Since the seminal paper by Stern et al (1959), numerous definitions of IPM have been proposed with the emphasis variously placed on making use of natural control mechanisms (including biological control), on reducing the risks associated with chemical pesticides, on pest and disease monitoring and on the economic threshold concept. Many of these definitions relate to the particular experiences of the authors concerned, particularly the crop and pest systems they have worked on. Different definitions of IPM also reflect different scientific paradigms – we have already discussed the paradigms that Perkins (1982) presented. More recently, Morse and Buhler (1997) have questioned the relevance of the IPM paradigm for developing countries.
While good science can be an important factor in determining how well IPM is implemented, a study by Aitken et al (1995) indicates that the failure of IPM projects is due in large part to poor communication and lack of team work. This review of IPM projects worldwide found that short-term success in IPM usually involves the use of monitoring techniques, to determine if and when to apply pesticides; the substitution of selective pesticides, biopesticides or biological control agents for broad spectrum chemicals; or both. However, such success is often short-lived: long-term IPM implementation appears to be far less common. Where it does occur, long-term implementation of IPM is associated with the existence of an active network that provides various forms of support to farmers, helping them adjust and adapt their pest management practices to maintain acceptable levels of performance (high quality participation of key stakeholders). Factors which have contributed to IPM success (Aitken et al., 1995) include:
the existence of a strong institutional base, with a network of government departments and private interests, that provides support for IPM through funding for research and implementation, and the development of enabling policy and legislation;
the recognition that IPM is an essential component of agricultural research, extension and farmer education policies;
designing a program according to the needs and objectives associated with existing production systems, which does not require a significant increase in inputs or major management changes;
the encouragement of a community-wide IPM perspective through communication and training; and
collaboration between researchers, extension workers, and farmers, leading to coordinated action and key groups working together.
A major conclusion from this study is that projects aimed at increasing IPM implementation are likely to be most effective where the diverse range of forces influencing pest management practices is coordinated. Efforts to increase the technical options available for IPM need to be complemented by attempts to reduce the major constraints to IPM implementation (Norton, 1993), including technical, financial, marketing, educational, social and organizational constraints (Wearing, 1988).
In short, a high quality interaction between key players is necessary for long-term IPM success. This is most likely to be achieved where key players have common goals, work together as a team, and enhance each other’s activities. An approach for trying to achieve this high quality interaction is the subject of the next presentation.