¾ ɺ - ñ -²õ Á ½ ö ½ ¾ Ã ì¾ Lao National IPM Programme  ¾ ɺ ñ ²õ Á ½ ö ½ ¾ Ã ì¾ Lao National IPM Programme IPM in the LAO PDR In a Farmer Field School, the school is in the field! Wet-Season production brings much higher prices Contact Information: FAO-IPM, Plant Protection Centre, Salakham, Box 1640, Vientiane, Lao PDR Tel: (021) 812142 Fax: (021) 812130 E-mail: ipmlaos@laotel.com Lao National IPM Programme, DOA, Salakham PPC, Vientiane, Lao PDR Tel/Fax: (021) 812 090 E-mail: ipmlaoprogramme@live.com FAO Inter-Country Programme to Strengthen IPM Training and Sustain IPM Practices among Vegetable Farmers in South and Southeast Asia http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/countries/laos.htm FAO Inter-Country Programme to Strengthen IPM Training and Sustain IPM Practices among Vegetable Farmers in South and Southeast Asia http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/countries/laos.htm
Provinces with IPM work in the past Provinces with IPM program work on-going
Often, Shortcuts Won t Get You There People often tend to look for the easy answer. Farmers want a miracle seed, or a pesticide with fast, visible results. Technicians want a simple technology package, trainers a short workshop, and governments to scale-up quickly. This is often a criticism of IPM program approaches. Farmers don t see dead insects, or the crops are not green enough. Government agencies balk at fourmonth, residential trainings, and experts want to lecture rather than to guide. Quality IPM technical methods require deeper analysis and understanding, A Farmer Forum on Tomato Economic Studies and quality IPM training requires more invest-ment and time. Many shortcuts and substitutes have been tried, including five-day train-ing of trainers, IPM commercial products, Integrated Farmer Field Schools, and the like. Although these may occasionally be of some benefit, they nearly always miss the larger objectives. Learning by doing, and seeing is believing are terms often heard in IPM activities. If the goal is to really learn about growing a healthy and safe crop, then a crop must be grown. This can t be rushed. It takes an entire season. Through such intensive, hands-on exploration and analysis, participants not only learn a great deal more, they believe it as well, and consequently have the skills and confidence to apply it. And most importantly, they can learn the experimental and analytical skills to continue learning long after the activity itself is complete. Shortcuts can t do that. 8 Seeing is Believing The IPM Programme in the Lao PDR: A Brief Background Of all FAO activities in the Lao People s Democratic Republic, the IPM Programme is the longest, works in the widest geographical area, and has reached the most farmers through direct field training activities. The Lao Government joined the FAO Regional Vegetable IPM Programme at its onset in 1996. With substantial government support and a strong National IPM team, IPM activities in the Lao PDR quickly expanded to nine provinces: Attapeu, Champasak, Salavan, Savannakhet, Khammouane, Boulikhamxai, Vientiane Capital, Vientiane and Luang Phabang. Recently, IPM and pesticide risk reduction training started in two new provinces: Saiyabouly and Xiengkhouang (see map). The farmer education program was initially implemented by the Agriculture Extension Agency, Department of Agriculture. With the re-organization of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2000, the National IPM Programme underwent several subsequent leadership changes and was institutional moved to the newly established National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service in 2001. Subsequently, the programme was transferred back to the Department Of Agriculture in 2005 and is now being implemented by its Plant Protection Centre in Salakham. The Farmers Field School (FFS) approach is promoted and used to train farmers in the production of healthy and safe food, with minimum and more efficient use of agro-chemical inputs. Training initially focused on rice, reflecting the crop s vital importance to the country, as well as its relative advantages in building initial program capacity. From 1999 onwards, training expanded to cover IPM in vegetables and fruits. Pesticide Risk Reduction training features heavily in the revised and fortified IPM-FFS curriculum. To date, over 220 vegetable and 570 rice Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been conducted through the program, with each involving up to 30 farmers in season-long training activities. A total of 23,563 farmers have benefitted from participation in these schools. In addition to Farmer Field Schools, many other field research and training exercises have addressed soil ecology, prevalent insect pests and diseases, field support functions, and off-season vegetable production. Through intensive Training of Trainers courses, over 150 Government 1
