Cleaner Production Alternative: Integrated Pest Management

IPM in Bangladesh IPM in Vietnam Data Vietnam IPM Ongoing Research Key Findings Publications Presentations (Please use the free  Adobe Acrobat Reader to view  PDF files) This research is investigating the comparative economics of Integrated Pest Management and "mainstream", chemical-intensive agriculture in developing countries: Production functions, cost functions, learning curves, health impacts, environmental impacts, and public overhead costs (e.g., agricultural extension). Field research on these topics has been undertaken in Bangladesh and Vietnam, in collaboration with the South and East Asia Environment Units. IPM in Bangladesh In response to rising concern about the sustainability of conventional agriculture, the government has collaborated with international assistance agencies to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM).  IPM has no standard definition, but comprises approaches that range from carefully targeted use of chemical pesticides to biological techniques that use natural parasites and predators to control pests. Bangladesh’s IPM activities began with rice in 1981, and the FAO played a strong catalytic role with government officials and the donor community.  The program provided capacity-building for the Department of Agricultural Extension, introduced Farmer Field Schools, and trained representatives of local NGO’s.  Subsequently, the government and NGOs initiated several IPM projects for rice and vegetables with donor funds. To date, major IPM programs in Bangladesh have included the DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project (BGD/95/003); DAE-DANIDA Strengthening Plant Protection Services (SPPS) Project; Command Area Development Project (CAD); CARE-New Options for Pest Management; CARE-Integrated Rice and Fish Project (INTERFISH); AID-Comilla’s Integrated Pest Management Project; USAID-funded IPM Collaborative Research Support Program; and FAO’s Regional Cotton Project.

Click here to view larger image   Click here to view DVD

At present, the Plant Protection Wing of the DAE is responsible for the implementation of IPM activities.

IPM in Vietnam
In 1989, Vietnam began to participate in the FAO’s Southeast Asia Inter-country Program (ICP) on IPM.  With FAO assistance, the program began with ecosystem studies in rice fields in the North, Central and South of Vietnam from 1990-1991. A national committee was established in 1994 for the National IPM Program (initiated in 1992) at the request of MARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) and included several other ministries and unions.  The Plant Protection Department (PPD) of MARD is responsible for coordinating and implementing Vietnam's National IPM Program, and the Provincial Plant Protection Sub-Departments (PPSDs) currently manage the program at the local level.  Over the past 10 years, with the assistance from the governments of Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Denmark, non-governmental organizations, and local financial resources, a large number of IPM programs on other crops such as vegetables, cotton, tea, soybeans, and groundnuts also have been implemented.  As Table 1 clearly shows, although the growth of IPM training has been quite remarkable, by 1998, the total number of IPM-trained farmers was only 3% of the nearly 11 million farmers in Vietnam.

A national survey of PPSDs on funding sources for IPM training for three seasons ending May 2000 revealed that during that period, 54% of all rice Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and 67% of all IPM follow up activities were locally funded – including funding by NGOs and other donor-funded projects accounted for 10% of the FFS and 3% of follow up activities.

Vietnam IPM - Ongoing Research

The Economics of Integrated Pest Management in Developing Countries:
Experience of Vietnam
Concerns about the sustainability of chemical-based pest control techniques have prompted widespread introduction of integrated pest management (IPM), an ecologically-based approach to control of harmful insects and weeds. Since pest and pest management problems affect most countries similarly, and many externalities are global in scope, IPM is gaining recognition as a global policy issue.

IPM appears to work best when all neighboring farmers practice it.  Externality problems make it difficult for individual farmers to successfully realize the full benefits of IPM.  Without collective adoption, neighbors’ continued reliance on chemicals to kill pests will also kill beneficial parasites and predators, as well as exposing IPM farmers and local ecosystems to chemical spillovers from adjoining fields. From a policy standpoint, successful IPM adoption may therefore depend on the level of institutional support for collective action. However, before any widespread promotion of integrated pest control methods is possible in developing countries, policymakers will require more information and analysis on the effectiveness of alternative methods, productivity, profitability, health and environmental impacts of chemical-based and IPM agriculture (under individual adoption as well as collective action). So far, the lack of data has hindered a full accounting of IPM’s relative impact on farm profitability, health and local ecosystems in developing countries.  

The ongoing research in Vietnam will attempt to close the gap and contribute to the global debate on the comparative economics of IPM and “traditional” agriculture.  The research comprises two parts:

1. an analysis of the proliferation of IPM at the village/hamlet level using secondary data;
2. a farm-level survey analysis to compare the productivity, profitability and health impacts of chemical-based and IPM agriculture (under individual adoption as well as collective action).

Collaborating Institution:             The University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Expected Completion Date:         September, 2007

Key Findings

Profitability of IPM in Bangladesh
IPM offers the prospect of lower production costs and higher profitability for poor farmers since chemical pesticides are expensive.  However, adoption of IPM may reduce profitability if it also lowers overall productivity or induces more intensive use of other production factors.  On the other hand, IPM may actually promote more productive farming by encouraging more skillful use of available resources.  Data scarcity has hindered a full accounting of IPM’s impact on profitability, health and local ecosystems. 

In 2003, a survey was conducted to attempt such an accounting for rice farmers in Bangladesh. Outcomes for farming with IPM and conventional techniques were compared. Results suggested that the productivity of IPM rice farming was not significantly different from conventional farming.  Since IPM reduces pesticide costs with no countervailing loss in production, it appeared to be more profitable than conventional rice farming. Interview results also suggested substantial health and ecological benefits.

Policy implications: Further promotion of IPM for Bangladeshi rice farmers is warranted to yield greater economic, health and environmental benefits for rural communities. However, local adoption of IPM is a collective decision because farmers’ pesticide applications affect their neighbors’ fields as well. Effective promotion strategies should therefore emphasize collective gains from adoption, as well as training of individual farmers in the relevant skills.

Methodology:  Input-use accounting and conventional production function estimation

Publications:

• Is Environmentally-Friendly Agriculture Less Profitable for Farmers? Evidence on Integrated Pest Management in Bangladesh, by Susmita Dasgupta, Craig Meisner, David Wheeler,  World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3417, September 2004.
  • Forthcoming:  "Is Environmentally-Friendly Agriculture Less Profitable for Farmers? Evidence on Integrated Pest Management in Bangladesh", Review of Agricultural Economics.

Presentations:

• Bangladesh Pesticide Health IPM (Powerpoint 196kb)