Overview of FAO Asia Regional IPM Programme

Transcription

1 Overview of FAO Asia Regional IPM Programme By: Dada Abubakar & Jan Ketelaar FAO Regional Vegetable IPM Programme in Asia A Presentation prepared for IPM Presentation, FAO-HQ, Rome, Italy 29 May 2009

2 Outline Presentation 1. Overview: Asia Regional IPM Programme 2. Contributions to Government Priorities, Policy Development and FAO s s Strategic Framework 3. Sustainability, Innovations and Emerging Needs 4. Introduction to Country IPM Programmes

3 Overview: Regional IPM Programme in South and Southeast Asia

4 FAO Regional Vegetable IPM Programme in Asia (Phase II: ) 2009) Focus on Greater Mekong Subregion Funds: US$12 Million Donors: Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Sweden

5 Context and FAO Intervention in Asia Sustainable Intensification of Agricultural Production, Food Safety and Trade Facilitation are major driving forces for government commitment towards pesticide risk reduction and IPM promotion. FAO assists member countries to: - strengthen pesticide policies and regulatory/ enforcement systems; - step-up National IPM Farmer Field School programmes to enable farmers to adopt IPM, reduce pesticide use and grow better yielding, safer and more profitable rice, fruits and vegetables.

6 Case Study: Safe and Profitable Conventional:: toxic pesticide applications/season IPM: : Classical Biocontrol, 1-2 biopesticide applications, if needed IPM Farmers produce high yielding, profitable and safe cabbages, marketed through GAP/food safety programmes Cabbage Production

7 Contributions to Government Priorities, Policy Development and FAO s s Strategic Framework

8 KASAKALIKASAN The Philippine National IPM Programme Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production Trends in Insecticide Use and Frequency of Application in Major Rice Producing Provinces in Central & Southern Luzon, Philippines, P (Rola & Pingali,, 1993; Mataia, Jamora,, Maya & Dawe,, 2009; Warburton, Palis & Pingali,, 1995; Dawe,, 2006; IRRI, 2007)

9 KASAKALIKASAN The Philippine National IPM Programme Sustainable Conservation and Utilization of Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production Increase Yield/ha = 12% Reduction variability of yields across seasons = 15% National Increase rice production = 60% 10.5 MMT (1994) to 16.8 MMT (2007) (Rola & Pingali,, 1993; Mataia, Jamora,, Maya & Dawe,, 2009; Warburton, Palis & Pingali,, 1995; Dawe,, 2006; IRRI, 2007)

10 Farmers Income Increase in Income of Cotton IPM Farmers Farmer Practice $ 1289 IPM Plot US$/ha 2,200 2,000 Increase in Gross Margin of Cotton IPM Farmers + 25% a FFS Farmers $ 1069 $ 526 $1000 $ 819 $1000 1,800 1,600 a a + 10% b b Non-FFS Farmers Control Village Farmers $ 543 $500 $ 470 $500 1,400 1,200 FFS Training Example: Shandong, China Source: NATESC Year Revenue from Sales Production Cost Farmer Income Example: Bangladesh Source: FFS records Source: Walter-Echols, 2002

11 Pesticide Risk Reduction Community education and mobilization Policy development and strengthening legislation and enforcement systems

12 Farmers Health Use of Pesticides by WHO Hazard Class among cotton farmers in Andhra Phradesh, India % of spraying sessions I II III U Not. Ident. Distribution of Severity Index of Pesticide Poisoning by Class and by Year, Andhra Phradesh, India 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: Mancini, 2005 Severe Moderate Mild No

13 Food Safety & Trade Facilitation IPM-FFS integration in GAP/Safe Vegetable Programmes Better market access and trade facilitation

14 Sustainability, Innovations and Emerging Needs

15 Sustainability of FAO interventions Integrated Pest Management now standard approach to crop production and protection in most of Asia Many Asian countries have IPM policy and implement, with own funding, national farmer IPM training programmes and numerous GO, NGOs and donors make use of Farmer Field School training approach Integration of IPM in Vietnam s s One UN Plan-II ( )

16 Innovations New Curriculum/Training Material development Integration of IPM-FFS in GAP/Food Safety and market access programmes Private sector collaborations (seed industry and contract farming business) Application of FFS approaches to System of Rice Intensification, Farmland Biodiversity, Organic Agriculture, etc.

