Click on these links to download this fact-sheet, formatted for colour
printing:
page
1 [121 Kb] page
2 [146 kb] (Adobe Acrobat Reader
required)
Agricultural intensification in the last half of the 20th century has resulted in the loss of biodiversity, degradation of soils, and the pollution of waterways. In light of this devastating impact on rural communities and the environment, further development of agriculture in the 21st century must involve approaches that preserve and restore natural resources and local communities. A revolution in the way rural people think about their local environment is crucial. An understanding of native ecological and biological systems is pertinent for this transformation of rural thinking. This knowledge provides rural communities with a basis for making management decisions and performing activities that are sustainable and productive. Community IPM has been facilitating such a transformation across Asia since 1980.
With funding from Australia and the Netherlands, the FAO Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Asia program was initiated in 12 South East Asian Countries in response to the growing awareness of the dangerous impacts pesticides were having on the ecosystem and on health.
This program was inspired by the shortcomings of the Green Revolution, the principle target of which was to increase rice production with high yielding varieties (HYV). These rice varieties, however, came as part of a 'miracle seed' package containing the improved seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. Farmers were obliged to adopt the whole package that inevitably meant that farmers embraced a calendar application of pesticides. Pesticides are perceived to:
 | Disregard farmers' lives and health; |
| Symbolise the greed, exploitation and hypocrisy of chemical companies; |
| Be 'anti-ecology' in that many are general biocides that kill everything with a nervous system; |
| Allow corporations to capture benefits, while hazards, environmental damage, and costs are 'socialised' among farmers and the public; |
| Present a major threat to food security by causing widespread insect damage. |
Of particular concern was the destruction of the natural balance in rice fields leading to epidemic outbreaks. Nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than for the Brown Plant hopper in rice. In Indonesia, the destruction of thousands of hectares of paddy rice as a result of pesticide-induced outbreaks of the Brown Plant Hopper contributed to food shortages.
IPM is based on an experiential learning approach encapsulated in the Farmer Field School (FFS). The FFS is a learning process for groups of farmers during which they discover the ecological relationship between pests, natural enemies and other factors affecting the heath of their crop, thus enabling them to make more efficient and healthier crop management decisions. The rice field is used as the 'FFS book' providing all the information that is needed for the learning process. Farmer Field School Basics:
| FFS is field based and lasts for a full cropping season |
| FFS educational methods are experiential, participatory, and learner centred |
| Each FFS includes at least 3 activities: the agro-ecosystem analysis, a 'special topic', and a group dynamics activity |
| In every FFS participants conduct a study comparing IPM with non-IPM treated plots |
| Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in a FFS. Participants learn together in small groups of five to maximise participation. |
| Preparation meetings precede a FFS to determine local needs, and concluding meetings to organise 'follow-up' activities |
Farmers trained in Community IPM grow healthier crops and minimise constraints, such as those imposed by pests, through a better understanding of how their management decisions affect the ecology of their fields. Armed with this knowledge, IPM farmers become better managers and...
| reduce their dependence on agro-chemicals |
| reduce costs of production and increase their incomes |
| stabilise their yields |
| safeguard their health |
| protect the environment |
The FFS has ignited millions of farmers' self-confidence across Asia and set them on a path of continued learning and collective action to improve their livelihoods.
Now in its forth phase, Community IPM involves farmers organising and implementing their own IPM activities. These farmers become the instigators of local agricultural development rather than the recipients. Community IPM is based on group action, which uses agro-ecological concepts to analyse problems, carry out experiments, conduct training for other farmers, protect the health of the community and mobilise support from government agencies and the public.
Community IPM emerged from training programs that used the FFS approach. Across Asia, the graduates of FFS have decided to plan and manage 'follow-up' activities involving three interrelated elements:
| training and learning processes |
| experimentation and knowledge-generation |
| organising and group development |
Together, these elements enable farmers to "stand on their own and think for themselves...to do their own field observations, make their own discoveries, make their own decisions, and take action on their own". (quote from an IPM Farmer-Trainer in Indonesia)
| farmers are conducting FFSs for other farmers |
| IPM is being incorporated into the curriculum of local schools |
| Field studies are organised and implemented by groups of FFS graduates |
| Action research facilities, involving a number of studies are being carried out by IPM farmers over a number of cropping seasons |
| IPM farmer groups, associations and congresses have been organised by FFS graduates |
| advocacy and efforts to mobilise funding from local government in support of community action has been organised by IPM farmers |
As part of these community-based activities, IPM often encompasses a number of agro-ecological concerns (bio-control, soils, and seeds) and different social groups (men, women farmers, school children the disabled). Acknowledging that women perform over 50% of the labour involved in intensive rice cultivation in Asia, Community IPM has endeavoured to include women in the implementation and planning of IPM. In China for example, FFS and training of farmers as trainers have been specifically designed for women, with evident benefits in fitting the group's activities to women's timetables and education level, and avoiding male dominance. Greater emphasis is needed on educating women about pesticide poisoning, as in some countries like Cambodia and Vietnam, it is often the women doing the spraying.
During the course of its development, FAO's Community IPM program has covered all the main rice producing developing countries of East, Southern and South East Asia (with the exception of PDR Korea and Myanmar). In Indonesia, Vietnam and parts of Bangladesh the majority of rice producers in the major rice growing areas have now been directly or indirectly reached through the IPM FFS. 83% of all Vietnam's rice growing villages have had at least one rice FFS
Farmer self-surveillance on the incidence of poisoning has been included into some FFSs. The primary purpose of which is education, but also to generate valuable data. This data is shared among farmer groups and with local health authorities to ensure a first-hand understanding of the health effects of pesticides among the community.
This health component designed to integrate human issues into the IPM ecological paradigm, also includes two other components: farmer-to-farmer health studies and school children health studies. These studies include 5 surveys that farmers conduct among themselves:
| signs and symptoms of poisoning |
| classification of the pesticides used by brand and common name, hazard level, and chemical family |
| quantification of yearly spray frequency, total litres of pesticide solution exposure, and numbers of pesticide per tank |
| observation of pesticide exposure and protection used during spraying |
| observation of community pesticide storage and disposal practices |
A survey done on farmers' perception of pesticides in Cambodia revealed that farmers believed pesticides made their crops look healthy and therefore increased its market price. Many thought that they had no choice because the risk of not spraying and possibly losing the crop to pests far outweighed the risk of being poisoned. However, those that have attended IPM classes have uniformly enjoyed the surveys and feel they learn a tremendous amount:
"I always knew pesticides were bad for my health but now I know for sure and what the real effects are."
There is also evidence that trained farmers experience fewer instances of acute or chronic poisoning and that they rely more on cultural practices and the management of natural enemies to control rice pests.
The FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia maintains the following site: www.communityipm.org The site contains many documents and useful links.
The FAO programme staff can be contacted at: communityipm@attglobal.net