Comparison of Food security and Agriculture Sustainability in Nepal – Adopters of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) verses Non-adopters

Amir PoudelGraduate Student

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)- IPM is a system that controls pests and contributes to long-term sustainability by minimizing the

risks of pesticides to human health and the environment (Sorensen, 1994).

- Uses local resources and knowledge

Background

Farmers’ Field School (FFS)FFS are schools where Integrated Pest Management technology is taught to the farmers

IPM in Nepal

National plant protection strategy of Nepal since 1997 implemented in 64 out of 75 districts. In only 2006/07 400 total (221 for vegetables, 131 for rice, 48 for coffee and rest for other crops)

Pesticide Use in Nepal (1999-2006)

0

50000

100000

150000

Year

Acti

ve I

ng

red

ien

t (i

n K

g)

Insecticides 43464.55 62438.88 60323.94 60390.66 85610.9 35356.24 65001.9 46553.34

Fungicides 54530.66 102773 75444.88 90570.36 55199 97036 47702 74368.45

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

- Usage of already banned pesticides such as DDT in Nepal- Significant use of other pesticides in areas nearby cities poses greatest risk to public health- Economic cost associated with pesticide and fertilizer uses is high

Pesticide Use in Nepal

Research objectives

• to study the level of reduction in input of chemical pesticides and fertilizers due to IPM• to investigate the effect of IPM adoption on household food security

• to investigate the contribution of IPM on agricultural sustainability

Methodology

District selection

Household section

Consultation with local stakeholdersReview

Household survey

+

•Government publication•Study reports•District profile•Other publication

•Kavrepalanchok•Bhaktapur•Chitwan•Kaski•Kanchanpur

•Civil Society Organization (NGOs, Academic, INGOs etc)•Community based organization•Youth clubs•Local leaders

IPM Adapters (160)Non – Adapters (157)

Data Collection Data Analysis

Before and AfterWith and Without

Reporting

PRA and RRA

Semi-structured InterviewSeasonal calendar

Sharing of the results

Study findings – Socio-economic

EXPENDITURE IN AGRICULTURE : Average annual expenditure on agriculture for non-adapters ($661.56 ) is higher than adapters ($ 420.03).

EXPENDITURE IN PESTICDES : Adapters spend nearly 3.2 times lesser than non-adapters

EXPENDITURE IN EDUCATION: Adapters spend 1.7 more on education of family members than non-adapters

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Qua

ntit

y (m

l/mg)

/ha

Before After Before After Before After Before After

Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide Micro-nutrients

Pesticide type

Reduction of 92.90 percent in Oilseed, 95.83 percent in potato, 90.20 in other vegetables and 82.22 percent in wheat after adapting the technology

Non-adapters used more pesticides than adapters: 95.84 percent more for paddy, 86.63 more for potato and 80.86 more for other vegetables

Pesticide use

Response Total Percentage

Decreased 126 91.97

Increased 1 0.73

No Change 4 2.92

Stopped 3 2.19

Grand Total 134 97.81

Change in pesticide use (Subjective)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Quantity (Kg)

Maize Oilseed Paddy Potato Vegetable Wheat

Crops

Average application of NPK (Kg/ha)

Adaptor

Non-adaptor

Food security

Food Availability and sufficiency

• Adapters reported increase in the production of agricultural commodities which increased the quantity of food availability to households

• Number of food available months from self production was nearly same between adapters and non-adapters

• Adapters reported increase in the number of food available months but the change was not remarkable

Food access

• Both adapters and non-adapters have easier access to food• Majority of the samples belonged to upper caste households who have better income, asset

value and near proximity to market • Average distance to nearest road was 250 meters – better access to food

Food Utilization

- Among the three aspects of food security considered, IPM had slightly more positive impact on the food utilization aspect- Adapters have better nutrition distribution for children and pregnant women in the household compared to non-adapters- Adapters took more variety of food products for lunch and dinner during both summer and winter compared to non-adapters- Adapters were more aware in the need to produce better quality food products compared to non-adapter

Improved quality of water consumption after adoption Number Percentage

Absent 32 22.86

Present 108 77.14

Total 140 100.00

Indoor air pollution after adaptation Adapter %

Absent 108 76.60

Present 33 23.40

Grand Total 141 100

Social impactsIncreased social networking due to IPM Number  Percent

Not Observed 43 30.71

Observed 97 69.29

Total 140 100.00

Increased decision making power due to IPM Number  Percent

Not observed 17 11.49

Observed 131 88.51

 Total 148 100.00

Type of membership

Non-adapter % Adapter %

Executive 25 17.8 83 34.3

General 115 82.1 159 65.7

Total 140 100 242 100

Increased Employment Number Percentage

Not Observed 72 49.7

Observed 73 50.3

Grand Total 145 100.0

Agricultural Sustainability

Ecological – reduced use of chemicals during farming enhanced the status of agro-biodiversity of the farming communities

Economic: Increased production after adoption, no significant changes in the income from agriculture, enhanced socio-economic status

Social and political : Increased level of social networking, increased decision making capacity esp. of women, increased employment opportunities, wider political acceptance of the programs (64/75 distrits of Nepal)

Agricultural Sustainabilit

y

Ecological

Economic Social and political

Agricultural sustainability was assessed on the basis of the model postulated by (Cernea, 1991) and (DFID, 2002)

Conclusion

• Adapters significantly reduced the quantity of pesticide and fertilizer use after switching to the technology

• Households reported satisfaction with the agricultural practice upon adapting the technology

• IPM had several positive impacts on the food security situation of the households especially on the food utilization aspect

• Economic costs associated with agricultural production was decreased after adoption• IPM positively contributed to the social development of the adapters• Sustainable agriculture was being practiced by the adapters of the technology

Recommendation

• The IPM program should be replicated in many other places of the country and the region

• Access of the IPM to ethnic minority and socially deprived population should be addressed properly

Sampling was not possible in the Eastern development region (EDR) of the country due to political unrest

Household selection depended upon households with FFS (which mainly included areas with highest usage of chemical pesticides)

Limitation of the study

IPM

Health benefits from reduced exposure to chemicals

Positive impact on agro-biodiversity

Healthier food production system

Use of local resources and knowledge

Increased demand for adoption

IPM in CLF Model

Acknowledgement

• Dr. Birendra B. Basnyat• Dr. Shannon Doccy• Dr. Eileen Mcgurty• Dr. David Elbert• NARMA CONSULTANCY Pvt. Ltd• Other friends, colleagues and organizations who directly and

indirectly helped the research

Thank you

Questions ?

Accompanying slides

Crop

Average Quantity ((mg/ml)/ ha

% changeBefore After

Maize 423.75 461.25 8.85

Oilseed 1901.25 135.00 92.90

Paddy 12087.95 8282.41 31.48

Potato 304959.4 12724.55 95.83

Vegetable 676640.6 66279.50 90.20

Wheat 8438.7 1500.60 82.22

Crop 

Average quantity (mg/ml)/ha

Non-adapters Adopters

Maize 209.37 230.62

Millet 150.00 0

Mustard 73.75 33.75

Paddy 3209.6 133.58

Potato 2505.38 334.85

Vegetable 3763.34 720.42

Wheat 396.24 500.20

Available months

Non-adapters  % Adapters %

<3 4 2.55 0 0

3-6 30 19.11 22 14.86

6-9 9 5.73 20 13.51

> 9 114 72.61 106 71.62

Grand Total 157 100.00 148 100

Food sufficiency

Before IPM After IPM

Number % Number %

3-6 months 34 23.29 22 14.86

6-9 months 23 15.75 20 13.51

>9 months 89 60.96 106 71.62

Grand Total 146 100  148 100

WinterNutrients

Non-adapters % Adapters %

Carbohydrates 120 34.1 120 32.8

Fat 79 22.5 65 17.8

Minerals and Vitamins 82 23.3 80 21.9

Protein 70 19.9 100 27.4

Total 351 100 365 100

Summer nutrients

Non-adapters % Adapters %

Carbohydrates 100 45.4 120 32.1

Fat 40 18.1 48 12.8

Protein 60 27.2 110 29.4

Vitamin and Minerals 20 9.0 95 25.4

Grand Total 220 100.0 373 100

Extra nutrition for children Non-adapters Adapters

Number Percent Number Percent

Absent 157 89.20 124 82.12

Present 19 10.80 27 17.88

Grand Total 176 100.00 151 100.00

Extra nutrition for pregnant women Number Percent Number Percent

Absent 162 92.05 129 84.87

Present 14 7.95 23 15.13

Grand Total 176 100.00 152 100.00