17 Emerging Needs for -and Value of- Regional Collaboration and Added New and Old Transboundary Pest and Diseases (e.g., BPH, Tospo virus/tlc, Brontispa) Strengthening IPM in GAP/Food Safety Programmes Facilitating market access Harnessing food security in rural communities and challenges faced by intensification drive stimulated by high crop commodity prices Engagement with private sector partners, most notably contract farming business Training Quality Control

18 Overview of National IPM Programmes in the Asia Region

19 FAO-IPM Asian Member Countries

20 Bangladesh Operational since: 1996 Implementing agencies: DAE, CDB, BWDB, etc. Partners: International and local NGOs (e.g., CARE, Banchte Sheka,, etc.) FFS implemented: 35,000 Farmers trained: 875,000 (10 % ) Trainers active: 900 Government (1% ); 1,200 Farmers (7% )

21 Cambodia Operational since: 1993 Implementing agency: GDA MAFF Partners: PDAs,, International and local NGOs (e.g., Handicap International, CEDAC, etc.) FFS implemented: >7,500 FFS Farmers trained: 150,000 farmers (30% ) Trainers active: 500 Government (40 % ); 2,700 Farmers (35% )

22 Yunnan and Guangxi, China PR Operational since: 1989 Implementing agency: NATESC MOA Partners: PPS, LGUs FFS implemented: 4,838 Farmers trained: 150,000 (56 % ) Trainers active: 1,170 (52 % )

23 Indonesia Operational since: 1990 Implementing agency: MOA Partners: PDA, International and local NGOs (e.g. TFA, Pedigrea,, etc.) FFS implemented: > 7,500 FFS Farmers trained: > 1,500,000 farmers (30% ) Trainers active: GO 500 (38 % ); farmers 2,700 (35% )

24 Lao PDR Operational since: 1996 Implementing agency: PPC DOA Partners: International and local NGOs (e.g., Oxfam Belgium, CDEA, etc.) FFS implemented: 719 Farmers trained: 22,000 (14% ) Trainers active: 14 (14% )

25 Nepal Operational since: 1997 Implementing agency: PPD DOA Partners: International and local NGOs (e.g., CARITAS, World Education, TITAN, etc.) FFS implemented: 2,623 Farmers trained: 69,207 (60 % ) Trainers active: 1,014 (30 % )

26 Philippines Operational since: 1993 Implementing agency: DA Partners: LGUs,, schools and colleges, Universities, International and local NGOs (e.g., SEARICE, TFA, etc.) FFS implemented: 15,300 Farmers trained: 430,500 (28 % ) Trainers active: 5,360 (43 % )

27 Thailand Operational since: 1999 Implementing agency: DOAE Partners: LGUs,, private sector (e.g., RPF), International and local NGOs (e.g., TFA) FFS implemented: 15,000 Farmers trained: 75,035 (55 % ) Trainers active: 203 (20 % )

28 Vietnam Operational since: 1992 Implementing agency: PPD MARD Partners: Universities, mass organizations, International and local NGOs (e.g., Oxfam, SCF, CARE, World Vision, etc.) FFS implemented: 37,752 Farmers trained: 1,132,654 (40 % ) Trainers active: 2,546 Government (43 % ); 3,585 Farmers (41 % )

29 Testimony of an IPM Farmer KASAKALIKASAN The Philippine National IPM Programme Testimony of Placida delos Reyes.mp4

30 For more Information on FAO s Involvement in IPM Farmer Training in South and Southeast Asia: vegetable-ipm@fao.org Website: