Memphis, TN27 March 2012

Paul Backman, Penn State University

ObjectivesDiscuss challenges associated with building

capacity for IPM programs in LAC;Discuss different approaches to short- and

long-term training and how these approaches vary according to local conditions

Identify unique challenges associated with training for IPM packages (with an emphasis on integrated)

Describe training efforts for IPM in Latin America and Caribbean Region promoted by a specific project—the IPM CRSP.

IPM and technology diffusionStandard extension models involve training farmers about new

production processes, techniques, etc. The model is one of technology transfer;

IPM is different because it involves knowledge about pests and their life-cycles, can include multiple practices (e.g. IPM packages), multiple disciplines, enhanced decision making—it is knowledge intensive and not easily transferred;

IPM research is often participatory, recognizes farmer needs, and brings farmers into the process—it is a people-intensive process;

However, for IPM to have an impact, widespread adoption has to take place;

Public agricultural extension budgets have been cut and often there are few incentives for private sector involvement;

Conundrum: difficult to train, few agents involved in dissemination, dissemination needed to ensure impact

Solution: innovative diffusion mechanisms

Country examplesTwo countries where IPM research is well-

established: Ecuador and HondurasKey pests/complexes identifiedIPM components testedSome solutions are available, and are being

tested and disseminatedDifferent challenges for short-term training:

Scientist trainingAccess to extension and outreach systemsGenerating buy-inEngagement of women and other stakeholders

ChallengesResearch prioritization (objective): crops (economic

importance versus food security) and pests/diseases Secondary data to identify most important in terms of food

security and exports Stakeholder assessments (producers, extension agents,

scientists) to identify major pest problemsResearch prioritization (subjective): scientist

preferences/training: pet pests/diseasesNeed to resolve differences & possibly build capacity to

address objective prioritiesBuilding collaboration across disciplines: systems

approach versus discipline-centricMoving from laboratories to farmer field experimentsPublications: few incentives to publish in developing-

country institutions

Overcoming the challenges: Short-term trainingScientist training (early in process):

Participatory methods—build stakeholder supportTrain scientists in multi-disciplinary partnerships—

involve pathologists, entomologists, and othersSocial science inputs: (i) prioritize research (according

to objective criteria); (ii) gender training (especially important for IPM and participatory research)

Moving from laboratory science to farmer fields. Bigger problem with university scientists than with NARS scientists

Scientist training (through project):Participation with US scientists on identifying research

themes, designing the research, analysis, and writingInternational short-term training: IPM CRSP has

provided several opportunities, mainly through its global themes

Short-term training for scientistsRegional virus workshop in Honduras,

trichoderma workshop in India, virus workshop in India

Permit CRSP-affiliated scientists to learn state of the art techniques

Low-cost means of building capacityVisits to US universities

Examples: (i) annual visit to Purdue University for work in entomology and weed science; (ii) impact assessment at Virginia Tech; (iii) Penn State

Strengthen long-term linkages Build correspondence between field research and that in

US More likely to publish

Short-term training for project stakeholdersFirst principle is to include stakeholders in research

planning: participation builds ownershipIPM CRSP has evaluated a number of

training/dissemination measuresGeneral lessons:

Farmer field schools are effective, but expensive and generally do not reach many people

Field days are effective (and inexpensive) means of disseminating one or two practices, but not for complete IPM packages

Extension visit are effective, but relatively expensiveMass media can work for simple messages, but not

complex packagesBroad participation by farmer groups in research helps—

training as a form of learning by doingNo “silver bullet”: need to combine methods

Example: Honduras Gender Workshop 22 farmers(14 women and 8 men) from the area around La Esperanza,

Honduras participated in a gender workshop (March 2012). Women and men were split into two groups to perform activities

(using the Harvard Analytical Framework) to identify Activities they performed on a daily basis; Agricultural activities they

performed throughout the year; Resources and benefits they controlled or had access to; IPM technologies they adopted & why or why not; and, Other factors that affected their roles in agriculture and in the household

The IPM-CRSP objective of identifying gendered adoption rates for various technologies was met

Workshop Perspectives The workshop was productive and fairly efficient in obtaining necessary

information in a short amount of time. All of the above tasks were accomplished in approximately 4 hours.

Several more workshops should be completed to obtain information that is more representative of and consistent with Honduran agriculture as a whole.

Workshop approach represents model to simultaneouslu conduct research and disseminate IPM practices to farmers

Short-term training and disseminationDissemination is most effective when private sector

is involvedHonduras: combine IPM training with program to

link farmers to high-valued marketProduce purchaser has incentive to train and

monitorProducer has economic incentive to learn methods

Ecuador: grafted naranjilla is sold by private companyCompany provides technical assistance to ensure

that product (fusarium-resistant naranjilla) is properly managed

Challenges to long-term trainingMismatch between host-country institution needs and

US scientist interests Social sciences—little interest in training economists, gender

specialists, and other among NARS directors US scientists focus their research on US-specific problems and

applicability to developing countries is often difficult to communicate (example: naranjilla research in Ecuador)

Preparation of host-country scientists is limited Language and the TOEFL GREs—challenge to get students who meet US university

standardsExpensive to train degree students at US universities

Sandwich type programs have not been successful in LAC Training at regional (LAC) universities is less expensive, but at

cost of limited linkages with US scientists

SolutionsFocus on US scientists with a commitment

toward service to host-countries (Rachel Melnick, others)

Build pipeline early—identify students and get them prepared; do not be shy about evaluating quality

Build wide pipeline—identify several options for one or two positions

Language training can be built into degree training program

Summary

This presentation was made possible through support provided by the Agriculture Office within the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT) of the U.S. Agency for International Development, under the terms of the Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP) (Award No. EPP-A-00-04-00016-00). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.