and economic dimensions has not been followed by the commonly agreed indicators for project outcomes. Where IPM adoption is measured, in most cases, the indicators cited include reduced costs of inputs, increased yields, and better incomes for farmers. Since, in most cases, this information relies on data from pilot activities, information is rare on the cost-effectiveness of large-scale IPM programs. 4. World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management Promoting IPM is part of the World Bank's strategy for agricultural development and sustainable natural resource management. This chapter examines the extent to which the Bank has implemented its commitment to IPM in its lending programs. The first section reviews the Bank's agricultural portfolio of projects approved from 1999 to 2001 after the revised safeguard policy, OP 4.09 Pest Management, came into force. Since the portfolio review gives only a limited idea of challenges and obstacles encountered during implementation, the next section provides separate, more in-depth analysis of IPM activities, which covers 11 projects with significant IPM components and 3 partnership activities. The sampling of projects was done purposely, selecting projects that have been well under way for a number of years. Except for one case, Uganda, the selection of projects did not match with the projects included in the portfolio review. The subsequent section presents the Bank's IPM partnerships and, based mainly on interviews with task managers, discusses the constraints of mainstreaming IPM in the Bank. Review of FY2001 Rural Portfolio The portfolio review aims at providing a systematic picture of the extent to which Bank projects support IPM. A three-step screening approach was used. The FY2001 Rural Portfolio Review (World Bank 2002) was taken as a point of departure. The review identified a subsample of projects dealing with agricultural productivity enhancement and plant protection in the Bank's portfolio database and used them for additional classification. Second, a desk review was done of Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) for projects screened for mention of the term "Integrated Pest Management." It was assumed that task managers would have an incentive to demonstrate their commitment to IPM in the PAD because of the issue's high profile in the safeguard policy. In a third step, the projects whose PADs mentioned IPM were reviewed to provide more detailed information on the scope and scale of IPM interventions. The scope of this desk review has limitations. Primarily, only planned project activities were reviewed, not actual implementation. In addition, due to the limited amount of classified information available in the short PADs, project activities may have been classified inappropriately. The ARD portfolio review (World Bank 2002) is based on three "Outcome Domains" divided in a total of 21 "Key Components." Below this level are approximately 90 "Activity Types." Two Activity Types were selected, because of the likelihood that they include projects concerned with IPM, namely "Increased agricultural productivity (including animal husbandry and fisheries)" and "Sustainable agricultural practices (sustainable use of soil and water)." In addition, projects from 1 of ARD's 19 Thematic Fields (used only for the 2001 portfolio), "Agricultural Health, Food Safety and Quality," within the thematic aspect "Plant and Animal Disease Control," were included. However, that thematic aspect contained only 2 projects. Sixty-six of the 383 projects studied in the FY2001 RDV Portfolio Review were noted as contributing to one or more of the three topics selected in the procedure described above (table 4.1). In other words, a share of 17 percent of the total then-RDV portfolio was devoted to enhancing agricultural productivity and introducing sustainable agricultural practices. 22 World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 23 Table 4.1 IPM activities in World Bank rural development project portfolio, 1999­2001 Projects 1999 2000 2001 Projects mentioning IPM Projects in rural space according to RDV 383 140 122 121 16 Portfolio Review (1999­2001) (100%) (36%) (32%) (32%) (4.2%) Topic 1. "Increased agricultural productivity (including animal husbandry and fisheries)" 62 19 22 19 15 Topic 2. "Sustainable agricultural practices (sustainable use of soil and water)" 21 6 7 8 5 Topic 3. "Plant and Animal Disease Control" 2 - - 2 2 Total projects dealing with sustainable 66* agricultural intensification (17%) 20 25 21 - Projects mentioning IPM 16 (4.2%) 3 4 9 - Projects mentioning IPM in percent of total number of projects dealing with sustainable - 15% 16% 43% 24% agricultural intensification Note: Nineteen projects contributed to 2 or 3 topics. The PADs of these 66 projects were screened for any mention of Integrated Pest Management in the text. Fifteen projects did mention IPM, while 1 project did not mention it but displayed IPM-related activities. Thus, approximately 24 percent of projects that potentially could involve IPM activities were listing them in the PAD. However, the share of projects with IPM components in the Bank's total rural portfolio is 4.2 percent. From1999 through 2001, the number of projects each year that included IPM in their work programs improved steadily, reaching approximately 43 percent in 2001. Since this review covered only the status of projects at the appraisal stage, the extent to which IPM- related activities are implemented in the projects is difficult to assess. On the one hand, projects that do not mention IPM in the PAD might support IPM implementation in the field, for example, through support for research of resistant varieties in agricultural research components. On the other hand, other projects might refer vaguely to IPM in the PAD but not implement significant IPM components. Task managers have an incentive to mention IPM in the PAD as a mitigation measure for proactively responding to safeguard issues. However, best practice examples of successful IPM components in Bank projects which task managers could use as a reference point are lacking (see next section). The lack of continuous and consistent reporting on IPM activities in Bank project components is a problem that warrants further study and action. The World Bank's OP 4.09 applies if a project involves pesticides and/or pest management (appendix 1). This policy came into effect in 1999, prior to which OP 4.01 applied. One would expect that mention of OP 4.09 in the safeguards section of a PAD would coincide with displaying IPM as a mitigation measure in the same document. The table in appendix 6 shows that such is not necessarily the case. In a few cases, the environmental safeguard OP 4.01 was not discussed in the PAD due to differences in presentation guidelines for the PAD. Instead, the environmental assessment (EA) grade was included in the table since it assesses the environmental impact of the project and also sets the standard for the evaluation procedure. A study of the Project Status Reports (PSRs) for the 16 projects was performed to examine further how safeguard policies OP 4.01 and OP 4.09 were applied (appendix 6). In 2001 a more synchronized system of applying the safeguard policies was used than during the two prior years. The authors noted irregularities in the PSR review system in that several projects that discuss IPM and include OP 4.09 had 24 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies not performed reviews regarding this safeguard. However, at the time of this writing, reviews had not yet been performed for all projects approved in 2001. The IPM intervention contained in each of the 16 projects was investigated to obtain a more accurate understanding of how large the focus on IPM was in each. Four levels of intervention were studied: research support, extension, capacity building, and policy reform. The majority of the projects (75 percent) focus on extension support; 63 percent are involved with capacity building within national institutions; 38 percent support research; and 18 percent include policy reform in the project framework (table 4.2). IPM implementation in ongoing or Table 4.2 Scope and areas of IPM intervention in World Bank projects recently completed World Bank projects The main objective of this section is to analyze the Intervention area Number of Percent scope of the IPM intervention and the share of project projects of total investment going to IPM--research support, extension Research 6 38 support, capacity building, and policy reform--in a set Extension 12 75 of projects well underway. Furthermore, the position of Capacity building 10 63 Policy reform 3 19 investment in IPM relative to other areas of investment Total 16 100 and the consistency of the scale and scope of the IPM investment with project objectives were investigated. In Source: Appendix 7. addition, the decisionmaking process, the implementation constraints, and the collaborative links with other IPM initiatives was researched. Finally, task managers, Implementation Completion Reports (ICRs), and the Operation Evaluation Department's (OED's) Evaluation Summaries and audit reports were consulted for a description of key "lessons learned." Ten projects that had been active for at least 3 years (approval date 1999 or earlier) or closed within the last 3 years (until 1999) were chosen (appendix 8). The objective was to include at least two projects from each of the Bank's regional vice presidential units (VPUs). Eight projects were selected based on the extent to which IPM was mentioned in the PAD. Following suggestions from the task manager, projects in Colombia and Ecuador were included. However, no project from the Middle East and North Africa Region was found that complied with the search criteria. Appendix 8 shows the projects included in the study, the range of project investment, and the scope of intervention. To date, the Indonesia IPM Training Project has been the only Bank project fully devoted to IPM. For other projects, the share of funds for IPM ranged between 2.4 percent and 19 percent.7 Comparatively, large shares (>10 percent ) were found in the Ecuador and Uttar Pradesh projects, whose competitive grant systems allowed for flexible response to local demand. The above section summarizes results. This section discusses the Latin American projects separately. The four projects in Latin America have a large proportion of the investment geared toward research and technology development. All four projects used competitive grant schemes to a greater or lesser degree to secure a demand-driven and transparent process of disbursing funds. The competitive grant system has enabled a variety of local institutions, including government research centers, universities, the private sector, and NGOs, to benefit from research grants. Preliminary results demonstrate that a high proportion of the grants in each project and its grant scheme went to IPM research. 7The figures for project funds that go to IPM indicate the level of funding. For ongoing projects, the figures in appendix do not give the accurate total amounts, because several active projects are disbursing the funds through competitive grants and the final allocation is not yet known. In addition, in some cases, IPM was included in several components within the projects, which made identification of the funds devoted to IPM difficult. World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 25 Some of the technology generation projects appeared to have little systematic follow-up to disseminate the research results. IPM research has been shown to yield high rates of return that are comparable to those of other agricultural innovations (Waibel 1999). However, a long time-lag between research funding and adoption by farmers can render IPM investment uneconomical. Achievements and constraints in IPM implementation were noted in the closed or long-term active projects included in the study (table 4.3). The midterm review of the Uzbekistan project found the project unsatisfactory due to the lack of a concrete work plan and measurable milestones. A team of external experts was contracted from a separate trust fund for the remaining 18 months of the project to align the project activities with the project objectives. This example shows the importance of monitoring during implementation and that it is possible to add resources to reach the project goals, even late in the project cycle. Similar experiences have been made in recent projects in Turkey and Armenia (Schillhorn-Van Veen 1997). Problems of gender inequality with regard to access to services, commonly found in agricultural extension projects, were addressed progressively in the Indonesia project (table 4.3). Table 4.3 Achievements and constraints in World Bank projects with IPM components Project title Achievements and constraints of IPM intervention Integrated Pest Activities: Training extension workers, farmer trainers, and farmers following the Farmer Field Management School (FFS) model with TA from FAO regional IPM program, applied research contracts to Training support field training, regulatory reform. Project, The project was fully devoted to IPM. Concerns about the long-term sustainability of rice Indonesia production led to the launch of a massive farmer training effort to reduce reliance on insecticides that had caused outbreaks of previously unimportant secondary pests. On completion of the project, it was determined that, using the FFS model for intensive education on agroecological principles of pest management, the project had trained more than 600,000 farmers. The objective of reaching 800,000 farmers was not met, due partially to several complex organizational problems that arose during implementation. These obstacles were that the project used structures parallel to existing extension services to manage the training program and that the coordination between the Bank's lending program and the technical assistance component was insufficient. Monitoring and evaluation was not established until late in the project, leading to misreporting and difficulties in assessing the actual number of farmers trained during implementation. The project identified a problem of low participation of women farmers in the IPM training during the first 2 years of implementation. Actions taken based on local gender analysis resulted in an increase of women attending the training from 5.6 percent in the beginning to 21.5 percent during the last year of the project. However, the objective of 30 percent was not met. Despite indications from pre-project pilot sites showing that farmer training in IPM significantly reduced pesticide use, due to lack of suitable data, there is no evidence of a reduction in total pesticide use in project areas or at the national level. The OED Report rates the project as marginally satisfactory, and its sustainability has been rated uncertain due to 4 aspects; (1) the post-project funding is not available, (2) the governmental attitude to support IPM is fragile, (3) IPM has not been fully integrated in the national extension system, and (4) the parallel extension service established by the project has not been integrated into existing structure. OED has recommended an audit of the project. 26 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Table 4.3 Achievements and constraints in World Bank projects with IPM components Project title Achievements and constraints of IPM intervention Agricultural Activities: Training extension workers and farmers following the FFS model, implemented Rehabilitation through FAO's regional IPM program. Project, The IPM component was conducted through FAO's regional IPM program for irrigated rice, Vietnam following the same training model as in Indonesia. The Plant Protection Sub-Component satisfactorily achieved most of the expectations of the project plan, including improved pest management skills and increased rice production in project areas. Even though reduced pesticide use was connected to the use of IPM methods in pilot sites, it could not be attributed to the impact of the project, because reduced pesticide could be observed generally all over the country. While noting shortcomings in achieving institutional capacity building, OED rates the project as satisfactory concerning financial and risk management, and policy planning capacity. The OED review also raises doubts about the fiscal sustainability of a large-scale FFS approach compared to an information approach through mass media as evaluated in the Mekong Delta by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). The media approach has achieved over 90 percent coverage a lower cost and significant impacts on pesticide use. The OED review was followed by an OED audit report, which rated the financial sustainability of the FFS component as uncertain. Agriculture Activities: Researching and monitoring food residues, extending seed and seedling technology. Project (01), The IPM component was designed vaguely, despite evidence of a pattern of chemical overuse and Moldova associated food residue problems stemming from Soviet era. The project was geared heavily toward capital expenditure with insufficient consideration of the actual needs and little capacity building except regarding chemical analysis. Cotton Sub- Activities: Applied research, dissemination through training and seminars, Sector support for regulatory reform. Improvement The project focused on applied research to develop techniques for an IPM system that would Project, integrate the previously existing, but deteriorating, biological control system with modern Uzbekistan chemical applications. Implementation was managed by the agrochemical industry. However, the midterm review found the project unsatisfactory due to the lack of a concrete work plan and measurable milestones. In the remaining 18 months of the project, a team of external experts was employed from a separate trust fund to align the project activities with the objectives. The implementation problems were addressed successfully during the course of the project. Agricultural Activities: Decentralization of research; dissemination through demonstrations, field days, and Technology training sessions. Development The competitive grant system has shown through the demand driven process that there is a large Project, interest in IPM and that it has been the focus of many supported research projects. The IPM Colombia research projects present successful results in a preliminary evaluation. The review of earlier Bank projects with IPM components shows that several project types have addressed the issue proactively. These projects deal with agricultural technology generation and dissemination, mostly at the national level, and specific agricultural sector or subsector projects. Except in the Indonesia project, IPM figures as one of many elements of a larger investment program so that IPM funds and issues often are dispersed among several project components. Under such circumstances, monitoring the quality of implementation and specific outcomes is difficult. In most cases, monitoring results are available only for inputs, such as number of farmers trained, but not for impacts, for example, yields and input cost reduction. Most projects have focused on specific aspects of IPM implementation. It is not clear whether selection of intervention areas was preceded by a thorough problem analysis and a coordination with local demands. However, in the recently approved Producer Associations and Agricultural Services Project in Mali, a problem-oriented approach was taken. Based on an independent policy analysis and a stakeholder consultation, a comprehensive package of IPM interventions was developed, based on an identifiable budget line (box 4.1). World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 27 Box 4.1 Special IPM Initiative: comprehensive approach to capacity building and policy reform in Mali Mali depends on cotton production as a cash crop for farmers and for export revenues. About 90 percent of its imported pesticides are used in cotton. In the 1990s, due to pesticide resistance and inappropriate use practices, pesticide costs increased steadily while yields stabilized or declined. Evidence of occupational health problems and food residues was mounting. Based on a comprehensive status report produced by a local research institution and a stakeholder policy workshop, a Special IPM Initiative was developed. The initiative cuts across project components and takes a problem-focused view. Policy reform elements include expanding an existing participatory farmer IPM training, strengthening regulatory controls, building capacity to monitor environmental and human health impacts, and adjusting the fiscal and economic incentive framework. The latter includes the elimination of hidden subsidies of cotton and food crop pesticides, and the provision of sustainable funding for regulatory and training activities by discontinuing import duty exemptions for pesticides. Source: World Bank 2001a. World Bank Corporate-Level Partnership Programs The World Bank is involved in several partnership programs for IPM to facilitate access of Bank task managers and client countries to knowledge and expertise regarding IPM. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research The World Bank is the largest single donor to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a network of 16 research centers throughout the world. Its main mandate is to develop technologies that contribute to poverty alleviation and food security by enhancing agricultural productivity. IPM is an important element of that strategy. The CGIAR has gained international recognition for its scientific advances in germplasm improvement. The organization's focus lends itself to an emphasis on genetic resistance as an important tool in an IPM strategy. Indeed, CGIAR centers have made advances in genetic resistance research in many crops, including rice, maize, and sorghum, and have had some outstanding successes on biological control, such as the cassava mealybug, and biopesticides, such as Green Muscle, used in the biological control of locust. In some of its member research centers, IPM research activities started as early as the mid-1960s and initially were integrated fully with breeding pest-resistant crop varieties. Research on insect control in irrigated rice conducted since the late 1970s by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was instrumental in providing scientific back-up to the large IPM Farmer Field School (FFS) training programs in East and South Asia during the 1990s (box 4.2). Nevertheless, many IPM research initiatives have focused on developing component technologies with less emphasis on client-oriented approaches in the innovation process and on the key role of the policy environment in IPM promotion (James and others 2002). Review of the CGIAR centers' experiences with IPM-related research indicates that opportunities have been missed for joint activities with other actors in the field of IPM research/implementation to develop sustainable strategies to promote wider IPM implementation (Kanoute and others 1999, cited in James and others 2002). Recognizing these constraints and reacting to the inclusion of IPM in Agenda 21, in 1995 the CGIAR established the Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management (SP-IPM) to realize the full potential of IPM in sustainable agricultural development. Collaborative links have been established among international and national agricultural research centers, the Global IPM Facility, CABI Bioscience, the Pesticide Action Network, and the industry association, CropLife International. The SP-IPM seeks to achieve synergies and magnify the impact of IPM research and implementation, and to ensure that these activities respond fully to the needs of IPM practitioners. Current initiatives include task forces and projects to develop biologically based IPM options, develop effective models for farmer participatory research and learning, and establish pilot sites for IPM learning and adoption. The initiatives also include 28 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies advice on biopesticide regulation and registration, and provide related information and advocacy to the general public and donor communities. A recent highlight is the research work on whitefly, a global pest that threatens many cropping systems due to overuse of insecticides, resulting pesticide resistance, and environmental degradation. Box 4.2 Farmer Field School Approach and the World Bank The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach evolved in the 1980s in Southeast Asia to address insecticide overuse. IRRI research had shown that excessive use of broad-spectrum insecticides in irrigated rice, stimulated by the lack of pest resistance of earlier introduced high-yielding varieties, was disrupting the ecosystem and hurting farmers' yields and profits. The FFS approach stresses experiential learning of fundamental agroecological principles (Gallagher 1999). Farmers are trained in weekly sessions throughout the cropping season by conducting hands-on experimentation in the field. FAO has promoted the FFS approach since the late 1980s through its Asian inter-country IPM programs for rice, vegetables, and cotton. Following a global IPM conference in 1993, FAO and other donors initiated the creation of the Global IPM Facility to enhance worldwide access to the Asian experience and to disseminate farmer- centered approaches to other parts of the developing world. The facility emphasizes the FFS model for farmer training in IPM. The rise to prominence of the FFS model in FAO and in many of the bilateral aid organizations, NGOs, and private sector-financed activities in the 1990s was accompanied by increasing concerns in the World Bank and other organizations regarding the model's effectiveness and fiscal sustainability. Building on FAO's earlier efforts and relying on technical assistance for training and capacity building from the regional FAO projects, the Bank had adopted the approach for its agricultural projects in Indonesia (1993) and Vietnam (1994). However, no reliable data exists on the economic impacts of FFS in large-scale programs overall. Data from samples in the Indonesia project even show that, following the training, the farmer trainers have taken on a very limited amount (less than 10 percent) of the training responsibilities. Due to methodological deficiencies and lack of data, the value of social capital built by FFS training and benefits for human health and the environment are difficult to assess. Views differ on the period after which impacts of farmer training can be expected. The FAO and some bilaterals continue to consider the FFS model as one of the most promising and successful approaches to promote participatory IPM. However, apart from funding some small pilot activities, Bank projects so far have not endorsed the FFS model. Sources: van de Fliert 1993, Quizon and others 2001, Gallagher 2002, ter Weel and others 1999. To date, the SP-IPM is still struggling to deliver on its promises to increase the impact of IPM research on pest management practices. A recent review has suggested elevating the SP-IPM to a Global Challenge Program with improved links to other players in IPM research and outreach activities (Gutierrez and Waibel 2002). Major constraints to a more significant role for the SP-IPM are the lack of incentives for participatory multidisciplinary research, gap between scientific IPM information and user-friendly outreach, and limited impact on national policies. The SP-IPM is financed by contributions from the core budget of the CGIAR and from the governments of Switzerland and Norway. Global IPM Facility Founded by the World Bank, FAO (host), UNDP, and UNEP as an interagency project, the Global IPM Facility became operational in 1997. It was assigned a central role of promoting the adoption of IPM in developing countries' agricultural programs and policies. This necessity emerged from the prominent role that IPM was given in Agenda 21 at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The facility assists interested governments and NGOs to initiate, develop, and expand IPM programs to reduce pesticide use and associated negative impacts on health and environment, while increasing production and profits through improved crop and pest management. A core input is strengthening the World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 29 capacity of national staff and building on the results of the FAO-supported FFS programs of participatory IPM education in Asia. The Bank has benefited from its collaboration in the facility through access to consultancy services for pest management plans in investment projects and technical support for the implementation of its safeguard policy from 1999-2001. Despite the benefits, the facility's emphasis on the FFS approach as the key mechanism for promoting IPM is limiting prospects for further cooperation (box 4.2). The Bank has stressed the need to strengthen the facility's technical backstopping capacity for development agencies and governments and to look into the full range of approaches to enhance IPM adoption. Pesticide policy analysis The Bank has collaborated with a policy analysis project conducted by GTZ and Hannover University from 1999 to 2002. Policy reform strategies were elaborated through a capacity-building and broad-based stakeholder consultation process in countries such as Ghana, Mali, and Pakistan. Parts of the policy reform agenda have been incorporated in the Bank's operational lending programs, for example, in Mali. Policy reform measures encompass regulatory reform and strengthening enforcement, reversing implicit pesticides subsidies, building IPM capacity of producers and service providers, and strengthening national research and oversight capacity. Mainstreaming IPM in the Bank Despite a relatively prominent position in the internal policy framework, IPM has been mainstreamed in Bank lending to only a limited extent. To analyze the obstacles to mainstreaming, it is worthwhile to look at the lines of actions that were foreseen in the 1997 World Bank position paper, Integrated Pest Management: Strategies and Policies for Effective Implementation (Schillhorn-Van Veen and others 1997). It outlined the following instruments and policy options to promote IPM: q Analyze and define relevant sector policies and associated regulatory and institutional frameworks using the standard Bank tool, Economic and Sector Work (ESW). q Include IPM-related initiatives in National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs) and related environmental strategies. q Screen pesticide use in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and revise pesticide procurement guidelines q Support research and extension that focuses on farmers' problems and supports farmers to develop locally appropriate solutions q Provide in-house IPM training q Collaborate with the Bank-cosponsored Global IPM Facility. Many of the goals have been met, either fully or partially; however, many remain. Some constraints are discussed below. Decline of the importance of agricultural productivity in the Bank's portfolio The 1990s witnessed a dramatic decline in overall Bank lending for agriculture, triggered by low commodity prices and a perceived need to change investment priorities and avoid risks associated with agricultural projects. Lending for agriculture as a percent of Bank lending has gone down from approximately 31 percent in 1978-81 to less than 10 percent in 2000-2001 (World Bank 2003). The amount of analytical sector work in agriculture dropped significantly during the 1990s. As a result, the 30 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies link between sustainable agricultural development and rural poverty reduction rarely is integrated in the Country Assistance Strategies (CAS), the Bank's main country-level strategic instrument. Shift of emphasis in sector strategies A policy shift in the Bank's agricultural project portfolio has taken place. The Bank's agricultural sector and services projects have undergone substantial changes. The Bank's strategy is to support decentralization of government structures, promote an increased role of the private sector in service delivery to farmers, and help governments to concentrate on their core functions. On the one hand, these developments offer new opportunities to stimulate the adoption of IPM in various regions of the world. IPM information transfer is a complex task and does not lend itself to integration in technology transfer concepts, such as the formerly predominant Training and Visit (T&V) extension systems. The devolution to lower administrative levels of responsibilities for financing agricultural extension enhances the possibility to promote locally adapted and farmer-centered IPM approaches. Local IPM initiatives, often supported by bilateral donor agency and NGO funding, have benefited from these opportunities. As the earlier section on the review of IPM implementation in the World Bank portfolio demonstrates, some Bank projects also have used the opportunities, especially through competitive grant schemes. On the other hand, the de-emphasis of public goods delivery, in international development aid overall, has limited the prospects for IPM implementation. The success of privatization strategies is limited in cases of market failure. In many countries, the transfer of input delivery functions to the private sector has not yet taken place, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. There, high costs and business risks in an uncertain policy environment have prevented the establishment of competitive markets. Fertilizer markets particularly have fallen into a low-demand, low-volume, high input cost trap characterized by stagnant or declining use (Kelly and others 1999). Regarding pesticides, the increased role of the private sector raises concerns about potential distortions with regard to information delivery to farmers. Private extension services are less likely to adopt transfer of IPM information but focus instead on selling inputs. This pattern is especially common in countries that lack adequate regulatory capacities and have weak public information and knowledge delivery services. Role of Operational Policy 4.09 on pest management The implementation of safeguard directive OP 4.09 has become a matter of debate within the Bank. The prominent position of pest management as 1 of the Bank's 10 environmental and social safeguards is giving IPM a high profile. However, the requirements for implementation of the safeguards in the project cycle can be counterproductive to identifying opportunities for mainstreaming IPM in client country policies, institutions, and programs (box 4.3). One of the Bank's safeguard policies, OP 4.09 is a risk management instrument. It is dominated by the "do no harm" principle related to criteria for the selection of pesticides. When pesticide use is necessary, the OP 4.09 sets standards regarding the provision of pesticides, taking into account the user's ability to manage risks associated with different hazard classes of pesticides. However, the "do good" element of OP 4.09, which promotes steps for IPM implementation, depends on the initiative of the task team and the government to seize opportunities and is difficult to monitor. OP 4.09 frequently is perceived as an "add- on" requirement that must be considered in the final stage of project preparation to comply with procedures. It is still unclear whether the safeguard policy approach is effective or acts only as a bureaucratic hurdle that increases the Bank's costs of doing business without achieving much on the ground. Ensuring compliance with the safeguards stated in OP 4.09 requires considerable emphasis on monitoring and can be difficult in an operating environment that encourages increased ownership by client countries and decentralized decisionmaking, such as community-driven development. For example, World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 31 monitoring a rural credit fund involving disbursements for pesticides might not be feasible at reasonable costs. Box 4.3 IPM Thematic Review in Bank's Africa Region In 2001 the World Bank's Africa Region Safeguard Unit initiated a review to study compliance with the safeguard policy on pest management in Bank- financed projects in Africa. Eight projects in 4 countries were selected for an in-depth review that included visits to the project sites and interviews with key stakeholders in client countries. The study focused on the 3 project phases: preparation, implementation, and monitoring. Nearly all of the projects had weaknesses in their EAs, particularly with regard to the evaluation of the pest management situation in the country (see note). Efforts to strengthen national capacity for sound pest management were performed in only 2 projects, but the scope was limited. In at least 2 countries, opportunities to mainstream IPM pilot activities that had been supported by other donors were missed. The study stressed the importance to increase the awareness amongst both Bank and client staff about the objectives and contents of the safeguard. It is vital to consider the implications of pest and pesticide management early in the project preparation and to early seek expert advice on pest and vector management. A high quality of the Environmental Assessment is needed, including a Pest Management Plan that relates to the objective of the project. The national capacity for sound pest management is critical for the country to comply with the safeguard, requiring the Bank to increase its involvement in national capacity building. A phased implementation scheme may facilitate compliance with the safeguard and give time for the national institutional capacity to build up. One problem with the policy is that it does not specify how to monitor and assess compliance. Clear indicators are needed on a case by case basis that take into account differences among countries. Finally, the report discusses the need to "mainstream" the IPM concept with the Bank staff. IPM is seen as a mitigation measure against environmental and health effects of pesticide use and as a constructive approach to reduce rural poverty through increasing farmer revenues in a sustainable manner. Note: Two different versions of the EA Safeguard Policy were applicable to the reviewed projects. OP 4.09 came into effect in 1999; for the 3 projects prepared before that, OP 4.01 was in effect. Source: Youdeowei and others 2002. Although OP 4.09 is implemented through the programmatic approach of the EA, the former's focus on project implementation creates certain constraints. As an example, due to its project-focused approach, OP 4.09 often lacks a long-term perspective. Thus, it is unlikely to lead to sustainable changes to the institutional and economic frameworks that govern crop protection in the client country. Currently, the link between the Bank's safeguard policy requirements and agricultural sector strategies is inadequate. Even though some projects have had difficulties in complying with OP 4.09, examples do exist in which the safeguard has been incorporated in the project design simply and concretely (boxes 4.4 and 4.5). Box 4.4 Project preparation in Timor-Leste The Second Agriculture Rehabilitation Project in the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste includes support to establish Pilot Agriculture Service Centers around the country.* The centers will focus on basic requirements for successful agribusiness enterprises, which might include promotion of inputs such as pesticides. The Project Appraisal Document (PAD) and the Environmental Assessment (EA) clearly delimit the procurement of pesticides according to World Health Organization (WHO) standards. The project also will follow the specific regulation under development in the country to be in line with the recent international conventions on the importation and use of agrochemicals. IPM will be promoted through training governmental and technical staff, who are expected to transfer the information to the farmers through their extension work. *On September 27, 2002, the country officially changed its name from Democratic Republic of East Timor to Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. Source: World Bank 2001b. 32 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Box 4.5 Agricultural input services in India The World Bank Group's International Finance Corporation (IFC) is entering as an equity investor to start up Agricultural Service Centers in rural India together with the project sponsor, the Mahindra group, India's largest farm equipment company. The objective is to increase farm profits by sustainable intensification of the production. Because pesticides will be sold as one of the inputs in the centers, the company has developed a Pesticide Management Policy and a Pesticide Management Manual for the centers, based on IPM and associated practices. A Pest and Pesticide Management unit will be established in the company to assist with implementation of the manual. The manual is to be used as the basis to train staff in IPM practices and to communicate the protective requirements involved with chemical pesticide use. Modifications will be made to ensure high applicability on local target crops and agricultural practices. Even though Indian law allows sales of WHO class Ia and Ib pesticides, the company will phase out retail sales of those pesticides and ensure that sales of class II comply with the policy and manual. International Chemical Safety Cards and safety instructions in English and the local language will accompany all retail sales. The company also will provide training in safe use and handling of pesticides and maintain depository bins for safe disposal and/or recycling pesticide containers at all service stations. Limited experience and technical knowledge in the Bank The complexity of IPM with competing demands from stakeholders does not lend itself to mainstreaming in Bank lending operations but needs commitment from "IPM champions" in the institution. With the decline in lending for agriculture, the Bank has developed a vacuum of in-house technical expertise on agricultural productivity enhancement. Because of the high level of attention to pest and pesticide management outside the Bank, exclusive reliance on consultancy expertise and partnerships with other institutions poses reputational risks. Bank staff currently do not have ready access to unbiased information about IPM solutions and approaches. The opinions of information sources outside the Bank are divided and frequently biased toward a narrow spectrum of specific technical approaches. An additional factor that has prevented mainstreaming IPM in project lending are misperceptions of it caused by the lack of generally accepted definitions and paradigms in a controversial field. IPM does not mean the renunciation of chemical pesticide use nor does it imply the justification of unsustainably high use levels. The notion exists that IPM and modern technological advances such as the ongoing changes in biotechnology research and development and information technology are mutually exclusive investment options. Sometimes, "ownership" of IPM is claimed by advocacy groups in public relations campaigns against agrochemical or GMO use. In other cases, the term IPM has been used by individual companies to promote specific products within existing chemical-based control strategies and to claim compatibility with the IPM paradigm, thus confusing farmers and authorities and causing a devaluation of the IPM concept (Oudejans 1999). Conclusions This review stresses the important role of the World Bank in agricultural policy formulation through its commitment toward a progressive definition of IPM that is in line with the sustainable development debate. In 1998 the safeguard policy on pesticide and pest management was improved, banning the most acutely toxic pesticides from Bank-financed projects. Whenever project activities are likely to induce increased pesticide use or adverse environmental and human health effects, a pest management plan is now mandatory to outline appropriate measures to mitigate risk and train extension personnel and farmers in IPM approaches. World Bank Support to Integrated Pest Management 33 Through its lending operations, the Bank intervenes in all major areas that could influence adoption of IPM, ranging from investing in research of IPM tools, financing the training of farmers and extension workers, and targeting support to national institutions and policy analysis and reform. However, in studying the Bank's Rural portfolio, this review found that only 24 percent of the projects approved in 1999-2001 that potentially could involve pest management activities indicated a focus on IPM. Several Bank projects have included IPM extension, training, and information dissemination activities, but on a limited scale, partially due to the lack of best practice examples within the Bank. Monitoring data and assessment standards for the economic, social, and environmental impacts of farmer IPM training are lacking. As a result, the extent to which project investments contribute to some of the main objectives of Bank projects--income generation and reduction of health and environmental risks--is difficult to assess. In several countries, the Bank has supported IPM research in national agricultural research systems. For example, in India and Latin America, innovative competitive research grant programs were found to have channeled a substantial share of funds into IPM-related research due to the demand-responsive incentives. However, it appears that the demand contributed, to a certain extent, to a retreat toward support of research instead of taking a proactive role in addressing the knowledge and information gap and promoting IPM adoption at the farm level. In many countries, IPM interventions have been planned without a clear view of the problems in pest management based on thorough analysis of the technical, institutional, and socioeconomic constraints. In some cases, they are "add-on" activities in regular project components such as research and extension that tend to be isolated. Projects could benefit from a comprehensive approach to pest management, integrating interventions in a national IPM strategic plan. Simultaneous and coordinated interventions based on identifiable targets and benchmarks are likely to be more effective. IPM should be measured based not only on inputs and activities but also on outcomes and impacts. In hindsight, strategies for mainstreaming IPM in the Bank over the last five years have only partially achieved their objectives. In this regard, the Bank is not alone. The United States General Accounting Office report on agricultural pesticide use and the status of IPM adoption in the US (GAO 2001) identifies severe management impediments that prevented the achievement of the targets set by the U.S. administration.8 The recent move in the Bank toward programmatic lending approaches presents new challenges regarding the sustainability of pest management in client countries. Programmatic lending tends to rely on the capacity of the borrower to solve the technical problems of sector development on its own. The safeguard policy on pest management should address more specifically the deficiencies in the institutional framework and the lack of capacity of client country agencies. Additional tools may be required to assist countries to upgrade their regulatory and economic policies influencing pest management and improve their institutional capacity in research, development, information delivery, and environmental monitoring. 8Among the shortcomings identified were (1) lack of coordination and clearly defined leadership for the IPM program, which has been dispersed over six USAID agencies, universities, and EPA, (2) guidelines for funding "without a clear sense of purpose and priorities," and (3) failure to analyze obstacles to adoption at the farm level. Appendix 1. OP 4.09 in Brief: Main Points of the World Bank's Safeguard Policy on Pest Management Applicability OP 4.09 applies to all Bank-financed activities that affect pest management. It is not restricted to specific lending instruments or sectors. OP 4.09 applies particularly to: q Projects for which pesticides or pesticide application equipment is envisaged, either directly through Bank-financed project components, or indirectly through on-lending, cofinancing, or government counterpart funding. q Projects that affect pest management in a way that could cause harm, even though the project is not envisaged to procure pesticides. Included are projects that (1) may lead to a substantial increase in pesticide use with subsequent increase in health and environmental risks or (2) maintain or expand present pest management practices that are unsustainable, are not based on an IPM approach, and/or pose significant health and environmental risks. Main principle In assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health, the Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use of biological or environmental methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. Main procedural aspects q In Bank-financed projects, the borrower addresses pest and pesticide management issues in the Environmental Assessment. q The borrower prepares a Pest Management Plan (BP 4.01 appendix C) when significant pest management issues exist or when procurement of substantial quantities of pesticides is envisaged. q In appraising a project that involves pest management, the Bank assesses the capacity of the country's regulatory framework and institutions to promote safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management. The assessment includes policies relevant to pest management in order to identify biases toward chemical control that impede IPM. As necessary, the Bank and the borrower incorporate in the project components to strengthen such capacity or to reform policy. Main criteria for pesticide selection and use q The use of pesticides in Bank-financed projects must have negligible adverse human health effects and a minimal effect on nontarget species and the natural environment. q The Bank does not finance formulated products that fall under World Health Organization (WHO) Hazard Class Ia and Ib. WHO Class II products are not acceptable if (1) the country lacks restrictions on their use or (b) they are likely to be used by, or be accessible to, lay persons, farmers, or others without training, equipment, and facilities to handle, store, and apply these products properly. q The Bank requires that any pesticides it finances be manufactured, packaged, labeled, handled, stored, disposed of, and applied according to standards acceptable to the Bank Source: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf 34 Appendix 2. Agrochemical Industry Consolidation, 1983­2002 1983 companies 1999 companies 2002 companies Ciba Dr Maag Sandoz Novartis Diamond Shamrock Velsicol Syngenta Zeneca Stauffer Zeneca ISK Fermenta Monsanto Monsanto Monsanto DuPont DuPont DuPont BASF BASF Shell* BASF Celamerck AHP Cyanamid Bayer Bayer Rhône-Poulenc Union Carbide Bayer Hoechst Aventis Schering FBC Dow Dow AgroSciences Eli Lily Dow AgroSciences Rohm & Haas Rohm & Haas Sumitomo Sumitomo Sumitomo Chevron FMC FMC FMC *Shell US acquired by DuPont. Sources: OECD 2001, amended. 35 Appendix 3. Indicators in IPM Definitions Develop- International agencies Bilateral donor agencies Private ment banks sector Agenda- Indicators 21 Bank D CoC, def.* CoC, def. IPM - GAP- ADB OEC EU SDC GTZ Europe NEDA UNCED CGIAR 2001 Facility USAID Danida CIRAD CropLife World FAO 1989 FAO Global Development IPM International* EUREP Mix of techniques v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Economic factors/ economic and damage v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v threshold levels Minimization/ reduction of pesticide use v v v v v v v v ( v ) Minimization/ reduction of risks to health, environment v v v v v v v v v v v ( v ) Preference for nonchemical measures v v v v v v v v v Selective pesticide use v v ( v ) v v v ( v ) ( v ) Ecosystem management v v v v v v ( v) ( v ) Recognition of farmer knowledge v v ( v) v ( v ) v ( v) ( v) ( v) ( v) v ("participatory") Favoring local solutions ( v ) v ( v ) v ( v) ( v) v ( v) v Sustainability concept (economic, ecological, v v ( v) ( v ) v v ( v) v v v v ( v ) social impact) v = element directly mentioned in IPM definition; ( v ) = element not mentioned in IPM definition, but in related documents. *Currently using FAO's 1989 definition, CropLife International will incorporate the FAO 2001 definition when the new International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides comes into effect. 36 Appendix 4. IPM Strategies of Major Stakeholders Development banks The regional development banks focus on supporting national IPM programs. Only the ADB focuses on IPM policy and strategy in national programs. ADB also was an early supporter of farmer-centered IPM programs in several Asian countries, investing in training at the farm level. AfDB's Environmental Policy emphasizes the importance of natural resource management in the agricultural sector. It supports its commitment to long-term sustainable productivity with strategies to use environmentally safe chemicals and IPM techniques and maximize biological processes to maintain agroecosystems' productivity. IPM was introduced recently in field projects in Malawi and Zimbabwe (Soliman 2001). AfDB has an IPM operational policy similar to that of the World Bank but does not yet have specific guidelines. IDB has a broad operational policy on agriculture that encourages an integrated approach to agricultural development and promotes conservation practices and appropriate protection of ecological systems. IDB supports the development of sound agricultural policies and national strategies, including sectoral planning, with the overall concern to improve food systems. IDB does not have a specific policy to promote IPM; however, IDB regards IPM as a method of best practice and recommends it in specific cases. IDB is cofinancing a project in Ecuador with the World Bank in which IDB funds the strengthening of national institutions while the World Bank supports a demand-driven research scheme through competitive grants. IFAD promotes the availability of enhanced technological options within an IPM approach, for example, host pest resistance and tolerance, and biological control. IFAD currently finances IPM components in projects in East Africa, relying on the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. In Latin America and the Caribbean, IFAD collaborates with CropLife International in projects that promote "safe use of pesticides/IPM." International Organizations FAO has a broad agenda with a strong focus on sustainable agriculture and IPM. FAO is the responsible agency for international conventions such as the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (with UNEP), and other technical guidelines for pesticides. IPM has a central position in the Code of Conduct. Traditionally, FAO also is strong in field-level implementation of IPM programs. FAO has coordinated several regional programs for IPM farmer training in Asia in the last 20 years. FAO has established strong links with national IPM programs initiated by the Global IPM Facility, which is hosted in the FAO facilities in Rome. The Global IPM Facility was cofounded in 1995 by FAO, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. The facility assists governments and NGOs to initiate, develop, and expand national and local IPM programs to reduce pesticides inputs while increasing production and profits. The facility works mainly through Farmer Field Schools, for example, in West Africa, and is adopting the broader view of Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM). At present, the facility is funded by the governments of Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland as well as by FAO and the World Bank. CGIAR is the major international public agricultural research institution. Since 1995, CGIAR's Systemwide Program on IPM (SP-IPM) has coalesced the IPM research activities of the individual centers. SP-IPM focuses on providing new models for interaction among farmers and scientists (see also text section on World Bank corporate-level partnership programs). Collaborative links with a range of 37 38 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies stakeholders including the private sector and NGOs are sought. CGIAR influences international and national research policies. The OECD harmonizes its members' market, trade, and developing country assistance policies and provides member and nonmember states with information and assessment frameworks. OECD sees IPM as one of the most successful methods to reduce the risk of pesticide use. The organization has issued "Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Pest and Pesticide Management" to its member countries. A joint OECD/FAO workshop identified the importance of farmer-driven research and implementation that give farmers concrete, practical support to adopt IPM. The workshop also emphasized creating partnerships and market demand as well as supporting institutional structures and long-term political commitment. It also emphasized providing support for a biological control industry to develop alternatives to chemical pesticides. Bilateral Assistance Agencies EU-Development is responsible for the bilateral development assistance programs of the European Commission (EC). EU-Development supports IPM within many agricultural research and field projects, for example, in Brazil, Central America, and Malawi. EU-Development has developed guidelines for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) concerning pest management and fertilizer projects to support national strategies. IPMEurope was initiated in 1993 to coordinate European support to developing countries for IPM research and field implementation. IPMEurope functions as a supporting facility to its members and the EC. Its focus is to harmonize the IPM policy and strategy development of the development agencies of the EU member states and Norway and Switzerland. The group is gaining increasing support in the European countries for its policy mandate. For example, both Finnida (Finland) and Sida (Sweden) state that they are increasing their reliance on IPMEurope as a resource for strategic guidance on IPM and sustainable agriculture. Some of the agencies work to a large extent directly with developing countries in bilateral programs. USAID has its strongest focus on IPM research. For example, USAID provides 13 percent of the total funding for the CGIAR centers. Through the Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM-CRSP), national research activities are funded as a collaborative effort among US and developing country universities and research institutions. IPM-CRSP also has started training programs in Ecuador, Jamaica, and Uganda, among other countries, and addresses the linkages between farmers and scientists. USAID identifies the future challenges as strengthening IPM research and extension services and increasing the dissemination of information. The French development agency, AfD, commissions its IPM work to CIRAD, which specializes in tropical agriculture. AfD has a strong focus on research and recently has emphasized the farmer-centered perspective. The Dutch development ministry, NEDA, favors an IPM implementation strategy with a strong participatory approach. NEDA is the largest sponsor of the Global IPM Facility, which uses the FFS approach top train extension workers and farmers. The challenges that NEDA identifies for the future are further development of national IPM programs, reform of research and extension to encourage farmer initiatives and involvement of women, reform of policies and practices that support chemical pesticides, and building cooperation among stakeholders. NEDA and DFID have issued a joint policy statement on IPM. DFID gained positive project experience in India, where support to local research and implementation led to reduced pesticide use as well as yield increase in cotton. GTZ has bilateral projects in Ghana, Tanzania, and Thailand that address both regulatory reform and capacity building for institutions implementing IPM field programs. The agencies of the smaller European countries--Danida, Finnida, SDC, Sida--each support a limited number of IPM field projects in developing countries. Appendix 4 39 Private Sector CropLife International recently evolved from being the Global Crop Protection Federation to representing the interests of both crop protection and agricultural biotechnology companies. Most of these companies invest a high amount of their revenue in researching new products. IPM is central to CropLife's agenda. Pilot activities for field implementation, for example, farmer training, are conducted by CropLife and by the individual members. To ensure environmental and human health, the industry issued stewardship programs to promote best practice in manufacture, marketing, use, and disposal of waste. CropLife fully endorses the FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and a requirement for membership in CropLife is that members follow the code. IFAP, the umbrella organization of national farmer associations, is promoting IPM as part of its work on sustainable agriculture and good farming practices. IFAP advocates that the farmers' views are presented in the global discussion on agricultural policies. IPM is considered as one way to reach a sustainable agricultural production. The organization builds the capacity of the national producer organizations to advocate for sustainable environmental and agricultural policies. Nestlé and Unilever are among the most influential global players in the food industry. Recently, the two companies jointly presented a Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, which has a commitment to reduce pesticide application and associated risk and introduce IPM for the raw material supply used by the companies. Unilever is studying parameters for a future certification system as well as performing field trials on low-input agriculture on company-owned estates throughout the world. Nestlé provides IPM training for its coffee growers in South East Asia, who encounter pesticide-resistant pests. Nestlé supports sustainable agricultural practices as a way to ensure high quality in its products. EUREPGAP is an association of the European food retail and supply chain industry that works to harmonize standards in the supply chain. In 2001 EUREPGAP issued "Good Agricultural Practices" (GAP) for fruits and vegetables, which include standards for minimized pesticide use and IPM. A EUREPGAP certification scheme is functioning to ensure transparency and traceability throughout the food chain. Nongovernmental Organizations The most active global NGO working in the field of pest management is the Pesticide Action Network (PAN). The network includes more than 600 regional organizations, institutions, and individuals in more than 60 countries. PAN focuses on influencing international and national policy to reduce pesticide use and increase the use of sustainable and ecological alternatives to chemical pest control. PAN provides decisionmakers, researchers, the media and concerned citizens with independent information; performs target research; and conducts international conferences and workshops on pesticide hazards. WRI is an advocacy organization with a broader environmental agenda. WRI is promoting an increased focus on agrobiodiversity as the way to enable a sustainable agricultural development. IPM is seen as a part of this progress. Rainforest Alliance promotes a certification program for environmentally, socially, and economically sound agricultural production to provide sustainable alternatives to the destruction of rainforest. Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), a certification program, promotes giving farmers incentives to transform tropical agricultural production into a more sustainable and less damaging management 39 40 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies system.9 The program includes IPM as a requested measure. Participating farmers must strictly control the use of any agrochemicals to protect the health and safety of workers, communities, and the environment. 9Formerly called Conservation Agriculture Network (CAN). Appendix 5. Stakeholder Reactions to Trends Influencing IPM Trends in technical development Market trends Policy trends as - - on for tool and food Organizations control part systems quality manage issue IPM industry as farming Farming for trends and control globala developments pest knowledge as intensive new ment IPM of sustainable products Information pest policy Increased involvement stakeholders Biotechnology Biological New by Organic Communicati Technology Demand IPM of agricultural Precision safety Market ADB X X X XXX 0 XX XX 0 0 0 IDB X 0 0 X X 0 X 0 0 0 AfDB 0 0 0 X X 0 X 0 0 0 IFAD XXX XXX X XXX XX 0 0 X XXX XXX OECD XX 0 0 XX 0 0 XXX XXX XXX XXX CGIAR XXX XXX 0 XXX XX 0 XX X XXX XXX FAO XXX XX XX XXX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX Global IPM Facility 0 X 0 XXX 0 XX 0 X XXX XXX EU-Development 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 XX XX NEDA X XX XX XXX 0 XX X XX XXX XXX USAID XXX XXX XX XXX XX XXX XX X XXX XX DFID X XXX XX XXX X XXX X X XXX XXX SDC XX XX XX XXX XX XX X 0 XXX XXX GTZ X XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX XXX XXX AfD/CIRAD XXX XXX 0 XXX XX XX X 0 XXX XX Danida 0 XX X XXX 0 0 X 0 XX X IPMEurope X X 0 XX 0 0 0 0 XXX XXX 41 Trends in technical development Market trends Policy trends as - - on for tool and food Organizations control part systems quality manage issue IPM industry as farming Farming for trends and control globala developments pest knowledge as intensive new ment IPM of sustainable products Information pest policy Increased involvement stakeholders Biotechnology Biological New by Organic Communicati Technology Demand IPM of agricultural Precision safety Market CropLife XXX X XXX XX 0 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX IFAP XXX 0 XX XXX XX XXX XXX XX XX XX Unilever XX XX 0 X XX XX XXX 0 0 XX Nestlé XX XX 0 XX 0 X XXX 0 0 X EUREPGAP 0 X 0 0 0 0 XXX 0 XX XXX Rainforest Alliance 0 XX 0 X X XXX XXX 0 X XXX PAN XX XX XXX XX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX WRI XX XX 0 XX XX XXX 0 0 XXX XXX Note: 0 = not mentioned; X = mentioned in strategy and/or policy document; XX = some concrete experience; XXX = strong support and involvement. 42 Appendix 6. Projects Mentioning IPM in Project Appraisal Documents and Safeguard Policy Rating in in in rating rating No FY Region Country Project Project name Topic IPM PAD 4.09 PAD 4.01 PSR PSR PAD approval ID 4.09 in 4.01 in mentioned OP OP OP OP 1 1999 AFR Cameroon P045348 National Agricultural Extension 1 Y N EA Cat. NA NA and Research Program Support Pr. C 2 1999 AFR Uganda P059127 Agricultural Research 1 Y N EA Cat. NR NR and Training Project (02) C 3 1999 ECA Azerbaijan P035813 Agricultural Development 1 Y Y EA Cat. S S and Credit Project B 4 2000 LCR Peru P047690 Agricultural Research 1 Y N EA Cat. S S and Extension Project C 5 2000 LCR Nicaragua P064915 Agricultural Technology Project 1 Y N N NA NA 6 2000 SAR Bangladesh P058468 Agricultural Services Innovation 1 Y Y EA Cat. S S and Reform Project C 7 2000 EAP Indonesia P059930 Decentralized Agricultural 1 Y N EA Cat. NA NA and Forestry Extension Project C 8 2001 AFR Burkina Faso P035673 Community-Based Rural 1,2 Y Y Y NA NR Development Project 9 2001 AFR Ghana P000968 Agricultural Services Subsector 1,2 Y Y Y NR NR Investment Project 10 2001 AFR Madagascar P051922 MG - Rural Dev. Support Project 1 Y Y Y S S 11 2001 AFR Rwanda P064965 Rural Sector Support Project 1,2 Y Y Y S S 43 in in in rating rating No FY Region Country Project Project name Topic IPM PAD 4.09 PAD 4.01 PSR PSR PAD approval ID 4.09 in 4.01 in mentioned OP OP OP OP 12 2001 AFR Uganda P044695 National Agricultural Advisory 2 Y Y Y S S Services Project 13 2001 MNA Tunisia P005750 Agricultural Support Services Pr. 1,3 Y Y Y NP NP 14 2001 SAR India P067216 Karnataka Watershed 1 Y Y Y NR NR Development Project 15 2001 SAR Pakistan P071092 Northwest Frontier Province On- 1,2 Y NA Y NR S Farm Water Management Project 16 2001 ECA Albania P054736 Agricultural Services Project 1,3 N NA Y S S NP = not yet performed; NA = not applicable; NR = not rated; S = satisfactory. Topics: 1 = "Increased agricultural productivity (including animal husbandry and fisheries)"; 2 = "Sustainable agricultural practices (sustainable use of soil and water)"; 3 = "Agricultural Health, Food Safety and Quality ­ Plant and Animal Disease Control." 44 Appendix 7. Intervention Areas of Projects with IPM Components No FY Country Project ID Project name Scope of IPM intervention Africa 1 1999 Cameroon P045348 National Agricultural Extension Capacity building through training field staff in IPM. and Research Program Support Project 2 1999 Uganda P059127 Second Agricultural Research and Research and extension support regarding IPM through the National Training Project Agricultural Research Organization as well as capacity building by strengthening the organization's efficiency in technology transfer. Europe & Central Asia 3 1999 Azerbaijan P035813 Agricultural Development and Research support by encouraging on-farm experimentation and Credit Project demonstration, for example, IPM practices through a competitive grant scheme. Latin America & the Caribbean 4 2000 Peru P047690 Agricultural Research and Research and extension support, as well as capacity building through Extension Project institutional development and strengthening strategic areas, such as IPM. Within research, the program finances competitive grants; and within extension, trains extension agents and establishes agricultural information systems. Policy reform through coordinating technology policy studies relating to, for instance, biosafety regulations. 5 2000 Nicaragua P064915 Agricultural Technology Project Extension support to promote production enhancement techniques such as IPM. South Asia 6 2000 Bangladesh P058468 Agricultural Services Innovation Extension support to encourage farmers to adopt IPM. Recognition and and Reform Project future support of increased export market values with "environmentally friendly" produce. 45 No FY Country Project ID Project name Scope of IPM intervention East Asia & the Pacific 7 2000 Indonesia P059930 Decentralized Agricultural and Extension support to enhance farmers participatory capacity in the Forestry Extension Project extending, for example, IPM. Capacity building to support the regional and central integrated agricultural and forestry extension services. Policy reform of central extension policy. Africa 8 2001 Burkina Faso P035673 Community-Based Rural Extension and training in IPM is performed in the few cases in which pest Development Project control is recommended. 9 2001 Ghana P000968 Agricultural Services Subsector Capacity building and training of staff at the Plant Protection and Investment Project Regulatory Services Directorate, which is promoting IPM. Strengthening regulatory service by providing adequate laboratory equipment. Policy reform through developing environmental guidelines including IPM and supporting the implementation of the Pesticide Management and Control Act of 1998. Extension support by including IPM guidelines in extension manuals. 10 2001 Madagascar P051922 Rural Development Support Research support of strategic and upstream research, such as IPM. Project Extension support to address targeted problems of soil and water degradation through, for example, conservation efforts and IPM. 11 2001 Rwanda P064965 Rural Sector Support Project Extension support to train 2000-2500 farmers in IPM following the Farmer Field School approach. Capacity building by training staff in the field implementation, monitoring, and compliance with guidelines defined in the Pest Management Plan and the Pest Management Operational Manual. 12 2001 Uganda P044695 National Agricultural Advisory Capacity building through training of input suppliers, farmers, and Services Project advisory service in appropriate use and safe handling of pesticides. Promoting IPM systems and raising the capacity of staff as defined by the Pest Management Plan prepared for the National Agricultural Advisory Services program. Middle East & North Africa 13 2001 Tunisia P005750 Agricultural Support Services Research support through a competitive grant system with emphasis on, Project for example, IPM and biological control. Extension support by training extension staff in IPM methods and promoting IPM among farmers. Capacity building through strengthening pesticide residue and seed testing capacity for plant protection and seed certification system as well as by building links to producer organizations. 46 No FY Country Project ID Project name Scope of IPM intervention South Asia 14 2001 India P067216 Karnataka Watershed Research support through a competitive grant system with focus on IPM. Development Project Extension support by demonstrations and training in IPM to farmers. Capacity building through training extension staff at the Departments of Agriculture and Horticulture to promote IPM and by strengthening disease forecast system and compiling a database of indigenous technical knowledge. 15 2001 Pakistan P071092 Northwest Frontier Province On- Capacity building by acquiring IPM specialist competence at the Farm Water Management Project Extension Department and increasing environmental management and awareness skills, including pest management, through training and technical assistance programs. 16 2001 Albania P054736 Agricultural Services Project No support to IPM mentioned in the PAD since the focus is enhancing national seed production. However, the EA includes IPM as a good practice and encourages the extension service to promote IPM wherever possible. Thus, the inclusion in the Thematic Field TF 1 "Agricultural Health Food Safety and Quality ­ Plant ant Animal Disease Control." 47 Appendix 8. In-depth Study of Projects with IPM Components Approval/ Amount of Percent Region Country Project project funds of project ID Project title project Scope of IPM intervention status to IPM investment (million US$) to IPM Training extension workers, farmer Integrated Pest 1993 trainers, and farmers following FFS Indonesia P004009 Management Training 40* 100 model; applied research contracts East Asia Project Closed 1999 to support field training, regulatory and the reform Pacific Training extension workers and 1994 Vietnam P004837 Agricultural Rehabilitation farmers following the FFS model, Project 2.61 2.4 Closed 1999 implemented through FAO regional IPM program 1998 Technology development, India P035824 Uttar Pradesh Diversified Agriculture Support Project ~13** ~11 demonstration trials, seminars, Active mass media extension South Asia 1998 High share of funds for research, India P010561 National Agricultural Technology Project 9.3*** 3.9*** support to transforming extension Active system Second National 1997 Kenya P001354 Agricultural Research NA NA Support to research support, Sub- Project Active technology generation Saharan Africa Second Agricultural 1999 Uganda P059127 Research and Training NA NA Support to research and Project Active decentralized extension services 1996 Researching and monitoring food Moldova P008556 Agriculture Project ~0.69***** ~3.7 residues, extension of seed Europe and Closed 2001 technology Central Asia Uzbeki- Cotton Sub-Sector 1995 Applied research, dissemination stan P009122 Improvement Project 5.1 6.0 through training, seminars. Support Closed 2001 for regulatory reform 48 Approval/ Amount of Percent Region Country Project project funds of project ID Project title project Scope of IPM intervention status to IPM investment (million US$) to IPM Decentralization of research, 1995 Colombia P006880 Agricultural Technology 3.7 4.4 dissemination through Latin Development Project Active demonstrations, field days, training America sessions and the Support to research through Caribbean 1996 Ecuador P007131 Agricultural Research competitive grant scheme. IPM and Project ~4.24 19 Active organic farming have the highest share * Figures for active projects reflect only funds disbursed, especially in projects with competitive grant components. ** IPM is included as 1of 4 important subcomponents in both Technology Development and Technology Dissemination. Table figures are estimated as 25% of total funds for the 2 components. ***Figure shows only the amount dedicated to IPM research. IPM also is included in the Technology Dissemination component. Share of funds going to IPM is not known. **** Since general funds and funds directed toward IPM were not distinguished, figure shows total funds dedicated to research and extension within agriculture *****IPM received additional support in 2 other project components that together were funded by 66% of the total funds. 49 References ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1994. "Handbook for Incorporation of Integrated Pest Management in Agriculture Projects." Manila. Ahmad, I., and others. 2001. "Policy and Strategy for Rational Use of Pesticides in Pakistan." NARC/FAO, Islamabad. Benbrook, C. 1996. Pest Management at the Crossroads. Yonkers, N.Y.: Consumers Union. Bosso, C. 1987. Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Braun, A., G. Thiele, and M. Fernandez. 2000. "Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-Making in Sustainable Agriculture." AgREN Network Paper 105. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). 2001. "Contributions Made by the CGIAR and Its Partners to Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa." Report for the Midterm Meeting 2001. Durban. Dargie, J. 2002. "Spotlight: Opening the Biotechnology Toolbox." FAO Agriculture 21 Magazine (Mar. 20) . Dent, D. 1996. "Institutional Constraints to IPM." Ed. H. Waibel and J. C. Zadoks. Paper presented at the 13th International Plant Protection Congress, The Hague, 2-7 July, 1995. GTZ/University of Hannover Pesticide Policy Project, Hannover. _____. 1996. ""Research Specialisation: A Constraint to IPM." Ed. H. Waibel and J. C. Zadoks. Paper presented at the 13th International Plant Protection Congress, The Hague, 2-7 July 1995. GTZ/University of Hannover Pesticide Policy Project, Hannover. _____. 1999. "International Biopesticide Consortium for Development." Paper presented at the World Bank, July 1999. CABI Bioscience, Berkshire, U.K. DFID. 1999. Natural Resources Research Award Scheme: Improving Poor People's Livelihoods 1999/2000, 12-13. London. UREPGAP. Official Version 2/Sept. 2001. "EUREPGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables." English version. Cologne. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1999a. "Organic Agriculture." Committee on Agriculture, 15th session, Rome, 25-29 Jan. (last reviewed Mar. 21, 2002). _____. 1999b. "Organic Farming Offers New Opportunities for Farmers Worldwide--Market Access Should Be Improved for Developing Countries." Press release 99/3. (last reviewed Jan. 7, 2002). _____. 2000a. FAOSTAT-Agriculture 2000. . _____. 2000b. "Medium-Term Plan 2002-2007. Priority Areas for Inter-disciplinary Action (PAIAs)." Part 1. (last reviewed Jan. 7, 2002). _____. 2001a. "Progress in the Revision of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides." _____. 2001b. News and Highlights. "Rural Radio ­ Africa's Internet." (last reviewed Dec. 18). 50 References 51 _____. 2002. "Agriculture 21. Agriculture after 11 September." http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0112sp2.htm. Last reviewed March 4, 2002.) Fleischer, G., H. Waibel, and G. Walter-Echols. "Transforming Top-down Agricultural Extension to a Participatory System: A Study of Costs and Prospective Benefits in Egypt." World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department; University of Hannover, Department of Economics, Hannover; and Egyptian-German Integrated Pest Management Project, Cairo. Forthcoming. Gallagher, K. 1999. "Farmer Education for IPM. Sustainable Development." Intl. ed. 1. (last reviewed June 5, 2002). _____. 2002. "Self-Financed Field Schools: Helping Farmers Go Back to School in IPM/IPPM." (last reviewed June 5). Gutierrez, A., and H. Waibel. 2002. "Review of the CGIAR SP-IPM. Report for the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR." University of California-Berkeley and University of Hannover, Department of Economics. Huang, J., S. Rozelle, C. Pray, and Q. Wang. 2002. "Plant Biotechnology in China." Science 295: 674-77. Industrieverband Agrar (IVA). 2000. Annual report of the German Agroindustry Association 1999/2000. Industrieverband Agrar, Frankfurt, Germany. _____. 2002. Annual report of the German Agroindustry Association 2001/2002. Industrieverband Agrar, Frankfurt, Germany. James, B., P. Neuenschwander, R. Markham, P. Anderson, W. Overholt, Z. Khan, K. Makkouk, and A. Emechebe. "Bridging the Gap between the CGIAR Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management" in Integrated Pest Management on the Global Arena, ed. K. M. Maredia and others. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Forthcoming. James, C. 2001a. "Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000." ISAAA Briefs 23: "Preview." International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, N.Y. _____. 2001b. "Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001." ISAAA Briefs 24: Preview." International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, N.Y. Jarvin, P. 2000. "Biopesticides: Trends and Opportunities." "Agrow Reports." PJB Publications Ltd., Richmond, U.K. Kelly, V. A., E. W. Crawford, J. A. Howard, T. Jayne, J. Staatz, and M. W. Weber. 1999. "Toward a Strategy for Improving Agricultural Inputs Markets in Africa." USAID Policy Synthesis Papers 43. Washington, D.C. MacRae, Ian V. 1998. "Site-Specific IPM." Regents of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (last reviewed Mar. 21, 2002. Norton, G. W., and S. M. Swinton. 2001. "Precision Agriculture: Global Prospects and Environmental Implications." In G.H. Peters and P. Pingali, eds., Tomorrow's Agriculture: Incentives, Institutions, Infrastructure and Innovations. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference of Agricultural Economists. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1999. "Report of the OECD/FAO Workshop on Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Risk Reduction." Series on Pesticides 8. OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications, Paris. _____. 2001. Environmental Outlook for the Chemicals Industry. Paris. Oerke, E.-C., H.-W. Dehne, F. Schönbeck, and A. Weber. 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 52 Integrated Pest Management in Development: Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies Oudejans, J. 1999. "Studies on IPM Policy in SE Asia: Two Centuries of Plant Protection in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand." Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University. Quizon, J., G. Feder, and R. Murgai. 2001. "A Note on the Fiscal Sustainability of Agricultural Extension: The Case of the Farmer Field School Approach." Journal of International Agricultural Extension and Education 8 (1). Raman, K. V., E. Grafius, and K. M. Maredia. 2002. "The Influence of Biotechnology on Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries" in Integrated Pest Management on the Global Arena, ed. K. M. Maredia and others. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Forthcoming. Rola, A., J. Quizon, and S. Jamias. 2002. "Do Farmer Field School Graduates Retain and Share What They Learn? An Investigation in Iloilo, Philippines." Journal of International Agricultural Extension and Education: 9:1 pp. 65-76. Schillhorn-Van Veen, T. W. 2000. "Turkmenistan: Crop Protection and Poverty Reduction through Biological Control." Paper presented at the Rural Week 2000, World Bank. Schillhorn-Van Veen, T. W., D. A. Forno, S. Joffe, D. L. Umali-Deininger, and S. Cooke. 1997. Integrated Pest Management: Strategies and Policies for Effective Implementation. World Bank. Soliman, W. 2001. Pers com. Stern, V., M., R. F. Smith,. R. van den Bosch, and K. S. Hagen. 1959. "The Integrated Control Concept." Hilgardia 29: 81-101. ter Weel, P., and H. van der Wulp. 1999. "Participatory Integrated Pest Management." Policy and Best Practice Document 3. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague. UNEP. 2001. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Stockholm, 22-23 May 2001. (last reviewed June 4, 2002). UNEP/FAO. 1998. Final Act of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Convention on the Prior Informed Consent, Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. Rotterdam, 10-11 September 1998. (last reviewed June 4, 2002). USAID. 2001. "Pest Management at USAID: Present Activities and Future Directions." USAID/AFS Background Paper. Draft (Nov. 5). Tozun, N. 2001. "New Policy, Old Patterns. A Survey of IPM in World Bank Projects." Global Pesticide Campaigner 11:1. Pesticide Action Network North America, San Francisco . Van de Fliert, E. 1993. "Integrated Pest Management: Farmer Field Schools Generate Sustainable Practices." Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 93.3. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Waibel, H. 1999. "Evaluation of the Impact of Integrated Pest Management Research at the IARCs." Report presented at the International Centers Week 1999, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Washington, D.C. Wood, S., K. Sebastian, and S. Scherr. 2001. "Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems." IFPRI and World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2001a. Project Appraisal Document, Agricultural Services and Producer Organizations Project, Mali. World Bank. 2001b. Project Appraisal Document, Second Agriculture Rehabilitation Project, East Timor. World Bank. 2002. FY2001 Rural Portfolio Review. Rural Development Department. Washington, D.C. World Bank. 2003. Reaching the Rural Poor. World Bank Sector Strategy. Forthcoming. WRI, UNEP, UNDP, and World Bank. 2001. "Cuba's Agricultural Revolution: A Return to Oxen and Organics" in World Resources 2000-2001. People and Ecosystems: Fraying the Web of Life (last reviewed Mar. 18, 2002). References 53 Youdeowei, A., and H. van der Valk. 2002. "IPM Thematic Review." Report for Africa Region, World Bank. Draft. Yudelman, M., A. Ratta, and D. Nygaard. 1998. "Pest Management and Food Production: Looking to the Future." Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 25. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Yussefi. M., and H. Willer, eds. 2002. Organic Agriculture Worldwide 2002: Statistics and Future Prospects. SOEL: Bad Dürkheim, Germany. Sonderausgabe 74. (last reviewed Apr. 3, 2002). Zeddies, J., R. P. Schaab, P. Neuenschwander, and H. R. Herren. 2001. "Economics of Biological Control of Cassava Mealybug in Africa." Agricultural Economics 24: 209-19. Titles in the Agriculture & Rural Development Working Paper Series= Number 1--Investing in Science for Agriculture & Rural Development in the 21st Century Number 2--No-till Farming for Sustainable Rural Development Number 3--A Road Map from Conventional to No-till Farming Europe & Central Asia Number 4--Food and Agriculture in the Slovak Republic: The Challenges of EU Accession =The first three titles were not numbered at the time of printing, but they do represent the first products in this series.