Officials and Farmer Trainers have been equipped to facilitate field training activities. Further Farmer Field Schools and field work has been accomplished through the collaboration and support of other initiatives, including those supported by several NGOs and other donors (e.g. GAPE/DANIDA, BUCAP/SEARICE, CIDSE, the International Labour Organisation, the DIDM, Phonsouang Agriculture Development Center, Oxfam Solidarity-Belgium and CDEA). Overall Programme Goals To support Lao farmers in developing the skills and capacities needed to increase agricultural productivity and food security in a sustainable, equitable and environmentally sound manner. To eliminate the distribution and use of hazardous and persistent agrochemicals through IPM farmer training in conjunction with better access/utilization of alternative pest management options. To assist the Lao Government to build capacity in designing, managing and supporting training, farmer education, and field research activities involving smallholder vegetable and fruit farmers aimed at pesticide risk reduction. To increase the involvement of local government and partner agencies in the financial, programmatic and field-level backing of these activities. To expand and extend field activities by and with farmers both in current program areas, and in additional provinces and cropping systems. To assist the Lao Government in development of appropriate pest and pesticide management policies and associated regulatory systems. A Look to the Future Along with its many accomplishments, the Lao IPM program, as any longerterm capacity building effort, has faced difficulties to maintain momentum and government support. In addition, trained field staff is often transferred or promoted reducing field training capacity. Unique characteristics of agriculture in the Lao PDR, such as extensive subsistence farming and widely varied cropping systems, pose challenges to continuing program development. Most notably, the rising number and diversity of contract and concession farming schemes and associated increase in use of agro-chemicals in recent years requires new modes of operandi and engagement with a multitude of private and public sector stakeholders. Briefly described, future program priorities and directions include: Re-establish program implementation and management capacity at the central level, and increase policy support. Increase the role of farmers themselves in the design, planning, implementation and ownership of field activities. Expanding involvement of Farmer Trainers in facilitating field training. Greater focus on farmer-led and innovative activities continuing after the completion of initial Farmer Field Schools. Explore functional engagement with the private sector and proper public sector oversight aimed at addressing pesticide risks in contract and concession farming schemes. Promoting involvement of additional agencies in program support and implementation, including effective coordination among these agencies. Strengthening technical and training capabilities among field staff. Improving systems for FFS planning, financial management and reporting, at national, provincial and district levels. Continue farmer training on the use of biological control agents, with possible field-level production. Fortify the FFS curriculum to promote Good Agricultural Practices and pesticide risk reduction. Continue to educate consumers on the negative effects of pesticides on health and environment through awareness raising activities. 2 7
IPM and Pesticides It is often said that IPM means no chemicals, but this is not wholly true. Just as the body may occasionally need medicine, so might chemicals sometimes be the only viable option for a specific problem. But two points bear noting: First, prevention is better than cure. Like a healthy body, a robust ecosystem is far more equipped to defend itself. (This is why Grow a healthy crop is the first principle of IPM!) Further, pesticides upset the ecosystem s balance, killing beneficial insects as well as pests. (Preserve natural enemies is another IPM principle!) The weakened ecosystem often results in a resurgence of the harmful pest in even greater numbers, and a slide into the pesticide treadmill, much as the addict needs more and more drugs. Second, farmers themselves must make the decisions, not company representatives with sales quotas, not researchers in distant stations, and not extension agents who can only visit infrequently. Only farmers are able to constantly monitor and analyse the day to day changes in their fields, and weigh their observations against other variables such as input costs, risks, market demands, and the like. (A third principle is Visit fields regularly!) As a result, IPM training programs are designed to support farmers in acquiring the skills and confidence they need to analyse their crops and make the decisions to maximise their own benefits. (The last principle is Farmers become experts!) In sum, although IPM usually results in significant reductions in pesticide use, the approach is not strictly anti-pesticide, but rather pro-farmer. Further, in a world of increasing consumer awareness and trade regulation, a Farmer Field School can serve as an effective step toward conversion to chemical-free or organic production. Finally, a case study on pesticide use conducted by the Lao IPM Programme in 2003 included two major conclusions, most relevant still today: Although most current efforts are not actively supporting it, mainstream models of agricultural development and increasing market-orientation are leading to substantial growth in pesticide use. Almost universally, farmers stated they use pesticides because they know of no other options, but would very much like to learn about effective and sustainable alternatives. What is IPM? IPM stands for Integrated Pest Management, but it is often also known as Integrated Pest and Production Management (IPPM), and/or Integrated Crop Management (ICM). A farmer explains his production skills to government officials IPM began as a method of pest management, or the integrated use of ecological, cultural, biological and, if necessary, chemical control practices. It soon became clear, however, that these methods would not work through top-down extension and technology transfer systems. Farmers must be experts in managing their own crops. Hence, programs broadened to include experienced-based and learner-centred activities such as Farmer Field Schools as well, and IPM also became known as an approach to farmer education. Once farmers became involved in the work, they led an expansion of program content, including other aspects of crop management, such as soil fertility, variety testing, postharvest practices, organic production, and much more. In some countries, IPM programs have led to farmer groups and networks addressing issues beyond the fields, including marketing, local development and production of biological agents, school IPM, livestock, and HIV-AIDS. In these cases, IPM work has become a means to farmer empowerment. In sum, IPM has come to mean many things, depending on local conditions, needs, interests and initiative. 6 3
What is a Farmer Field School? In a Farmer Field School, the school is the field itself. Each week for an entire cropping season from soil preparation to harvest, some 20 to 30 women and men meet to study all aspects of the crop s ecosystem, from the plant s development, to soil conditions, to pest problems, and how these are related. Together, the group analyses their findings, and decides what crop management practices should be taken. Although facilitators help guide the process, the real teachers are other farmers, and the crop itself. Farmer Field Schools also include other activities such as field studies to compare seed varieties or fertilisers, and insect zoos to study the life cycles and relationships of pests and natural enemies. Special topics can address issues ranging from problematic pests and plant morphology, to soil nutrients and non-formal education. The central strategy must always be learning-by-doing, with focus on a single means of local livelihood. Attempts have been made to incorporate many different topics (livestock, fruit trees, vegetables, etc.) into a single FFS, but results are usually quite limited, as the approach shifts from one of hands-on, farmer-led learning, to top-down instruction and technology transfer. Regular field monitoring is a key, rain or shine! However, given these principles, the content of a Farmer Field School can go as far as participants curiosity and creativity take them. Common benefits of a Farmer Field School include: More effective and reduced use of external inputs, coupled with equal and often increased levels of production, resulting in significantly lower dependence on agricultural chemicals and substantially higher profits. Cropping systems more appropriate to local conditions which maximise the use and conservation of existing resources, resulting in more environmentally sound and economically sustainable agricultural practices. Increased self-reliance and confidence among farmers, often leading to continuing, innovative and diverse activities in the agronomic, economic, organisational and social spheres. Government Policy and IPM Indisputably, agriculture is and will remain the backbone of the Lao PDR for the foreseeable future, with nearly 90 percent of the population directly dependent on it. As such, Lao Government policy focuses heavily on the development of this vital sector with greater emphasis on reduction of agrochemicals input in Lao agriculture production and promotion of production of healthy and safe food for both domestic and international markets. Food security & safety, commodity production, eradication of shifting cultivation and sustainable forest management are key aspects of government policy. Participatory, bottom-up planning and implementation, are advocated as key strategies to realise these policy objectives, along with emphasis on human resource development, and capacity-building for responsive, and demand-driven agriculture extension. An effective IPM training program is ideally suited to significantly and directly contribute to each one of these goals and strategies. Particularly relevant are program emphases on increasing productivity and product quality, resource optimization, economic and environmental sustainability, participation and farmer-centred action, staff training and local capacity-building. Vegetable Disease Identification and Management Workshop Realising these strengths as an approach to farmer education as well as crop protection, and in recognition of the importance of IPM and farmer education for human resource development in Lao PDR, the Lao Government provides co-funding for program implementation as part of the five year development plan and budget starting from 2006 onwards. 4 5