1.   An Overview

For the last 10 years, IPM training programmes in Asia have been pursuing multiple objectives with considerable success. Farmer empowerment, the conservation of biodiversity, food security, community education, the protection of human health and policy reform have all been explicit part of these programmes. These multiple objectives have arisen from a growing recognition - among governments, NGOs, donors and farmers themselves - of the interdependence of different aspects of development, and the need to put people at the center of the development process. 

These same concerns have given rise to the concept of 'sustainable livelihoods'. Although IPM training programmes were being implemented prior to the widespread use of livelihoods terminology, the current concept of sustainable livelihoods accurately describes what is going on in these programmes. Within a Community IPM programme participatory approaches (including farmer-to-farmer training, action research and policy dialogue) are being used to transform a range of assets (including natural, human and social capital) into a number of livelihood outcomes (including security of incomes, food supplies and health, and improvements in rural civil society). 

The benefits of IPM training are often surprising to newcomers who expect these programmes to be narrowly focused on technical aspects of pest management. What they soon discover, however, is that pest management provides a practical and effective starting point for the study of ecology, and the process of learning about ecology leads to a transformation in the way people think about their world. It is this transformation which opens the door for all kinds of development. One person who made this discovery was Mochtar Lubis, the award-winning author and activist, who wrote:

"never in my wildest dreams did I think that a program about 'bugs' would bring the dawn of democracy and liberation to Indonesian villages"

Unlike some approaches to community development, IPM programmes do not start with a blank page. IPM programmes start with the assumption that most farmers are interested in pest management and many of them are misusing chemical pesticides. This is the context in which Farmer Field Schools (FFS) are organized. These schools have many standard features because they have proven to be successful in: a) producing an immediate beneficial impact on farming practices in a wide range of circumstances, and b) in developing critical thinking among the participants. 

In the later respect the IPM Field School is similar to the concientization training developed by Paulo Friere in Latin America. This is different, however, to those projects which start with a participatory analysis of assets; based on this analysis, livelihood strategies are developed which are specific to each location. This kind of analysis is a crucial part of Community IPM programmes but it takes place during or after the Field School, when farmers have gained the knowledge and skills which will enable them to participate in the process more effectively. In fact, as a result of good IPM training, farmers do not simply participate in the design of local strategies, they often own and manage local programmes of activities which promote and protect a healthier, more efficient and sustainable approach to agriculture.